Pages

Showing posts with label Blogging in the name of the Lord series 5. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blogging in the name of the Lord series 5. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Blogging in the name of the Lord, Series 5 "Box Set"

Here are the interviews in order of appearance in a special commemorative "box set". I hope you enjoyed reading these conversations on theology, ministry, books, music and other stuff. Look out for Series 6 in the Summer.
Sam Waldron (forthcoming)
Extra: An interview with non-blogger

Monday, February 23, 2009

Blogging in the name of the Lord: Jeremy Walker

This is the seventh in a series of interviews with Christian bloggers. In the hot seat today is...

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

JW: I am one of two full-time pastors at Maidenbower Baptist Church in Crawley in West Sussex (in the UK). The other is my father, Austin Walker. I was born in Crawley in 1975, and God drew me to himself during my teens, although the road was made much harder and longer by my sin and stubbornness. I studied English Language & Literature at the University of Leicester before working for five years for the Ministry of Defence in London, at which time I also returned to the church in Crawley. During these periods, God was again pleased to work in my heart, this time forming a desire for the ministry of his Word (see below). In January 2004 I was publicly recognised as a pastor of Maidenbower Baptist Church. Later that year I married my wife, Alissa, and God has blessed us with two delightful sons, Caleb (now two and a half) and William (going on four months).

GD: Your blog is called "The Wanderer". Please explain.

JW: One main source of the title and tagline of my blog is The Wanderer (or here), an Old English poem that I genuinely enjoy and on which I wrote an essay while studying at university, which explains its relevance. This wanderer is called an eardstapa (‘earthstepper,’ if you like), and this is why my blog address is http://www.eardstapa.wordpress.com/.

Another source is the writings of John Bunyan. The current tagline is the opening line of The Pilgrim’s Progress – “As I walked through the wilderness of this world . . .”, but Bunyan’s other great allegory, The Holy War, begins with a similar notion: “In my travels, as I walked through many regions and countries, it was my chance to happen into that famous continent of Universe.” These two books had a profound effect on me in my early years, and capture something of the idea of an interested pilgrimage.

In addition, the notion of being an outcast and a stranger (echoing that Old English poem again) is a Biblical one. Speaking of the faithful, the writer to the Hebrews describes those who “had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented – of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth. And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us” (Heb 11.37-40). Again, there is that seminal text in Psalm 119: “I am a stranger in the earth; do not hide your commandments from me” (v19). This is good company to be in.

My only concern is that the name can sound vague and indefinite. Wanderers are not necessarily going anywhere, but Christians are pilgrims – travellers with a definite destination. However, I wander through various media, seeking to observe things of use and interest, scavenging as I go, and so it does not seem too out of order.

Being a Walker myself, these various themes seemed to chime nicely, and so I went for it.

(Well, you did ask!)

GD: Beginning to wish I hadn't! Now, what made you start blogging?

JW: One motivation has been the Thomas Principle of Double Usefulness. If I am seeking to do something of value in one context, blogging is an opportunity to put it to work in another.

I also had friends who were blogging, or I would occasionally come across or be sent posts from various blogs. As I started to actually keep track of a few more visible blogs, I realised that a significant exchange of information and ideas was taking place on the web, and that – although I don’t know that any blogs are presently as effective as certain preaching and/or writing ministries have been – they are discussing and advancing ideas, and supplementing a lot of preaching and writing (and, for some, may be a primary source of information). I decided to try to keep abreast of and involved in that sphere. The opportunity for engagement and overlap with others trying to advance the cause of Christ is encouraging and attractive; being aware of currents in theology, and keeping abreast also of the spread of error, is necessary.

Finally, there was the desire to contribute to and maintain a Christian presence on the web, and the hope that someone stumbling across some of my material might be won to Christ. I try to make sure that I post something stimulating and useful to unbelievers on a fairly regular basis, as well as summarising my sermons.

GD: What are the strengths and weaknesses of blogging as a medium for theological reflection?

JW: I think the demand to try to compress one’s thoughts into brief, pointed and clear units is probably helpful. One older volume on pastoral theology suggests that a pastor should always be working on something “for the press.” Perhaps a similar function can be ascribed to the blog? If Sir Francis Bacon was right, “Reading maketh a full man, conference a ready man, and writing an exact man.” Blogging contributes to those qualities in varying degrees. Ready writing generally demands ready thinking and provides for ready speaking. It is a good discipline with beneficial effects. For one thing, writing something generally helps me work through and analyse and assess more carefully than I might otherwise. It demands a more thorough and careful engagement than I might otherwise give.

I also think that the ability to bring nuggets of stimulating truth on a regular basis can be positive. Blogging can be useful in providing a taste of something more substantial, or a pointer to a sermon, book or essay of greater significance; it might prompt someone to put in a bit more effort in another medium. I think it can be a useful means of catching the momentary glance of a generation for whom attention is generally fleeting. However, I would still call blogging more a means to an end than an end in itself.

There are several weaknesses that come to mind. For one, blogging can be very shallow. The brevity that serves well in some respects can contribute to a lack of depth and development in structure and argument. For another, blogging seems to be inherently ephemeral. What is written one day (or even one moment) before simply gets lost down the line, regardless of the relative value of various posts. (I saw that Justin Taylor also highlighted the structural hierarchy issue in one of your recent interviews.) Again, the medium militates against meditation. Almost by definition, blog-reading is skim reading. Few posts are going to demand, require or receive a thoughtful, prayerful, careful reading. Furthermore, because most posts need to be kept shorter, there is a lack of continuity that prevents the development of a solid argument either over time or in the course of one longer piece.

Then there are some things that straddle the divide, such as the reach of the internet and the availability of blogging to so many people. The former is fine with regard to truth, but a problem with regard to error; there are many who set themselves up as experts on a theme or subject without any real credibility except their ability and willingness to write and comment at almost unfeasible length and with surprising tenacity.

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

JW: That’s a tough question to answer. My father was a key man, as he was the pastor under whose ministry I sat in my formative years. A lot of the structure of my theology and the channels in which my convictions run owe a great deal to the formal teaching I received from him in the church, and the informal instruction from my parents while growing up. I think one of the most significant parts of that legacy is my attachment to the truths of the Scripture as summarised in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

However, given that I did not really develop an interest and start reading theologically until I went to university, my more mature theological development was substantially informed by reading in the Reformers, Puritans, and their successors as I pursued a reasonably voracious but largely unstructured and self-governed reading scheme during my university years.

When I was being assessed for the ministry, my father and several other men provided me with a more structured reading scheme designed to fill in some of the holes. Their selections (and my willingness and ability to stick with them!) added a third layer.

Over that time, a number of names rise regularly to the surface: John Calvin; Hugh Latimer; Charles Spurgeon; Andrew Fuller; John Bunyan; John Murray; John Owen; Stephen Charnock; Robert Traill; Sinclair Ferguson; B. B. Warfield. These are some of the men who have definitely and distinctly drawn, driven, pushed or pulled me in various directions.

GD: Who has taught you most of what it means to preach the Word of God?

JW: My mature sense of what it means to preach (and how to preach) has been developed most by reading sermons and the biographies of preachers generously equipped and greatly used by the Spirit of God. In that degree, I am somewhat eclectic, and you would probably see different influences depending on the kind of sermon I am preaching at any time. In that respect, past preachers would include Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield, John Calvin, Hugh Latimer, various Puritan authors and preachers during various revivals of religion. Of recent or current preachers, I find the clarity and winsomeness of Ted Donnelly, the fire and directness of John Marshall, the passion and earnestness of Albert Martin, and the penetration, warmth and insight of Sinclair Ferguson, to be instructive in different ways. I never heard either Dr Lloyd-Jones or Professor Murray in the flesh. There are particular qualities of a number of other preachers whom I have heard occasionally that I wish I could emulate more. In addition, the faithfulness and sincerity of my own father remains, for me, a model of long-term, committed pastoral ministry. He is also the preacher to whom I have been longest exposed, but my interest in and responsiveness to sermons was fairly limited when I was younger.

You will see from a later answer that during the time in which I was being assessed and then more directly trained, a number of good and faithful men had the opportunity to stick their oar in. Most of them (and their congregations) had an impact in varying degrees on my preaching ministry.

I fear that I am giving the impression in these answers of being an unusually eclectic and distracted magpie. That may be so!

GD: You might say that, Jeremy. I couldn't possibly comment. Moving on, how would you describe the relationship between preaching and the power of the Holy Spirit?

JW: In one word, indispensable. A preacher is equipped by the Spirit of God, relies on the Spirit of God in both his laborious preparation and prayerful delivery of a sermon, and depends upon him for the fruit of all his efforts. We ought to look constantly for the immediate agency and powerful operations of the Holy Spirit in all our work, both publicly and privately, in all our pastoring and preaching. When we consider his person and work in relation to the Lord Christ, his work in and upon those whom the Father is drawing to Christ, and his relationship to those who are in Christ, I think that no-one could say any different. He turns a divine spotlight upon the Saviour so that he can be truly seen and known. By him God works that work of new creation, making the light of inward illumination to shine in the hearts of men. By him the Lord writes the law on the tablets of our renewed hearts. By him, Christ indwells his people and they are conformed to the image of the Son in accordance with the divine will, as the Spirit strives against sin within us and assures us of our peace with God. Where do you stop?

In practice, I think everyone who honestly seeks to be a witness to the truth as it is in Jesus, and to encourage and direct the people of God in their sanctification, will come quickly, repeatedly and ever more deeply to the conviction that apart from the power of the Spirit we can accomplish nothing. How much, then, we need to be praying that the Triune God would work powerfully, and that – knowing him – we might know him more; that, having life, we might have more of it; that, having truth, we might understand more; that, loving him, we might adore him increasingly; that, serving him, we might be more holy; that we might never grieve the Spirit by antagonism to his person and work. The preaching dynamic between our glorious God, the preacher he has sent, and the congregation to whom that man preaches must be enlivened along every plane by the Spirit of the living God.

GD: Amen to that! Describe your call to the pastoral/preaching ministry.

JW: I am informed that, when very young, if my siblings and I were kept from church through sickness, I would drag out an old suit and conduct a service – complete in all its parts – from halfway up the stairs. I remember once thinking in my younger years (and I might even have uttered it in an unguarded moment) that I might be a preacher. That was some time before I was converted, and before my more developed resistance to the truth, but even then I confess to thinking that the idea was preposterous.

Into my teenage years, I became bitter and cynical, and forged for myself a downward spiral of rebellion and misery. Nevertheless, God in his mercy drew me to himself, but by means that left me somewhat exhausted spiritually and lacking in assurance. Coming out of that period just as I was leaving for university, I would have said that I was the last person you would have chosen for the ministry of God’s gospel.

As I went through university and got involved in a local church and came to know more Christians in different settings I was given a variety of opportunities to serve, and people began to drop hints, which received a stiff ignoring. I even avoided the Christian Union, having the notion hovering in my mind that involvement in CUs could become a stepping stone to something more. I developed what you might politely call a Jonah complex – fleeing from the call of God – and I do not know that I had many counsellors and overseers upon whom I would have relied to guide my thinking at that stage.

However, during my time at university the Lord was pleased to give me a degree of assurance of salvation, and more accurate and impressive views of the person and work of the Lord Jesus. Having had my own internal Reformation in being saved, and coming to see something of the wonder and glory of God’s grace in Christ, verses like Romans 12.1-2 impressed themselves upon me: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” Gripped by the mercies of God in salvation, I struggled to face what it meant for me to offer myself a living sacrifice to God. I was probably conscious of what it might mean, and not keen to pursue that possibility. I began to feel the pressure of which Jeremiah speaks in chapter 20, verse 9: “Then I said, ‘I will not make mention of him, nor speak anymore in his name.’ But his word was in my heart like a burning fire shut up in my bones; I was weary of holding it back, and I could not.” I went down various avenues to relieve this pressure in small ways, but it continued to develop.

By the time I left university, I had a job in London, and returned to my home church in Crawley. Within a few months, and for various reasons, I was pretty miserable, wandering round with a face like a robber’s dog. I remember the pressure building, and to-ing and fro-ing as to whether I should say anything to someone. I went that year to a Banner of Truth youth conference. I heard a sermon in which a comment was made about Jacob wrestling with God, and the point was made that God was wrestling with Jacob, a somewhat uneven contest (you would have thought that after trying that with regard to salvation, I would have learned my lesson). During the weekend, someone read a psalm – I cannot remember which one – but I remember it adding weight. What made it worse was that my home church was, at that time, going through a torrid period: looking on it as my father’s son, as well as a church member, there was nothing remotely attractive about many aspects of the pastoral office. Anyway, at some point on that Lord’s day, I called my father with a 10p piece (before mobiles, at least for me) and told him that, though I only had a couple of minutes, there was something I wanted to discuss with him when I got home, and that he was to make me tell him what I had in mind on the phone and not let me fudge it or put it off on my return. I did sit down and explain where I was at on my return, and things went from there.

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

JW: I have no formal ministerial training. To avoid any charges of nepotism, once I had discussed the matter with my father, he sent me to our good friend, Pastor Achille Blaize. He then set me a reading list that – with hindsight – was designed to do me good if I survived it, insofar as it was also a test of my resolve. In consultation with Pastor Blaize and a few other men, a programme was developed in which I would continue with my reading and personal study while on the train to and from London, and at nights. I was given some direction in that reading and study, together with a number of preaching opportunities. There was no immediate possibility of my being trained more formally (for financial reasons). A variety of factors meant that I preached more than might have been the case, although I found the twin burden of holding down a responsible job in London (model: Daniel) and trying to teach and preach sometimes two or three times a week over sometimes lengthy periods (model: Paul) something of a challenge. After five years, God in his providence provided for the church in Crawley to take me on full-time with a view to bringing the process to a head. For the next two years, I served and studied full-time. I was sent out several times to different churches that we knew well for three to six weeks at a time. The pastors of these churches had different areas of expertise, and different graces and gifts, and I would live in their homes and shadow them through that period. The churches, though mainly Reformed and Baptist, were of different sizes and ages, with different histories and profiles. However, they were each marked by faithful men seeking to advance Christ’s kingdom by Scriptural means in accordance with Scriptural principles. After two years of this, and despite some final and sometimes painful obstacles, the church recognised me as another pastor alongside my father.

If this all sounds drawn out and painful, I should add that I often think that the Lord has made those things which I ought to value hard for me to obtain, in order that I might prize them highly and hold fast to them.

With regard to the benefits of this system, I believe it broadened my horizons and expectations. I was stretched in my thinking and doing by a number of different men who challenged me in different ways and at different points. One would read pastoral theology with me, discussing it page by page. Another gave me a stack of reading and study to do at my own pace, but quizzed me every few days, expecting me to challenge his thinking and defend my own. Another sent me away to read B. B. Warfield on the person and work of Christ, and when I came back asked me to teach it back to him. From each I got sober, honest feedback about my preaching. I watched men who were not merely theoreticians but practitioners, men who were working out their convictions in the crucible of church life, facing real challenges, joys, and disappointments. They would offer counsel and advice as we worked through the issues of church life. They thrust me into situations which I would never have seen otherwise. Their various personalities and gifts demanded different responses from me. Living with them, there was no place for me to hide. I saw them with their wives and families, working out personal godliness. I could ask them honest questions as we went, and they were men who gave honest answers from a wealth of experience. I am grateful for this process, and the friends and mentors I enjoy as a result of it.

GD: What do you find most difficult and challenging about being a pastor?

JW: Pursuing a close walk with God and cultivating personal holiness as a man before God; loving the people of God with a Christlike, sacrificial love, and serving them accordingly; labouring diligently and without distraction, concentrating on my pastoral priorities; praying as a pastor for those committed to my care as an under-shepherd; and, an apparent lack of fruitfulness in ministry, both with regard to sinners being saved and saints growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

GD: What do you find most thrilling and encouraging about being a pastor?

JW: The humbling reality that I am serving the living Lord of heaven and earth, and the God of my salvation, in order to glorify his name by preaching Christ; the fact that God can, at any time, accomplish what he pleases in his saving and sanctifying purposes, using even me; the privilege of giving myself to prayer and the ministry of the Word; and, those occasional moments when you see or hear of a spiritual breakthrough in someone’s life, in which God has given you a part – someone to whose awakening and regeneration God is pleased to make me a contributor, watching a new light of understanding dawn in the eyes of one of God’s people, seeing someone enlivened and energised to seek the glory of God, observing someone stirred to employ their graces and gifts in the advance of Christ’s kingdom.

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?

JW: I would like to speak to many, but I think I would choose Charles Spurgeon. I believe that he was an unusually Christlike man, and I love the way his redeemed humanity shone in his life and work. I also think that he was more of a reformer than we often give him credit for. I would want to hear him preach and see him live: I think “Watch and learn” would be the order of the day. I would ask him how he might face the challenges and use the opportunities of the 21st century, and see if he would give me counsel on preaching and pastoring. I am sure there would be many surprises and lessons.

GD: Name your favourite contemporary theologian. Why so good?

JW: That is not easy, but perhaps Sinclair Ferguson. I remember him saying that he had made the study of “the three Johns” a priority of sorts: John Calvin, John Owen, and John Murray. So, with Sinclair you also get the cream, the condensed goodness, of those men of God. I enjoy the breadth and depth of his understanding of the Word of God. When he expounds a verse of Romans, for example, you know he views it in the light of the whole Bible, has it in the context of the entire book, and sees it within the structure of that particular portion of the book. I appreciate the evident learning that lies behind the simplest pronouncements, and I value the simplicity of his teaching: he can bring truth to bear with clarity and directness at an accessible level. I am grateful for his approachability and friendliness, and willingness and ability to understand and answer questions. I like his humour and his humanity: he is happy in his own skin. I admire the stability and conviction that enables him to minister in a variety of settings without compromise of his conscience and reputation. I also appreciate the Christ-centredness of his teaching and preaching: he never fails to exalt Christ my Lord, and I delight in that. He is a gospel man.

GD: What features of the Reformed scene in the UK cause you concern and what fills you with hope?

JW: Many things concern me. I am distressed by the attitude of many younger Christians (including younger pastors and theologians) to our inheritance of faith and life. Many of the truths that I hold dear have been purchased at high price in past years, decades, and centuries. I see many now squandering their inheritance, and giving up spiritual territory for which men gave their lives because they seem to have no sense of value of the truth, if they even realise what they possess. We have so great a wealth of truth, and yet seem too easily to go through the motions of truly assimilating it in our hearts.

I think there is also an increasing willingness to imagine that one can play God’s game by the world’s rules. John Owen somewhere suggests that where true religion declines, men will turn either to excess and wildness (I think he calls it ‘enthusiasm’ or fanaticism) or ritualism and formalism in order to fill the void. I fear that that is happening as men who sincerely desire God pursue him by means that he has not appointed. I think that there may be a willingness to taste and experiment with spiritual poisons that have long since been exposed as just that. We seek God in places and ways that God has not told us to seek him. If we want God’s blessing, we should seek it where the Lord says it will be found. If we want the water of life, we should stay in the channels where God says it will flow, even if they are now drier than we wish.

On the other hand, we can be far too introspective. This can work itself out in at least two ways. Often we appear to be simply smug. We are confident we have the truth. We look down on those who have less than we have. We pat ourselves on the back within the confines of our Reformed enclaves because of our purity and faithfulness, congratulating ourselves on what we have and are, and assuring ourselves that our smallness and lack of influence are a testimony to our purity and faithfulness, and a mark of our true worth. But those enclaves are too often becoming arid, and the souls within them are shrivelling. We can even turn our backs on the world, and become practically hyper-Calvinistic. Along the other track, I am concerned at a sense of resignation – even fear and despair – that I see among some saints. There are some who ask, “Who will show us any good?” and seem to wonder if God will ever lift up the light of his countenance upon us (Ps 4.6). This can lead to an inability and even unwillingness to bring the truth to bear on our society and to preach and apply the Word of God by all appropriate means and with freshness and vigour – people just batten down the hatches and hope the challenges will go away.

The truth must neither be traded (exchanged for that which is not worth having) nor hoarded (kept locked away where it can do no good, but is forgotten even by those who possess it), but displayed and invested, confident that God will accomplish his purposes.

My main hope is that God is still God. I long to see his church revived and the gospel advancing in this part of his world, and I know that he can do it as and when he wills. I also know that he will be glorified, and am often encouraged to think that the darker the darkness, the more the light of the gospel is demonstrated to be truly glorious. It is encouraging to go on meeting young men – my peers and younger – who are being called into the ministry (though we need many more), a good many of whom have an intelligent and passionate commitment to the truth. I also have the privilege to do a fair bit of preaching outside my own home church: as I do so, I meet many faithful saints with a continuing appetite for the truth, and a longing for God, and a commitment to pray for his glory. There are faithful churches, some smaller and some larger, with faithful saints who are the salt of the earth, and their delight in the truth and appreciation for preaching and constancy in prayer does my soul good. They truly are waiting upon the Lord, and waiting for him. Also, when you think of the availability to the church of Christ of books and sermons expressing ‘Reformed’ truth, I know that one divine spark could light the tinder of truth in men’s hearts, that one divine shower could bring to fruition the seed that has for so long been sown.

We need a sense of Christ’s church as both fortress and outpost, standing firm in the world and carrying forth the gospel to the world, and doing both in the power of the Most High God. He can give us that.

GD: With 2009 being the 500th anniversary of Calvin’s birth, tell us three vital insights that you have gained from the Reformer.

JW: The three things I would suggest – and they are interlinked – are:

Commitment to the Triune God himself. B. B. Warfield put it in this way: Calvinism “lies in a profound apprehension of God in His majesty, with the inevitably accompanying poignant realization of the exact nature of the relation sustained to Him by the creature as such, and particularly by the sinful creature” (Works, 5:354). This is really the starting point of Calvin’s Institutes. Calvin is a man captured and captivated by the Triune God, and who therefore sees himself also in proper perspective. Until we perceive God accurately as revealed in Christ, our eyes opened by the Spirit, we can neither be saved nor can we serve. When God opens our eyes, then we begin to begin to know and adore him as he is. That believing view should once and for all bind us with humble joy to the God of our salvation, recognising that what he does he does for his glory, and we should do the same. It sets our compass for time and for eternity; it will keep us faithful.

Commitment to the truth of God in the Scriptures. Calvin knew that God was known pre-eminently through his written down revelation, and he set himself to know him and obey him as he has revealed himself and his will. We should be instructed by his honesty in handling the Word of God, his readiness to submit to all its nuances, and not to impose his system on Scripture, but to have Scripture fashion his system. I appreciate that a man of his genius is ready to say – repeatedly – that he has reached the limits of revelation as God has given him light, and that he must go no further, but pause and worship where he cannot understand. There is a wonderful integrity to his teaching on this account. When dying, Calvin could say, “I have taught faithfully, and God has given me grace to write, which I have done faithfully as I could; and I have not corrupted [mutilated] one single passage of Scripture nor twisted it as far as I know; and when in a position to arrive at an artificial meaning through subtlety, I have put all that under my feet, and have always aimed at being simple.” I think if more preachers and teachers could say that with sincerity and in truth, the church would be substantially healthier. Under this heading I would include his preaching and teaching ministry. He sought not only to understand and follow God’s Word for himself, but to communicate its truth with simplicity and clarity to those whom he served. What sermons and commentaries that attitude produced! What a model for Christians, especially those who preach and teach!

Commitment to the service of God. This is really the outworking of the former two. Because God is who he is, and because we know him as revealed in Scripture for our salvation, how can we but consecrate ourselves and our all to his glory? When I read of Calvin’s life and labours, his Christlike willingness to serve, and to suffer in serving, I know myself a spiritual pygmy. Calvin gave himself entirely to God. Again, Warfield: “He who believes in God without reserve, and is determined that God shall be God to him in all his thinking, feeling, willing – in the entire compass of his life-activities, intellectual, moral, spiritual, throughout all his individual, social, religious relations – is, by the force of that strictest of all logic which presides over the outworking of principles into thought and life, by the very necessity of the case, a Calvinist” (Works, 5:354-5). That being so – and I think it is – I submit that we need more true Calvinists.

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

JW: I would suggest that our biggest problem is inaccurate and shallow apprehensions of the glory of God shining in the face of Christ.

I think this lies at the heart of so many other problems: it contributes to the coldness, slowness, and dullness of our hearts; to our tendency to worldliness; to our problems with true worship; to our readiness to search for solutions apart from the gospel; to our ineffectiveness as witnesses for Christ; for our tendency to idolise certain men; for our lack of freshness and initiative and vigour in gospel endeavour; for our readiness to search for solutions to the problems of the world apart from the gospel; it allows us to concentrate on building our own empires rather than that of Christ; it contributes to our fear; it robs us of our joy; it undermines our faith; it cripples our hope; it enervates our preaching; it dilutes our praying. Only let Christ be enthroned in our hearts as the Lord of Glory, our Immanuel, seen and known and felt as he truly is as the Son of God and Son of Man, and we shall have our perspective made right and willingly lay all the faculties of our redeemed humanity on the altar as living sacrifices.

We should respond by preaching Christ and him crucified to all the world. I do not mean by this just preaching “Calvary sermons” but a full-orbed gospel that declares Jesus in his saving and reigning fullness, Lord of faith and life, head of the first and of the new creation, with rights over men by virtue of his creative and redemptive work. We must make him known as Saviour and Lord in every sphere of life. We must work out and practice his gracious government in our lives as members of churches, families, and societies. We must proclaim God in Christ in all his majesty and mercy and might: preach him as such, pray to him as such, live for him and before him as such, sing of him as such, obey him as such, delight in him as such. This is why we need the Spirit of God to work powerfully among us: he will glorify Christ by taking what belongs to him and declaring it to us (Jn 16.14-15). If we believe in Jesus as Lord and Christ, we must live before him as such and make him known as such in dependence upon him, within and beyond his church.

GD: Care to name your top three pieces of music?

JW: Not really! This is one of those questions where I would like to give a cheating answer, and sub-divide by style, tradition and/or period. That would give me endless choices, which is helpful as I don’t think there are three stand-out pieces for me: I listen to a lot of soundtracks, hymn and psalm compilations (some of the older Welsh hymns come near the top of the list for me), instrumental (everything from Beethoven and Mendelssohn through to Ludovico Einaudi), and still remember fondly some of the music from my days at university.

However, I know you get shirty about cheating answers, so I offer three pieces of instrumental music (i.e. neither hymns like those of William Williams nor choral works by men like Thomas Tallis nor more up-to-date stuff) that generally make me stop concentrating on other things to concentrate on them:

Going Home (Theme of the Local Hero), Mark Knopfler.
Farewell to Stromness, Sir Peter Maxwell-Davies.
The Battle (from The Gladiator soundtrack), Hans Zimmer.

GD: What? Me get shirty when interviewees surruepticiously try to get away with listing more than the mandatory three pieces of music? Never! Now, what is the most important theological book that you have read in the last twelve months? It is a must read because....

JW: That is tricky. As I look over my reading list there are perhaps two that stand out for me, and I give them together because they deal with the same truths in different ways (a formal cheating answer!). They are the most important in the sense that they have done my soul most good and I would most want others to be captured by the same truths. They are In Christ Alone: Living the Gospel Centered Life by Sinclair Ferguson (which I reviewed here) and Life in Christ: Walking in Newness of Life by Ted Donnelly. Sinclair’s volume is almost a complete, boiled down Christology in itself, holding up the person and work of the Saviour, and pressing home those things upon us. As I read it through, I found myself wanting both to meditate and to preach on each of these texts as fresh insights and delights were brought to my heart. Ted Donnelly’s book is more focused and perhaps more ‘popular’ – what does it mean to be in Christ? Both books consider who Jesus is and the benefits of our saving union with him. They overwhelm you with a sense of the wonder of the gospel, and the glory of the God of the gospel. To know what we must be, we must know who we are; to know who we are, we must know our standing in Christ. These books instruct us on what it means to become and to be a true disciple of the dying and risen Jesus.

While there have been some other books on the same or related topics that I have enjoyed, few have accomplished in the same way the binding together of such simplicity and clarity and profundity on such a glorious theme in modern dress. They are both humbling and uplifting, constraining and liberating.

GD: Hmmm. A "formal cheating answer", that's a new one. But with books by Sinclair Ferguson and Ted Donnelly, I can't compain too much. Right, which blogs do you enjoy reading and why?

JW: I don’t know that I enjoy reading many blogs – it tends to be particular posts rather than particular blogs, either something that serves a particular purpose or meets a particular need or advances a particular interest. I prefer more substantial and stimulating posts. I was recently disturbed to discover that I follow over 50 other blogs from a variety of points on the theological compass, but I tend to skim them through an online reader and pick out what seems valuable.

GD: Well Jeremy, thanks for dropping by for this conversation.

JW: The pleasure and privilege are mine. Thank you for inviting me.

GD: No problem. Great talking to you. Bye!

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Blogging in the name of the Lord: Iain D. Campbell

This is the sixth in a series of interviews with Christian bloggers. In the hot seat today is...

Iain D. Campbell

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

IC: I am a pastor in the Free Church of Scotland, currently serving a congregation in the Isle of Lewis, which is part of the chain of islands known as the Outer Hebrides or Western Isles, off the northwest mainland of Scotland. I grew up in Stornoway, the main town on Lewis, studied at the University of Glasgow and the Free Church College, Edinburgh, married my school girlfriend, Anne, a teacher of pupils with severe and complex needs. We have three grown up children, Iain, working in Lewis, Stephen, a student in Glasgow, and Emily, just about to leave school and study in Glasgow. When I finished College in 1988 I pastured a congregation on the Isle of Skye for seven years, and came back to my native island in 1995.

GD: Your blog is called "Creideamh", meaning?

IC: ‘Creideamh’ (pronounced kray-jif) is the Gaelic for ‘faith’. I speak Gaelic and English, and preach in both languages every week. The blog is at http://www.creideamh.blogspot.com/.

GD: What made you start blogging?

IC: It was something I told myself I would never do. I thought there could be nothing more narcissistic than publicising one’s own opinions. However, I took a different view on it when I realised that it was a useful outlet for some material that I was writing. I had started writing a weekly column for our local island newspaper, the Stornoway Gazette. Someone taught me that if something is worth doing once, it is worth doing twice, so the blog became a forum for posting some of these columns online, and the blog has evolved – as most do – into a pastiche of reflections on things sacred and secular.

GD: What are the strengths and weaknesses of blogging as a medium for reflection on ministry and theology?

IC: As Carl Trueman says, everyone has a right to give one’s opinions, but not everyone has the right to be heard. I think that a lot of blogging IS rather narcissistic, but it is good to know what people are thinking and what is going on throughout the church. I find blogs especially useful for keeping abreast of the latest publications, and I like people blogging on conferences which I am unable to attend, for example. The greatest weakness is the lack of accountability. We just throw our opinions into the electronic market place of ideas, and the boundaries of orthodoxy just keep shifting, if they don’t get eroded altogether.

GD: Describe your call to the Christian ministry.

IC: One of the main influences on my young life was my ministerial grandfather, who ministered faithfully in two small rural parishes for the duration of his ministry. I think God stirred within me when I was very young a desire to be like him, both as a Christian and a minister. By the time I came to leave school, that desire had become an irresistible conviction, confirmed both my own reading of the Word, and by two sermons I heard at the time, one on Peter’s call to be a fisher of men (by one of my predecessors in the congregation I now serve) and another on the labourers required for the harvest. I applied for the ministry before I finished school.

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

IC: One of the advantages of applying for the ministry before beginning as an undergraduate was that the Church had a say in the subjects I studied, so I spent four years at Glasgow University studying Greek and Hebrew, and then three years at the Free Church College, where all our candidates for the ministry do their theological training. Although we are a small denomination, we have been able to maintain a theological College; the advantage of that system is that the theological training itself is confessional and Church-based. It was extremely helpful to enter College with a good grounding in the biblical languages; that freed me up to concentrate on theological subjects which really interested me. I loved the exposure to Christian authors past and present which my theological training gave me, and the one thing I miss most about living on a lump of peat in the Atlantic is that there is no good academic and theological library to hand.

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

IC: Wow. Where do I start? Palmer Robertson helped to crystallise my views on covenant theology as an architectonic principle of biblical hermeneutics, Jonathan Edwards opened my eyes to the theological basis for Christian experience, Herman Bavinck taught me the proper scientific method of doing theology, John Owen underlined the importance of thoroughness in reflecting on Scripture, Donald Macleod and John Murray taught me that theology is grounded in exegesis – I owe a great debt to these and many others, all of whom, in different ways, have shaped my thinking.

GD: Who taught you most of what it means to preach the Word of God?

IC: The late Rev Murdo Alex Macleod came to Stornoway Free Church in 1984. He was an outstanding preacher, and modelled faithful biblical preaching with the right blend of exegesis, application, oratory and passion. Good preaching needs all four, and to hear Murdo Alex was to hear good preaching. I don’t know if I deliberately modelled myself on him, but subconsciously perhaps knew that that was the kind of preaching I wanted to deliver.

GD: What keeps you going in the ministry?

IC: The encouragement of my wife and family, the prayers of my congregation, and the assurance that my work is not in vain in the Lord.

GD: You wrote on your blog of Isle of Lewis, "as far as evangelical Calvinism is concerned, the particular lump of peat on which we live has been a theatre in the past for some remarkable works of God." Like Wales the island has been touched by revival. How do you view the phenomenon of revival in relation to the teaching of Scripture?

IC: I view revival as a more-than-ordinary work of the Holy Spirit. That is to say, I believe the Holy Spirit works ordinarily through the means of grace, through prayer, private and corporate, through the preaching of the Word, through the fellowship of God’s people, and through the sacraments. The giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost led to Christ being exalted in the proclamation of the Gospel, and bore the fruit of believers continuing in the apostles’ fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers, as they witnessed for Christ in a fallen world. I believe that these are still the marks of Holy Spirit ministry, and I expect these evidences of the Spirit’s presence in our congregation week by week, enabling Christians to mature and grow, and drawing sinners to follow Christ.

Nevertheless, there have been times when the Spirit has worked in ways that were manifestly out of the ordinary, where an unusual number of people were converted on single occasions, for example, or where the presence of God was experienced in a remarkable way that led to renewed consecration and commitment to Christ. For example, in the last couple of years we saw an unusual number of young schoolchildren converted – there was a discernible work of the Spirit that began unexpectedly and drew to a close. That was a reviving of the Lord’s work among us, and was a shadow of some historical incidences of revival.

I also like to point out that you cannot revive what is dead – you can only revive what is living. Revival is not a matter of many converts; it is a matter of deeper love to Christ, and a deeper concern to follow him on the part of his people.

GD: Wise words. 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?

IC: I would love to meet John Macdonald of Ferintosh. He lived from 1779-1847 (I have written on him on our church website at http://www.backfreechurch.co.uk/), and was one of the great evangelists of the Highlands and Islands. I would love to have attended his first communion in Ferintosh when, in spite of having recently been widowed, he preached in the open air on the words ‘I will betroth you to myself forever’ with such power and effect that, as his biographer John Kennedy says, ‘the widower was lost in the spouse’. I would discuss some of his Gaelic religious poetry with him, and ask him what he thought of New Covenant Theology.

GD: This year marks the 500th anniversary of Calvin's birth. Can you give three good reasons why we should read the Institutes?

IC:
(1) to give us a thorough grounding in the teaching of the Bible
(2) to humble us before the majesty of God, and
(3) to make us better preachers.

GD: There has been a recovery of Reformed theology both in the USA and the UK over the last 50 years or so. What can be done to maintain and advance the Calvinistic cause in the 21st century?

IC: Let’s get back to our creeds, confessions and catechisms. Let’s hold them up as models of theology which are not at variance with Scripture, and which ought not to be thrown out just because they are old.

GD: You expressed deep concern over Andrew McGowan's The Divine Spiration of Scripture. We have also seen the controversy over Peter Enns' views in the States. Why do you think that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is being questioned by some within the Reformed camp at the moment?

IC: Without imputing these reasons to either of the scholars you mention, I think that Reformed scholars have tried to accommodate too much in the interests of academic respectability; I also think there has been a renaissance of interest in Karl Barth, and the domesticating of some Barthian elements is evident in the discussions on inerrancy. I think Enns’ use of the incarnation as a model for reading Scripture doesn’t work – because the incarnation was a unique event not to be taken as an analogy for anything – or proves too much, since the humanness of Christ was itself inerrant. In fact, Enns’ development of the human element of Scripture is little more than old liberalism dressed up. McGowan’s insistence on jettisoning the idea of inerrancy is puzzling for what he does not say: what is to be gained by dropping a word designed to emphasise that there is no error in the Bible? In both cases we have seen Reformed theology take a step too far in an unhelpful direction.

GD: What did you speak on at the recent Affinity Conference, "The End of the Law"? And what did you make of the Conference as a whole?

IC: My paper was on the threefold division of the law, and defended the Westminster Confession’s position that the moral law of the Decalogue is absolute and binding on the believer as a rule of life, while the ceremonial laws are abrogated and the civil requirements modified to the extent of their ‘general equity’ or ‘universalisableness’ (? Is that even a word [Not one that I've come across!]). The New Covenant theologians came out fighting at that point, and the role of the Sabbath in the new covenant kept coming up as a test case on whether the ten commandments were still binding.

My view is disarmingly simple. I see the moral law of the ten commandments as unique, and given in a unique manner. Israel’s ceremonies were a particular application of these moral requirements in her religious life, anticipating the final ceremony in Christ. Her civil requirements were a particular instantiation of the Decalogue within the theocracy. The new covenant emphasised an internalisation of these moral commandments on hearts that long to keep them.

The conference made me realise the appeal of New Covenant Theology as something that is seen as more ‘Christian’, more ‘Christ-focussed’, more ‘biblical’. But the Westminster Confession solidly emphasises that its position on the law accords and complies with the gospel, and, by the work of the Spirit, shapes us into Christlikeness. To me the gospel is the good news of the death of Christ for law-breakers, by which His law-keeping is the ground of my acceptance with God. He is able to redeem me from the bondage of my law-breaking into the freedom of law-keeping. Without the abiding validity of the moral law I have no way of defining sin or righteousness. The danger I see in New Covenant Theology is that it opens the door to a new antinomianism – and that is not a route I wish to go down. I AM a new covenant theologian, and I want to say with both David and Paul ‘I delight in the law of God’.

GD: Care to name your top three/songs or pieces of music? No bagpipes please. This is a civilised blog.

IC: OK I got a bit carried away in answering that last question. No bagpipes? Some rules I don’t delight in.

(1) Three priests from Ireland singing Hacia Belen, on the album ‘The Priests’
(2) Mary Ann Kennedy and Na Seoid singing ‘Sios dhan Abhainn’ – this is a Gaelic, a cappella version of the song ‘Down to the River’ which is sung in the movie ‘Brother, Where Art Thou?’
(3) David Nevue playing ‘Come thou Fount of every blessing’ on the compilation of piano solos entitled ‘Adoration’.

GD: Reformed Presbyterians lay great emphasis on the Westminster Standards and often refer to the WCF in response to contemporary theological concerns. Shouldn't our primary appeal be to the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture? How do you view the critical relationship between the Bible and the Church's Confessions of Faith?

IC: Great question. I think the relationship is like a father and mother – drawing on Calvin's analogy that if God is our Father (speaking to us in the Bible), the church is our Mother (speaking to us through her confessions). Confessions and creeds (on which I've recently been blogging) are statements of consensus views on theological topics, and help to identify church positions. But they are always subservient to the final authority of the Bible. So mum can always be overruled by dad because he is the head of the home!

I think Scott Clark's recent book Recovering the Reformed Confession demolishes a lot of the myths around the 'I don't want Confessions, I just want the Bible' idea. For instance, he says, very astutely, 'It is one thing to have a high view of Scripture. It is another thing, however, to have a theology, piety and practice which are actually biblical' (p198). He also reminds us that 'Christian theology must be driven by the Scriptures, but no one reads the Scriptures without a theology' (p201).

The consensus of the church, expressed in dogmatic form, is not on the same level as Scripture, but it does contextualise our reading of the Bible for us, and avoids the pitfalls of wooden fundamentalism. There is no dissonance, therefore, between appealing to God's Word and approaching it with a commitment to a confession, like Westminster, which we find to be in agreement with that word. It's like listening to dad's voice while being curled up in mum's lap.

We never 'do' our theology in a vacuum, and even the most strident anti-confessionalists express their views on the teaching of Scripture in their own words, and make creedal statements. It is impossible to have theological discourse without listening to the voice of the church in her creeds and confessions; and the merit of the Westminster Confession, for example, is its insistence at the outset that the only judge by which controversies, opinions and doctrines are to be examined 'can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the scripture'. I think my mission now is to demolish the myth that creedal Christianity is somehow at variance with Bible study!

GD: That'll be some mission. What is the biggest problem facing Evangelicalism and how should we respond?

IC: I think our single greatest crisis is a crisis in preaching. Where are the great preachers of the twenty first century? Why have we turned sermons into gimmicky crowd-ticklers that don’t work unless they are full of jokes? Why have we concentrated on trying to make the church attractive to the world? Why do we think we are not preaching unless we are working through a series? Why do we give our sermons titles? Where is the passion in our pulpits? And where is the prayer in our churches for gifted men with fire in their bones to herald forth the word of life?

GD: Indeed! Now, what is the most important theological book that you have read in the last twelve months? It is a must read because...

IC: Can I have two? [Oh, I suppose so.]

The first is Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry, edited by R. Scott Clark for the faculty of Westminster Seminary California. I plug this book everywhere. It is a call to return to a solid, covenantal basis for theology, sets the current crises over justification in context, and encourages preaching which is Scripturally grounded and applicable to our hearers.

The second is Pierced for our Transgressions: Rediscovering the glory of penal substitution, by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach. It too is a clarion call to have the cross at the centre of our theology and proclamation, coupled with a warning that if we do not understand biblically what took place on the cross, our faith will be impoverished. Jesus took our place, was punished by God for us, and saves us only by being cursed at Calvary. It is one of the most important books on the atonement to have appeared in recent times.

GD: I haven't seen your first suggestion, but I certainly endorse your second choice. [See my review]. Which blogs do you enjoy reading and why?

IC: I’ve discovered widgets, so you can drop by my own blog to see which blogs I read regularly. There are men out there – Al Mohler, Mark Dever, Martin Downes, Gary Brady, Justin Taylor, and numerous others – whose insights, critiques and comments are worth turning to again and again. Although my contribution to http://www.reformation21.org/ is modest compared to some of my fellow-bloggers there, it is one site to which I turn every day – a blog worth the paper it’s not written on.

GD: Thanks for dropping by Iain. Great talking to you. 

Friday, February 13, 2009

Blogging in the name of the Lord: Gary Benfold

This is the fifth in a series of interviews with Christian bloggers. In the hot seat today is...

Gary Benfold

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

GB: A Yorkshireman by birth and conviction, I've pastored two churches. The first was in Aylesbury, 1981-97, and now here in Moordown, Bournemouth since 1997.

GD: Your blog is rather grandly called "The Preacher". Please explain why.

GB: Ah, well: the truth. I was thinking I might start a blog one day and playing with the controls to see if I could make it work. when it asked for a name for the blog I wrote the first thing that came into my head; suddenly, there was the blog up and running and I was stuck with it. If anyone knows how to change the name without losing the address, I'll gladly change it for something a little more modest. 'The Pastor' perhaps. Or 'The Well-balanced Calvinist.'

GD: After a little technical advice from yours truly, it looks as though you are now A Yorkshire Preacher in Exile, which is a bit less pretentious. The "Exile" bit sounds a bit familar, though. Now you'll probably get e-mails from concerned readers in the States asking why you've been banished to Bournemouth. What made you start blogging?

GB: Somebody's got to tell the truth...

GD: That's true. What are the strengths and weaknesses of blogging as a medium for theological reflection?

GB: The major weakness of course is that the ignorant can pretend to be knowledgeable and mislead others. A major strength though is that it can help those of us who want to learn, by encouraging interaction with people we may rarely, or never, see. Then, too, there are some very fine people blogging: I discovered Helm's Deep recently (through your blog, I think) and have discovered that Paul Helm ruminates there, on questions big and small, in most helpful ways.

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

GB: Martyn Lloyd-Jones, without doubt. I was 'awakened' under his itinerant ministry in 1973 and when I came to Christ, he was the only Christian I knew outside my own small church. So the first Christian book I ever bought was his 'Studies in the Sermon on the Mount' and his influence has been with me ever since.

GD: Who has taught you most of what it means to preach the Word of God?
GB: Again, Lloyd-Jones. I've been listening afresh to some of his sermons recently - reading them is one thing, hearing them is another. What simplicity! What passion! He is to preaching what Ronnie O'Sullivan is to snooker: he makes it look so easy, I think 'I could do that'. And then I try it...

GD: Describe your call to the pastoral/preaching ministry.
GB: The first stirrings came, perhaps ironically now, under the preaching of Roy Clements when I was a student. He was expounding 2 Timothy and bringing us face to face with God and the importance of the gospel, and I remember thinking 'If I could do that, I would gladly give my life to it.' Then, over the next couple of years, the conviction grew that God was calling me to this work, and I began to preach and ask the advice of others as to whether to proceed.

GD: Where did you train for the ministry and what did you find most helpful about your studies?
GB: I trained at the London Theological Seminary, which was undoubtedly right for me at the time. It was the early days of the seminary with the original faculty: Harrison, Davies, Jones and Eveson. Most helpful, of course, was the conviction 'God can do it again' which came through in all the lectures.

GD: They were still there when I studied at LTS from 1988-90. Their godliness, giftedness and passion for preaching in the power Spirit has had a deep and lasting impression on my life. What do you find most difficult and challenging about being a pastor?
GB: Personal holiness. No disappointment compares with my disappointment here, or with the fear that this is The Reason why I am so little used by God.

GD: What do you find most thrilling and encouraging about being a pastor?
GB: I had a letter just last month from a couple who'd been converted 20 years ago. Since that time, they've developed, sacrificially, a ministry helping bring the gospel to children in Romania and Moldova. Year in, year out, they've done a work that the world never notices, but that makes a vast and eternal difference in the lives of countless children. I remember so clearly when that couple had only minimal interest in the gospel; and I remember too the wife stopping me in the street one day to say that they had both come to the Lord. Nothing, nothing, compares with the thrill of that; and it's made all the richer by their 20 years of hard work.

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, assuming they didn't run away?
GB: Would it be Spurgeon, or Whitefield? Spurgeon, I guess - though the choice is a difficult one. What would I say? 'Tell me again about the loveliness of Christ.' I know that can sound very syrupy; but what else could I possibly want CHS to talk about?

GD: I can't think of anything better. Name your favourite contemporary theologian. Why so good?
GB: Don Carson - at times I call him my 'subordinate standard'. He's clear, careful, and contemporary. He has his eyes firmly on the primacy of the gospel. And even when I don't agree with him, I'm sure he's thought things through carefully and is at least attempting to be faithful to the whole of the Biblical text.

GD: The Don is certainly one of the best. You are a member of the FIEC Council (Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches). What is your vision of the role of the FIEC in the contemporary church scene?
GB: The FIEC does a significant work in encouraging independent churches, many of which are small, to keep the gospel at the heart of their existence. I know many people argue that it doesn't do it well enough, and point at other problems (real or perceived); but no body is perfect, no body will satisfy everyone. I would like to see it develop in some important ways if it's to continue - not least, by facilitating local gospel outreach. I don't mean this in any way as a criticism of FIEC or anyone else: but it's true, I'm convinced, that if we pursue 'Fellowship' we never get it. If we work together to proclaim the gospel to the lost, true fellowship results.

GD: You've just come back from the Affinity Study Conference: The End of the Law. Did you find it helpful?
GB: Yes, I did - but not in ways that you might expect. For example: I came to understand for the first time why an evangelist friend of mine hates theology so much! Theology as I understand it is designed to glorify God by increasing our knowledge of him in ways that a) help promote true Christian living and b) help in our proclamation of the gospel. If we don't have theologians to keep us on track, we'll soon, I suspect, lose the power of the gospel. But: we spent some time on the question of whether Calvin held to Common Grace or Natural Law. An interesting question perhaps for historians of philosophy and theology, but of NO RELEVANCE AT ALL in reaching my lost and hell-bound neighbours.

GD: Did you find out what happened to the Autumn 2008 edition of Foundations?
GB: No; forgot all about it. Old age...

GD: Oh well. Maybe it'll turn up some time. Have you ever been mistaken for Gary Brady? If so did you feel flattered or depressed?
GB: Yes, regularly. What's depressing is that he's never been mistaken for me! Even worse, it's gone to a new level. 'Oh, you're Steve Brady?' 'You mean Gary Brady?' 'Yes, sorry. You are, aren't you?' 'No.' There's a Steve Benfold, too - but that would just be too complicated.

GD: Thinking about it, Gary Brady was the guinea pig for Blogging in the name of the Lord. He sat in the "hot seat" for the very first interview (here). The fact that you've both featured here will probably add to the confusion. Now, what do you make of the new Gospel Partnerships that are springing up around the UK, bringing Evangelical Anglicans and Nonconformists together? Is separation from the mixed denominations now a non-issue?
GB: Are you trying to get me into trouble? [As if!] Many churches are so weak it makes sense for them to work together on a local level in such things as outreach and training. No, separation from mixed denominations isn't a non-issue; I could never be involved in such a denomination (I think!). But the question of what to do with those genuine evangelicals who are involved in mixed denominations is a different one. Melvin Tinker (Anglican, St. John's, Newland, Hull) makes a distinction between Evangelical Anglicans and Anglican Evangelicals. An EA would be Anglican first, and of an evangelical shade - so that his first 'fellowship' is going to be with other Anglicans. An AE, on the other hand, is first and foremost an Evangelical who (for whatever reason) is within the Anglican denomination. The Keele Conference saw the (temporary, perhaps) triumph of EA over AE. I don't see how I could have any meaningful fellowship with someone for whom Anglican (or: Presbyterian, or: Baptist) was more important than Evangelical - indeed, I'm not sure how they could be Evangelical in any meaningful sense.

GD: What features of the Reformed scene in the UK cause you concern and what fills you with hope?
GB: My concern about the Reformed scene is that Reformed folks haven't always made the distinction between 'Reformed' and 'old-fashioned.' It is reformed to believe in Particular Redemption; it is old-fashioned (and sinfully so?) to pray in thees and thous. I believe that this is one significant reason why the 'Reformed Revival' of the 60s hasn't led to much. But I'm filled with hope while ever God reigns.
GD: Care to name your top three pieces of music?
GB: Beethoven's Violin concerto, played by David Oistrakh; Beethoven's Emperor Concerto (the Violin Concerto is played on a violin, but the Emperor Concerto isn't played on an Emperor - presumably because there aren't any around any more) as played by Ashkenazy; and Elvis singing 'Don't' or 'It's now or never' or 'Something Blue'.

GD: With 2009 being the 500th anniversary of Calvin's birth, tell us three little known Calvin facts.
GB: If they're little known, I wouldn't know them. Except, perhaps, that his 'real' name is Chauvin, which makes him the first Chauvinist?

GD: What a vexing question. We'll have to ask Paul Helm. With his Calvin, A Guide for the Perplexed, he should know. What is the biggest problem facing Evangelicalism today and how should we respond?
GB: A failure to distinguish between big things and little. We're so good at criticising one another for little things that when we have to protest against, say, Chalke's comment about 'cosmic child abuse' it's just one more whinge from a whinging group.

GD: What is the most important theological book that you have read in the last twelve months? It is a must read because....
GB: John Piper's The Future of Justification. Though I haven't finished it yet, it's a must read because this is THE issue in evangelicalism; this is the place where we are being attacked from within. Piper manages to be polemic and peaceful, thorough and gracious - a model of what theological defence should be.

GD: I really must get around to reading that book, especially as its available online for free! Which blogs do you enjoy reading and why?
GB: Yours of course; for the style, and erudition, and choice of guests. Pyromaniacs, for their defence of important theological and practical issues. And anybody who drops in a comment on my own blog, because by definition they must have discernment and tenacity. Unless they disagree, of course.

GD: Thanks for those kind words, although the choice of guests has been going down hill a bit recently. Well Gary Brady, er..... Benfold. Thanks for dropping by. Great talking to you!

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Blogging in the name of the Lord: Adrian Reynolds

This is the fourth in a series of interviews with Christian bloggers. In the hot seat today is...

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

AR: I am a 40 year old Hampshire Baptist Pastor, married to Celia for almost 20 years (in fact we’ve been dating 25 years today!). We have three daughters, Alice (14), Bethan (11) and Isabel (4). Celia is half Welsh (not her fault) so she always sits on the fence at the most important sporting occasion of the year! I play the piano to relax and go fencing to relieve my frustrations.

GD: Your blog is called "Strangers and Aliens". Please explain.

AR: The first book I ever preached through was 1 Peter. It has really stuck with me – especially this pregnant phrase. It sums up all that I am in Christ now in relation to the world, which is what I am often tempted to ignore. My besetting sin is to be too much in love with the world. In my weaker moments, I want the passport!

GD: I'm preaching through 1 Peter at the moment. It's a wonderful portion of Gods' Word. What made you start blogging?

AR: Honestly? Pastoral contact with church members. One or two who needed a phone call a day at a particular moment in their lives. Pressure of time meant that I couldn’t help them as much as I needed. This is a way of keeping in contact with struggling souls. It worked, too!

GD: What are the strengths and weaknesses of blogging as a medium for theological reflection?

AR: It’s my water cooler. As long as people think of it that way, blogging is not a problem. I’m not speaking ex cathedra when I blog. But like all Christians I need to think aloud, sharpen iron against iron, be put right when I’m tempted to drift and just interact with others. I find the hardest thing about being a pastor (see below) the lonely path – I am relational by nature (aren’t we all?) and it serves a purpose. This great strength is also its greatest weakness – it’s public and it’s not always helpful for people to see their pastor thinking aloud.

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

AR: Eric Lane – fellow elder here, author, retired pastor, LTS lecturer and all round wise guy. He doesn’t know it, but when someone asked MLJ a question at the Westminster Fellowship, he was directed to my Eric with the words “there’s no one I know who knows the Bible like that fellow.” I have my own one man University on site. He is 80 and writing a book on how his view of the Law has changed! I love the way he’s always thinking things through again and again and is prepared to change long held views.

GD: Who has taught you most of what it means to preach the Word of God?

AR: Hmm. Robert Murray McCheyne, I think, though I have not met him personally! I do love reading books of sermons as part of my devotions and I love his fullness, winsomeness and yet the way he manages to be direct and authoritative.

GD: Describe your call to the pastoral/preaching ministry.

AR: Left a big job in business and a nice Merc because I could not put it off any more! Read Ezra through one Saturday when the family were out and couldn’t get past Ezra 7.10. Same day, Celia was singing Bethan to bed with the song “I will make you fishers of men” and came down in tears; “What are we doing with our lives?” she asked. It all came together then.

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

AR: Our church (and we) couldn’t afford seminary; so I went to Cornhill Training Course, took the Moore College correspondence studies and moved to Yateley as assistant to Eric, who taught me for a few hours every week. That’s essentially it – and a voracious appetite for reading, of course. I continue to meet with Eric weekly, so my “University” tuition group continues.

GD: What do you find most difficult and challenging about being a pastor?

AR: Easy. Lack of spiritual growth in people who should often (always?) be doing much better. Personally, feeling this too personally and treading what can sometimes be a lonely road.

GD: It's tough at the top. What do you find most thrilling and encouraging about being a pastor?

AR: Spiritual growth in people who should often (by the world’s standard) be struggling.

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?

AR: Hard question. So many! I’m tempted to go for Edward VI – a young man who fascinates me; come on, rewriting the liturgy in the middle of Bishop Hooper’s enthronement? However, he is fairly well researched, so perhaps I would go for someone more obscure – say Ulrich Zwingli. I really want to ask him whether he “stumbled” across justification by faith alone separately from Luther (as he claims) and if so, how?

GD: I wonder what he'd say? He'd probably just try to drown you for being a baptist anyway. Name your favourite contemporary theologian. Why so good?

AR: That’s hard! It changes every week. Currently Big Doug Moo – I find his insights into Romans quite thrilling – but it’s likely to be someone else next week.

GD: Moo's a Biblical Scholar rather than a theologian isn't he? You sometimes reference Mark Driscoll on your blog. What do you make of the controversial US pastor?

AR: I try not to be a complete fan of anyone, by conviction! I love some of his stuff, but also find he is, to my ear, unnecessarily provocative at times. I love the fact that Reformed thought is finding a new audience and that they are being thrilled by (largely) the same truths which thrill me.

GD: You've just come back from the Affinity Study Conference: The End of the Law. Did you find it helpful?

AR: Yes and no. Some good papers and thought provoking discussion. I don’t think it’s the kind of subject where we’re ever going to reach a consensus. I was surprised by how some older Presbyterians argued all their case from the Westminster Standards rather than Scripture – it highlighted for me something I hadn’t really seen before. I know they would make a clear case that the Westminster Standards come from Scripture – but in that kind of setting I want to go back to the Word directly, not via a 17th Century assessment. Controversial?

GD: Not really. Some Presbyterians tend to think in a very confession-bound way. Robert Reymond's A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith is basically a glorified commentary on the Westminster Confession. That worries me a bit. While theology should be confessional, Scripture is our ultimate authority. As ironically enough WCF 1:10 states, "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." Richard Gaffin shows us a more excellent way. Following the example of John Murray, he is confessional yet his rigorously exegetical approach constantly yields fresh insights into Scripture. Now, you are a member of the Affinity National Council. Could you say a word or two about the purpose of Affinity?

AR: Affinity is an evolution (a good one) of the sometimes rather negative British Evangelical Council. It is radical in that brings together those of different ecclesiologies but centred on the truths of the gospel. So it has (and has always had) Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals and, now, Free Anglicans. Some of the work is to present a united case in the world on social issues, for example abortion. Another area of work focuses on how we can work together in missions; yet another is a theological think tank (though, given the differing views, this perhaps works only so well). My particular area is gospel partnership – seeking to help churches understand what independence and interdependence look like in the 21st Century. I am convinced that this is an important job – but bigger than anyone realised.

GD: Some people have expressed concerns about the Affinity sponsored Gospel Partnerships that have been springing up around the UK with the aim of bringing together Free Church Evangelicals and their Anglican brethren. It seems that the issue of separation from the theologically mixed denominations, raised by Lloyd-Jones in 1966 has been kicked into the long grass. Also there are differences of emphasis between Evangelical Anglicans and Nonconformists over matters like the relationship of Word and Spirit in preaching, not to mention the doctrine of the Church. Care to comment?

AR: Ooh, that’s a big question. Firstly, Gospel Partnerships are not Affinity sponsored, though some of them (not all) do associate with Affinity through their own choice. The whole issue of Free Church/Anglican is coming to the fore again – you are right – and is one that needs some careful thought. It seems to me that many free churches are in mixed denominations! I’m an FIEC pastor, and the only church service I’ve ever walked out of was in an FIEC church. It was terrible! The local Anglicans I work alongside are thoroughly Reformed and operate as Free Churches anyway! I am more happy partnering with them than other free churches which compromise on just too much. I think Evangelicalism is too weak in the UK to ignore this issue for much longer; both the Free Church and good (I use the word advisedly) Reformed Anglicans are different beasts than they were in 1966.

GD: What features of the Reformed scene in the UK cause you concern and what fills you with hope?

AR: The greatest concern that I have for Reformed theology is the inability of some who hold Reformed views to think freshly. I think this marked out all the Reformers; but we seem to have come to the point where the Reformed canon is closed much like Scripture. I believe in reformed; always reforming, but see little of that in some who claim to be truly Reformed. This doesn’t mean we must change; but we must create an environment where we are wiling to think about it. As for what fills me with hope, the weakness of evangelicalism in the UK is making us think through partnerships we hold dear and where allegiances truly live – I think initiatives like New Word Alive and the work that is being done through UCCF are hugely encouraging. UCCF is full of Beautiful People – I mean, students who are reading Athanasius? When I was a student, few people got beyond Joyce Huggett. Bring it on!

GD: Some of us seem to believe in semper reformanda, so long as it doesn't change anything. Its good that things are looking up in the student world. With 2009 being the 500th anniversary of Calvin's birth, tell us three vital insights that you have gained from the Reformer.

AR: One insight above all others: always reforming. I have on my bookshelf two copies of the Institutes – one from 1536, the other the 1559 version. Comparing them is hugely informative. One positive insight: prayer; it was first reading Calvin that made me more committed to prayer (still a long way to go, of course!). One negative: church and state don’t mix. I’m with Professor Paul Helm on this – principled pluralism. I think he says “the Constantinian Settlement was the worst mistake ever made in the church.” I agree. My love of church history shows the effects of this rearing its head again and again, not least (sometimes) in Geneva. By the way, we’re going to do a Bible Study series in the summer on Calvin – his life, learning and legacy. If anyone has any insights, do send them to me!

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

AR: Black spots. Huge swathes of the country with little or no Evangelical witness. I know Christians who have to travel 30 miles to get to a church – not passing anything on the way. The only way this is going to get fixed is when stronger churches get together and think strategically about the gaps and how to plug them, perhaps financing and resourcing struggling churches.

GD: By "black spots" for a moment I thought you were going to say that our biggest problem is zits! I was waiting for you to say "And we should respond with a good dose of Clearasil." I'm glad you elaborated on the opening words. We do need to find some way of linking larger churches with smaller under-resourced fellowships. Perhaps the Gospel Partnerships could do some good in that area? Right, care to name your top three pieces of music?

AR: I have very varied tastes. I love anything with a piano (being a pianist myself) from jazz to Billy Joel! But top three: (1) Carmen by Bizet (against all the influence of my parents, I love opera) (2) Bach’s St Matthew’s Passion and (3) Tchaikovsky’s Sixth Symphony. I am not just a classical nut, but these are the tunes I play when I need music most!

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

AR: Bob Letham’s “The Holy Trinity” – a great doctrine and one which many pastors don’t grapple with – just listen to their praying! Surely if there’s one doctrine we need to delve into and delight in it is this? Special mention to the Dutch Reformed Translation Society for Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics.

GD: Good choices. I enjoyed Letham on the Trinity (here). His book is a real challenge to make the Trinity more central in the proclamation, life and worship of the Church. I'm slowly woking my way through HB's Reformed Dogmatics (here). Great stuff. Now, which blogs do you enjoy reading and why?

AR: Anything by a Welshman. Gary Brady; Martin Downes; some chap called Guy Davies. Like many, I guess, I tend to use Bish’s blog as a stop off point – casting my eye down his blogroll every now and again.

GD: Well that just about wraps things up. Thanks for dropping by Adrian. Great talking to you!

AR: No problem – an easier way to experience Wales than having to actually go there…..
GD: What's that supposed to mean, you cheeky Englishman? You just wait until we trounce you at the Millennium Stadium on Saturday.