EMW Aberystwyth Conference 2008

We'll soon be off to the Aber Conference. I'm looking forward to a good time of the fellowship and ministry. If you are hoping to attend the conference and are still wondering, "Who on earth is Art Azurdia III?", then never fear. Your intrepid blogster managed to track him down for an exclusive Exiled Preacher interview, which you may read here. For late bookings, contact the Evangelical Movement of Wales here. Are any other bloggers planning to be there?

The Christian and the State (Part 2)

1 Peter 2:13-17: 13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

[Part 1 here]

II. By being good citizens we will silence the ignorant chatter of foolish men

i. Good citizenship is the best response to slander

In his call for us to be “worldly pilgrims” with our minds in heaven and our feet planed firmly in the ground Peter wrote, 1 Peter 2:12. There is a similar motivation here. Christians should be good citizens because that will help to silence the black propaganda of the world. Obey the law. Take an interest in politics and public affairs. Form a Christian view on these things and help to work for a better society, Matthew 5:13-16. Like the Jewish exiles in Babylon, we are to “seek the peace of the city”. (Jeremiah. 29:7).

ii. Submission and good citizenship does not undermine our Christian liberty

Our true citizenship is in heaven, we are free men and women in Christ, having been redeemed from slavery to sin by his precious blood, 1 Peter 1:18. We have the great charter of Christian freedom, Galatians 5:1. Why should we have to obey laws of the land? Peter answers us in 2:16. We are free to do good, not evil. True Christian liberty is never to be used as a “cloak for vice”. If the State is acting correctly, (vs. 14), then we should have no problem submitting to its authority. We are not free to do as we please, but we have been freed from the power of sin in order to serve God, Romans 6:22. Submitting to the state’s God-ordained power is no contradiction of Christian liberty.

III. Church and State

I feel that I ought to say something about this matter. Thus far we have been considering the relationship of the individual Christian to the State. But what should be the relationship between the Church and State? In our country we have an Established Church – the Church of England. Its highest officers – Archbishops Bishops etc. are appointed by the Prime Minister. The Queen as Head of State is the Supreme Governor of Church of England. Anglican Bishops sit in the House of Lords. Historically, this is all due to Henry VIII breaking from the pope and installing himself as head of the English Church. But is this right from a biblical point of view? I would suggest not. Under the Old Testament, there was no distinction between Church and State. Israel was a theocratic nation. But under the New Testament, the church is comprised of the people of God from many nations - 1 Peter 2:4-5. As Peter has shown, we are subject to the ruling authorities whether they are Christians or not. The task of the State’s very different to that of the Church. Compare 2:14, with 2:9. The Church's calling is to preach the Gospel of life, 1:22-25.

In the 16th Century Kings and Queens imposed unity on their subjects by maintaining a united Church of England. They put a brake on church reforms. The Elizabethan Settlement thwarted Puritan hopes for a reformed English Church. But the Separatists rejected the Establishment principle and argued for “Reformation without tarrying for anie”. Quite right too. The Church should not need permission from the State to implement biblical reform. Certainly, the Church is subject to law of the land. We have to comply with health and safety regulations. When the State passed a law saying that "No Smoking" signs be placed on all public buildings including Church buildings, we readily complied. But the State has no right to tell us how we should interpret the Bible or how we should order our worship. Jesus Christ is head of the Church and we are subject to him alone. That is why Baptists have adopted the Free Church principle. We argue that it would be better if the Church of England were disestablished.

The State cannot be allowed co-opt the Church and make her an agent of government policy. That is what Hitler tried to do in the 1930's with his attempt to Nazify the German Churches. The Confessing Churches resisted this. We might not agree with Karl Barth on some important matters, but he was right here. The Barmen Declaration states,

8.11 Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.
8.14 As Jesus Christ is God's assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so, in the same way and with the same seriousness he is also God's mighty claim upon our whole life. Through him befalls us a joyful deliverance from the godless fetters of this world for a free, grateful service to his creatures.
8.15 We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords - areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.

We must resist the Government's attempt to impose its secularising "equality agenda" on the Church. The Church should not be forced to employ people whose lifestyle does not reflect the standards of biblical morality Recently the Bishop of Hereford was in trouble with an employment tribunal for refusing to offer a gay man the position of Youth Worker. The man in question was awarded £47000 in damages. This is a matter of of loyalty to Christ. He is the head of the Church. We must submit to his authority as it is expressed in the teaching of Holy Scripture. The State has no right to impose its will on the Church in such matters. We must obey God rather than men.

On the other hand, the Church is not a pressure group that endeavours to “Christianise the State”. We have no theocratic ambitions. Christians should be active in trying to influence Government policy in accordance with biblical principles. But Christian faith and values cannot be imposed on the people from above. Neither do we believe that Christianity can be advanced or defended by force of arms. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servant would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here." (John 18:36). The sword of State cannot be used in service of the Gospel of peace.

So, Jesus callls us to be salt and light in society. But we want no formal link between Church and State. This is not an argument for the secularisation of the public square. Christians must bring the lordship of Christ to bear on every inch of public life. Let the State take her responsibilities seriously and act to punish evil and praise good. But the Church has a different task that requires different weapons 2 Cor 10:4&5.

IV. Christian citizenship

Now we have summary statement on the Christian and good citizenship, 2:17.

i. Honour all people

We are going to disagree with our fellow citizens in this pluralistic society. But let us treat all people with honour and respect as we uphold the lordship of Christ.

ii. Love the brotherhood

We are not simply to honour and respect our brothers and sisters in Christ, we are to love them, 1:22.

iii. Fear God

Proverbs 1:7. He alone is worthy of reverent fear and worship, Heb 12:28.

iv. Honour the king

Caesar was worshipped as a god. Peter subverts this by putting the king alongside “all people”. Our rulers are entitled to honour and respect for their work. But we will not render to Caesar the worship that belongs to God alone.

So then, let us as citizens of the Kingdom Heaven also be good citizens of the United Kingdom. "And seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the LORD for it; for in its peace you will have peace." (Jeremiah. 29:7).

* Based on some sermon notes on 1 Peter 2:13-17.

The Christian and the State (Part 1)

1 Peter 2:13-17: "13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king."

Peter is writing to elect exiles, who have been chosen by God (1:1-2). They have been called to be holy as he is holy (1:14-16). These elect exiles have been gathered out of the world to be the holy people of God (2:9&10). Peter addresses them as "sojourners and pilgrims" (2:11 & 12). Their citizenship is in heaven, but they have to live in the present world to the glory of God. In our verses, the apostle shows us how Christians are to relate to the State. Evangelicals have sometimes tended to withdraw from the world, but we are pilgrims, not hermits. We are not simply to focus on our personal salvation. The Christian life is much bigger than that. Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch theologian who became Prime Minister of his country said,

"There is not a square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'"

So, then, how are Christians to relate to the governing authorities?

I. Christians should submit to the ruling authorities

i. Submit to all ruling authorities

“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man…whether to the king…sent by him”. The idea of submission cuts across the grain of the modern mindset. We emphasise the right to self-expression over the obligation to submit to authority. Our fictional heroes like Inspector Morse “have a problem with authority”. The boss puts him off the case. But Morse, the old maverick goes ahead and solves it anyway. We tend to view authority with suspicion as a manipulative exercise of power and control. But there has to be order in society. The alternative to submission is anarchy where everyone does what is right in his own eyes. We know that when law and order breaks down, evil soon breaks out. Think of what happened in America in the wake of hurricane Katrina. Armed thugs ruled the roost, looting, plundering and intimidating the weak. God in his wisdom has ordained the human institutions of the state for our good. Paul Romans 13:1. This idea of submission applies not only to the state, but to all human relationships, see 1 Peter 2:18, 3:1, Ephesians 6:1-3.

Now in our democratic system, we get to elect the governing authorities. Our Queen is a constitutional monarch. Most of her powers are exercised by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. If we don’t like what the government is doing, we can vote them our every four or five years. That was not the case when Peter wrote this letter. The “king” was Nero, the Roman Emperor, an absolute monarch whose word was law. He was corrupt and despotic. He instigated persecution against Christians. But believers were still to submit to his authority, and the authority of those who governed on his behalf, vs. 14. Even rule by a tyrannical depot is better than no rule at all. Systems of government do not have to be perfect in order to command our submission. You may not agree with all that out present government has done, but we must sill obey the laws of the land.

What Peter says regarding the “king as supreme or governors, as those who are sent by him” also applies to us today. We have to submit to all tiers of government, national and local. And submit to those who act with the authority of government: the police, health and safety inspectors, the Inland Revenue, have our cars MOT tested etc.

ii. The task of ruling authorities

The reason why we should submit ourselves to the power of the state is given here in, vs. 14, "the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good." According to the Bible, the primary task of the State has to do with the implementation of law and order. Now, in the modern world the chief function of the State is often seen in terms of wealth generation . When Bill Clinton's first ran for president of the USA, one of his aides asked what the campaign was all about. Clinton replied. “It’s the economy stupid!” But more important than running the economy is the State’s obligation to enforce the law. Note the emphasis here on punishment. People don’t like that these days. All talk is of correction and rehabilitation. That has its place. But the Sate has been called to punish evildoers who break the law. Romans 13:3-4. Now in the most serious case this means that the state has the right to execute those who have been found guilty of murder. But it also means that the state has the right to incarcerate serious criminals and to levy fines against those who break the law.

In addition, the State should "praise those who do good" by encouraging and rewarding virtuous behaviour. I'm no great fan of the UK's class-bound honours system that rewards the great and the good with titles or "gongs". But giving some kind of public recognition to good citizens who have served their communities well can't be a bad thing. Note that the State’s task is essentially negative, to restrain evil. The governing authorities cannot change human nature. When Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a boy, he heard a conversation between his father and another man. The man said "Lloyd-George [early 20th century UK Prime Minister] is going to to more good for this country than Jesus Christ." People really thought that politicians could build the new Jerusalem on earth by acts of Parliament. What utter folly. The history of 20th century bears witness to this. Marxist Communism seems like a very good idea in principle. It would be nice if wealth was equally shared among the people and all things were held in common. But such Utopian ideals cannot be foisted upon people against the grain of human nature. Look at what happened under Mao Tse Tung in China, Stalin in Russia and Pol Pot in Cambodia. The State has to do with fallen humanity. Goverments cannot change that. Their basic task is a more modest one, to curb the worst excesses of humanity by punishing lawbreakers. It is not enough simply to encourage the sinner to do what is right. There must be the threat of punishment. Granted, this must be just, fair and appropriate punishment once guilt has been properly established. But there must be punishment none the less. The powers that be "do not bear the sword in vain".

But the work of governing authorities is made more complex and difficult by the widespread breakdown of moral order in UK. The values inculcated by the Christian faith have been forgotten or rejected, leaving a moral vacuum at the heart of our society. Family breakdown is widespread, young people are out of control on drink and drugs. They are stabbing one another on the streets. Politicians don't quite know know what do do about all this. Yet they must act to maintain law and order. The authorities and are having to intervene more and more to just keep a lid on things. In Cornwall, the Police are maintaining a curfew during the school holidays to stop young people running wild on the streets at night. ASBOS or Antisocial Behaviour Orders are used to punish and restrain bad behaviour in communities. The law is being used to enforce what used to be regarded as common decency and consideration for others. CCTV cameras constantly scan the streets on the look out for trouble. It seems that we cannot be allowed to live our lives in a responsible way with out the Big Brother State looking over our shoulders. David Wells comments,

"Lying between the law and freedom, however has always been this third domain. It is the domain of character, the practice of private virtue, such as honesty, decency, the telling of truth, and all the other kinds of moral obligation. It is the domain of public virtue, such a civic duty, responsibility, philanthropy, the articulation of all great ideas and good policies, all of those things which might be encompassed in Paul's statement that the Gentiles, 'who do not have the law do by nature what the law requires' (Rom. 2:14). This third domain is what must regulate life in the absence of legal coercion and governmental regulation. It is where law and restraint are self-imposed. The demands come from within not from without. In this area we find what John Silber, the former president of Boston University, has called 'obedience to the unenforceable.' This was the language of an English Jurist in the 20th century. John Fletcher Moulton, who went on to say that 'the real greatness of a nation, its true civilisation, is measured by the extent to which the nation trusts its citizens, and its area testifies to the way they behave in response to this trust.'

Today, this middle territory is shrinking daily just when our understanding of ourselves as moral beings collapses and it is being co-opted by the two domains that lie on each side of it. Law must now do what church, family, character, belief, and even cultural expectations once did by way of instructing and restraining human nature. What is going to happen, then if we keep stoking the fires with greater and greater amoral individualism and have to keep on dousing those fires with greater and greater recourse to litigation and regulation?" Losing Our Virtue, IVP, 1998, p.63-64.

Is this not a dangerous situation that we face? The law is having to do the job once accomplished by a sense of civic duty and basic human decency. It seems that we can we trusted less and less with our liberty as 'obedience to the unenforceable' declines. No wonder our freedoms are being eroded for the sake of restraining the tide of uncivil behaviour in our land. We are loosing our moral centre. Many are adrift on a restless sea of moral relativism. They care little for truth and virtue. What matters to them is the consumerist values of self-expression. Others react in horror against the tide of self-indulgence and turn to extremist fundamentalism as the cure for the ills of society. I am reminded of the words of W. B. Yeats,

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of a passionate intensity.
(The Second Coming)

In such a society, we can expect the State to be ever more invasive as it seeks to punish and restrain evil. In the wake of the chaos and destruction of the English Civil Wars, Thomas Hobbes wrote his Leviathan. He argued that life is "nasty, brutish and short" and that only a big Leviathan-like State can hold back the worst excesses of human nature. ASBOS, CCTV, and attempts by the Government to water down habeas corpus are perhaps ominous signs that Leviathan has begun to rear his ugly head once more. We must resist this by holding tenaciously to our civil liberties. But we need to do more than that. Our society needs to be re-moralised. We need to rediscover the value of self-restraint and obedience to the unenforceable standards of decency and good character. Then the State can safely withdraw to let us live our lives without too much interference. When a nation looses its virtue, it is difficult for the ruling authorities to fulfill their God-given role of restraining evil and encouraging good behaviour without resorting to increasingly invasive and tyrannical measures.

But how can we hope to re-moralise our country? It is a fact of history that the most morally elevated periods in our national history have usually followed periods of revival and awakening. The great social reforms of the 19th century including the abolition of slavery, health and safety improvements in the workplace, education for the poor and so on were the fruits of the Evangelical Revival associated with Whitefield and the Wesley brothers. With the momentum of that powerful movement of the Spirit behind them, men like Wilberforce and Shaftesbury were able to agitate successfully for social justice and moral reformation. The trend in contemporary secular politics it to sideline the voice of Christians. The disastrous results of this policy are all too apparent.

iii. A criterion for assessing the ruling authorities

In showing us the task of the State, "the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do good", Peter also gives us a criterion against which we can scrutinise the the governing authorities. Take one recent instance. Our Parliament failed in its duty to protect human life in passing the HFEA bill. The governing authorities did not act to safeguard vulnerable life in the womb by reducing the abortion limit. The State has no business allowing scientists to compromise the unique value of human life by allowing the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos for experimental purposes. The "powers that be" should praise those who do good by encouraging heterosexual marriage as the best context for bringing up children. In allowing “gay adoption”, the State has again failed in its God-given duty. Christians must not opt out of national debate on the big moral issues. When legislation is before Parliament, we must write to MP’s and government ministers about such matters.

Submit then to the power of the State, because the “powers that be” have been ordained by God to restrain evil and promote good behaviour. Pray for "kings and all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence." (1 Tim 2:1-4). Pray for our MP, that he will be open to the views of Christians in his constituency. An orderly society creates space for the life and witness of the church. We have every right to appeal to the State to uphold our religious liberties. Paul was willing to suffer for Christ’s sake, but he also expected the State to protect his rights as a Roman citizen, Acts 16:37, 25:11 etc.

iv. Submit to the ruling authorities for the Lord’s sake

Jesus is "the prince of the kings of the earth". We submit to rulers for his sake. This places limits on our submission. If there is a conflict between submitting to the "ordinance of man" and obeying the Lord, our allegiance to Christ comes first. We are called to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21). Caesar cannot lay claim unconditional obedience let alone worship. That belongs to God alone. Like Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, we refuse to put human rulers in the place of God, Daniel 3:16-18. When pressed, we will say with Peter, "We have to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29).

[Part 2 here]

* Based on some sermon notes on 1 Peter 2:13-17

Spider-Man Theology

Last night we watched a DVD of Spider-Man 3 and I was struck by the film's exploration of some key theological themes. One was the destructive reality of sin in our lives. Peter Parker aka Spider-Man is shown to be so obsessed with his own fame and success that he is incapable of sympathising with his troubled sweetheart, Mary Jane. For Parker, it is all "me, me, me". He wants to propose to MJ and shares his plans with aunt May. She kindly offers him her own engagement ring, but warns him that a husband has to put his wife before himself. Parker realises that he cannot do this. Ultimately his insensitivity coupled with flirtation with other girls alienates MJ and their relationship founders.

Early in the film we see a black substance, which turns out to be an alien symbiote attach itself to Peter's scooter. The symbiote creates a new supercharged spidey-suit that gives Spider-Man extra powers. But it also makes Peter more aggressive and vengeful. It is explained that the symbiote amplifies the characteristics of its host. Parker is aware of the destructiveness of this amplified self-expression, but he enjoys the power boost he gets from wearing the black suit. The question is raised, "How long can any man fight the darkness... before he finds it in himself?" This is a reminder that the human heart is a heart of darkness. It is from within that that all manner of wickedness flows (Jeremiah 17:9, Mark 7:21-23). Parker vengefully hunts down Flint Marko, the "Sandman" who killed his uncle and tries to wipe him out. Then he gets into a fight with his best friend, Harry, tossing a grenade at him for good measure. When a work-rival Eddie Brock steals his job, Parker spitefully exposes his photographic fraud just to get his own back. Peter has forgotten the last words of his uncle that "with great power comes great responsibility."

Eventually Parker frees himself of the symbiote, which then attaches itself to Brock. He then takes the form of Venom, a kind of evil Spider-Man. Together with the Sandman, Brock takes MJ hostage to get at Spider-Man. Peter Parker asks Harry to help him defeat his foes and save MJ. Initially he refuses, but when his butler reveals that Spider-Man did not kill his father, he zooms to Spider-Man's assistance. Together they defeat Venom and the Sandman, but at a cost. Harry is fatally wounded saving his old friend Peter Parker. Harry and Peter are reconciled before Harry dies. There are echoes here of Jesus' words, "Greater love has no-one than this than to lay down one's life for his friends." (John 15:13). The Sandman reappears in the human form of Flint Marko and explains to Peter that he only stole money to help his sick daughter and that he did not mean to kill Parker's uncle. The cycle of violence and revenge is ended in a cathartic moment as Parker says, "I forgive you." Marko breaks down into dust and is blown away. MJ and Peter begin to mend their relationship in the wake of Harry's funeral.

The sinfulness of human nature, the futility of revenge, the grace of forgiveness and the reconciling power of self-sacrifice are all given powerful expression in this film. Towards the end of the movie, a repentant Peter Parker reflects, "Whatever battles rages inside us, we always have a choice… it’s the choices that make us who we are, and we can always choose to do right." God will certainly hold us accountable for our choices. But the Calvinist in me balks at the suggestion that, "we can always choose to do right". The human predicament is worse than Spider-Man suggests. As Jesus says, "whoever commits sin is a slave of sin" (John 8:34). By nature we "love darkness rather than light because our deeds are evil" (John 3:19). Our hope is not in unaided freedom of choice, because the very choices we make are skewed by slavery to sin. We need One who can liberate us from our thralldom to the dark power of sin. Who can do this? Such a liberation is beyond the power of the greatest Superhero. But Jesus said, "if the Son makes you free you shall be free indeed." (John 8:36). The Lord Jesus laid down his life to 'break the power of cancelled sin and set the prisoner free'. In him we can walk in light and liberty. Even for the believer there is still a struggle against sin as "the flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh, so you do not do the things that you wish." (Galatians 5:17). But we know that "sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace." (Romans 6:14).

We saw Spider-Man 3 in the cinema when it first came out. But it is only on watching the DVD last night that the "theology" of the film really hit home. It goes to show that even a big Hollywood blockbuster can thrown some light on the human condition, even if that light needs to be further illuminated by the gospel of Christ.

God's Word In Servant Form by Richard B. Gaffin Jr.

God's Word In Servant-Form:
Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck on the Doctrine of Scripture,
by Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Reformed Academic Press, 2008, 107pp.

In his The Divine Spiration of Scripture [reviewed here], A.T.B. McGowan's proposes that evangelicals should abandon the doctrine of biblical inerrancy in favour of a reconfigured notion of the infallibility of Scripture. He puts the emphasis on God speaking infallibly through Scripture rather than on the inerrant properties of the biblical text. In doing so, McGowan claims that he is following the precedent of Dutch Reformed theologians Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck. According to him, Kuyper and Bavinck eschewed biblical inerrancy as advocated by Princeton divines B. B. Warfield and A. A. Hodge and instead opted for a 'high' view of Scripture as God's infallible Word that did not entail a commitment to an errorless Bible. Gaffin is not responding directly to McGowan's thesis in this little volume. His interlocutors are Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, who argued that biblical inerrancy is a regrettable a deviation from the mainstream Christian view of the Bible. They too sought to drive a wedge between the Dutch theologians and Princeton.

Gaffin pays careful attention to the works of Kuyper and Bavinck and demonstrates convincingly that they held that the Bible is both infallible and without error. Considering that McGowan goes out of his way to identify with the views of these men, it is passing strange that he explicitly rejects one of their controlling perspectives on the Bible. He critiques the incarnational model of Scripture (p. 119-121), which is based on the analogy between the divine/human union in the Person of Christ and the Bible as God's Word through human beings. He suggests that Bavinck shares his misgivings. But this is not necessarily the case. As Gaffin shows, both Kuyper and Bavinck model biblical inspiration on the incarnation of the the divine Logos. Kuyper wrote,

"As the Logos has not appeared in the form of glory but in the form of a servant, joining Himself to the reality of our nature as this had come to be through the results of sin, so also for the revelation of His Logos, God the Lord accepts our consciousness, our human life as it is... As a product of writing, the Holy Scripture, too, bears on its forehead the mark of the form of a servant." (p. 7 & 8).

As Christ's human nature, even in servant form was without sin, so argued Kuyper, Scripture as God's Word through human beings is without error. Now the Dutch theologian did not believe that the Bible is scientifically accurate. He acknowledged that the Scripture is often 'impressionistic' rather than pedantically precise. But he said that the 'graphic inspiration' of Scripture aims at "the removal of every error which threatened to creep into any writing through inadvertence and malicious intent". (p. 29 & 30).

Similarly Bavinck's doctrine of Scripture draws heavily on the enfleshment of the divine Word,

"And in order to reach that goal [that God will be all in all] the word of revelation passes over into Scripture. Thus, Scripture, too, is means and instrument, not a goal. It flows out of the incarnation of God in Christ; it is in a certain sense the continuation of the incarnation, the way along which Christ dwells in his church... Scripture is the servant-from of revelation." (p. 56).

Bavinck did not use the language of biblical inerrancy and he was careful to stress the humanness of Scripture. But he held that the Bible both in form and content is the very Word of God. Rather than distancing himself from the inerrantist doctrine of Hodge and Warfield, Bavinck commends them as men who held to the historic Christian teaching on the inspiration and authority of Scripture (p. 69).

Richard Gaffin's work seriously calls into question important aspects of the Rogers and McKim thesis. By implication he has also shattered the central plank in the argument advanced by A. T. B. McGowan in The Divine Spiration of Scripture, that like him Kuyper and Bavinck rejected biblical inerrancy in favour of a looser category of infallibility. But readers will find much more here than polemics. In setting forth the mature teachings of Kuyper and Bavinck, Gaffin has opened up a rich vein of constructive theological reflection on the nature of Scripture as God's theanthropic Word in servant-form.

Order info:

After trying unsuccessfully to get hold of this book in the UK, I ordered my copy from Solid Ground Christian Books in the USA. To save p&p, group with another slim volume like The Humanness of John Calvin, by Richard Stauffer, Solid Ground Christian Books, 2008. Together they cost $24.75 or approx £12.40 inc. p&p. Solid Ground also do a very good deal on the complete set of Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics - I obtained my set from them.

The Divine Spiration of Scripture by A. T. B. McGowan (Book Review: Part 3)

Infallibility, confession, preaching, conclusion

So, if McGowan is unhappy with the concept of biblical inerrancy [see Part 2], what does he propose in its place? He devotes a chapter to Infallibility: An Evangelical Alternative. He argues that it is possible to maintain a high view of Scripture without opting for either inerrancy or errancy. He seeks to prove his case by reference to three Reformed theologians, James Orr, Herman Bavinck and C. K. Berkhouer. The Scottish theologian James Orr was a contributor to the Fundamentals series. But rather strangely, he did not believe in biblical inerrancy and advocated the view that there are degrees of inspiration in Scripture. Orr also suggested that God did not keep the human authors of Scripture from including the defects of their sources in the biblical writings. While McGowan rejects Orr's position on degrees of inspiration, he applauds his general approach. Next, the author turns his attention to Bavinck. He has many helpful things to say about the theologian's doctrine of Scripture. Bavinck stressed the importance of the human authors of the Bible and rejected a mechanical dictation theory of inspiration. He placed Scripture in the context of God's self-revelation and gave due weight to the testimony of the Spirit. So far so good. But McGowan also tries to demonstrate that Bavinck rejected inerrancy in favour of infallibility. It is difficult for me to offer a thorough assesment of this thesis. I haven't yet read all that Bavinck has to say on the the doctrine of Scripture, as I've only just taken delivery of the full set of his Reformed Dogmatics. But I did take the trouble to check the context of one of McGowan's Bavinck quotes,

"Aspects of Scripture that the inerrantists 'explain away' pose no problem for Bavinck. He goes so far as to say that 'the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised to the church does not exclude the possibility of human error.' Such a claim could never be made by an inerrantist." (p. 158).

The Bavinck citation is from page 32 of Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1, Baker Academic, 2003. In context, the theologian is not talking about Scripture at all. He is discussing church dogma. The full quote reads thus,

"In Catholic theology there is thus room left for the question of how far the truth of God has found fully adequate expression in the church's dogma. On the basis of Protestant assumptions, however, this is much more the case, for here the guidance of the Holy Spirit does not exclude the possibility of human error."

As a convinced 'inerrantist' I have no problems whatsoever with that statement. I can't think of any responsible advocate of biblical inerrancy who believes the Holy Spirit guarantees that church dogma is inerrant. McGowan's use of this quote to bolster his position on biblical inerrancy (or the lack of it) is seriously misleading. Bavinck's doctrine of Scripture is rich, nuanced and would repay careful study. But as far as I'm concerned, McGowan in no way succeeds in pitting the Dutch theologian against Warfield on inerrancy. Later in the chapter McGowan reflects on Bavinck's approach, "He was a model of careful and thorough scholarship, showing a determination to understand the views of other theologians properly." (p. 164). Would that McGowan had followed Bavinck's model more carefully himself!

McGowan concludes his foray into historical theology by saying that Berkhouwer's doctrine of Scripture, which is often regarded as Barth-influenced, is actually close to that of Bavinck. He argues that although Berkhouer rejected inerrancy, it is possible to come to a "generous assessment of his position" (p. 162) when put in the context of Dutch Reformed theology.

McGowan's proposals on infallibility underline the value of the human side of Scripture. We must not belittle that fact the Scripture is God's Word to human beings through human beings. The theologian rightly stresses the importance of the witness of the Spirit in relation to Scripture. It is also good to be reminded that God is able to use his Word as it is now to fulfill his purposes, even though the autographa are no longer extant. But in denying that Scripture as originally given was verbally inerrant, McGowan has severed the link between the all knowing God who cannot lie, and his self-revelation in Scripture. If Scripture fails to fully reflect the identity of its divine author, how can we stake our eternal destinies on its promises? (See Is Inerrancy Unbiblical, Rationalistic and Presumptuous? by Martin Downes).

Before the book concludes, McGowan has some helpful things to say regarding Scripture and confessions of faith and Scripture and preaching. He suggests that evangelicals need to work on a constructive account of the relationship between Scripture and church tradition. He rejects both the Roman Catholic view that tradition stands alongside Scripture and the Orthodox position that subsumes the Bible in it's traditions. He also discounts two extreme Protestant views on the value of confessions of faith. One more or less ignores confessional statements in the name of 'freedom of conscience' in order to justify heretical teachings. The other makes confessional subscription so 'tight' that reformation of church confessions in the light of Scripture becomes impossible. McGowan argues that confessions must be valued as faithful expressions of biblical doctrine. But they should be subjected to constant scrutiny, and where necessary revised as the Spirit gives new insight into the meaning of Scripture. Confessions should also be regularly updated to reflect contemporary concerns. The great seventeenth century documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith do not address issues like theological liberalism or religious pluralism. McGowan notes that the Theological Commission of the World Reformed Fellowship is currently engaged writing a new statement of faith for the twenty first century. A penultimate chapter, Preaching Scripture commends John Calvin's practice of the systematic exposition of the Word of God. McGowan writes, "The [Minister's] task is to expound Scripture and this should have a central place in worship. It should also be accompanied by much prayer, in recognition of our dependence upon the work of the Holy Spirit," (p. 206). Well, I can say 'amen' to that at least.

There is much that is valuable and thought provoking in The Divine Spiration of Scripture. When speaking about biblical inerrancy we do need to guard against minimising the humanness of Scripture. We also need to stress that God has not simply given us an inerrant Book and left us to get on with the business of interpreting it as we see fit. We must give careful heed to what God is saying through the Scriptures by his Spirit. But we can take all that on board without abandoning the idea that the Bible is without error. However, the standard formula that Scripture is inerrant as originally given in the autographa needs to be qualified a little. As McGowan points out, the original autographa of Deuteronomy presumably did not include Chapter 34. The autographa of Jermemiah was destroyed by king Jehoiakim, and had to be rewritten 'with many similar words added'. Perhaps it would be better to say that the autographa as found in their final canonical form were without error. That would take into account editorial additions such as Deuteronomy 34 and Jeremiah's rewrite. Evangelical perspectives on Scripture certainly need to be challenged, but McGowan's rejection of inerrancy is a step too far. In reading the book, I sometimes got the impression that he was overly keen to avoid some of the standard Barthian critiques of the evangelical doctrine of Scripture. He certainly seems of offer a very sympathetic reading of the views of Barth and Berkhouwer. One slighty strange feature of this work is McGowan's attempt to turn the inerrancy debate into the theological equivalent of golf's Ryder Cup with plucky European infallibists battling it out against uppity American inerrantists. But this doesn't really work. McGown has failed to show that Bavinck had probelms with inerrancy and I know of plenty European theologians who affirm that the Bible is God's inerrant Word .

In his conclusion McGowan summarises the main themes of his book and tries to anticipate the critique of his proposals on inerrancy. He reveals that on reading the book in manuscript form, a friend warned him of the danger of being 'on thin ice' (p. 210). This is true and we would be unwise to follow McGowan onto the 'thin ice' where he denies that the Bible is God's inerrant Word. The inerrancy of Scripture should be one of the fundamental presuppositions of an authentically Reformed theology. God is there. He has spoken. His word is truth from beginning to end. It is this Word that truly, faithfully and without error bears witness to Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the Word. I conclude this review series with the words of Reformed theologian Donald Macleod,

"I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Why? Not because I am unaware of current trends in Biblical studies or even because I can vindicate the Bible against all the objections adduced by historians, scientists and literary critics. My belief in inerrancy arises from loyalty to Christ. He said, 'The Scripture cannot be broken'. This position - the fundamentalist position, if you wish - is not bibliolatry. It is Christiolatry. It is an act of devotion to the One we regard as a teacher sent by God". (From Glory to Golgotha, Christian Focus, 2002, p. 153). [Part 1, Part 2]

The Divine Spiration of Scripture by A. T. B. McGowan (Book Review Part 2)

Is the Bible inerrant?

Now we come to McGowan's controversial proposal that evangelicals abandon biblical 'inerrancy' in favour of 'infallibility'. Before he tackles the subject head on, McGowan sketches the historical context in which evangelicals first used the language of biblical inerrancy. On a chapter on The Enlightenment and Liberal Theology, he shows that liberalism capitulated to the anti-supernatural mindset of the Enlightenment. This had an impact on how theologians viewed the Bible. Schleiermacher, the father of liberal theology taught rather than being God's authoritative self-revelation, the Bible is an expression of man's consciousness of the divine. Soon the Bible was subjected to radical criticism. It's portrayal of Jesus as the miracle working Son of God who died for sinners and rose from the dead was questioned. How could men and women in the age of the light bulb accept that Jesus walked on water? The Bible's cosmology, history, theology and ethics were all subjected to critical appraisal in the light of 'modern knowledge' and 'the assured results of scholarship'. McGowan details two differing responses to the challenge of liberalism. First the neo-orthodoxy. Karl Barth became disillusioned with liberal theology. Over and against liberalism which tended to collapse God's existence into human consciousness of the divine, Barth emphasized the "Godness of God". God is wholly other and we can only know him because he has revealed himself to us in Jesus the living Word. For Barth, Scripture is a witness to the Word of God, but it is not to be completely identified with the Word of God. The Bible only becomes God's Word in an event of divine self-disclosure. Next McGowan charts the conservative evangelical response to liberal theology. Biblical scholar J. Gresham Machen insisted that liberalism is a different religion to genuine Christianity. He stressed the authority of Scripture and defended the Bible's account of of salvation from sin by the Lord Jesus Christ. Cornelius Van Til challenged philosophical assumptions of liberalism. He argued that epistemology must begin with God's self-revelation in Scripture, rather than man's autonomous reason.

It is important for McGowan's case that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy was developed in the heat of the battle for the Bible between liberal and evangelical theologians. This is brought into sharp focus in the next chapter on Fundamentalism and Inerrancy. It fell to Princeton Theologians B. B. Warfield and A. A. Hodge to give classic expression to the the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. In an article entitled 'Inspiration' in the Presbyterian Review (1881), they argued that due to the superintendence of God, the original manuscripts of the biblical books, or the autographa were without error. As far as the two theologians were concerned, they were not being innovatory here. They were simply setting forth the historic Christian view of Scripture in the face of the challenge from liberal theology. The word 'inerrancy' was not used in the article, but the key idea that the Bible is errorless was clearly explained and defended. Warfield went on to write several major essays on the doctrine of Scripture.

McGowan goes on to tell the story of fundamentalism. A series of volumes entitled The Fundamentals were published from 1910 to 1915. Each book sought to defend a key Christian doctrine that was under attack from liberal theology. But what began with a series of books soon became a distinct fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalists were extremely hostile to liberalism. They held tenaciously to the inerrancy of Scripture, but they tended to verge on the dictation theory of biblical inspiration. They were often quite anti-intellectual and held scholarship in suspicion. Many tried to avoid issues of textual criticism by holding that the Textus Receputs upon which the King James Version of the Bible is based is without error. Some even believed that the 1611 KJV translation is the inerrant Word of God. Warfield and others in the Reformed tradition may have disagreed with the way in which fundamentalists gave expression to their doctrine of Scripture. But there was basic agreement that inerrancy reflects the Bible's own self-witness and that this has been the default position of the historic Christian church.

This was called into question by Rogers and McKim. They argued that the 'Central Christian Tradition' including the early Church Fathers and Reformers such as Luther and Calvin did not advocate the inerrancy of Scripture. Warfield and others were led to develop this new approach because of their adherence to Scottish Common Sense Philosophy. It has pointed out that liberals too held to Common Sense Philosophy, so that in itself does not prove anything. The Princeton theologians set forth the doctrine of Scripture with fresh precision, making it clear that the Bible is God's inerrant Word. It often happens that false teaching causes the church to state its doctrine with greater clarity and force. McGowan notes that the proposals of Rogers and McKim have been discussed and found wanting by a number of serious scholars. He does not endorse their point of view. But neither is he happy with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

So, what is McGowan's problem with inerrancy? He takes issue with the assumption that because God is both truthful and omniscient that the Bible must therefore be without error. It is this assumption that made inerrantists insist that the original autographa were inerrant. Copyists mistakes and errors may be found in the Bibles we have today. But the pristine Word of God was given in the autographa. McGowan says that God could have given us inerrant Scriptures. But he opted not to because the Bible is God's Word communicated to us through human writers with all the limitations that entails. This is deeply troubling. The link between the veracity of God and the truthfulness of his Word is present in the Bible's self-witness. The Lord is "the God of truth" (Psalm 31:5). He "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). God's self-revelation in Scripture bears the hallmarks of his truthfulness. It is described as "the word of truth" (Psalm 119:43). Jesus prayed, "Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." (John 17:17). Kevin Vanhoozer, who can hardly be described as a tub thumping fundamentalist writes,

"The basis for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is located both in the nature of God and in the Bible's teaching about itself. First, if God is perfect – all knowing, all wise, all-good – it follows that God speaks the truth. God does not tell lies; God is not ignorant. God's Word is thus free from all error arising either from conscious deceit or unconscious ignorance. Such is the unanimous confession of the Psalmist, the prophets, the Lord Jesus and the apostles. Second, the Bible presents itself as the Word of God written. Thus, in addition to its humanity (which is never denied), the Bible also enjoys the privileges and prerogatives of its status as God's Word. God's Word is thus wholly reliable, a trustworthy guide to reality, a light unto our path."

Several times McGowan suggests that inerrancy tends towards a dictation theory of biblical inspiration which undermines the human side of Scripture. But while this may be the case in some fundamentalist writings, Reformed theologians such as Warfield have been careful to give due weight to the fact that God communicated his Word through human beings. Holy Scripture bears the unmistakable stamp of the personalities of its human authors. But what Moses, Jeremiah, Luke and Paul etc. wrote was kept from error by the guiding presence of the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, McGowan argues that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy was rationalistic attempt on behalf of Hodge, Warfield and others to respond to the challenges of liberal theology by showing that the Bible is scientifically accurate. It is certainly true that Hodge saw theology as a scientific exercise where the theologian's task was to categorise and arrange the raw data of biblical revelation into a coherent theological system. This is no doubt an unhelpful model for doing theology that owes too much to Enlightenment thinking. But responsible advocates of inerrancy have never suggested that the Bible must be accurate to the standards of modern scientific precision in order to be regarded as free from error. The Bible is not a scientific text book and does not purport to be. It uses approximations and generalisations that would not fulfill the strictest scientific criterion. But the basic truthfulness of Scripture is not affected by this. In the face of critical scholarship, Hodge and Warfield were right to insist that the Bible is entirely trustworthy and without error.

Leading on from this, McGowan accuses inerrantists of having a 'propositionalist' view of Scripture. Propositionalists view the theologian's task in terms of extracting factual propositions from Scripture upon which to base their theological systems. In the quest for inerrant propositions, careless theologians may ride roughshod over the differing biblical genres. It has to be said that McGowan is careful to safeguard the value of biblical propositions. Where would we be without propositions like 'Jesus is Lord'? But as he points out, an overly propositionalist approach to Scripture has been rightly critiqued by the likes of Kevin Vanhoozer. It is interesting to note that notwithstanding this, Vanhoozer is still willing to affirm biblical inerrancy. I put this question to him in a recent interview. His response makes interesting reading,

"GD: Is there room for inerrancy in your theodramatic account of the Bible as the God-given script that the church is to understand and perform?

KV: Yes. I hold Scripture to be the word of God written. I believe that God speaks by means of the human discourse of Scripture and that the Holy Spirit so guided the authors that what they say/do with their words corresponds to the divine intent. God is the divine playwright who communicates his ideas through the voices of the various human authors. It's true that the term 'inerrancy' does not appear in Drama of Doctrine, but it doesn't follow that the idea is absent. To think that it does is to commit the word-concept fallacy.

One reason I didn't employ the word [in The Drama of Doctrine] is that there is confusion about what inerrancy means. It doesn't mean that we should interpret the Bible literalistically, turning a deaf ear to its figures of speech and literary genres. What it does mean is that when we rightly interpret the Bible, taking due consideration of what authors are doing with their words in their speech and literary genres, we can be assured that its truth claims are indeed true. And by 'true' I mean that its claims are reliable because they correspond to God, his creation, and to what God has done, is doing, and will do to renew his creation through Christ."

Vanhoozer's position is a far cry from McGowan's. While the latter does not wish to be identified as an 'errantist', he speaks of 'discrepancies' in the Gospels that are due to God not overruling the humanity of the evangelists (p. 118). He also writes,

"If God can effectively communicate and acts savingly through imperfect human beings who are called to preach the gospel, why is it necessary to argue that the authors of Scripture were supernaturally kept from the slightest discrepancy?" (p.118).

McGowan suggests that discrepancies and apparent contradictions are not merely the product of textual corruption. Such things would have been present even in the original autographa. This causes him no problems as he has denied that God's inerrant knowledge of all things is reflected in Scripture. Once more he charges inerrantists of running the danger of "so denying the humanness of the authors of the Scriptures that they fall into a 'dictation theory' of Scripture" (p. 119). It is rather sad that McGowan, a noted Reformed theologian seems to be echoing old style liberal objections to the evangelical doctrine of Scripture at this point. He may have shown that there were some flaws in the theological methodology of the old Princeton theologians who developed the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. But I am not persuaded that he has made a good case for abandoning the historic evangelical teaching that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. McGowan says that if forced to choose between inerrancy and errancy, he would opt for the former. But his view that the veracity of God does not guarantee the entire truthfulness of his Word does not serve to engender confidence in Scripture. [Part 1, Part 3]

The Divine Spiration of Scripture by A. T. B. McGowan (Book Review: Part 1)

Locus & terminology

The Divine Spiration of Scripture: Challenging evangelical perspectives,
by A. T. B. McGowan, Apollos, 2007

It is fair to say that this book has attracted some pretty hostile reviews. The author expected as much, writing, "Clearly, some of the argument presented in this book is controversial, particularly that evangelicals should no longer use the term 'inerrancy'." A number of reviewers (here and here) have chosen to concentrate almost entirely on this controversial proposal. But I want to try and review the book as a whole. McGowan has some helpful things to say and evangelicals need to be challenged to set forth the doctrine of Scripture with greater thoughtfulness and care. The review will be split up into several posts.

McGowan begins by questioning the tendency amongst evangelicals to place the doctrine of Scripture first in the locus of systematic theology. This can also be seen in many evangelical statements of faith, which typically begin with a statement on the Bible. McGowan argues that theology should begin with God himself before considering his self-revelation in Scripture. He would like to see Scripture treated as an aspect of the work of the Holy Spirit. The writer no doubt has a point. But the task of theology is to articulate the Bible's witness to what God has done in Christ. We can only know the Lord savingly through Scripture's testimony to the God of the Gospel. So, it is not altogether inappropriate to begin with God's self-revelation in Scripture. As McGowan points out however, there is some diversity on this matter in the Reformed confessions of faith. Some like the Genevan Confession and Westminster Confession of Faith begin with a statement on Scripture, others such as the Scots Confession and the Belgic Confession start with God. At the time of the Reformation, the issue was the authority of Scripture, with Protestants insisting that Scripture alone is out authority over and against the Roman Catholic teaching that Scripture and tradition are equally authoritative. Those confessions that put Scripture first were being upfront about this. Their theology was based on Scripture alone. Post Schleiermacher it is important to establish that theology is based on the witness of Scripture. Theology is not primarily an expression of the subjective religious consciousness. Placing a statement on Scripture first in the locus of theology serves to emphasise that whatever we say about God in his triune majesty and mighty acts must be informed by his written self-revelation. This does not entail an evidentialist approach to theology, whereby we have to prove that the Bible is inerrant before we can say anything meaningful about God. That God exists and that he has revealed himself in creation and [inerrantly] in Scripture should be the basic presupposition of consistently Reformed theology. But in the last analysis, where we place the doctrine of Scripture in our theological systems is less important than what we say about Scripture. I note that John Frame, who like McGowan's is a presuppositionalist, begins his Salvation Belongs to the Lord; An Introduction to Systematic Theology with three chapters on God before discussing Scripture. Herman Bavinck, also a presuppositionalist devotes the first volume of his Reformed Dogmatics to prolegomena, including the doctrine of Scripture before he considers the God and Creation.

McGowan proposes some terminological revision in formulating the doctrine of Scripture. First he suggests that we replace "inspiration" with "spiration". In 2 Timothy 3:16, the apostle Paul writes, "All Scripture is theopneustos [God-breathed]". McGowan notes that "inspiration" literally means to 'breathe into', while "spiration" more appropriately means 'to breathe out'. 'Spiration' therefore captures Paul's meaning, that all Scripture is the product of God's creative breath. Besides, 'inspired' is often taken to mean 'inspiring' as in Shakespeare's 'inspiring' plays. Scripture is far more than a literary classic. It is God's own Spirit-given Word. I agree, then that 'spiration' is a more appropriate designation of Scripture than 'inspiration'. But it is a slightly unwieldy term and I can't see catching on outside the world of academic theology. Better I think to say with the NIV that Scripture is 'God-breathed'. Secondly, McGowan posits that 'illumination' should be replaced by 'recognition'. He rightly insists that Scripture does not need to be illuminated. It is our minds that are darkened due to the noetic effects of sin. But Scripture does speak of God enlightening the minds of believers (2 Cor 4:6, Eph 1:18). 'Illumination' is therefore a useful word when defined as the witness of the Spirit which enables the believer to recognise Scripture as the Word of God. Thirdly McGowan argues that 'comprehension' is more appropriate than 'perspicuity'. The latter could be taken to mean that Scripture is so clear that it can be understood by the human mind without the help of the Spirit. It is better therefore to speak of the Spirit giving us comprehension of the meaning of Scripture. But there is something to be said in favour of perspicuity. As McGowan acknowledges, the concept was originally developed to show that the essential message of Scripture is so clear that can be grasped by believers without the help of specialists. I suggest that perspicuity is a useful concept in our postmodern setting. Postmodern hermeneutics have cast doubt on our ability to access the meaning of Scripture. We need therefore to emphasise that the Bible is capable of being understood accurately, if never exhaustively. But this does not mean that we can truly comprehend the meaning of Scripture apart from the revelatory work of the Spirit. The final and most controversial proposal is that evangelicals should opt for 'infallibility' over 'inerrancy'. McGowan says that 'inerrancy' denotes 'a turn towards a somewhat mechanical and even rationalistic approach to Scripture, basing its authority on a set of inerrant manuscripts.' (p. 48-49). In defining 'infallibility', the writer does not speak of a quality of the biblical text, so much as God's use of Scripture,

"The argument for 'infallibility' is that the final authority for the Christian is the authority of God speaking in and through his Word and that the Holy Spirit infallibly uses God's Word to achieve all he intends to achieve." (p. 49).

We should not lose sight of God's dynamic use of his own Word. Without doubt the Lord infallibly uses Scripture to fulfill his purposes. But is it true that holding that the Bible itself is without error is necessarily to have 'a mechanical and even rationalistic' view of Scripture? I will discuss McGowan's proposals on biblical inerrancy in the next part of this review series. [Part 2, Part 3]

William Wilberforce by William Hague

William Wilberforce, The Life of the Great Anti-Slave Trade Campaigner,
by William Hague, Harper Collins, 2007, 582 pp.

Last year marked the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade. Slavery itself was abolished in the British Empire in 1833. Many men and women campaigned against the slave trade, but the acknowledged leader of the anti-slavery movement was William Wilberforce. William Hague has put us in his debt with this well written and compelling biography. He evidently does not share the reformer's evangelical convictions, but he evidences a sympathetic understanding of his subject. The author's political background (he was a Conservative Cabinet Minister, then Leader of the Opposition and is currently Shadow Foreign Secretary) give him a valuable insight into the political aspects of Wilberforce's life.

Wilberforce was the son of a wealthy Hull merchant. As a child, he spent some time living with his caring uncle and aunt, who introduced Wilberforce to evangelical Christianity. But when his parents became aware of his interest in “Methodist enthusiasm”, they brought him back home and immersed him in the glitzy world of high society. William’s early religious impressions soon evaporated. At university, Wilberforce wasted much of his time playing around and gambling, only obtaining a degree by the skin of his teeth. With his ready wit, easy charm and beautiful singing voice Wilberforce was a popular, but directionless young man. He became a Member of Parliament together with his old friend from Cambridge and one day Prime Minister, William Pitt. Wilberforce frequented the London Genteman's clubs where gambling was rife. He was ambitions and hoped to cut a dash in Parliament. But all this changed when William invited an old friend, Isaac Milner to join him on tour of Europe. Milner was a convinced evangelical. The two men often talked of religious matters and Wilberforce became increasingly serious about spiritual things. He read Philip Dodderidge’s The Rise and Progress of Religion, and the Lord used his to effect “a great change” in the young man’s life. He was converted to evangelical Christianity.

Hague endeavours to identify psychological causes for Wilberforce's conversion experience. But he does not try to explain away his turn to the evangelical faith. The writer recognises that becoming a Christian was the key event in the reformer's life. His faith gave him the moral conviction and gutsy perseverance needed to spearhead the anti-slavery campaign. But at first, conversion made him consider abandoning politics to enter the Christian ministry. He discussed his thoughts with the preacher John Newton, whom Wilberforce had known from childhood. Newton, an ex-slave trader urged him to continue in Parliament where he could use his influence for the good of society. Wilberforce now understood what he was to do with his life, “God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation Manners (or Morals)”. Hague demonstrates that Wilberforce's Christian faith impacted on every area of his life. Believing in Christ gave him deep joy and contentment amid the hectic business of his life.

Politics is a messy business even for a person of faith and conviction like Wilberforce. The man who dedicated his life to liberating poor slaves also supported the suspension of habeas corpus and during the time of the Napoleonic wars. Some in his own day (and since) accused Wilberforce of hypocrisy because he appeared to be more concerned for African slaves than for the poor, downtrodden British worker. But Wilberforce supported various campaigns to help and educate the poor in his own land. Hague is at his sympathetic best in trying to understand how his subject related the political complexities of the day. He argues that Wilberforce's Christian faith gave coherence to his seemingly contradictory political decisions. The great liberator attacked slavery because the vicious trade undermined Christian faith and virtue. For the same reason he accepted that civil rights had to be suspended in wartime. He was concerned lest the anti-Christian fervour of the French Revolution spread across the English Channel.

Wilberforce realised that politics is the “art of the possible". Change cannot simply be foisted on people. He set about gathering support for his two "great aims" both in parliament and in the nation at large. He worked closely with a range of interested parties, including characters like Charles James Fox and his close friend William Pitt. After many reversals and set backs, the slave trade was abolished in 1807 with Parliament voting 283 to 16 in favour of Wilberforce’s Bill. In 1833, shortly before his death, slavery was totally abolished in the British Empire.

But Wilberforce was involved in much more than the abolition of slavery. He was a best selling author. His A Practical View of Christianity exposed the nominal religion of the upper classes and set forth the evangelical faith in a provocative and winsome manner. He was an active philanthropist, involved in many good causes including the improvement of working conditions in the factories, the RSPCA. He advocated the work of overseas mission. In a three hour speech to Parliament, he successfully argued against the East India Company’s ban on evangelistic work in India.

Wilberforce was a devoted family man. He married Barbara Spooner at the age of thirty seven. Together they had six children. Hague paints a wonderful picture of Wilberforce at home, struggling against an ever mounting burden of correspondence against the backdrop of noises off from his beloved children. Wilberforce's vivacious, witty personality and generous disposition made his home a magnet for guests of all kinds. Politicians sought his advice. Campaigners tried to enlist his support. Those fallen on hard times begged for his aid. The constant stream of visitors drove domestic staff to distraction, as they could never be sure how many people to cater for at meal times. But such was life in the Wilberforce household. With an income of £8,000 a year Wilberforce was quite a wealthy man. But he ended his life in relative poverty and with no home of his own. He had to sell his property to pay off the debts incurred by one of his feckless children. But he bore his losses with good grace, acknowledging the Lord's good hand in his plight. As Hague comments, "For forty-five years he had believed in providence; he was not going to stop now." (p. 495).

William Wilberforce served in public life not out of personal ambition, but for the good of the people. His efforts alleviated the misery of countless thousands of slaves. He made goodness fashionable in the UK, and helped to reform society for the better. Hague is probably right that Wilberforce would have been a disastrous Cabinet Minister. His determination to see all sides of every question made him somewhat indecisive. While always clear on the big issues, he could flip flop back and fore on lesser matters before finally making up his mind. His approach would have been a recipe for departmental paralysis. But his winsomeness, independence of spirit and gift for parliamentary oratory made him a formidable campaigning politician. William Hague has given us a convincing and engaging portrait of William Wilberforce. If you haven't yet decided on what to read on your summer holidays, then get this inspiring book!

Exiled Preacher Interviewed

Regular readers will have come across my Blogging in the name of the Lord interviews [if not see the top three entries under 'Favourite series & posts']. Andrew Roycroft of Double Usefulness thought it was about time that I gave an interview. If the format seems somewhat familiar, that's because he's 'borrowed' most of his questions from my interviews! The cheek of it. Look out for some inspirational advice for those thinking of starting a blog. Anyway, you can see the result here.