Revival the New Testament Expectation by Jonathan F. Bayes

Kindle edition 

We devoted last Wednesday's Bradford on Avon Ministers' Fraternal to reviewing and discussing this title. Robert Oliver gave a review paper and then we weighed up the strengths and weaknesses of the book together. Here are my impressions for what they are worth. 

I should have liked this one. After all, I'm from 'Wales, Land of Revivals'™. And there are many good things about Bayes' treatment of the theme. He helpfully shows how the New Testament draws on Old Testament prophecy to raise our expectations concerning the reign of Jesus and the advance of the kingdom of God in the power of the Spirit. The writer relates genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 to what the psalms have to say about 'Great David's greater Son' in Psalms 72 & 89 and the salvation of the nations in him. 

Good stuff. But as the book progresses you begin to think to yourself, 'Is this a New Testament theology of revival, or an attempt to argue for postmillennialism?' You perhaps wouldn't think it from reading Bayes, but you can have one without the other. Amillennialists may even believe in revival. Premillennialists can speak for themselves.The author gives the game away in the chapter on Revelation, where he 'outs' his postmillennial predilections. Never would have guessed,

It's a pretty extreme version of postmillenniallism at that. You know those great texts that you always thought were about the world acknowledging Jesus as Lord when he returns in glory, like Philippians 2:9-11? Well, that's really for the millennium. And those passages you always thought were about the consummation redemption at the end of the age such as Ephesians 1:10 and Colossians 1:19-20? You guessed it, they are about the millennium too. So much is reserved for the millennium that it is even hinted that Revelation 21-22 is about that supposed golden age, rather than the final state of glory. Talk about over-realised eschatology with postmillennial nobs on. Please. 

Bayes admits that we can expect opposition and setbacks when it comes to the advance of the kingdom in this age, but he is so full of heady optimism that he gets carried away with giddy talk of unimpeded gospel progress. The New Testament never says that. We could call the planting of the church in Thessalonica a revival situation, 1 Thessalonians 1:5-6, but there were very real hindrances to the work, 1 Thessalonians 2:18. When Paul used triumphalistic language, it was always chastened by the reality of suffering and hardship for the gospel's sake, Romans 8:37-39, 2 Corinthians 2:14-16 cf. 1:8-11. 

Rather than envisaging the whole history of the church as being one of constant revival as the norm, Paul warned Timothy that in the last days (the whole New Testament period), perilous times would come (2 Timothy 3:1-9). In those times many would turn away from the truth and it would be hard going for faithful preachers of the gospel. Such tensions are pretty much overlooked in Bayes' treatment. 

Paul regarded the Old Testament prophecies concerning the salvation of Gentile peoples in Christ as fulfilled under his own ministry, Romans 15:7-21. So much so that he regarded his work in the Roman Empire as complete and planned to head for Spain by way of Rome, Romans 15:22-24. Old Testament prophecies such as Psalm 72 would be better understood as speaking about the global mission of the church from the Pentecost to the Parousia, rather than pointing to what may happen in the millennium. That mission is sometimes carried forward as a result of intense revival blessing, sometimes not. Think of William Carey plodding away in India. 

More fruitful materials for developing a New Testament theology of revival might be found in giving attention to the relationship between word and Spirit in preaching and the apostles' prayers for greater boldness and fruitfulness in their gospel proclamation, 1 Corinthians 2:1-5, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, Ephesians 6:19-20. Bayes' handling of the Acts material is more sure footed, especially Acts 4:23-31. When it comes to prayer for a revival of believers' love for Christ and a deepening of their experience of his love for them, we could do little better than look to Ephesians 3:14-21. Oddly, the writer makes no mention of this passage. Something of an omission given his definition of revival as, "a mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit leading to the rekindling of love for Christ on the part of his people, and an explosion of gospel effectiveness with a visible impact on the nation and the world."

Bayes' attempt at discovering a theology of revival in the Gospels, would have been strengthened had he not jumped straight from the death of Jesus to the Great Commission. Was not the resurrection of Christ from the dead the ultimate reviving work of the Spirit? The Israel of God personified dead and buried. Written off by the world and mourned as a lost cause by his people. But up from the grave he arose. Israel's return from exile, depicted as the resurrection of a great army, (Ezekiel 37) was a prophetic anticipation of the literal re-vival of Jesus. The God who who raised up our Lord Jesus is able to breathe new life into dying churches. 

I accept the writer's argument that the New Testament rather than our current experience of gospel work in the UK should be allowed to set our expectations of what God can do. When it comes to revival, I agree wholeheartedly with Jonathan Edwards who said, 

It may here be observed, that from the fall of man to our day, the work of redemption in its effect has mainly been carried on by remarkable communications of the Spirit of God.Though there be a more constant influence of God’s Spirit always in some degree attending his ordinances, yet the way in which the greatest things have been done towards carrying on this work, always have been by remarkable effusions, at special seasons of mercy.

Yes, we should long and pray for a 'remarkable communication of the Spirit of God' in our day. How we need that if we are to re-evangelise our land. But loose talk of a postmillennial paradise doesn't reflect the tension we find in the New Testament between gospel advance and opposition that the church can expect to face in the world until Jesus returns in glory. 

Training for the Ministry in the Reformed Baptist Tradition by Robert Oliver

On Wednesday we had a meeting of the Bradford on Avon Ministers' Fraternal. Our longstanding Chair and former Minister at Bradford on Avon Baptist Church gave an address on the subject in the title above. Here are some brief (and rough around the edges) notes. 

In 1644 the 1st London Baptist Confession was drawn up and approved by seven London Baptist Churches. But to understand the emergence of Reformed or Particular (that is Calvinistic, not fussy) Baptists we have to go back a little further in history. 

The English Reformation that had developed in fits and starts since the reign of Henry VIII was brought to a juddering halt by Queen Mary. She set about to literally burn Protestantism out of England and many faced a martyr's death. 

Some English Protestants fled to Calvin's Geneva for refuge. There they encountered a more thorough reformation than they had witnessed back home. The regular preaching of the Word was especially prominent. This emphasis on biblical exposition and application let to the printing of the Geneva Bible, replete with notes and other study aids. 

As the Geneva Bible came into the hands of godly English-folk it stimulated a desire for sound biblical preaching. 

Mary died and was followed by Elizabeth I. Hopes were raised that the new monarch would give fresh stimulus to the Reformation in England. However, virtually all she would allow was for the Church of England to revert to it's pre-Marian state. The Elizabethan Settlement set the Reformation in stone. Queen Bess was certainly no great fan of preaching.  

The Puritan vision of Reformed Church driven by a revitalised preaching ministry was going nowhere fast. Some began to question the very idea of a State Church. They held that churches should be allowed to reform themselves according to the Word of God without having to wait for permission from the State. There were the Separatists.

Initially they were not Baptists. A persecuted minority, they sought refuge in Netherlands. In 1596 they drew up a confession of faith. This, with some revisions, was the basis of 1st London Baptist Confession of 1644.

A pioneer Reformed Baptist movement began to emerge among Separatists in 1630 London. Initially they questioned the validity of  CofE baptism, as they had seceded from the 'corrupt' church. The position of believers' baptism was adopted in 1638. General Baptists had already rejected infant baptism, but they were Arminian in their theology and baptised adults by effusion. The Reformed Baptists were Calvinistic and advocated believers' baptism by immersion.

And so the 1644 confession was agreed. The Calvinistic stance was in part due to the influence of William Ames. Ames was an English Separatist who found refuge in Holland. He was present at the Synod of Dort and authored the widely read, Marrow of Theology.

None of early Reformed Baptists had  had any formal theological training. Their pastors were artisans and merchants. But they had been brought up on a solid diet of sound Puritan preaching. Eventually theology graduates joined number such as Samuel Cox.

The RBs held that Ministers of the Word needed to be proficient in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Early pastors Christopher Blackwood and John Tombs were scholarly men. 

With toleration granted to Baptist in the 1650s, RB churches proliferated. Gifted preachers and evangelists such as Richard Gifford were mightily used by God to spread the Word and plant new RB churches. 

The RBs disapproved of 'disorderly preaching' by unrecognised men. Church approval was required for 'lay preachers' or 'gifted brethren'. It was insisted that churches not the not the magistrate should grabt this approval to competent and orthodox men.

When the monarchy was restored with the return of Charles II, only Anglican worship was allowed. Non Anglican preaching was officially banned, but Baptists such as John Bunyan and Benjamin Keach continued. 

In 1677 the 1st London Confession was revised and the 2nd London Baptist Confession drawn up. It made provision for preachers who were not pastors or elders (26:11). The updated confession was formally adopted by RB churches in 1689 when Dissenters were granted toleration.

The need for training was recognised. Both for pastors and 'others who are gifted and qualified' to preach. Training was initially provided by local churches. But Academies also began to emerge. Some RB's like Samuel Howe saw no need for 'human learning'. But that was not the general view. 

In 1679 Broadmead Baptist Church in Bristol was left a legacy by wealthy merchant Edward Tyrell to establish a training ministry associated with the church. Bernard Foskett led the Bristol Academy with distinction from 1720-58. He was proficient in Hebrew and Greek, taught systematic theology and Bible handling skills to a growing body of students.

Dissenting Academies sprung up across the country to train men for the Ministry, as Nonconformists were not allowed to attend university at the time. The Bristol Academy trained preachers from all over UK. As well as the Academies some candidates for the Ministry received personal tutoring from experienced pastors. 

The Baptist Academies tended to be more confessional in orientation and held to trinitarian orthodoxy, while other Nonconformist Academies drifted into Unitarianism, to the detriment of the Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches. 

With Robert's historical overview in mind we discussed training for pastoral and preaching ministries today in the UK RB scene. Currently there is no dedicated RB seminary. Reformed Seminaries and Bible Colleges tend to be interdenominational. That can be a strength in terms of fostering catholicity of spirit, but may be a weakness in terms of fostering a distinctive RB ministerial identity. 

We had a planning session over lunch to draw up a schedule for the year ahead. Robert announced that he was standing down as Chair after many years of distinguished service. It was kind of fitting that his swansong as Chair was an historical talk on training for the Ministry. Two subjects that are very close to his heart. I first came across Robert when attending the London Theological Seminary in the late 1980's and he was appointed Church History lecturer. 

I joined the Bradford on Avon fraternal when a newbie pastor in Stalbridge, Dorset in the early 1990's, and have been attending regularly since we moved to Westbury in 2003. Being part of this 'Band of Brothers' has been of real encouragement to me over the years. I'm sure Robert's wise and gracious chairmanship of the fraternal has been much appreciated by members past and present. We were glad to hear that he intends to continue meeting with us despite stepping down as Chair.  

John Owen Centre Doctrine Study Day on 'Sinai: What was the Law For?'

Well, that was good. Yesterday I attended a John Owen Centre Study Day led by Garry Williams on 'Sinai: What was the Law For?' This was the 5th of these events hosted by our Bradford on Avon Ministers' Fraternal. 

The study days take the form of a seminar where Garry leads the group in discussing a paper he has prepared on the subject in hand. The papers contain a distillation of his study, setting out the diverse views of various writers before drawing some conclusions.  

We gave attention to the character of the Sinai covenant. Was it a covenant of works, a covenant of grace administered as a covenant of works, or a covenant of grace with a special focus on law? That led to a lively discussion, especially when it came to the views of Meredith Kline. We also considered what is the 'problem' with the law? Your view on this second issue will probably be determined by your attitude to the Sinai covenant. 

It was a real 'iron sharpening iron' occasion where group members endeavored to assess the various theological viewpoints in the light of Scripture. It really made me think and just occasionally blurt out what I was thinking. With so many Bible literate colleagues around, woe betide anyone who (like me) tried quoting Scripture from memory and got it a bit wrong.

It wasn't all about high level theological discussion, though. Thought was given to how what we had learned might impact on our preaching and so be of benefit to the people Of God.

I look forward to giving Garry's paper a good read through, as we had to skip some bits on the day due to time constraints. 

I'm not going to try and summarise the paper, or the discussion it stimulated here, as this Study Day is still on the road and I don't want to 'steal Garry's thunder'. Far better to attend one near you. See the John Owen Centre website for details of other Study Days around the country, or contact them about hosting one at your Fraternal. 

Adam where art thou?

The other at week our Bradford on Avon Ministers' Fraternal, Robert Oliver spoke on the controversy over the historicity of Adam among American Evangelicals. A recent John Owen Centre Conference was devoted to this theme. Here are some notes on Robert's talk. 

Barbara Haggerty an American journalist wrote an article on the National Public Radio website on Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve. Surveys show that 4/10 Americans believe the Genesis creation account  But some conservative scholars doubt that Adam was an historical figure. According to Dennis Venema, studies on the human genome show that humans emerged from earlier species thousands of years ago. The idea that the whole human race originated from two ancestors over a relatively short period of time gives no time for genetic mutations that are currently present in the genome.

Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that aims at reconciling faith and science. The group was founded by Francis Collins, an Evangelical and current head of the National Institute of Health. John Schneider, who once taught theology at Calvin College in Michigan said, "it's time to face facts: There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence." 

Geneticist Francis Collins is a converted atheist. He became a Christian as a result of reading Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. In The Language of God, he argued for a form of theistic evolution. BioLogos means life-truth. The foundation exists to promote belief in theistic evolution. Influential American Evangelical leader Tim Keller is an advocate of theistic evolution, although his relationship with BioLogos is difficult to discern.

Al Mohler responded to Haggerty's article on his blog with a post, False Start? The Controversy Over Adam and Eve Heats Up. Mohler argues that, "this question is now a matter of Gospel urgency." Paul saw Adam and Eve as the first parents of the human race and took the fall as a historical event. However, in Saving Darwin, Karl W. Giberson advocates the view that the biblical creation account not to be read as history. According to him, the Bible a library not a book. In any library there will be works of fiction such as the Harry Potter  books, and factual biographies of Abraham Lincoln. So with the Bible, Genesis 1-3 is the biblical equivalent of Hogwarts, while  Jesus is an historical figure like Abraham Lincoln. 

Peter Enns attacked Mohler for defending the historicity of Genesis 1-3, see here. Enns, author of The Evolution of Adam says that Conservative Evangelicals make too much of Adam. Adam was a symbol of Israel rather than a historical figure. Genesis 1-3 is about the origin of Israel not history. Genesis is not intended as history. 

To what extent are Evangelicals seeking academic approval in trying to accommodate the bible to theistic evolution? In trying to do so, Evangelical advocates of theistic evolution are putting the gospel metanarrative of good creation/fall/redemption/restoration under threat. That is why Al Mohler was right to say that this question is a  matter of "gospel urgency".

You can order recordings of addresses given at the John Owen Centre Conference on Adam in the Church, the Bible and the World. 

Fellowship and the Lord's Supper

Barnaby Alsop spoke at today's Bradford on Avon Ministers' Fraternal on Blessings and Curses at the Lord's Supper. A very helpful session it was too, giving us plenty to think about and discuss. One thought  that was raised in discussion struck me as especially relevant to the contemporary scene. A friend made this point. It is possible for someone to listen to John Piper (or whoever the favoured preacher might be) sermons from the comfort of his home and so never have to go to church. You can certainly be a 'home alone' Christian when it comes to consuming sermons. But you can't do that with the Lord's Supper. You have to be there with flesh and blood people, gathered around a wooden table and eat a shared meal of bread and wine. 

The internet is a wonderful tool that has made some of the best preaching in English available to a worldwide audience at the click of a mouse. Piper, MacArthur, Begg, Lloyd-Jones take your pick. But remember that listening to a sermon online isn't the same as being part of a worshipping congregation as the Word is proclaimed. Cyberspace is no substitute for being actively involved in a local church that is comprised of real Christians, with all the heartbreak and joy that entails.

The Lord's Supper demands our embodied presence. Your Xbox 360 avatar can't take the Lord's Supper. You can't eat bread and drink wine by posting a status update on Facebook, or by publishing a blog article. Pixels and fibre optics are a poor stand in for real, face-to-face fellowship. Even good old fashioned writing with paper and ink can't take the place of personal 'in the flesh' communication, 2 John 12.  

The Lord Jesus commanded that his people should remember him by eating bread and drinking wine together. This is a physical act with deep spiritual meaning. At the Table the Saviour accommodates himself to us as embodied human beings. The bread that we eat and the wine that we drink testify to the reality of Jesus' incarnation and death. It is the very physicality of the emblems that make the Lord's Supper distinctive as a means of grace. The Word became flesh and shed his blood for us. The objective historical and embodied reality at the heart of our faith is symbolised in rich simplicity  at Communion. 

To withdraw into cyberspace and avoid face-to-face fellowship with other Christians is the ecclesiastical equivalent of  doceticism. Docetics denied the true humanity of Jesus, believing that it was not fitting for God to take flesh. But he did. God created the physical world and declared it 'very good'.  That which sin has spoiled, God by his grace has redeemed and will perfect through the work of Christ and by the presence of his Spirit. We are called to glorify God in our bodies in and through embodied and personal fellowship with the Lord's people. 

Jesus summons his followers to gather and share a meal together. The cup of blessing that we bless is the communion of the blood of Christ. The bread that we break is the communion of the body of Christ. We, though many,  are one bread and one body. We express that oneness in the simple act of eating bread in drinking wine in the presence of one another and the Lord. You can't download the Lord's Supper. 

Garry Williams on The Bible as God’s Covenant Treaty

On Wednesday we had Garry Williams, Director of the John Owen Centre come along to our Bradford on Avon Ministers' Fraternal. He led a seminar on The Bible as God’s Covenant Treaty. Basically it was an elegant, erudite and engaging plea for 'theological theology'.

Theology cannot exist on another than theological basis. And the theological basis for theology is the self-revelation of God in Holy Scripture. The Bible is best regarded not as a doctrinal textbook, or 'A Bumper Magic Book of Promises', but as the triune God's covenant treaty with the church.

Attention was drawn to the Bible's own witness to its covenantal character. The insights of Meredith Kline are helpful on this point, setting Old Testament Scripture against the background of ANE suzeran-vassal treaties. Deuteronomy is structured in the form of a classic treaty/covenant document: Preamble (1:1-5), Historical prologue (1:6-4:49). Stipulations (5-26), Curses and blessings (27-30), Succession arrangements (31-34). In one way or another, all the books of the Bible, with their differing genres fit into this covenant framework.

In making his case Garry interacted the writings of some of my favourite authors; Herman Bavinck, Timothy Ward, John Webster, Kevin Vanhoozer, etc. He offered a well thought through defence of biblical inerrancy.

Thinking of Scripture as a covenant treaty reminds us of the role of the Bible in the drama of redemption. The church is called not simply to study Scripture as an ancient text, but to respond in faith and obedience to the communicative action of the triune God who addresses us through his covenant Word.

It was a proper seminar, with opportunities to interrupt Garry and discuss what he said as he made his way through the paper. In all, it was a most helpful and stimulating day.

Contact Garry Williams through the JOC website if you might be interested in hosting a seminar at your fraternal.  

Faith Cook on John Bunyan and Christian Warfare

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.

Seeking to preach the Word in the Power of the Spirit

Today I'm off to the Westminster Fellowship in London, where I've been invited to preach and also give a paper on Word and Spirit in Preaching. Here's an excerpt from the lecture on seeking to preach the Word in the power of the Spirit:

Jesus taught that Christians should pray expectantly to the Father for the gift of the Holy Spirit, “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” (Luke 11:13). Preachers are especially in need of the Spirit's work in their ministries.

The apostle Paul did not regard preaching in the power of the Spirit as being in any way automatic. He constantly urged the churches to pray for him,

praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints— and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. (Ephesians 6:18-20)

This boldness is given in answer to the church’s prayer when preachers were filled with the Holy Spirit, Acts 4:29-31.

We should not allow Charismatic excesses to blind us to the need for Spirit empowered preaching. This was certainly recognised by earlier generations of Reformed writers. Of course, the Spirit may use a preacher who does not agree with the view that I am arguing for here. He is sovereign and gracious. But neglect of the role of the Holy Spirit in preaching may have the effect on turning preaching into little more than a well-delivered exposition of the Bible rather than an event where the God of gospel grace is encountered by his Word.

Charles Hodge comments,

It is important that we should remember, that, in living under the dispensation of the Spirit, we are absolutely dependent on a divine Person, who gives or withholds his influence as He will; that He can be grieved and offended; that He must be acknowledged, feared, and obeyed; that his presence and gifts must be humbly and earnestly sought, and assiduously cherished, and that to Him all right thoughts and right purposes, all grace and goodness, all strength and comfort, and all success in winning souls to Christ, are to be ascribed. (Systematic Theology Volume III p. 47).

 We need to realise afresh that our preaching will be entirely ineffective if it is in “word only”. We need the mighty power of the Spirit to come upon us. Martyn Lloyd-Jones concludes his Preaching and Preachers on just this note,  

What then are we to do about this? There is only one obvious conclusion. Seek Him! Seek Him! What can we do without Him? Seek Him! Seek Him always. But go beyond seeking Him; expect Him.

 I am certain, as I have said several times before, that nothing but a return of this power of the Spirit on our preaching is going to avail us anything. This makes true preaching, and it is the greatest need of all today - never more so. Nothing can substitute for this.

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)

It is not enough for us to simply deliver a well crafted sermon. We need the dynamic presence of the Spirit of Christ to transform our preaching into an encounter with the living God. As E. M. Bounds puts it, “Unction in the preacher puts God in the gospel”. (SEP p. 116). I conclude, then that the relationship between Word and Spirit in preaching may be defined in this way,

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.

That, I know is the greatest need in my own ministry.

Brian Edwards on Biblical Christian Leadership

At yesterday's West Country Reformed Ministers' Fraternal, Brian Edwards spoke on Biblical Christian Leadership, taking as his starting point Paul's words in 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12. Here are some notes. They don't give a full flavour of Brian's engaging and challenging talk, just a little taste. But that's better than nothing.

The apostle Paul is a role model for leaders. His New Testament letters were addressed to real people in  real life situations, which makes them all the more relevant to us.

1. Paul's spiritual depth

Pastors are first and foremost Christians who are called to live for glory of Jesus,  Philippians 3:10-11. Paul's prayers provide a model for our private and public prayers, Ephesians 1:15-23, 3:14-21. A passion for Christ is essential for leadership. We must enjoy and love Christ above all, more than theological study, preaching etc. We need to be  'venturesome leaders', who trust in promises of God.

2. Moral integrity

Paul handled monetary gifts in such a way that no accusation of personal enrichment could be made against him, 2 Corinthians 8-9. Elders must have a good reputation with outsiders, 1 Timothy 3:7. The world is watching us, examining our behaviour. There must not be even a hint of sexual impropriety in the church, Ephesians 5:3. Husbands and wives should guard one another in this respect. Also we must show integrity with regard to matters like pirated software, CD/DVDs, copyright for songs etc.

3. Personal courage

We need to show courage in the face of suffering, 2 Corinthians 11. But also we need to be courageous in facing issues in church life. Paul faced down both Peter and Barnabas peter Galatians 2:11-21. The apostle was gentle, 2 Corinthians 10:1. Yet he was heavy if need be, 2 Corinthians 13:1-3. We must not be afraid to grasp nettles and deal with issues in the church.  Leadership can be lonely, 2 Timothy 4:16. Sloppy service must not be tolerated in the church because members are "volunteers". Bad theology. Church members have been enlisted in the service of Christ.

4. Hard work

Paul commended those who worked hard in Romans 16. He worked hard,  1 Corinthians 15:10. But in working hard we must do the right things, Ephesians 5:15, Philippians 1:10. That said, a workaholic is not a good leader. 

5. Pastoral care

Paul could be very tender and motherly, 1 Thessalonians 2:7, but he could also be firm and fatherly, 1 Thessalonians 2:11-12. He knew care or anxiety for the churches, 2 Corinthians 11:28. The same word is used in Matthew 6:25 and Philippians 4:6. This was not a selfish anxiety, but an expression of Paul's pastoral heart, 1 Thessalonians 3:1-5. See also his concern for the believer under discipline at Corinth, 1 Corinthians 5 cf.  2 Corinthians 2:3-11. Paul prayed for his co-workers and the churches.

6. Practical encouragement

According to USA's President Trueman, leadership is about "getting people to do what they don't want, and to like it". Paul  led by encouraging the churches and his fellow-workers. He thanked God for them, Colossians 1:3-8. Sometimes we can become jaundiced and have a narrowed vision of the what the Lord is doing, but we need to encourage our people that God is working in the world today. Paul warmly commended people to the churches, Philippians 2:19-24 & 25-30.  See also Romans 16, where he mentions 30 people, 11 of whom were women. Recognition and gratitude are important. Remind people that their labours are not in vain, 1 Corinthians 15:58.

7. Tact and diplomacy

Tactful teaching on giving, 2 Corinthians 8.

Tactful handling of the issue of Onesimus the runaway slave in Philemon.

Tactful intervention to reconcile warring church members Philippians 4:2.

8. Clear vision

Paul knew which battles to fight,  Titus 3:9. We don't have to win every battle and always insist on having our own way. He had a vision for training leaders 2 Timothy 2:2. He was good at delegating work to others, Titus 1:5. He knew the difference between tactics and strategy, keeping his focus on the latter.

9. Sincere humility.

Paul wasn't threatened by the ministry of others, Philippians 1:12-18. He had the mind of Christ, Philippians 2:5-11. He changed his mind about John Mark, Acts 15:36-41 cf. 2 Timothy 4:11. Sometimes we need to be willing to admit we were wrong and make a u-turn. Humility is essential for ministry, Hebrews 5:1.

Fixed and flexibe

The other day I attended the Evangelical Ministers' Fellowship at Bradley Stoke. The speaker was Stephen Clark, Minister of Freeschool Court Evangelical Church, Bridgend and lecturer in Systematic Theology at the London Theological Seminary. His theme was the need to be fixed and flexible. Here are some notes.

When Stephen Green appeared on BBC’s Question Time in 2005 and persisted in answering questions with reference to the Bible, the audience became increasingly hostile. What happened was an indication of a turning against the Christian faith in UK society. How are we to carry out evangelism in this post Christian world?

When Christian guesthouse owners were found guilty of breaking the law for refusing to give a homosexual couple a double room, the judge said that these days, the law will not necessarily reflect Judeo-Christian standards. Times they are a changing. How can we best connect with people for the gospel in this context? Is it via political and social campaigning such as with Christian Voice and the Christian Institute?

What was the approach of the church in the New Testament? In Acts 1:6, Jesus' disciples asked if the kingdom would be restored to Israel in the sense of the theocracy under king David, cf Luke 1:68, 74. Note the disappointed hopes of Jesus’ followers after his death, Luke 24:17, 21. They had expected a political redemption.

Jesus answered the question concerning the restoration of the kingdom in his programmatic statement in Acts 1:8 – the church will be empowered by the Spirit to bear witnesses to Christ from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. The narrative structure of Acts is determined by Acts 1:8, concluding with Paul in Rome “preaching the kingdom of God”, Acts 28:30-31. In Acts the kingdom is restored via gathering of the church, the Israel of God. It is a distraction for the church to get hung up on social and politic issues. As citizens Christians may and should get involved in politics and campaign on social issues, but that is not the task of the church per se.

Like the old motto of Youth for Christ we need to be “Anchored to the rock geared to the times.” In other words, we need to be fixed and flexible. But what is flexible and what is fixed? The Emerging Church is flexible where it needs to be fixed. Traditionalists are fixed where they need to be flexible.

1. Fixed: the gospel message never changes

1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is a succinct, yet full statement of Paul’s gospel.

A big and glorious gospel. As 2 Corinthians 3 demonstrates, authentic new covenant ministry is more effective than Sinai. The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. Christ – his person and natures. He is God, but not all of God, 1 Corinthians 12:3-6, the Trinity. Christ died for our sins. The more secular our society, the more superstitious it becomes. Mystical spirituality has little interest in facts. Experience is what matters, but the gospel based on events. Christ died for our sins. What is sin? Relativism speaks of values, not absolutes, but most people believe that paedophilia is absolutely wrong. Some who profess relativism will hold that their favoured cause, such as women’s rights is inviolable. Romans 1 & 2 tells us that man, made in the image of God has an inbuilt sense of right and wrong. Even Hitler raged against those who betrayed him. The transcendent God of biblical revelation guarantees the existence of moral absolutes. Sin is lawlessness, but Christ died for our sins to bring us back to God. His death was an act of penal, substitutionary atonement. The Evangelical Alliance held a debate on Steve Chalke's charge that PSA was tantamount to "cosmic child abuse", but PSA should not be a matter for debate amongst Evangelicals. It is fixed gospel truth. Would we discuss whether murder is right or wrong? According to scriptures. Peter Enns and Andrew McGowan are wrong to question biblical inerrancy and so undermine biblical authority. Raised the third day. The resurrection of Christ changes everything. The risen Jesus is Lord. The gospel demands a believing response, 1 Corinthians 15:1. We must preach with a verdict.

Fixed points:

a) God doesn’t change

God is the Rock, Deuteronomy 32:3-4, he does not change, Malachi 3:6 neither does Jesus, Hebrews 13:8, or the Spirit, Hebrews 9:14.

b) The Word doesn't change

We hold to the faith once delivered to the saints, Jude 3.

c) Human need doesn't change

Romans 5:12ff. The problem of sin and death. Rich and poor, educated and uneducated may catch swine flu. People are different, but are afflicted by the same ailment that needs urgent treatment.

It is not the job of churches to conduct surveys to see what the world wants, but to make disciples. The church must set the agenda, not the world, 1 Corinthians 1:22-23.

d) The gospel method doesn't change

i. Proclamation

The 1st century was a highly visual age – temples, idols etc, but the apostles preached the gospel, Acts 13, 17. Even with modern day technology TV, internet etc. people can still listen. The Reformers preached in a context where people were used to religious imagery. The Puritans preached in the theatre-going age of Shakespeare. Likewise Whitefield preached when stage actors like Garrick were hugely popular.

ii. Practice.

We must practice what we proclaim, Matthew 5:13-16, Colossians 4:5.

iii. Prayer.

Even in churches with large Sunday congregations, relatively few turn up for the midweek Prayer Meeting. Why is this? Are we building work that will last the testing fires of judgement, or will our efforts go up in smoke, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15?

The gospel message that sets the church’s agenda is fixed.

2. The need to be flexible

David “served God in his generation”, Acts 13:36. The context in which we serve is changing. The task of preaching is to build a bridge between the world of the biblical text and the twenty first century.

Knowing the times. These days many are ignorant of the Bible and suspicious of the gospel. We seem like fundamentalists in a relativistic world. Following the utilitarian philosophy of J.S. Mill, the law only forbids what compromises liberty of others. Relativism absolutizes freedom. The rise of Islam in the UK. Immigration has made the Britain a multicultural society. Aggressive atheism – Dawkins and Hawkins. The trivialisation of society - X-Factor etc.

All this presents us with an opportunity to serve god in our time.

The natural man always will reject the gospel, but 1 Corinthians 1:22, there are cultural differences. Presenting symptoms are different, but the disease is the same. Jesus dealt differently with Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria in John 3 and 4. We need to be “all things to all men” 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. Gospel flexibility. Paul became a Jew to reach the Jews and was "as without law” to the Gentiles. Is our chief concern for British values or the gospel? Our primary identity is in Christ. This gives us the freedom to be flexible in reaching different cultures and people with the gospel. The church is a multi-ethnic community. It may be right to target specific groups in evangelism, but all converts need to be integrated in the church.

Paul preached in a synagogue, lecture hall and at Mars Hill. We also need to be flexible on where we hold our evangelistic meetings. In Acts 13 & 17 we see that Paul was willing to adapt his approach for different audiences.

The apostle had a good look around Athens and noticed the people's religious practices, Acts 17:23. We need to be familiar with the contemporary culture in order to connect with people for the gospel. But we must not be unnecessarily coarse in order to win a hearing. (Mark Driscoll's mistake). We want “stuffy” as well as “cool” people to be saved.

Paul quoted pagan poets as a point of contact, Acts 17:28. Van Til was wrong to suggest that there is no point of contact with the non-Christian.

Let us be fixed in our message – the gospel, and flexible in serving God in our generation, so that by all means we may save some.

John Owen on the authority of the pope

Yesterday I gave a paper on Puritan Attitudes Towards Rome Reloaded to the Bradford on Avon Ministers' Fraternal. Here's an excerpt:

One of Cane’s main arguments in the Fiat Lux was that before England departed from Rome during the reign of Henry VIII, the nation was at peace with itself. Since relinquishing the authority of the pope, however, the country had been beset by terrible divisions between the various Protestant sects. There was nothing for it but to return to Rome, only then all would be well again, ‘we have no remedy for our evils, no means of ending our differences, but by a return unto the rule of the Roman see.’

The legitimacy of the pope’s authority was one of the key points at issue between John Owen and his Roman opponent, John Vincent Cane. He deployed five main lines of argument against the Roman Catholic claim that the pope has universal authority over the Church.

1. Exegetical

The key biblical text that Rome cites to prove its claims concerning the pope is Matthew 16:18 & 19. They reason that as the pope is Peter’s successor as Bishop of Rome, that the keys of the kingdom of heaven now belong to him. Owen however disputes this, devoting virtually a whole chapter of A Vindication to demonstrating that there is not a shred of evidence in the New Testament that the apostle Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome. He applies the words of Jesus, “Upon this rock I will build my church” not to the pope, but to the whole Catholic Church, which is comprised of individual believers who confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

2. Historical

If the Bishop of Rome was indeed granted universal authority over the Church, then we might expect to find evidence of this in early church history. Cane tries to argue that this is the case, claiming that it was the pope who summoned the council of Nicaea in order to defend the deity of Christ. Owen won’t let him get away with that one. With his expert knowledge of the creedal heritage of the church, he easily sets the record straight. The Bishop of Rome did not preside at Nicaea. Neither was he given a place of special prominence at the Council of Chalcedon. Indeed, in some of the first six ecumenical councils, much to his chagrin, the power of the Bishop of Rome was expressly limited. So much for the ‘universally acknowledged’ authority of the papacy!

3. Christological

Cane argued that since his ascension Christ can no longer be the visible head of the church. According to the Franciscan, Christ was only the head of the church in his human nature. The church apparently needs a visible, human head and that role is now fulfilled by the pope. However, as Owen points out, in suggesting this, Cane was departing from the Catholic faith by driving a wedge between the divine person of the Son and his humanity.

As we have just seen, Cane wanted his readers to believe that the pope was the great champion of Christological orthodoxy at Nicaea and Chalcedon. But now he makes him the living embodiment of the Nestorian heresy condemned at the latter Council. Owen insists that Jesus Christ is the ‘supreme and only head of the church catholic’. He exercises his rule over the church through his appointed bishops or elders. But no bishop, not even the Bishop of Rome may claim to be the head of the church In replacing Christ with the Bishop of Rome as head of the visible church, Rome was as good as admitting that the pope was the Antichrist.

4. National

Owen’s opponent endeavoured to win the people of these islands back to the Roman Catholic fold by saying that the pope, ‘is a good man, one that seeks nothing but our good, that never did us harm, but has the care and inspection of us committed unto him by Christ.’ Owen begs to differ, urging that a return to Rome would be nothing less than disastrous for the people of England,

let him tell us how he will assure us that if this good pope get us into his power again, he will not burn us, as he did our forefathers, unless we submit our consciences to him in all things; that he will not find out ways to draw the treasure out of the nation, nor absolve subjects from their allegiance, nor excommunicate or attempt the deposition of our kings, or the giving away of kingdoms, as he had done in former days.

In The Church of Rome No Safe Guide, the divine likewise warned his fellow countrymen to beware of the ‘insupportable yoke’ of the pope, with his claim to a divine right of universal rule over kings and sovereign princes. For Owen, the pope was the enemy of the peace, liberty and prosperity of the nation.

5. Prophetic

Writing in 1682, near the end of his days, Owen bemoaned the fact that many were endeavouring to minimise the differences between Papists and Protestants. The older view that the pope was the Antichrist was falling out of favour. However, listing the ‘idolatries, persecutions, murders and Luciferian pride’ of the pope and his church, Owen continued to identify the Bishop of Rome as the Antichrist prophesied in the Scriptures. There could be no alliance the man of sin.

On this point, we might do well to reflect on the words of Richard Baxter, "That if the pope be not [the Antichrist], he had ill luck to be so like him."

Holy Scripture as a divine speech-act

More from my paper on Holy Scripture as the living and active Word of God (see here):

Traditionally Evangelicals have been keen to assert the propositional character of Scripture. That is only right. Biblical revelation comes to us in the form of words and those words form sentences that make truth statements or propositions. Without propositions we would have no gospel. ‘Christ died for our sins’ is a vital biblical proposition as is ‘Jesus is risen’. But an overly propositionalist approach can give the impression that the Holy Scripture is simply a book that is full of true information and it is the task of theologians to process and systematise that information. That was more or less Charles Hodge’s approach,

"The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the man of science. It is his store-house of facts; and his method of ascertaining what the Bible teaches, is the same as that which the natural philosopher adopts to ascertain what nature teaches. The duty of the Christian theologian is to ascertain, collect, and combine all the facts which God has revealed concerning himself and our relation to Him. These facts are all in the Bible."

However, while paying due respect to the propositional nature of biblical revelation, we need a more dynamic account of the way language works that will help us to grasp the relationship between God, Holy Scripture and the Church. It is not sufficient to say, “God has given his people all the factual information they will ever need in the Bible”. This is where speech-act theory comes into play. Speech-act theory rightly emphasises that words are more than just words. They always do something. The theory breaks language down into three component parts: locutions, illocutions, and perlocutions. First of all we have locutions – basic units of speech or words and sentences. In theological terms, we confess that Scripture reveals God Word in words – locutions. But we use words to do things. With words we declare a man and a woman husband and wife, we ask for a glass of water, or order a ticket for the cinema. This is the illocutionary effect of language. By speaking, I have acted. In Scripture we have God’s own illocutions – his speech acts. By words, he makes promises, utters warnings, and enters into a covenant relationship with his people. Scripture is not simply a record of God’s words. In the Bible we have the communicative action of the triune God. Now, it is one thing for God to speak words and to do things with his words, like make promises. But what guarantees that God’s words will be received for what they are? God may make a promise, but it is another for us to trust in that promise! This is called the perlocutionary effect of language. And it is here that the work of the Holy Spirit comes into its own. He enables people to respond appropriately to God’s communicative action in Scripture.

So much for the theory, now let's see how this kind of approach is reflected in the text of Scripture itself. In both Old and New Testaments there is a tight link between God's actions and his speech. God’s words are speech-acts that initiate and carry forward the great drama of redemption. We may think of the theodrama in terms of a five act play. Act One is creation, where God’s “Let there be” (Genesis 1:3) creates the setting for the rest of the drama. In his providence God continues to rule the world he created by his word, (Psalm 147:15-18). In Act Two of the drama of redemption by his Word God entered into a covenant relationship with Abraham and his descendants, constituting Israel as his own special people (Genesis 22:18). In Act Three, the Word of God is made flesh for our salvation in Jesus Christ, who died for our sins and rose again (John 1:14, note the relationship between Jesus' words and deeds - e.g. Mark 2:5, 11). In Act Four the Spirit of truth is poured out upon the church to empower the people of God to proclaim the gospel to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8, 2:1). Act Five is the consummation where God will make all things new by his might word (Rev. 22:5).

God's person is so tied up with his words that to believe and obey his word is to believe and obey him, Isaiah 66:2. The human words of Scripture are at the same time God's covenant words to his people. To encounter God's communicative action through the prophets and apostles is to meet with God himself.

"Whenever we encounter the speech acts of Scripture, we encounter God himself in action. The Father presents himself to us as a God who makes and keeps his covenant promises. The Son comes to us as the Word of God, knowable to us through his words. The Spirit ministers these words to us, illuminating our minds and hearts, so that in receiving, understanding and trusting them, we receive, know and trust God himself." (Words of Life, Timothy Ward, IVP, p. 97)

Holy Scripture as the living and active Word of God

Just finished witing a paper to be given at a Ministers' Fraternal later this month. Here are some words from the intro:

What I want and try and do in this paper is sketch out a theological account of Holy Scripture. What do I mean by that? My contention is that Evangelical treatments of the Bible sometimes fail to place Holy Scripture in its proper theological context. We focus on the production of the Bible in terms of its inspiration. We analyse some of the attributes of Scripture such as inerrancy or perspicuity. That’s all well and good. But in focusing so closely on individual aspects of Holy Scripture we can sometimes fail to see the big picture. We need to stand back and ask, the first order question, ‘What is the relationship between God, Holy Scripture and the Church?’

Should we see the Bible simply as a human book that speaks of the church's consciousness of the divine (the Liberal approach)? Or would it be better to regard Scripture as a God-given text that the church must seek to understand and obey as best it can (the Biblicist or Fundamentalist approach)? Both positions are obviously reductionistic. The first fails to take seriously Scripture's own claim that it is the living and enduring Word of God. The second recognises the divine origin of the Bible, but does not give sufficient attention to the place of Scripture in communicative action of the triune God.

How then may we understand Scripture in relation to God's self-revelatory presence and his saving purposes for the Church? That is the big question that we cannot afford to ignore as pastors and preachers. After all we are Ministers of God, Ministers of the Word and Ministers of the Church. In a sense all our work is concerned with triangulating the relationship between God, his Word and his people. If we should focus on God and Church to the detriment of the Word, the result will be mysticism or worldly pragmatism. Concentration on God and the Word to the exclusion of the Church forgets that the Word was given in order to found and build up the Church. If all our attention is on the Bible and the Church we have lost sight of the living and active God who has called the Church into existence by his Word.

Preaching from the Synoptic Gospels

At yesterday's Ministers' Fraternal at Bradford on Avon, Phil Heaps gave a talk on "Preaching from the Synoptic Gospels". I can't replicate his illustrative white board doodlings, so you'll have to make do with these notes:

1. Form

The Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke share some unique characteristics that cannot be found in other examples of New Testament literature (although there is some crossover with the Gospel According to John). For example, in Mark we have an extended passion narrative that is preceded by short self-contained units of narrative and teaching. Mark 8:27-33 is the turning point of the Gospel. After that point Jesus and his followers travel the road to Jerusalem (8:34-10:52), a journey that culminates in Passion Week (11:1-15:47) and the resurrection narrative (Mark 16).

Matthew and Luke's Gospels are similarly structured, but each includes an introductory nativity narrative that is lacking in Mark, (Luke 1 & 2, Matthew 1 & 2). Narrative sections often have a verse that clearly sets out the purpose of the story. Luke 19:1-10 is not primarily about Zacchaeus seeking Jesus, but Jesus seeking the lost tax collector - Luke 19:10. Luke 15:1-7 & 8-10 are about seeking and finding lost a sheep and coin respectively, but the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:11-32) carries an unexpected twist. The "prodigal son" is lost and found (Luke 15:24), but questions remain concerning the Pharisaical older brother (Luke 15:28-32). The twist addresses the problem raised in Luke 15:1-3.

2. Opportunity

Preaching on the Synoptics give us the opportunity to address the central issues of the Christian faith:

1) Person of Jesus - who is he?
2) Mission of Jesus/Nature of God's Kingdom
3) Radical call to discipleship

3. Challenge

We need to be sensitive to the redemptive-historical setting of the Synoptics. The Gospels have one foot in each testament, being rooted in the Old Testament and anticipating the fullness of New Testament revelation. The Evangelists wrote with historical integrity, not reading later church issues back into the period of Jesus' earthly ministry. We ought to be aware of this in our preaching. When Jesus is called the "Son of God" in the Gospels we should not always read the title in the light of later Nicean orthodoxy. Sometimes it simply means that Jesus is the true King of Israel (Psalm 2 cf. John 1:49). Come the Epistles, "Son of God" often means "God the Son". That fuller understanding is certainly not absent altogether from the Gospels. Witness the Trinitarian baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19. Jesus is "Immanuel, God with us", Matthew 1:23 & 28:20. Note also Matthew 11:27.

All of the Gospels are grounded in the Old Testament.

John the Baptist's ministry is set against an Old Testament background. Mark 1:2 cites Isaiah 40 and Malachi 3. In Luke 1 & 2 we have a story of barrenness overcome that is redolent of Old Testament incidents, (Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Hannah etc), plus Old Testament-style songs of praise by Mary and Zacharias. Matthew 1 & 2 begins with a genealogy in the style of Chronicles followed by five fulfilment texts citing the Old Testament.

Sometimes the Gospels simply allude to the Old Testament. The wise men who visited Jesus in Matthew 2 remind us of foreign dignitaries paying homage to Solomon. That Jesus faced his enemy, the devil in Matthew 4 immediately after his anointing with the Spirit in Matthew 3 is similar to David's experience with his enemy, Saul after his anointing. John the Baptist baptized people in the river Jordan, reenacting Israel's passage through the Jordan to the land of Canaan. All that was lacking was a Joshua (Jesus) to lead them to the Promised Land. Old Testament covenant blessings and curses are mirrored in Matthew 5 & 23.

One of the ways the Gospels bear witness to the deity of Christ is by applying Old Testament Scriptures to him, Matthew 3:3 cites Isaiah 40 and Malachi 3, which are about the coming of the Lord God to his people. In preparing the way for Jesus, John the Baptist was preparing the way for God.

The New Testament Epistles present a clear doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement (1 Corinthians 15:3). This teaching is also found in the Gospels. Luke 22:1, 7 & 13 connect Christ's death with the redeeming Passover sacrifice. Luke 22:20 refers to the new covenant in Christ's blood cf. Jeremiah 31:31ff. Luke 22:37 cites Isaiah 53, the Suffering Servant's substitutionary death. The cup in Luke 22:43 alludes to the cup which the Lord makes the wicked drink in the Psalms. Also, the passion narratives deliberately allude to the covenant curses (Jesus is crowned with thorns, handed over to the Gentiles, mocked, plunged into darkness ect), making the point that at Calvary Christ was made a curse for us.

Case study: Mark 4:35-5:43

Mark 4:35-41 (Storm)
Mark 5:1-20 (Demoniac)
Mark 5:21-34 (Sick woman)
Mark 5:35-43 (Jairus' daughter)

In each case we have a problem: a storm, evil in people, sickness and death.

Also, each episode exposes human helplessness. The disciples are helpless in the face of the storm. The Gadarenes cannot to rid the demoniac of the evil power that possessed him. Doctors were unable help cure the sick woman. All are helpless when it comes to the death of Jairus' daughter.

The solution to each of the problems is the same: the word of Jesus, Mark 4:39, 5:8, 27, 34, 41.

By way of application we should not try to spiritualise these events. Rather they should be seen in the setting of the kingdom of God. Jesus' ministry prefigures the age to come. He will deal with chaos in nature, evil in people, sickness and death. Charismatics make the mistake of expecting Jesus to act in exactly the same way now. They assure the sick that they can come to Jesus for healing. He certainly may heal the sick by his power. But the kingdom has not yet been consummated. Natural disasters, evil, sickness and death will still occur. But all will be dealt with when Jesus returns. This has apologetic value. We live in a fallen world. Tragic events like the earthquake in Haiti will happen. But in Jesus God has acted to rescue this world from the the effects of sin. The atheist has no hope that things are going to get better. Those who belong to God's kingdom and follow Jesus the King will seek to show compassion to their fellow human beings (Matthew 5:3, 43-48). Inspired by Jesus' healing ministry Christians have cared for the sick and helped those in need.

This led to some stimulating discussion on issues connected with preaching on the Synoptics. After lunch we drew up a programme for fraternals in the coming year. We'll be looking at "The Christian and the State", "Preparation for Baptism", "Structure and freedom in worship" and "Preaching for a decision".