An Introduction to John Owen: A Christian Vision for Every Stage of Life, by Crawford Gribben

Crossway, 2020, 190pp

Crawford Gribben has written a full scale biography of John Owen entitled, John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat. This is something different. Here Owen's story is interwoven with his teachings on how the Christian faith casts light on every stage of life, from childhood to death and eternal life. Novices will find this a useful way of getting into Owen and will be stimulated to dive deeper. Seasoned Owen readers will discover fresh insights into some of his key writings. 

Childhood 

John Owen was a particular favourite among early Particular Baptists such as Nehemiah Cox. They valued his account of the relationship between the old and new covenants, which they saw as tending in a Baptist direction. Owen was an Independent and a paedobaptist, however. He wrote in defence of infant baptism, but he had a cordial relationship with the Particular Baptists.  Unlike other contemporaries he did not accuse them of being schismatic Donatists because they insisted on baptising believers who had been 'baptised' as babies. 

Owen's advocacy of infant baptism made for tensions in his ecclesiology. He acknowledged that in the apostolic church "all baptized initiated persons, ingrafted into the church" were recognised as "sanctified persons" (p. 57). Further, "the proper subjects of baptism" are "professed believers... and their infant seed" (p. 58). But this did not mean children of believers should be admitted to church membership, at least not until they had made a credible profession of faith. Admitting unconverted people into the church would have compromised the Independents' vision of churches as a gatherings of visible saints. 'Well, quite', Owen's Baptist friends may have been tempted to say. 

Issues of baptism aside, Owen firmly believed that the children of believers needed careful instruction in the faith. To that end he penned The Primer and The Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, Unfolded in Two Short Catechisms. These texts were intended to supplement the teaching children will have received in church meetings.   

Youth

The rise of William Laud not only made church life difficult for Puritan-minded types. It also made things rather challenging for godly students at Oxford and Cambridge. Certainly for Owen, whose dreams of pursuing an academic career at Oxford were dashed. 

Owen's university days had given him a good grounding in theology, but it was through the ministry of an unknown preacher in London that he was converted. Now he had an experiential knowledge of the truths he had studied so diligently at Oxford. 

Owen returned to the city in 1651, where he was appointed dean of Christ Church and then vice-chancellor of the university.  He took the opportunity to preach to the young people in his charge. Knowing the danger of having only an intellectual knowledge of the truth, the laid great emphasis on  practical godliness. John Locke was among Owen's students, but he didn't take kindly to the Puritan's attempts at fostering reformation among the student body.  

Two of Owen's sermon series preached to students at Oxford later became the basis of some of his most celebrated works, On the Mortification of Sin and Of Communion with God. In the second title, Owen sought to show how the believer may enjoy distinct communion with each person of the Holy Trinity. He wanted his students not only to have a clear understanding of orthodox theology, but also to deep delight  in the one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

Middle Age

The Restoration of the monarchy in 1660 spelled the end of Owen's role as a prominent public figure. He was dismissed from Oxford and had to keep a low profile, giving himself to pastoral ministry among Independent congregations. Owen now had to plead with the authorities to grant toleration to Puritans who would not conform to the Church of England. He argued that Nonconformists were law abiding citizens who sought to contribute to the common good of England. They were no threat to the established order and should therefore be accorded liberty to practice their faith free from persecution. Owen's ideas were later taken up by his old student, John Locke, in An Essay Concerning Toleration, which is often regarded as a key text in the development of classic liberalism. 

For Owen, middle age involved an experience of painful defeat that followed the collapse of Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth. But if this world often meant suffering for the godly, Owen consoled himself, "It is but yet a little while before it will be no grief of heart unto us for to have done or suffered any thing for the name of the Lord Jesus." (p. 116).

Death and Eternal Life

John Owen looked forward to better days for Christ's 'peaceable kingdom' on earth. Jesus would not, he believed, "leave the world in this state, and set up his kingdom on a molehill." (p. 128). But in later life he lost confidence in his ability to understand what God was doing in history. Gone was the old certainty that the Lord was on the side of Parliament, showing his approval by granting the Ironsides victory over the Royalists at Naseby and Marston Moor. After all, the Charles II was now King, and those identified with the Good Old Cause found themselves on the losing side. He reflected, "I do not know... a greater rebuke, in the whole course of my ministry, than that I have been labouring in the fire to discover the causes of God's withdrawing from us without any success." (p. 130). 

John Owen died on 24 August 1683. He knew that death is not a kindly friend, but an unnatural rending of body and soul due to sin. But death could be welcomed, none the less. For the believer death means the end of a lifelong struggle with sin and a departure from this world to be with Christ. Despite the disappointments and reversals he experienced of his earthly life, Owen did not die a broken, disillusioned man. One of his final works was Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ, in which he sought to set forth his view of the supreme glory of the Lord Jesus. The believing soul, which has glimpsed the glory of Christ by faith will at last see him by sight. "the sight of God in Christ, which is intellectual, not corporeal; finite, not absolutely comprehensive of the divine essence, is the sum of our future blessedness." (p. 139). 

In his conclusion the author reflects on Owen's lasting impact on society and the the church. The old Puritan's ideas on religious toleration helped to sow the seeds of classic liberalism. His theological writings are the subject of renewed attention in the contemporary Evangelical world. 

Crawford Gribben has ably opened up John Owen's Christian vision for every stage of life. An excellent read. 

* I am grateful to the author for kindly sending me a free copy. 

May we pray to the Holy Spirit?

I once heard a preacher say  that prayer should ordinarily be addressed to God the Father. Arguably, he said, we may pray to Jesus, but we should probably not pray to the Holy Spirit. The preacher conceded that John 14:13 may give us good grounds for praying to Jesus, plus Stephen's example in Acts 7:59-60. Paul makes calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ the hallmark of belonging to his people (1 Corinthians 1:2), so I think we may safely conclude that doing so is perfectly fine. Prayer to the Holy Spirit, though, where's that in the Bible? 

Rest assured I have a perfectly serviceable 'proof text' for you, but before we come to that, please allow me to introduce Dr John Owen and his great work On Communion with God. You'll find it in Volume 2 of his Works, published by the Banner of Truth Trust. Although various standalone versions are also available, if you prefer. In On Communion with God, Owen meditates on how the believer may have distinct communion with each person of the Trinity. One of his driving thoughts is that communion with any one divine person necessarily involves the other two. Inseparable operations and all that. 

Our preacher's text was Matthew 6:9, 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name'. It is true that prayer is ordinarily addressed to the Father in the name of the Son and by the presence of the Holy Spirit, Ephesians 2:18. But the Father we address is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father's only begotten Son. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and Christ, (Romans 8:9), who proceeds from the Father and the Son. When we 'hallow' the name of 'our Father', we are also 'hallowing' his Son and the Holy Spirit. 

Why? Because holiness is an attribute of God's being, which is possessed equally, fully and without division by all three persons of the Trinity. As Owen says, "The divine nature is the reason and cause of all worship; so that it is impossible to worship any one person and not worship the whole Trinity." (p. 268). Our Puritan divine gives attention to the text cited in the previous paragraph, Ephesians 2:18:

Our access in our worship is said to be "to the Father;" and this "through Christ," or his mediation; "by the Spirit," or his assistance. Here is a distinction of the persons, as to their operations, but not as their being or object of worship. For the Son and the Holy Ghost are no less worshipped in our access to God than the Father himself; only, the grace of the Father, which we obtain by the mediation of the Son and the assistance of the Spirit, is what we draw nigh to God for. So that when, by the distinct dispensation of the Trinity, and every person, we are led to worship (that is, to act faith on or invocate) any person, we do herein worship the whole Trinity and every person, by what name soever, of the Father, Son or Holy Ghost, we invocate him. (p. 269)

In worshipping or praying to the Father, we are also worshipping and praying to the Son and the Holy Spirit, for the Son and Spirit are one being with the Father. Reflect also on the great trinitarian benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14. 'Grace' is appropriated to the Lord Jesus Christ, 'love' to God [the Father] and 'fellowship' to the Holy Spirit. But grace is also the grace of God (Romans 5:15) and of the Spirit (Hebrews 10:29). God's love is commended to us in the death of his Son and poured into our hearts by the Spirit (Romans 5:8, 5). Fellowship with the Spirit is also fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3). With that in mind, it is no more problematic to offer worship to the Holy Spirit, or pray to him, than it is to worship and pray to the Father, or the Son. 

Indeed, Owen goes on to argue that we should offer distinct praise to the Holy Spirit for his work in our lives, as we rightly give glory to the Son for redeeming us by his blood, Revelation 1:5-6. We should also pray to the Holy Spirit "for the carrying on the work of our consolation, which he hath undertaken, lies our communion with him. John prays for grace and peace from the seven Spirits that are before the throne, or the Holy Ghost, whose operations are perfect and complete." (p. 271). Owen gives directions on how the believer may do just that in the following pages.

Theologically speaking then, prayer to the Holy Spirit is part and parcel of our communion with the triune God. But I promised you a proof text. Let me take you to Ezekiel's vison of the valley of dry bones. When Ezekiel prophesied to the bones they came together and were covered with flesh, but there was no life in them (Ezekiel 37:7-8). Then the Lord told Ezekiel to speak to the breath that the slain may live. The breath came and raised them to life, 'an exceedingly great army' Ezekiel 37:9-10. The 'breath' or roach in Hebrew is none other than the Spirt of the Lord, Ezekiel 37:14, compare Psalm 33:6. Israel's national  'resurrection' after the Babylonian Captivity is a picture of the resurrection of believers by the power of the Spirit, Romans 8:11. If Ezekiel could speak to the 'Spirit of life' (Romans 8:2, 10), so may we. Besides, as Owen points out, in Revelation 1:5-6, the Spirit is invoked as the source of grace and peace alongside 'him who is and who was and who is to come' [the Father] and Jesus Christ. 

While the usual order in prayer is to the Father, in the name of the Son and by the Spirit, this is not a stereotypical formula in Holy Scripture. We may also call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and seek the aid of the Holy Spirit in prayer. 

Come, Holy Spirit, like a dove descending,
Rest Thou upon us while we meet to pray;
Show us the Savior, all His love revealing,
Lead us to Him, the Life, the Truth, the Way.

(Robert Bruce)

John Owen on excommunication and the gospel

As Mark Dever reminds us in his Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, biblical church discipline is an essential aspect of church life. Church discipline has two main elements: 

1. Formative, which involves teaching the disciples of Jesus to observe all he has commanded us (Matthew 28:18-20).  

2. Corrective, which involves rebuking those who are straying from the faith, and may even include removing people from church membership on account of serious error, or open sin. 

Puritanism was a movement dedicated to the further reformation of the Church of England along biblical lines. Independents wanted to churches to comprise not of everyone who lived in a parish, but of people who had been truly converted, and whose lives adorned the gospel; congregations of visible saints. Early 'Reformed Baptists' would have agreed, while they parted company with their Independent brothers over infant baptism. Given that the Puritans were by definition zealous for the purity of the church, it is not unexpected that they were sticklers for church discipline. Their opponents sometimes labelled them 'Donatists'. 

Donatism was a movement in the early church that refused to readmit into the membership of the church Christians who had renounced their faith during periods of state-sanctioned persecution. Augustine of Hippo was a great opponent of Donatism. He argued that the church is made up of saved sinners. The holiness of the church is not maintained by the unwavering faithfulness of believers, but by renewed application of the gospel. Augustine held that the Christian life is one of constant repentance from sin and faith in the blood of Christ. Lapsed believers could therefore be restored to the church on expression of sincere repentance and a pledge of renewed faith in the Saviour. Augustine's pastoral realism and compassion for straying sheep is rooted in the witness of Scripture, 1 John 1:5-10, Luke 17:3-4. Donatism was condemned as a gospel-denying heresy. 

Puritans like John Owen contested the charge that they were Donatists. In his The True Nature of a Gospel Church (Works, Volume 16), Owen sought to set out his mature thinking on church life from an Independent perspective. As the title suggests, the divine wanted to work through how the gospel is to permeate every aspect of ecclesiology. That includes church discipline in its corrective element. The gospel must be allowed to determine the purpose for which a person might be removed from church membership and the basis upon which they may be readmitted. 

Owen readily acknowledged that corrective church discipline had been subject to much abuse. Under the Roman Catholic system excommunicated people could be deprived of their livelihoods and property, arrested and even killed. If the pope excommunicated a ruler, subjects were within their rights to rebel against their prince or even assassinate him. Owen insisted that excommunication from the church was a purely spiritual matter, having only to do with removal from the privileges of church membership. A church member could be excommunicated for persisting in serious doctrinal error or for flagrantly sinful conduct. 

The process of excommunication should be overseen by the elders to whom the rule of the church was committed. But the consent of the whole church was to be sought before a person was put out of the fellowship. And their consent gained to readmit someone who had been excommunicated, but had been brought to repentance. Owen gives special attention to Matthew 16 & 18, 1 Corinthians 5, and 2 Corinthians 2:6 in this regard.

The excommunicated person is to lose all the privileges of church membership. They are “handed over to Satan”; that is put out of the church and placed back into the world. Excommunication is a most solemn use of the keys of the kingdom. What is bound on earth will be bound in heaven. The whole process is to be bathed with prayer. Should a wayward member withdraw from the church to avoid church discipline, they are still to be formally excommunicated, Owen advised. 

The aim of excommunication is not to punish the straying believer, but recover them to the fellowship of the church. Should the person in question genuinely repent during the disciplinary process, it must be halted, and they should not be put out of the church. This is in line with the gospel, which promises forgiveness on the basis of repentance and faith. Similarly with those who have been excommunicated and then repented, “the principle design of the gospel…is to evidence that all sincerely penitent sinners… are and shall be pardoned and accepted.” “It is no dishonour to any church” says Owen “to have sinners in it who have evidenced sincere repentance.” (16:176-177). Church discipline must be gospel centred. Owen for one was no hard-line, unforgiving Donatist.

John Owen and English Puritanism by Crawford Gribben

John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat, 

by Crawford Gribben, Oxford University Press, 2016, 401pp

'By their books you shall know them'. If the shelves of someone's study are adorned by sixteen white and green volumes, The Works of John Owen, they are likely to be 'Reformed' types. The kind that attend Banner of Truth Ministers' Conferences, and the like. Whether those hefty tomes have been plucked from the shelf and read is another thing. For John Owen (1616-83) is a difficult man to read. Only a few brave souls have ventured beyond Volumes 1 and 2, possibly 6 at a stretch. But the set serves as an identity marker. Merely to posses it is enough. Perhaps the proud owners hope that the wonders of Puritan divinity will infiltrate their souls by osmosis?

For those who wish to make more of a determined effort actually to read Owen, the green and white volumes are both a help and a hindrance. We must salute the efforts of W. H. Goold in gathering Owen's writings together and the Banner of Truth Trust in reprinting them, but Goold's orangising system was a little haphazard. He tended to group Owen's writings thematically rather than chronologically. It is difficult, therefore, to trace developments in his thinking over time. Oddly, Volumes 1 and 16 include some of the divine's posthumously published final works, Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ (1684) and The True Nature of a Gospel Church (1689). 

That is one of the reasons why Crawford Gribben's biography is an indispensable guide for serious readers of Owen. He sets our man's literary output against the backdrop of his life and times so we can see the political and religious contexts in which he operated. Situating Owen's writings in this way helps to serve as a reminder that he was no ivory tower theologian. His pen was often directed to responding to some of the pressing controversies of the day such as Arminianism, Socinanism, and, of course, Roman Catholicism. In addition, Owen sought to explain and defend his Independent churchmanship against both Presbyterian and Anglican antagonists. While we would hardly call him a social libertarian by today's standards, the Puritan argued for religious tolerance. At least as far as orthodox Protestants were concerned, whatever their ecclesiastical stamp.  

Owen is a difficult man to read. While the details of his public career are known, his inner thoughts are hard to fathom. Owen rarely made autobiographical remarks in his writings. He left behind no journal to which he bared his soul. You will search his works in vain for references to how Owen felt on the death of his first wife, or the loss of all ten of his children. Notwithstanding these constraints, Gribben manages to piece together a life of Owen that helps us get under the skin of the public figure. 

Owen's career began as a pastor of small congregations in rural Essex. He accompanied Oliver Cromwell on his Irish campaign. Owen was often asked to preach to Parliament, including the day after the execution of Charles I. He became Vice Chancellor of Oxford University, defending that great place of learning against radicals who had little time for the world of letters. I hadn't realised before that the English philosopher John Locke studied under Owen at Oxford. With the return of Charles II Owen, fell out of favour. He was removed from Oxford and returned to pastoral ministry, serving  Independent congregations until the end of his life. 

The Restoration brought new challenges for Owen. His writings had to be published anonymously, with different emphases for different audiences. He warily sought to defend his Independent convictions against those who labelled him a dangerous sectarian and Republican rebel. Meanwhile, the Puritan preacher who criticised Cromwell's Protectorate for its love of worldly grandeur now celebrated Charles II as a paragon of Protestant piety. He knew that the King rather than parliament would be more likely to extend toleration to nonconformists. 

The work is a salutary study of what happens when the godly get what they so often wish for; political power. Puritanism could not be imposed on the population of the British Isles by parliamentary decree, or through Cromwell serving as Lord Protector with the support of the army. England was not the New Jerusalem after all. Parliamentary victories at Marson Moor and Naseby did not mean, as Owen and others argued, that political Puritanism had divine sanction. Christians function best as a counter-culture within society, rather than as the Establishment using its power to foist the highest standards of godliness upon a largely unregenerate nation. We are meant to function as  'salt' that preserves meat from decay, not fillet steak. 

As the subtitle suggests, the author sees 'experiences of defeat' as key to understanding Owen's character. It could be argued that the whole Puritan movement, of which Owen was a leading light ended in defeat. The Church of England was not lastingly reformed along Presbyterian or Independent lines. Episcopal church government was re-imposed on the restoration of the monarchy. In 1662 around two thousand Puritan Ministers were ejected from the church. This was a massive 'experience of defeat' for Owen, but it was not the only one. As a young man he had to leave Oxford University due to the anti-Puritan policies promoted by Laud. He became an Independent when Presbyterians dominated national life. In first pastorate, Owen bemoaned the poor spiritual state of his congregation. In his last phase of ministry, he mourned over own lack of pastoral effectiveness. Yet despite all this, it would be wrong to see Owen as a dejected and defeated character come the final period of his life. In his Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ, Owen turned his eyes away from this vain world and its vicissitudes to Christ. He confessed,  

There is no glory, no peace, no joy, no satisfaction, such a foretaste in this world, to be compared with what we receive by that weak and imperfect view which we have of the glory of Christ by faith; yea, all the joys of the world are a thing of nought in comparison of what we so receive. (Works Volume 1, p. 415). 

As Gribben suggests in his Conclusion, while Owen's public life may have been characherised by a series of reversals, his published Works would afford him a kind of victory in later generations. Evangelicals turned to his writings for their theological depth, practical piety and experimental warmth. George Whitefield commended Owen to his fellow-Methodists in the 18th Century. C. H Spurgeon ensured he had an audience among Calvinistic Baptists in the Victorian era. Owen's writings played an important role in the resurgence of Reformed theology associated with the ministries of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and J. I. Packer in the 20th Century. Renewed attention is being given to Owen in the contemporary globe-spanning Reformed movement. If his Works were read by those who posses them beyond the familiar Volumes 1, 2 & 6, that would save John Owen from yet another 'experience of defeat'. Yes, he is a difficult man to read, but for those who persevere through the thickets of complex sentences and strange neologisms, there is theological gold in them there white and green tomes.   

Westminster Conference 2017

I'll be off to the Westminster Conference bright and early tomorrow morning. Early anyway.

I'm due to give a paper on A Child of Light Walking in Darkness: The Felt Presence of God. The Child of Light... bit in the title refers to a work by the Puritan Thomas Goodwin. It's essentially a series of sermons on Isaiah 50:10, with some extra 'box set' material thrown in for good measure.

My brief is to reflect on what Goodwin has to say on knowing, losing and then recovering a felt sense of God's presence and favour. Also interacting with the views of Goodwin's old pal, John Owen.

Getting hold of Owen's stuff is easy enough. Banner of Truth published his 16 Volume Works decades ago and they are still in print today. I purchased my set when a student at the London Seminary (1988-90).

Goodwin ain't so easy to obtain. Banner has only published Volume 8 of his Works. Odd titles are available as e-books, but not A Child of Light Walking in Darkness. Only realised that after I'd agreed to speak at the conference. Something of a problem. 

Handily, my old church history lecturer at the seminary, Robert Oliver lives nearby.  He is also a member of our local Ministers' Fraternal. Robert kindly lent me Volume 3 of Goodwin's Works, which includes A Child of Light...

Goodwin's piece isn't too long. Owen on Psalm 130 takes up most of Volume 6 of his Works. Took a while to wade through. But, as ever with Owen, was worth the effort. 

I was a bit unwell towards the end of September and into October, which slowed me down when it came to writing up the paper, but I got there in the end. 

I'm looking forward to hearing the other speakers (see here for the programme) and also to meeting up with some old friends at the conference. 

John Owen and D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Unity

2016 marks the 400th anniversary of the birth of John Owen in 1616 and the 50th anniversary of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' address on Evangelical Unity on 18th October 1966. Both men gave attention to the matter unity between Christians. Lloyd-Jones was a student of Owen and drew upon his work on Christian unity. However, I argue that Lloyd-Jones' strategy for achieving  greater unity among gospel churches was flawed in that was tied to Evangelicals coming together under one organisational umbrella group. In a previous post I looked at 'John Owen and D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Schism'.

The Puritan ecclesiastical experiment of the Commonwealth era had failed to unite all reform-minded believers under a single form of church government. Some favoured a drive to further reform the Church of England, others preferred Presbyterianism or others still, Independency. With the monarchy restored in 1660 the Church of England with its Episcopalian system became the State Church once more. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer was imposed on all Church of England congregations, leading to over 2,000 Puritan pastors being deprived of their livings. Anglicanism was the only officially recognised religion in England. 

It was payback time for the regicidal Puritans. Non-Anglicans faced sometimes viscous bouts of persecution. The well-known trials and tribulations of John Bunyan are a case in point. An attempt was made to impose Protestant unity upon all Christians in the land by means of the power of the State. But as Owen pointed out, rather than fostering true spiritual unity, the State-sponsored imposition of Anglicanism, Bishops, liturgy and all, only exacerbated divisions still further. Owen argued that God alone is Lord of men’s consciences. The Head of the Church had not left himself without witness when it came to the government, life and worship of the church. What he has commanded, man has no right to supplement, much less ignore.

Owen pleaded for toleration on the part of Nonconformists, arguing that doing so would not undermine the unity and peace of the nation. People should have the right to “do church” in the light of their understanding of Scripture and for the benefit of their souls, rather than be forced to conform to a Church that would not reform. Anglicanism was in danger of being as imperious and intolerant as Rome in insisting that unity could only be found under her banner and looking to the State to persecute Dissenters.

In 1672, Owen published A Discourse Concerning Evangelical Love, Peace and Unity. Our divine understood that inter-church unity could not be created institutionally, by forcing all Protestants to join the Established Church. True spiritual unity said Owen exists at three levels:

First in the Catholic Church on earth, which “is comprised that real living and spiritual body of his, which is firstly, peculiarly, and properly called the Catholic Church militant in this world. These are his elect, redeemed, justified, and sanctified ones, who are savingly united to their head by the same quickening and sanctifying Spirit” (15:78). All true believers belong to and are one with the Catholic Church on earth. They may disagree over many things and differ on points of church government, and yet “they esteem the things wherein they agree incomparably above wherein they differ.” (15:80). Those differences are to be handled not by one group of Christians riding roughshod over another because they have the power of the State on their side, but as befits their unity in the gospel. “It is love, meekness, forbearance, bowels of compassion, with those other graces of the Spirit wherein our conformity to Christ doth consist, with a true understanding and due valuation of the ‘unity of faith…’” that alone will enable believers to avoid the evils associated with entrenched differences between churches. To what extent do we give expression to our unity with the Catholic Church on earth that perchance exists outside of our hermetically sealed Reformed bubble?

Second there is the visible Catholic Church “comprehensive of all who throughout the world outwardly own the gospel, there is an acknowledgement of “one Lord, one faith, one baptism:” which are a sufficient ground of that love, union and communion among them” (15:82). It is in this manifestation of the Catholic Church “that salvation is to be obtained and out of which there is none.” (15:84).

Convinced Independent though he was Owen certainly did not want to limit the visible Catholic Church so defined to his own Independent church grouping. He regarded it as an “absurd, foolish and uncharitable error, which would confine the Catholic Church of Christ unto a particular church of one single denomination”. (15:84). Striking a consolatory note, notwithstanding his differences with the Church of England, Owen said he regarded her “to be as sound and healthful a part of the Catholic Church as any in the world.” (15:85). So far from being a narrow minded sectarian was Owen that he insisted, “Unto this Catholic Church we owe all Christians love, and we are obliged to exercise all the effects of it, both towards the whole and every particular member, as we have advantage and occasion.” (15:86). Owen was no sectarian Donatist, then. To what extent does our love for fellow Christians overflow our church groupings, to embrace believers in the mixed denominations, Charismatics, and others?

Thirdly Owen discusses the church of Christ in terms of those who profess the gospel and gathered into particular churches. All believers are obliged to belong to a local church. But in line with his principles, Owen did not recommend an “any church will do” approach. Should a local church degenerate from the biblical pattern and seek to impose unscriptural practices upon believers, the godly may separate from such a congregation and in doing so should not be regarded as schismatic. Owen stresses that in such situations reform-minded believers should not show themselves difficult rabble rousers. They are to attempt “peaceable endeavours to reduce [the church] to the order of the gospel” (15:97). All the time showing “charity, love and forbearance towards the persons of those whose miscarriages at present he cannot remedy.” (15:97). But if sincere Christians found themselves having corrupt practices and erroneous teaching forced on them, Owen counselled that they should peaceably withdraw and seek fellowship in a more biblically sound church. At a local level unity should not be sought at the expense of biblical purity.

What, then, according to Owen are the defining characteristics of gospel church unity that we are bound to seek?

1.      It is spiritual “the unity of the Spirit”, the product of being ‘spiritually and savingly united to Christ” (15:108), not the product of imposed uniformity.

2.      It is “unity of faith”, based upon “A precise and express profession of the fundamental articles of the Christian religion”. (15:108). Owen is not interested in lowest common denominator ecumenism, or sectarian exclusivism. Unity in the essential truths of the gospel is what matters. 

3.      It is a unity of Love. Love knits together all members of the body of Christ as the “bond of perfection”. This gospel love is not pernickety and excluding, but “acts itself by forbearance and condescension towards the infirmities, mistakes and faults of others”. (15:110). Is that always the case with us? Are we sometimes too quick to write others off?

4.      It is a unity in the orders of rule and ordinances of worship instituted by the kingly authority of Jesus. Where churches receive grace and gifts from the Lord Jesus to this end and seek to act in line with the Word, says Owen, “no such variety or difference will ensue as shall impeach that unity which is the duty of them all to attend unto.” (15:110). He is not demanding absolute uniformity of view and practice, but unity in diversity among churches that gladly submit to the rule of King Jesus laid down in his Word.

During the Restoration period Owen and his fellow Nonconformists faced a very different situation to ours today. Dissenters are no longer subject to persecution because we do not belong to the Church of England Established by Law. Much of Owen’s work on the doctrine of the church was an extended plea for the right of Nonconformists to exist persecution-free. That is no longer the need of the hour, thank God. But we are gospel-bound to pursue church-level Evangelical unity and Owen helps us to understand what that means. Evangelical unity flows from the gospel we believe and is shaped by the gospel of love. It is not about bringing all church groupings under one umbrella structure, or seeking to obliterate denominational distinctives. As with the poor, differences over church government, baptism and worship styles will be ever with us. But both within and among Gospel Churches we must do all we can to give expression to our unity in the gospel. How that works itself out in practice will differ in our various situations. Sometimes more fellowship will be possible with other neighbouring churches, sometimes less, but we need to find ways of expressing our unity in faith and love. Isolationism isn’t an option for true Independents. 

Sure, Affinity, the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, Grace Baptist Associations, Evangelical Presbyterian and Evangelical Anglican groupings, Gospel Partnerships and so on have a role in fostering unity between our churches. But is none large and comprehensive enough to serve as a pan-Evangelical Big Tent, where the “fundamental articles of the Christian faith” are confessed, but conscientious differences respected. Lloyd-Jones’ vision for Evangelical unity was strategically flawed in that he sought to replace the institutional unity of the World Council of Churches and British Council of Churches with that of another organisation, the British Evangelical Council. While we may agree that Evangelicals should separate from church groupings where there is no realistic prospect of reform, the answer is not as Lloyd-Jones put it in his 1967 address Martin Luther and his Message for Today: “Come out of it! But come together also…into an association such as this British Evangelical Council… Come out! Come in!” (Unity in Truth, D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Evangelical Press, 1991, p. 43). 

Dr. Owen grasped what Dr. Lloyd-Jones apparently did not at this point, that Evangelicals were already “in”, in the sense that together they belonged to the gospel-proclaiming Catholic Church in its local manifestations. Joining the BEC would not necessarily have broken down barriers between Evangelical Churches. What was needed there was a greater catholicity of spirit, more love for one another across denominational divides, a deeper determination to submit to the Lordship of Christ, come what may. Come out! Yes. But come out because you are in and that unity needs to be seen in action as gospel churches partner together to reach the nation for Christ. Lloyd-Jones would have been better advised to have stressed the basic principles, as did Owen, and not to have tied his vision to a single organisation.

Inter-church unity is organic, not organisational. As John Owen says in The True Nature on the Communion of Churches,

Take in the whole, and the union of churches consists in their relation unto God as their Father, and unto Christ as their only immediate head of influence and rule, with a participation in the same faith and doctrine of truth, the same kind of holiness, the same duties of divine worship, especially the same mysteries of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the observance of all the rules of Christ in all church-order with mutual love, effectual unto all the ends of their being and constitution, or the edification of the Catholic Church. (16:190).  

Though there may be differences among gospel churches, our essential union is an expression of the oneness for with the Lord Christ prayed in John 17:20-23, that his disciples may be “perfect in one”. Giving that oneness visible expression is vital to the mission of the church, John 17:21.

There has been a welcome revival of interest in Puritanism among Evangelical Christians in the last few decades. That interest has largely focused on the rich treasury of Puritan devotional writings. But we must never forget that Puritanism was a movement dedicated to the reformation and revitalisation of the church. Reading the Works of John Owen Volumes 13-16 it is evident that he was a pastor-theologian; a theologian of the church and for the church. His ecclesiological writings are a standing reminder that, Ephesians 5:25-26.

* From my Evangelical Library conference paper: Reading John Owen: Volumes 13-16 

John Owen and D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Schism

2016 marks the 400th anniversary of the birth of John Owen in 1616 and the 50th anniversary of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' address on Evangelical Unity in 1966. Both men gave attention to the matter of schism or divisions between Christians. Lloyd-Jones was a student of Owen and drew upon his work on schism. However, his charge in 1966 that Evangelicals in the mixed denominations were guilty of schism was decidedly un-Owenic.  

John Owen was a leading voice of the Independent Churches. In the 17^th Century the Independents were dogged by the charge of schism. They were Protestants who had separated from Rome. Schism number 1. They were Puritans and then Nonconformists who had separated from the Church of England. Schism number 2. They were Independents who allegedly had separated from the Presbyterian churches. Schism number 3. Understandably Owen didn’t find being labelled a 3-fold schismatic much to his liking. ‘schism scwism” might be our response, ‘so what?” For one, causing needless divisions among the people of God is a serious matter. John 17 for instance. For two, didn’t Evangelical Churches (whatever their ecclesiastical polity) face a similar charge when we refuse to get involved in Churches Together and the like? We’re splitters and no-one like a splitter.

Owen’s response to the charge of schism that was leveled against the Independents was a novel one. In Of Schism, Vol 13, published in 1657, he didn’t start with things as they were in his day with the Popery/Protestant divide and the splintering of Protestantism. Neither did he simply rehearse the denunciation of schism on the part of the Church Fathers. Augustine and the Donatists and all that. He took a rather novel approach. “Right” he said, “what does the Bible have to say about this?” Crazy, eh? Going back to the Bible’s he discovered that in the Good Book the word schism is only used of divisions within local churches. Never is it used of people who leave one local church and join another, or set up another, for whatever reason. Some in the church at Corinth were guilty of schism because they lined up behind their favourite preachers, or allowed social distinctions to rend the body of Christ at the Lord’s Supper. There’s schism for you.

But what of Christian unity on a bigger scale? Well, there’s the Universal Church. At that level, union consists of all who are chosen in Christ and saving united to him for salvation by the Spirit. That unity cannot be shattered because it is spiritual and organic, not organisational. No schism there, then. Then there’s the unity of the Visible Catholic Church. That is the church worldwide that professes the gospel. To split off from the Catholic Church so defined is not schism, argues Owen, but heresy and apostasy, 1 John 2:19.

Hang on a minute, Dr. Owen. What about the Roman Catholic charge against Protestants? As we have seen, for Owen, the Roman Catholic Church was no true Church, having apostatised from the Visible Catholic Church by defecting from the gospel. What about the Puritans and Non-conformists who left the Church of England? Owen argued that believers are not in any way obliged to align themselves with a territorial Protestant State Church. There is no biblical justification for such an institution. Owen confessed himself a member of the Church of England in the sense that he was united with the Visible Catholic Church in England composed believers in the nation who professed the gospel. But that did not mean he was guilty of schism for not being a member of the Church of England Established by Law by Henry VIII and his heirs and successors.

Believers are duty bound to gather themselves together in churches where the gospel is preached and godly discipline applied. When a local church of whatever denominational stamp refuses to reform itself according to the Word of God, it is the duty of believers to separate from it. Doing so was not to be regarded as schism. Neither was the fact that Independents differed from Presbyterians on certain points of church government and wished to put their beliefs into practice in their local churches.  

One Daniel Cawdrey, a Presbyterian minister at Great Billing, Northamptonshire took it upon himself to offer a response to Owen’s Of Schism in a pamphlet with the less than reconciliatory title, Independency a Great Schism. Suffice to say, the carping Cawdrey was no match for Owen in terms of theological acumen. Not to mention generosity of spirit.  Owen penned a Vindication. Reading it you sense his hurt at having his views and person traduced so roundly, even to the point of occasional tetchiness. Who can blame him? Owen felt himself reviled from one end of Cawrey’s work to the other. He was vilified as, ‘Satan, atheist, sceptic, Donatist, heretic, schismatic, secretary, Pharisee, etc”. (13:214). But the controversy also brought out the best in Owen in terms of his generous catholicity of spirit. He was certainly no sectarian Donatist and made it clear that he did not believe as Cawdrey had alleged that Independents were the only true churches.

Owen responded to a further critical rejoinder from Cawdrey. It is obvious that he found the controversy rather a chore. But he felt obliged to respond at length and with his customary thoroughness. This is Owen at his most cumbersome, taking pages and pages to say what could have been said much more succinctly. Eventually he called an end to what he called “this tedious debate” (13:269). For which his poor readers ought to count themselves grateful.

The main point as far as Owen was concerned, is that schism is a local church issue, not inter-church issue. But even if it was permissible for the term ‘schism” to be used of divisions between local churches, it wasn’t the Independents that were at fault. It wasn’t them that insisted that all local churches should belong to the Established Church of England. It wasn’t them that refused to reform the government of the church after a more biblical pattern. It wasn’t them that failed to exercise church discipline to weed out the notoriously ungodly from the flock. It wasn’t the Independents who imposed ceremonies, a fixed liturgy and canon law upon churches, all contrary to the mind of Christ. And then persecuted those who would not conform. That was the Church of England.

Owen did not write off the Church of England altogether, however. Writing, now in response to Dr. Stillingfleet on The Unreasonableness of Separation (1681), he said, “We do allow those parochial assemblies which have a settled, unblameable ministry among them to be true churches, for far as they can pretend so to be”. Then comes a lengthy, paragraph-long string of qualifiers. Parochial assemblies may be regarded as true churches although they had no power to choose or ordain their own ministers, or reform themselves according to the word of God, and that they neglected evangelical discipline and the like. Owen waspishly concludes, “Whatever can be ascribed to such churches we willingly allow to them.” (15:376-377). Where reforming such “parochial assemblies” proved impossible, peaceable withdrawal was not schism. Even then, Owen was not proposing total separation, just that Independents could not conscientiously engage in full communion with an unreformed Church of England. That was not what Scripture described as schism because it did not invoke stirring up divisions within a local church.

What, then do we make of Dr. Lloyd-Jones” charge in 1966 that Evangelicals in the mixed denominations were guilty of schism because they failed to separate from their error-tolerating denominations and come together as churches? He argued “that for us to be divided - we who are agreed about everything that really matters…is nothing but to be guilty of the sin of schism.” (Knowing the Times, D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Banner of Truth Trust, 1989, p. 254). Strong words. But if Owen is right, the charge of schism is a category mistake. Schism is local church issue, not an inter-church issue. Lloyd-Jones was aware of Owen’s work in this area. He devoted his 1963 Westminster Conference address to John Owen on Schism, in which Lloyd-Jones very much commended Owen’s attitude and approach. (The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors, D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Banner of Truth Trust, 1987, p. 73-100).

According to New Testament as demonstrated by Owen, schism is the sin of causing needless divisions within a gospel church. Divisions between gospel churches are another matter entirely. If a gospel church is in fellowship with a church grouping in which the the gospel is denied, and the situation cannot be remedied, that is a grievous disorder. We should separate from error. But Lloyd-Jones was wrong to say that Evangelicals were guilty of schism simply because their churches belonged to a 'mixed' denomination.

When it comes to the contemporary church scene we are often the ones accused of schism. Ours may be the only church in town not in Churches Together. But Churches Together has no biblical mandate. We are not obliged to be in it. It is no schism to be out of it. Especially as the grouping obscures clarity of gospel witness and is in danger of violating the unity of the Catholic Church by having Roman Catholics and unreconstructed Liberals involved.

We are schismatics, however, if we are the cause needless divisions within our local churches. We are failing in our duty of Christian love if we shun fellowship with other Evangelical churches because of differences over secondary matters.  

* From my Evangelical Library conference paper: Reading John Owen: Volumes 13-16 

Reading John Owen Evangelical Library Conference

This year marks the 400th anniversary of the birth of the great Puritan theologian and Independent Church leader. 

On Monday, September 26, 2016, there will be a special one day conference on Reading John Owen. 

The conference will take place at the Evangelical Library and will be from 10 am to 4.30 pm.

The main focus will be on key themes in Owen's 16 volume Works. 

Programme: 

10.00 Coffee

10.30 John Owen, Preacher, theologian and writer Nigel Graham

11.20 Owen on Christ and the Holy Spirit (Volumes 1-4) Jeremy Walker

12.10 Owen on justification, sanctification and apostasy (Volumes 5-8) Robert Strivens

1.00 Lunch

1.40 Owen the preacher and Calvinist (Volumes 9-12) Gary Brady

2.30 Break

3.00 Owen pastors, churches and Romanism (Volumes 13-16) Guy Davies

3.50 Final panel question session

4.30 Close

Hot drinks provided. Bring your own lunch.

The cost will be £25 for the day.

On Reading John Owen

I guess I must have been in my early 20's when I bought the sixteen volume set of the Works of John Owen published by the Banner of Truth Trust. There they sit in all their splendour on the top shelf of a book case in my study. White and green with Banner's little 'George Whitefield' logo neatly printed at the bottom of each volume. Together they take up over two 2' worth of shelf space. 

Full of the flush of youthful enthusiasm I started with volumes 1 & 2. Some of his best stuff there, On the Person of Christ, Meditations and Discourses on the Person of Christ, On Communion with God, etc. These treatises are rich in theological depth and spiritual insight. Owen invites his readers to revel in the riches of Christ and draw them into fuller communion with the triune God. He shows himself to be biblically literate, steeped in the theological heritage of the church, and have the stamp of a man who knew what it was to draw near to God in Christ by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Great stuff. If you are in possession of  Owen's Works and are wondering where to begin, well, you can do little better than to begin at the beginning.

Then, if memory serves, I think I read some of his great works on the Christian life contained in Volumes 6 & 7, On the Mortification of Sin, On Temptation and On Spiritual Mindedness. Here we see Owen as a physician of souls, accurately diagnosing the sin-caused maladies of the life of faith and prescribing their cure in the gospel, "Set faith at work on Christ for the killing of thy sin. His blood is the great sovereign remedy for sin-sick souls. Live in this, and thou wilt die a conqueror; yea, thou wilt, through the good providence of God, live to see thy lust dead at thy feet." Owen is both deeply searching in exposing the 'exceeding sinfulness of sin' and deeply encouraging in directing his readers to Christ as the all-sufficient Saviour and Sanctifier of sinners. 

His Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Volume 10), introduced so helpfully by J. I. Packer in Banner's stand-alone edition helped convince me not only of the biblical validity of definite atonement, but also to see its glory. Here was no limiting of the atonement, but a wondrous expansion of its sufficiency and effectiveness for the redemption of a vast multitude of elect sinners. 

I must have got through that lot in the course of a few years, or so.

Then other authors grabbed my attention and I quite neglected Owen. The white and green tomes began to gather dust. Thick dust. Years when by before I picked a volume off the shelf. Then I was asked to give a paper on Puritan Attitudes Towards Rome at the 2010 Westminster Conference. Rather than trying to draw upon a wide range of Puritan attitudes towards Roman Catholicism, I thought it would be better to 'go deep' and explore the views of one representative figure against the background of their times and see what could be learned from them for our situation today. That was John Owen, necessitating that I study Volume 14, the divine's major anti-Catholic writings. 

Owen's stance was not that of a bitter, sectarian hot-head. He carefully scrutinised Roman doctrine in the light of Scripture. But also he endeavoured to out-Catholic the Roman Catholics by appealing to the church fathers in order to show that  distinctive Roman doctrines such as the universal authority of the pope were not in fact Catholic teachings, that is doctrines that Christians everywhere and at all times had believed. He argued that the Roman Catholic Church was divisive and schismatic in its attempt to foist its distinctive dogmas on all Christian churches. Contemporary Evangelicals have a lot to learn from Owen's exposure of the key differences between the evangelical faith of Scripture and the distinctive tenets of the Roman  Catholic Church.  

And now it's a matter of getting stuck into Volumes 13-16 for the Evangelical Library's Reading John Owen conference to mark the 400th anniversary of his birth in 1616. I won't steal my own thunder by saying too much about the contents, but I offer some thoughts on reading John Owen for those who might like to try, but feel intimidated by the sheer weight of material, or others who have made a stab at reading him, but have given up too quickly.

Knowing where to start: Volumes 1 & 2 and then 6 & 7. 

Keeping on: Owen was one of the great scholars of his day. His English prose is heavily Latinised in form and structure. Sentences can sometimes go on for line upon line. By the time you've reached the end, you may not be able to remember how he began. Get used to it. You can't skim though Owen like you would your daily paper, an 'easy reading' Christian book, or a blog. Reading Owen demands the cultivation of good intellectual habits. Concentrate. Think. Absorb. Persevere. 

Another virtue worth cultivating is patience. Owen can sometimes be very prolix, taking pages and pages to say something that could have been put more succinctly. He seemed to want to explore an issue from all angles before leaving it alone. But just when you find yourself thinking, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just get on with it, man', he comes up with a dazzling spiritual insight that will blow you away. Owen will make you do some heavy digging before you strike gold. But it's 22 carat gold, not easily obtainable 'fools gold' that he has in store for you. 

One thing that will strike you on reading Owen is his intellectual honesty. He was always willing to follow the biblical evidence wherever it led, even if that meant changing his mind. As he did when shifting from Presbyterian to Independent views on reading John Cotton's The Keys of the Kingdom. A critic, Daniel Cawdrey charged him with inconsistency because his Presbyterian convictions as set out in an earlier work The Duty of  Pastors and People Distinguished had been modified in favour of Independency in the divine's later writings. Owen made no attempt at hiding his change of mind, or pretending consistency where there was none. With guileless honesty he admitted that he had only read Cotton with a view to 'confuting' his work, a classic statement of Independent polity. Owen confessed, "In the pursuit and management of this work, quite beside and contrary to my expectation...I was prevailed upon to receive that and those principles which I had set myself in an opposition unto. And, indeed this way of impartial examining all things by the word...is a course that I would admonish all to beware of who would avoid the danger of being made Independents." (Vol. 13, p. 223-224). A perhaps unexpected element that stands out in that quote is the old Puritan's penchant for dry wit. OK. He won't have you rolling around hysterically on your study floor, but he can raise a knowing smile. Occasionally. 

Above all, Owen is worth reading because while he ranges far and wide in his thinking, he always brings us back to the central truths of the gospel. That can be seen most clearly on Volumes 1 & 2, 6 & 7. But in his argument with Rome, it is the gospel that is at stake, His doctrine of the church is not some dry disquisition on the finer points of church order, but is framed in terms of a Discourse concerning Evangelical Love, Peace, and Unity (Vol. 15) and The True Nature of a Gospel Church (Vol. 16). Whether his subject is doctrinal, devotional, controversial, or practical, you can be sure that Owen will relate the matter in hand to what God has done by his Son and through his Spirit to secure the salvation and future glory of his people. 

Thomas Watson's style is more racy and engaging. Bunyan is more imaginative and direct. But with Owen what you get is Paul-like profundity. Reading him will make you cry out together with the apostle, 'O the depth!' (Romans 11:33). That's why you should get about reading John Owen. 

Some thoughts on virtue, grace and character education (with a little help from John Owen)

John Owen (1616-1683)

“Education without values, as useful as it is,

 seems rather to make man a more clever devil.” 

C. S. Lewis

'Character education' is one of the Big Things in the world of schooling right now. In the private sector they've been at it for years. Former Master of Wellington College, Anthony Seldon is often regarded as the doyenne of character education. He famously introduced wellbeing or happiness classes during his time in charge of one of the UK's top private education establishments. Alongside forced (make that 'encouraged' in the light of the recent policy u-turn) academisation, character education is also a key aspect of Nicky Morgan's education policy. A lot of thought has been given to this in recent years. The Jubilee Centre for Character & Virtues, attached to Birmingham University is devoted to researching character education and has produced some useful material in the field, including its Framework for Character Education in Schools. A renewed interest in education as character formation has trickled down to the level of local schools, where you're as likely to hear headteachers speaking about the 'resilience' of their students as their Sats/GCSE/A-Level results. 

Character education goes beyond a school's 'values'; things like 'Creativity', 'Success' and 'Respect', and crosses into the territory of moral formation. The Jubilee Centre's core virtues include; Courage, Justice, Honesty, Compassion for others, Self-discipline, Gratitude and Humility. These help to give definition to what is sometimes called a 'sense of moral purpose'. I think the author C. S, Lewis, cited at the top of this post, would have approved. He was evidently worried that even in his day education was in danger of becoming a utilitarian value-free zone, where what mattered was a student's cleverness rather than his or her character. Saying that, the Jubilee Centre's work is not altogether free from utilitarian influences. They advocate a value-laded approach to education not simply because it is the right thing to do, but because it works,   'The research evidence is clear: schools that are values driven have high expectations and demonstrate academic, professional and social success.'

But what's good old John Owen got to do with it? Well, I'm currently reading through Volumes 13-16 of his collected works in preparation for contributing a paper to a 'Reading John Owen Conference' at the Evangelical Library to mark the 400th anniversary of his birth. Owen was a 17th century Puritan theologian. He is often regarded as one of England's greatest theological minds (although, as his surname suggests, he had Welsh roots). Owen found himself a marginalised Nonconformist after the Restoration of the Monarchy. He was a keen advocate of toleration for Nonconformists and argued against the imposition of Anglicanism by the State. It was in that context that Owen gave close attention to the relationship between moral virtue and grace that is of relevance here.

Of course, the Puritan theologian's religious context was very different to our own, and he was not out to address the issue of 'character education' as it is commonly understood today. There is always a danger of anachronism when we bring the views of a historical figure into dialogue with a contemporary issue. But with that qualifier duly in place, it struck me that what Owen had to say has a bearing on a the development of a distinctively Christian attitude towards character education in the 21st century.

In the late 17th century Owen engaged in controversy with Anglican apologist, Samuel Parker, penning, Truth and Innocence Vindicated: A Survey of A Discourse Concerning Ecclesiastical Polity, and the Authority of the Civil Magistrate Over the Consciences of Subjects in Matters of Religion (Works of John Owen, Volume 13, p. 343-506). Parker had argued that it was the duty of the magistrate (the civil authority) to uphold virtue. Virtue, he continued was a key aspect of Christian faith and worship. The magistrate therefore had the right to 'command anything in the worship of God that doth not tend to debauch men's practices or to disgrace the deity'. Further, that, all subordinate duties, both of morality and religious worship are equally subject to the determination of human authority.' (p. 410). 

Owen's aim was to show the Christian faith, life and worship are subject to the determination of the Lord Jesus and the rule of the Word of God, He does not deny that it was the duty of the civil authority to promote moral virtue in its citizens, but virtue is not the same as what he called 'graces'. According to Owen, Christian conduct and worship are graces, not simply virtues. Indeed, as he demonstrates, the language of 'moral virtue' used by Parker is foreign to Scripture, owing more to Aristotle than the Bible. While Owen would not ban it from Christian theology altogether, he much preferred Scriptural expressions such as 'repentance toward God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, or the fear of God, of holiness, righteousness, living to God, walking with God, and before him.' (p. 412-413). 

As far as 'moral virtues' are concerned, Owen understands them to be 'duties of the law'. That is 'the law of nature' or 'the law of our creation', to which Paul refers in Romans 2:14-15. This law is written on the hearts of all human beings and is summarised in the Ten Commandments. Moral virtues, then 'consist in the universal observance of the requisites and precepts of the law of our creation, and dependence upon God thereby' (p. 413). Owen acknowledges that these duties 'may be performed by men in their own strength' apart from the 'assistance of the Spirit or the sanctifying grace of Christ' (p. 414). These duties may indeed be regarded as 'virtues' and Owen does not belittle their worth, 'Good they are in themselves, useful to mankind, and seldom in the providence of God go without their reward in this world' (p. 414). 

To deny the reality of these moral virtues is to descend into a morass of moral relativism, 'Thus we grant moral virtue to have been in the heathens of old, for this is that alone whereby they were distinguished amongst themselves: and he that would exclude them all from any interest in moral virtue takes away all difference between Cato and Nero...and overthrows all natural difference between good and evil' (p. 414). But that is not to say that no distinction is to be made between moral virtue and grace, or that moral virtues performed apart from gracious assistance are accepted by God. For that would be tantamount to Pelagianism. 

The difference between moral virtue and graces is not to be understood in terms of what is right and wrong in itself. The 'law of creation' or the 'light of nature' is rooted in man's creation in the image of God. Grace does not destroy nature, but rather redeems and perfects it. Spiritual graces, however, are not the product of human effort, but are the result of "the effectual working of the Spirit of God in and upon the minds and souls of believers, thereby quickening them when they were 'dead in trespasses and sins,' regenerating them, creating a new heart in them, implanting his image upon them." (p. 415-416). In other words, graces are evangelical; an effect of the life-transforming gospel of Christ. 

While the state may rightly seek to promote virtuous conduct in line with the 'light of nature', it has no power to produce gospel graces. These graces are the fruit of the gospel and go way beyond general moral duties. They include repentance from sin, faith in Christ's atoning work, seeking forgiveness, wholehearted obedience to God, self-denial, taking up the cross and the mortification of sin. Owen concludes, 'To persuade us now unto a religion, as respects to God, without those duties which arise from the consideration of sin and a Redeemer, is to persuade us to throw away our Bibles.'  (p. 420-421). 

On the relationship between virtue and grace the divine was able to say, "It is granted that wherever grace is there is virtue; for grace will produce and effect all virtues in the soul whatever. But virtue, on the other side, may exist where there is no grace; which is sufficient to prove a distinction between them." (p. 426). Had he denied that grace produces virtue, Owen would have severed the link between nature and grace, creation and new creation. Such a denial would also have been tantamount to antinomianism, given his insistence upon the link between the 'law of nature' and the Decalogue. Not all virtue, however is evangelical virtue, which is the fruit of the gospel and receives its distinctive character from the sanctifying power of Christ in the believer.  The fruit of the Spirit, delineated in Galatians 5:22-23 are no mere 'moral virtues', then, but gospel 'graces'.

But that does not mean moral virtues should be disparaged. Owen would much rather a Cato to a Nero. Reformed theology has traditionally deployed the category of 'common grace' to describe God's work in restraining sin and promoting moral virtue through the civil authorities and cultural influences. In terms of 'Two Kingdoms' theology, this is the realm of the 'common kingdom' where believers work side by side with non-believers in pursuit of the common good. Christians may have a beneficial impact on the life of the common kingdom, where they act as 'salt and light' (Matthew 5:13-16). As such, Christians will be supportive of character education in state schools and want to include moral formation in their vision for 'common kingdom' education alongside the teaching of academic and vocational knowledge and skills.

This is one of the areas where the Christian faith does not confront the culture, so much as confirm and complete it. I say 'complete it', because what character education and moral formation is aiming at; producing people who will pursue the good life, comes into its own in the gospel. Christianity teaches the moral frailty of all human beings. That does not mean we are all as bad as can be, but that however commendable may be our outward conduct in many respects, we are all sinners and that makes us morally flawed people. The unfailingly honest may sometimes be cruelly blunt. More sensitive souls may be tempted to tell a so-called 'white lie' rather than confront someone with an unpalatable truth that they need to hear. The answer to these inconsistencies is not a little more moral teaching, but a radical change of heart. No amount of character education can do that.

As Jesus said to Nicodemus, a deeply religious and moral man; "Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Now we are no longer in the domain of the 'common kingdom', but the 'redemptive kingdom' of grace. It is by the work of the Spirit that the heart is made new and 'graces' produced that are not merely useful to men, but pleasing to God through Christ, Romans 6:22-23. Jesus has entrusted the task of proclaiming the life-transforming message of salvation to the church. She is called to echo the words of her Master, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the gospel." (Mark 1:15).

Character education is an excellent product of common grace. Heart transformation is the amazing work of God's special grace in Christ and by the power of his Spirit. Here we are not in the realm of 'British Values', but Kingdom Beatitudes, Matthew 5:3-10.