Saturday 23 November 2013
Biblical wisdom at the RRF Conference
There were echoes of the Wisdom literature at the RRF conference at Swanwick, 18-20 November.
Brian Edwards took us to the Psalms, expounding, clearly, powerfully and with reference to revival, three psalms. We were shown, from Psalm 63 the psalmist’s passion (a ‘burning yearning after God with a wonderful delight and certainty’); from Psalm 64 his protest; and from Psalm 65 his praise.
Brian reminded us, with examples and illustrations from the past, of great truths about revival, for instance, for preachers, ‘You just bend the bow, let God shoot the arrow’. This was biblical wisdom as it should be – straight from the shoulder.
Matthew Brennan (Clonmel) on the other hand brought us a bit of Ecclesiastes or Job (though he referred to neither!) – wisdom when life doesn’t work out. Winsomely, with pungency and wit, he took three ‘Texts that Stick’ and illustrated the ups and downs of pastoral life from his own experience but without ever promoting himself.
‘Who has believed our report?’ (Isa 53:1) led us to the familiar experience of an apparently fruitless ministry – but we were reminded forcefully that visible success varies, present success is not always visible, success is not limited to the work of conversion and success is not entirely ‘here’.
Matthew took us then to 1 Thess 1 (when the Word comes in power, the Holy Spirit and in full conviction); and finally 1 Thess 2 – Paul’s mental status, manner of ministry and evangelistic methods.
With all this wisdom it was as well that Jonathan Wood began with a conference sermon on Revelation 2:1-7, which took us more or less to the beginning of wisdom – falling in love with Jesus again – which as Jonathan pointed out, is not a bad definition of revival.
It was again a time of blessing and we were thankful to be there.
To listen to these and other Conference sermons, or for more information about RRF, visit www.reformationandrevival.org (or for CDs email jim.lawson@ntlworld.com).
Saturday 9 November 2013
God's Funeral - A.N.Wilson
This blog is rapidly becoming a blog of book reviews but I have found food for thought in a number of the books I have been reading recently, perhaps because they have been a bit different from what I usually read.
'God's Funeral' is not an atheist rant by Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, but a study by A.N.Wilson of the decline of faith and the growth of doubt, scepticism and atheism in the Victorian era. The book's title comes from Thomas Hardy's eponymous poem and Hardy is the subject of the first, inevitably sad, chapter.
Wilson follows up with readable summaries of Hume and Kant, rapidly succeeded by Hegel, J.S. Mill and Auguste Comte. Then come Carlyle, Marx and Engels, who make way for J.A.Froude, Dean Colenso, Thomas Arnold and Benjamin Jowett.
After them come author George Eliot and philosopher Herbert Spencer. Darwin, Huxley and the impact of evolution are examined, as is the life and influence of the outright atheist poet Algernon Swinburne. Freud follows, with the Gosses ('Father and Son'), Matthew Arnold and John Ruskin in their van. Numerous lesser lights are discussed in passing.
William James is given a long and sympathetic chapter. The book ends with perhaps the most sympathetic chapter of all, a study of the Roman Catholic 'Modernists' and one of their heroes, George Tyrrell. This probably tells us more about the sympathies of A.N. Wilson than it does about the importance of Tyrrell.
I found the book fascinating. Wilson's knowledge is broad and he manages to package it attractively for a non-expert. His sub-text is a gentle undermining of the atheism, agnosticism and scepticism he discusses, and the muddled and in some cases tragic lives of his subjects are little commendation of their 'creed'.
The overall impact is of sadness and also, for me at least, surprise at how prevalent varieties of doubt were in the Victorian era, which one somehow thinks of as a very religious period. 1851, for example, saw the highest figure for church attendance ever recorded in Britain.
But that is just the irony. The 19th century was profoundly religious. Some of these figures were also very religious. Their religion had however lost vitality. Many of them were struggling, often very painfully and sincerely, with doubt. German biblical criticism made it impossible , they thought, to believe the Bible as their parents had done. Darwin made it unnecessary if not impossible to believe in a Creator. Schleiermacher (who interestingly is not given much of a mention) made Christianity synonymous with religious sentiment. The Arnolds wanted to equate it with morality and a kind of culture.
Of course, all this was in a very intellectual stratum of society, but their ideas spread. They were articulating what a lot of less able people would have thought, expressing doubts that others either could not, or wanted simply to suppress. Widespread scepticism was to follow in the 20th century.
There is no mention, either, of the evangelical leaders (apart from a passing reference to Lord Shaftesbury, none too complimentary) or the revivals of the first half of the century, or of 1859, or of Spurgeon and many like him. These are below the radar of Wilson's authorial interest, and probably of his personal affection - he is evidently a 'believer' of the most rarified liberal high Anglican/Catholic type.
But it made me realise that we should not complain about atheism and unbelief growing as we see it in our day. We, at least, have a century of evangelical and other scholarship which makes it easier for us to fight back agains the trends in theology and science the Victorians were feeling threatened by. We have the apologetic advantage of a century of unspeakable ferocity and cruelty which has given the lie to the blessing of atheism as a creed. We have much to help us which the Victorians did not.
The book also reminds us that a 'Christian culture' can be a dangerous thing. How much dead belief lay behind the church-going, the mere orthodoxy, the respectable religion of the period. Does one not even have a sneaking sympathy for some of these men and women who were not content with the empty professions of their peers and contemporaries?
They had nothing to put in its place. Why not? They had rejected the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. Simplistic as it may sound, that is the watershed. That is fundamentally what was lost in the 19th century.
'God's Funeral' is not an atheist rant by Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, but a study by A.N.Wilson of the decline of faith and the growth of doubt, scepticism and atheism in the Victorian era. The book's title comes from Thomas Hardy's eponymous poem and Hardy is the subject of the first, inevitably sad, chapter.
Wilson follows up with readable summaries of Hume and Kant, rapidly succeeded by Hegel, J.S. Mill and Auguste Comte. Then come Carlyle, Marx and Engels, who make way for J.A.Froude, Dean Colenso, Thomas Arnold and Benjamin Jowett.
After them come author George Eliot and philosopher Herbert Spencer. Darwin, Huxley and the impact of evolution are examined, as is the life and influence of the outright atheist poet Algernon Swinburne. Freud follows, with the Gosses ('Father and Son'), Matthew Arnold and John Ruskin in their van. Numerous lesser lights are discussed in passing.
William James is given a long and sympathetic chapter. The book ends with perhaps the most sympathetic chapter of all, a study of the Roman Catholic 'Modernists' and one of their heroes, George Tyrrell. This probably tells us more about the sympathies of A.N. Wilson than it does about the importance of Tyrrell.
I found the book fascinating. Wilson's knowledge is broad and he manages to package it attractively for a non-expert. His sub-text is a gentle undermining of the atheism, agnosticism and scepticism he discusses, and the muddled and in some cases tragic lives of his subjects are little commendation of their 'creed'.
The overall impact is of sadness and also, for me at least, surprise at how prevalent varieties of doubt were in the Victorian era, which one somehow thinks of as a very religious period. 1851, for example, saw the highest figure for church attendance ever recorded in Britain.
But that is just the irony. The 19th century was profoundly religious. Some of these figures were also very religious. Their religion had however lost vitality. Many of them were struggling, often very painfully and sincerely, with doubt. German biblical criticism made it impossible , they thought, to believe the Bible as their parents had done. Darwin made it unnecessary if not impossible to believe in a Creator. Schleiermacher (who interestingly is not given much of a mention) made Christianity synonymous with religious sentiment. The Arnolds wanted to equate it with morality and a kind of culture.
Of course, all this was in a very intellectual stratum of society, but their ideas spread. They were articulating what a lot of less able people would have thought, expressing doubts that others either could not, or wanted simply to suppress. Widespread scepticism was to follow in the 20th century.
There is no mention, either, of the evangelical leaders (apart from a passing reference to Lord Shaftesbury, none too complimentary) or the revivals of the first half of the century, or of 1859, or of Spurgeon and many like him. These are below the radar of Wilson's authorial interest, and probably of his personal affection - he is evidently a 'believer' of the most rarified liberal high Anglican/Catholic type.
But it made me realise that we should not complain about atheism and unbelief growing as we see it in our day. We, at least, have a century of evangelical and other scholarship which makes it easier for us to fight back agains the trends in theology and science the Victorians were feeling threatened by. We have the apologetic advantage of a century of unspeakable ferocity and cruelty which has given the lie to the blessing of atheism as a creed. We have much to help us which the Victorians did not.
The book also reminds us that a 'Christian culture' can be a dangerous thing. How much dead belief lay behind the church-going, the mere orthodoxy, the respectable religion of the period. Does one not even have a sneaking sympathy for some of these men and women who were not content with the empty professions of their peers and contemporaries?
They had nothing to put in its place. Why not? They had rejected the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. Simplistic as it may sound, that is the watershed. That is fundamentally what was lost in the 19th century.
Saturday 2 November 2013
Encouragement for today's pastors: Help from the Puritans (Joel Beeke and Terry Slachter)
I have just finished reading this book, having seen a very positive review in ET by Robert Strivens. It has not disappointed.
The authors cover six areas - piety, sovereignty, clarity, creativity and community, dignity and eternity - and weave a biblical and theological coat of many colours for the discouraged pastor.
The threads they use are drawn from the Puritans but there is nothing musty about the finished product. The nature of the encouragement is not at all superficial but profound.
Who would benefit from reading this?
The ministerial student would gain an enriching and enriched sense of his calling and expectations. Colleges should buy every student a copy.
The young minister, perhaps unduly discouraged or elated in the early years of ministry.
The minister of middle years who may be discouraged, or self-satisfied, or losing his zeal.
The older minister who needs his vision of his calling renewed, or comfort after a long haul where he has seen little fruit.
The minister who has seen much visible success and needs to see that fruit in the light of eternity.
In short, every minister would benefit from reading this book. It is not a book of encouragement of the conventional sort which can promote self-pity. There is here as much biblically grounded (and ultimately gracious) rebuke for pride or complacency or falsely grounded encouragement as there is real strengthening of faith and hope. The book is not cynical about true fruitfulness in ministry but puts it all in eternal perspective.
Want to give a minister a good present this Christmas?
Tuesday 15 October 2013
The Death of Christian Britain 1800-2000
Callum Brown published this provocative book in 2001 and a second edition came out in 2009. His thesis is that Christian Britain died in 1963 - more or less. At that point, or at least after 1960, people stopped going to church. The Christian 'bulge' of about 1947-60 stopped dramatically and everything seemed to be up for grabs.
(Interestingly, a recent programme about the early 1960s satire programme TW3 backed this up when it was said that content that would have been unthinkable 'just a year ago' was suddenly OK on TV. Something happened very suddenly in the early 1960s).
But it was not at all just about people stopping going to church. What Brown calls 'discursive Christianity' wained dramatically and Britain stopped being a Christian culture. Christianity lost its guiding role; conformity to its morality, its rituals and its values was not only questioned as never before but abandoned.
Brown's more arguable point is that the main factor was the change in the role of women. When they stopped being 'Christian', then society stopped being Christian. Cause and effect are difficult to disentangle here. It seems to me there were other deeper causative factors at work of which 'women's lib' was only one consequence.
Of course Brown, being a sociologist, cannot allow (and gives no hint of believing in anyway) spiritual influences or the possibility of God's providence overruling all. But the study is a thought-provoking one. One interesting feature is the attention he draws to the fact that up to about 1800 piety was predominantly 'masculine' - the man was the typical saint, women followed or at worst were temptresses. During the 19th century, particularly in the influential popular fiction of the era, piety was feminised. The woman became virtuous, vice was male. The home was the place where the female angel ruled ( paintings of angels became predominantly female, he says, in this century - up to that time they had been male or androgynous). Men went to church now, if at all, out of convention or hypocrisy, struggling against the demons that were more natural to them.
Well, it is all arguable, but it is interesting how commonly the Christian virtues are looked upon as rather feminine and, to men, rather boring; vice is far more exciting.
What happened in Victorian England was it seems a reduction in the sense of the seriousness of sin. Vice and virtue were measured behaviourally and superficially - as what men do (drunkenness, gambling, sex etc ) and what what women do (look after children, suffer patiently, look after the home, be kind etc) respectively.
A more radical view of sin avoids these caricatures. Sin is in the woman as much as in the man. Vice is first in our attitude to God; virtue is first in our returning to him.
(Interestingly, a recent programme about the early 1960s satire programme TW3 backed this up when it was said that content that would have been unthinkable 'just a year ago' was suddenly OK on TV. Something happened very suddenly in the early 1960s).
But it was not at all just about people stopping going to church. What Brown calls 'discursive Christianity' wained dramatically and Britain stopped being a Christian culture. Christianity lost its guiding role; conformity to its morality, its rituals and its values was not only questioned as never before but abandoned.
Brown's more arguable point is that the main factor was the change in the role of women. When they stopped being 'Christian', then society stopped being Christian. Cause and effect are difficult to disentangle here. It seems to me there were other deeper causative factors at work of which 'women's lib' was only one consequence.
Of course Brown, being a sociologist, cannot allow (and gives no hint of believing in anyway) spiritual influences or the possibility of God's providence overruling all. But the study is a thought-provoking one. One interesting feature is the attention he draws to the fact that up to about 1800 piety was predominantly 'masculine' - the man was the typical saint, women followed or at worst were temptresses. During the 19th century, particularly in the influential popular fiction of the era, piety was feminised. The woman became virtuous, vice was male. The home was the place where the female angel ruled ( paintings of angels became predominantly female, he says, in this century - up to that time they had been male or androgynous). Men went to church now, if at all, out of convention or hypocrisy, struggling against the demons that were more natural to them.
Well, it is all arguable, but it is interesting how commonly the Christian virtues are looked upon as rather feminine and, to men, rather boring; vice is far more exciting.
What happened in Victorian England was it seems a reduction in the sense of the seriousness of sin. Vice and virtue were measured behaviourally and superficially - as what men do (drunkenness, gambling, sex etc ) and what what women do (look after children, suffer patiently, look after the home, be kind etc) respectively.
A more radical view of sin avoids these caricatures. Sin is in the woman as much as in the man. Vice is first in our attitude to God; virtue is first in our returning to him.
Monday 14 October 2013
Stephen Fry: Out There
I have just been watching the first of Stephen Fry's programmes on homosexuality around the world. Or, rather, his determination to expose what he sees as prejudice and ill treatment of gays around the world.
I feel rather sick after it. I think it is in part a reaction to the exhibitions of physical homosexual affection (nothing graphic fortunately) but more than that it is the sheer perversion of truth that the whole thing involves. One does not agree with the death penalty which is proposed in Uganda, or sympathise with all the arguments of the Ugandan pastor and government minister who argue for it; but Fry's propaganda technique is depressingly reminiscent of Richard Dawkins - assert your case without rational argument, throw in loads of sentiment and talk about love ( even tears at a civil partnership ceremony), make fun of those who oppose you or patronise them, and find a few of the most extreme and objectionable examples of the opponents' argument to knock down. This is what debate by television has come to these days; media power is used unhesitatingly as a propaganda machine. The BBC even advertises a helpline for anyone who has been bullied because they are gay.
The programme raises issues for Christians. Where do we go when we are so much, and rather suddenly it seems, on the back foot? We must hold our nerve; we must teach patiently and persistently the truth; we must examine our hearts to ensure we are not bearing hatred of these people; we must remember that whether straight or gay, sinners need a saviour; and we must realise, too, that we are not going to win this argument on a merely moral basis. The whole thing goes right back to creation. God made us male and female, to have companionship man with woman, to marry and multiply and fill the earth. The battle is really for a Christian theistic worldview and a case for human identity and destiny. The biblical theist cannot see homosexuality as anything other than a perversion, and rebellion against God, but that does not give us the right to stand in personal or self-righteous judgement over, or live in hatred of, them. But Romans 1 is increasingly becoming the most relevant text to describe our society. If that is the case, we can be thankful that Romans 3 is still the solution.
I feel rather sick after it. I think it is in part a reaction to the exhibitions of physical homosexual affection (nothing graphic fortunately) but more than that it is the sheer perversion of truth that the whole thing involves. One does not agree with the death penalty which is proposed in Uganda, or sympathise with all the arguments of the Ugandan pastor and government minister who argue for it; but Fry's propaganda technique is depressingly reminiscent of Richard Dawkins - assert your case without rational argument, throw in loads of sentiment and talk about love ( even tears at a civil partnership ceremony), make fun of those who oppose you or patronise them, and find a few of the most extreme and objectionable examples of the opponents' argument to knock down. This is what debate by television has come to these days; media power is used unhesitatingly as a propaganda machine. The BBC even advertises a helpline for anyone who has been bullied because they are gay.
The programme raises issues for Christians. Where do we go when we are so much, and rather suddenly it seems, on the back foot? We must hold our nerve; we must teach patiently and persistently the truth; we must examine our hearts to ensure we are not bearing hatred of these people; we must remember that whether straight or gay, sinners need a saviour; and we must realise, too, that we are not going to win this argument on a merely moral basis. The whole thing goes right back to creation. God made us male and female, to have companionship man with woman, to marry and multiply and fill the earth. The battle is really for a Christian theistic worldview and a case for human identity and destiny. The biblical theist cannot see homosexuality as anything other than a perversion, and rebellion against God, but that does not give us the right to stand in personal or self-righteous judgement over, or live in hatred of, them. But Romans 1 is increasingly becoming the most relevant text to describe our society. If that is the case, we can be thankful that Romans 3 is still the solution.
Alec Motyer: Preaching? Simple Teaching on Simply Preaching
Alec Motyer is a great Bible teacher, a fine scholar particularly in Old Testament studies and an attractive writer. Countless Christians and ministers in particular will have appreciated his preaching and writing over the last fifty years or so. And he is still going strong.
His latest book is on preaching (title as above, Christian Focus, 2013).In fourteen short chapters he covers the task of producing and preaching a sermon. There is a helpful chapter on 'spirituality' to remind us of the prior need of feeding ourselves with the Word and prayer. Finally, ten appendices give us a series of devotional studies in six or seven parts on various themes or passages of Scripture. I can see these being turned into sermons or sermon series in many pulpits.
It is a refreshing read. He is concerned to help preachers not to preach 'muddled' sermons. He begins with a reminder of the wonderful Word we have and the power of the Holy Spirit given to the church at Pentecost. Preaching is our great task. Another chapter looks at some of the words used for 'communicating' the gospel in the New Testament (he reckons 97).
The bulk of the book looks at six stages of sermon preparation: examination, analysis, orientation, harvesting, presentation and application. For me the most challenging was the chapter on 'examination', the simple message being: work hard at exegesis.
A revitalising book for preachers at any stage. Three reservations may be worth mentioning:
1. He commends, occasionally though not as a rule, what he calls 'concordance' preaching - word studies. Well, maybe occasionally. But perhaps this betrays Motyer's early Brethren influences! This may lead to an interesting Bible study, but too often it is likely to lead to Biblical antiquarianism or sentimentalism (though, I am sure, not when Motyer himself does it).
This does lead to the reflection that few books on preaching discuss the importance of theology, especially systematic theology, in preaching. The best preacher will be the one who has a good systematic theology, especially if it is not allowed to obtrude too obviously. Books on preaching major (not unnaturally) on dealing with the text, and very necessarily so and helpfully so (for the most part). But what about the importance of the preacher's grasp of the message and doctrine of Scripture as a whole and his ability to analyse his text in the light of that theology? Insight into the individual text comes from that more, one might say, than from concordance studies.
2. He is obviously very nervous about usurping the role of the Holy Spirit in promoting a response to the preaching. He reminds us that of 97 words for communicating the Word, 56 are declarative and the main task for the preacher is to make the truth plain. He almost gives the impression that, that done, response will take care of itself under the operation of the Spirit. He allows that there are words such as appeal, plead, encourage, persuade, convince. He does not give them anything like the same weight though as words for proclamation, teaching and speaking. The impression is given of little affective pressing of the message home to people's consciences. He is no doubt right to say this can be abused and overdone, but Motyer's danger one feels is underdoing it. Is it his Anglican background influencing him here?
3. His view of evangelism appears to be that it is a gift that some have and others don't and that he, as one of the 'don't haves', cannot be expected to preach an evangelistic sermon, but rather 'take those passages of the Bible where the evangelistic message is particularly plain and expound them and let them "run out" into whatever ending, including the evangelistic appeal, they demand'. This, with respect, is a cop-out and closely related to the problem mentioned above of not seeing the Bible as a whole as a message of salvation with a coherent theology and every text needing to be seen in the light of that message. The present generation is blighted with younger preachers who simply think that to 'teach the Bible' is to take the text in its immediate setting and if it is evangelistic, then fine - take people to Christ - but if it is not, then it is a kind of imposition on the text to preach evangelistically from it. This is a myopic view of Scripture, closely related to the 'biblical theology' movement.
One hopes that this book, good as it is in many ways, will not have too great an impact in these particular areas.
His latest book is on preaching (title as above, Christian Focus, 2013).In fourteen short chapters he covers the task of producing and preaching a sermon. There is a helpful chapter on 'spirituality' to remind us of the prior need of feeding ourselves with the Word and prayer. Finally, ten appendices give us a series of devotional studies in six or seven parts on various themes or passages of Scripture. I can see these being turned into sermons or sermon series in many pulpits.
It is a refreshing read. He is concerned to help preachers not to preach 'muddled' sermons. He begins with a reminder of the wonderful Word we have and the power of the Holy Spirit given to the church at Pentecost. Preaching is our great task. Another chapter looks at some of the words used for 'communicating' the gospel in the New Testament (he reckons 97).
The bulk of the book looks at six stages of sermon preparation: examination, analysis, orientation, harvesting, presentation and application. For me the most challenging was the chapter on 'examination', the simple message being: work hard at exegesis.
A revitalising book for preachers at any stage. Three reservations may be worth mentioning:
1. He commends, occasionally though not as a rule, what he calls 'concordance' preaching - word studies. Well, maybe occasionally. But perhaps this betrays Motyer's early Brethren influences! This may lead to an interesting Bible study, but too often it is likely to lead to Biblical antiquarianism or sentimentalism (though, I am sure, not when Motyer himself does it).
This does lead to the reflection that few books on preaching discuss the importance of theology, especially systematic theology, in preaching. The best preacher will be the one who has a good systematic theology, especially if it is not allowed to obtrude too obviously. Books on preaching major (not unnaturally) on dealing with the text, and very necessarily so and helpfully so (for the most part). But what about the importance of the preacher's grasp of the message and doctrine of Scripture as a whole and his ability to analyse his text in the light of that theology? Insight into the individual text comes from that more, one might say, than from concordance studies.
2. He is obviously very nervous about usurping the role of the Holy Spirit in promoting a response to the preaching. He reminds us that of 97 words for communicating the Word, 56 are declarative and the main task for the preacher is to make the truth plain. He almost gives the impression that, that done, response will take care of itself under the operation of the Spirit. He allows that there are words such as appeal, plead, encourage, persuade, convince. He does not give them anything like the same weight though as words for proclamation, teaching and speaking. The impression is given of little affective pressing of the message home to people's consciences. He is no doubt right to say this can be abused and overdone, but Motyer's danger one feels is underdoing it. Is it his Anglican background influencing him here?
3. His view of evangelism appears to be that it is a gift that some have and others don't and that he, as one of the 'don't haves', cannot be expected to preach an evangelistic sermon, but rather 'take those passages of the Bible where the evangelistic message is particularly plain and expound them and let them "run out" into whatever ending, including the evangelistic appeal, they demand'. This, with respect, is a cop-out and closely related to the problem mentioned above of not seeing the Bible as a whole as a message of salvation with a coherent theology and every text needing to be seen in the light of that message. The present generation is blighted with younger preachers who simply think that to 'teach the Bible' is to take the text in its immediate setting and if it is evangelistic, then fine - take people to Christ - but if it is not, then it is a kind of imposition on the text to preach evangelistically from it. This is a myopic view of Scripture, closely related to the 'biblical theology' movement.
One hopes that this book, good as it is in many ways, will not have too great an impact in these particular areas.
Thursday 10 October 2013
Murray Walkerisms...
Classics from the doyen of motor sports commentators:
"Unless I am very much mistaken.... I AM very much mistaken!"
"Mansell is slowing down, taking it easy. Oh no he isn't IT'S A LAP RECORD."
"This is an interesting circuit, because it has inclines. And not just up, but down as well."
"The lead car is absolutely unique, except for the one behind it which is identical."
"The most important part of the car is the nut that holds the wheel."
"I know it's an old cliche, but you can cut the atmosphere with a cricket stump."
"Tambay's hopes, which were nil before, are absolutely zero now."
"And there's no damage to the car. Except to the car itself."
"That's the first time he had started from the front row in a Grand Prix, having done so in Canada earlier this year."
"Here in Malaysia, it doesn't rain here by the bucketful, it rains by the ocean."
"How you can crash into a wall without it being there in the first place is beyond me!"
"Excuse me while I interrupt myself"
"And the first five places are filled by five different cars."
"And Damon Hill is following Damon Hill."
"Michael Schumacher is leading Michael Schumacher."
"Jean Alesi is 4th and 5th."
"Villeneuve is now twelve seconds ahead of Villeneuve."
"Frentzen is taking, er, reducing that gap between himself and Frentzen."
"This has been a great season for Nelson Piquet, as he is now known, and always has been."
"It's lap 26 of 58, which unless I'm very much mistaken is half way."
"I'm ready to stop my start watch."
"Only a few more laps to go and then the action will begin. Unless this is the action, which it is!"
"I can't imagine what kind of problem Senna has. I imagine it must be some sort of grip problem."
"He's obviously gone in for a pit stop. I say obviously, because I cannot see anything."
"And the first three cars are all Escorts, which isn't surprising as this is an all Escort race."
"He is exactly 10 seconds ahead, or more approximately, 9.86 seconds."
"Look up there! That's the sky!"
"There's nothing wrong with his car except that it's on fire."
"I don't want to tempt fate but Damon Hill is now only half a lap from his first Grand Prix win and… and HE'S SLOWING DOWN, DAMON HILL IS SLOWING DOWN… HE'S... HE'S STOPPED!"
"As you look at the first four, the significant thing is that Alboreto is fifth."
"He's the only man on the track, except for his car."
"You might think that's not cricket, and it's not. It's motor racing."
"And Michael Schumacher is actually in a very good position. He is in last place."
"One light, two lights, three lights, four laps, five lights, go, go, go!"
"That's history. I say history because it happened in the past."
"There are a lot of IFs in Formula One, in fact IF is Formula One backwards!"
"Anything happens in Grand Prix racing, and it usually does."
"Unless I am very much mistaken.... I AM very much mistaken!"
"Mansell is slowing down, taking it easy. Oh no he isn't IT'S A LAP RECORD."
"This is an interesting circuit, because it has inclines. And not just up, but down as well."
"The lead car is absolutely unique, except for the one behind it which is identical."
"The most important part of the car is the nut that holds the wheel."
"I know it's an old cliche, but you can cut the atmosphere with a cricket stump."
"Tambay's hopes, which were nil before, are absolutely zero now."
"And there's no damage to the car. Except to the car itself."
"That's the first time he had started from the front row in a Grand Prix, having done so in Canada earlier this year."
"Here in Malaysia, it doesn't rain here by the bucketful, it rains by the ocean."
"How you can crash into a wall without it being there in the first place is beyond me!"
"Excuse me while I interrupt myself"
"And the first five places are filled by five different cars."
"And Damon Hill is following Damon Hill."
"Michael Schumacher is leading Michael Schumacher."
"Jean Alesi is 4th and 5th."
"Villeneuve is now twelve seconds ahead of Villeneuve."
"Frentzen is taking, er, reducing that gap between himself and Frentzen."
"This has been a great season for Nelson Piquet, as he is now known, and always has been."
"It's lap 26 of 58, which unless I'm very much mistaken is half way."
"I'm ready to stop my start watch."
"Only a few more laps to go and then the action will begin. Unless this is the action, which it is!"
"I can't imagine what kind of problem Senna has. I imagine it must be some sort of grip problem."
"He's obviously gone in for a pit stop. I say obviously, because I cannot see anything."
"And the first three cars are all Escorts, which isn't surprising as this is an all Escort race."
"He is exactly 10 seconds ahead, or more approximately, 9.86 seconds."
"Look up there! That's the sky!"
"There's nothing wrong with his car except that it's on fire."
"I don't want to tempt fate but Damon Hill is now only half a lap from his first Grand Prix win and… and HE'S SLOWING DOWN, DAMON HILL IS SLOWING DOWN… HE'S... HE'S STOPPED!"
"As you look at the first four, the significant thing is that Alboreto is fifth."
"He's the only man on the track, except for his car."
"You might think that's not cricket, and it's not. It's motor racing."
"And Michael Schumacher is actually in a very good position. He is in last place."
"One light, two lights, three lights, four laps, five lights, go, go, go!"
"That's history. I say history because it happened in the past."
"There are a lot of IFs in Formula One, in fact IF is Formula One backwards!"
"Anything happens in Grand Prix racing, and it usually does."
Wednesday 9 October 2013
Bruce Ware on 'The Man Christ Jesus'
The Man Christ Jesus:
Theological Reflections on the Humanity of Christ
Bruce A. Ware
Crossway 2013
ISBN 978-1-4335-1305-3
As a boy, Bruce Ware thought it unreasonable that in 1 Peter 2:21-23 we sinners are taught to ‘follow [Christ’s] steps’, the steps of one who was God and ‘who did no sin’. In later years he came to the passage with new questions, principally, ‘Could it be that even though Jesus was fully God, he lived his life fundamentally as a man? Could the command to follow in his steps be legitimate because he lived a human life in obedience to his Father as we also are called to do?’ One wonders why he does not similarly reflect on Peter’s earlier exhortation, citing Lev.11:44, ‘ ”You shall be holy, for I am holy”’ (1 Pet 1:16), and Paul’s ‘Be imitators of God therefore...’ (Eph 5:1) and the Lord’s ‘…be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect’ (Matt 5:48). How are these injunctions to be rendered ‘legitimate’? In any event, is there not enough of a gap between my sinful humanity and the Lord’s sinless humanity to make me despair quite apart from his deity? Is not this mode of trying to understand these commandments misconceived?
Ware also believes that evangelicals generally understand Christ’s deity better than his humanity and he wants to redress the balance. He is not presenting a ‘complete’ Christology, he tells us, but longs for Jesus to be ‘honored through reflections upon his humanity’. So, for example, the assertion that Jesus ‘lived his life fundamentally as a man’ appears repeatedly. But what does that mean? That Jesus lived as a man at a deeper level than as God? That his life reflected more humanity than deity?
As one would expect of a theologian of Ware’s calibre there is much that is helpful in the book and it is winsomely written. His chapters cover the incarnation, Christ’s ‘empowerment by the Spirit’, his growth in wisdom (Luke 2:40,52) and faith (Heb 5:7-9), his temptations, death, resurrection, reign and return, and seek to expound the importance of his humanity in each case. There is also a helpful chapter on why Christ had to be a man rather than a woman. Each chapter ends with applications, and questions for discussion.
There are, however, problems. Although Ware makes enough statements to show that he is an orthodox Chalcedonian in his christology, his mode of expressing himself is often puzzling, not to say misleading. This is no doubt because of the agenda he has set himself – to establish that Christ lived fundamentally as a man (and this agenda is further, as his applications often indicate, to make it more feasible for us to claim the resources Christ in his humanity relied upon and to obey his commandments). The main weakness is a repeated tendency to divide the natures and obscure the unity of the person in his attempt to do justice, as he sees it, to Christ’s humanity. For example:
1. He concedes that there ‘are a few times when we will examine some aspects of the deity of Christ simply because these must be seen to understand aspects of his humanity’ (p 13). The assumption seems to be that for the most part we can understand Christ’s humanity without reference to his deity.
2. He says that while the eternal Son obeyed the Father prior to the incarnation, ‘it was only the God-man, the human Jesus, who could obey in this way [i.e obedience to death, in Phil. 2:5-9]’ (p 26). Why not leave it at the ‘God man’, or perhaps ‘God-as-man’? This is one of a number of places where ‘the human Jesus’ is insisted upon almost in contradistinction to the divine nature or the divine person of the Son. Who is the subject of obedience throughout Christ’s life? ‘’In the whole sweep of mediatorial history, from pre-existence through humiliation to exaltation, the person acting and affected is the same. This means that whenever we look at the life of Christ and ask Who did this? Who suffered this? Who said this? the answer is always the same: ‘The Son of God!’ We can never say ‘The divine nature said this!’ or ‘The human nature did this!’ We must say, ‘He did this: he, the Son of God!’ (Macleod, The Person of Christ p189).
3. Ware deals with the anointing of Christ by the Spirit as something virtually exclusively to give Jesus the power to function as a human. He quotes Peter in Acts 10:38, ‘God anointed Jesus of Nazareth…’ Yes, but this verse says that the person of Christ is anointed, not his human nature, and it is not only for the purpose of empowering Jesus, it is a declaration of who the Messiah is. Elsewhere also Ware seems to equate the Messiah with the ‘human’ Jesus e.g ‘…the Christ of the Great Commission is the human Jesus, the Messiah, who has won the right to reign over the nations’ (p139). In arguing, quite rightly, that Christ was really human, Ware seems to overbalance into saying that he was more human, or more fundamentally human, than divine.
4. In dealing with Jesus’ miracles, Ware says in a footnote, ‘Certainly some of Jesus’ miracles may have been done out of the divine nature. Indeed it seems in John’s gospel, in particular, this may well be the case. But here [Matt 12:28, where Jesus says ‘it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons’] Christ states specifically that the miracle performed was done in the power of the Spirit, and so we should accept this for what it says… So it seems reasonable to conclude that the norm for accounting for the miracles that Jesus did is not through an appeal to his divine nature, per se, but rather by an appeal to the power of the Holy Spirit who indwelt him’ (p 37). Yet in Matt 12:28, Jesus says ‘if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons…’ It is the divine person, not the human nature, who performs the miracles. Moreover, if, as Ware rightly says, these miracles are ‘confirmatory’ (p 43), they must ‘confirm’ and indeed reveal, something of his deity (see eg Mark 4:41; John 2:11), so is it not confusing to try to examine them solely in relation to the humanity of Jesus? What could they reveal if they are simply the works of a man empowered by the Spirit? Examining the work of the Spirit in the life of Christ is not new (see e.g. chapter 3, ‘The Spirit of Christ’ in Sinclair Ferguson’s The Holy Spirit) but if it is divorced from his deity it is misleading. Charismatics have argued ‘if Christ was a man empowered by the Spirit, we can do the same miracles he did’. Ware’s argument points in the same direction. ‘The resources given to Christ for his obedience are given to us’ he writes (p 45). Then why not to perform miracles?
5. The temptations of Christ are discussed without mention of their unique nature and role in Jesus’ ministry as God-man and Messiah. There is certainly much help to be gained in my struggle against temptation from Christ’s example, but that is not the heart of what is happening in the wilderness. ‘If you are the Son of God…’ is the issue – Jesus is tempted to use his divine prerogatives to overcome the struggles he must face as God-man, as Geerhardus Vos says, ‘how can Messiahship and submission to the ethical obligations of common human conduct go together?’ (Biblical Theology p 335). The force of this, so important in asserting the union of Christ’s natures and the integrity of his personality, is entirely lost in Ware’s treatment which majors on Christ being unable to sin because he was God, but actually not sinning because as a Spirit-empowered man he resisted to the end. This is helpful so far as it goes but the emphasis on the ‘Spirit empowered man’ obscures the fact that it is the God-man who acts in all of Christ’s life, not one nature or the other. Ware’s application and discussion focus on the resources Christ used being available for me. But even if I consider only his humanity, does it help sinful me to know a sinless Saviour resisted? Did he not have the Spirit ‘without measure’ (John 3:34). Is his empowerment really the same as mine?
6. Ware’s treatment of Christ as the second Adam tends to equate it with Christ’s humanity (‘Although sent by the Father, and although possessing the divine nature, he nonetheless carries out his work in the power of the Spirit and does so as the man, the second Adam, whom God made him to be’ p. 137). But ‘Last Adam, Second Man’, is to do with his Person, not his human nature; it is to proclaim him head of a new humanity, not simply to describe him as coming in human weakness, even sinlessly.
7. In his discussion of Christ’s death, Ware says ‘We can rightly say (a) the human nature of Jesus bore our sin and died on the cross, or (b) Jesus the God-man bore our sin and died on the cross. But we would err were we to say (c) the divine nature of Jesus bore our sin and died on the cross’ (p 125). Option (b) is surely correct but can (a) be right ? Can a nature bear the load of guilt as a penal substitute? Can sin be imputed to a nature? Why divide the natures? It is surely wisdom to say that whatever Christ did in his earthly life, whether raising Lazarus, eating bread at the last supper or dying on the cross, he did as God-man. ‘The more we study the gospels, the less inclined we are to say that our Lord did any particular action by virtue of his being God, or another by virtue of his being man. We do not see him sometimes as God, and at other times as man. What strikes us is the unity of his person. Before long we can only think of him for what he is – the God-Man, who acted in all things as a single person’. (Olyott, Jesus is both Man and God, p130).
Bruce Ware has written a book that is in many ways helpful. He does not avoid however the pitfalls in such an enterprise, of dividing the natures. This is not because he is not orthodox in his views – he makes enough statements to make that clear. But his agenda and his mode of expression (not helped by the fact that he does not make even a passing reference to Chalcedon, which Warfield called ‘a very perfect synthesis of the biblical data’) open the door for error, even if he doesn’t himself step through it. One review I have read charges the book with having a ‘Nestorian flavour’ – separating the natures, suggesting two persons in Christ. I can understand why, even though Ware is not a Nestorian. He disclaims the attempt to write a complete christology; the trouble is he has given us an incomplete christology and a rather imbalanced one.
I am grateful to Martin Wells of Welcome Hall Evangelical Church, Bromsgrove, for sight of his critique of Ware’s book but responsibility for what is written here is entirely mine.
Theological Reflections on the Humanity of Christ
Bruce A. Ware
Crossway 2013
ISBN 978-1-4335-1305-3
As a boy, Bruce Ware thought it unreasonable that in 1 Peter 2:21-23 we sinners are taught to ‘follow [Christ’s] steps’, the steps of one who was God and ‘who did no sin’. In later years he came to the passage with new questions, principally, ‘Could it be that even though Jesus was fully God, he lived his life fundamentally as a man? Could the command to follow in his steps be legitimate because he lived a human life in obedience to his Father as we also are called to do?’ One wonders why he does not similarly reflect on Peter’s earlier exhortation, citing Lev.11:44, ‘ ”You shall be holy, for I am holy”’ (1 Pet 1:16), and Paul’s ‘Be imitators of God therefore...’ (Eph 5:1) and the Lord’s ‘…be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect’ (Matt 5:48). How are these injunctions to be rendered ‘legitimate’? In any event, is there not enough of a gap between my sinful humanity and the Lord’s sinless humanity to make me despair quite apart from his deity? Is not this mode of trying to understand these commandments misconceived?
Ware also believes that evangelicals generally understand Christ’s deity better than his humanity and he wants to redress the balance. He is not presenting a ‘complete’ Christology, he tells us, but longs for Jesus to be ‘honored through reflections upon his humanity’. So, for example, the assertion that Jesus ‘lived his life fundamentally as a man’ appears repeatedly. But what does that mean? That Jesus lived as a man at a deeper level than as God? That his life reflected more humanity than deity?
As one would expect of a theologian of Ware’s calibre there is much that is helpful in the book and it is winsomely written. His chapters cover the incarnation, Christ’s ‘empowerment by the Spirit’, his growth in wisdom (Luke 2:40,52) and faith (Heb 5:7-9), his temptations, death, resurrection, reign and return, and seek to expound the importance of his humanity in each case. There is also a helpful chapter on why Christ had to be a man rather than a woman. Each chapter ends with applications, and questions for discussion.
There are, however, problems. Although Ware makes enough statements to show that he is an orthodox Chalcedonian in his christology, his mode of expressing himself is often puzzling, not to say misleading. This is no doubt because of the agenda he has set himself – to establish that Christ lived fundamentally as a man (and this agenda is further, as his applications often indicate, to make it more feasible for us to claim the resources Christ in his humanity relied upon and to obey his commandments). The main weakness is a repeated tendency to divide the natures and obscure the unity of the person in his attempt to do justice, as he sees it, to Christ’s humanity. For example:
1. He concedes that there ‘are a few times when we will examine some aspects of the deity of Christ simply because these must be seen to understand aspects of his humanity’ (p 13). The assumption seems to be that for the most part we can understand Christ’s humanity without reference to his deity.
2. He says that while the eternal Son obeyed the Father prior to the incarnation, ‘it was only the God-man, the human Jesus, who could obey in this way [i.e obedience to death, in Phil. 2:5-9]’ (p 26). Why not leave it at the ‘God man’, or perhaps ‘God-as-man’? This is one of a number of places where ‘the human Jesus’ is insisted upon almost in contradistinction to the divine nature or the divine person of the Son. Who is the subject of obedience throughout Christ’s life? ‘’In the whole sweep of mediatorial history, from pre-existence through humiliation to exaltation, the person acting and affected is the same. This means that whenever we look at the life of Christ and ask Who did this? Who suffered this? Who said this? the answer is always the same: ‘The Son of God!’ We can never say ‘The divine nature said this!’ or ‘The human nature did this!’ We must say, ‘He did this: he, the Son of God!’ (Macleod, The Person of Christ p189).
3. Ware deals with the anointing of Christ by the Spirit as something virtually exclusively to give Jesus the power to function as a human. He quotes Peter in Acts 10:38, ‘God anointed Jesus of Nazareth…’ Yes, but this verse says that the person of Christ is anointed, not his human nature, and it is not only for the purpose of empowering Jesus, it is a declaration of who the Messiah is. Elsewhere also Ware seems to equate the Messiah with the ‘human’ Jesus e.g ‘…the Christ of the Great Commission is the human Jesus, the Messiah, who has won the right to reign over the nations’ (p139). In arguing, quite rightly, that Christ was really human, Ware seems to overbalance into saying that he was more human, or more fundamentally human, than divine.
4. In dealing with Jesus’ miracles, Ware says in a footnote, ‘Certainly some of Jesus’ miracles may have been done out of the divine nature. Indeed it seems in John’s gospel, in particular, this may well be the case. But here [Matt 12:28, where Jesus says ‘it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons’] Christ states specifically that the miracle performed was done in the power of the Spirit, and so we should accept this for what it says… So it seems reasonable to conclude that the norm for accounting for the miracles that Jesus did is not through an appeal to his divine nature, per se, but rather by an appeal to the power of the Holy Spirit who indwelt him’ (p 37). Yet in Matt 12:28, Jesus says ‘if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons…’ It is the divine person, not the human nature, who performs the miracles. Moreover, if, as Ware rightly says, these miracles are ‘confirmatory’ (p 43), they must ‘confirm’ and indeed reveal, something of his deity (see eg Mark 4:41; John 2:11), so is it not confusing to try to examine them solely in relation to the humanity of Jesus? What could they reveal if they are simply the works of a man empowered by the Spirit? Examining the work of the Spirit in the life of Christ is not new (see e.g. chapter 3, ‘The Spirit of Christ’ in Sinclair Ferguson’s The Holy Spirit) but if it is divorced from his deity it is misleading. Charismatics have argued ‘if Christ was a man empowered by the Spirit, we can do the same miracles he did’. Ware’s argument points in the same direction. ‘The resources given to Christ for his obedience are given to us’ he writes (p 45). Then why not to perform miracles?
5. The temptations of Christ are discussed without mention of their unique nature and role in Jesus’ ministry as God-man and Messiah. There is certainly much help to be gained in my struggle against temptation from Christ’s example, but that is not the heart of what is happening in the wilderness. ‘If you are the Son of God…’ is the issue – Jesus is tempted to use his divine prerogatives to overcome the struggles he must face as God-man, as Geerhardus Vos says, ‘how can Messiahship and submission to the ethical obligations of common human conduct go together?’ (Biblical Theology p 335). The force of this, so important in asserting the union of Christ’s natures and the integrity of his personality, is entirely lost in Ware’s treatment which majors on Christ being unable to sin because he was God, but actually not sinning because as a Spirit-empowered man he resisted to the end. This is helpful so far as it goes but the emphasis on the ‘Spirit empowered man’ obscures the fact that it is the God-man who acts in all of Christ’s life, not one nature or the other. Ware’s application and discussion focus on the resources Christ used being available for me. But even if I consider only his humanity, does it help sinful me to know a sinless Saviour resisted? Did he not have the Spirit ‘without measure’ (John 3:34). Is his empowerment really the same as mine?
6. Ware’s treatment of Christ as the second Adam tends to equate it with Christ’s humanity (‘Although sent by the Father, and although possessing the divine nature, he nonetheless carries out his work in the power of the Spirit and does so as the man, the second Adam, whom God made him to be’ p. 137). But ‘Last Adam, Second Man’, is to do with his Person, not his human nature; it is to proclaim him head of a new humanity, not simply to describe him as coming in human weakness, even sinlessly.
7. In his discussion of Christ’s death, Ware says ‘We can rightly say (a) the human nature of Jesus bore our sin and died on the cross, or (b) Jesus the God-man bore our sin and died on the cross. But we would err were we to say (c) the divine nature of Jesus bore our sin and died on the cross’ (p 125). Option (b) is surely correct but can (a) be right ? Can a nature bear the load of guilt as a penal substitute? Can sin be imputed to a nature? Why divide the natures? It is surely wisdom to say that whatever Christ did in his earthly life, whether raising Lazarus, eating bread at the last supper or dying on the cross, he did as God-man. ‘The more we study the gospels, the less inclined we are to say that our Lord did any particular action by virtue of his being God, or another by virtue of his being man. We do not see him sometimes as God, and at other times as man. What strikes us is the unity of his person. Before long we can only think of him for what he is – the God-Man, who acted in all things as a single person’. (Olyott, Jesus is both Man and God, p130).
Bruce Ware has written a book that is in many ways helpful. He does not avoid however the pitfalls in such an enterprise, of dividing the natures. This is not because he is not orthodox in his views – he makes enough statements to make that clear. But his agenda and his mode of expression (not helped by the fact that he does not make even a passing reference to Chalcedon, which Warfield called ‘a very perfect synthesis of the biblical data’) open the door for error, even if he doesn’t himself step through it. One review I have read charges the book with having a ‘Nestorian flavour’ – separating the natures, suggesting two persons in Christ. I can understand why, even though Ware is not a Nestorian. He disclaims the attempt to write a complete christology; the trouble is he has given us an incomplete christology and a rather imbalanced one.
I am grateful to Martin Wells of Welcome Hall Evangelical Church, Bromsgrove, for sight of his critique of Ware’s book but responsibility for what is written here is entirely mine.
Saturday 21 September 2013
My mother
One reason for the delay in getting back to this blog since returning from Argentina is that the day I was due to fly home, I heard from my wife that my mother had died. She passed away on the morning of 20th August, quietly, in a nursing home on the Welsh border, which had been home to her for three months.
The return home was therefore immediately taken up with funeral arrangements, and then we were off for our family holiday to south west sussex (and very enjoyable and welcome it was too, though rather short).
The Lord enabled me to take the cremation service (family only) which my mother had requested, and then a thanksgiving service at Newtown, Powys, in her home church. She was well known and had lived a very active life, and over 130 people came to the service. It was a privilege to take it and to preach the gospel at it. My sister Catrin and I are thankful for all the kindness and support of people since Mum's death and at the service.
We are thankful for Mum's life. We shall miss her. Her passing will mean changes - not radical ones, but, for example, it loosens our ties with mid Wales where for many years we have gone to visit her, and take the boys to see Nain, whom they loved. We do not want to lose touch with Wales, and I am sure we shall not; we shall not stay in her house any more, but we shall keep in touch with my sister who lives near Shrewsbury.
The return home was therefore immediately taken up with funeral arrangements, and then we were off for our family holiday to south west sussex (and very enjoyable and welcome it was too, though rather short).
The Lord enabled me to take the cremation service (family only) which my mother had requested, and then a thanksgiving service at Newtown, Powys, in her home church. She was well known and had lived a very active life, and over 130 people came to the service. It was a privilege to take it and to preach the gospel at it. My sister Catrin and I are thankful for all the kindness and support of people since Mum's death and at the service.
We are thankful for Mum's life. We shall miss her. Her passing will mean changes - not radical ones, but, for example, it loosens our ties with mid Wales where for many years we have gone to visit her, and take the boys to see Nain, whom they loved. We do not want to lose touch with Wales, and I am sure we shall not; we shall not stay in her house any more, but we shall keep in touch with my sister who lives near Shrewsbury.
That visit to Argentina
It was a great privilege to teach and preach in Argentina in August.
Trevor Routley has been in regular contact with a number of Christians in the north of the country who are discovering Reformed theology and in a journey taking in five cities, arranged by Trevor and local pastors and church leaders, I spoke some 21 times over eleven days. I travelled with Trevor and his wife Lucy and Daniel Rolls, who translated for me.
We began in Buenos Aires, first meeting with a small church on a Friday evening and then taking four sessions at a conference substantially of younger people, on ‘Justification and Sanctification’.
At Rosario, further north, I had been requested to speak twice on Sunday on ‘Perseverance and Preservation’ to a group who have had to leave a large Pentecostal church because of their growing Reformed convictions. They meet in a large disused garage. One couple travel one hundred and twenty miles each way on Sunday.
From there we went north towards Cordoba where I spoke one evening to a group of largely Brethren Christians, on ‘What is an Evangelical?’, and fielded interesting questions. In Cordoba I met Sam Masters, an American pastor and his leadership team, addressing them on ‘What does “Reformed” mean?’ before enjoying a late evening BBQ. Sam has set up the ‘William Carey Institute’ to develop a distance learning programme.
Next stop was Catamarca to speak to the First Reformed Baptist Church in that town with their lively young pastor, Samuel Manfrotto. He is a keen musician and the singing was good. They had asked me to speak on a Reformed vision for mission, which I was delighted to do over two evenings. Samuel told us that the Baptist hierarchy cannot understand how he is attracting people of all classes and ages without singing songs from a screen.
Our last call was to the ‘Jesus is Lord’ church in Tucuman whose pastor Raul Oliva (picture with me below - he is the handsome one) came out of Pentecostalism four years ago, losing three quarters of his congregation but still leaving him with well over a hundred and this has grown since then. The ‘leaders’ (some thirty men) gathered for two sessions on Saturday morning; I also preached twice in the evening and once on Sunday, and then covered ‘What is an Evangelical?’ and ‘What does “Reformed” mean?’ over four session on Monday, including a Q&A. This was a great climax to the trip; Raul is a zealous and gifted brother and he and his congregation are hungry to be taught the Word.
The generosity and gratitude of the people was humbling. The whole trip was exhilarating, though tiring. The work among Reformed believers in Argentina is scattered and small but the Lord has led these and others into a more serious and God-glorifying understanding of Scripture through a variety of means (not least the internet) and we should pray for them and for developing contacts between them.
Wednesday 7 August 2013
The life of Martyn Lloyd-Jones
It has been inspiring to read again a biography of this great Welshman, great in mind and great in heart. What wonderful things the Lord did through him, a man wholly consecrated to his service.
I have been reading Iain Murray's new one volume biography. Some parts I have skimmed quite lightly but mostly I have read it thoroughly. Having experienced more years of ministry myself since I read the original two volumes (The First Forty Years and The Fight of Faith) I wonder all the more at the quality of the man's mind and character. I have also realised as I read it how much of his story is familiar and deep-rooted in my mind - basic principles of ministry I absorbed from reading his works many years ago, which have sunk deep - though hardly as fruitful as they should have been.
One section of the book I read ahead of time was the chapters dealing with the controversies of the fifties and sixties, particularly the issues over evangelical unity leading up to, and following, 1966. These need to be read in conjunction with ML-J's addresses of that time, some of which are printed in Knowing the Times. The subject has arisen again recently because of the booklet by Ruth Palgrave accusing Affinity of departing from the principles of the BEC and indeed from biblical principles of separation. Also helpful is Stephen Clark's reply on behalf of Affinity.
I have not time to deal with this in depth, but - what was ML-J saying? One point that Iain Murray and other apologists for Lloyd-Jones make is that he was determined to protect the gospel and that gospel purity not church unity was the big issue. However - when one reads Lloyd-Jones' actual addresses of that period, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he was really saying a lot about evangelical church unity. He talks repeatedly of the 'melting pot' of the present times, the tremendous opportunity facing the church and evangelicals in particular, as momentous as the Reformation. In 'Consider your ways', an address given in 1963, he made the point strongly about the importance of the church, about not beginning from the church as it was at the time but going back to the New Testament, and how we should recapture this notion of the true church and give ourselves to it 'at all costs'. All this was of course carefully balanced by his real concern for churches and pastors who might really face great difficulties if they came out of the denominations.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he was hoping for some form of organisational evangelical unity but had not formulated any kind of structure for it. It certainly seems that purity of the gospel was not the only thing in his mind, even if it was the ultimate.
Now - implications of all that for issues like secondary separation, the inconsistencies with which the principle of separation was practised (as detailed by Stephen Clark in his paper) and whether this was really inconsistency or indeed the principle being faithfully practised, would take a while to discuss. What is clear is that Affinity is much more open to Anglicans joining, and whatever the BEC approach, one thing that is missing now is the insistence, derived from Lloyd-Jones, that even if people and churches were to stay in the mixed denominations, they should reject and repudiate in principle the errors of their denominations even if for practical reasons it was not possible to leave them. This insistence on repudiation of error in groups one is otherwise tied to seems to have been set aside.
Was it ever very workable? What really did it mean? How do you really differentiate in practice between the man who says ' I repudiate the errors but can't leave the denomination for now even though I want to' and the one who says 'I repudiate the errors but in fact I see no real harm in being part of the denomination and intend to stay in'? The lines can get very blurred.
More questions than answers. But I have greatly enjoyed the biography! Plenty to think about.
I have been reading Iain Murray's new one volume biography. Some parts I have skimmed quite lightly but mostly I have read it thoroughly. Having experienced more years of ministry myself since I read the original two volumes (The First Forty Years and The Fight of Faith) I wonder all the more at the quality of the man's mind and character. I have also realised as I read it how much of his story is familiar and deep-rooted in my mind - basic principles of ministry I absorbed from reading his works many years ago, which have sunk deep - though hardly as fruitful as they should have been.
One section of the book I read ahead of time was the chapters dealing with the controversies of the fifties and sixties, particularly the issues over evangelical unity leading up to, and following, 1966. These need to be read in conjunction with ML-J's addresses of that time, some of which are printed in Knowing the Times. The subject has arisen again recently because of the booklet by Ruth Palgrave accusing Affinity of departing from the principles of the BEC and indeed from biblical principles of separation. Also helpful is Stephen Clark's reply on behalf of Affinity.
I have not time to deal with this in depth, but - what was ML-J saying? One point that Iain Murray and other apologists for Lloyd-Jones make is that he was determined to protect the gospel and that gospel purity not church unity was the big issue. However - when one reads Lloyd-Jones' actual addresses of that period, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he was really saying a lot about evangelical church unity. He talks repeatedly of the 'melting pot' of the present times, the tremendous opportunity facing the church and evangelicals in particular, as momentous as the Reformation. In 'Consider your ways', an address given in 1963, he made the point strongly about the importance of the church, about not beginning from the church as it was at the time but going back to the New Testament, and how we should recapture this notion of the true church and give ourselves to it 'at all costs'. All this was of course carefully balanced by his real concern for churches and pastors who might really face great difficulties if they came out of the denominations.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he was hoping for some form of organisational evangelical unity but had not formulated any kind of structure for it. It certainly seems that purity of the gospel was not the only thing in his mind, even if it was the ultimate.
Now - implications of all that for issues like secondary separation, the inconsistencies with which the principle of separation was practised (as detailed by Stephen Clark in his paper) and whether this was really inconsistency or indeed the principle being faithfully practised, would take a while to discuss. What is clear is that Affinity is much more open to Anglicans joining, and whatever the BEC approach, one thing that is missing now is the insistence, derived from Lloyd-Jones, that even if people and churches were to stay in the mixed denominations, they should reject and repudiate in principle the errors of their denominations even if for practical reasons it was not possible to leave them. This insistence on repudiation of error in groups one is otherwise tied to seems to have been set aside.
Was it ever very workable? What really did it mean? How do you really differentiate in practice between the man who says ' I repudiate the errors but can't leave the denomination for now even though I want to' and the one who says 'I repudiate the errors but in fact I see no real harm in being part of the denomination and intend to stay in'? The lines can get very blurred.
More questions than answers. But I have greatly enjoyed the biography! Plenty to think about.
Monday 5 August 2013
Argentina - just about ready to go
More or less ready for my two week trip to Argentina. I shall be travelling about 900 miles in a west and north-bound sweep from Buenos Aires, taking about 20 sessions in six different venues (Buenos Aires, Rosario, Rio Segundo, Cordoba, Catamarca and Tucuman).
My hosts and chauffeurs will be retired missionaries Trevor and Lucy Routley and this trip has come about because of invitations that Trevor has received from a number of quarters. The churches are a variety of evangelical churches, including one Brethren and one Pentecostal I think, who have become interested in Reformed doctrine in recent years, often via the internet.
I have been given some lovely subjects to speak on and others I was able to choose: What is an evangelical? What does Reformed mean?; justification and sanctification (two sessions on each at a day conference); perseverance and preservation; the missionary vision of the church (two sessions); Christ's authority over worship; and some sermons - which will probably be on Deuteronomy.
Leaving on Wednesday evening. Your prayers would be appreciated if you have time.
My hosts and chauffeurs will be retired missionaries Trevor and Lucy Routley and this trip has come about because of invitations that Trevor has received from a number of quarters. The churches are a variety of evangelical churches, including one Brethren and one Pentecostal I think, who have become interested in Reformed doctrine in recent years, often via the internet.
I have been given some lovely subjects to speak on and others I was able to choose: What is an evangelical? What does Reformed mean?; justification and sanctification (two sessions on each at a day conference); perseverance and preservation; the missionary vision of the church (two sessions); Christ's authority over worship; and some sermons - which will probably be on Deuteronomy.
Leaving on Wednesday evening. Your prayers would be appreciated if you have time.
Saturday 27 July 2013
Going to see Nain
'Nain' (pronounced 'Nine')is the Welsh (or, more precisely, north Welsh) word for grandma. My mother, in this context. Nain is what my two boys, aged 9 and 7, call her.
Nain has not been at all well in recent months and in May moved into a nursing home in mid Wales. She wanted to go there, realising that she needed full time nursing care. It is a lovely home, and as a family we are very happy that she is getting the best care she could have, and we are content that she is safe.
This week the four of us went up to see her. We spent four nights in her bungalow, sorting things out a bit, as she will not be going back to live there. A difficult task, and many families know exactly what it is about. We made four visits during the week to see Nain. She is in bed now, rarely able to get up, and spending much of her time asleep as she has no energy to do much else. We have little spurts of conversation, and then she drops off again. But she is not in pain.
The boys spontaneously went up to her and gave her a kiss. Her eyes lit up. She murmured 'darling' to them. They were quite matter of fact about it. The older boy had come alone with me to see her a few weeks ago. When we were all going up this time, he said to our younger, in a rather grown up sort of voice, 'Thomas, you must realise that Nain is very thin now...'. Preparing his little brother. But little brother did not seem too fazed.
What interested Hilary and me was the reaction of a friend when we said last week what we were going to do. She really did not think it was right to let a child see Nain in that state. I am not sure exactly why. It was as if the children should be allowed to remember her at her best, but that a veil should be drawn over the weakness of old age and approaching death.
Did it make a difference that this lady was not a Christian? As a Christian you have a framework in which to understand pain, weakness and death. It is an enemy, but it is a part of life in a fallen world. A generation that runs away from it has not grown up. As a Christian too one has hope for life after death - that is, if the dying one is a believer. Whether the person is a believer or not, you know that this life is not the end; it is not all there is; mere continuation of this existence is not a value in itself. This life is a preparation for the next.
One should not force such experiences on children; the boys were happy to come. Nor was there anything morbid or gruesome about visiting Nain. Children are exposed to all manner of things that are morally corrupting; they should not be shielded from reality that is not sinful. Would the lady who thinks otherwise want her grandchildren kept from her in her old and perhaps unsightly age? If so - that is sad.
Give children the opportunity to come to terms with reality. And the warmth of spontaneous affection with which the boys gave her a 'sws' on her pursed and lined cheeks and the brightness in her eyes and weak smile on her lips as they did so, was a precious testimony to God-given human affection.
Nain has not been at all well in recent months and in May moved into a nursing home in mid Wales. She wanted to go there, realising that she needed full time nursing care. It is a lovely home, and as a family we are very happy that she is getting the best care she could have, and we are content that she is safe.
This week the four of us went up to see her. We spent four nights in her bungalow, sorting things out a bit, as she will not be going back to live there. A difficult task, and many families know exactly what it is about. We made four visits during the week to see Nain. She is in bed now, rarely able to get up, and spending much of her time asleep as she has no energy to do much else. We have little spurts of conversation, and then she drops off again. But she is not in pain.
The boys spontaneously went up to her and gave her a kiss. Her eyes lit up. She murmured 'darling' to them. They were quite matter of fact about it. The older boy had come alone with me to see her a few weeks ago. When we were all going up this time, he said to our younger, in a rather grown up sort of voice, 'Thomas, you must realise that Nain is very thin now...'. Preparing his little brother. But little brother did not seem too fazed.
What interested Hilary and me was the reaction of a friend when we said last week what we were going to do. She really did not think it was right to let a child see Nain in that state. I am not sure exactly why. It was as if the children should be allowed to remember her at her best, but that a veil should be drawn over the weakness of old age and approaching death.
Did it make a difference that this lady was not a Christian? As a Christian you have a framework in which to understand pain, weakness and death. It is an enemy, but it is a part of life in a fallen world. A generation that runs away from it has not grown up. As a Christian too one has hope for life after death - that is, if the dying one is a believer. Whether the person is a believer or not, you know that this life is not the end; it is not all there is; mere continuation of this existence is not a value in itself. This life is a preparation for the next.
One should not force such experiences on children; the boys were happy to come. Nor was there anything morbid or gruesome about visiting Nain. Children are exposed to all manner of things that are morally corrupting; they should not be shielded from reality that is not sinful. Would the lady who thinks otherwise want her grandchildren kept from her in her old and perhaps unsightly age? If so - that is sad.
Give children the opportunity to come to terms with reality. And the warmth of spontaneous affection with which the boys gave her a 'sws' on her pursed and lined cheeks and the brightness in her eyes and weak smile on her lips as they did so, was a precious testimony to God-given human affection.
Friday 19 July 2013
Reformed - more or less
Words change their meaning. This is inevitable and in itself not a bad thing. 'Peculiar' people in 2013 are not what they may been in some churches in East Anglia in the nineteenth century. 'Painful' preaching today is not the desirable thing a Puritan might have thought it to be in 1650. 'Gay' will never again be the expression of light-heartedness that it was until even fairly recently.
'Evangelical' is a word that we realised many years ago was changing its meaning. It was broadening out and thinning down. It was no longer as useful for carrying the freight of doctrinal reliability and faithfulness to Scripture as it once was.
Is 'Reformed' going the same way? This has been asked here and there for some time now. Do we really know what 'Reformed' means? No label of this sort is going to have an impermeable ring of meaning around it; there will always be grey areas. At some point however, it seems that the defined area has suffered encroachment by so many qualifications that one wonders what is left.
For example (an old chestnut)both paedobaptists and Baptists claim to be Reformed.
Charismatics and cessationists claim to be Reformed.
Anglicans and non-conformists claim to be Reformed.
Those who hold to the regulative principle of worship, and increasingly many who do not, claim to be Reformed.
Five point Calvinists, and many who are four or three point (and the optional points vary) claim to be Reformed.
A variant of the above, those who hold to limited atonement and Amyraldians, both claim to be Reformed.
Those who hold to the abiding validity of the moral law as set out in the Ten Commandments, and increasingly, those who do not, claim to be Reformed.
Those who believe in the Lord's Day as a continuation of the creation ordinance and the fourth commandment, claim to be Reformed, as do increasingly many who do not.
Those who hold the doctrine of the church to require the marks of preaching, the sacraments and discipline claim to be Reformed, but increasingly many whose view of the church seems to be somewhat looser, claim to be Reformed.
Those who are strictly covenantal and believe in the covenant of works claim to be Reformed, but many also claim to be Reformed who do not hold to such a covenant, and are only loosely covenantal at all in theology.
It seems to me therefore that if I want to use the word Reformed to define myself, and to enter fellowship with others with whom I know I will agree on major issues, or establish a church and invite people to join it knowing what it believes, the word Reformed is a lot less useful than it used to be. This may of course in itself not be a bad thing. Words change. Maybe we need to think of something else. But it is not a matter of unconcern if the slippage of the meaning is indicative of an indifference to sound biblical theology, clearly thought through and sacrificially maintained.
What is the irreducible minimum of the word 'Reformed'? Or is that the right question? Is that too centre-bounded?Should we be going all out and setting out our stall? Boundary bounding? Maybe the word is worth recovering.
'Evangelical' is a word that we realised many years ago was changing its meaning. It was broadening out and thinning down. It was no longer as useful for carrying the freight of doctrinal reliability and faithfulness to Scripture as it once was.
Is 'Reformed' going the same way? This has been asked here and there for some time now. Do we really know what 'Reformed' means? No label of this sort is going to have an impermeable ring of meaning around it; there will always be grey areas. At some point however, it seems that the defined area has suffered encroachment by so many qualifications that one wonders what is left.
For example (an old chestnut)both paedobaptists and Baptists claim to be Reformed.
Charismatics and cessationists claim to be Reformed.
Anglicans and non-conformists claim to be Reformed.
Those who hold to the regulative principle of worship, and increasingly many who do not, claim to be Reformed.
Five point Calvinists, and many who are four or three point (and the optional points vary) claim to be Reformed.
A variant of the above, those who hold to limited atonement and Amyraldians, both claim to be Reformed.
Those who hold to the abiding validity of the moral law as set out in the Ten Commandments, and increasingly, those who do not, claim to be Reformed.
Those who believe in the Lord's Day as a continuation of the creation ordinance and the fourth commandment, claim to be Reformed, as do increasingly many who do not.
Those who hold the doctrine of the church to require the marks of preaching, the sacraments and discipline claim to be Reformed, but increasingly many whose view of the church seems to be somewhat looser, claim to be Reformed.
Those who are strictly covenantal and believe in the covenant of works claim to be Reformed, but many also claim to be Reformed who do not hold to such a covenant, and are only loosely covenantal at all in theology.
It seems to me therefore that if I want to use the word Reformed to define myself, and to enter fellowship with others with whom I know I will agree on major issues, or establish a church and invite people to join it knowing what it believes, the word Reformed is a lot less useful than it used to be. This may of course in itself not be a bad thing. Words change. Maybe we need to think of something else. But it is not a matter of unconcern if the slippage of the meaning is indicative of an indifference to sound biblical theology, clearly thought through and sacrificially maintained.
What is the irreducible minimum of the word 'Reformed'? Or is that the right question? Is that too centre-bounded?Should we be going all out and setting out our stall? Boundary bounding? Maybe the word is worth recovering.
Monday 15 July 2013
The Day of Rest
I was preaching last night on the Fourth Commandment from Deuteronomy 5. I pointed out the different but complementary bases for obeying the commandment in Exodus and Deuteronomy - the former pointing us to creation, the latter to redemption. I pointed out the significance of the words in Genesis 2:2,3 - rest, sanctify, holy, blessed. It is so clear that this was a day for man, not just for God. After all, what else are holy days for? And what other blessing does not bless man? And what other blessing (as on the living creatures and man, in 1:20 and 28) might be postponed so as not to take effect immediately ? So there is no case for saying that it was at Sinai that man first came under an obligation to rest on the Sabbath. Look too at Exodus 16 and the pre-Sinai provision of manna - not to be collected on the Sabbath. I also spent a little time on the change from the seventh to the first day -a new creation, and a richer redemption - we look forward now, not backwards. A new era calls for a new day.
I then dealt with the three passages that seem to suggest to some that the Sabbath is one of those days which are not to be regarded as sacred and are not to be followed any more - Rom 14:5-6; Gal 4:9-11, and Col 2:16,17. Many commentators take the view that these passages do not undermine the weekly Sabbath and Greg Beale is helpful in his New Testament Biblical Theology (his whole section on the Sabbath is excellent) but Geerhardus Vos is most succinct - the argument being that there are two aspects to the Sabbath. It is at once a creation ordinance and a moral law; and on the other hand a ceremonial rule and part of a cycle of feasts, new moons and festivals, including Sabbath days, months, and years. We are still to keep the Sabbath as a creation ordinance, whilst remembering that we are delivered from the ceremonial observance which seemed to be troubling the congregations in Rome, Galatia and Colosse.
Those passages do not bear the weight put on them by some when one considers the biblical and theological depth of the Sabbath principle.
And if there was a day of rest at creation, and a day of rest in Canaan, should we not need a day of rest today, in the age of grace, even though Jesus has fulfilled the commandment in its ceremonial aspect? Are we in heaven yet? Do we not still have a way to go? Are those who say we can do without the Lord 's Day as a Sabbath not guilty of what Greg Beale calls 'over-realised eschatology' - thinking we have arrived when we are still not yet there? And would God take such a good thing under the old covenant(see Isaiah 58:13,14; Psalm 92) away from us in the new covenant?
And what a mewling, emaciated thing the non-Sabbatarian's Lord's Day is, when one examines it. For it has says nothing about Creation, nothing about our relation to the moral law which is God's permanent provision for us as human beings in relation to him; and perhaps saddest of all, nothing in expectation of the future consummation. It is just a weak pragmatic thing, a day in a week, perhaps, yes, maybe the day on which the Lord rose, but with nothing to connect us to its past or its future. So it exists by living on the remains of the Sabbath principle, and those who hold to it do much the same things, but of course they feel under no obligation to observe it - and that must give some pleasure, I suppose. It is spawned in the name of liberty but has nothing of delight in the law of the Lord in it.
Give me any day the Puritan Sabbath, the 'market day of the soul'. Not only my body needs the rest (that is probably the least of it from a minister's point of view) but I need the spiritual rest. In an age when the government and society are taking so much from us that is Christian, and trespassing on what is the Lord's, why are so many Christians giving away such a precious gift as the Christian Sabbath day? Is it a misguided antinomian theology? Or ignorance? Or simply careless self-pleasing? Whatever, here is a chance for Christians to be truly counter-cultural, and stake a claim for God over time - and in large measure we are passing it up.
I then dealt with the three passages that seem to suggest to some that the Sabbath is one of those days which are not to be regarded as sacred and are not to be followed any more - Rom 14:5-6; Gal 4:9-11, and Col 2:16,17. Many commentators take the view that these passages do not undermine the weekly Sabbath and Greg Beale is helpful in his New Testament Biblical Theology (his whole section on the Sabbath is excellent) but Geerhardus Vos is most succinct - the argument being that there are two aspects to the Sabbath. It is at once a creation ordinance and a moral law; and on the other hand a ceremonial rule and part of a cycle of feasts, new moons and festivals, including Sabbath days, months, and years. We are still to keep the Sabbath as a creation ordinance, whilst remembering that we are delivered from the ceremonial observance which seemed to be troubling the congregations in Rome, Galatia and Colosse.
Those passages do not bear the weight put on them by some when one considers the biblical and theological depth of the Sabbath principle.
And if there was a day of rest at creation, and a day of rest in Canaan, should we not need a day of rest today, in the age of grace, even though Jesus has fulfilled the commandment in its ceremonial aspect? Are we in heaven yet? Do we not still have a way to go? Are those who say we can do without the Lord 's Day as a Sabbath not guilty of what Greg Beale calls 'over-realised eschatology' - thinking we have arrived when we are still not yet there? And would God take such a good thing under the old covenant(see Isaiah 58:13,14; Psalm 92) away from us in the new covenant?
And what a mewling, emaciated thing the non-Sabbatarian's Lord's Day is, when one examines it. For it has says nothing about Creation, nothing about our relation to the moral law which is God's permanent provision for us as human beings in relation to him; and perhaps saddest of all, nothing in expectation of the future consummation. It is just a weak pragmatic thing, a day in a week, perhaps, yes, maybe the day on which the Lord rose, but with nothing to connect us to its past or its future. So it exists by living on the remains of the Sabbath principle, and those who hold to it do much the same things, but of course they feel under no obligation to observe it - and that must give some pleasure, I suppose. It is spawned in the name of liberty but has nothing of delight in the law of the Lord in it.
Give me any day the Puritan Sabbath, the 'market day of the soul'. Not only my body needs the rest (that is probably the least of it from a minister's point of view) but I need the spiritual rest. In an age when the government and society are taking so much from us that is Christian, and trespassing on what is the Lord's, why are so many Christians giving away such a precious gift as the Christian Sabbath day? Is it a misguided antinomian theology? Or ignorance? Or simply careless self-pleasing? Whatever, here is a chance for Christians to be truly counter-cultural, and stake a claim for God over time - and in large measure we are passing it up.
Thursday 23 May 2013
A visit to Sri Lanka
My visit this time (3rd - 17th May)was spent mostly at Baldaeus Theological College near Trincomalee in the north east of Sri Lanka.
I had been invited by the acting principal, Huthin Manohar (‘Mano’), a former LTS student, and spent the first week teaching systematic theology to about 25 students. They were almost all from the Tamil churches in the north and east. They were attentive, interested, intelligent and appreciative – all that students should be! There were some lively debates but no serious disagreements though one or two came from Arminian backgrounds and struggled with the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints. Surely, they argued from Hebrews 6:4-6, this is the picture of a Christian losing his salvation? I worked hard to persuade them otherwise.
The second week was short – only two days of teaching, but seven sessions in total, with about 30 pastors from Reformed churches in the north-east, as well as from a church in Colombo. They had asked me to teach on Richard Baxter’s classic The Reformed Pastor (written in 1655) so five of the sessions were based on that. They found Baxter as challenging in 21st century Sri Lanka as he was in seventeenth century England. I also did a session on ‘shepherding’ in Scripture – the Lord as our shepherd and what that means for pastors. Also at their request, I gave a paper on worship – what it is, worship in the New Testament, and the ‘regulative’ principle (that we should only do in worship what Scripture authorises). Again there were some lively discussions and I believe the subject was useful for them to think about, even in outline.
We were joined at these seminars by a young couple from Free School Court church in Bridgend who were backpacking around the world.
On the first Sunday I enjoyed the fellowship of Grace Evangelical Church in Colombo. This has three congregations (Tamil, Sinhalese and English). On the first Sunday of the month (as when I was there) they gather for a joint service. I preached and took a Bible study afterwards. On my second Sunday I travelled with Mano to his home church in Mannar, north west Sri Lanka. Again I preached and led a Bible study. These are warm fellowships, both quite large – about 100 people in the services.
I returned from Trincomalee by the night bus from Colombo – trying to sleep in a reclining seat; but I had a lovely day in Colombo to finish off, relaxing in the home of Suresh, the pastor of Grace church. He and his wife spent three years in South Wales where he studied at WEST.
It was a rich time and, I pray, will prove to have been worthwhile. What strikes me increasingly is not the differences between cultures, but the similarity between us as human beings and particularly as Christians. We have the same sins, and the same kinds of spiritual problems although outwardly our circumstances may be very different. We trust the same Word, which speaks the same truth to us all. We love the same Saviour and worship the same God who will one day take us to himself, to be with him and his people from every race and nation for ever.
Thursday 25 April 2013
The Gospel at the Banner
You might think it strange for about 250 ministers, many of them quite senior (that is, old) to hear ten sermons or lectures about the gospel at the annual Leicester Ministers’ conference (otherwise known as the ‘Banner of Truth’ conference). Isn’t the gospel something basic? Should ministers of all people need to be reminded of the gospel?
Well yes – we do, and all Christians need to be reminded all the time of the gospel, so fundamental is its influence on the Christian life.
We heard from Sinclair Ferguson on the power of the gospel (Romans 3:21-26 – those wonderful words justification, propitiation and redemption) and then its logic (the chain of assurances Paul gives in Romans 8:31-38). He also spoke of the gospel’s mystery – from Romans 16:25-27.
Warren Peel, who has taken on the pastorate from his father in law Ted Donnelly in Belfast, spoke excellently on what the gospel means for us – freedom from a guilty conscience and freedom from a performance mindset. He spoke again on the gospel as the comfort and joy of the church – the gospel purifies our motives, cures our distrust, satisfies our desires and humbles our hearts.
Jonathan Watson spoke on the matter of life and death that the gospel is for the world, his text being Paul’s stated determination that his life meant nothing to him if he could not live to preach the gospel (Acts 20:28).
Jeremy Walker, from Crawley, spoke of the way the gospel determines our character and provides us with our calling as preachers.
Many particularly enjoyed Michael Reeves, head of theology for UCCF, who spoke on the missionary heart of God (John 20:19-23) and then gave an excellent talk on Augustine, highlighting his conversion and the way that that demonstrated the gospel.
It was a great few days. The ministry was edifying, the fellowship was refreshing, and it was good to be reminded in so many different ways of how great is the gospel of our glorious God.
Well yes – we do, and all Christians need to be reminded all the time of the gospel, so fundamental is its influence on the Christian life.
We heard from Sinclair Ferguson on the power of the gospel (Romans 3:21-26 – those wonderful words justification, propitiation and redemption) and then its logic (the chain of assurances Paul gives in Romans 8:31-38). He also spoke of the gospel’s mystery – from Romans 16:25-27.
Warren Peel, who has taken on the pastorate from his father in law Ted Donnelly in Belfast, spoke excellently on what the gospel means for us – freedom from a guilty conscience and freedom from a performance mindset. He spoke again on the gospel as the comfort and joy of the church – the gospel purifies our motives, cures our distrust, satisfies our desires and humbles our hearts.
Jonathan Watson spoke on the matter of life and death that the gospel is for the world, his text being Paul’s stated determination that his life meant nothing to him if he could not live to preach the gospel (Acts 20:28).
Jeremy Walker, from Crawley, spoke of the way the gospel determines our character and provides us with our calling as preachers.
Many particularly enjoyed Michael Reeves, head of theology for UCCF, who spoke on the missionary heart of God (John 20:19-23) and then gave an excellent talk on Augustine, highlighting his conversion and the way that that demonstrated the gospel.
It was a great few days. The ministry was edifying, the fellowship was refreshing, and it was good to be reminded in so many different ways of how great is the gospel of our glorious God.
Saturday 13 April 2013
The Casual Christian
This article of mine appeared in 'The Evangelical Magazine' for December 2012 and I think has appeared in one or two other places.
THE CASUAL CHRISTIAN
To be casual today is usually regarded as a good thing; it is cool. To be ‘non-casual’ (stiff? formal? intense?) is not good. You need to chill.
One of the first books I read as a Christian was The Best That I Can Be by J. Oswald Sanders. On the front cover is a photo of Lilian Board, the ‘Jessica Ennis’ of the late 1960s, the ‘golden girl’ of British athletics at that time who died of cancer in 1970 at the age of twenty-two. Eyes closed, head back, she is straining every fibre to win the race.
The book is aimed at helping Christians to persevere and grow in grace. On the back cover the first sentence reads: ‘The casual Christian should read this book with caution’. The book’s title, the photo of the athlete (anything but casual as she strives to win) and the assumption in the introduction that every Christian will ‘yearn to know Christ better and serve Him more worthily’, all convey a message that is a far cry from what is implied in the word ‘casual’. Spiritual life and growth, it is assumed, do not sit happily with ‘casualness’. J.I. Packer once coined the apt title Laid Back Religion for a book on this theme.
Our culture is casual; we are children of our age; it is inevitable that we reflect it to some extent. Is casualness, however, always a good thing? Should not the fact that our culture is casual put us on the alert to casualness within the church? May it, indeed, be simply a form of worldliness?
Definitions
‘Casual’ has a range of meanings. In the New Oxford Dictionary of English (2001) the primary definition of ‘casual’ is ‘relaxed or unconcerned…made or done without much thought or premeditation…done or acting without sufficient care or thoroughness’. One might add, lacking precision or attention to detail. Another meaning is: ‘without formality of style, manner, or procedure, in particular…: of a social event - not characterised by social conventions…relaxed and friendly’. Note the word ‘relaxed’ in both definitions. Now it may well be a good thing to be relaxed and friendly, but not so good to do things without sufficient care or thoroughness.
What does it mean though if church worship is commended as ‘casual’? Probably it means informal, not ‘stiff’ or ‘buttoned-up’. It is perilously easy however for other things to slip in under cover of being ‘casual’.
So when we use ‘casual’ or ‘casualness’ remember the range of meanings. I am suggesting that apart from obvious things like being friendly, which has little to do really with being casual, there is no virtue in a Christian or a church seeking to be ‘casual’. It is the attitude of mind that is important. Things matter; the basic attitude of ‘casualness’ is that things that are considered to be of less importance (at least), do not matter.
Let’s look at what evangelical casualness looks like, some possible causes, and some responses to it.
Casual Christianity
Sunday services:
· the style or manner of leading;
· indifference to traditional order and content of services. I am not necessarily advocating the traditional, merely wondering if enough thought is being given to why we are departing from it and to what will replace it;
· failure to distinguish in importance between elements of the service – for example the reading of the Word, and a welcome to visitors;
· too little acknowledgement that we are meeting in God’s presence and have come to worship him;
· the way we dress (which is not the central issue though an obvious cultural trend).
General trends:
· indifference to protocol;
· dislike of anything ‘formal’.
Intellectual casualness:
· a resistance to precision in doctrine. Sometimes there are good intentions behind this, such as evangelical unity; but is there not the danger of a ‘details don’t matter’ attitude?
Possible Causes
Cultural:
(i) Postmodernism has left a legacy of suspicion about Truth – it does not exist or it cannot be found. Why bother then, to make much effort to seek it or define it? To the extent that this (unconsciously) affects Christians, we will cease to make much effort to be precise in doctrine.
(ii) We like to be ‘inclusive’ and dislike boundaries. As, in the way we dress, we do not distinguish much between a football match and going to church, so (more importantly) we make no distinction in the attitudes of mind we should adopt. We come to be stimulated, to receive rather than to give. We like to be ourselves, and not fit in to someone else’s programme. Yet biblical holiness consists in maintaining boundaries – between Creator and creature (the fundamental one – we bow in his presence), male and female, believer and unbeliever, clean and unclean (Ezek. 44:23). Believers are ‘set apart’ to God; we are to separate ourselves (in the right sense) from the world (2 Cor 6:15 -7:1).
Theological:
(i) One suspects that if anything would lead to casualness in worship, doctrine and conduct, it is a diminished view of God. Is it possible that the concept of a gracious God may have slipped into that of a casual God? But nowhere in the Bible is God casual!
(ii) There is a popular strand of evangelicalism that tells us we are no more worshipping on Sunday than when we play cricket or enjoy a BBQ on the beach. If 24/7 worship is all there is to be said about worship, it makes everything the same. Services can be casual – why not?
(iii) It is becoming increasingly common for Sunday to be regarded as not special. The fourth commandment we are told is not binding on Christians. As this takes hold it is not surprising that we are casual about the Lord’s Day.
(iv) There is a tendency to treat matters of form, order and convention, which may be secondary, as if they were unimportant, which is not at all the same thing. Forms of worship always have a theology behind them. Contempt for form usually betrays ignorance of this theology and of the way our own forms reflect a (usually worse) theology.
Responses to ‘casualness creep’
First, a recovery of the sense of the greatness of God. When Moses meets with God he is told to take off his shoes; he hides his face and is afraid to look at God (Exod 3:6). Pure spiritual beings hide their faces and Isaiah is stripped bare as God reveals himself as the thrice holy (Isaiah 6:1-5). Peter asks Jesus to depart from him, for he, like Isaiah, is exposed to himself as God’s glory is revealed to him (Luke 5:8); John falls down as one dead (Revelation 1:17). To each of these men God is gracious, amazingly so, but the idea of ‘casual’ fits nowhere.
Second, a conviction that Christian worship is the hardest thing a sinful man or woman can attempt. Assuming we are meeting to worship God (and I suspect most Christians really believe that this is why they are in church) let us be clear that spiritual worship is not easy. It is not something that can be attempted without preparation, thought and concentration on God, his Word and spiritual things. If that is compatible with a casual attitude, so be it, but I doubt it. As for the forms of what we do, they may be secondary, but they are not unimportant. Subject to God’s Word, they should be determined by what is appropriate to what we are doing.
Third, a conviction that living and growing as a Christian is a struggle. We read of words like ‘toil’ and ‘struggle’ (Col 1:29; 1Tim 4:10) and ‘make every effort’ (Eph 4:3); of ‘pressing on’ (Phil 3:12-14), ‘pursuing’ and ‘fighting’ (1 Tim. 6:11,12; cf Heb 12:14), ‘running’ and ‘boxing’ and ‘pummeling the body’ (1 Cor 9:26-7). Striving, not casualness, should be the keynote of our lives and of our public worship. Our God is worthy of infinitely more, and certainly no less.
THE CASUAL CHRISTIAN
To be casual today is usually regarded as a good thing; it is cool. To be ‘non-casual’ (stiff? formal? intense?) is not good. You need to chill.
One of the first books I read as a Christian was The Best That I Can Be by J. Oswald Sanders. On the front cover is a photo of Lilian Board, the ‘Jessica Ennis’ of the late 1960s, the ‘golden girl’ of British athletics at that time who died of cancer in 1970 at the age of twenty-two. Eyes closed, head back, she is straining every fibre to win the race.
The book is aimed at helping Christians to persevere and grow in grace. On the back cover the first sentence reads: ‘The casual Christian should read this book with caution’. The book’s title, the photo of the athlete (anything but casual as she strives to win) and the assumption in the introduction that every Christian will ‘yearn to know Christ better and serve Him more worthily’, all convey a message that is a far cry from what is implied in the word ‘casual’. Spiritual life and growth, it is assumed, do not sit happily with ‘casualness’. J.I. Packer once coined the apt title Laid Back Religion for a book on this theme.
Our culture is casual; we are children of our age; it is inevitable that we reflect it to some extent. Is casualness, however, always a good thing? Should not the fact that our culture is casual put us on the alert to casualness within the church? May it, indeed, be simply a form of worldliness?
Definitions
‘Casual’ has a range of meanings. In the New Oxford Dictionary of English (2001) the primary definition of ‘casual’ is ‘relaxed or unconcerned…made or done without much thought or premeditation…done or acting without sufficient care or thoroughness’. One might add, lacking precision or attention to detail. Another meaning is: ‘without formality of style, manner, or procedure, in particular…: of a social event - not characterised by social conventions…relaxed and friendly’. Note the word ‘relaxed’ in both definitions. Now it may well be a good thing to be relaxed and friendly, but not so good to do things without sufficient care or thoroughness.
What does it mean though if church worship is commended as ‘casual’? Probably it means informal, not ‘stiff’ or ‘buttoned-up’. It is perilously easy however for other things to slip in under cover of being ‘casual’.
So when we use ‘casual’ or ‘casualness’ remember the range of meanings. I am suggesting that apart from obvious things like being friendly, which has little to do really with being casual, there is no virtue in a Christian or a church seeking to be ‘casual’. It is the attitude of mind that is important. Things matter; the basic attitude of ‘casualness’ is that things that are considered to be of less importance (at least), do not matter.
Let’s look at what evangelical casualness looks like, some possible causes, and some responses to it.
Casual Christianity
Sunday services:
· the style or manner of leading;
· indifference to traditional order and content of services. I am not necessarily advocating the traditional, merely wondering if enough thought is being given to why we are departing from it and to what will replace it;
· failure to distinguish in importance between elements of the service – for example the reading of the Word, and a welcome to visitors;
· too little acknowledgement that we are meeting in God’s presence and have come to worship him;
· the way we dress (which is not the central issue though an obvious cultural trend).
General trends:
· indifference to protocol;
· dislike of anything ‘formal’.
Intellectual casualness:
· a resistance to precision in doctrine. Sometimes there are good intentions behind this, such as evangelical unity; but is there not the danger of a ‘details don’t matter’ attitude?
Possible Causes
Cultural:
(i) Postmodernism has left a legacy of suspicion about Truth – it does not exist or it cannot be found. Why bother then, to make much effort to seek it or define it? To the extent that this (unconsciously) affects Christians, we will cease to make much effort to be precise in doctrine.
(ii) We like to be ‘inclusive’ and dislike boundaries. As, in the way we dress, we do not distinguish much between a football match and going to church, so (more importantly) we make no distinction in the attitudes of mind we should adopt. We come to be stimulated, to receive rather than to give. We like to be ourselves, and not fit in to someone else’s programme. Yet biblical holiness consists in maintaining boundaries – between Creator and creature (the fundamental one – we bow in his presence), male and female, believer and unbeliever, clean and unclean (Ezek. 44:23). Believers are ‘set apart’ to God; we are to separate ourselves (in the right sense) from the world (2 Cor 6:15 -7:1).
Theological:
(i) One suspects that if anything would lead to casualness in worship, doctrine and conduct, it is a diminished view of God. Is it possible that the concept of a gracious God may have slipped into that of a casual God? But nowhere in the Bible is God casual!
(ii) There is a popular strand of evangelicalism that tells us we are no more worshipping on Sunday than when we play cricket or enjoy a BBQ on the beach. If 24/7 worship is all there is to be said about worship, it makes everything the same. Services can be casual – why not?
(iii) It is becoming increasingly common for Sunday to be regarded as not special. The fourth commandment we are told is not binding on Christians. As this takes hold it is not surprising that we are casual about the Lord’s Day.
(iv) There is a tendency to treat matters of form, order and convention, which may be secondary, as if they were unimportant, which is not at all the same thing. Forms of worship always have a theology behind them. Contempt for form usually betrays ignorance of this theology and of the way our own forms reflect a (usually worse) theology.
Responses to ‘casualness creep’
First, a recovery of the sense of the greatness of God. When Moses meets with God he is told to take off his shoes; he hides his face and is afraid to look at God (Exod 3:6). Pure spiritual beings hide their faces and Isaiah is stripped bare as God reveals himself as the thrice holy (Isaiah 6:1-5). Peter asks Jesus to depart from him, for he, like Isaiah, is exposed to himself as God’s glory is revealed to him (Luke 5:8); John falls down as one dead (Revelation 1:17). To each of these men God is gracious, amazingly so, but the idea of ‘casual’ fits nowhere.
Second, a conviction that Christian worship is the hardest thing a sinful man or woman can attempt. Assuming we are meeting to worship God (and I suspect most Christians really believe that this is why they are in church) let us be clear that spiritual worship is not easy. It is not something that can be attempted without preparation, thought and concentration on God, his Word and spiritual things. If that is compatible with a casual attitude, so be it, but I doubt it. As for the forms of what we do, they may be secondary, but they are not unimportant. Subject to God’s Word, they should be determined by what is appropriate to what we are doing.
Third, a conviction that living and growing as a Christian is a struggle. We read of words like ‘toil’ and ‘struggle’ (Col 1:29; 1Tim 4:10) and ‘make every effort’ (Eph 4:3); of ‘pressing on’ (Phil 3:12-14), ‘pursuing’ and ‘fighting’ (1 Tim. 6:11,12; cf Heb 12:14), ‘running’ and ‘boxing’ and ‘pummeling the body’ (1 Cor 9:26-7). Striving, not casualness, should be the keynote of our lives and of our public worship. Our God is worthy of infinitely more, and certainly no less.
Monday 18 March 2013
Spot the Welshman
This will makes sense only to those who realise that in the final match of the Six Nations Rugby Union championship last Saturday Wales hammered England 30-3.
Saturday 16 March 2013
Roger Williams at the Evangelical Library
If you are interested in the roots of religious and civil liberties and the theological arguments that surrounded them in the seventeenth century, then Roger Williams is essential and very good company.
I shall be endeavouring to give a brief introduction to him on Monday 18th March at the Evangelical Library at 1.00 pm. No charge; it would be good to see you there if you can make it.
Here is a brief extract from what I shall probably say.
'Remember that it was no part of the general Puritan vision to separate from the Church of England. Winthrop and those with him, unlike the separatist Pilgrim Fathers of the Mayflower who had settled further south in Plymouth a decade earlier, strongly desired to remain attached to their nation and church, though a purified church. Indeed on leaving old England, Winthrop had been at pains to assure those he was leaving that he was no separatist. The reasons for leaving England were not merely political or economic, nor even to escape religious persecution and seek freedom. There was a strong positive sense of mission, expressed for example in Winthrop’s famous sermon A Modell of Christian Charity written and preached on the Arbella . This sermon sets out, according to Francis Bremer (The Puritan Experiment p 90) many of the key elements of the Puritan view of society – awareness of community and individual interdependence, awareness of the various callings of men, and a sense of mission. More significantly for our purposes, it sets out the strong sense of New England being a new Israel and the conviction of a commission from God and a covenant with God that the settlers had.
'Roger Williams was to profoundly challenge the Puritan status quo on just these issues: that any nation could be in the same place in relation to God as Israel had been; and that a nation could be in covenant with God. This was the great ideological and theological cleavage that divided Williams from Winthrop and the settlers in Massachusetts. It was a difference greater than eight months (i.e between Winthrop and Williams)in arriving in the new world; a difference greater than 3,000 miles across the Atlantic. It was the difference between the old and modern worlds'.
Leading Worship
What principles should direct our leading of worship?
There are many good books dealing with this (and I still like Robert Rayburn's 'Come let us worship', Baker 1980, as well as any). Here are some basic guidelines I put down recently as a discussion starter for some men in my congregation who sometimes lead worship, either in our church or elsewhere.
Some key principles
What is worship?
Rendering to God the glory, honour and submission that are his due. Pss 29:2; 95:6,7.
How is it to be done?
With reverence and awe – Heb 12:28. We come to God as he has revealed himself in the person and work of Christ. We worship in the power of the Holy Spirit and in faith: ‘For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father’ (Eph 2:18). Worship is above all a spiritual activity.
What directs our worship?
The Bible. Apart from incidentals and the ‘circumstances’ of worship (eg whether we use chairs of pews, the times of our services) we should only do what Scripture commands. This is called the Regulative principle and has been basic to Reformed worship since the 16th C. It is an expression of the seriousness with which Reformed Christians take (i) worship, (ii) the sufficiency of Scripture, (iii) human ignorance of what pleases God unless he tells us and (iv) the need to ensure that so far as possible we do not offend the consciences of worshippers by imposing on them something which cannot be justified by God’s authority.
This is different from Anglican or Lutheran churches whose tradition has been that whatever is not forbidden is allowed.
In practice this has meant that Reformed worship is characterised by simplicity and reverence, using as little outward adornment or sensory stimulus as possible, in an attempt to do some justice to the spirituality, character and greatness of the God whom we approach, who seeks to be known by his Word, and to worship, as Jesus teaches, in spirit /Spirit and in truth.
Such worship will usually consist of (i) Scripture reading and preaching; (ii) prayer; (iii) the singing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs; (iv) the sacraments; (v) in some churches, the offering. The Word is central. The Bible should be read, preached, prayed, sung and (in the sacraments) seen.
How we worship God is hugely important. In his tract On the Necessity of Reforming the Church John Calvin in 1543 stated that the two defining elements of Christianity were ‘a knowledge, first, of the right way to worship God; and secondly of the source from which salvation is to be sought.’ How we worship God will tell people a great deal about who he is and what we think of him.
The Lord has promised to be where two or three of his people meet in his name (Matt 18:15-20). If the Lord is graciously present, then that is the most important thing about our meetings. No-one should be willing to be easily absent from such a gathering. As we lead in worship it is our task to lead people into the awareness and experience of this presence of God and to enable them to offer to God what is his due – true worship.
Getting practical
What are you aiming at in leading a service of worship?
How do you dress?
How do you order the service?
The ‘dialogue’ principle – God addresses us, we respond.
How do you begin?
How do you choose the readings?
What should the content of the times of prayer be?
Adoration
Thanksgiving
Confession
Assurance of forgiveness
Intercession
Petition
How do you choose hymns? What factors influence you?
How do you choose each hymn for different parts of the service?
How much talking should you do?
What principles guide you in preparing a children’s talk?
What about getting others to take part in the service?
How will you close the service?
There are many good books dealing with this (and I still like Robert Rayburn's 'Come let us worship', Baker 1980, as well as any). Here are some basic guidelines I put down recently as a discussion starter for some men in my congregation who sometimes lead worship, either in our church or elsewhere.
Some key principles
What is worship?
Rendering to God the glory, honour and submission that are his due. Pss 29:2; 95:6,7.
How is it to be done?
With reverence and awe – Heb 12:28. We come to God as he has revealed himself in the person and work of Christ. We worship in the power of the Holy Spirit and in faith: ‘For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father’ (Eph 2:18). Worship is above all a spiritual activity.
What directs our worship?
The Bible. Apart from incidentals and the ‘circumstances’ of worship (eg whether we use chairs of pews, the times of our services) we should only do what Scripture commands. This is called the Regulative principle and has been basic to Reformed worship since the 16th C. It is an expression of the seriousness with which Reformed Christians take (i) worship, (ii) the sufficiency of Scripture, (iii) human ignorance of what pleases God unless he tells us and (iv) the need to ensure that so far as possible we do not offend the consciences of worshippers by imposing on them something which cannot be justified by God’s authority.
This is different from Anglican or Lutheran churches whose tradition has been that whatever is not forbidden is allowed.
In practice this has meant that Reformed worship is characterised by simplicity and reverence, using as little outward adornment or sensory stimulus as possible, in an attempt to do some justice to the spirituality, character and greatness of the God whom we approach, who seeks to be known by his Word, and to worship, as Jesus teaches, in spirit /Spirit and in truth.
Such worship will usually consist of (i) Scripture reading and preaching; (ii) prayer; (iii) the singing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs; (iv) the sacraments; (v) in some churches, the offering. The Word is central. The Bible should be read, preached, prayed, sung and (in the sacraments) seen.
How we worship God is hugely important. In his tract On the Necessity of Reforming the Church John Calvin in 1543 stated that the two defining elements of Christianity were ‘a knowledge, first, of the right way to worship God; and secondly of the source from which salvation is to be sought.’ How we worship God will tell people a great deal about who he is and what we think of him.
The Lord has promised to be where two or three of his people meet in his name (Matt 18:15-20). If the Lord is graciously present, then that is the most important thing about our meetings. No-one should be willing to be easily absent from such a gathering. As we lead in worship it is our task to lead people into the awareness and experience of this presence of God and to enable them to offer to God what is his due – true worship.
Getting practical
What are you aiming at in leading a service of worship?
How do you dress?
How do you order the service?
The ‘dialogue’ principle – God addresses us, we respond.
How do you begin?
How do you choose the readings?
What should the content of the times of prayer be?
Adoration
Thanksgiving
Confession
Assurance of forgiveness
Intercession
Petition
How do you choose hymns? What factors influence you?
How do you choose each hymn for different parts of the service?
How much talking should you do?
What principles guide you in preparing a children’s talk?
What about getting others to take part in the service?
How will you close the service?
Sunday 10 March 2013
Lloyd-Jones and Roman Catholicism
The media's attitude to Roman Catholicism is bizarre. One minute there is a 'feeding frenzy' as some cardinal admits to 'inappropriate advances' to young priests (they can't condemn anything homosexual now, of course - it has to be the manner in which the 'advances' were made). The next moment, it is fawning over the Vatican as if it were a favourite maiden aunt. When Alan Little, the 'special correspondent' of the British Broadcasting Corporation pronounces with a straight face that the papacy is in direct line to the apostle Peter, one wonders where the journalistic objectivity of that once august said Corporation has gone.
It was therefore refreshing recently to come across some robust common sense on Roman Catholicism. Having been stimulated by a discussion at the Westminster Fellowship last week I discovered at home a photocopy of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' sermon on Roman Catholicism, preached on Sunday morning, 29th January 1961, and published in the Westminster Record in May 1963. It was part of his series on Ephesians 6:10-13, on the subject 'the wiles of the devil', specifically heresies. For some reason it does not appear in the Banner of Truth Ephesians series, which is a shame.
In his typical methodical fashion, Dr Lloyd-Jones makes the following points:
1. He is alarmed by the rapprochement that some Protestants seem to be envisaging with Roman Catholicism.
2. He does not believe a 'Protestant Society' of any sort is the answer, but rather a straightforward preaching of Christian Truth and the great Reformed doctrines.
3.The increase in RCism is due to a 'weak and flabby Protestantism that does not know what it believes'.
4. He is not talking about individuals - you can be a Christian and RC - but in spite of the system, not because of it.
5. RCism is 'the devil's greatest masterpiece'.
6. Certainly RCism believes in many important Scriptural truths, but adds with a 'damnable plus' things which are utterly unscriptural.
7. She has many guises, depending on the country she is in.
8. Passages relating to the man of lawlessness (2 Thess 2) , the beast from the earth in Revelation 13 and the 'great whore' of Revelation 17, apply to RCism.
9. Three main headings describe how she has brought unrighteous deception into the church:
(i) she has introduced idolatry and superstition (relics etc).
(ii) her whole system comes between the believer and the Lord Jesus Christ. (a)No salvation outside this church. She claims our totalitarian allegiance. (b) The Pope is a manifestation of the man of lawlessness - he speaks as God (2 Thess 2). (c) Also the priests are a class apart - no salvation without them. (d) The Virgin Mary is more important than Jesus Christ in many representations of Catholic teaching and art. (e)The saints and their 'merit' imply that the merit of Jesus in insufficient.
(iii) she not only robs Christ of his glory but robs his salvation of its sufficiency. They add human works to justification. The rites are essential. No assurance of salvation. Purgatory.
10. RCism has not changed - she boasts of not changing.[This may need to be augmented after Vatican II but not retracted - Rome has changed in ways which embrace what we might call postmodernism, enabling her to be even more chameleon-like in adapting to changing times. The fundamental doctrines remain the same].
He concludes: 'May God give us enlightenment and understanding of the times in which we are living, and awaken us ere it be too late'.
It was therefore refreshing recently to come across some robust common sense on Roman Catholicism. Having been stimulated by a discussion at the Westminster Fellowship last week I discovered at home a photocopy of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' sermon on Roman Catholicism, preached on Sunday morning, 29th January 1961, and published in the Westminster Record in May 1963. It was part of his series on Ephesians 6:10-13, on the subject 'the wiles of the devil', specifically heresies. For some reason it does not appear in the Banner of Truth Ephesians series, which is a shame.
In his typical methodical fashion, Dr Lloyd-Jones makes the following points:
1. He is alarmed by the rapprochement that some Protestants seem to be envisaging with Roman Catholicism.
2. He does not believe a 'Protestant Society' of any sort is the answer, but rather a straightforward preaching of Christian Truth and the great Reformed doctrines.
3.The increase in RCism is due to a 'weak and flabby Protestantism that does not know what it believes'.
4. He is not talking about individuals - you can be a Christian and RC - but in spite of the system, not because of it.
5. RCism is 'the devil's greatest masterpiece'.
6. Certainly RCism believes in many important Scriptural truths, but adds with a 'damnable plus' things which are utterly unscriptural.
7. She has many guises, depending on the country she is in.
8. Passages relating to the man of lawlessness (2 Thess 2) , the beast from the earth in Revelation 13 and the 'great whore' of Revelation 17, apply to RCism.
9. Three main headings describe how she has brought unrighteous deception into the church:
(i) she has introduced idolatry and superstition (relics etc).
(ii) her whole system comes between the believer and the Lord Jesus Christ. (a)No salvation outside this church. She claims our totalitarian allegiance. (b) The Pope is a manifestation of the man of lawlessness - he speaks as God (2 Thess 2). (c) Also the priests are a class apart - no salvation without them. (d) The Virgin Mary is more important than Jesus Christ in many representations of Catholic teaching and art. (e)The saints and their 'merit' imply that the merit of Jesus in insufficient.
(iii) she not only robs Christ of his glory but robs his salvation of its sufficiency. They add human works to justification. The rites are essential. No assurance of salvation. Purgatory.
10. RCism has not changed - she boasts of not changing.[This may need to be augmented after Vatican II but not retracted - Rome has changed in ways which embrace what we might call postmodernism, enabling her to be even more chameleon-like in adapting to changing times. The fundamental doctrines remain the same].
He concludes: 'May God give us enlightenment and understanding of the times in which we are living, and awaken us ere it be too late'.
Friday 15 February 2013
Conscience
I recently read Christopher Ash's 'Pure Joy - Rediscover Your Conscience'. It is very helpful and inspired me to read Ole Hallesby's little book, entitled simply 'Conscience'. I have had it on my shelf for years but have not read it before, as far as I remember.
Hallesby is not exactly a Puritan but comes out in the end with a remarkably orthodox doctrine of conscience and its place in conversion and the Christian life. It is a stimulating book full of thought-provoking insights.
In one place he defines conscience as 'the consciousness of self in relation to God - the vital link between man's self-consciousness and his God-consciousness'. Conscience, he says, pronounces judgement according to the knowledge of God's will which a person possesses at the time. It is a universal faculty and exercises the same function (judgement as to moral acts, thoughts words and omissions - this is the 'form' of conscience) in an unbeliever as in a believer. It is deficient however in its content (though the 'form'/ 'function' of conscience is the same) insofar as a person's knowledge of the law of God is deficient. This is the great damage done to conscience by the Fall - its relatively bad, though still existent, knowledge of God's law; though in 'form' it is deficient too in that the voice of conscience is weak as to clarity and its 'volume' is less. But basically it is still the voice of God in man - not infallible , like God's law, but God's fallen vice-regent in fallen man, still to be heeded because it is the closest to God's true voice in us, and we ignore it at our peril.
Hallesby insists that the conscience must be awakened by regeneration to be of use to us in salvation. Once awakened it is the faculty through which the law 'kills' the sinner (Rom 7:9,10' Galatians 2:19). Hallesby is challenging in his criticism of evangelical preachers who do not press home the law hard enough - they go a little way, but too quickly let the sinner off the hook, because they are too afraid of this 'killing' and want the sinner to go straight to grace.
Hallesby says that typically a sinner once convicted will move (i) from trusting his own deeds to get him right with God (to make God love him), then, once seeing the futility of this, to (ii) trusting to what Christ does in him, then finally when all fails (conscience being the operative organ in making him distrust himself, as his knowledge of God's law increases) (iii) he will see that it is only what Christ has done for him, outside of him, that gives him assurance of salvation.
The believer, far from no longer needing conscience, finds his conscience more and more active, which is why maturer believers find more of sin in themselves, as the regenerate heart is increasingly aware of God's law. The cry of Joseph 'How can I ...sin against God' is the spiritually minded person's attitude to sin - hating it not because of what it does to me, but because of what it is in God's sight. The person growing in grace comes to love conscience, and love God's law, as his love for God grows. The believer will love to hear preaching on the law as well as the gospel (O! how some people need to hear that today!). We obey the law because he loves us, not so that he may love us.
There are two equal and opposite dangers: (i) to fall into thinking that it is our keeping of the law that keeps God loving us and (ii) to lessen the demands of the law so we can do it, so that the tension between the law's demand and the law's impossibility is relaxed and the whole dynamic of grace is lost.
Spend time in prayer, counsels Hallesby, for in prayer we allow conscience time to speak to us. A sensitive conscience is the key to spiritual health, and this is not in a sacred sphere as opposed to a secular, because a sensitive conscience makes us live all of life 'coram Deo' (before God).
Hallesby is not exactly a Puritan but comes out in the end with a remarkably orthodox doctrine of conscience and its place in conversion and the Christian life. It is a stimulating book full of thought-provoking insights.
In one place he defines conscience as 'the consciousness of self in relation to God - the vital link between man's self-consciousness and his God-consciousness'. Conscience, he says, pronounces judgement according to the knowledge of God's will which a person possesses at the time. It is a universal faculty and exercises the same function (judgement as to moral acts, thoughts words and omissions - this is the 'form' of conscience) in an unbeliever as in a believer. It is deficient however in its content (though the 'form'/ 'function' of conscience is the same) insofar as a person's knowledge of the law of God is deficient. This is the great damage done to conscience by the Fall - its relatively bad, though still existent, knowledge of God's law; though in 'form' it is deficient too in that the voice of conscience is weak as to clarity and its 'volume' is less. But basically it is still the voice of God in man - not infallible , like God's law, but God's fallen vice-regent in fallen man, still to be heeded because it is the closest to God's true voice in us, and we ignore it at our peril.
Hallesby insists that the conscience must be awakened by regeneration to be of use to us in salvation. Once awakened it is the faculty through which the law 'kills' the sinner (Rom 7:9,10' Galatians 2:19). Hallesby is challenging in his criticism of evangelical preachers who do not press home the law hard enough - they go a little way, but too quickly let the sinner off the hook, because they are too afraid of this 'killing' and want the sinner to go straight to grace.
Hallesby says that typically a sinner once convicted will move (i) from trusting his own deeds to get him right with God (to make God love him), then, once seeing the futility of this, to (ii) trusting to what Christ does in him, then finally when all fails (conscience being the operative organ in making him distrust himself, as his knowledge of God's law increases) (iii) he will see that it is only what Christ has done for him, outside of him, that gives him assurance of salvation.
The believer, far from no longer needing conscience, finds his conscience more and more active, which is why maturer believers find more of sin in themselves, as the regenerate heart is increasingly aware of God's law. The cry of Joseph 'How can I ...sin against God' is the spiritually minded person's attitude to sin - hating it not because of what it does to me, but because of what it is in God's sight. The person growing in grace comes to love conscience, and love God's law, as his love for God grows. The believer will love to hear preaching on the law as well as the gospel (O! how some people need to hear that today!). We obey the law because he loves us, not so that he may love us.
There are two equal and opposite dangers: (i) to fall into thinking that it is our keeping of the law that keeps God loving us and (ii) to lessen the demands of the law so we can do it, so that the tension between the law's demand and the law's impossibility is relaxed and the whole dynamic of grace is lost.
Spend time in prayer, counsels Hallesby, for in prayer we allow conscience time to speak to us. A sensitive conscience is the key to spiritual health, and this is not in a sacred sphere as opposed to a secular, because a sensitive conscience makes us live all of life 'coram Deo' (before God).
Tuesday 12 February 2013
Generational Differences in church - A Response to Affinity's 'Table Talk' Feb 2013
(David Green's 'Table Talk' paper can be read at http://www.affinity.org.uk/downloads/Table%20Talk/Table-Talk-2013.1-Generational-Differences-in-Church.pdf; I have sent David an earlier draft of this response for his comments and I have also sent this to Affinity to consider putting up on their website).
Having read David Green’s helpful and thought provoking ‘Affinity’ paper I initially filed it away. Then I thought a bit more about it and realised I wanted to ask it a few questions and clarify a few issues. After all some of the matters dealt with are not unimportant; how we worship God, for example.
I know David’s paper was not just about music, but music does feature largely in his application, it is where ‘the rubber hits the road’ for many churches in cultural issues, and it was also highlighted on the Affinity website’s publicity for the paper. So this response is focusing on this issue while acknowledging that the paper is wider in scope.
I then realised I am probably the worst person to be raising such issues. For example, I am in the latter half of my fifties. I am of a conservative mindset; despite being of Welsh blood, even good friends tell me I am very ‘English’ in temperament and disposition. I love classical music, tend to be traditional in my preferences, not to say nostalgic for old-fashioned values, and I prefer my worship to be quiet-ish, reverent in a conventional way and fairly cerebral, though like most people I enjoy preaching that has life, passion and practical application.
So I am probably irredeemably biased in looking at contemporary culture but I must press on. I have been in leadership of one sort or another in Baptist or evangelical churches for some 30 years. For at least 15 of those I was involved too often in struggles with varieties of charismatics who were trying to push through their agenda. A central plank of the charismatic agenda, as anyone in ministry in the 1980s and 1990s will know, was music. If they could capture the musical side of the worship of the church, they could capture the lot, and the young people too. These battles were often very bruising, and many people were hurt and churches damaged.
Now I understand that David is not saying that those battles were a waste of time. I mention them because they show that the ‘music in worship’ issue in churches is rarely as straightforward as discussing cultural preferences that are morally and spiritually neutral. It would have been quite unrealistic for example to say ‘OK, music is just a cultural matter, not a matter of biblical principle, so take the floor. We’ll do our Reformed theology and preaching, you sing and play what you like, and as much as you like – it is, after all, only a matter of culture’.
Behind the music there was theology, and theology usually of a damaging kind. Behind the arguments (so beguiling: ‘there’s nothing in the Bible about what musical instruments you can use – in fact the Old Testament has loads of musical instruments – we can use harps and lyres and timbrels – so why not a couple of electric guitars and a drum kit?’) there was a takeover bid, nothing less.
Am I exaggerating? No, I think not. What happened in many churches?
· Styles of worship changed – repetitive singing, short songs, usually superficial; a different theology.
· Musicians attained a position of quite unbiblical importance in the church, as did the technicians who amplified them.
· Singing came to be seen as the whole, or at least the most important part of worship.
· Musical performance was elevated over preaching as the centre of worship.
· The worship leader – usually not the minister or an elder, of course –attained undue prominence in the church’s life.
· Worship came perilously close to performance.
· The congregation became followers of the music group; singing lost its fully congregational quality.
· Worship became choreographed, focused on what was external, and emotional, rather than spiritual and rational.
I am not, please note, saying that all those who like modern music in worship have a ‘charismatic agenda’ or that there is always an ulterior motive in the desire to modernise worship styles and music. Nor am I saying that old is good, new is bad; or that there is only one style of worship or only one instrument that can safely be used.
My general point is: music does not come alone.
I take issue therefore with David who appears to be saying that musical preference in church is a matter of culture and not of biblical principle. If this is so, music is placed into a sealed container which cannot be influenced or challenged by the Bible.
The interesting thing is that David does appear to think that the Bible can speak to cultural issues, for in urging Christians to be counter-cultural, he writes, ‘The onus is on church leaders to ensure that the culture of the church is biblically determined without being quirky or anachronistic.’ He also says that in areas where Scripture is silent we should ‘develop culturally appropriate and relevant practices, whilst recognising that these are only how we seek to apply more fundamental principles such as worship in spirit and truth (John 4:23), the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet 2:4-10) and everything being done in an orderly and edifying way (1 Cor 14:26,20)’.
But what does he mean when he says that ‘From a biblical standpoint, no musical style or idiom is better or more appropriate for worship.’ He is nearer the mark in saying as he does in the next sentence, ‘At the same time, styles of music have cultural associations which are not neutral.’ Exactly. I am not quite sure what he means, however, when he goes on to say ‘We need to take account of the image we project by our choice of music in church’. Is ‘the image we project’ the only ‘cultural association’ that matters? What about the quality and theology of our worship? What about how music affects our offering to God? What about what music (if any) will best assist our worshipping in spirit and in truth?
Now of course all culture and all music must come under this scrutiny. But I am far from being ready to admit that the ethos of modern music is not different from what is regarded as ‘old-fashioned’. Apart from the matters mentioned above, which one could argue are tied to the charismatic theology issue (but that is a pretty big issue and has rather been absorbed into evangelicalism) one may think of the following:
· The sheer quantity of music in our culture, which is to some extent replicated in our churches. Never has a society or a generation been so swamped by music.
· The effect of music. In The Gagging of God (p 509) Don Carson quotes an author who says this: ‘…if the image has replaced the word, music has replaced the book. Young people watch and listen more than they read …music appeals primarily to the emotions and …carries words past the critical faculty into the affections where they may do either good or harm. Music and image then, the two most potent influences on young people today, conspire to bypass the reasoning powers of the mind and to encourage thinking by association rather than by analysis’. Now - that applies to all music, classical or rock or whatever, but when one considers the nature of contemporary music and its sheer omnipresence, the implications for worship where those features are replicated must be obvious.
So can it really be said, as David does, that ‘First, our musical preferences do not derive from biblical principles, but are culturally conditioned?’ If, as he has said, we are to apply biblical principles in church life, why should these not influence our musical preferences in worship? David almost seems to have second thoughts about his own assertion when he says immediately afterwards, ‘What we like or dislike is to some extent culturally conditioned?’ Well, yes, obviously. But which is it? Musical preferences ‘culturally determined’ or ‘to some extent culturally conditioned’? If the former, the Bible, it appears, can have nothing to say to the subject of worship music; if the latter, I assume it may have something to say.
There are some other important relevant factors:
· There is the importance of the Word in worship. All that can be done needs to be done to elevate the Word of God read and preached. An important question in our choice of hymns and accompaniment, is ‘ what will best prepare us for, and help us to respond to, the Word of God?’ I do not believe that all music is the same in this; I believe biblical principles apply here, even if indirectly.
· If our choice of church music is culturally conditioned, is it asked ‘what conditions the culture?’ David is a better historian than I, but there is surely a case for saying that the culture out of which what we call ‘traditional’ church music arose was itself deeply imbued with Christian values. This of course does not make it ‘Christian’ or ‘spiritual ‘ music in any special sense, but it means that we would expect to see some congruence between the music and what we are trying to do in Christian worship. It is doubtful if that could be said of music produced by the culture of the last 40+ years.
· How neutral are cultures anyway? Earlier in his article David lists a number of cultural emphases prior to, and after, the 1960s. Just to take a few of his comparisons and contrasts, pre -1960 we would have had stability, deference , reserve, seriousness, personal morality and church-going. Now of course these can all be qualities of the Pharisee. The other column, post 1960, includes change, questioning authority, emotional expression, humour, social morality and personal belief systems. David comments ‘Neither side of the table is inherently more biblical or religious…the cultural shift as I have defined it is morally neutral…this means that both generational perspectives have something to contribute to the life of the church and ought to complement one another’. One can see the point, and it is a helpful corrective to unreflective bias in either direction. But – is he not smuggling in here the idea of cultural relativism? If Christianity were to take hold of a society for a period – which column would you expect to see exemplified? Of course the first column can fossilise and become hypocritical and stale, but I detect a bit of generational snobbery here, or at least special pleading – the pre1960 list looks awfully like what is ‘old fashioned’, our parents’ generation, and the post 1960 looks like us, and in the end it is all relative. No; in Christian society there is a place for humour but seriousness is more important; deference can be made fun of but it is more Christian than questioning authority; and change is inevitable and good when needed but stability is more fundamental. It’s a question of degree.
· Also – are the two pictures even fairly drawn? Has personal morality given way to social morality, or to immorality? Has church-going been replaced by ‘personal belief systems’, or by post-modern rejection of all absolutes and meta-narratives? I question the fairness of David’s comparisons here. His choices are loaded in favour of ‘it’s all relative’.
Above all, what does the Bible say about culture anyway? It talks about the ’world’ which has a range of meanings but we must take seriously that we read that the world ‘lies in the power of the evil one’ (1 John 5:19). This does not mean that everything is evil of course (see e.g. 1 Tim 4:4,5) but it at least means we should be careful in our dealing with it and in what we take from it. The New Testament is more likely to instruct us to separate ourselves from the world rather than to embrace it; should this not make us think about what music we use (and that of course need not result in a wholesale endorsement of old over new)?
In the end – of course culture has a part to play in our choice of music in worship. I am far from convinced however that that choice is merely cultural which is what David seems to be suggesting, or that culture is as neutral as David seems to be saying it is; or that our choices in music in worship are as much a matter of indifference as he seems to suggest. His paper appears to be saying that because music is a ‘cultural’ phenomenon, the Bible cannot speak to the issue of music in worship, and that is an alarming assertion. The Bible stands over both church and culture.
Thursday 24 January 2013
The slightly worrying Tim Keller
A few years ago I read 'The Reason for God'. In fact it was the subject of our Theology Study Group at the John Owen Centre on one occasion. A while later I read 'The Prodigal God' and was deeply challenged by Keller's exposition of the attitude of the elder son.
Recently I read 'King's Cross'. Again it is challenging, enjoyable, instructive in the way Keller explores and penetrates the mind of the unbeliever.
Yet some things leave me uneasy. It began with 'The Reason for God'. His doctrine of the atonement seemed very much to be God's provision for victims of sin to be saved. What, one may say, is wrong with that? The problem is, it is only half the truth. Men and women are not only victims of sin (and Keller explores expertly the workings of sin in the human psyche); they are perpetrators of sin. They are guilty and guilt is not a disease or an affliction. Guilt is what accrues to one who has rebelled against the Most High God and has incurred his wrath.
This is not a note one finds prominent in Keller.
'King's Cross' is a series of sermons on Mark's gospel. Once again, the apologetics is good; Keller is after all a devotee of C.S. Lewis whom he describes as his favourite writer. But
(1) Sin is defined repeatedly in terms of what it does to me - shame, suffering, bondage. It is not pointed out that what is more important is what sin means to God. Now Keller may say this does not mean much to a modern New Yorker. Maybe not, but is that not precisely the preacher's task? To make the gospel in all its unpalatableness, clear to us, not necessarily acceptable.
(2) In discussing our idolatries - what we think are our deepest wishes - Keller says, 'And we will discover that in the process of dealing with what we thought were our deepest wishes, Jesus has revealed an even deeper, truer one beneath - and it is for Jesus himself. He will not just have granted that true deepest wish, he will have fulfilled it'. Now can that be true? How can Jesus be the deepest truest wish of an unregenerate heart? Is this not creeping close to the 'Tash' idea of Lewis - that deep down we are actually worshipping God whatever we call him? He quotes Lewis in another place to the same effect: 'The door on which we have been knocking all our lives will open at last...then our lifelong nostalgia, our longing to be reunited with something in the universe from which we now feel cut off... is no mere neurotic fancy but the truest index of our real situation...'
(3) In describing the cross he says that 'All life-changing love is substitionary sacrifice'. He cites the sacrificial love of a parent or lover. Yes - but that is not substitutionary in the sense that Christ's was. It is vague language which is seeking to make the profound and ineffable love of Christ somehow comprehensible to modern people.
(4) There is a clear description of penal substitution (p 101-02) and of the wrath of God (p 176f) but he says things like the 'sin, guilt and brokenness of the world fell on Christ'. What exactly is the brokenness of the world? He talks of 'wrath, the abyss, the chasm , the nothingness of life.' What does this mean? And is it not diluting the wrath of God to include it in the same sentence as 'nothingness'? Even when he talks of the wrath of God, he seems somehow to blunt its awfulness. He talks about the eternal destiny of the unbeliever as 'separation' from God, not hell as an experience, or a destiny, inflicted by God.
All in all, Keller seems so keen to make the gospel comprehensible to the modern mind that he slips into making it acceptable. Apologetics has become accommodation. Sin is what hurts us, and salvation too often comes across as what makes us truly ourselves, makes us happy, fulfils us; God is there for us, not we for him. It all comes across as human-centred rather than God-centred. The elements of the truth are there, but not in the right proportions and the hard edges of the gospel are disappointingly smoothed over.
But maybe I need to read a bit more of Keller - I have 'Generous Justice' and 'Center Church' to dive into some time...
Recently I read 'King's Cross'. Again it is challenging, enjoyable, instructive in the way Keller explores and penetrates the mind of the unbeliever.
Yet some things leave me uneasy. It began with 'The Reason for God'. His doctrine of the atonement seemed very much to be God's provision for victims of sin to be saved. What, one may say, is wrong with that? The problem is, it is only half the truth. Men and women are not only victims of sin (and Keller explores expertly the workings of sin in the human psyche); they are perpetrators of sin. They are guilty and guilt is not a disease or an affliction. Guilt is what accrues to one who has rebelled against the Most High God and has incurred his wrath.
This is not a note one finds prominent in Keller.
'King's Cross' is a series of sermons on Mark's gospel. Once again, the apologetics is good; Keller is after all a devotee of C.S. Lewis whom he describes as his favourite writer. But
(1) Sin is defined repeatedly in terms of what it does to me - shame, suffering, bondage. It is not pointed out that what is more important is what sin means to God. Now Keller may say this does not mean much to a modern New Yorker. Maybe not, but is that not precisely the preacher's task? To make the gospel in all its unpalatableness, clear to us, not necessarily acceptable.
(2) In discussing our idolatries - what we think are our deepest wishes - Keller says, 'And we will discover that in the process of dealing with what we thought were our deepest wishes, Jesus has revealed an even deeper, truer one beneath - and it is for Jesus himself. He will not just have granted that true deepest wish, he will have fulfilled it'. Now can that be true? How can Jesus be the deepest truest wish of an unregenerate heart? Is this not creeping close to the 'Tash' idea of Lewis - that deep down we are actually worshipping God whatever we call him? He quotes Lewis in another place to the same effect: 'The door on which we have been knocking all our lives will open at last...then our lifelong nostalgia, our longing to be reunited with something in the universe from which we now feel cut off... is no mere neurotic fancy but the truest index of our real situation...'
(3) In describing the cross he says that 'All life-changing love is substitionary sacrifice'. He cites the sacrificial love of a parent or lover. Yes - but that is not substitutionary in the sense that Christ's was. It is vague language which is seeking to make the profound and ineffable love of Christ somehow comprehensible to modern people.
(4) There is a clear description of penal substitution (p 101-02) and of the wrath of God (p 176f) but he says things like the 'sin, guilt and brokenness of the world fell on Christ'. What exactly is the brokenness of the world? He talks of 'wrath, the abyss, the chasm , the nothingness of life.' What does this mean? And is it not diluting the wrath of God to include it in the same sentence as 'nothingness'? Even when he talks of the wrath of God, he seems somehow to blunt its awfulness. He talks about the eternal destiny of the unbeliever as 'separation' from God, not hell as an experience, or a destiny, inflicted by God.
All in all, Keller seems so keen to make the gospel comprehensible to the modern mind that he slips into making it acceptable. Apologetics has become accommodation. Sin is what hurts us, and salvation too often comes across as what makes us truly ourselves, makes us happy, fulfils us; God is there for us, not we for him. It all comes across as human-centred rather than God-centred. The elements of the truth are there, but not in the right proportions and the hard edges of the gospel are disappointingly smoothed over.
But maybe I need to read a bit more of Keller - I have 'Generous Justice' and 'Center Church' to dive into some time...
Friday 18 January 2013
Affinity - Ethics in Hertfordshire
I managed to get to one day of the Affinity Theological Conference on Biblical Ethics at High Leigh, Hoddesdon. I was glad however to have received all six papers to read (though some were a little long for the purpose). I missed Steven Clark and Joshua Hordern on the Wednesday - they were laying the foundations for ethical discussion.
The three papers I attended were Gordon Wenham on 'Psalms as Torah' - the ethical teaching and influence of the psalter; Andy Hartropp on money; and Paul Helm on war. All were good papers; the small groups were stimulating; the plenary sessions struggled a little but, (perhaps because there were only 50 or so men there) we did manage to deal with some important questions.
Fellowship was refreshing, meals were good, the prayer time at the end of the day was worth staying for (and I only have a 25 minute drive home so it was easy for me). I spent most of my free time in the afternoon in Caffe Nero in Hoddesdon reading a Keller book - of which more perhaps in another blog-post.
A good conference; I am sorry to have missed Leonardo di Chirico's controversial paper on the beginning of life (essentially arguing that life begins at implantation in the womb not at conception, which makes a big difference in the debate over in vitro fertilization).
My hope is that the fellows who were there this morning will get home safely in the snow. Many had a long way to travel, north and west.
The three papers I attended were Gordon Wenham on 'Psalms as Torah' - the ethical teaching and influence of the psalter; Andy Hartropp on money; and Paul Helm on war. All were good papers; the small groups were stimulating; the plenary sessions struggled a little but, (perhaps because there were only 50 or so men there) we did manage to deal with some important questions.
Fellowship was refreshing, meals were good, the prayer time at the end of the day was worth staying for (and I only have a 25 minute drive home so it was easy for me). I spent most of my free time in the afternoon in Caffe Nero in Hoddesdon reading a Keller book - of which more perhaps in another blog-post.
A good conference; I am sorry to have missed Leonardo di Chirico's controversial paper on the beginning of life (essentially arguing that life begins at implantation in the womb not at conception, which makes a big difference in the debate over in vitro fertilization).
My hope is that the fellows who were there this morning will get home safely in the snow. Many had a long way to travel, north and west.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)