Complete Joy

I'm not the sort of person who normally gets excited by footnotes, especially those little notes you get in the Bible telling you that some ancient text had a spelling mistake in it - honestly, I'm not. But, just once in a while I get hooked.

I was reading the first letter of John and there at the end of the fourth verse (1 John 1:4) I found a little "a" and at the bottom of the page it said "Other ancient manuscripts read your". Well that was it, I just could not contain myself. Should it be "our" or "your"? What's the difference? My research project was underway and dusty books flew off my shelves.

Well you see there is actually a very big difference. John had just been doing his hard hit evangelism. "What was from the beginning, what we saw, what we heard, what we touched, we pass on to you ... basically that Jesus brings God's gift of eternal life" and then he goes on to say, "we told you all this so that your joy could be complete". Well no he doesn't. That is what we would expect him to say, but actually he says "so that our joy may be complete". In fact it seems (and this is where my footnote archaeology came in handy) that some of those ancient monks who copied out the Bible by hand so many times (and wouldn't you be getting tired by the time you got to 1 John and only broth for lunch?) so much expected John to say "your joy" that they ended up writting that even though the Bible they were copying said "our joy".

So why am I getting so worked up about this "our/your" business. Well, because it makes ALL the difference to how we think about evangelism. When the point of evangelism is to make your joy complete, I'm just doing good for your sake - I'm basically a 'do-gooder' but when I grasp that the whole point of evangelism is to make our (my) joy complete we are into a whole different ball game. If you receive the good news of Jesus Christ, if you start to follow Him, I gain a new sister or brother, I have someone new with whom to fellowship, etc. etc. ... my joy is completed. Wow - thank you footnote.

When states divide

In October, when Scotland becomes an independent nation, anyone with a Scottish grandparent will have the right to become a citizen of Scotland. In fact England will insist that anyone with a Scottish grandparent not only becomes a Scottish citizen, but also moves north across the border within one year of independence. For security reasons Scottish citizens expelled from England will only be able to take one small car load of possessions with them. Happy independence!

Well, by now I hope you have realised I made all that up. (If Cameron is still at the station buying his ticket to Glasgow, come home - we love you in Oxford!) But my serious point is that this is exactly what is happening between Sudan and South Sudan right now. With the two countries on the brink of a bitter war (over oil of course!) Sudan has decided that anyone at all with a grandparent from South Sudan (mainly Christians) needs to get out, and get out fast. To make matters worse all barge traffic on the River Nile has been stopped so people can only take with them what they can carry overland ... and then at the border there are all sorts of difficulties with the issuing of identify papers etc. And in the skies above - war planes circle.

When it was just one country (designed by those wonderful British imperialists) Sudan was locked in 25 years of tragic civil war. Now it seems the only difference is that the war is no longer 'civil', just war.

I'm praying for a miracle in Sudan and South Sudan, and I'm hoping our seperation from Scotland (and its oil) might be a little less acrimonious.