Have you ever read the Bible and seen something new, something you’ve never noticed before? You should, that is if you’re regularly reading the Bible, because it is living and active (Heb 4:12).
​
Recently our family finished part two of Pilgrim’s Progress, John Bunyan’s allegory of the Christian life. Knowing this someone gave our son an illustrated children’s work, which is very accessible yet without compromising the message.

As Christian carried on his journey to the Celestial City (Heaven) he entered the Valley of Humiliation, but he did so having just visited the Palace Beautiful (Church), being equipped with the sword of the Spirit (the Bible). In the Valley of Humiliation Christian knew he would face Apollyon (Satan). The book says, “Christian was terrified. He wondered if he should turn and run. But he had no armour protecting his back, and Apollyon could easily attack him there.” The chapter makes evident use of Eph 6 and the Armour of God. What struck me were those words, “But he had no armour protecting his back.”

In reading those words a thought crossed my mind; I had to look up Eph 6 to see if this was borne out. Is the armour there described in that way? Firstly, even though portions of a soldier’s armour described there wrapped around a soldiers body (e.g. the helmet and belt) all of the armour described is design with the soldier’s outward orientation in mind (i.e. facing the enemy). Though more advanced and later armour could protect a soldiers back (hence an interpretation of the old phrase “being stabbed in the back”), the backs of those bending legs and the back with the rotating shoulders were oh so hard to protect. So soldiers were safest when they maintained an outward orientation.

The Church, the Army of God pictured in Eph 6, is likewise to have the same orientation. When we forget to stand alert to Satan’s prowling’s (1 Pet 5) and become embroiled in needless internal squabbles about tertiary matters (or even mere opinions like the colour of the carpet) we very much end up looking like the Church in Eph 4, orientated inward.

Changing metaphors, think of Bison. When they are threatened they don’t turn inward and dispute with themselves (or kick aimlessly with their legs). No, they form an outward oriented  circle (with the young in the middle). So it should be with the Church. We are strongest when we remain united on the essentials with an outward orientation on our mission.

Turning back to Eph 6 we also see the fight is forward (i.e. it is not a retreat, c.f. Mt 16). While it is true words like “withstand” and “stand firm” are used that don’t seem overly offensive and most of the armour is defensive in nature, combined they certainly don’t suggest retreat either but rather head on confrontation. Building on this, there is a clear offensive streak in the passage. The sword is offensive and so is everything connected with the advance of the Gospel.

Like the Bison, their focus is outward so that they can fight forward against the foe. The Church is not only best when we’re outward oriented but when we’re forward fighting, that is when we—in faith—aggressively conduct ourselves in the Great Commission.

We don’t run away from Satan’s advance, we meet it. We don’t turn inward and implode through futile disputes and carnal controversies, we unite in Christ and face the foe.
Aren’t you glad the Word is living and active?

I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it—Mt 16:18b
​
Sometimes it feels as if the visible church in Ontario is struggling, battles within, battles without, slow decline. In large part that is true, however, amongst faithful Gospel congregations there is hope, signs of growth, and indeed often already vitality. In light of all of this it is encouraging to see what Jesus said about His Church.

A few observations may be drawn:

• It is Jesus’ Church and He is the one, primarily, who is building it.
  • And that if we are about His business (Great Commission), He will be with us.
• That if the King of kings is responsible for building it, then there is surety it will be built according to His purposes (no haphazard builder here!).

Yet, what about the gates of hell not prevailing, what does that mean? Surely whole areas of Ontario, or other places throughout history have become de-Christianized. Does this mean Jesus was wrong? No, it means our understanding of the promise is askew. Extirpation is not the same as extinction. Extirpation is regional extinction, like the Prairie-Chicken, which is no longer found in Canada but still exists in the USA. Some areas of the world are seeing the Church in decline whereas in other areas there is great growth.

Yet still, does prevailing against mean the Church is really on the defensive or ought it to be understood as an offensive promise? Well, gates are a defensive structure in a city’s defence, so if it said, “and the gates heaven shall not prevail against the force of hell,” then it would clearly view things defensively, but that is not what we see. Rather, we see that hell is on the defensive, and neither now nor ultimately shall hell ultimately prevail against the forces of authentic Christianity. This is the normative promise[1] in Mt 16:18b, that as we are faithful, though hell may hurl its darts at us and try to block our advance, hell must decrease in power and the Church will increase until Jesus has put His enemies under His feet and the Church rules with Christ in heaven.
​
So may we be faithful and look to the head and builder of the Church to do great things in Markdale as the Church increases and as Satan’s forces go on the defensive.


[1] I say normative because sometimes in God’s providence faithful churches are persecuted and don’t grow. As a normative rule, however, Mt 16:18 stands.