During my time as a Christian I have occasionally been asked if I am "on fire for the Lord." It doesn't happen very often as I tend to avoid people who say such things. I'm an introvert; I like being an introvert and I naturally resist pressure to exhibit extrovert displays of passion on behalf of my faith. And this doesn't just apply to church settings; I don't really get outwardly excited at football matches or rock concerts but I still enjoy both.

Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye and star of Have I Got News For You, was recently interviewed on his faith in the Daily Telegraph and commented: "...sometimes I worry that my faith is so vague as to be sort of not really there at all. I’m so lukewarm I’m about to be spat out, I think."

Google the word "Lukewarm" and scrolling through the results it won't be long before you come across references to Christianity, sermons warning us against mediocrity and posters displaying phrases such as "No lukewarm Christians in heaven!".

Scary and challenging stuff. 

But where does all this need for energetic burning passion come from? Is it backed up in scripture?

Well yes - and no.

The letter to the church in Laodicea

The source of all these references is the following two verses in Revelation 3 containing part of a letter that the Apostle John is asked by Jesus to write to the church in Laodicea.

15. "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot.

Would that you were either cold or hot!

16. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold,

I will spit you out of my mouth.

So if I approach my faith half-heartedly, if I am mediocre or indifferent, if I lack conviction or enthusiasm, if I am lukewarm - then I am in danger of being spat out.

Like I said - challenging stuff. Especially as nearly all of us, if we're really honest, are just like Ian Hislop. So what hope do we have to escape being spat out?

Lukewarm in Laodicea

It always helps if we can re-interpret the passage to mean something else and we must always guard against that. But in the case of these verses in Revelation there just might be a very strong case for doing so. After all, the passage doesn't just encourage us to be hot for God, it also says that God would prefer us to be cold rather than lukewarm.

Does that really make sense? Would God really prefer us not to believe, or have no desire towards Him at all than to be lukewarm?

A hermeneutical exploration of the verses possibly provides an alternative explanation. The two towns closest to Laodicea were well known for their water supplies. Hierapolis, to the north, was a Roman town famous for its hot springs which were celebrated for their healing properties. Colosse, to the east, had natural cold springs that were bottled as drinking water.

Laodicea, on the other hand, had no water supply and instead had to bring water in from its two neighbours. By the time it arrived the water was... lukewarm and unpalatable, neither fit for bathing nor for drinking. Consequently, it was not useful for anything.

Does this provide us with another interpretation of the passage? Did we ever stop to think that our modern definitions of hot, lukewarm and cold - as measures of commitment and passion - might not have meant the same thing 2,000 years ago as they do in modern English?

So yes, we should guard against being lukewarm but in what sense? As in being on fire for the Lord or in being useful for the Lord?

Whichever, the question still remains: are you lukewarm?