Bruce Leslie Smith – a Funeral Sermon (2001)


Bruce Leslie Smith

To the one honoured to preach at his funeral Bruce said, ‘Point people to Christ, not me.’

‘Is there a scripture ?’  ‘Many.  Colossians 3 is special to me.’

Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at  the right hand of God.  Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things.  For you died, and your life is now hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

Yes:        Jesus is the Christ – the Messiah, the King, the SoG.

Yes:        Christ died – not ‘died’ as we die and Bruce has died.
Christ died for us – ‘in our place’ and ‘for our sake.’

The preposition for has a double meaning.

Yes:       Christ was raised – by God.
He died for us but God raised him.

In vindication of his task completed.

Yes:       Christ is seated, at God’s right hand.
The risen and ascended man-king.
A man who is Lord of all
ruling for us men and women who belong to him.

But we who believe to him are with him.
We are attached to him by faith
as iron filings cluster to the magnet.
He has drawn us to himself.

When he died, we died – to sin’s penalty.
When he was raised, we were too – to a new life.
When he sat at God’s RH, we were seated with him.

Our lives are now hidden with Christ in God
We are there now.
Bruce is there now.
Hidden with Christ in God.

When Christ appears – reappears -
All believers, Bruce included, will appear with him in glory.

Bruce genuinely did set his heart on things above, where Christ is, seated at the RH of God.

Bruce genuinely did set his mind on things above, not on earthly things.

His piety was utterly authentic and genuine and natural.

And humble.   Bruce was always humble before his God.

There are at least two parts to faith.
One part is believing the truth of the Gospel – like Col 3
• Christ died for us
• Christ has been raised
• Christ is seated as King at God’s RH
• Christ will return.

Part of this ‘faith’ is believing that Bruce is ‘with’ him now
- saved and secure.
‘Safe in the arms of Jesus in life and death.’

That is one part of faith.
Perhaps it is the easier part.

The harder part – dare I say – is trust in the Saviour
in the face of the pain and disappointments of life.
Often these come from fellow-Christians.
Which makes it that much harder.
Holding the faith in the face of unfolding providence.
Put another way: The life of perseverance, of pilgrimage.

Bunyan’s words were to be painfully true for Bruce.
None knew that more than he.
But he took comfort in them, including at the end.

Who would true valour see,
Let him come hither;
One here will constant be,
Come wind, come weather.
There’s no discouragement
Shall make him once relent
His first avowed intent
To be a pilgrim.



So the believer’s life ‘is hid with Christ is God.’
Bruce’s life was hid with Christ in God from conversion.
But decades lay ahead.
Hard years many of them.

Few people face the heartbreak and the heartache
that Bruce faced during his life.
The challenges to his ‘pilgrim’s progress.’

But Bruce has made it home.
He would have me say
entirely by the faithfulness of Christin whose life Bruce’s life is hid.

He said, exalt the Saviour not Bruce.
But I see Bruce’s perseverance in his pilgrimage
as attributable only to Christ.

I am sure many of us face daunting problems.
Bruce’s Lord brought him through.

For he is faithful.
Let us look to him.


For twenty years Bruce served God in Sydney Diocese (apart from 1963-6 in the UK).
From 1956-75 he was teacher at MTC.
He was Sunday Curate at no less than 8 parishes.

I met him first in the second of these.
I was a raw convert.
He introduced me to the Bible and to theology.
And to lovely hymns like ‘My Song is Love Unknown’
and Bunyan’s ‘He who would valiant be.’

He was the star in a comedy The Monkey’s Paw.
The ABC came along and said he should become an actor.
That matchless voice.
The incomparable fluency of speech.

In the sixties he was my teacher at MTC.
Hebrew verbs.
Exegesis of the Psalms.
Early Genesis and God the Creator.
(He probably saved his generation from Creationism.)

Plato’s Republic for the London  BD.
He was at home in the Greek philosophers.

He was an accomplished scholar of 3000 years history of human thought.

At that time the University of Sydney was weighing up MTC academically.
A philosophy professor expressed astonishment at the breadth of Bruce’s scholarship.
He said he knew of no one who taught across such a vast historical span.

Broughton Knox once said that Bruce was the finest theological mind in Ausralia.

But Bruce didn’t publish.
He loved the spoken word.
He was constantly speaking on university campuses and church house parties and church pulpits.

During the 60’ a new spirit hit Australia.
The Christianity of the 50’s was over.
God was dead.  Unbelief was alive.
Existentialism.  Feminism.  The New Morality.
Hare Krishna in the streets in place of open air preacher.
O Calcutta. The Last Tango in Paris.  The Female Eunuch.

Suddenly Australia was post-Christian and hostile.

Who would rise to the challenge ?
Our Bishops ?                No.
Faculty at MTC ?         No.
Except one.                Bruce Smith.

Who appeared on TV arguing the case for Christ and Christianity ?                Bruce Smith.
Who debated the philosophers at the Great Hall of SU ?
Who did the media turn to for the ‘Christian’ PoV on anything from abortion to the resurrection ?
Just one person.         Bruce Smith.

That lightning fast mind.
Those brilliant words.

Many times I heard him debate and argue  and win.

The ABC televised a programme at St Barnabas called ‘Alternatives.’

The best voices for Marxism, Existentialism, Hare Krishna, Feminism – seven ‘alternatives,’ including Christianity.
Bruce was the voice of Christianity.
It finished up that the other six united against Bruce the Christian.
But he won that debate against them all
as he won every debate I ever heard.

In 1975 Bruce was overtaken by tragic circumstances.
He was sidelined and silenced in the public arena.
Our best advocate.  Our only advocate.
Who has never been replaced.

I can’t begin to imagine what 1975 and the next 18 years meant for Bruce.
We were in Adelaide for the first five of those years.

But a few phone conversations were enough.

Was he finished as a preacher and teacher ?

He wasn’t.        Far from it.

He continued during those years – but out of the public eye.

Few of us could imagine the pain and darkness of those years.

And yet it is here that the God-given calibre
of Bruce the pilgrim of Jesus is seen.

Perseverance through pain.

He came back.  Different.  But better than ever. No bitterness.

Graciousness and that wonderful sense of fun.
The mind now filled out with the classical world, but with no loss of the biblical.

An incredible breadth of reading and interest. Repeated visits to the lands of the Bible and of the Greeks and Romans.

Poetry written and music played.”
Private pastoral ministry in place of the public platform and the media.

A new generation of MTC and SMBC students blessed for nearly a decade.

Bruce used to say that often the devil appeared to win
but in fact overreached himself.

He was speaking about Jesus.

He was killed by man.  But God raised him up.
But the words were unknowingly prophetic about Bruce.


The devil appeared to win in silencing Bruce.
But the devil overreached himself.

If I may express an opinion the latter years were Bruce’s finest.

So dear Bruce. You gave yourself to God who blessed us through you
for half a century.

You were young when you died. But you were young when you started.
We were not the losers.
How kind of God to give him to us.

You served your generation and now you have fallen on sleep.

So many people inspired and built up. So many people helped.

Golden mouthed preacher of the Word.
Persuasive apologist.
Wise counselor.
Kind friend.
Unsung hero.


He had utter trust in his Saviour who died for him.
Jesus his friend who walked with him in the sunlight and the shade.

Jesus who led him in his pilgrim’s path.


Bruce loved life and he lived it to the full.
But he loved God more.

So he is gone and we feel the loss more than words can say.


To David + Angela, Robert + Claire, Andrew + Annette,
To Veronica. Imogen, Nathaniel, Christian and Marcus.
To his brother Stuart – we give you our heartfelt sympathies.

Bruce’s life is hidden with Christ in God.

Safe in the arms of Jesus.

Safe because of Jesus’ faithfulness.


To the end the mind had lost nothing
the sense of humour
the hearty laughter
but the death sentence had been handed down
the time had come.


He stayed with us as long as possible for his boys and their loved ones
and for his friends.
But then he was ready to go.


A few days ago the pilgrim told me,
‘I am in the Jordan.  The water is cold.
But I feel the ground under my feet.  I am nearly there.’

On Friday night he said to a friend, ‘Tell Paul: “Smith is on his way.”’

The next morning he was gone.

In 1969 he was curate at St Barnabas, Broadway.
My curate.       That’s a laugh !

At Easter he preached on the Penitent Thief.
This is 32 years ago
I can still hear the voice of God in his voice
ringing down the years.

‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’

‘Truly I say to you,


He went to the same concert series as Anita and me.
He sat on the opposite side of the Opera House.
We saw him there concert by concert for 20 years.

When we go next we and look across he wont be there.
But I will say to Anita
‘I know where he is.’

The pilgrim has made it home.





























The Crucifixion of Christ and the Conversion of Paul




Arthur and Paul

Australia’s most famous convert is the Eternity Man, Arthur Stace and the Bible’s most famous convert is Paul of Tarsus.  “Damascus Road” is international code for conversion of any kind, a radical change of world-view.

A musical and now an opera have been written about Stace, and many documentaries as well.  ETERNITY is the brand name for Sydney and even for various products – even a brand of facial tissues.

I was an office junior in the city when the identity of the nocturnal ETERNITY chalk writer was still unknown and a matter of daily newspaper speculation.  Who was this phantom chalk writer?  The Sydney Morning Herald  ultimately revealed the mystery: it was Arthur Stace, a tiny man who wore a suit and tie and who rose before dawn in all weathers for his daily campaign.  So the enigmatic ETERNITY word kept appearing, though it was now matched by an equally elegant piece of yellow copperplate writing by a local wit – MATERNITY.

ETERNITY has become a kind of symbol for Sydney, but few understand that it was  “eternity” in hell from which Stace had been delivered that was the inspiration for his conversion and his relentless passion to bring this message to a hell-bound city.

Stace was converted from alcoholism and petty crime through local preachers including John Ridley and R.B.S. Hammond and was barely literate.  Paul of Tarsus, was from a wealthy family, was highly intelligent and an accomplished biblical scholar and was converted from Pharisaism and murderous religious zealotry.  A striking contrast: Arthur Stace and Paul the Pharisee.

A new creation

In this short paper I want to concentrate on Paul and his conversion and its implication for those who study here.

Paul summed it all up in one short statement (2 Cor 5:17):

If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation.

There are only six words here:             ei tis             en Christo             kaine ktisis

if any            in Christ            new creation

Here is a splendid text for the Bible teacher.  It invites him or her to explain in turn,

“if any” and “in Christ” and “new creation”.  “If any” highlights the mercy of God, rich and free for even the lowest of the low, as the grievously deceived persecutor Paul had been.  “In Christ” is shorthand for belonging by commitment of faith and repentance to the crucified but risen Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.  “New creation” picks up Isaiah’s prophecy of the new heavens and the new earth and indicates that the person “in Christ” now has the Spirit of the living God and is being transformed from what he or she had been into what he or she will be when God’s ultimate new creation is finally revealed.  In a word: redemption.

The Christ was Jesus

In every city Paul came to he went first to the synagogue and was given opportunity to expound the Scriptures, due no doubt to his eminence as a Pharisee and disciple of the famous Gamaliel.  Luke in Acts indicates that Paul’s method was to “argue” and “reason” from the Law and the Prophets that the expected Messiah was Jesus of Nazareth.  According to Luke Paul’s message to Jews was both scriptural and eschatological, that he summarised many times as the Christ was Jesus.

It was no different in Paul’s own letters where scriptural fulfilment was fundamental.  Paul himself said his Christ message was “according to the Scriptures” and that in Christ “all the promises of God find their emphatic ‘YES’”.

But a BIG problem: this Christ was crucified

There was just one problem that we modern Gentiles and probably also modern Jews can scarcely understand, something unspeakably shocking about Paul’s message.  Since the glory days of David and Solomon a millennium earlier God’s people in God’s land had lived under the heel of foreign powers – Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman.  From the days of King David the prophets had kept the hopes of the people alive by repeated promises of a “second David”, the Lord’s Anointed One, his Messiah who would defeat the Gentile world-powers and establish Jerusalem as the world-centre of God’s earthly kingdom.  Those hopes were alive and well during the disappointing years of local Hasmonean and Herodian rulers who were mere paganising puppets of foreign Gentile powers.  The inter-testamental work called the Psalms of Solomon focus on this David-Messiah, as do the prayers of the synagogue liturgy from that era.

It was one thing for Paul to assert that in Jesus the promises of God for the Messiah were at last fulfilled.  It was another to proclaim that Jesus was Christ crucified.  For us those words glow with evangelical fervour, evoking our forgiveness of sins and justification full and free from the hand of the merciful God.  And rightly so.

But put yourself in the shoes of, say, a Jew in Corinth hearing Paul preach “Christ crucified”.  What we don’t pick up is the grammar implied by the passive voice, “Christ crucified”.  “Crucified – by whom”?  Who crucified this Christ?  The Gentiles, that’s who.  Paul was saying – can it be true? – the Christ was crucified by the very Gentiles the promised “new David” was to defeat.

So Paul’s un-winning message to Jews was that the Messiah had been humiliatingly defeated by the Gentiles and in the most intentional and public way.

The defeat of God

Do we see what else this implied?  If the Messiah was defeated, then Israel had been defeated.  If Israel had been defeated then the God of Israel had been defeated.  If God had been defeated then all hope had gone – forever.  Jews must now understand that they were a permanently defeated nation, and that the Gentiles will forever hold the power and authority, and that their understanding of a thousand years of prophecy was wrong.  So Paul’s message, if true, demanded the most profound change in Jewish identity and hope imaginable.

True, Paul could easily point to Scriptures that spoke of the sufferings and sacrifice of the One who was to come.  “Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures” could be seen to fulfil Isaiah’s prophecies of a vicariously suffering Servant.  But that took some believing.  I repeat.  If the Messiah was defeated by the Gentiles, then so too was the nation Israel defeated by the Gentiles, and God was defeated by the Gentiles with all hope gone – forever.  Forever.  They must now understand that they were God’s permanently defeated nation, and that the Gentiles and Caesar will forever hold the power and authority.

As history has shown this indeed has been true.  No other Messiah has come, no new David.  Since the days of David and Solomon Israel has never again been a world power.

It happened yesterday

Of course this Messiah had been resurrected, or so this Paul of Tarsus claimed. But so shocked were they by his insistence on the Christ’s crucifixion by the Romans that they were deaf to Paul’s words about resurrection.  In any case, everybody knew that resurrection was to be cosmic, universal, apocalyptic – at the end of history to inaugurate the New Age.  Resurrection was not something they associated with an individual within history.  As Paul commented later back to the Corinthians, the message of Christ crucified “is a skandalon to Jews”.  Our translation “stumbling block” hardly captures the intensity of – skandalon.

To drive home the point may I remind us that when Paul came to the synagogue in Corinth and spoke about the Messiah crucified, it was in the very recent past.  It was  less than 20 years since the Romans crucified Jesus outside the city walls of Jerusalem.  Over the centuries since, “Christ crucified” has been used as a tag for theologians’ various theories of the atonement.  But the original Jewish hearers would not have thought about “Christ crucified” theologically but historically.  Corinth was a Roman city where people had doubtless seen slaves and others crucified.  Paul, too, had probably seen people crucified, possibly even Jesus himself.  Crucifixions were by no means uncommon and the crucifixion of Jesus was a recent historical event, as recent to Jews in Corinth as the fall of the Berlin Wall is recent to us.  These events are so recent that we can reach out and touch them.  So too was the crucifixion of Jesus just yesterday to the Jews in the synagogue in Corinth to whom Paul came and preached his astonishing message.

Why would any Jew believe this?

So, however did Paul manage to convince any Jews about his message?  It’s true that the Synagogue-Leader Crispus was one Jew who accepted Paul’s message.  But, nonetheless, the Synagogue as a whole “opposed and reviled him” and drove him out and then arraigned him before the Proconsul with the intention of banishing him from the city.  Their charge was that Paul’s message of a crucified Messiah could not be Jewish at all, and that his new group was not an alternative synagogue but therefore was an illegal association.  Gallio, however, saw Paul’s group as a breakaway synagogue.  Was not the eminent Jew Crispus a member?  “Sort it out amongst yourselves, you Jews” said the Proconsul.

So how did Paul manage to persuade Crispus and other Jews about his contrarian message of a Messiah who had been crucified by the people the Messiah was expected to defeat?

The something else

I think Paul then did something else in his synagogue preaching to Jews besides point to mere scriptural fulfilment, something to convince them that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus was not the defeat of God, not the defeat of Israel but the powerful demonstration the end time victory of God.

So what did Paul do?

As best as I can understand it (and this a new thought to me), Paul introduced his own story of conversion as the living demonstration that in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus the Christ that God had not been defeated but had actually triumphed.

How can I sustain this?  What is my evidence?  Simply this: the frequency with which Paul alludes to his Damascus Road conversion in his letters – about thirty times (not counting the Pastorals).  In the book of Acts Luke tells Paul’s Damascus Road story no less than three times, twice from speeches from Paul’s own lips.  We must assume that Paul routinely told his original hearers about himself and his amazing, personal conversion story.  His re-echoing of that story in his letters so many times implies that his readers know about Paul and his conversion.

Paul divides his life-story into two parts, before and after.   Before Damascus Road was his “former life in Judaism” (Gal 1:13), first in Tarsus as the son of a deeply conservative Diaspora family (Phil 3:5a) and then in Jerusalem as an eminent younger Pharisaic scholar and hate filled persecuting zealot (Phil 3:5b-6).  At Damascus Road, as he said, he was “seized by Christ” (Phil 3:12) whereupon subsequently he became a love-controlled (2 Cor 5:14) preacher to others of the Jesus he had previously “persecuted” (Acts 9:4-5; Gal 1:13, 23), proclaiming him to all people – to the Jews first but also to the Greeks (Rom 1:16; 2:9).

What point was Paul making?  In telling of his persecution of the disciples of the Messiah he was identifying himself with his fellow Jews who had rejected the Messiah and who had handed him over to the Gentiles to crucify him.  In now proclaiming that the Messiah is the rejected Jesus Paul was saying that he had been amongst those Jews who had rejected him, at the very least retrospectively, by persecuting and attempting to destroy his followers and their “faith” (Gal 1:13, 23). Understood in this way we can see why Paul was so explicit in proclaiming the crucifixion if the Christ.  Confronting and painful to Jews as this message was it was at the same time their means of escape from the holy wrath of God.

It was Paul who reported Stephen to the temple authorities; and it was Paul who participated in his stoning; and it was Paul who launched a ferocious attack on the disciples in Jerusalem; and it was Paul who went with the high priest’s warrant to extradite fugitive disciples from Damascus.

And it was Paul near Damascus who was thrown to the ground by a bright light and addressed by a Speaker from heaven who identified himself as Jesus whom you, Saul, are persecuting.  Hence, as Paul told the Corinthians in his First Letter, the risen Lord “appeared also to me” and “have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8).  The crucified Jesus, now resurrected, appeared to Paul, spoke to him and commissioned him.  And, converted him – converted him from a hate filled zealot and persecutor to a love-filled preacher of Jesus the Christ.

The converted Paul who stood before Jews as the preacher of Christ crucified and risen as the fulfilment of the Scriptures was himself the living proof of the resurrection of the crucified Christ; and that God had not been defeated but had powerfully triumphed.  The living evidence was the conversion of the Pharisee and persecutor who stood before them.

New Creation and New Covenant

Here we must recall that Paul never denied his Jewishness.  True, his opponents called that into question to undercut his insistence upon his ridiculous message of Christ crucified.  But, no, to the end he was a Hebrew, an Israelite, a son of Abraham (2 Cor 11:22; Rom 9:1-5; 11:1).  We think of conversion as from (say) Hinduism to Islam, out of one religion into another.  Paul, however, lived and died as a Jew.  Paul’s conversion was not religious or denominational but rather deeply personal, changing his very heart and his behaviour from the inside out.  He lived no longer to and for himself but for the one who died for him and was raised alive for him (2 Cor 5:15).  Love not hate now lay at the centre; Christ not the law; the Spirit not ritual.

However, Paul’s conversion was by no means merely private, personal or idiosyncratic.  Paul’s life was divided into two halves, before he was “in Christ” and after he was “in Christ”.  But so too, he said, is salvation history divided into two halves, the old covenant before Christ and new covenant since and because of Christ.  We recall that old covenant prophets Jeremiah (31) and Ezekiel (11, 36) prophesied a new covenant to abrogate the existing covenant, when God would put his law “within the hearts” of the people so that each person “knew the Lord”.  The coming of Christ, his death and resurrection and his gift of the Spirit spelt the end of the old covenant and the beginning of the new covenant, what we may call the conversion of history – the macro conversion of Israel “in the Christ”.  Paul’s personal, micro-conversion corresponded with the potential macro-conversion of Israel “in Christ”.

In other words, that Paul himself – Hebrew, Israelite, son of Abraham – was a new creation, a convert from persecutor to preacher, was the living demonstration that the long-prophesied new covenant had come.  Paul was both a minister of the new covenant and the evidence of its arrival.  Paul’s message to Jews, based both on prophecy and his own conversion, was that the old covenant was now ended and that the new covenant was now a reality in and through Christ crucified and risen and in the power of the Spirit of God.  His simple message was “turn to this Christ”.

But there is more.

Paul’s message: autobiographical and representational

Paul also told his story in his letters representationally.  The new creation that God had wrought in Paul could also be true of anyone who turned to this Lord and was certainly true of everybody who had turned to this Lord, people like Paul who, he said, were “in Christ”.  Paul’s conversion depicted every believer’s conversion.  His story was also their story.

It is in his Second Corinthians letter in particular that Paul speaks in a way that is at the same time both autobiographical and representational.

Before Damascus “Moses” (= the Old Testament) was a closed book to Paul, though he heard it read week by week in the synagogue.  But when he “turned to the Lord [Jesus]” the scales fell off his eyes and the veil over his heart fell away and he saw that the old covenant from beginning to end was prophetic, pointing to its “goal” and “end”, Christ (2 Cor 3:12-16).

If by turning to the Lord Paul now understood that Christ was the goal and end-point of the Scriptures, then so too had others who had turned to the Lord come to that radical understanding.  What was now gloriously true for him was true for all Jews who had likewise turned to the Lord.  The Old Testament is a Christian book.

Paul was a minister of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6) prophesied by Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 11 and 36 where those prophets foretold the days when God was to give his people a new heart, cleansed from sins, so that they would freely walk in his ways.  Paul the converted man was a man with a God-given new heart who taught that turning to the Christ who was made sin unleashed the life-changing power of the Spirit of God.

If Paul who turned to the Lord was being transformed by the Spirit, so too were other disciples.  “We all with unveiled face…are being transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, by the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:18).  Stay as you are, said Paul, and you remain blind and comatose.  Turn to the Lord, he said, and the Spirit of God will begin to transform you into the new creation that will one day be yours in full.

At Damascus Paul says he had “received mercy”, that is, from God (2 Cor 4:1).  If Paul had received mercy, then so too had other believers.  What was true of Paul is true of all who come to believe the gospel: mercy from God.

At Damascus, God shone his light outwardly blinding Paul for the moment.  But God also shone his light inwardly into the dark recesses of the persecutor’s heart, to give that light of Christ to others (2 Cor 4:4).  If God shone in Paul’s heart to give light to others, then so too did God shine in the hearts of other believers that they might give the Christ-light to others.

God reconciled Paul to himself through Christ and gave him peace within, but also the word and ministry of reconciliation, to reconcile others to God (2 Cor 5:18-19).  If God made Paul a reconciler of those alienated from God, then so too did God make peacemakers of all who have been reconciled to God.

So deep were the changes of heart and mind that Paul speaks of himself as a new creation (2 Cor 5:17).   No longer does he judge people and things “according to the flesh” (shallowly); no longer does he live to and for himself, but for Christ.  Therefore, if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation.  But if Paul was a new creation, then so too are all who have turned to the Lord a new creation.

So, Paul writes autobiographically and representationally.  His story is and is to be his readers’ story.

Paul’s “Christ crucified” message in itself was a skandalon to Jews.  Paul’s converted life story must have been remarkably convincing to have converted very many Jews at all.  Indeed, God must have used Paul’s own conversion to great effect.  True, most Jews rejected the very idea of Christ crucified and drove Paul out; but not all.  And they became the foundation members of the churches that Paul established.

Conversion also of Gentiles

But not only Jews.  Paul must also have applied his conversion story to gentiles, including former wrong-doers in Corinth.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Do not be deceived:
neither the sexually immoral,
nor idolaters,
nor adulterers,
nor male prostitutes,
nor thieves,
nor the greedy,
nor drunkards,
nor revilers,nor swindlers                                     will             inherit the kingdom of God.

And such were some of you.
But you were washed,
you were sanctified,
you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
and by the Spirit of our God

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

The Arthur Staces of Corinth.  These now reformed wrongdoers were amongst those in Corinth that Paul said were his “letter of recommendation from Christ” to the watching world in the Achaian capital (2 Cor 3:2).  Such radical moral reform was striking indeed.


My observation, then, is that Paul saw his conversion as an act of God that made him the living demonstration that in Christ crucified God had not been defeated nor had failed, but had in fact had triumphed brilliantly.  Furthermore, Paul so wrote about his own conversion as a reflection of the fact that it was as true for other believers as it was for Paul himself.

If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation.

I think, therefore, that God’s conversion of Paul and of others lay close the heart of Paul’s understanding that this conversion was the evidence that the new covenant had now come.


Let me now make some concluding reflections, which I offer for those who are engaged in Biblical study, whether in the School of Christian Studies or elsewhere.

The power of conversion

It is that all Christian scholarship and ministry should be based on the reality and power of conversion.  We study the scriptures through converted eyes.  Through converted eyes we understand that only Christ unlocks the meaning of the Old Testament.  Through converted eyes we plumb the depths of the New Testament.  Unless God has opened or is opening the eyes of those who read the Bible its true message will remain elusive, a mystery and indeed sometimes foolish.

In my visits to the Middle East I have come to know and appreciate the friendship and scholarship of various guides; some are Jews, others Muslim.  The thing really surprising to me is that these non-Christians know their way around the Bible so well, better I suspect than many church people and perhaps better even than some ministers.  I conclude that having the Bible and knowing the Bible does not of itself create Christian faith or personal conversion.  Similarly, there are eminent biblical scholars who do not read the Bible through converted eyes and whose scholarship alone has not led them to personal trust in Christ and repentance from sins.  I am reminded of Jesus’ words to learned Jews, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39-40).  The Scriptures are the only witness from God to his Son, yet those Scriptures remain opaque unless those who read them do so through Christ-enlightened eyes.

Likewise we teach the Bible in such way as to convert the unconverted and to confirm the converted in their conversion.  This is not a shallow decision-izing approach with endless altar calls that inevitably harden the heart.  I am thinking about the presuppositions of the reality of conversion that teachers of the word should have.  The converted approach is not interested in communicating information for its own sake.  The Bible teacher should always be intentional, addressing the heart and the will.

A pure and sincere devotion to Christ

We need to resist the temptation towards scholasticism.  Scholarship is not the same thing.  Scholasticism is information centred, for its own sake, and speculation centred, preoccupied with identifying dots and joining them up into tight systems.  We never see Paul doing that in his letters.  Paul is ever the pastor, who writes simply and directly to the heart, seeking to bring his readers back to the centre of all things, Christ.  Throughout history, however, Christians have tended to make the simple complex and the straightforward obscure.  How many seminaries began well, with clear Christological and biblical intent but within a generation became intellectualised and remote and liberal?  Paul spoke of the possibility of being led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ (2 Cor 11:4).  “A sincere and pure devotion to Christ” says it all.

Paul, like Jesus, was friend of sinners

It is observable that evangelicalism flourishes among the middle and upper social and economic classes, but not among the poor.  Bible Belt churches are usually in “successful” or aspirational suburbs and seldom in deprived areas.  One reason is that more gifted preachers who are recruited to these areas feel they can concentrate on their preaching and not have to devote too much time to the practical and pastoral needs of the less well off.  Bible Belt churches tend to have strong youth programmes because busy and successful parents are keen to keep their kids off drugs and away from sexual problems.  Thankfully most such churches deliver wholesome and helpful programmes and attract large congregations.  This is encouraging.  But it’s worth remembering that Jesus was the friend of sinners, and who ate with sinners and that the apostle to the Gentiles was a manual labourer who identified with the exploited “have nots” and insisted in working through the night to able to preach by day, offering the gospel at no charge to all, including the rich.  Paul’s catalogue of sins from which some of the Corinthians had been delivered (noted earlier) tell us that he, like his Master, was the friend of the poor and of sinners.

A passion for conversions will not be limited to the relatively easy ministry to the middle and upper classes.  Where today are the John Ridleys and the R.B.S. Hammonds and where today are the Arthur Staces?

Perseverance and progress

Paul’s words that we are “new creation” teach many things.  “New creation” is what we will be but what we not yet are.  For we are still in this life “in Adam”, all too easily prone to doing the things of the flesh that belong to our former lives.  That we are a “new creation” encourages perseverance and progress in the godliness and Christ-likeness that will be ours at the end.  That we are “a new creation” engenders hope and a genuine optimism.  That we are a “new creation” challenges us to have “new creation” attitudes and to live out truly ethically converted behaviour.

Therefore, Bible teachers need to enjoin perseverance “in Christ” and the daily expression of what it means to be “in Christ”, that is, in spiritual, ethical, “new creation” attitudes and actions.  That we are a “new creation” teaches us to seek within ourselves and within others the transformation from the Spirit that is from one degree of glory to another.

ei tis             en Christo             kaine| ktisis

if any            in Christ            new creation.

Paul could never forget his conversion, nor should we forget his conversion, or our own.


Paul Barnett

2 March 2009.










Alexander Simpson, the father-in-law I never knew

The Father in Law I Never Knew


His epitaph could have been, ´his deeds follow him´ (Rev 14:13).  Fifty-five years later Alexander Simpson’s deeds do follow him, ´embodied´ in the older Brazilian believers converted through him and the younger ones converted through them.


Alec was forty when he died 1950 in Uberaba in the interior of Brazil having come there as a missionary from Scotland with his wife Janet in the late thirties.  Janet, her children Anita and David were forced to return to Scotland two years later and from there shortly afterward they migrated to Australia.  Janet never returned to Brazil but Anita with husband Paul was able to visit Uberaba in late June 2005.


So what would we find when we came?  We knew of the children of missionaries from Alec’s era who were still there and that there was a functioning (Brethren) assembly.  But would there be people who remembered the ten-year old Anita and her missionary parents?


Janet sometimes told us how hard things had been.  Some locals were very wealthy; most were poor, as were the (faith) missionaries who had come.  Brazil was intensely Roman Catholic and far less tolerant in those pre-Vatican 2 times.  It was not uncommon for the people to throw rotten eggs at the preachers.  Priests would sprinkle holy water where they had preached.  The town was noted as a centre of spiritism and mediums.  When the missionaries approached the local police to assure them of their bona fides the superintendent welcomed them because, as he said, this was ´an evil town´.


It was and remains a ´religious´ town.  It is a Roman Catholic healing centre; and only recently it witnessed the passing of a famous local medium, Chico Xavier.  Subsequently his followers declared that Jesus was the ´way´ but that Alan Kardet (another spiritist leader) was ´the truth´ and Chico Xavier (the local medium) was ´the life´.  Many people came there for Chico Xavier´s ´services´.  Part of the spiritists´ outreach strategy was to provide bread and soup to locals.  A spiritist once challenged the believers, ´where are the ´Christians´ queues for bread and soup´?  One of the elders replied that when people are born again they don´t need food queues anymore.


Alec and Janet were not the first Brethren missionaries there, but they properly belong to those whom the locals call the ´pioneers´.  Janet often spoke to us of the believers in the assembly at Uberaba.  But would there be any left from all those years ago?  Perhaps they had drifted away in the many and turbulent years since 1950?


Alec and Janet and the other twenty ´somethings´ from the assemblies of southern Scotland went to Brazil for life.  They mastered Portuguese and built houses and became part of life in Brazil.  Return visits to Scotland were the exception.  The now ageing children of the ´pioneers´ are mostly still there, fluent in Portuguese and strangely still speaking the Scottish way.  They, and their children and their grandchildren are irrevocably Brazilian.  (I would be interested to know of other missionaries like these who actually became indigenous émigrés like these have become).


When we arrived in Uberaba the truly exciting news was that many remembered Alec and Janet and spoke movingly of the huge impact on them personally and upon the church in Brazil.  One of the elders, Julio, told me his grandfather was ´born again´ through Alec.  Another man, Wilson, reflected his huge affection for Alec and the assistance he gave him in his many months of illness and progressive loss of sight.  A man converted through Alec at his deathbed has gone on to become a great evangelist.  A lady named Glaucia taught Anita at school and was very close to Janet.  It was moving for Anita to meet and be hugged by these people, to visit the home where she was born and to go to Alec´s tomb.  Above all, though, it was encouraging to attend the gathering of several hundred for the ´breaking of bread´ and the teaching of the Bible.  Alec´s and Janet´s deeds have followed them.


In 1950 (the year Alec died) only 3% of Brazilians were ‘evangelical´ whereas today (according to a feature article in the major Sao Paolo daily, 26 June ’05) there are 15% who are ‘evangelical´.  Many of these, however, promote an outrageous form of ´prosperity theology´, creaming off entire salaries of many vulnerable local people and bringing the Gospel into disrepute.  The growth in the numbers and membership of the assemblies is a fraction of this supposed growth in ‘evangelical´ numbers.  Yet what these believers lack in sheer numbers they more than make for in purity of doctrine, holiness of life, congregational affection and missionary zeal.  God was always more interested in a remnant people who honoured him than in vast numbers of those who merely professed to.


There is another assembly now in Uberaba in addition to the one where Alec and Janet served all those years ago.  The original assembly has almost made up the numbers it gave for the new venture.  Together they are a body of several hundred very active members who remain true to the Brethren vision as a non-clerical, lay movement.  Every member is a minister, and a missionary, and a serious student of the Word.  The Brethren movement was never vast, but its world wide missionary impact has been disproportionately great.  These people have always punched above their weight.


The origins of the Scottish Brethren mission in Brazil (humanly speaking) owed something to a book entitled Adventures with the Bible in Brazil, based on the author David Glass´s journeys there in the 1920s.  As far as I can make out this book served as something of a catalyst for the ´pioneers´ courageous determination in the decade or so following.  A stronger clue to their motivation is to be found in the words Janet inscribed as her husband´s epitaph (Revelation 22:6 and 1 Corinthians11:26) both of which are Second Coming texts.  The conviction of the Lord´s Return and all that meant seems to have driven these wonderful people to leave home and hearth for their life-long sojourns in a foreign soil where they mostly remain.


Brazil is a vast land-mass with an immense population (150 million).  The children of the ´pioneers´ are praying for a deepening awakening by God that will raise up a new wave of workers who will take the Gospel to the length and breadth of their homeland.


Paul Barnett


The Truth about Anna

The Truth about Anna[1]


The King and I is one of Hollywood’s most successful musicals. The story is set in the 1800s in Siam, as it was called then. It revolved around the king and his many children (from his harem) and this upper class English governess, Anna.


The Rogers and Hammerstein musical was the end point of earlier movies and books about Anna.  These were based on the biography written by Margaret Langdon who with husband Kenneth were missionaries in Thailand after Anna’s time there.  Margaret Langdon wrote her biography, mostly based on Anna’s two romanticised books about her unusual life in the walled compound of the harem with these many children and the irascible king.


There is only one problem.  Anna was not a high class Englishwoman.  Anna was actually the child of an Indian woman in Bombay and a very poor, low ranking English soldier.  She was, however, prodigiously clever and managed to educate herself and learn Sanskrit, as well as English.  As was the custom she was married off at 13 to a low class English soldier like her father, who was killed in military service in India.  In late teens she married another Englishman, a civil servant in Bombay, who also died.


Anna Leonowens, as she now called herself, now in early 20s took herself and children to Singapore where she passed herself off as a high class Englishwoman, accent and all, where she started a school for children of wealthy expats.  So began the myth of Anna.[2] Soon she applied for and won a job with the elderly and irascible king of Siam to educate his dozens of children.  This she did for about 5 years.


Then she visited England – for the first time – and then migrated to the US, per favour of US missionaries she had come to know in Bangkok.  There she wrote her misleading books about herself as a high-class English governess to the king.  Then she joined the lecture circuit in the US and so the story and her fame spread – her version of it.  Eventually, she retired in Canada where she became a revered figure, famous for her advocacy of education.


Then along came Margaret Langdon, followed by the movies climaxed by the staging of the King and I on Broadway followed by the blockbuster movie.


This version of Anna’s life is what is believed.  Kenneth Langdon on returning from missionary service joined the State Department and became the bureau chief for Thailand.  Much of the US’s positive relationship with Thailand over the decades can be traced back to the influence of the Langdons – Margaret for her glowing story of Anna and Kenneth for his good offices in the State Department.


But it is a myth.  There was an Anna and she was a governess to the king of Siam but she was a low-class mixed breed Anglo-Indian woman.  She was very bright and ingenious and did much good.  But the thing that made her fabulous with the Americans and the world – her classy background – simply was not true.  She passed herself off as someone she wasn’t and the mythmakers were deceived and blindly ran with her story.


There are many who think Jesus passed himself off as something and someone he wasn’t and that others created the myth that we find in the NT, and that subsequently launched Christianity.


How would you answer this?


Not, I suggest, by simply saying ‘I believe the Bible because it’s God’s true word’.  They would say back to you that the texts you depend on are mythical.

I think you would have to argue your case historically.


[1] Susan Morgan, Bombay Anna (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008).

[2]English low class circus performer Archie Leach decided to become debonair west coast American Cary Grant, and did!