Mark Keown

In 1974, while living in the Cook Islands with my teaching parents and two sisters, I first met Jesus. A friend, Bobby (Rangi) Moekaa, invited me to a Christian group that was run in the school by Brian Chitty (who happened to work with my parents in education). Brian shared the gospel based on the amazing prophetic statue in Daniel 7. Being a logical young lad, I reasoned that if God could predict through the OT prophets the world's empires up to Jesus, I should believe in him. I did and gave my heart to Jesus. Things turned sour at home after this. My parents were not impressed, particularly my Dad. It didn’t help that I immediately tried to evangelise them. When your thirteen-year-old son shares the gospel with you, and you are fiercely antichristian as my Father was at that stage of life, it never goes well for the evangelizer. Long story short, my relationship with my Dad was wrecked, and, in tears, on my bed, I told God I could not follow him as I wanted in such a home and ...

For a long time, I have been pondering whether it is appropriate to have the name "Saint" applied to a church or Christian-based organization. My answer is, "no, it should not be."  The word "saint" has its origins in the idea of holiness. For Israel, God is the Holy One. In the Old Testament, it is also applied to God's people as "holy people" or "saints" (e.g., Ps 16:3; Isa 62:12; 63:18). It is applied to the collective and not individuals. By the time we come to the New Testament, the term is applied to Jesus as "the Holy One" a few times (Mark 1:24 and parallels; John 6:69: Acts 2:27; 13:25; 1 John 2:20; Rev 3:7) and God (Rev 16:5). Otherwise, where people are concerned, it is used for God's holy people as a collective about sixty times (e.g., Matt 27:52; Acts 9:13; Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 3:13; 1 Tim 5:10; Phlm 1:5; Heb 6:10; Jude 3; Rev 5:8). So, the term "saint...