Exiled Preacher

Some notes on EMW Leaders Conference

2012-02-03T15:37:00.004Z

So, last Saturday, which now seems like ages ago, myself and a couple of deacons belonging to the churches I serve headed for Wales in my trusty Ford Focus. I'd not been to this particular conference before, but the programme looked good and it was nice to for us be able to attend an event together, rather than me jetting off to a Ministers' conference on my own. Here are some brief notes.

The glory and grime of service

First up was Phil Swann's message on John 13.

Leadership is stressful and challenging. We have to preach unchanging truth in changing times. We contend with our own sinful hearts and the devil. There is a lot of focus on leadership today, with many books devoted to the subject, e.g. Beyond the Band of Brothers, by Dick Winters. BBC TV's The Apprentice is essentially about leadership.

John 13:1-17

The narrative:

1. An intimate time for Jesus and his followers, sharing a meal in the Upper Room.

2. A strategic time. Jesus was about to die on the cross and be raised from the dead.

3. Instruction for leaders, the disciples would have to lead the church in fellowship and mission.

4. Shocking, that Jesus of all people would wash their feet. Yet this was the kind of leadership that Jesus was commending, John 13:15

Strong leadership is servanthood.

1. Love

John 13:1, Romans 5:8. Servant leadership is love in action.

2. Power

What kind of leaders does Christ want, prime ministerial figures who exude power and competence? Jesus knew who he was, John 13:3 and yet he did not shun the lowly task of washing feet.

3. Humility

Christian leadership is not about manipulation and control, but showing Christ John 13:15.

4. Care

Foot washing was an act of personal care. Gospel-shaped leadership means getting close to people and caring for them in a Christ-like way.

Developing the spiritual life of the church

Bill Dyer led a seminar on this subject.

We are living in days of spiritual decline. In our Reformed circles have doctrinal knowledge, but little bold faith. We tend to be cautious, timid and risk adverse. Are we quenching the spirit? We need a deeper knowlage of God. There is little expectancy and consequently a lack of prayer in the churches. Prayer focuses on human need (the unwell etc) , rather than intercession for the lost. Too much preaching is 'in word only'.The work of the Holy Spirit is neglected. Little happens in our churches that cannot be explained naturally. Preaching has become a a lecture. We pay attention to organisation, what we need is a revived church.

1. Restore church as priesthood of all believers. Involve church members in decisions. Paul's concern for "every man", Colossians 1:28. The Calvinist Methodist had heir experience meetings to encourage fellowship and prayer. Encourage the whole church agree to raise prayer life of the fellowship.

2. Reassess the prayer life of church. a. Preach on prayer. b. Reflect on corporate prayer in the Acts of the Apostles. c. Prayer does not change God, but us. d. God has limited himself to our prayerful involvement in his work. e. Difficult days demand more prayer. f. God wants us to plead his promises. g. Persevere in prayer.

Be radical and creative in prayer meetings. Encourage all to pray earnestly and unitedly. Discourage lengthy prayers. Give more time for missional prayer. Divide up prayer times into pastoral and missional sections. Pray for the power of the Spirit on preaching, for witness and service opportunities, fresh converts, revival. Raise the profile of the Prayer Meeting. Where action is. Seek guidance and blessing. Use older people.

3. Restore true spirituality. We need the work of the Spirit. Are we embarrassed by what we see in Acts? We must seek a deeper experiential knowledge of God.

4. Act in dependence on God. Pray about decisions in members' meetings. Pray and then act in faith.

5. Rally the church around the gospel. Passion for the gospel drowns out trivia.

You can touch a life

Stuart Olyott gave the final address.

1. Core teaching, Mark 9:30-37, 10:35-45.

Disciples concern with rank, rule and authority. They wanted to be first. Jesus showed them what spiritual greatness really is: being last and a servant. He was servant of all. We can touch a life via lowly service.

2. Biblical examples

Moses' life was chamged by his father in law's wise advice, Exodus 18. David was helped by Jonathan's visit, 1 Samuel 23. Jonathan strengthened David's hands in God. Naaman's life was touched by the words of his servant girls. She had her master's interests at heart. Jeremiah was rescued from a dungeon by an enslaved eunuch, Jeremiah 38. Peter was led to the Messiah by Andrew, John 1. Paul was accepted by the early church because of Barnabas' commendation, Acts 9. Apollos was instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, Acts 18. Titus encouraged Paul, 2 Corinthians 7:6. Timothy did not seek influence or emunence, but wanted to serve interest of others, Philippians 2:19-22 cf. Philippians 2:4-7.

3. Practical outworking

Touch a life. Ask: How can I serve best interests of others? Your wife, children, newcomer at church, church members.

Don't arrive at church at the last moment and then leave quickly. Talk to people. Get to know them. Visit the sick. Open your home for meetings. Don't neglect family life. Don't often be absent from church. Know your Bible. Get to grips with theology. Pray for people. Don't criticise them. Pray for your pastor and the church fellowship. Support theological seminaries. Take an interest in the worldwide church. You can touch a life. Who is greatest in heaven? He who was servant of all, John 13.

The conference's biblically sound and practically helpful ministry challenged us to consider how we might be better servant-leaders in caring for the flock and reaching out to people in the community. Serving the Servant King and touching lives for him. That's what it's all about.

Evangelical Movement of Wales Leaders Conference

2012-01-24T16:00:00.001Z

On Saturday myself and the deacons of the churches I serve will be heading off to Wales for EMW's Leaders Conference. Check it out here.

Thomas Goodwin on election in Christ: what it's not

2012-01-19T20:34:00.003Z

Following the introductory post, we now delve right into Goodwin's exposition of Ephesians 1:4. As he opens up the text, the Puritan scholar first of all explains what is not meant by "chosen in him". This is a good place to start as election in Christ is often misunderstood. Only after having dealt with a number of misconceptions does our painstaking expositor give attention to the positive meaning of Paul's words. I won't go into all the ins and outs of Goodwin's engagement with what he takes be inadequate explanations of the text in question. Suffice to say that he is especially concerned to rule out the following three lines of interpretation:

1. God did not choose people because he foreknew they would believe in Christ

The Arminian understanding of the verse says that God chooses people on the basis of foreknown faith in Christ. As we might expect, good Calvinist as he was, Goodwin objects to this construction. But he does so not on simply on the basis of cast iron Calvinistic logic, imposing his pre-packaged Reformed theology on the text. Rather he rejects to the Arminian view for sophisticated exegetical reasons.

First because it would mean that if God chooses on the basis of faith foreseen, then election is not of persons, but of graces. God did not choose propositions, 'He that believes shall be saved', but persons, 'chose us in him'. This admittedly isn't Goodwin's strongest argument. An Arminian might object that they teach that God chooses people who believe, not the faith of those who believe, but this is only the first point in a cumulatively persuasive case.

Second, Goodwin brings contextual considerations into view. In Ephesians 1:3-4 Paul says that, 'God has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ...according as he has chosen us in him'. If faith is one of the blessings that is bestowed upon us 'in Christ', then it cannot properly be said that God chose to save those whom he foreknew would believe in Christ. It is only because a person is already in Christ in some sense that he is blessed with the gift of faith.

Third, Goodwin reflects on the fact that according to Paul in Ephesians 1:4, God chose us in Christ, 'that we should be holy and without blame before him'. He reasons that God did not choose his people because he foresaw their holiness. Rather, he chose them in order that they might be made holy. Faith, like holiness is a fruit of election, not its cause. Goodwin cites Acts 13:48. And so he thoughtfully refutes the traditional Arminian interpretation of Paul's words.

2. God did not choose people because of what Christ would do for them

Next, Goodwin considers the proposal that the elect are chosen for the sake of Christ's merit. While it is true that we have 'redemption by his blood' (Ephesians 1:7), this is not the cause of our election. Scripture never suggests that this is the case. And as Goodwin points out, making Christ's passion the meritorious cause of election undermines the sovereign freedom of God's grace. The expositor refers to Ephesians 1:5, 'according to the good pleasure of his will'. Christ's merits are the cause of our salvation, but not the reason why God chose us to be saved. If grace was merited by Christ, then God was in some way obligated to save us. Goodwin rightly regards any such a construction 'a derogation from God's free grace'.

Goodwin identifies this second view as belonging to 'Popish divines and interpreters'. But Charles Hodge comes dangerously close to this position in his commentary on Ephesians, saying, 'It was in Christ as their head and representative that they were chosen to holiness and eternal life, and, therefore in virtue of what he was to do on their behalf.' (emphasis added, p. 31, Baker, 1980 repr.) Similarly, Hendriksen argues that God was able to chose unworthy sinners because Christ would 'in their stead...satisfy all the requirements of the law'. (author's emphasis, p. 76, Banner 1990 repr.). But this is to put the cart of redemption before the horse of God's free and unconditional love for sinners. Hendriksen almost makes election a matter of divine justice rather than grace, which is plain contrary to 2 Timothy 1:9 etc.

The Father did not need the Son to satisfy his justice to win his electing love for his people. Goodwin does not make this point, but his case is bolstered when we take the words "in love" at the end of Ephesians 1:4 together with "having predestined us" in Ephesians 1:5, "in love having predestined us" (cf. Romans 8:29). Scripture does not teach that God loved the world because his only begotten Son gave himself up to the cross for sinners. Rather, it is the other way round. God so loved the world that he have his only begotten Son (John 3:16). As John Murray writes, "It was in pursuance of electing love that God sent his Son into the world... in election there is the assurance that God loved sinners from eternity, that he loved sinners with such invincible love that he did not spare his own Son but delivered him up for them." (p. 127, Collected Writings of John Murray, Volume one, Banner of Truth, 1989 repr).

Goodwin rightly saw that any suggestion that Christ's redemptive suffering was the meritorious cause of our election runs counter to the Bible's insistence on God's free and gracious love for sinners.

3. God did not chose people in order that they might be united to Christ

Finally, Goodwin refutes the idea that what Paul means by 'chosen in him' is that God chose us in eternity in order that we might be united to Christ in the fullness of time. Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof rightly says that, 'Christ as Mediator is not the impelling, moving, or meritorious cause of election'. But he has not caught Paul's drift when he states that Christ is merely the 'mediate cause of the realisation of election.' (p. 114, Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, 1984). As Goodwin insists, Paul did not write that God has chosen us to be in Christ, making union with Christ the goal, much less 'the mediate cause of the realisation of election'. The text simply says that we were chosen 'in him' before the foundation of the world. John Murray is one with Goodwin on this, "those who will be saved were not even contemplated by the Father in the ultimate counsel of his predestinating love apart from Christ. As far back as we can go in tracing salvation to its fountain we find "union with Christ"; it is not something tacked on; it is there from the outset." (p. 162, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Banner of Truth, 1979).

Goodwin's exposition of election in Christ in Ephesians 1:4-5 not only excludes erroneous Arminian readings of the text. His careful exegesis of Paul's words and nuanced theological thinking also provide a necessary corrective to some defective explanations of election in Christ within the Reformed tradition.

Thomas Goodwin on election in Christ: introduction

2012-01-17T22:33:00.001Z

Those words, 'he hath chosen us in him' have bred more controversy than any so few words almost in the whole Bible and do therefore require some time to open them. (Thomas Goodwin, Exposition of Ephesians, p. 65).

The other week I started a series of sermons on "Union with Christ". Beginning at the beginning, or even before the Beginning, the first message was on Ephesians 1:3-6, "Chosen in Christ". In the course of sermon prep I looked up several modern commentaries, (F.F. Bruce, NICNT, F. Foukles, Tyndale, & J. R. W. Stott, BST), but none of them had anything much to say on election in Christ. So, I pulled Lloyd-Jones' God's Ultimate Purpose off the shelf and glanced through his sermon on Ephesians 1:4 entitled, Chosen in Him. The good Doctor has some helpful things to say about election and predestination in general, but, despite the title, did not expound what Paul meant by "chosen in him". In desperation I turned to Hendrickson, who at least discusses what "chosen in him means", but virtually makes Christ the meritorious cause of our election, which isn't quite right. Charles Hodge is better in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, explaining the phrase in terms of Christ's federal headship, but, again he veers towards saying that God chose us in virtue of what Christ would do for us. This undermines Scripture's witness to election as God's purely gratuitous and loving choice of his people.

In this instance, works of systematic theology provided a better guide as to the meaning of Paul's words than the Bible commentators. John Murray's treatment of Ephesians 1:4 in Redemption Accomplished and Applied stuck in my mind from reading him some years back (see this post). It wasn't too long ago that I'd studied Herman Bavinck on The Divine Counsel in The Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2 (see here). Also, Oliver Crisp gives valuable attention to this matter in his God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (reviewed here). It only goes to show that simply relying on commentators in sermon prep can prove inadequate. Wider theological reading can really enrich our understanding of Scripture. But one commentator did not let me down. It was the Puritan Thomas Goodwin, who, in his day was regarded as the "Greatest Pulpit Exegete of St. Paul". Reading him was like entering another world where deep theological reflection go hand in hand with a sustained and detailed exegesis of the text. You'll find his work on Ephesians 1:4 in his Exposition of Ephesians: Chapter 1 to 2:10. In a series of posts I hope to try and sketch out something of Goodwin's insightful teaching on election in Christ.

Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones Edited by Andrew Atherstone & David Ceri Jones. Review Part 4

2012-01-13T14:15:00.002Z

Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The life and legacy of 'the Doctor',

Edited by Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones, IVP/Apollos, 2011, 370pp

And so it's time to wrap up this series of posts on Engaging with Lloyd-Jones. The book is a timely reminder that the 'Doctor' was one of the key figures in 20th century Evangelicalism. In fact it is difficult to understand the recent history of Evangelicalism in the UK and beyond without factoring in the life and ministry of the Geneva gown-clad preacher.

This symposium reflects the fact Lloyd-Jones' life and teaching is racked by apparent contradictions. He helped to spearhead the recovery of Reformed doctrine and gave encouragement to the burgeoning Charismatic movement. He despised anti-intellectualism and emphasised the importance of theological study. But he was suspicious of the scholarly guilds and disliked scholasticism. He was a passionate advocate of Evangelical unity. Yet his 1966 address split UK Evangelicalism in two, with intergrationists the one side and separatists on the other.

It would be easy to focus attention on only one aspect of Lloyd-Jones' seemingly dialectical thought and paint him as a wilfully divisive crypto-Pentecostal with narrow minded fundamentalist leanings (see Robert Pope on Lloyd-Jones and fundamentalism). But that is to forget that Lloyd-Jones was a preacher-leader. Like any good preacher, he tailored his message to his audience. When preaching to Evangelicals who tended to have little time for biblical doctrine, he emphasised the value of theology and the need to think deeply about the things of God. When speaking to scholars he warned of the temptation of compromising the gospel for the sake of academic respectability. When ministering to Christians who were obsessed by spiritual experiences, he reminded them of the importance of the objective truths of Scripture and the need for discernment. When speaking to believers who were concerned about doctrinal correctness, but had little desire for experiential communion with God, he told them that true faith is more than mere intellectual assent. The truth must know and felt.

Remembering that Lloyd-Jones had an abiding concern to apply the Word as he judged most appropriate to his audience will help guard against a one sided reading of his teaching. He was not an academic theologian who's task in life was to produce a perfectly balanced and symmetrical system of doctrine. He was a preacher who shaped his messages to minister to the needs of the hour.

Lloyd-Jones was a different kind of Evangelical leader. His legacy is not a movement that bears his name and follows his dictates or a 'Lloyd-Jones Study Bible'. He has been criticised for not micro-managing the reorganisation of Evangelical churches which had separated from the mixed denominations in the wake of his 1966 call for Evangelicals to come together. But by temperament he was not an organiser and had little time for administration. He had no wish to be leader of a new movement that was overly dependent upon him as a person. His was a vision church-based Evangelical unity, rather than one where Evangelicals were encouraged to unite around personalities. This is perhaps one of the dangers of the "new Calvinism" associated with Together for the Gospel and The Gospel Coalition in the States.

Nevertheless, it is true to say that some of Lloyd-Jones' followers became too reliant on the great man in a way that was unhealthy. Donald Macleod's concern over this factor is mentioned in the book, p. 23-25. The citing of Lloyd-Jones' words as an end of all discussion at Ministers' fraternals and conferences is an indication of the tendency to treat him as the next best thing to an infallible oracle. A conference I attended in Wales some years ago even featured an address on, What Lloyd-Jones would have thought of Evangelicalism today! We must learn what we can from the 'Doctor', but we have been called to serve the Lord in the 21st century where we face fresh challenges that cannot be met by trying to second guess what he might have thought about things.

Engaging with Lloyd-Jones will help us with the task of critically assessing the preacher's lasting legacy. The trouble with big figures like the 'Doctor' is that he seems like a man whose life and ministry is quite remote from the situations in which we find ourselves today. Not many of us preach to thousands Sunday by Sunday in an influential London Church. Few pastors could keep a congregation gripped and enthralled by a decade spanning series of sermons on Romans. It wouldn't do to try and ape the great man, but we do still have a lot to learn from him. One point is that Lloyd-Jones was a pastor-theologian. He regarded reading simply for the sake of sermon prep as sheer professionalism. He studied the great works of theology (Calvin, Owen, Edwards etc). He endeavoured to get to grips with the latest theological trends (see Robert Strivens on Lloyd-Jones and Karl Barth). How many of us are aspiring to become pastor-theologians whose faith and ministry is enriched by wide and deep theological reading?

However, for Lloyd-Jones preaching was not a theological lecture or even a Bible study but a God-encountering, life-changing event. He sought to preach the Word in the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. Many think of the 'Doctor' as the great expositor, famed for his commitment to systematically preaching through books of the Bible. He certainly did that. But it is important to remember that his published expositions of Romans and Ephesians do not represent the whole of his sermon output. His wife once commented that Lloyd-Jones was "first of all a man of prayer, and then an evangelist". Every Sunday evening at Westminster Chapel, the 'Doctor' would herald the gospel with a view to seeing sinners saved. How many Reformed pastors today preach evangelistically as a regular part of their ministry?

Perhaps the 'Doctor's' greatest legacy is that his teaching and ministry bear witness to the fact that true preaching is nothing less than "theology on fire". Can we be content with anything less?

Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones Edited by Andrew Atherstone & David Ceri Jones. Review Part 3

2012-01-10T14:23:00.001Z

Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The life and legacy of 'the Doctor',

Edited by Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones, IVP/Apollos, 2011, 370pp

A second controversial feature of the Lloyd-Jones legacy is his call for Evangelical unity in 1966. Andrew Atherstone gives a fair account of the event and its aftermath in his chapter, Lloyd-Jones and the Anglican succession crisis. The 'Doctor' argued that Evangelicals should come together in a loose church-based affiliation rather than remain in the theologically mixed denominations. Some understood Lloyd-Jones to be calling for Evangelicals to succeed from their denominations without delay and unite to form a new purely Evangelical super-denomination. John Stott was so alarmed at the prospect of Evangelical Anglicans leaving the Church of England en masse that he used/abused his role as chairman to declare that Scripture and church history were against Lloyd-Jones. For him Evangelicals were called to be a faithful remnant within the professing church, rather than separate themselves from the denominations.

At the heart of Lloyd-Jones' case was the argument that Evangelicals should put fellowship with Evangelicals first rather than allow themselves to be kept apart due to their various denominational attachments. He reasoned that placing involvement in the mixed denominations before church-based fellowship with Evangelicals was tantamount to schism. His address was given added urgency by his understanding that the Ecumenical Movement aimed at uniting the historic denominations under the banner of Rome. In that situation Evangelicals would find themselves as one wing of territorial church that was in submission to the pope. Far better, he urged that Evangelicals should stand together outside of the Ecumenical Movement, giving a united witness to the gospel.

A number of Evangelical Anglicans and Nonconformists did leave their demoninations in response to Lloyd-Jones' call, but many did not. John Stott, Jim Packer and others wanted to see Evangelicals further integrated in the Church of England rather than septate from her. The drift of the Keele Conference in 1967 and Packer's involvement in writing Growing into Union with Anglo Catholics only served to confirm this. Ironically, Lloyd-Jones call for Evangelical unity only helped to cement divisions between separatist Evangelicals and those who remained in the mixed denominations.

The reason why Lloyd-Jones spoke as he did in 1966 has been variously explained. Gaius Davies interprets his call for Evangelical unity in psychological terms. He charges Lloyd-Jones with control freakery. He had a desire always to be right that verged on an infallibility complex. Davies explains that this psychological malady was the product of traumatic experiences in Lloyd-Jones' youth. If I were to don the mantle of amateur psychologist, I might wonder whether Gauis Davies' hatchet job might be the result of him being far too in thrall to the 'Doctor' in his earlier years. Now, somewhat like a difficult teenager, he feels compelled to give his spiritual father figure a hard time in an attempt to establish his own identity. But far be it from me to suggest such a thing. Others posit that as a Welshman Lloyd-Jones had an inbuilt antipathy towards Anglicanism, making his call the product of nationalistic prejudices. Now, it's true that no one is free from psychological 'issues', not even the great 'Doctor'. National identity no doubt colours our thinking in a whole range of often imperceptible ways. But to try and explain away the burden of Lloyd-Jones' 1966 message in such terms is reductionistic in the extreme.

Carl Trueman, whose criticism of Lloyd-Jones is cited in the book (p. 19-20) charges the 'Doctor' with presenting a "completely incoherent vision" of the doctrine of the church in his 1966 address, "for one cannot call a group to an ecclesiastical action (separation) which leads to a non-ecclesiastical result (some broad, parachurch alliance)" - here. But this is not quite right. For many years Evangelicals in the UK were largely content to remain in the mixed denominations. They co-operated with fellow Evangelicals in parachurch organisations such as missionary societies and the Evangelical Alliance, but were united on a church level with Liberals, Anglo-Catholics, and other dodgy characters, Lloyd-Jones challenged the status quo by arguing that mere parachurch fellowship between Evangelicals was not enough. Those who were united in the gospel should come together as churches. That is why John Coffee is incorrect draw a parallel between the 'Doctor's' prescription for Evangelical unity and movements in the USA like Together for the Gospel or the Gospel Coalition (p. 323). Those groups are based on an alliance of Evangelical leaders (or even personalities) rather than churches. The British Evangelical Council (forerunner of Affinity) was founded to facilitate fellowship between individual local churches and church groupings, not merely to enable Evangelicals to engage in fellowship and mission on a personal level. Separation from the denominations is indeed an ecclesiastical act, but in Lloyd-Jones' vision, separation had an ecclesiastical goal, "stand together as churches, constantly together, working together, doing everything together, bearing our witness together." (Knowing the Times, D. M. Lloyd-Jones, 1989, Banner of Truth Trust p. 256). This was also emphasised in his 1967 address, Martin Luther and his message for today,

Come out of it! [Denominations signed up to the ecumenical movement and heading for Rome] But come together also, come into fellowship with all like-minded Christian people. Come into an association such as this British Evangelical Council, that stands for truth and against compromise, hesitation, neutrality and everything that but ministers to the success of the plans of Rome and the ecumenical movement. Come out; come in! (Unity in Truth, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, 1991, Evangelical Press, p. 43).

The problem is that Evangelicals are not agreed on the issues of church government and paedo/credo baptism. That is why the formation of a new Evangelical super-denomination would have been impossible. Given the reality of the situation, a loose alliance of Evangelical churches and church groupings was the best that could have been hoped for. However, one difficulty with Lloyd-Jones' proposals is that he envisaged a pan-Evangelical grouping of churches that included both Calvinistic and Arminian fellowships. He was by his own admission and 18th century man. The trouble is that if the Evangelical Revival of the 18th century becomes the starting point for defining authentic Evangelical identity, then Wesley's Arminianism must be added to the mix alongside Whitefield's Calvinism. While Lloyd-Jones deprecated Wesley's Arminianism and was Calvinistic in his own convictions, he argued that the issues of Arminianism and Calvinism should not divide fellow Evangelicals. When played out at the level of a church-based alliance, his vision involved a measure of doctrinal indefferentism on issues that are not indifferent to the clear presentation of the gospel. It would have been far better had Lloyd-Jones proposed an association of distinctly Reformed independent local churches and church groupings that was based on the historic Reformed confessions of faith, or their contemporary equivalent. That way differences over church government and baptism could have been accommodated, while enabling Evangelical and Reformed churches to retain a united witness to the truth in all its glory.

But where does Lloyd-Jones' address leave us today? There is currently a substantial sector of Evangelical and Reformed churches in the UK that do not belong to the mixed denominations. Many, but by no means all of these churches belong to Affinity. How should separated churches relate to Evangelicals who remain in the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Baptist Union, Presbyterian Church of Wales, etc? I sense that a new generation of Evangelical leaders in the Church of England, especially those associated with the Proclamation Trust do not ascribe to the intergrationist policy of Stott and Packer. They have little time for ecclesiastical politics and simply want to get on with the work of preaching the gospel at the level of the local parish church. Links are bring fostered with such Anglican Evangelicals and their Free Church colleagues through regional Gospel Partnerships. But Gospel Partnerships are alliances of Evangelical leaders, rather than church-based groupings. The Gospel Partnerships may do some good and separated Evangelicals should encourage and support friends who stand for the gospel in the mixed denominations. But the issue of separation is being fudged and Lloyd-Jones' strategic vision of Evangelical church-based unity has yet to be realised.

Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones Edited by Andrew Atherstone & David Ceri Jones. Review Part 2

2012-01-06T14:00:00.017Z

Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The life and legacy of 'the Doctor',

Edited by Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones, IVP/Apollos, 2011, 370pp

Time would fail me were I to try and interact in detail with every chapter in the book. So, rather than try and do that, I'm going to reflect on a few key issues connected with Lloyd-Jones' life and teaching. First of all, on the 'Doctor's' emphasis on preaching in the power of the Holy Spirit. In this connection, Ben Bailie devotes attention to Lloyd-Jones and the demise of preaching and Ian M. Randall considers Lloyd-Jones and revival. Lloyd-Jones helped to bring systematic expository preaching back into Welsh and English pulpits. It would be unwise for preachers to try and ape the 'Doctor's' lengthy series of sermons on Romans and Ephesians. Few are possessed of his exceptional preaching gifts. But his style of preaching that was exegetically rigorous, doctrinally sound and powerfully applied was a necessary corrective to 'topical' sermons that pay scant attention to the biblical text. And by doctrinally sound, I mean Calvinistic. For while Lloyd-Jones did not preach on the so-called Five Points of Calvinism, his theology was decidedly Reformed in its bent.

But for the preacher, the delivery of doctrinally correct sermons was never enough. He was a Calvinistic Methodist. For him preaching was 'theology on fire'. He saw the danger that the return to Reformed doctrine that he helped to encourage in the UK could easily become a form of intellectualism that was devoid of life and power. That was why he gave renewed emphasis to revival and the work of the Spirit during the latter period of his ministry at Westminster Chapel. His sermons published under the titles Joy Unspeakable and Prove All Things should be seen in this light, as also his expositions of Romans 8:15-16 and Ephesians 1:13-14. These are the messages that caused some Charismatics to try and claim Lloyd-Jones as one of their own, much to the alarm of some in the Reformed camp - see the chapter on Lloyd-Jones and the charismatic controversy.

However, a close reading of Lloyd-Jones' teaching on the work of the Holy Spirit reveals that he was at pains to distance himself from the 'Second Blessing' type teaching on the baptism with the Holy Spirit associated with old style Pentecostalism. His view that the baptism and sealing of the Spirit are a post-conversion experiences can be found in older Reformed writers. Lloyd-Jones' exegesis of Ephesians 1:13-14 follows the Puritan Thomas Goodwin's understanding of those verses almost word for word. This is not to say that he was right to argue that one may be a believer and not be baptised/sealed with the Spirit, but that his teaching should be set in its proper theological context and not simply viewed through the prism of the Charismatic controversy. It might have been less problematic had Lloyd-Jones focussed attention on the filling of the Spirit. There is a strong biblical case that it is possible for believers to be repeatedly filled with the Spirit, granting them assurance of salvation and boldness in preaching, (Acts 2:4, 4:8, 31).

It is worth noting that whatever encouragement Lloyd-Jones may have given to some of the early leaders of the Charismatic movement, that he did not throw in his lot with them. His approach to the continuation rather than cessation of the gifts of the Spirit was rather more cautious and discerning than would be found in Charismatic circles, where any old gibberish seems to pass for "speaking in tongues". I well remember witnessing a Pentecostal Youth Leader encouraging young people to "have a go" at speaking in tongues. Off they went, jabbering away, "speracka jaracka malacka falacka". That was it! They "had the gift". Well, the gift of speaking unintelligible nonsense, maybe. But that kind of thing is a far cry from what I found in Lloyd-Jones' teaching on the sovereignty of the Spirit in bestowing extraordinary gifts as I read Prove All Things (see here). The 'Doctor' knew that was was needed to breath new life into the Evangelical Churches in the UK was not a fusing of Reformed doctrine and "Charismatic gifts", but the proclamation of the gospel in the empowering presence of the Spirit.

Speaking of which, given Lloyd-Jones' emphasis on the need for liberty and power in preaching, it is difficult to know what on earth to make of R. T. Kendall's sycophantic claim, documented on p. 138 of this book that, "virtually every word he spoke" at Westminster Chapel between 1977 and 1981 had been "vetted" by the 'Doctor'. Really? Then how come Lloyd-Jones had become so concerned about aspects of Kendall's ministry that he insisted that his successor should play no part in his memorial service?

Moving on, in the thinking of Lloyd-Jones', the theme of preaching in the power of the Spirit is closely related to that of revival. He insisted that a revival is a sovereign work of God, a fresh outpouring of the Spirit as seen in the pages of the Acts of the Apostles. A genuine work of the Spirit cannot be worked up by men. That is why he was at pains to make a clear distinction between the Evangelical Revival of the early to mid 18th century and the 19th century revivalism of Charles Finney and others. John Coffey takes exception to Lloyd-Jones' historical analysis in his chapter, Lloyd-Jones and the Protestant past. Following Harry Stout's account of George Whitefield as the 'divine dramatist', he argues that the Great Awakening can be explained in part by Whitefield's knack for self-advertisement and pulpit histrionics. However, while no revival is devoid of merely human factors, the likes of Whitefield, Jonathan Edward and Daniel Rowland firmly believed that true revivals are sent from heaven. Finney and those who followed in his wake taught that revivals can be organised by men when certain conditions are fulfilled. By the nineteenth century "revival" had come to mean "evangelistic campaign" rather than a great outpouring of the Spirit. The idea that in times of deep spiritual need, the people of God should cry to the Lord for a visitation from on high had been eclipsed by the era of big, flashy evangelistic crusades of the 20th century and the seeker sensitive Mega-Churches of the 21st. Evangelicalism would do well to return to older, God-dependent vision of revival championed by Lloyd-Jones.

The ministry and teaching of the 'Doctor' serve as a lasting reminder to the church of the importance of Word and Spirit in preaching, 1 Thessalonians 1:5. There is more to preaching than giving an exegetically accurate, doctrinally sound, well structured and nicely illustrated talk. What we need above all of that is the "demonstration of the Spirit and power." The Spirit's empowering presence enables preachers to proclaim the Lord Jesus with boldness, liberty and life-transforming effectiveness. His presence makes preaching an event where the God of the gospel is encountered in all the fullness of his grace and power. Preachers and congregations can be content with nothing less. Lloyd-Jones drew Preaching and Preachers to a conclusion with this exhortation,

This 'unction', this 'anointing', is the supreme thing. Seek it until you have it; be content with nothing less. Go on until you can say, 'And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and power.' He is still able to do 'exceedingly abundantly above all that we can ask or think.'" (Preaching and Preachers p. 325)

Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones Edited by Andrew Atherstone & David Ceri Jones. Review Part 1

2012-01-05T12:18:00.005Z

Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The life and legacy of 'the Doctor',

Edited by Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones, IVP/Apollos, 2011, 370pp

The Congregational Chapel I used to attend as a new believer hosted a sale of Christian books one Wednesday evening. Little did I know it, but one title on offer would have a lasting impact on my Christian life and ministry. It was, Prove All Things: The Sovereign Work of the Holy Spirit, by D. M. Lloyd-Jones. I was moving in Charismatic/Pentecostal circles at the time and the subtitle's mention of the work of the Holy Spirit was of special interest to me. So, although I had never heard of the author, I bought the book. It completely revolutionised my thinking. Soon after reading it I stopped attending Charismatic style youth meetings and began to read some of the Reformed writers cited by Lloyd-Jones, especially Jonathan Edwards. This must have been around 1985, four years after 'the Doctor' had gone to glory.

Prove All Things was to be the first of many of Lloyd-Jones' books that I read in the formative years of my Christian life. Before attending the London Theological Seminary in 1988 I had read and re-read Preaching and Preachers and worked my way through all of his sermons on Romans that had been published until that date and quite a few volumes of the series on Ephesians. I hungrily devoured volume one of Iain Murray's biography of the 'Doctor'. LTS was of course founded by Lloyd-Jones and the seminary was shaped and moulded by his great emphasis on biblical preaching in the power of the Holy Spirit (see Philip Eveson on Lloyd-Jones and ministerial education). Later, shortly after leaving LTS, I fell ill and was admitted to the Royal Free Hospital in London. My time languishing on the wards was made more pleasurable by reading the recently published second volume of Iain Murray's biography of the Lloyd-Jones. In many ways the 'Doctor' was the dominant influence on my thinking, which was quite something as I had never met the man, or even heard him preach 'in the flesh'.

But, then, it seemed that the good 'Doctor' still very much a dominating influence in the Welsh Evangelical and Reformed circles in which I had begun to move. As I young Minister I observed that discussions in fraternals and conferences could be brought to a shuddering halt when a old timer got to his feet and in reverent tones remarked, "I remember the 'Doctor' saying...". And that was more or less it. Lloyd-Jones had posthumously spoken. No more need for debate. Things aren't quite like that any more, but given his huge impact on certain sectors of Evangelicalism in the UK, achieving a critical appreciation of the Lloyd-Jones legacy isn't an easy task. This is especially so as the 'Doctor' has become such a divisive figure. His call for Evangelical Unity in 1966 exposed the disunity between intergrationist Anglican Evangelicals like Jim Packer and John Stott and those with a more separatist mindset who followed Lloyd-Jones' line. Charismatics try and claim him as one of their own, much to the horror of some of his Reformed comrades. Other Reformed voices firmly distanced themselves from the 'Doctor's' teaching on the baptism and sealing of the Spirit, which, to them smacked of Pentecostalism.

With this in mind, this multi-authored assessment of the life and legacy of Lloyd-Jones is to be welcomed. Although it has to be said that as is often the case with this kind of project, some of the contributions are better than others. Most of the authors are sympathetic to the 'Doctor' and his teachings, but none of them are so in thrall to the preacher that they attempt to justify his every whim. In my opinion, one or two of the chapters offer a rather skewed account of Lloyd-Jones' thought and actions.

In Part 2 of this review series I will devote attention to the 'Doctor' on preaching in the power of the Spirit, in Part 3 I will discuss his call for Evangelical unity in 1966 and in Part 4 I will conclude with some general reflections on the life and legacy of Lloyd-Jones.

Christmaths

2011-12-21T08:00:00.003Z

If we are to avoid heresy we need to get the maths of the incarnation right.

The incarnation of Jesus was an act of addition not subtraction. He did not become the Son minus his divine glory when he became man. He added to his divine glory a lowly, yet perfect human nature.

If the incarnate Son was less than fully divine, he was not the final revelation of God. Only one who was fully God and fully man could reconcile man to God through his sacrifice of infinite worth.

But the Son did not add a human person to his divine person. The person of the Son entered into union with a human nature, conceived by the Holy Spirit in the virgin's womb.

There is no merger of the divine and human natures of the Son so that 1 (divine) x 1 (human) = 1 Christological hybrid. The divine and human natures of the Son remain distinct, unconfused and unmixed.

There is no division between the person of the Son and his human nature. His humanity has no independent existence or identity. We do not confess that the human nature of Jesus died for our sins, but that the Son died for us in his humanity.

The incarnation will never be reversed by the Son subtracting his human nature from his divine person. Our great high priest who has passed through the heavens is the Son of God, who, in his humanity is able to sympathise with us in our weaknesses.

Confessional postscript

The Definition of Chalcedon (451 A.D) sets out the mathematics of the incarnation with great precision and care. It should be required reading for all preachers. Not that it says all that there is to say about the wonder of Word made flesh. But as with all good creeds and confessions the Definition erects a fence around the mystery to save us from erroneous thinking and speaking about the incarnation of Jesus.

Foundations Autumn 2011

2011-12-19T08:00:00.002Z

Just in time for Christmas, the 'Autumn 2011' edition of Affinity's Theological journal Foundations has just been posted online.

Articles include:

Not Ashamed! The Sufficiency of Scripture
for Public Theology
Dan Strange

So Who Is My Neighbour?
John Legg

Evangelical Mission Organisations, Postmodern
Controversies, and the New Heartbeat of Mission
Thorsten Prill

Did Turretin Depart from Calvin’s View on the
Concept of Error in the Scriptures?
Ralph Cunnington

Review article: Trinitarian Theology
D Eryl Davies

Also, several book reviews including my review of Bread of Heaven by Eifion Evans, complete with Yoda reference, a first for Foundations?

Bread of Heaven: The Life and Work of William Williams, Pantycelyn, by Eifion Evans

2011-12-15T18:46:00.001Z

Bread of Heaven: The Life and Work of William Williams, Pantycelyn,

Eifion Evans, Bryntirion Press, 2010, 409pp

It is reckoned that a worldwide audience of two billion people tuned in to watch the wedding of Prince William and Katherine Middleton, making the service one of the most watched events in TV history. Of the three hymns sung in the service, two were by Methodists, Love Divine All Loves Excelling by Charles Wesley and Guide Me O Thou Great Jehovah by William Williams. Strains of Williams’ most famous hymn will often be heard at Welsh international Rugby matches, “Bread of heaven, feed me till I want no more”.

For many, even in Christian circles, all that is known of William Williams is that he penned that hymn. One of the reasons why his life and other achievements have been shrouded in obscurity is that Williams has lacked an up-to-date biography in English. Yet, alongside Daniel Rowland and Howell Harris, the hymn writer was one of the big three leading figures of the Evangelical Revival in 18^th century Wales. Howell Harris has been the subject of a recent major study, Howell Harris: From Conversion to Separation 1735-1750 by Geraint Tudur (University Press of Wales, 2000). Eifion Evans’ biography of Daniel Rowland is justly regarded as a spiritual classic, Daniel Rowland and the Great Evangelical Awakening in Wales (1985, Banner of Truth Trust). Now we can be grateful that with the publication of Evans’ volume on William Williams, that the remarkable life and work of the preacher will be more widely know and appreciated.

William Williams was a physician by trade. He was converted in his early twenties in 1738 under the preaching of Howell Harris. Williams was ordained as a Church of England curate, serving first of all in Llanwrtyd and then working alongside Daniel Rowland in Llangeitho. He was a key leader of the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist movement.

Williams was a fine preacher and his ministry was much in demand in Wales and beyond. Towards the end of his life he calculated that in over forty years of preaching, he had travelled 111,800 miles, the equivalent of four times around the world. Thomas Charles testified that Williams’ “oratorical gifts were considerable; his preaching was evangelical, experiential and sweet”. He lived to proclaim salvation by the free grace of God on the basis of the finished work of Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit.

The first generation of Calvinistic Methodists were loyal members of the Church of England. They had no wish to leave the Established Church unless thrown out by the authorities. But this created a problem. How could new Christians be nurtured in the faith if many Church of England clergymen did not preach the gospel and were not at all sympathetic to Methodism? Societies or groups of believers were set up to operate alongside the parish church system. William Williams helped to organise these societies and the local and national Associations that oversaw them. In the societies believers were encouraged to share their experiences of the Lord and their struggles in the life of faith. It was in these groups that Williams’ gifts as a soul-physician really came into play. He wrote a book, The Experience Meeting as a manual for society leaders and to commend the value of societies to Methodist converts.

William Williams was the leading writer of the early Calvinistic Methodists. Eifion Evans gives us a flavour of his many and varied prose and poetic works. Williams published an epic poem of 1,360 verses, A View of the Kingdom of Christ, setting out the supremacy of Jesus in creation, providence and redemption. In The Life and Death of Theomemphus, the writer used Bunyanesque fictional characters to portray the trials and triumphs of a typical Calvinistic Methodist believer. His most ambitious prose effort was Pantheologia: A History of All the Religions of the World, printed in seven parts. It is fair to say that Williams’ multi-volume work of comparative religion was not the most popular of his publications. But he wrote with the laudable aim of giving Welsh Calvinistic Methodism more of an intellectual edge.

Welcome attention is also devoted to William Williams the hymn writer. His hymns give expression to all that was best about the Evangelical Revival in Wales. They are steeped in sound biblical doctrine and allude to Bible themes such as the believer’s pilgrimage to glory. But in addition, Williams’ compositions are the overflow of the heart of a gifted poet with a deep experience of communion with God. They are also enriched by the author’s intimate knowledge of the struggles of the life of faith. Evans offers fresh translations of some of Williams’ lesser know Welsh hymns (lesser known at least to English speakers).

The 18^th century revival in Wales was not without controversy. Some attacked the revival from the outside. Williams defended the awakening against the charge of enthusiasm or fanaticism. He found Jonathan Edwards’ writings such as The Religions Affections helpful on this score. The revival was also rocked by controversy from within. Some adopted Sandemanian views that reduced saving faith to an intellectual assent to doctrinal propositions. Others advocated antinomianism and rejected the law of God as a rule of faith for believers. Williams refuted these errors in his writings. He also translated into Welsh works that addressed Sandemanian and antinomian false teachings.

An altogether trickier matter was Howell Harris’ adoption of aberrant Moravian views. Harris revelled in the “blood of God” to such an extent that it seemed he was teaching “patripassianism”, the view that the Father suffered on the cross. Daniel Rowland and William Williams argued for the orthodox Trinitarian teaching that at the cross Jesus the Son offered himself to God the Father through the eternal Spirit. Harris’ unorthodox teaching and erratic behaviour in the late 1740 and 50’s led to a division in the ranks of Welsh Calvinistic Methodism. Although married, Harris took a female companion with him on his preaching tours. He proclaimed Sidney Griffith a “prophetess”. The obstinate exhorter would not listen to the reproving voices of Rowland and Williams and so the old friends were forced to part. They were reunited in the 1760’s, when Wales experienced a fresh outpouring of the Spirit.

Eifion Evans has produced a most helpful, informative and stimulating biography of William Williams. He has shown that in his multidimensional ministry, Pantycelyn was much more than a hymn writer. However, Evans can sometimes pull his punches when it comes to criticism of his hero. Williams mistakenly took the appearance of the Northern Lights as an indication that the last days were at hand (see chapter 25). He was so keen to defend the revival against detractors that he was too willing to take leaping and dancing in Methodist meetings as an evidence of the presence of the Spirit. Jonathan Edwards was more cautious in his approach, insisting that effects on the body were no certain evidence of the Spirit’s work. Sometimes Evans’ style can be a little odd. Witness this sentence, almost worthy of Yoda, the syntactically challenged Star Wars character, “It was in this context that Williams forged for the Methodists this manual” (p. 263).

Anyway, I think we can learn a number of lessons from William Williams and Welsh Calvinistic Methodism.

1. Calvinistic doctrine needs to be wedded to the empowering presence of the Spirit. Evans devotes a couple of chapters to Williams’ doctrine. He held to Reformed theology alright, but it was theology on fire. We have witnessed a welcome recovery of Reformed doctrine in the last fifty years or so. But we have not yet seen a widespread outpouring of the Spirit in revival. Truth must be experienced and its power felt.

2. The need for discernment in times of revival. At the best of times, the devil is at work sowing seeds of doctrinal confusion and goading people to fanaticism. What happened to Howell Harris in the 1740’s and 50’s is a case in point. A revival must not be dismissed on account of the presence of errors and disorder, but neither should revivals be judged uncritically.

3. There is no contradiction between spiritual life and organisational structures. The Calvinistic Methodists had their local societies and national assembly. Independent Evangelicalism often lacks appropriate structures that enable gospel churches to pool their resources and work together. A task for Affinity, perhaps?

4. The value of believers meeting in small groups. William Williams was a great advocate of societies. Today the equivalent would be Housegroups. But may our Housegroups not simply be for the purpose of Bible study and prayer, but also an environment where believers are encouraged to share their spiritual experiences.

5. A new generation of hymn writers has much to learn from Williams’ ability to mix biblical truth with heartfelt experience of the grace of God.

6. The Church of England could not contain the new wine of Calvinistic Methodism and so the Presbyterian Church of Wales was founded in 1811. But the revival did start in the Church of England. Should such a movement of the Spirit suddenly begin in today’s Church in Wales, or the Church of England, how should those of us who have separated from the mainline denominations react? I trust that we would be generous minded enough to recognise the work of God for what it was and do all we could to support those involved.

7. Evans’ biography is written from an unashamedly Christian standpoint. Unlike the case with some recent works by Evangelical historians, Evans attributes the Evangelical Revival experienced by William Williams and others to the Holy Spirit rather than to merely human factors. His account is all the better for that. May reading this volume stir us up to lay hold of God for a fresh outpouring of the Spirit in our day.

* Reviewed for Autumn 2011 Foundations.

Something extra from Calvin for Christmas

2011-12-14T11:57:00.000Z

In his book, John Calvin's Ideas, (Oxford, 2004), Paul Helm devotes a chapter to The Extra (p. 58-92). Helm defines Calvin's extra, or the extra Calvinisticum like this: "the view that in the Incarnation the Son retained divine properties such as immensity and omnipresence and therefore Christ was not confined within the limits of a human person". It would have been better for Helm to have said, "within the limits of a human nature", but I'll let that pass for now. The main point is that Calvin was especially clear on the fact that the enfleshment of the Son entailed no change in his divine being,

They thrust upon as something absurd, that if the Word of God became flesh, then he was confined in the narrow prison of an earthly body. This is mere impudence! For even if in his immeasurable essence the Word was united with human nature into one person, we do not imagine that he was confined therein. The Son of God descended miraculously from heaven, yet without abandoning heaven. He was pleased to be conceived miraculously in the Virgin's womb, to live on the earth, and hang upon the cross, and yet he continually filled the world as he had from the beginning. (Institutes II:13:4).

As Helm points out, Calvin's "extra" was not in fact distinctive to the Reformer at all. A similar emphasis can be found in Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas and other notable Doctors of the Church. Here is Augustine,

And we think that something impossible to believe is told us about the omnipotence of God, when we are told that the Word of God, by whom all things were made, took flesh from a virgin and appeared to mortal senses without destroying His immortality, His eternity, or diminishing His power, or neglecting the government of the world, or leaving the bosom of the Father, where He is intimately with Him and in Him! (Letter to Volusian, cited in John Calvin's Ideas, p. 59).

Also along these lines, my attention was recently drawn to a hymn by Joseph Hart (1712-68),

1 The Lord that made both heaven and earth,

And was himself made man,

Lay in the womb, before his birth,

Contracted to a span.

2 Behold, from what beginnings small

Our great salvation rose;

The strength of God is owned by all;

But who his weakness knows?

3 Let not the strong the weak despise;

Their faith, though small, is true;

Though low they seem in others’ eyes,

Their Saviour seemed so too.

4 Nor meanly of the tempted think;

For O what tongue can tell

How low the Lord of life must sink,

            Before he vanquished hell?

    5    As in the days of flesh he grew
            In wisdom, stature, grace,
        So in the soul that’s born anew,
            He keeps a gradual pace.

    6    No less almighty at his birth,
            Than on his throne supreme;
        His shoulders held up heaven and earth,
            When Mary held up him.

Did Jesus leave his throne when he became Man?

2011-12-13T08:27:00.002Z

Christmas carols often claim that the Son of God "left his throne" when he became man. A few examples,

There was no room in Bethlehem

for Him who left his throne

Thou didst leave Thy throne

and kingly crown

The Lord of hosts, the God most high,

who quits His throne on earth to live

The trouble is that I'm at a loss as to what all that is supposed to mean. When he became man, did the Son abdicate his role in the lordship of the Trinity, ceasing to rule the cosmos together with the Father and the Holy Spirit? What does such a construction do to our doctrine of the Trinity? Besides, Scripture bears witness to the fact that the Son was involved in upholding and guiding the universe before and after he was made flesh, Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 1:3. And Hebrews 1:8, citing Psalm 45:6-7 insists that the Son's throne is "for ever and ever".

The nearest Scripture gets to the idea that Christ "left his throne" is in using spatial language to describe the incarnation. In the Gospel According to John Jesus often testifies that he came down from heaven to earth, John 3:13, 6:51. But even here, we need to understand that this language is figurative, accommodated to our capacity as creatures constrained by space and time. Being of the same divine essence as the Father, the Son is omnipresent. He was not shorn of his immensity when he became Man. In the words of Augustine, Jesus became was he was not - fully human, without ceasing to be what he was - fully God. The one who was born in Bethelem was at one and the same time filling heaven and earth, unconstrained by the restrictions of created space. When Scripture speaks in terms of the Jesus coming down from heaven, this language is intended to convey the dazzling height from which he stooped when the Word was made flesh.

But still, even as he was born of woman, born under the law, Jesus was the sovereign Son, ruling over all things together with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Rather than depicting Christ as surrendering a throne at the incarnation, the bible insists that he came to claim his crown as the Redeemer-King of the people of God, Isaiah 9:6-7, Luke 1:31-33. The incarnation was not an act of dethronement for the Son, but of further enthronement. Because he who was the form of God took the form of a servant and became obedient to the death of the cross, God exalted him to his right hand in glory. Jesus is the Lamb in the midst of the throne, worthy to reign because he redeemed us to God by his blood, Acts 2:36, Philippians 2:8-11, Revelation 5:5-6, 9-10.

Well might angels sing in wonder
as they herald forth his birth;
even they can scarcely ponder
why God's Son came down to earth.
See Him now, enthroned in glory,
earth awaiting His return.
While our hearts recount the story
may these hearts within us burn.
(Graham Stuart Harrison)

Blogging in the name of the Lord: Jonathan Hunt

2011-12-08T10:32:00.000Z

GD: Hello Jonathan Hunt and welcome to Exiled Preacher. Please tell us a little about yourself.

Born 1977, born again 1992, called to preach in 2005. Married since 2002, to Clare, with one step-son, John, who is 14. I have a degree in English Literature from the Open University. For the last three years I have been full-time carer for my wife who has MS, and I have served as Preaching Elder at Cheltenham Evangelical Free Church.

GD: You blog at Pastor’s Pen. How do you view blogging in relation to the pastoral ministry?

A word of explanation, perhaps. I have blogged in various incarnations since 2004. Upon accepting the new Pastorate, I decided that I really could not continue to blog as a private individual. I do view blogging technology as useful, though, and so I will be continuing to 'blog' using a part of our new church website, www.mortonbaptist.org. This will mainly be a means of placing online the pastoral letters, articles and book reviews which I write for our monthly church magazine, the 'Morton Messenger'.

GD: You are about to become Pastor of Morton Baptist Church, Thornbury. Describe your call the work of the ministry at Thornbury.

It was a great suprise. Although Clare and I had the sense that we were open to a move somewhere, we could not see how it would work out as we needed to stay in Cheltenham for at least another 18 months. I had been aware of the church for about three years, having attending various preaching rallies there, and preached on a few Sundays. In May 2011 I attended such a rally meeting, and I was taken aside by the Church Secretary afterwards. 'May we register an interest?' he asked. I came home and discussed it with Clare, prayed, and the next day agreed that they could take it further. I was 'interviewed' by the Secretary and former Pastor, and then preached with a view twice one Sunday at the end of June. I also understand that various references from experienced ministers were taken up. On Friday 1st July, the church members extended an unanimous call to me, which I have (obviously) accepted, and I commence formally on 1st January 2012.

GD: And the Induction Service is when?

Let's get this straight - the Ordination Service AND the Induction Service are BOTH on Saturday 14th January 2012 at 2pm.

GD: That's clear, then. What are your hopes and fears as you contemplate your first pastorate?

My hopes are many. Primarily that the Lord will be pleased to bless our ministry to the salvation of many in the area, but equally that He will bless and encourage the saints who have been bruised and battered by some considerable troubles and unexpected bereavements. Secondarily I hope as ever that I might grow in grace and be a blessing to others. I continue to be amazed that someone like me could be used in this way. A minor hope is that we might sing some more Psalms! My fears? All about myself. Jesus Christ never fails - but I know that I do! I also fear that if there is blessing, praise will be wrongly attributed to me rather than to Almighty God.

GD: Where did you train for the pastoral ministry and what did you find most helpful about your training?

Mostly in the school of experience. The past few years have seen me do pretty much everything that arises pastorally, apart from a wedding. I did attend the London Reformed Baptist Seminary for four years but I freely confess that whilst I completed full attendance and (I hope) did all the reading, I didn't manage to submit all the assignments. I continue to train myself and I am trying to study some greek now. If there was one thing most helpful about LRBS, it was the series of 'Book overviews' given by various pastors who brought out the chief themes, opportunities for teaching or evangelistic preaching, and schemes for covering the contents, in all the books of the Bible.

GD: Who has had the greatest influence on your theological development?

Peter Masters. This is the obvious truth, because he was my pastor for 24 years. I owe Dr Masters a great debt - and if I could have two attributes of his - his passion for the lost and his desire to make the scriptures accessible to everyone - then I would be very happy. I would just add that in the ten years that I have been away from London, I have continued to develop theologically, and some of my positions would now be a little different from his - although I would still affirm the 1689 confession with very minor variations.

GD: If time travel were possible, which figure from post-biblical church history would you like to meet and what would you say to him/her?

It is corny but I cannot get beyond Mr Spurgeon. I would love to know what his voice sounded like. What would I say? Nothing. I would be listening.

GD: What is the most helpful theological book that you have read in the last twelve months? It is a must read because...

A small one. 'Singing the songs of Jesus' by Michael Lefebvre (Christian Focus). Helpful because it is the best theological presentation of why we should sing the Psalms in worship. A must read because it explains so plainly why the Psalms are Christ's songs which we may sing WITH Him. It avoids the pitfall of arguing for exclusive psalmody (without saying whether that is right or wrong) and this makes the case for the singing of the Psalms in public worship all the stronger.

GD: Care to share your top three songs or pieces of music?

My tastes are very broad. Thanks to Gary Brady (he posted a link to youtube on his blog, Heavenly Worldliness) I do enjoy the music of Adam Young, better known as 'Owl City'. A professing Christian, his lyrics are clean, the music is fun and there are many spiritual messages in the songs. My favourite track is the multiple-platiunum hit 'Fireflies'. That's only really one answer isn't it? I'll probably say Handel's Messiah if that isn't cheating, and also 'I was glad' by Parry.

GD: What is the biggest problem facing Evangelicalism today and how should we respond?

A lack of corporate prayer. That is simply my own personal observation. Empty church prayer meetings, long silences, people praying about pet theological issues, and next to no pleading for God's blessing and help, particularly in evangelism. How we should respond is fairly obvious to my mind - make much of corporate and private prayer, encourage and exhort people to pray, and give the lead to the people we serve.

GD: And which blogs do you most enjoy reading and why?

Not very many. I use an RSS reader which allows me to see what is available at a glance. Apart from your good blog, I would say that the top five I visit every day are David Murray's Head Heart Hand, Brian Croft's Practical Shepherding, Jeff Lyle's Transforming Truth, Jeremy Walker's The Wanderer, and for politics and current affairs, Archbishop Cranmer. Very many good blogs have fallen into dis-use in recent times, I note.

GD: Thanks for that, J. Every blessing with your new ministry.

The Lord of Time

2011-12-06T08:00:00.017Z

Chosen in Christ

before time's dawn;

not for my works,

but in your grace.

Sovereign Lord,

I praise you.

Redeemed by Christ

in time's fullness,

his blood shed

to set me free.

Loving Lord,

I praise you.

Crucified with Christ,

a time to die.

Baptised into death,

sin reigns no more.

Mighty Lord,

I praise you.

Risen with Christ,

a time to live.

Fullness of life

from empty tomb.

Living Lord,

I praise you.

Seated with Christ,

a time to reign

in heavenly realms,

more than a conqueror.

Exalted Lord,

I praise you.

Made like Christ

at time’s end,

raised immortal

by his voice.

Jesus, Lord,

I'll praise you.

On listening to Mendelssohn's Elijah

2011-12-05T08:00:00.009Z

Augustine once said, "I want to know God, my soul and nothing else." When asked what music I like, I often reply, "I listen to William Williams, Radiohead and nothing else." Admittedly that's a bit of an exaggeration, but what I mean is that I don't much like what passes for contemporary Christian music. By that I don't mean hymns by modern writers like Stuart Townend, you understand, but Phatfish and stuff like that. Not that I've listened to a lot of Phatfish. In fact I can't remember ever doing so. But that's beside the point. I don't like their music in the same way I don't like custard and that's that.

I enjoy listening to hymns, whether old or new, Radiohead, Coldplay etc and nothing much in between. But even that isn't an especially accurate reflection of my musical tastes, because I'm also partial to a bit of classical music; Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Sibelius, Bruch, Elgar, Mahler, Shostakovich, the usual stuff.

Anyway, on Sunday I preached away at Cheltenham Evangelical Free Church. I went on my own and fancied listening to some music while driving. Being a it of a Sabbatarian I don't play Coldplay on the Lord's day, or even Radiohead, so I dug out my copy of Mehdelssohn's Elijah. Welsh bass baritone, Bryn Terfel sings the part of the eponymous prophet, accompanied by the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment under the baton of Paul Daniel. Being on my own I could turn up the car stereo really massive loud, which I can't usually do because it gives my wife 'a headache'.

I had played the CD many times before, but the effect of listening to Elijah on full blast really blew me away. Mendelssohn's oratorio brilliantly captures the highs and lows of the Elijah's ministry, from his triumph at Mount Carmel to his despair at Horeb, the mountain of God. Terfel is amazing in the lead part, singing with great skill and a deep emotional empathy for the prophet. You sometimes feel that he is almost sing-preaching, as he thunders against the prophets of Baal.

It all ends by directing the listener to a new Elijah, in the form of John the Baptist with an allusion to Malachi 4:5-6 cf. Luke 1:17. Of course, John the Baptist's role was to point people to Christ. The libretto picks this up, having the chorus sing a catena of biblical quotations, including Isaiah 41:25, 42:1 & 11:2. A quartet exhorts the listener to come to the Lord, Isaiah 55:1, 3, before the chorus concludes the piece with a rousing doxology, "Thou fillest heaven with thy glory. Amen."

Mehdelssohn's Elijah ends where Handel's Messiah begins, with John the Baptist as a new Elijah, preparing the way for the Lord. Mehdelssohn's tremendous Elijah serves as a forerunner for Handel's more excellent Messiah.

I know that the Latin for "take and read" is toll lege. I don't know what the Latin is for "take and listen" so I'll just have to say it in English. Take and listen to Mendelssohn's Elijah. If you've never done so before, what are you waiting for? If you have do so before, do it again. Soon. You can catch the Terfel version on Spotify.

The Lamb in the midst of the throne

2011-12-01T16:11:00.005Z

Revelation 5:6

God’s sovereignty is mediated through Jesus Christ, the Son of God who became man and redeemed us by his blood. In his humanity Jesus has been exalted to God’s right hand in glory. Jesus Christ is Lord. God’s sovereignty has a human face. “The dust of the earth is on the throne of the Majesty on high” (Rabbi Duncan). In Revelation 4 God, reigns in unapproachable light, and in absolute power over all things. We might be overwhelmed by the majesty of it all, even the angels were, Revelation 4:10-11. But in the midst of the throne is a Lamb that once was slain, the Christ of Golgotha, who knew pain and suffering, who overcame by the shedding of his blood. He is no remote potentate, who cares little for the suffering and struggles faced by his people in the world. He looks down upon his church. He sees her fighting not to lose her first love, fighting against temptation, fighting against error, facing suffering. He is able to sympathise with her. He knows our frame. He remembers that we are dust. In all our affliction he is afflicted. The sovereignty of God is tinged with the sympathy of Christ. The Lamb is in the midst of the throne.

LAMB of God, Thou now art seated
High upon Thy Father's throne;
All Thy gracious work completed,
All Thy mighty victory won:
Every knee in heaven is bending
To the Lamb for sinners slain;
Every voice and heart is swelling,
"Worthy is the Lamb to reign".

Lord, in all Thy power and glory,
Still Thy thoughts and eyes are here;
Watching o'er Thy ransomed people,
To Thy gracious heart so dear;
Thou for us art interceding;
Everlasting is Thy love;
And a blessed rest preparing
In our Father's house above.

Lamb of God, when Thou in glory
Shalt to this sad earth return,
All Thy foes shall quake before Thee,
All who now despise Thee mourn;
Then shall we at Thine appearing,
With Thee in Thy kingdom reign;
Thine the praise, and Thine the glory,
Lamb of God for sinners slain.
(James George Deck, 1802-84)

Some thoughts on the attributes of God

2011-11-28T08:00:00.037Z

You may have noticed that I've done a few brief posts on the attributes of God over the last week or so. Here are some thoughts on the theological study of the divine attributes.

First, I'm not sure that "attributes" is the best possible word to describe the characteristics of God's being. Louis Berkhof argued that "perfections" might be a better term. The language of divine "attributes" suggests that it is we who attribute certain qualities to God. That leaves us wide open to Feurbach's allegation that theology is merely the projection of human thoughts concerning the divine. In reality however, theology is an attempt to reflect on who and what God is according to his self-revelation in Holy Scripture.

Second, the distinction between God's communicable and incommunicable attributes (or perfections) cannot be easily maintained. What might be regarded as communicable properties, such as love and truth are properly incommunicable in their totality. God is infinite and eternal love and truth and we are but finite creatures. On the other hand, some of the supposedly incommunicable attributes such as omnipresence are capable of communication when shorn of their infinite and eternal aspects. The omnipresent God communicated presence to his creation - time and space.

Third, the divine perfections should not first of all be considered in terms of God's relationship to the created order. God is not omniscient primarily because he knows all about the world he planned and made. Rather it is that in his infinite knowledge God plumbs the depths of his own being, and his omniscience is expressed in the full and complete knowledge that each person of the Trinity has of himself, and the other persons of the Godhead.

Fourth, the doctrine of the Trinity should not be tagged onto the end of a study of the attributes of God, almost as an afterthought. God is not love first and foremost because he loves us, but because of the loving union and communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Similarly, the divine omnipresence is not primarily to be defined in relation to the creation, that in his being God fills all things. Rather, it is that the persons of the Trinity dwell in the same divine space, each indwelling the other in loving communicative action (see here).

Fifth, the divine perfections primarily concern who God is in himself in the splendour of his being and in the fullness of the intertrinitarian relations. But the study of what are traditionally called the attributes of God should not be abstracted from the drama of redemption. The one Lord God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit disclosed his perfections in all their dazzling glory when Christ offered himself to God through the eternal Spirit to save us from sin, Hebrews 9:14, John 8:28, 12:32, 17:1-2, 4-5, 1 John 4:8-10. By the communicative action of the Triune Lord we have been incorporated in the theo-drama of redeeming grace. Prayerful reflection on the perfections of God will enable us to play our roles in the drama of redemption with greater faithfulness and authenticity. Knowing God better should move us to worship him more adoringly, serve him more sacrificially, and bear witness to the gospel with greater boldness and compassion, Daniel 11:32, Colossians 1:9-10.

Light up Westbury

2011-11-25T08:00:00.003Z

An edited version of an article for this week's White Horse News & December's News & Views

Hey. I know that this is the “churchy” bit of the paper that you usually skip, but hang on a minute. “I’m not interested in religion.” You might object. Nor me. What I’m interested in is finding light in this dark world. With the bleak economic situation, the news filled with stories of death and destruction, things are pretty gloomy at the moment. Not to mention the added layer of gloom that comes with the clocks going back to the long dark age of GMT.

Will someone please switch on the lights! Speaking of which, this tonight marks the grand switching on of Westbury’s Christmas Lights. Hundreds of people, old and young will excitedly gather in the High Street. Hot drinks and mince pies will be served, maybe even candyfloss. Father Christmas will come to town. And then 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, LIGHT. The once darkened streets of Westbury will suddenly be bathed in the warm glow of the town’s Christmas illuminations.

At this time of year people also make the effort to light up their homes. For some this means a displaying simple Christmas candle arch that flickers away in the front window. Others go for more elaborate displays, covering their houses with the brightly lit icicles, reindeer, snow men, and, of course, Father Christmas. Nice. But I’d hate to have to pay their electricity bill!

It’s no coincidence that Christmas is associated with light. Christians believe that with the coming of Jesus the light of God’s love dawned in our dark world. His birth was predicted in these words, “the rising sun will come to us from heaven to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace.” (Luke 1:78-79).

Jesus came to break the power of sin and death by his death on the cross and resurrection from the dead. To follow him is to walk in the light. Jesus said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12).

A Banner of Truth prodigal returns

2011-11-23T08:00:00.005Z

Some time ago I stopped subscribing to the print edition of the Banner of Truth magazine and fled to the far country of a Banner mag free life. However, just recently I came to myself and humbly asked the Banner of Truth if they would have me back. They didn't drape a costly robe around my shoulders, give me a ring, a new pair of sandals and kill the fatted calf, but they did the next best thing. They signed me up for a two year electronic subscription to the Banner of Truth. Shortly afterwards I received an email with a PDF copy of the mag attached. It was good to be back home in Banner land.

Amongst other treasures, November's edition features an excellent article by Michel Reeves on Goodwin, Sibbes and the Love of Christ and carries excerpts from the writings of Ted Donnelley, whose retirement from pastoral ministry is announced in the magazine. I have been privileged to sit under Ted Donnelley's ministry (that's him on the left) on a number of occasions. His preaching never failed to inform my mind, move my heart and stir me up in the service of the King.

Don't let any Pharasaical older brothers spoil the party by saying that they never stopped subscribing to the magazine, even when Walter Chantry was editor. Simply rejoice that I who was once lost to the Banner of Truth have now been found.

The immutability of God

2011-11-22T08:00:00.002Z

In the immutability of his being God is eternally true to himself in the infinite glory of his holy love, both in the intertrinitarian relations of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and in his relationship with the creature. His steadfast love never fails.

The omniscience of God

2011-11-17T08:00:00.009Z

The omniscience of God is expressed in his exhaustive knowledge of his own being and the infinite knowledge that each person of the Trinity has of himself and of the other persons of the godhead. In his eternal and infinite knowledge of all things the one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit knows whatever comes to pass in time and space because he determined whatever comes to pass in the world he created according to the purpose of his own will.

Themelios November 2011

2011-11-16T16:00:00.000Z

The latest issue of The Gospel Coalition's online theological journal, Themelios is out now. From Don Carson's editorial on Spiritual Disciplines,

People think of themselves as "spiritual" because they have certain aesthetic sensibilities, or because they feel some kind of mystical connection with nature, or because they espouse some highly privatized version of one of any number of religions (but "religion" tends to be a word with negative connotations while "spirituality" has positive overtones). Under the terms of the new covenant, however, the only "spiritual" person is the person who has the Holy Spirit, poured out on individuals in regeneration.

Lots of other good stuff too, but sadly Carl Trueman's regular 'Minority Report' column is no more.

The immensity of God

2011-11-15T22:28:00.001Z

The immensity of God is the triune Lord in the plenitude of his being, in which Father, Son and Holy Spirit occupy the same divine space, each indwelling the other in loving communicative action. In the immensity of his being the Lord God, unconstrained by the restrictions of created space, is freely present to sustain, guide and redeem the universe he made for his own glory.

On not buying any more books...for a while...a possible exception

2011-11-09T16:19:00.005Z

Back in September I made a public resolution not to buy any more books until I have made good progress on my "unread books" pile. Since then I've finished Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart (reviewed here) and Bread of Heaven, Eifion Evans' biography of William Williams (I would post a review, but the good folks at Affinity have asked me to hold off until it is first published in the autumn edition of Foundations - still not out). I've also completed The Future of Justification by John Piper, which I read in the freebie PDF version - see here. I've just started on Tom Wright's response to Piper, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision. When I'm done I hope to post a double review covering Piper and Wright's dialogue on justification by faith. I've read as far as Chapter 3 of another Piper title, Let the Nations be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions, which is very good. Also, I'm now into Volume 3 of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics. Yesterday, waiting while my wife had a physiotherapy session, I read a decent chunk - most of chapter 17, TB/GB, of Tony Blair's The Journey, which I've had on the go for a while in fits and starts.

But I'm seriously tempted to break my resolution by ordering Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Life and Legacy of 'the Doctor', edited by Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones. See David Ceri's blog for the low down.

Update

IVP have kindly agreed to send me a review copy of Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

Steve Jobs' final achievement

2011-11-04T08:00:00.016Z

It's been almost a month since Steve Jobs passed into eternity. So, this post is running a little behind the pack of journos, bloggers and opinionators who have commented on the life and death of Mr. Jobs. But more information on the technocrat has come to light since he died on 5th October. Perhaps, then, some reflections at this point might not be altogether amiss.

Let me say up front that I'm not a card carrying member of the Steve Jobs fan club. Sorry about that, but in the interests of full disclosure I should say that I'm writing this on a PC, not a Mac. My mobile is an Android rather than an iPhone. When I download music it's more likely to be from Amazon not iTunes. Sadly I don't posses any form of MP3 player, certainly not an overpriced iPod. Not that I've got anything against Apple heads with their "i" this, that and the other, but I'm simply not one of them. I hope that doesn't invalidate what I got to say on the world of gadgetry's Man in Black.

Jobs' philosophy of life was best summed up in his famous 2005 commencement address to Stamford University graduates. He spoke of the impact that the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer had on his life, forcing him to face up to his own mortality,

Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

There is a lot of wisdom in the thought that as we're all going to die we had better get on with living life to the max. The Bible urges us think in that way, Ecclesiastes 9:10. But Jobs is saying more than that. He is commending a kind of "live your dreams and follow your heart" approach to life. That may sound all very find and dandy, but it isn't actually very good advice. What if your dreams are little more than sad delusions? Think of the thousands of people who audition for reality TV shows like the X-Factor. Every one of them believes that they are the Next Big Thing in Pop Music. But their dreams are cruelly shattered by the howls of derision that greet their tuneless rendition of River Deep Mountain High. No amount of dreaming and heart following is going to change the fact that they can't sing. Better that they get on with being a good hairdresser, bricklayer, chartered accountant or whatever, earn their crust and provide for their loved ones as best they can. For most people it's not a case of "living your dreams", but "life's hard and then you die".

Also, Steve Jobs may have succeeded in living his dreams by producing phones and stuff for Apple, but from reading reviews of his authorised biography, it seems that he was a tryanical bully to work for. Making his dreams a reality involved making his employees lives a nightmare. But that's the trouble isn't it? The "don't listen to anyone else, follow your intuition" approach to life is necessarily inconsiderate of the needs of others. Isn't that just a little bit selfish and inhuman? What does it profit a man if he invents the iPhone and loses his soul?

Which brings us to Jobs' thoughts on death,

No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.

Yes, we're all going to die. Quite true. But is death really "the single best invention of Life"? Not according to the Bible. Death isn't natures way of clearing out the old to make way for the new. It is the wages of sin. Sin alienates us from God, the giver of life. Death is the last enemy, a merciless foe rather than a kindly friend. Death robs a man of his life and loved ones of a dear relative or friend. After death comes the judgement of God, Hebrews 9:27.

According to Jobs' sister, Mona Simpson, who witnessed him pass away, "Death didn't happen to Steve, he achieved it". His last words were, “Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow”. But sadly, no one "achieves" death. We are its passive victims. I say no one. There is one exception. The death of Jesus was the greatest achievement of love ever witnessed by the world. He willingly laid down his life in order to atone for the sins of his people and save us from death, John 15:13. After achieving atonement for sin in his death, Jesus rose again from the grave, signalling the death of death itself, John 10:17-18. In the light of Jesus' death and resurrection, the believer can taunt death as a defeated foe and live life to the full to the glory of God, 1 Corinthians 15:50-58. Don't follow your heart. It's deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9). Follow Jesus, John 8:12, 11:25-26.

A benediction

2011-11-03T08:09:00.000Z

Grace of Christ
freely granted
at blood-bought price
be with you all.

Love of God
dazzlingly disclosed
in Jesus' cross
overflow your hearts.

Fellowship of the Holy Spirit
extravagantly bestowed
by nail-pierced hands
give you peace.

So, the church is for what, exactly?

2011-10-31T09:25:00.009Z

What's happening? Serious minded media types are giving attention to the true mission of the church. Usually it's like 'the church is so out of date' or 'the church is pointless' or 'the church is evil', but suddenly the church has an important task. It is actually for something. Nice, eh? Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said so, here and Hugo Rifkind of The Times said so here (sadly you'll need to be a Times subscriber to follow the last link). Apparently, the mission of the church is to stick up for 'pious idealistic impracticalities'. At least according to Rifkind, a self-confessed 'contented agnostic'.

You see, the argument runs, if Jesus was around today (let's forget for a moment that according to the witness of Scripture he rose from the dead and therefore is still 'around today'), he would be on the side of the anti-capitalist protesters camped outside St. Paul's. That's what the church is for. I mean, didn't Jesus overthrow the tables of the money changers in the temple? They were the unacceptable face of first century capitalism and he sure showed them what for. And didn't Jesus say stuff like, "you cannot serve God and mammon"? So, What Would Jesus Do? He'd protest against the City fat cats with their obscene bonuses. He'd pitch his tent outside of St. Paul's with the rest of them - and probably spend the night there too.

I defend the right right to protest, but since when did that include the right to set up camp in public places? Is camping now a radical antiestablishment act? That's news to me, and I was a boy Scout. Now, let's be honest and admit that the church authorities at St. Paul's haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in their response to the militants from Millets. It was silly to shut the doors of the cathedral for the first time since the Blitz for 'health and safety' reasons. Were they afraid that a worshipper, or worse, a paying tourist might trip over a guy rope or something? What would the real St Paul have thought of that? Health and safety. Have the assembled clergy never read 2 Corinthians 11, where Paul lists the dangers he faced in his apostolic ministry? He was flogged, mobbed, shipwrecked and stoned. Stumbling over a tent isn't included in his inventory of sufferings. Hardly being fed to the lions is it? The trouble is that if the ecclesiastics get tough and call in the cops to forcibly remove the tented agitants, that doesn't seem like a Christian thing to do. Whatever happened to "love thy neighbour" etc?

But in reality this whole debacle is a distraction from the main task of the church. As I noted earlier, Jesus' cleansing of the temple is often cited in favour of the anti-capitalist demonstrators. That is misguided. When Jesus drove the money changers from the temple courts, it wasn't because he was a kindly proto-Keynsian rather than a hard nosed lassiez faire capitalist. His motivation was rather different. The money changers were doing an OK thing in the wrong place. You see, they had set up their Bureau de Changes in the Court of the Gentiles. An area of the temple that was meant for non-Jews to come and worship the God of Israel had been turned into a busy shopping mall. That is what outraged Jesus. Look at Mark 11:15-19, especially Mark 11:17, where Jesus quotes a combination Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11.

The temple was meant to act as a magnet for the nations, to draw all people to call upon the name of Yahweh. Note Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the original temple, 1 Kings 8:41-43. The prophets looked forward to the day when the nations would stream to Jerusalem to seek the Lord, Zechariah 8:20-23. What Jesus encountered in the temple was a travesty of this hope. Indeed in his judgement the temple and its ministry has become so irredeemably corrupt that it would be swept into oblivion, Mark 13:1-2. That's what happened in 70AD when it was destroyed by the Romans.

The new temple is the people of God, united to Christ and filled with the Holy Spirit, Ephesians 2:19-22, 1 Peter 2:4-5, 9-10. The task of the church is to proclaim the good news of salvation to the nations, Luke 24:46-49. The worldwide church of God is not a commercial venture. It's calling is to be a house of prayer for all peoples. Admittedly St Paul's with its £14.50 entrance fee and gift shop probably isn't the best example of this. But still, the main mission of the church is not to act as a cheerleader for a band of well meaning protesters with their ill-defined anti-capitalist agenda. The church is not a political or economic pressure group. Its God-given purpose is to make disciples of Jesus, Matthew 28:18-20.

Am I saying that the church doesn't give a fig about social justice? Hardly. There is something deeply wrong with our economic system when hedge funds are allowed to asset strip old folks' homes. Amos had a thing or two to say about the rich plundering the poor, (Amos 2:6-8), not to mention James, (James 5:1-6). Christians like William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury worked tirelessly on behalf of the poor and the oppressed. They were not concerned with 'pious idealistic impracticalities', but made a real difference to the lives of ill used and vulnerable people. Christians are doing the same today.

The key task of the church is to preach the good news of Jesus Christ to all people and demonstrate the reality of Christian love by offering practical help to those in need. That's what the church is for. I'm afraid that championing the cause of anti-capitalist campers has very little to do with it.

It's the economy, stupid!

2011-10-20T15:02:00.000+01:00

OK then, I thought I’d have a stab at addressing the world economic crisis. I mean, unless the news is punctuated by reports of the Defence Secretary’s resignation, or the clearance of an illegal traveller camp, or the capture/killing of Gaddafi, the current economic situation is the big story. In the words of Bill Clinton’s 1992 election campaign strategist, “It’s the economy, stupid!”

Will Greece default on its debts? Will the Eurozone survive in its present form? Will the Government’s deficit reduction programme do the job? To be honest, I don’t actually know the answer to any of those questions. You see, I’m not an economist. If you are after my opinion on whether the Bank of England’s latest round of quantitative easing (thanks, spell checker) will prove effective, I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I really haven’t a clue.

So, you might ask, “What’s the point in him rather grandly proposing to address the world economic crisis on Exiled Preacher.” Good question.

Not so long ago politicians were promising an “end of boom and bust”. They held before our wondering eyes the prospect of endless economic growth and prosperity. Some wise old souls doubted whether this could really be true, but most believed that “things can only get better” (remember that one?). Then came the crash. Banks needed bailing out. Unemployment figures soared. Government cuts. Eurozone crisis. You get the picture.

Now, you’d be hard pressed to find something resembling a complete economic theory in the Bible. That’s not what the Good Book’s for. But for those who heed its message, the Bible has some pretty shrewd things to say about money. For example, “Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle.” (Proverbs 23:5 NIV). Paul warns the wealthy against trusting in “uncertain riches” (1 Timothy 6:17). Our current economic woes are testimony enough to the truth of these words.

What’s to be done? Jesus counsels us, “store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.” (Matthew 6:20). Set your hearts on the true and lasting riches that come through knowing Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

* Adapted from an article for November's News & Views, West Lavington Parish Magazine.

Juxtaposition: Herman Bavinck on God's fatherly providence and Thomas Hardy's blighted star

2011-10-10T11:11:00.003+01:00

The lives of Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) and Thomas Hardy (1840-1928) intersected the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Both men were affected in different ways by the upheavals in thought and life that characterised that turbulent period in world history. As their respective portraits show, the Dutch Reformed theologian and the English novelist and poet shared a common a penchant for extravagant facial hair. But Bavinck and Hardy had very different outlooks upon life. In this post I want to try and bring Hardy's bleak determinism into dialogue with Bavinck's account of the fatherly providence of God.

Reading Bavinck on providence in Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation (Baker Academic, 2006) put me in mind of Thomas Hardy. The theologian makes a pointed distinction between fate and God's providential rule of the universe. In her excellent biography, Thomas Hardy: Time-Torn Man (Penguin, 2007), Claire Tomlain devotes a chapter to the Hardy's fatalistic outlook as it found expression in his novels. The chapter is entitled The Blighted Star, after Tess' complaint in Tess of the D'Urbevilles that this planet is a "blighted star" due to the frustrations and hardships of life.

As a young man Thomas Hardy came under the influence of Henry Moule, the evangelical vicar of Fordington. When revival broke out under Moule's ministry in 1855, Hardy seems to have been affected. While training as an architect he began to study the New Testament in the original Greek and was a regular church goer. But this early piety was not to last. By 1866 he no longer accepted many of the key teachings of the Church. Reading the liberal theology of Essays and Reviews and the writings of the agnostic Thomas Huxley helped to unsettle his beliefs. On attempting to make a living as a writer, he became acquainted with Leslie Stephen and his atheistic fellow-travellers.

Tomlain cites the perceptive comment of Irving Howe on the impact that his loss of faith had on Hardy's outlook,

Because Hardy remained enough of a Christian to believe that purpose courses through the universe but not enough of a Christian to believe that purpose is benevolent or the attribute of a particular Being, he had to make his plots convey the oppressiveness of fatality without positing an agency determining the course of fate... The result was that he often seems to be coercing his plots...and sometimes...he seems to be potting against his own characters.

This can be seen, for example in The Mayor of Casterbridge, where the impersonal forces of fate seem to conspire to bring down Michael Henchard. The erstwhile mayor dies a lonely and hopeless death. He gives up on life because of the odds fixed against him by 'that ingenious machinery contrived by the gods for reducing human possibilities of happiness to a minimum.' The final words of the novel, found on the lips of Henchard's supposed daughter, Elizabeth-Jane are devoid of hope as she reflects that, 'happiness is the occasional episode in a general drama of pain.' On reviewing Jude the Obscure, one of Hardy's most bitterly anti-Christian novels, Edmund Gosse wondered, 'What has Providence done to Mr. Hardy that he should rise up in the arable land of Wessex and shake his fist at his Creator?'

Mention of Providence brings me to Herman Bavinck's treatment of the doctrine in Reformed Dogmatics. His single chapter consideration of the subject comprises the fourth and final part of RD Vol. 2, appropriately entitled God's Fatherly Care. The theologian begins by marshalling a vast array of biblical materials. He concludes that providence is God's kingly work of upholding and governing the world that he has made in accordance with his eternal plan and purpose. "His absolute power and perfect love, accordingly, are the true object of faith in providence reflected in Holy Scripture." (p. 593). Bavinck distinguishes the divine foreordination of all things from fate. Pantheism, which fails to differentiate between the transcendent Creator and the creation, inevitably collapses into fatalism,

On its premise there is no existence other than the existence of nature; no higher power than that which operates in the world in accordance with ironclad law; no other and better life than that for which the materials are present in this visible creation. For a time people may flatter themselves with the idealistic hope that the world will perfect itself by an imminent series of developments, but soon this optimism turns into pessimism, this idealism into pessimism. (p. 599).

As Howe pointed out, Hardy's fatalism was a twisted and ruined vestige of his earlier Christian belief in divine providence. He felt that life must have a purpose, even if that purpose is a pantheistic impersonal force that is out to get us. But as Bavinck makes clear, citing Augustine, God's providential ordering of the world is not "a blind coercive power, outside of and in opposition to our will, for 'the fact is that our choices fall within the order of the causes, which is known for certain to God and is contained in his foreknowledge.'" (p. 600). Christian theology recognises a concurrence between the providence of God and the free actions of his human creatures. "Neither are the secondary causes merely instruments, organs, inanimate automata, but they are genuine causes with a nature, vitality, spontaneity, manner of working, and law of their own." (p. 614). We are not, like Hardy's characters, the unwilling victims of a malign deterministic force. We are the free subjects of God's providential rule. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states,

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (III:I)

'New Atheist' Richard Dawkins goes further than Hardy, with his belief that 'purpose courses through the universe'. Consistent with his unbelief, Dawkins denies that there can be any purpose in life. Without God there can be none.

Such a universe would be neither good or bad in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precicely the properties that we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, but blind, pitiless indifference." Daily Telegraph, 10 May 1995.

The biblical teaching on providence set out so helpfully by Bavinck preserves us from the hopeless pessimism of unbelief. "In all circumstances of life, it gives us good confidence in our faithful God and Father that he will provide whatever we need for body and soul and that he will turn to our good whatever adversity he sends us in this sad world, since he is able to do this as almighty God and desires to do this as a faithful Father." (p. 619).

John Calvin on the difference between what a text says and what may be said about a text

2011-10-06T08:00:00.015+01:00

In preparing to preach on Genesis 22, where Abraham was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac on Mount Moriah, I consulted numerous commentaries on Genesis. But I also had a glance at John Calvin's commentary on Hebrews 11:17-19. Commenting on Hebrews 11:19, Calvin mentions the opinions of other interpreters of the text,

However, I do not dislike what some say, who think that our flesh, which is subject to death, is set forth in the ram which was substituted for Isaac. I also allow that to be true which some have taught, that this sacrifice was a representation of Christ.

But, he goes on to say that his concern as a commentator is not to say what might be said about the text, but to explain what the text itself says,

I have now to state what the Apostle meant, not what may in truth be said; and the real meaning here, as I think, is, that Abraham did not receive his Son otherwise than if he had been restored from death to new life.

Should we not also make a similar distinction in our preaching between the strict grammatico-historical meaning of a text and the broad redemptive-historical significance of the passage under consideration? Not that we focus on the one at the expense of the other, but that we be careful not to dump the whole weight of developed biblical revelation on a earlier text of Scripture. Doing so would be to ignore the progressive character of Holy Scripture.

Take Genesis 22 as a case in point. The burden of the passage is not primarily about Jesus' substitutionary atoning death. Rather, it concerns the Lord testing Abraham's faith, Genesis 22:1, the Lord's provision of a ram in place of Isaac Genesis 22:12-14, and the Lord's renewal of the covenant promises, Genesis 22:15-18. In essence, that is what the text says.

But there is more that might be properly said about the text than that. Isaac was Abraham's "seed" in whom the nations would be blessed, (Genesis 21:12, 17:19). The "seed" promise was originally intimated in Genesis 3:15. The "seed" of the woman would defeat the "seed" of the serpent. That saving "seed" will come from Abraham's line, Genesis 22:18. The promise is further narrowed down to one of king David's descendents, 2 Samuel 7:12-13. Jesus is identified with the line of Abraham and David in Matthew 1:1-17. Paul describes Jesus as the "seed of Abraham" in Galatians 3:16 and the "seed of David" in Romans 1:2-4 and 2 Timothy 2:8.

Abraham was called to sacrifice his "seed", although he believed that God would raise him from the dead, Genesis 22:5 cf. Hebrews 11:17-19. However, the Lord provided a ram in place of Isaac, his only son. In the case of Christ, God did not spare him, but delivered him up for us all and then raised him from the dead (Romans 8:32-34). Paul's language in Romans 8:32 (cf. Genesis 22:16), plus the reference to God's provision makes it clear that the apostle is alluding to Abraham and Isaac. See also the way in which Peter weaves together an intertexual web around the death and resurrection of Christ and his identity as the "seed of Abraham", Acts 3:13-15, 25-26. (Note a similar pattern of thought in Acts 13:16-30).

Genesis 22 in its pure grammatico-historical meaning does not say that Jesus Christ is the "seed" who died and rose again to remove God's curse from a fallen world and bring blessing to the nations (Galatians 3:13-14). But the text should not be read in isolation. Earlier revelation needs to be taken into account (i.e. Genesis 3:15) and the contribution of Genesis 22 to redemptive-historical themes unfolded progressively in Scripture needs to be traced out (i.e. Galatians 3:16, 29). We must neither deposit on Genesis 22 the full weight of the New Testament's revelation of Jesus, neither should we be blind to the witness of that text to Christ.

As Augustine pointed out with regard to the relationship between the Testaments, "The New is in the Old concealed and the Old is in the New revealed." After all, as Jesus said, Abraham saw his day and rejoiced, John 8:56. We must preach what the the Old Testament says, explaining the grammatico-historical of texts and declare what might be properly said concerning the text's testimony to Jesus. In other words we must follow the the exegetical model laid down for us by Christ and the apostles, Luke 24:44, Acts 17:2-3.

Garry Williams on Puritan accounts of the human person

2011-10-05T15:31:00.001+01:00

See here for a recording of Garry Williams' address on Puritan accounts of the person from the 2011 John Owen Centre Conference, Reaching the Human Heart.

Herman Bavinck on Human Destiny

2011-09-29T11:48:00.008+01:00

I'm steadily working my way though Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation by Herman Bavinck. I have to say that Bavink's is the most remarkable and satisfying work of systematic theology that I have yet to read. He really puts Berkhof and Reymond in the shade.

I've just finished his treatment of the doctrine of man, which is divided into three chapters, Human Origins, Human Nature and Human Destiny. Briefly, in the first of the three chapters Bavinck interacts with Darwinism and sets out the biblical teaching on the origin of man and the unity of the human race. Then we come to his discussion of human nature. The theologian disputes the Roman Catholic view that man was made in a 'state of nature' with the capability of achieving the image of God and with it life everlasting by meritorious good works. Instead, Bavinck advocates the scriptural position advocated by the Reformers that man was originally created in the image and likeness of God.

The image is not located in one aspect of human nature, such as the soul. Rather, "the whole human being is image and likeness of God, in soul and body, in all human faculties, powers and gifts. Nothing in humanity is excluded from God's image; it stretches as far as our humanity does and and constitutes our humanness." (p. 561). So much for the origins and nature of man, but what of his destiny? That's the bit I really want to concentrate on in this post.

Yes, God created human beings in his image. But that does not mean that in Adam and Eve humanity achieved its fullest potential. The goal of humanity was everlasting life in the presence of God. That destiny could not be achieved on the basis of merit or reward. God owed even unfallen humanity nothing. Eternal life is a gift freely bestowed by God upon his human image bearers, not a just desert awarded for effort.

On what basis, then did God promise to grant humanity the rich blessing of eternal life? According to Bavinck this is where the so-called "covenant of works" comes into its own. It is by means of a covenant that the transcendent and infinitely glorious Creator relates to his human creatures. He voluntarily bound himself to humanity by entering into this covenantal relationship with them. Bavinck finds direct biblical evidence for the 'Adamic covenant' in Hosea 6:7 (ESV). He argues cogently in favour of the translation, "like Adam they transgressed the covenant". But he asserts that regarding the arrangement with Adam as a covenant is not solely dependent on the Hosea text. Even if the word "covenant" were not used, then "one may doubt the word provided the matter is safe" (p. 569). When God calls people into a relationship with himself, laying obligations upon them and obliging himself to them, then that is, in essence, a covenant. Followers of John Murray's view concerning the "Adamic administration" would do well to consider Bavinck's arguments on this point.

Accordingly, Bavinck sees Adam's life in the Garden of Eden as a probationary period. If for that period Adam had continued in obedience to the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then God would have bestowed upon Adam and all humanity in him the blessing of everlasting life. Adam stood in a federal or representative relation to the rest of humanity. His actions for good or ill would affect the destiny of the whole human race. Bavinck appeals to the broken symmetries between Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 to justify his case.

When it comes to the fulfilment of human destiny in Christ, the Saviour does not simply restore his own to the position of Adam before the fall. "He positions us not at the beginning, but at the end of the journey that Adam had to complete." (p. 573). Adam was capable of choosing to sin. He was not immortal. Should he sin, he would die. In Christ believers will be raised immortal to sin no more, 1 Corinthians 15:45-49. As the theologian elaborates in a later volume of Reformed Dogmatics,

Christ was the second Adam. He came not only to bear our punishment for us but also to obtain for us the righteousness and life that Adam had to secure by his obedience. He delivered us from guilt and punishment and placed us at the end of the road Adam had to walk, not at the beginning. He gives us much more than we lost in Adam, not only the forgiveness of sin and release from punishment but also and immediately - in faith - the not-being-able to sin and not-being-able to die. (Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, Baker Academic, p. 395).

In him the tribes of Adam boast,

More blessings than their father lost.

(Jesus Shall Reign, Isaac Watts)

Discovering Jesus: Four Gospels One Person by T. Desmond Alexander

2011-09-27T17:39:00.000+01:00

Discovering Jesus: Four Gospels One Person,

by T. Desmond Alexander, IVP, 2010, 141pp.

Many first time readers of the New Testament have asked, 'Why four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, wouldn't just one do?' If you have ever wondered about that, then this is the book for you. Alexander begins by giving a brief overview of the Gospels. He highlights some common themes in the Gospel accounts such as the fulfilment of Scripture, the kingdom of God and the centrality of Christ's passion.

After that the scholar devotes two chapters to each the four Gospels. He skilfully teases out the special features their distinctive portraits of Jesus. In Mark, Jesus is the Son of God who gives his life as a ransom for many. In Matthew, Jesus is the Son of David who establishes the kingdom of heaven. In Luke, Jesus is the Saviour of the world who seeks the lost. In John, Jesus is the Lamb of God who brings eternal life through a new exodus. These portraits are not in conflict. Together they reveal something of the many splendored glory of Jesus' unique person and work.

Alexander gives attention to the composition of the Gospels, delving into the issue of which Gospel was written first (probably Mark), and to what extent Matthew and Luke drew on on material from Mark. He touches on the 'Q hypothesis' that seeks to account for passages common to Matthew and Luke that are not found in Mark. In a final chapter the writer reviews the key points of his book and offers some moving reflections on the wonder of Jesus.

Discovering Jesus is an accessible introduction to the Gospels that will help the reader of the New Testament to appreciate afresh who Jesus is, what he came to do and what it means to follow him.

* Reviewed for Protestant Truth Magazine.

Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies by David Bentley Hart

2011-09-22T08:00:00.004+01:00

Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies,

by David Bentley Hart, Yale, 2009, 249pp.

I took this one on holiday with me back in August and finished it a week or so after we got home. I usually read something by John Grisham when we go away. But after reading The Associate last year I began to grow a little tired of legal pot boilers and fancied a change. Not that reading theology is much of a change, but there we are. Then again, I don't often read stuff by Eastern Orthodox theologians so it was kind of different. You can tell that Hart isn't an Evangelical because he says that he isn't out to convert anyone to anything. Can you imagine John Blanchard saying something like that? Probably not.

What's Hart trying to do then? Well he's having a pop at the new atheists for rejecting the Christian faith, while at the same time piggy-backing on the remnants of Christian morality in Western society. You see, lots of the things that even atheists think are good, like holding to the unique value of every human life, are in fact the product of what Hart calls the "Christian Revolution". By the "Christian Revolution" the writer means the paradigm shift in values that superseded classical pagan thought and set the moral tone for the best part of two thousand years. New atheists such as Richard Dawkins "who - despite his embarrassing incapacity for philosophical reasoning - never fails to entrance his readers with his rhetorical recklessness" and Christopher Hitchens "whose talent for intellectual caricature somewhat exceeds his mastery of consecutive logic" often fail to face up to this inconvenient truth. Oh, and if you think Hart was being a little rude to Dawk and Hitch, then that was nothing compared to his withering scorn for Dan Brown author of The Da Vinci Code, which the writer describes as "the most lucrative novel ever written by a borderline illiterate." Fun, eh?

But it's not all jokes at the expense of vocal sceptics. In fact Hart keeps the knockabout to a minimum. This book isn't a specimen of Punch and Judy apologetics. The theologian offers a serious and telling critique of post-Christian society where human freedom has become the freedom of consumer choice with little regard for the morality of our choices. He faces head on some of the claims routinely made by the fashionable enemies of the Christian faith. It is often said that early Christians suppressed the intellectual achievements of Greek culture, leading to the "night of reason" that was only dispelled by the Enlightenment. Further, many sceptics routinely insist that Christianity has stifled scientific progress. Hart details why these charges simply do not stick.

Hart is aware that especially since Church and State were aligned under Constantine that Christianity hasn't always lived up to its highest standards. Christian civilisation has been guilty of intolerance and bloodshed. Given what the Bible says regarding human sinfulness, this isn't too surprising. But the record of Christendom on this score, shameful though it may be, is as nothing compared with the millions of lives lost in the secular conflicts of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Some atheists writers try and suggest that all was fine and dandy in the ancient pagan world before those pesky Christians came along with their hang ups over human physicality. Hart addresses this point, exposing the "glorious sadness" at the heart of pagan life and experience. Heretical Gnostics may have had hang ups over human physicality, but not the orthodox, who believed that the Word was made flesh. Christianity constituted a great rebellion against the false gods of paganism and the pitiless indifference to human suffering that often characterised pagan thought. The central tenet of the Christian faith, that he who was in the form of God took the form of a servant and died for sinners conferred a new dignity on each and every human being, slaves included.

The Christian message constituted a new vision of humanity, in which all human beings, regardless of wealth and status were viewed as persons. That is fully paid-up members of the human race. This was a truly revolutionary idea, for in pagan thought groups such as slaves and the disabled were regarded as faceless non-persons. Slaves could therefore be owned and mistreated. Disabled infants could be left to die. The notion of human personhood and its concomitant, universal human rights, was a specifically Christian development. Against the Arians who denied the full deity of the Son, the orthodox Christian faith confesses that there is one God in three co-substantial persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the incarnation the person of the Son took human nature. God became man so that man might partake of the divine nature. Hart weakens the biblical evidence for orthodox Christology by translating John 1:1 as "the Logos was with God and the Logos was a god" (p. 204). But his account shows that the very idea of human personhood was an offshoot of the theological reflection of the church. Given that this is the case, Hart worries that a post-Christian culture "will also, ultimately become post-human" (p. 215).

Perhaps Hart's scenario is closer than we might think. Atheist thinkers such as Peter Stringer have openly argued for infanticide in the case of severely disabled babies. The production and then destruction of human embryos for stem cell research purposes is another indication that the Christian view of human life is being abandoned. As is the widespread use of abortion as a means of birth control. Others go still further and advocate the use of genetic engineering that breaches the gap between humans and animals. A man with canine hearing, anyone? Welcome to the brave new post-Christian world.

Hart writes with great verve and panache. He has a deep knowledge the religion, thought and culture of the classical period. His learning is skilfully deployed to refute the sloppy arguments of the new atheists. Evangelical readers won't be able to go along with everything that he says. By "Christian" Hart basically means the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Protestants don't get much of all look in, although the abolitionist William Wilberforce is mentioned in passing. Readers will need to look elsewhere for a fuller presentation of the Christian gospel. However, Hart has ably demonstrated that the Christian Revolution transformed the moral outlook of the ancient world. To an extent that is not always recognised we have all been beneficiaries of this love-fuelled, wonderfully humanising revolution. We turn our backs upon Christian faith and values at our peril.

Thanks for nothing!

2011-09-21T08:02:00.000+01:00

Bart Simpson saying grace at the meal table, “Dear God, we paid for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing.” I suggest that the attitude of the brattish Bart Simpson is one that is widely shared. Why should we thank God for stuff that we paid for with our hard earned cash? Maybe that is one of the reasons why so few people (other than regular churchgoers) attend Harvest Services these days. The old harvest hymn exhorts us, “Come, ye thankful people, come,/join the song of harvest-home”. We reply, “What? Thanks for nothing.”

But Bart Simpson’s grace, if it can be called that, is rather short sighted. Who is it that gives us the health and strength we need to go out to work and earn our crust? Who is it that causes the sun to shine and rain to fall so that crops grow? Who is it that has blessed this planet with such a wonderful variety of tasty and nutritious foods? That’s right, it’s God. He created this world and he continues to provide us with every good and perfect gift.

And God has given us much more than our daily bread. Jesus said, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51). Jesus came into our world as Man. He died for our sins and rose again. Those who believe in him will live forever.

Such generous grace demands a grateful response, “God, our Creator and Saviour, thanks for everything!”

See church website for details of our Harvest Services.

* For October's News & Views, West Lavington Parish Magazine.

Aber 2011 Evening Meetings 5

2011-09-20T08:47:00.000+01:00

It fell to Gwyn Williams to send us on our way with the final conference sermon on Romans 16:25-27.

The Aber Conference is like a spiritual glasshouse. Glasshouses promote rapid growth. But they are a protective environment. Before plants are planted outside they need to be toughened up. Beware of post Christian conference syndrome.

In this doxology Paul shows us how cope with reality.

Romans 16 shows us the human side of apostle. 27 Christians in Rome are mentioned in Romans 16:1-20. In Romans 16:21-24, Paul sends greetings from 8 companions. The doxology resonates with the opening verses of Romans.

1. The gospel is eternal

Romans 16:25. The mystery hidden from the foundation of the world is now revealed. Our culture does not value history. But the gospel has antique value due to its special provenance as the gospel of God. It is the gospel of salvation.

2. The gospel to all nations

Romans 16:26, Acts 1:8. God’s intention from the beginning was that Jew and Gentile would be saved. Yet, the world doesn’t want to know, 2 Corinthians 4:6.

The Great Commission must be number 1 on the agenda of the church.

3. The obedience of faith

The gospel demands a response, Romans 16:26. This is the challenge of the gospel.

Being obedient in the glasshouse easier, but outside it is more difficult. We are God’s new humanity, renewed and holy. Have you been changed by the conference? It is not about how the preachers got on. How did you get on in response to God’s word preached?

God is behind all this, Romans 16:27. This calls for humility that gives all glory to God.

4. God is able to establish you

Romans 16:25. Back home you will face tensions in churches over Bible versions, hymn books etc. Also problems at home, the difficult economic situation, challenges for students in Uni, and issues at work. The are family concerns. Some have unbelieving parents. We experience personal temptations, loneliness and ill health. Some may even face death in the coming year. But God will strengthen you. He will help you make the transition from glasshouse of the Aber Conference to the real world.

Michael Licona, the resurrection of Jesus and biblical inerrancy

2011-09-16T08:00:00.003+01:00

Michael Licona's book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach is causing something of a stir due to his exegesis of Matthew 27:51-53. The scholar argues that these verses take the form of a "poetic device", rather than reportage of an historical event (p. 552-53). Some Evangelical scholars have accused Licona of compromising biblical inerrancy because of his handling of this text.

Michel Bird gives us the low down, on the controversy, including links to Al Mohler and Norman Geisler's response to Licona and Licona's reply to Geisler. Bird backs up Licona on his understanding of this segment of Matthew's resurrection narrative. It comes down to the issue of the literary genre of the verses in question. It seems that some conservative scholars are using genre identification as a way of skirting round what they regard as historical difficulties in Scripture. This matter is ably addressed as far as the Old Testament is concerned in Lost in the Old Testament? Literary Genres and Evangelical Hermeneutics by Peter Naylor in Foundations.

I posted a largely appreciative review of The Resurrection of Jesus back in March. But in my appraisal I flag up my concern regarding Licona's general approach to Scripture as he seeks to construct a persuasive argument for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, see here.

Aber 2011 Evening Meetings 3 & 4

2011-09-15T10:40:00.002+01:00

Hopefully with these reports it's a case of better late than never. Anyway, here's the next instalment:

David Meredith spoke on Wednesday and Thursday evenings. On Wednesday he preached on Acts 1:1-11, especially Acts 1:6, which sets out the agenda for church.

Acts is Luke Volume 2. Luke wrote Acts for the same reason as he penned his Gospel, Luke 1:4 cf. Acts 1:1, 3. The kingdom of God, a key theme in Luke is also seen in Acts, Acts 28:31. With the coming of the Spirit the power of the last kingdom is experienced, Acts 1:5. We need to experience the Spirit revealing Christ to us.

The words and deeds Jesus began to do and speak while on earth are continued by the Spirit through the apostles. We cannot have power of Acts without the Jesus of Luke.

1. A stupid question

Acts 1: 6 “As many mistakes as words” – Calvin.

The disciples made mistakes, holding to paradigms that were wrong. They expected a spatial not spiritual kingdom. The kingdom of God is not a political kingdom. We need of bigger vision of God's purpose. The hymn Jerusalem is far too parochial in vision. God does not do borders.

2. A firm answer

Acts 1:7. The apostle’s were not to speculate about times and seasons. What they needed was power, Acts 1:8.

The task of Acts 1:8 - what God is going to do. The gospel cannot be suppressed. Witness what he is doing in Iran and China. Join in great enterprise of the gospel. Begin where you are.

Continuing in Acts, on Thursday evening David Meredith spoke on Acts 2:2-4.

Revival is the intensification of the norm.

Was Pentecost the birthday of church? No. The church began with the Old Testament people of God. But at Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the church in full measure. Morticians can make corpses look good, but they are still dead. The church is dead without the presence of Spirit. When the Spirit is present, Christ is central and the fruit of the Spirit are evident. We need a holy dissatisfaction, a longing revival and for the salvation of the lost.

Luke 3:21-22/Acts 2:1-4. With Jesus and the church the pattern is baptism with the Spirit, mission and death. The church was united and expectant at Pentecost. What might happen if we were same?

1. The wind

Acts 2:2, wind/spirit the same word in Hebrew & Greek. A new creation, Genesis 2:7. The Spirit imparted a sense of newness, the new wine of the gospel. The church needs both archaeologists who look back and astronauts who look forward.

Pentecost was a supernatural event. God saves sinners. This is a more wonderful than the original creation. John 14:12 began to be fulfilled at Pentecost.

We cannot build the church by the law. We need the rushing mighty wind of the Spirit.

2. The fire

Acts 2:3. Fire signifies the presence of God; the fiery pillar, judgement, Luke 3:17. The tongues of fire were not the unquenchable flames of hell. The fire was on each of them, an inclusive gift.

3. Tongues

Acts 2:6, the tongues were foreign languages. A reversal of Babel. This is unity without subjugation and obliteration of difference. Different accents and dialects, Acts 2:6. The Holy Spirit breaks down barriers. Cultural barriers are not destroyed but eroded to the point of irrelevance. One message. One redeemed people.

Application

1. The translatability of god's word

We must no tie the gospel to WASP culture. The Antioch church reached out to gentiles. There was unity in diversity at Pentecost. The variegated grace of God. When God freezes water we have snow flakes, when man freezes water we get ice cubes. The symphony of grace. The gospel is for all.

We may not expect to see the phenomenon witnessed at Pentecost, but what was symbolised by the phenomenon still applies.

2. Come to Christ

3. Are you filled with the Spirit?

D. L. Moody replied, “Yes, but I leak.” Seek the Spirit’s fullness repeatedly.

Aber 2011 Evening Meetings 1 & 2

2011-09-12T08:54:00.000+01:00

Traditionally the Aber Conference evening meetings have had an evangelistic flavour. On Monday evening, Geoff Thomas preached on Luke 13:23. His message was a passionate and sustained appeal to the unconverted to enter the narrow gate and be saved. Opinions differ as to whether many or few will ultimately be saved. But when asked whether few would be saved Jesus answered, Luke 13:24-30. The issue is not the number of the saved, but that we must be saved by passing through the narrow gate, Luke 13:24, Acts 16:31, Matthew 11:28. We need to be united to Christ by faith and receive in him grace sufficient for each day. The gate is narrow - not wide enough for sin. We must repent. Jesus calls us to “make every effort” to enter the narrow gate. Soon it will be too late to be saved, many, Luke 13:24-25, 27. The door is still ajar. Strive to enter now!

Paul Levy spoke on Tuesday evening, giving a lively and insightful message on blind Bartimaeus, Luke 18:35-43. He drew our attention to: 1. A blind man who can see. The crowds referred to “Jesus of Nazareth”, but the blind man called him, “Jesus, Son of David”. It is better to be blind and yet see than to see and be blind, John 9:39. The disciples don't get it, Luke 18:32-34, but the blind man does. We need to admit our spiritual blindness before can see. 2. A man without an opportunity makes use of an opportunity. He was a beggar with few opportunities in life. But Jesus is passing through Jericho and he as one opportunity to ask for healing, Luke 18:38-39, Isaiah 55:6. The rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-23) and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14) were not saved because they did not see themselves as helpless sinners. But the beggar did. We must seek the Lord while may be found, lest we miss out on the opportunity to be saved – Esau, Hebrews 12:16-17. 3. A beggar who is undeserving. He was destitute and not deserving. He asked for mercy, Luke 18:38. No one is entitled to salvation. 4. A man who received more than he asked for. He asked for sight and he got Jesus, Luke 18:41-43. He was saved by faith in Christ, Mark 10:52. A nobody cried for mercy. Jesus stopped and spoke to him. Jesus opens blind eyes.

Archbishop Cranmer on those pesky Evangelicals

2011-09-09T22:34:00.003+01:00

Our favourite Tory blogger, the pretendy dead Archbishop Cranmer, recently commented on the Evangelical Alliance's report, 21st Century Evangelicals: Does belief touch society? He has some nice things to say about the document, but can't resist having a swipe at those pesky Evangelicals. His somewhat condescending tone is reminiscent of the words of the current real Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who opined,

It is something that I think became very important to me at one or two points when I needed it as a kind of corrective to what can be a slightly precious and elitist anglo-catholicism. Sometimes you just need to sing Blessed Assurance and hit a tambourine. You just need to know that there is something profoundly simple about what an evangelical would rightly call a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and that nothing substitutes for that. (See here).

That's it, you see. You don't look to Evangelicalism for theological depth. It is all about banging tambourines and singing rousing old hymns. Here is Cranmer's own verdict,

In His Grace’s experience, they [Evangelicals] are almost universally kind and hospitable; sing an awful lot of Shine, Jesus, Shine; believe the Canon of the Bible was handed down by God; praise the Lord when they find a lost saucepan; rejoice in Middle-East bloodshed and social breakdown, ‘for these things must be’; and their view of Church history begins with Acts and then jumps straight to Amazing Grace. Certainly, His Grace has never yet met an evangelical who grasps the Patristics, understands Chalcedon or appreciates the historical significance of any of the early Ecumenical Councils.

Looks like Cranmer's 'unworthy right hand' is at it again. The trouble is that there is more than an element of truth in what he says. There's no point in denying it. Evangelicals tend to be a bit patchy when it comes to church history and they often have little grasp of the nuances of the confessional heritage of the church. Evangelical preachers will say things like "Jesus became a human person", when, according to Chalcedon, what happened at the incarnation was that the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity took a human nature. But such a theological misstep is usually due to carelessness rather than deliberate heresy. The Roman Catholic Church is wilfully sub-Chalcedonian when is teaches that the humanity of Jesus is present on every altar at the Mass. Chaldedon explicitly rules out the communication of divine properties such as omnipresence to the human nature of Christ.

But on the whole Evangelicals have held consistently to the biblical teaching reflected in the historic creeds and confessions of the church. We worship the Triune God of the gospel and proclaim that Jesus is fully God and fully man in accordance with the Nicea and Chalcedon. Our vision of salvation is thoroughly Augustinian. We declare that only the grace of God in Christ can rescue human beings from sin. A glance at Evangelical confessions of faith such as the Westminster Confession and the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, and even the more succinct FIEC Basis of Faith will readily bear this out.

In stead of taking his few happy clappy Evangelical chums as representative of the movement as a whole, perhaps the pseudo-Archbishop Cranmer should invest some time in reading up on some of the classic works of Evangelical and Reformed theology. I recommend The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin, Communion with God by John Owen and Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Bavinck. As far as contemporary Evangelical literature, is concerned, His Grace is already aware of the writings of John Stott. Perhaps he should also get acquainted with The Gagging of God by Don Carson and The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship, by Robert Letham, to give a couple of examples. I think he'll find that the best representatives of Evangelical theology have a deeper understanding and respect for the theological heritage of the church than he might expect.

Anyway, that's me done.

Right then, where did I leave my tambourine? Altogether now...

"Shine, Jesus, shine...."

Calvin on the sum of our salvation in Christ

2011-09-09T07:57:00.001+01:00

When we see that the whole sum of our salvation,
and every single part of it, are comprehended in Christ,
we must beware of deriving even the minutes portion
of it from any other quarter.

If we seek salvation,
we are taught by the very name of Jesus that he possesses it;
if we seek any other gifts of the Spirit, we shall find them in his unction;
strength in his government;
purity in his conception;
indulgence in his nativity,
in which he was made like us in all respects,
in order that he might learn to sympathise with us.

If we seek redemption,
we shall find it in his passion;
acquittal in his condemnation;
remission of the curse in his cross;
satisfaction in his sacrifice;
purification in his blood;
reconciliation in his descent to hell;
mortification of the flesh in his sepulchre.

Newness of life in his resurrection;
immortality also in his resurrection;
the inheritance of a celestial kingdom
in his entrance into heaven;
protection, security, and the abundant supply
of all blessings, in his kingdom;
secure anticipation of judgement
in the power of judging committed to him.

In fine, since in him all kinds of blessings are treasured up,
let us draw a full supply from him, and none from any other quarter.

(From Institutes Book II:16:19. Versified by Guy Davies)

On not buying any more books...for a while

2011-09-08T10:25:00.002+01:00

I have resolved not to buy any more books (apart from Bible commentaries when needed) until I have made more progress on my unread/unfinished books pile. When a book catches my eye, I can barely resist buying it, and if it looks especially good, reading it straight away. But then titles bought on earlier occasions end up further and further down the pile. So, no more new books at least until I've finished the ones featured in photo above.

I've just completed Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart. Look out for a review on the blog, probably sometime next week. Also, I'm making good progress on Eifion Evans' biog of William Williams, Bread of Heaven, which I need to finish soon so I can submit a review for Foundations by the middle of September.

In the next day or so I'll be posting a report of the Aber 2011 evening meetings, which is where I bought the Tim Keller book at the top of the pile.

Aber 2011 Prime Time - Responding to Tragedies

2011-09-05T17:26:00.002+01:00

On the Monday of the Aber Conference I spoke on Responding to Tragedies at Prime Time, a meeting for over 45's. Here is a brief outline of my talk.

We live in a world of tragedies and disasters. 230,00 Were killed in the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami. Thousands were swept into eternity by the Japanese Tsunami earlier this year. Many are suffering and dying due to the East Africa famine.

This is a big subject. All I can hope to do in this meeting is try and place disasters and how we might respond to them in some kind of biblical perspective. This is not an exercise in apologetics – a reasoned defence of Christian belief. I'm assuming we agree that God is there and that he has revealed himself in the world that he made, in the Word that he has spoken and above all in the person and work of Christ.

The Christian response to disasters is that of faith seeking understanding, hope in the face of tragedy and love in action.

I. A Responding in Faith

1. Theological Framework

1) The Lord our God is good

God's goodness is revealed in creation Ps. 104, and redemption, 1 John 4:10. The one God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, our Creator and Redeemer is love and Lord. He is both compassionate and commanding.

2) We live in a fallen world

Genesis 3, Romans 8:18ff

3) God is still on the throne

Open theism is misguided. The Bible does not simply say that God "allows disasters", Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6.

2. Towards an answer to the question “Why?”

1) The fall

Suffering is part and parcel of life in a fallen world. We need to be realistic about this. "Life under the sun" throws up anomalies, Ecclesiastes 8:14.

2) To punish people for their sins

Sodom and Gomorrah, Genesis 19, the Babylonian captivity of the Jews, 2 Kings 24:1-4.

3) To discipline the saints

Hebrews 12:3-11, conformity to Christ, Philippians 3:10, the development of Christian character, Romans 5:1-5.

4) To warn sinners to repent

Luke 13:1-5

5) The need for caution

Job, John 9:1-3, Jesus, the ultimate example of innocent suffering.

Theology does not eliminate the mystery of suffering, but erects a fence around the mystery to protect the church from error and misunderstanding. Having done all our theological reflection we still have questions for God, 'How long, O Lord?', Ps 13:1, 44:24

II. A Responding in Hope

The gospel hold out hope for a disaster-struck world. Disasters signal the death throes of the present age and the birth pangs of the new creation, Matthew 8:23-27, Colossians 1:20, Romans 8:18ff, Note the seven “no mores” in Revelation 21:1, 4, 22:3, 5. Earthquakes and wars don't necessarily signal the imminent "end of the world", Matthew 24:4-8.

III. Responding in Love

Matthew 5:16, 7:12.

1) Pray.

2) Get involved. Especially those with specialist medical and emergency rescue skills.

3) Minister to the disaster-struck with sympathy, love and biblical integrity.

4) Give wisely (DEC includes Islamic Relief and Cafod as well as Tear Fund).

5) In our response is it right to prioritise helping fellow believers? Gal 6:10.

Aber 2011 Morning Meetings 3 & 4

2011-08-30T22:27:00.000+01:00

Some more notes on David Jones' Aber Conference addresses.

III. Romans 11: The Mystery of Israel

In Australia a new word has been coined. It is Cubs, meaning "Brogans Cashed Up". Many “Brogans”, who apparently are the Aussie equivalent of Chavs in the UK, have come into money due to gold mining. It is something of a turnaround for “Brogans” to be “cashed up”. A turnaround of greater proportions is found in Romans 9-11. Here we find that Gentiles as the centre when it comes to the riches of the gospel, while Jews are on the outside. We see a similar unexpected turnaround in Luke 15:11-32, The Parable of the Two Sons.

This was a personal issue for Paul. He was deeply concerned for the salvation of his own people, Romans 11:1.

It was also a pastoral matter, Romans 11:13. Paul did not want Gentiles converts to turn their back on the Jews, Romans 15:5-6, 7-9.

Here was also theological question, Romans 11:28-29. Has God finished with the Jews? Paul wants to unveil the mystery, Romans 11:25-26, 16:25-27.

1. Israel’s fall was not total

Paul was saved, Romans 11:1, 1 Timothy 1.13ff. He customarily preached to Jews first. There was a godly remnant of converted Jews, Romans 11:2-4. Also Romans 11:5-6. Acts 21:20 suggests that there were many Jewish believers in Paul's day.

God had his elect people within ethnic Israel.

2. Israel’s fall was not pointless

God’s purpose, was that through Israel’s fall the Gentiles might be saved, Romans 11:11. This was a great mystery, Romans 11:33-36.

Consider the goodness and severity of God, Romans 11:22. He is angrily loving and lovingly angry. The “olive tree” of Israel was not uprooted. Dead wood was broken off and the Gentiles brought in. Romans 11:23-24. Gentiles may now call Yahweh Abba. There is no room for pride on their part, Romans 11:11-12, 19-20.

Similarly in our day God has “moved south”. The church is languishing in the West, but in the Global South the gospel is advancing. May we be provoked to envy and pray that the Lord will visit us again.

3. Israel’s fall was not final

The remnant was not “leftovers” but “firstfruits”, Romans 11: 12, 15-16. Hoping for a future restoration of the Jews is not Zionism – uncritical support for the State of Israel, but a longing for revival, Acts 1:6. Most Jews don’t even live in Israel. When Paul says “all Israel will be saved”, Romans 11:26, he does not mean simply that all elect Jews will be saved, or that “all Israel” in the sense of the “Israel of God” comprised of Jew and Gentile will be saved. That the elect will be saved is no great mystery. Rather, Paul is saying there will be a great turning to the Lord among Jewish people, 2 Corinthians 3:15-16. “There will come a time when the generality of mankind both Jew and Gentile, will come to Jesus Christ. He hath had but little takings of the world yet, but he will have before he hath done.” Thomas Goodwin,

The salvation of the Jews will have huge impact on the cause of the gospel worldwide. We should be humbled by God’s severity towards Israel and grace to us. We are guests in Israel’s house, Romans 11:18, 20. This should excite us. Hope holds up the head of holy desires.

In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in… [Westminster Larger Catechism Answer to Q. 191]

Let us not be resigned to small things, but pray for all Israel to be saved and the fullness the Gentiles to be brought in.

This hope should lead us to worship, Romans 11:33-36

IV. Romans 15:14-33: To Boldly Go were No one has Gone Before

Paul’s travel plans, Romans 15:23-25. Jerusalem, Rome and then Spain. This is why Paul wrote Romans. He wanted to go to Spain and break new ground for the gospel, Romans 15:19, 23. He has preached in the religions of the eastern Mediterranean now he wanted to head west, Romans 15:20. He wants believers in Rome to give up their small ambitions and come save the world with him. Romans is not a systematic theology for Bible nerds, but an apology for world evangelism. It is tragic when evangelicals are not evangelistic. Blessed is the church when her evangelists are theologians and her theologians are evangelists. Church members might be better called partners. We are partners in God's mission to the world.

God’s mission involves:

1. Proclaiming Christ

In Romans 15:17-19 Old Testament worship language is used of evangelism, Romans 15:16. The Lord’s Supper is about proclamation, not re-presentation. Jesus’ once and for all death on the cross unites Jew and Gentile.

The collection, Romans 15:25-27, validated Paul’s ministry, helping to overcome Jew/Gentile divisions.

2. Pioneering

“To boldly go where no one has gone before”.

Paul was not an adventurer. He was fired by a biblical ambition, Romans 15:21.

The need today is 10 times greater than in Paul’s time due to population growth. How will they hear? We need to win people for Christ, build them up in the faith, and send them out in his service. Do we have non Christian friends to whom we might witness? Are we reaching the unreached in our community?

3. Partnering

Romans 15:24. Paul wanted recruit a team in Rome to help him in his mission to Spain. Paul always worked with others, Titus 3:12-13. Are you a Diotrophes or a Gaius, a hindrance or help to mission, 3 John 6? At the end of Schindler’s List, Oskar Schindler wished he had done more to save Jewish people. What more can we do to win people for Christ? The day of judgement is at hand. Don’t waste time on endless committees where minutes are kept, but hours wasted.

Will you go or stay? If you must stay, then stay to pray and pay for mission.

4. Praying

Romans 15:30-33. Prayer is the work. When Moses’ hands were raised in prayer Israel prevailed against the Amalekites, Exodus 17. William Carey urged Andrew Fuller to “hold the rope” of prayer when he went mining for precious souls in India. Was Paul's prayer answered, Romans 15:31? Yes, but not in the way he expected, see Acts 21-28. God is not predictable, but he is sovereign.

Paul’s priestly ministry of mission, Romans 15:16. He was pioneer. His work was perilous. We must pray for the success of gospel mission.

Aber 2011 Morning Meetings 1 & 2

2011-08-26T16:08:00.004+01:00

I know that it's been a couple of weeks since the Aber Conference and that posting a report now hardly constitutes live blogging. But with one thing and another it's been a bit busy round here since we returned from our hols, hence the delay. Still, in the olden days before blogging you'd probably have to wait until October's Evaneglical Times for some Aber reportage. If you were there, you already know what happened. If you weren't, then my notes are are poor substitute for the real thing. Hopefully better than nothing, but probably not a lot.

David (Norman) Jones gave the four conference addresses in the morning meetings (Tues-Fri). His masterly expositions of Romans 9-11 & 15 were headed "God's Overflowing Grace". Before the conference the last time I heard David Jones speak was while I was a student at the London Theological Seminary (1988-90) and DNJ was pastor of Grove Chapel, Campberwell. I was looking forward to hearing him again and I wasn't disappointed. I found his ministry insightful, challenging and uplifting. Here are some notes on the first two addresses.

I. Romans 9:1-29: How odd of God to choose the Jews

The church has sometimes been guilty of anti-Semitism. How odd to choose the Jewish God and hate Jews! Did the fact that the Jews rejected their Messiah so that the gospel was preached to the Gentiles mean a change of plan on God’s part?

1. Paul’s distress

Why don't the Jews believe? Why are some saved and others not? Romans 9:1-3. Paul would have changed places with the Jews. At the cross Jesus swapped placed with us, 2 Corinthians 5:21. Paul’s longing for lost sheep of Israel was an expression of the spirit of Jesus. We similarly should have a deep concern for uncoverted loved ones.

2. Paul’s dilemma

Has God's word failed?

If Israel is lost, despite Romans 9:4-5, Romans 8:31-39 is called into question. But salvation is by grace not race Romans 9:6-7. There is no promise that all ethnic Jews will be saved. Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob Esau. Jacob was not more loveable than Esau. All sinners are in the same boat, the Titanic. Only grace can save us.

Are God's ways fair?

Romans 9:14-15. It is not justice, but mercy that is needed, Romans 9:16-18.

Is God's will free?

Romans 9:19. Is God free to do as he pleases? In our thinking God is not in the centre. We hold him to account for his ways. “God in the hands of angry sinners.” But God is free and sovereign in his purposes and acts. Romans 9:21-24 cf. Jeremiah 18.

The Gentiles were called to reshape and remodel Israel. God’s word has not failed, Genesis 22:18.

3. Paul’s delight

His delight was in Christ, Romans 9:4-5. In Christ God became man to pay man's debt to God, 2 Corinthians 5:20. Christ is the mirror of our election. We must look to him for assurance that we are among the elect. Spurgeon, "I looked at Christ and the Dove came. I looked at the Dove and he flew away." Look to Christ and be saved.

II. Romans 9:30-10:21: The Tragedy of Unbelief

Homer Simpson's grace, “We paid for this food ourselves, thanks for nothing!” Wrong attitude. Two truths need to be emphasised: To God be all the glory for salvation and human responsibility.

Why did not the Jews believe?

1. They had a foundation, but they stumbled over it

Romans 9:30-33. On God’s construction site, the Jews tripped over Christ the “stone” and rejected him. The Gentiles stumbled across him and were saved John 1:10. In the race for righteousness, the Jews lost, they did not cross the finishing line, Romans 10:4. Gentile outsiders won, Romans 9:30, 32. Salvation by works is the default setting. But righteousness is beyond the reach of sinners. Saving righteousness is given to us in Christ, Romans 10:4. The law demands obedience and punishment. Christ has fulfilled the law Galatians 3:13. Those who believe in him will not put to shame, Romans 9:33.

2. They had a zeal, but it was misdirected

Romans 10:1-2. Sincerity cannot save. Islamic terrorism. Paul the Bin Laden of his day, the “chief of sinners”. The Jews need to be saved, Romans 10:1.There is only one way of salvation – in Christ.

3. They had a word from God, but they complicated it

Moses: the way of salvation simply explained, Romans 10:5-9. Like the rich young ruler, the Jews complicated God’s word.

Jesus is everything, Romans 10:6-8. Simply believe in him, Romans 10:9. It is not that God helps who help themselves, but that God helps those who can't help themselves, Romans 10:13. Call on the name of the Lord and be saved. A simple act with momentous consequences. Whoever calls shall be saved.

4. They had messengers sent to them, but they refused to listen

Romans 10:14-21. All have heard of God, Romans 10:18 cf Romans 1. The gospel had been proclaimed to the ends of the earth, Colossians1:23. Election and evangelism go together. The unevangelised urgently need to hear the gospel and be saved.

Where are the pioneer missionaries like Robert Thomas, missionary to Korea? His ship was set alight. He was executed as soon as he reached the shore. The Bibles he brought with him were used as wallpaper. People were converted. Now 1 in 4 South Koreans are Bible Christians. Romans 10:21 God stretches out his arms to the Jews. God still speaks through the preaching of the gospel, Romans 10:14.

Belief in sovereign election should be a spur to evangelism, not a hindrance.

Riots, reasons and remedy

2011-08-22T08:00:00.001+01:00

Thankfully Wiltshire was spared the rioting that affected several cities in the UK in August. But the West Country didn’t escape the disturbances altogether. There were reports of disorder in Bristol and Gloucester, although when interviewed on Newsnight, the MP for Gloucester, Richard Graham insisted that what happened in his city was “not a riot, but a disappointing night.”

No doubt politicians and think tank gurus will look long and hard at some of the causes of the recent outbreak of rioting that brought death and destruction to the streets of our country. Factors such as family breakdown and unemployment need to be taken into consideration. But when all’s said and done we still can’t get away from the fact that human beings are responsible for their actions, before the law, and to God. Not all rioters were hoodie wearing members of the “underclass”. Some came from nice middle class homes, but they were carried along by a wave of criminality to loot and plunder at will.

Now that the long arm of the law has caught up with them and justice has been summarily administered, many will be rueing the night they indulged in unruly behaviour from the inside of a prison cell. Hundreds of young lives have been blighted by jail terms and criminal records. All for a moment of August madness.

Buildings burnt, goods stolen, businesses ruined, lives lost. Whatever possesses people to act in such a way? The Bible’s answer is that human beings are sinners, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” "(Romans 3:23). We have failed to live according to our Maker’s instructions. On a large scale, that is the explanation for wars and riots. On a smaller scale it explains why our personal relationships are often fraught with tensions and difficulties.

The good news is that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. He died for the sins that separate us from God and incur his judgement. He rose again to give new life and hope to all who believe in him. Jesus is the remedy that Broken Britain needs.

*Written for September's edition of News & Views, West Lavington Parish Magazine.

Let me feel your love

2011-08-18T16:00:00.017+01:00

The other day I was listening to Adele's cover version of Bob Dylan's Make You Feel My Love. I thought that the tune might be suitable for a hymn so I had go at writing one.

Jesus, Lord
I now would seek your face.

I long to feel the

Warmth of your embrace.

My Saviour you’re so full of

Truth and grace.

Oh let me feel your love.

Jesus, Lord

You died to make me whole.

Your precious blood

Was shed to save my soul.

Now to serve you

Is my highest goal,

To you I give my love.

Father why,

Did you give

Your Only Son

To win a hopeless

Case like me?

Your love transcends

My highest thoughts,

My dreams,

Yet your Spirit tells me

It is so.

Jesus, Lord

You rose up from the dead.

At your presence death’s

Dark shadows fled.

Let me feed on you

O living bread.

And ever praise your love.

Chorus

Jesus, Lord

When will you come in power,

And all men see your glory

In that hour?

I hope in you,

My refuge and strong tower.

I shelter in your love.

End

Standing Firm - Still Protestant? 2010 Westminster Conference Papers

2011-08-17T15:32:00.000+01:00

The 2010 Westminster Conference Papers have now been published, £5.95 including UK p&p.

Contents:

The English Reformation Today: Revise, Reverse or Revert?, Garry Williams

Puritan Attitudes Towards Rome Revisited, Guy Davies

The 1611 English Bible: An Unlikely Masterpiece, David Gregson

Repentance and Sola Fide: Various Reformation Approaches, Sam Waldron

Doomed From the Start? The Edinburgh Conference of 1910, Daniel Webber

Andrew Bonar, Malcolm MaClean

Copies can be ordered from:

Conference Secretary,
Rev. J. F. Harris,
8 Back Knowl Road, Mirfield,
West Yourkshire. WF14 9SA.

An Interview with Affinity Director Peter Milsom

2011-08-15T08:53:00.001+01:00

GD: Hello, Peter Milsom and welcome to Exiled Preacher. Please tell us a little about yourself.

PM: I grew up in Cardiff where I attended Park End Presbyterian Church. After working for an insurance company, I trained for the ministry of the Presbyterian Church of Wales and was ordained in 1973. My first pastorate was in Mancot in North Wales. With real sadness, I resigned from this denomination and my ministry in Mancot at the end of 1974 and began a church planting ministry in the Deeside area. I have good friends who continue to serve in the Presbyterian Church. During the early years of this new ministry I worked as the Head of Religious Education at Henry Meoles senior secondary school in Wallasey. In the 1980’s, whilst continuing my ministry in Deeside, I was involved in the planting of a new church in Bala. In 1993 I moved to Malpas Road Evangelical Church in Newport.

Since 1997 I have been the Director of UFM Worldwide, a mission agency which works closely with local churches. UFM missionaries serve in 30 countries across all continents and one of my responsibilities is the pastoral care of the missionaries. I have had the privilege of visiting many countries which has given me insights into the work of God’s Kingdom around the world and the cultural diversity of the Church. The work of taking the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the peoples of the world, with the help of the Holy Spirit, requires the combined efforts of all of the Lord’s people.

I am convinced of the importance of evangelical church unity and its significance for our witness to the Gospel. I believe it is important for these convictions to be expressed in tangible ways. Disunity undermines the credibility of our witness to people who are searching for God and need to know the truth. I have worked out my convictions about evangelical church unity in practical ways. The church in Deeside became a member church of the British Evangelical Council, which is now Affinity, in the late 1970’s. For many years I was involved with the ministries of the Evangelical Movement of Wales and was the Executive Chairman of the EMW in the early 1990’s. In the mid 1980’s I was involved, with others, in the formation of the Associating Evangelical Churches of Wales which brings together 60 evangelical churches in Wales. In the late 1980’s I served on the organising committee of the Grace Baptist Assembly and chaired two Assemblies. I have also served on the Council of Global Connections and have chaired the Affinity World Focus Team since its inception.

GD: Give us a potted history of Affinity.

PM: Affinity continues the work of the British Evangelical Council. The Council of the BEC adopted the name Affinity in 2004, when Jonathan Stephen became the first Director. The BEC began in 1952 as a fellowship of evangelical churches which were not part of the World Council of Churches. In the late 1960s and early 1970s the BEC grew as some churches left the major denominations because of the growing influence of liberal theology, especially amongst the leaders of those denominations. The churches which left the denominations recognized the importance of expressing their commitment to evangelical unity through belonging to the BEC. Affinity is a church-based body. Since 2004 evangelical Christian agencies have also become Affinity Associates. This includes Bible Colleges, publishers, and mission agencies.

GD: What is the purpose of Affinity?

PM: Affinity is an expression of evangelical Christian unity. Everyone who belongs to Affinity is committed to the Bible, as the authority for all we believe and do, and to the church, as the means by which God’s purposes in the world are accomplished. We are responding to the prayer of the Lord Jesus in John 17 “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” We believe that Jesus prayed for a visible expression of the spiritual unity all Christians have because we are “in Christ.” Unity amongst true Christians makes our witness credible to the world and is essential if the Gospel is to be taken to the whole world. We are a partnership of churches and Christians who are committed to the Gospel. We welcome fellowship with all who are committed to the Lord, the Bible, the Church and the Gospel.

GD: Affinity seemed to begin with a bang and then (almost) peter out with a whimper. How do you plan to rejuvenate Affinity as a focus for Evangelical unity in the 21st century?

PM: Affinity continues the witness of the British Evangelical Council. The purpose of the new name and re-launch in 2004 was to challenge evangelical churches and Christians to become more actively involved in evangelical unity. Affinity now includes Christians and churches in the UK and Ireland so the word “British” needed to be changed. Affinity also includes a number of evangelical agencies involved in a range of significant ministries including pastoral and leadership training, publishing and world mission. This partnership between churches and evangelical agencies is important because the 21^st century presents challenges which we need to address together. The need is urgent. I am keen for Affinity to enable all who belong to it, and others who may join us, to work together on a Gospel agenda. We are living in a secular society and are witnessing the decline of Western civilization. We need to stand together in Gospel partnership. A new generation of younger leaders needs encouragement and younger people generally need to be evangelized. It is important for evangelical Christians not to think of Affinity as “them” but “us” and to get involved. I am always glad to hear from people who want to work out what it means to be “in Christ” together with other churches and Christians.

GD: Why should Evangelical Churches and Church groupings affiliate to Affinity rather than the Evangelical Alliance?

PM: We recognize the excellent work done by the Evangelical Alliance, which is a bigger organization than Affinity. There are certain things which are distinctive of Affinity. We are committed to the Bible and to the church. The Affinity Council consists of church leaders appointed by the various church groupings to which they belong. Everyone who belongs to Affinity is committed to upholding and proclaiming the vital truths expressed in our Doctrinal Basis. In recent years some evangelicals have begun to question key doctrines, for example, the authority of the Bible, justification by faith, substitutionary atonement, the uniqueness of the Gospel, and eternal punishment. We take biblical truth very seriously. The affects of embracing non-biblical, liberal theology can be seen only too clearly in the tragic decline of the major Protestant denominations in Britain today. We recognize the major issues facing evangelical churches and Christians in the major denominations, especially the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. We want to do all we can to encourage and help our brothers and sisters in those denominations in their stand for the Lord and for the Gospel.

GD: How do you see the role of Affinity with respect to the relationship between Evangelical Nonconformists and our Evangelical Anglican brethren?

PM: In 1992 I was the chairman of the BEC Council when the first Church of England congregation was accepted into membership of the BEC. Then and now we do not require a church to have actually seceded from their denomination in order to join Affinity. We recognize that some churches believe that they should continue to witness actively to the truth within their denominations. This is important for all evangelical churches which are within a denomination, whether nonconformist or Anglican. Affinity embraces a variety of churches. There are differences amongst us on matters such as the form of church government and baptism. We are united on the basis of the fact that we are “Evangelicals”. Our commitment to our fellow evangelicals is more important to us than our commitment to an historic ecclesiastical tradition. We welcome fellowship with all, whether nonconformist or Anglican, who are Gospel people and are actively witnessing to the Gospel within their denomination.

GD: Is separation from the “mixed denominations” still a live issue?

PM: Recent events within some of the main denominations mean that separation is a live issue. This is true, for example, for some in the Church of England and also the Church of Scotland. The agenda of liberal theology is being pursued relentlessly by denominational leaders. They are determined to pursue policies and practices which are a denial of biblical authority and cause real problems for evangelical churches and pastors. We are keen to do everything we can to strengthen the hands of those bearing witness to the truth within the mixed denominations and, should they decide to separate, to encourage them to seek fellowship with other evangelical churches in Affinity.

GD: I notice that Affinity’s theological journal, Foundations is now available for free online. What might readers expect from the journal?

PM: The first online edition of Foundations, our theological journal, was published in May this year. As an online journal it is now available, free of charge, to church leaders and Christians around the world. Foundations is an international journal of evangelical theology. Its aim is to cover contemporary theological issues by articles and reviews, taking in exegesis, biblical theology, church history and apologetics, and to indicate their relevance to pastoral ministry. Its particular focus is the theology of evangelical churches which are committed to biblical truth and evangelical ecumenism.

GD: A number of people were slightly bemused when the British Evangelical Council was relaunched as Affinity. Any plans for another change of name?

PM: It has taken a little time for people to get used to the new name. We have no plans to change it. One of the big challenges we face is to work together as churches and evangelical agencies in an increasingly effective partnership for the Gospel. Affinity is not about something that other people do for us but what we, as the Lord’s people do together.

GD: If time travel were possible, which figure from church history would you most like to meet, and what would you say to him/her?

PM: I recently enjoyed reading Jonathan Aitken’s biography of John Newtown, “From to Disgrace to Amazing Grace.” I would have liked to know John Newton and to have talked with him about his experience of God’s grace and how that had made him a warm and committed pastor of the Lord’s people.

GD: What is the most helpful book that you have read in the last twelve months?

PM: I enjoyed reading “Son of Hamas.” It tells the amazing story of how Mosab Hassan Yousef, the oldest son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a founder member of Hamas, became a disciple of Jesus. It encouraged me to see how the Holy Spirit works to bring people to faith in seemingly inaccessible places. Mosab Yousef’s experience of the love of God for him and his attempt to obey Jesus’ teaching that we should “love our enemies” is a great challenge to us as evangelicals. It is an excellent book and you won’t need to sell your shirt to buy it!

GD: What is the biggest problem facing Evangelicalism today and how should we best respond?

PM: There are many big challenges facing us as Evangelicals today. It is so important that we face these challenges together. We need to resist the increasing fragmentation amongst us. Paul’s challenge in 1 Corinthians, chapter 1 is relevant to us today, “Is Christ divided?” In my early days in the ministry we wanted to encourage each other as evangelicals across the denominations. We were warm-hearted towards each other. Since then, various factors have divided us from our fellow evangelicals. It is very serious matter. It is vitally important for us to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” We must “accept one another just as Christ accepted us, in order to bring praise to God.” The divisions amongst us undermine the credibility of our witness to the Lord and hinder the task of taking the Gospel to the world. One of the immense privileges of being a Christian is that, because we belong to the Lord and are “in Christ”, we have a real and eternal fellowship with all our fellow Christians. The great divide in the world is between those who are “in Christ” and those who are not. The great desire and prayer of all Christians is that people around the world will be rescued from the dominion of darkness and be brought into the kingdom of the Son he loves. Affinity is one expression of our unity in Christ and of our passionate desire to express this tangibly so that the peoples of world might believe in him.

GD: Thanks for that, Peter. Good to see you at the Aber Conference last week.

Peter Milsom will be preaching at Penknap Providence Church's anniversary service on Saturday 3rd September, 4pm.

Hols & Aber 2011

2011-07-30T08:00:00.005+01:00

We're off on holiday for a couple of weeks. We plan to be spend a week in Carmarthen and then head for the EMW Aberystwyth Conference. I'm due to speak on 'Responding to Tragedies' at Monday evening's Prime Time meeting for over 45's (although it should be pointed out that I won't have reached that age until later in the week).

For holiday reading I hope to finish a couple of books I've had on the go for a little while, Persian Fire, by Tom Holland and Bread of Heaven: The Life and Word of William Williams Pantycelyn, by Eifion Evans. I've been asked to review the latter for Affinity's Foundations with a September deadline, so I'll have to get cracking. Should I get through those two I hope to make a start on Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies, by David Bentley Hart.

God willing I'll post some reports of the Aber Conference when we return home. Live blogs would be even more incomprehensible than ones I've tried to spend a bit of time tidying up.

A Personal Tribute to John Stott (1921-2011)

2011-07-28T12:49:00.005+01:00

John Stott passed into the presence of Christ on 27th July. A 'good man and full of years', he was ninety years of age.

Preacher

Stott was renowned as a preacher, writer and Evangelical leader. I only once heard him preach. I had just begun my studies at the London Theological Seminary in October 1988. On the first Sunday of my time in London I headed off to Westminster Chapel for the morning service. R. T. Kendall was the Minister back then. My attendance at the Chapel was probably more of a homage to D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, than a desire to hear RT, but there we are. In the evening I went to All Souls, hoping that John Stott would be preaching, and he was. I can't remember his text, but more than twenty years later I can still recall the gracious authority with which he preached. The thrust of his message was that Jesus welcomes all who will come to him, whatever their social status, gender etc. After the service I joined the queue of people who lined up to speak to him. I told him that I was studying at LTS and that I came from Wales. In his rather posh accent, he said, "Ah, from the Principality!" and indicated that he had a place in Wales. This bothered me at the time, as I wasn't keen on the English having holiday homes in the Land of my Fathers.

Stott helped to spearhead the recovery of expository preaching amongst Evangelical Anglicans. He did for gospel men in the Church of England what Lloyd-Jones was doing for Nonconformists. He was a gifted preacher of the Word and faithful pastor of God's flock at All Souls. He could have become a Church of England bishop, but he preferred to devote himself to his ministry of preaching and writing.

Writer

I can't recall how many books by John Stott I have read. But two of the most influential titles for me as a young believer with a burgeoning interest in theology were by Evangelical Anglicans, Knowing God by Jim Packer and The Cross of Christ, by John Stott. Stott's work on the cross was his magnum opus, a masterly exposition and defence of the biblical teaching on the atoning death of Christ. Stott's many commentaries in the Tyndale and Bible Speaks Today series have enriched my preaching ministry. His exegetical skill, theological nous and thoughtful application of the biblical text are often just what the pastor needs in sermon preparation.

Leader

As a leader, Stott helped to stimulate Evangelicals to think about the application of biblical truth to the public square, founding the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity. On the international stage, he was influential in the Lausanne Movement for World Evangelisation. Controversially Stott clashed with D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones at the 1966 Evangelical Alliance meeting on Evangelical Unity (see here). Stott used his position as chairman to urge delegates not to follow the Welsh preacher's call for Evangelicals to leave their denominations and come together as a fellowship of Evangelical churches. At the 1967 National Evangelical Anglican Conference at Keele, Stott argued that integration rather than separation was the way ahead for Evangelical Anglicans. This ecumenical trend was given further impetus with the 1977 Nottingham Statement of the NEAC, which declared "Seeing ourselves and Roman Catholics as fellow-Christians, we repent of attitudes that have seemed to deny it." (Section M). Stott caused some justifiable consternation in the Evangelical world when he cautiously espoused conditional immortality rather than the eternal conscious punishment of the wicked in Essentials, a dialogue with the liberal theologian David Edwards.

Stott's misguided policy of Evangelical integration and his dalliance with conditional immortality are a reminder that great, gifted and godly men are not infallible. However, Evangelicals in the UK and beyond have reason to thank God for the preaching, writing and leadership of John R. W. Stott. I certainly do.

Calvin on the power of pastors to fire and fulminate

2011-07-28T08:00:00.003+01:00

Titus 2:15

Here is the supreme power with which pastors of the Church,

by whatever name they are called, should be invested—

namely, to dare all boldly for the word of God.

Compelling all the virtue, glory, wisdom, and rank of the world

to yield and obey its majesty.

To command all from the highest to the lowest,

trusting to its power to build up the house of Christ

and overthrow the house of Satan.

To feed the sheep and chase away the wolves;

to instruct and exhort the docile.

To accuse, rebuke, and subdue the rebellious and petulant,

to bind and loose.

In fine, if need be, to fire and fulminate,

but all in the word of God.

(Versified by Guy Davies. From Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 4:8:9 - here).

Herman Bavinck on Creation

2011-07-26T13:29:00.002+01:00

I recently finished reading Bavinck's treatment of the doctrine of creation (Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, Baker Academic 2006, p. 473-507). Very helpful it was too.

Bavinck's treatment of creation is rooted in his doctrine of the Trinity. Indeed, he states that "If God were not triune creation would not be possible (p. 420)". The triune God is the communicating God. The Father communicated the full image of God to the Son. If God was unable to communicate himself to his Son he would be even less able to communicate himself to the creature.

Creation was a concerted act of the Trinity. The Father made all things by his Word and through his Spirit. The unity in diversity of the created order is testimony to the unity in diversity of the one Creator God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The divine goal in creating the universe was the glorification of his own name, Romans 11:36.

The eternal God made the world not in time but with time. Time is the necessary form of the finite. The finite creation is in the process of becoming, while the infinite God is pure being. Creation entailed no change in God. He did not become active in making the world with the implication the he was inactive before the creation. Even without the creation God was not idle. He is pure actuality with an infinite fullness of communicative life in his triune being. The act of creation involved no effort on God's part and did not exhaust his power or wisdom. "He can act while He reposes, and repose when He acts (p. 428)."

Although Bavinck's four volume dogmatics were originally published in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, Bavinck's theology is remarkably up-to-date. He wrestles with the relationship between ancient near eastern literature and the Genesis account, still very much a live issue today. He does not neglect to address the theory of evolution. Detailed attention is given to the challenge of the science of geology to the Bible's depiction of the creation of the earth.

Bavinck's handling of Genesis 1 is interesting. Without positing a "Gap Theory", which he rejects, he holds that "the creation of heaven and earth in Genesis 1:1 and the unformed state of the earth in Genesis 1:2 are anterior to the first day." The work of the six creation days is that of separation and adornment. Day one did not include the original act of the creation of all things out of nothing (p. 478-480).

On day four (Genesis 1:14-19), Bavinck argues that the appearance of the lights in the heavens, "does not imply that the masses of matter of which the planets are composed were only then called into being, but only that all these planets would on this day become what they henceforth are to be to the earth (p. 481)." This anticipates the view of Edgar Andrews. The scientist suggests that Genesis is using phenomenological language at this point rather than depicting the moment when the sun, moon and stars came into existence. (See Who Made God?, EP, 2009, p. 106).

What of the theologian's view of the six days of creation? He rejects an attempt to co-ordinate the days Genesis 1 with lengthy geological periods. Not for him either what would nowadays be called the "framework hypothesis" that sees the creation days in terms of ideal or logical order rather that chronological sequence. So, he's a "twenty-four hourer" right? Not exactly. Bavinck holds that it is "not likely" that the divine actions depicted in each of the six days of creation took place within the span of a few hours. Rather, what we have here is the "workdays of God", or "the time in which God was at work creating (p. 500)". This does not amount to "theistic evolution", but an assertion of the singularity of the six days of creation.

Bavinck regards estimates of the age of the earth amounting to millions of years as "fabulous" - by which he means not "wonderful" but "incredible" (p. 490). But, he admits the Bible provides no exact data as to the age of the earth (p. 506). Changes to the planet made by the Great Flood need to be taken into account when it comes to understanding the geological strata.

The dogmatician was aware of developments in the scientific world. But he was not willing to reinterpret the Bible to harmonise its teaching with naturalistic views of origins. Indeed, he thinks that theologians are misguided when they constantly yield ground in an effort to co-ordinate biblical teaching with scientific theories,

As the science of divine and eternal things, theology must be patient until the science that contradicts it has made a deeper and broader study of its field and, as happens in most cases, corrects itself. In that matter theology upholds its dignity and honour more effectively than by constantly yielding and adapting itself to the opinions of the day. (p. 507)

Faith Cook on John Bunyan and Christian Warfare

2011-07-22T16:15:00.001+01:00

Once a year our Ministers' Fraternal at Bradford on Avon is open to pastors' wives. On Wednesday we had the privilege of hearing Faith Cook speak on John Bunyan and Christian Warfare. Having enjoyed her excellent biography of the Puritan preacher (reviewed here), I was very much looking forward to hearing what she had to say. Here are some brief notes.

Faith Cook began by expressing her appreciation of Bunyan and his writings. Her biography was "debt of gratitude" to the Bedfordshire pastor. A brief outline was given of Bunyan's life and times before addressing what we might learn from him concerning the fight of faith.

In the devil we have an enemy who is out to destroy our faith. We see something of the intensity of Bunyan's battle with the evil one in his spiritual autobiography, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners. After his conversion Bunyan came under sustained attack from the devil. Some suggest that he was mentally ill during this period, but this is to misunderstand his experiences.

The devil had several lines of attack:

1. Confused doctrine

Satan suggested that Bunyan had no faith. To prove otherwise he proposed to work a miracle. He considered trying to command that water gathered in puddles in the road dry up, and where the road was dry that it become wet. Before working his "miracle" he thought that he had better pray. Then he though better of his scheme.

The devil had Bunyan question whether he was one of the elect. He was too late for grace.

He began to have doubts concerning the truth of Christianity. How did he know that the Bible rather than the Koran was God's Word? Perhaps all ways lead to God? Horrible blasphemies entered his mind. He wondered whether he was possessed by the devil.

2. Confused understanding of grace

Bunyan thought he was too far gone in sin to be saved.

3. Confused understanding of the law

He became legalistic, abandoning bell ringing and playing the violin. violin. He dared not pick up a pin without fear of sinning. The usually talkative Bunyan grew silent and withdrawn. He was cured by reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, a work "most fit for a wounded conscience". Luther's emphasis on justification by faith in Christ apart from the works of the law was just what he needed.

4. The unforgivable sin

Bunyan was repeatedly told to "sell Christ". Wearied and miserable under the weight of with this constant attack he agreed to sell his Lord. Then the devil told him that he has lost salvation. Like Esau there was no way back for him.

Bunyan received counselling from his pastor John Gifford, which helped him. But lasting relief came from Jesus himself. Bunyan saw that Christ was his righteousness. He had no need to fear condemnation.

Soon after he began to preach. His ministry was informed by his own experiences of temptation and deliverance. He said, "I preached what I smartingly did feel".

Why did the Lord allow Bunyan to suffer the onslaughts of Satan?

1. Assurance

He understood that great sins are met with great grace.

2. Help for others who were tempted

While in prison for his faith Bunyan began to write. His first book was on the subject Grace and Law Unfolded penned in the light of his own experiences. In Pilgrim's Progress he also helps those who are troubled by legalism. Mr. Legality misleads Christian, sending him to Mt. Sinai. He is put on the right track by Evangelists who pointed him to the wicked gate and the Cross. There burden of Christian's sin was removed.

3. He details our weapons

a) Claim the promises, e.g. Isaiah 44:22. Apollyon was defeated by Christian quoting the promises. Christian and Hopeful escaped from Doubting Castle using the key called promise.

b) Use devil's weapons against him. If he says that your prayers are cold and worthless, agree and pray until you are on fire for the Lord. If he says you are too bad a sinner to hope for mercy, agree saying, "I am Manasseh, Saul of Tarsus, the chief of sinners, yet 1 Timothy 1:15".

c) Stand in the power of Holy Spirit

d) Avail yourself of the blood of Christ that cleanses from all sin.

The fight is relentless. In The Heavenly Footman, Bunyan bids us to run for heaven. When we are weary and worn out with the battle, Jesus will carry us. In the Palace Beautiful, Christian was asked what he would should he fail. He pointed to the Cross where he first found forgiveness, his coat symbolising the righteousness of Christ, and his scroll, that reminded him of where he was going.

In his Holy War, Bunyan takes up the theme of how Emmanuel conquered Mansoul. But that was not the end of the struggle. The fight against sin and Satan continues to the end. Mrs. Cook quoted from Rudyard Kipling's poem, The Holy War.

Even on their deathbeds believers face temptations. Heaven will be the sweeter for those assailed by doubts and fears in the face of death. As with Christian and Hopeful, the struggle against the foe will have been worth it,

Now I saw in my dream, that these two men went in at the gate; and lo, as they entered, they were transfigured; and they had raiment put on that shone like gold. There were also that met them with harps and crowns, and gave them to them; the harps to praise withal, and the crowns in token of honor. Then I heard in my dream, that all the bells in the city rang again for joy, and that it was said unto them,

“enter ye into the joy of your lord.”

I also heard the men themselves, that they sang with a loud voice, saying,

“blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the lamb, for ever and ever.”

Now, just as the gates were opened to let in the men, I looked in after them, and behold the city shone like the sun; the streets also were paved with gold; and in them walked many men, with crowns on their heads, palms in their hands, and golden harps, to sing praises withal.

There were also of them that had wings, and they answered one another without intermission, saying, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord. And after that they shut up the gates; which, when I had seen, I wished myself among them.

Difficult Gospel: The Theology of Rowan Williams by Mike Higton

2011-07-19T19:52:00.005+01:00

Difficult Gospel: The Theology of Rowan Williams,

Mike Higton, SCM Press, 2004, 174pp

One of our church members refers to the current Archbishop of Canterbury as "The Wizard". Maybe the moniker has something to do with the fact that Rowan Williams is a proud member of the Gorsedd of the Bards. After all, Merlin was reputed to be a Druid sorcerer. Another factor might be William's beardy appearance. His looks conjure up an image of an ancient Druid high priest. But it's not just that. It seems that many ordinary Christians find his utterances as comprehensible as druidic mumbo-jumbo. And when they do grasp his meaning, the response tends to be, "What? Did he really say that?" His controversial remarks on the place Islamic law in the UK legal system are a case in point.

Anyway I thought I should try and get to grips with the teachings of Rowan Williams to find out what makes the current Archbishop of Canterbury tick, besides dressing up like Merlin. So, I ordered Mile Higton's book from Amazon. Higton offers a sympathetic reading of Williams' theology. The writer is not, as far as I can tell, an Evangelical in his theological bent. His approach is not to offer an assessment of the Archbishop's teaching from an Evangelical standpoint. His aim is simply to give his readers a guide to understanding key aspects of Williams' thought.

As the title acknowledges, Williams' theology is notoriously difficult to understand. He's an academic after all, and Higton admits that "there are times when Williams' writing is unduly complicated, moments when it is weighted down with unnecessary jargon, or arguments which turn out to have twists and riffs that are purely decorative" (p. 4). But, contends the writer, the Archbishop's teaching is also difficult in a good way. The Gospel itself faces us with difficult challenges and demands. Hence the book's title, A Difficult Gospel.

So, how does Rowan Williams understand the gospel? It is all about God's "disarming acceptance" of fallen humanity in Jesus Christ. In his life, death and resurrection as the incarnate Son of God, Jesus is the decisive revelation of God. To encounter Jesus is to encounter the God who is love. His "disarming acceptance" crucifies of our selfish desires and demands that the followers of Jesus offer unconditional love and acceptance to others.

It is not easy to discern, at least from Higton's account, the exact relationship in Williams' thought between the fact that Christ "died for our sins" and the "disarming acceptance" of God. The cross is described as "the form which judgement God's judgement takes", but there is nothing approaching a penal substitutionary understanding of Christ's atoning work in these pages. However, Williams is robust on insisting that the resurrection of Jesus entails the empty tomb. As the man says, without the empty tomb there is no Gospel (p. 49-50). True, but without penal substitutionary atonement there isn't much of a Gospel either.

Evangelicals sometimes refer to Williams as a "Liberal". But this is an overly simplistic labelling of the Archbishop. Few Liberals would hold so firmly to the biblical revelation of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit as disclosed in Scripture and confessed by the Church. Higton offers an informative discussion of Williams' trinitarian theology in Chapter Two, The Source of Life. But this does not mean that the Archbishop is a card-carrying Evangelical. Hardly. In his doctrine of Scripture Williams denies that the Bible represents the mind of God, "[T]he revelation of God comes to us in the middle of weakness and fallibility." (p. 65). For Williams Christ is the touchstone for the Bible (p. 65). Difficult texts such as Psalm 137 or Revelation 2:23 are to be reinterpreted in the light of the revelation of God's love in Christ. Of the latter text Williams says that "We aren't called to believe and endorse [it]." This is troubling as the words at least purport to be the direct speech of Jesus, Revelation 2:18. Who is this Christ to whom we appeal as the "touchstone" for the Bible if not the Jesus disclosed in Holy Scripture? As Donald Macleod points out, writing on Karl Barth's doctrine of Scripture, "there can be no other Christ behind and above the Scriptures, no word behind the written word, casting the church into doubt, enveloping her in a cloud of uncertainty and raising the possibility that the Christ of Scripture is not the real Christ or the final Christ."

The writer devotes an interesting chapter to Williams' reflections on Childhood and Adulthood, which is worth a read. When it comes to ethical issues, Williams struggles to accept that a Christian could believe in a nuclear deterrent, a matter which is not directly addressed by the Bible. On homosexuality, which is directly addressed in Scripture, he thinks that despite the witness of texts such as Romans 1, "a homosexual relationship might be one which instead of inherently obstructing the Christlike development of those involved in it, can like a heterosexual relationship, show Christ to the world." (p. 146). It is that kind of statement that leaves ordinary Christians understandably baffled by Williams' pronouncements. No amount of theological wizardry can magic away the Bible's insistence that sexual intimacy is for heterosexual marriage alone and that sex outside of that context is wrong.

Yes, Williams' theology is "difficult" in a number of ways. His thought often is complex and hard to grasp. As Archbishop of Canterbury he has the difficult task of trying to stop the Anglican communion from falling apart. He has disillusioned Liberals by failing to make the case for a change in attitude towards homosexual relationships in the Church. Evangelicals are rightly suspicious of his privately held views on the issue. Meanwhile Anglo Catholics are crossing the Tiber and converting to Rome. But the greatest difficulty is that Williams' theology is not sufficiently governed by the authority of Scripture. This enables him to make his preconceived understanding of Christ the standard by which even biblical truth is judged. His extrabiblical Christ is a figure of wax who can be reshaped to suit fashionable opinion so that homosexual relationships "show Christ to the world". If faithfulness to Scripture counts for anything, the Archbishop's thinking on this matter is not just difficult, it is impossible.