Who is the Head of the Church?

Last night I drove to Cheltenham to speak on behalf of the Protestant Truth Society at Cheltenham Evangelical Free Church on the queastion Who is the Head of the Church? 

Here's an excerpt from the intro:

At certain points in church history the big issue has been, “Who is the head of the Church?” This was the case at the time of the Reformation, when the Reformers insisted that Christ alone is the head of the Church to the exclusion of the pope. It was the defining point in the Disruption of the Church of Scotland in 1843 that led to the founding of the breakaway Free Church of Scotland. The seceders could no longer tolerate the position where local grandees appointed church leaders. In 1934 the German Confessing Churches published the Barmen Declaration in an attempt to resist the Nazification of the Church. They asserted that the Church belongs solely to Christ and is subject to his Word alone.

I suggest that this is one of pressing issues of our time. In recent years the Government has attempted to ride roughshod over aspects of the historic teaching of the Church. Secular rights-based equality legislation has trumped biblical teaching on sexuality. Christian adoption agencies have had to close. Back in January of this year there was a titanic battle in the House of Lords to protect the freedom of Churches to employ only people whose beliefs and lifestyle are in accordance with the Bible.

Also, we can’t ignore pope’s visit to UK in September. The Roman Catholic Church claims that the Bishop of Rome is the head of visible church. The goal of ecumenical movement is to reunite Christendom under the authority of the pope. How should we respond to that as Evangelical Protestants?

So, as we consider “Who is the head of the Church?” we will be bearing in mind both the political and the religious contexts of the question.

To be continued...

John Owen on the true end of preaching

Here John Owen is discussing the worship of images with Franciscan Friar John Vincent Cane in his anti-Roman Catholic polemical work, A Vindication of the Animadversions of Fiat Lux. His opponent alleged that the one end of preaching is to "work upon the minds of men so as to stir up their affections." For Owen this is hopelessly inadequate.

Did never any man inform you that the one end of preaching the word was to regenerate the whole souls of men, and to beget them anew unto God? that it was also to open their eyes, and to illuminate them with the saving knowledge of God in Christ? that it was to beget and increase faith in them? that it was to be a means of their growth in grace, and in the knowledge of God? that the word preached is "profitable for reproof, correction, doctrine, and instruction in righteousness?" that it is appointed as the great means of working the souls of men into a likeness and conformity unto the Lord Jesus, or the changing of them into his image? that it is appointed for the refreshment of the weary , and consolation of the sorrowful, and making wise the simple?

Did you never hear that the word preached hath its effect upon the understanding and will as well as upon the affections, and upon these consequently only unto its efficacy on them, if they are not deluded? Is growth in knowledge, faith, grace, holiness, conformity to Christ, communion with God, - for which end the word is commanded to be preached, - nothing at all with you? Is being made wise in the mystery of the love of God in Christ, to have an insight into, and some understanding of, the unsearchable treasures of his grace, and by all this the building up of souls in their most holy faith, of no value with you?

Are you a stranger unto these things, and yet think yourself a meet person to persuade your fellow countrymen to forsake the religion they have long professed, and to follow you they know not whither? or do you know them, and yet dare to thrust in your scurrility to their exclusion? Plainly, sir, the most charitable judgement that I can make of this disclosure of yours is that it proceeds from ignorance of the most important truths and most necessary works of the gospel. (Works of John Owen, Volume 14, p. 445-446).

Well, that told him, and us!

Red Tory by Phillip Blond

Red Tory, by Phillip Blond, Faber and Faber, 309pp

By their Gurus you shall know them. Will Hutton's The State We're In influenced the thinking of new Labour in the 1990's. Although it has to be said that rather than take on board his radical proposals for restructuring the economy, almost all Labour seemed to do was pinch his catchword, "stakeholder" and use it as a label for a cheapo pension product. If they'd paid more attention to the substance of his argument against City obsessed laissez faire capitalism, maybe we wouldn't be in the state we're in today. Blond is the man behind David Cameron's talk of the "Big Society" where, "We're all in this together". No, our Great Leader hasn't been watching to too much High School Musical, he's been reading Phillip Blond. Interestingly, some of Blond's ideas on the associative civil sate have more than a passing resemblance to Hutton's stakeholding economy. Blond argues that state employees should be empowered stakeholders in the service they provide rather than salves to centralised controls and targets. In a further twist, Hutton, whose book was a damning indictment on Thatchernomics has been appointed to lead a review of public sector pay of behalf of the Lib-Con coalition. Gurus eh?

Anyway, Blond's book attempts to do exactly what it says on the cover, which is to show that both left and right wing policies have broken Britain and then put forward some proposals for putting the country back together again. The author is presently director of the think tank ResPublica. Prior to becoming a full time policy wonk Blond was a theology lecturer, teaching at the Universities of Cumbria and Exeter. Blond's work is informed by his Christian theology, but is not explicitly based on engagement with the text of Scripture. In fact, in the one place where he alludes to the Bible  - "the truth...shall set you free" (on p. 161-162), he attributes the words to St. Paul rather than Jesus (see John 8:32). Blond is an Anglican.

The writer begins by describing 'Broken Britain', setting out the economic, political and social mess we're in. With both public and private debt at record levels something has gone badly wrong with the economy. Participation in politics is at an all time low as evidenced by the declining turn out at successive General Elections. The parliamentary expenses scandal has further undermined the public's trust in politicians. Too much power has accrued to the centre, distancing government from the people.  The social fabric of the nation has been torn apart by the evils of poverty,  welfare dependency and family breakdown.

Blond rightly identifies the breakdown of marriage-based family life as one of the major factors in the shattering of British society. Marriage is often seen as an outdated institution, derided by the sexually liberated as repressive and feminists as oppressive to women. But, refreshingly, Blond argues that marriage is in fact a socially progressive institution and that widespread marriage breakdown has been a disaster for women and children,

For the family offers the site of both sharing and nurture: it is where people learn to limit their desires and give to the greater good. It is the site of character formation and life orientation. In short, the family is a profoundly relational institution and, since it places individuals within a context of obligation and responsibility, it embodies the essence of mutuality. The fact that many now celebrate its destruction as somehow part of the liberation of women only testifies to the destruction of the chance for a real feminist founded on what most women want - marriage and children alongside creative work and social engagement. (p. 91).

It's good to read of an influential voice in the world of politics saying something like that. I hope the Conservative Party will not altogether abandon its manifesto pledge to recognise the value of marriage in the tax system. The duty of the State is to encourage and reward good behaviour in its citizens and marriage-based family life is a solid basis for the good society.

According to Blond the policies of parties on both the right and left of the political spectrum have added to the problems facing the UK at this time. Thatcherism placed too much trust in the untrammelled power of the markets and gave rise to a highly individualistic consumer society. When elected in 1997, new Labour did little to challenge this state of affairs. The dominance of the City remained unchallenged and the gap between the richest and poorest in society grew ever wider. Added to this, in the Blair/Brown years central government became more powerful.  Public services were micro-managed through target setting. Countless CCTV cameras have been installed so that the Big Brother State can keep a watchful eye on its increasingly unruly citizens.

Blond lays much of the blame for the current malaise on what he calls "The illiberal legacy of liberalism". Liberalism denies the existence of objective truth and fosters moral and cultural relativism. In that context the duty of the state is not so much to promote that which is good and virtuous in society as to arbitrate on the rights of competing interest groups. The Christian basis of our national life has been eroded. Long held religious liberties have been compromised. Gays are accorded the right to adopt children, resulting in the closure of Christian adoption agencies.

Under the weight of sustained attack from moral relativism, instant self-gratification has replaced private virtue. ASBOS now have to do the job that was once a matter of decent neighbourliness. As David F. Wells reflected,

We live precariously on the knife-edge between chaos and control. What was once an open space between law and freedom, once governed by character and truth, is now deserted, so law must now do what character has abandoned. (Losing Our Virtue, IVP, 1998, p. 63)

Or as Blond puts it the illiberal legacy of  liberalism means that, "a supposed monopoly of power exercised by the sovereign individual is really...a mask for the monopolising authority of the sovereign state." (p. 156).

So much for "Broken Britain". How does Blond propose that we fix it?

He wants a restoration of moral ethos based on moral absolutes and public virtue. Blond challenges neo-liberal economics where amoral market forces rule, arguing for a more ethical approach where social justice is valued as well as profit. He suggests programmes for the creation of popular prosperity that will benefit the less well off. The writer also proposes a radical overhaul of public services. He wants public services to be freed from centralised controls and front line workers empowered to act as innovative stakeholders in the service they provide.

This is Blond's  'Red Toryism', "Red because it caters for the needs of the disadvantaged and believes in economic justice; Tory because it believes in virtue, tradition and the priority of the good." (p. 35). Blond has hopes that David Cameron with his talk of the 'Big Society' might well be a Red Tory too (maybe with a tinge of orange in deference to his coalition partners?). We'll have to see how much of the Guru's programme is actually implemented by the Lib-Cons.

Red Tory provides much food for thought for Christians reflecting on the world of politics in 21st century Britain. Any attempt to wed private virtue and personal responsibility to social justice is surely to be welcomed. But I wonder whether Blond's diagnosis of the problem facing 'Broken Britain' at this time is sufficiently radical. The moral and spiritual brokenness of our country is not simply the effect of liberalism or the misguided policies of left and right. It is due to man's sinful rebellion against God. As the apostle Paul surveyed the moral wasteland of 1st century Rome he saw a society that had abandoned God and was subject to his just wrath, Romans 1:18-32. The only hope for Rome was the gospel of salvation, Romans 1:16-17.

It is a fact of nation's history that the greatest periods of social reform have followed Christian revivals. William Wilberforce successfully campaigned against slavery abroad and a multitude of social evils at home in the wake of the Evangelical Revival of the 18th century, associated with George Whitefield and the Wesley brothers. The Tolpuddle Martyrs, early trade unionists, were Methodist Christians. Lord Shaftesbury's agitation for better working conditions for those who toiled away in the "dark satanic mills" of the Industrial Revolution was inspired by his Christian faith. Similarly with George Muller and his orphanages. In the 19th century Nonconformity exercised a powerful influence on the Liberal Party. This is not to say that we must wait for another revival before trying to change society for the better. At all times Christians have been called to be "salt and light",  bearing witness to and  living out  the good and wholesome standards of God's Word in public life. But I'm afraid that it will take more than Blond's proposals to fix 'Broken Britain'. God alone can do that, Psalm 85:4-7.

Some thoughts on the mortification of sin: Dynamics

John Owen, 1616-1683, author of On the Mortification of Sin

Colossians 3:5-7

Those who are still dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1-3) have no hope of mortifying sin. False teaching cannot help us either Col 2:20-23. But those who have been united to Christ crucified and risen are empowered to put sin to death and bring holiness to life. In the concluding post in this series, we take a look  at some of the dynamics of mortification according to the New Testament:

i. Remember who you are

Paul makes this point in Romans 6:11-14. Never forget that sin is no longer your lord and master. Christ has set you free, John 8:32. Live as a free man or woman in Christ.

ii. Expect a life-long struggle

It is no easy thing to put sin to death. Sins that we once thought were mortified may return. New situations or stages in life may find new sins raising their ugly heads. Don’t believe anyone who tells you of quick and easy way to mortify sin. Sins are like a persistent weeds. And  gardeners never finish weeding. There is growth in grace and progress in the fight against sin, but it is hard work, Galatians 5:17.

iii. Look to Christ

He is able to help you in the struggle to put sin to death, Hebrews 12:1-3. His blood cleanses us from all sin, 1 John 1:7-9. John Owen makes this point in his classic, On the Mortification of Sin,

"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." (Works of John Owen, Volume 6. p. 79).

iii. Kill sin by the Spirit’s power

If you are in Christ, then the Holy Spirit is in you, Romans 8:9, 12-13. Walk in the Spirit, Galatians 5:16 and see his fruit being produced in you, Galatians 5:22-23. Don’t grieve the Holy Spirit or quench his work. He will empower you mortify sinful desires and crucify covetousness. The mortification of sin is not something you can do on your own. But you are not on your own. God has united you to his Son by his Spirit.

iv. The future hope

The mortification of sin is a work for believers who live between the already of being raised with Christ to a new life of holiness and the not yet of full resurrection glory. Our "members" will only be completely mortified when we are raised from the dead by the power of Christ. Then our life which is now "hidden with Christ in God" (Colossians 3:3) will be revealed, Colossians 3:4. This hope motivates us to "purify ourselves even as he is pure", 1 John 3:1-3.

The gospel-driven life is a constant battle against sin. You have died with Christ to the old life of sin. You have been raised with him to a new life of holiness. Therefore obey the gospel imperative and put sin to death that you may be holy as the Lord your God is holy.

Some thoughts on the mortification of sin: Mortifying covetousness

Colossians 3:5-7

Paul concludes his vice list  of sins that must be mortified with “covetousness, which is idolatry”. This is a strange statement on the surface of things. What has covetousness or greed to do with idolatry? What has the last commandment to do with the first, Ex 20:3, 17? The answer is, everything. If we put a greedy desire for anything ahead of the joyful worship of God in the beauty of holiness, then we have become idolaters.

The venal Gordon Gekko of Wall Street infamously quipped that “greed is good”. Our acquisitive society agrees. Covetousness makes the world go round. The world of advertising plays on our desire to accumulate more and more stuff, whether we need it or not. New Labour's Peter Mandleson said that he was entirely comfortable with people becoming  “filthy rich”. And with that sentiment in mind, we note that under the last Government the gap between the richest and poorest in society became wider then ever. The credit crunch was in part caused by the covetousness of city slickers who took huge risks for quick, easy and lucrative returns. Towards the end of his acute analysis of our current financial woes in Who Runs Britain?, Robert Peston makes an astonishing statement, worthy of Gekko himself, "It may not be pretty but, on the whole, greed is good". (p. 336). "No" says Paul, "mortify...covetousness, which is idolatry."

1. Mortify covetousness by cultivating a right attitude towards God's gifts

We cannot mortify covetousness by attempting to divest ourselves of all but the minimum material goods. God made the material world and it is in this world we live our embodied human lives. Killing covetousness is not a flight from physicality. The problem with covetousness is that it fails to recognise that material things such as food, clothing and housing are not ours by right. They are God's gifts to us, Acts 14:17, James 1:17. When we see material goods as gifts rather than simply possessions, the appropriate response is gratitude rather than greed. With Job we also need to accept without resentment that what the Lord gives, he can also take away, Job 1:21. That is why Paul warned the rich not to trust in "uncertain riches", but in the living and giving God, 1 Timothy 6:17.

Regarding our material wealth as a gift will also enable us to defy the impulse towards covetousness by prompting us to share with others what the Lord has graciously given to us. For the Christian our watchword is not, "greed is good", but "It is more blessed to give than to receive." (Acts 20:35).

2. Mortify covetousness by learning the secret of contentment

According to Paul, "The love of money is a root of all evil", 1 Timothy 6:10. We can help mortify this expression of greed by having a right estimation of money. Consider Proverbs 30:7. We need to learn the secret of being content with what the Lord has given us. Paul had to learn this difficult lesson for himself, Philippians 4:11-13. We can rest content knowing that God will supply all our needs, Philippians 4:19, Matthew 6:33.

Of course, covetousness involves more than greed for material goods like money or food. We can covet another Christian's spiritual gifts or envy the way that the Lord is blessing their ministries. That is not the right spirit, Philippians 2:3-4. We need to learn to be content with the gifts that the Lord has given us and use them for the building up of his church as he sees fit to bless, 1 Corinthians 3:5-7.

The same goes for bloggers. Who wouldn't want the readership of a Challies or the Pyros? But the tenth commandment applies to us too, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's blog". We more lowly bloggers will simply have to learn to be happily contented that anyone bothers to read our stuff.

3. Mortify covetousness by seeking ultimate satisfaction in communion with the one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit

If we think that getting "filthy rich" or gorging more food, or buying that special gadget - I'd simply love to have an iPhone - will give us fulfilment and lasting satisfaction, then what we desire has become an idol. Only God can truly satisfy the human soul, Psalm 36:7-9. As Augustine said of God, "You have made us for yourself and we can find no rest unless we find our rest in you."  Yet some people live for food. Their "god is their belly" (Philippians 3:19). Recent news stories reported that thousands of people are living on state handouts because they are too fat to work. In a bad case of “Top Gear-olatry” others put their cars before God, worshipfully washing and waxing their beloved motor on a Sunday morning rather than going to church. But our religion is not that of unholy trinity of Clarkson, Hammond and May. We worship the one true and living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and live to enjoy communion with him, 2 Corinthians 13:14. If you live for anything else, then you are just as much an idolater as those depicted in Isaiah 46:5-7. The best way to mortify covetousness is to make the God of the Gospel your ultimate treasure and delight, Psalm 73:25-26.  

Some thoughts on the mortification of sin: Sin is serious

Colossians 3:5-7

Sin is not a trivial matter. It is deadly serious, yet our society has little grasp of the utter seriousness of sin. The tabloids and glossy celeb mags revel in the seedy shenanigans of so-called celebrities. Our political leaders seem to have lost all sense of moral seriousness. David Laws had to resign from the Government for misusing parliamentary expenses in order to hide his relationship with another man. Despite his conduct, colleagues described him as an "honourable man". After using family snapshots in his election literature, Chris Huhne recently announced that he was leaving his wife of 26 years for another woman. There was, of course no question of the duplicitous Government Minister resigning from his post.

Sinful behaviour is often explained with reference to medical or psychological factors.  Sin has been medicalized so that what once would have been regarded as bad conduct is explained or excused by reference to some or other 'syndrome'. An office worker in US sacked for being routinely late for work. But on appeal she was reinstated. Her tardiness was apparently due to a 'chronic lateness syndrome'. That's alright then!

But Paul will not allow us to trivialise or excuse sin. If we are going to mortify sin, then we need to see exactly how vile and evil it is. In the passage under consideration the apostle gets down to brass tacks. He does not content himself with a mere general statement, saying "put sin to death". He descends to particulars, Colossians 3:5. Paul was a man who called a spade a spade. He will not allow us to gloss over the utter sinfulness of sin. Many of the sins in this "vice list" have to do with sexual sin. Today people speak of unmarried couples having a “one night stand”, or a "fling", Paul calls it “fornication”. A married man will claim that he has “fallen in love” with another woman, excusing himself by saying, "it feels so good that it can't be bad". Paul calls that “passion” and “evil desire”. The apostle is not allowing us to hide behind words and phrases that try to make sin seem less evil than it is. A spade is not an "earth removing implement", but a "spade". And sin is sin. That is why we have put it do death.

Moreover, sin is serious because it attracts the wrath of God, Look at what Paul says in , Colossians 3:5-7. This is the universal testimony of Scripture, Romans 1:18, Mark 9:42-48. Sin, all sin deserves eternal punishment. Yes, God’s wrath against our sin had been propitiated in Christ, Romans 3:25. But that is what it took for God to deal lovingly with us and justly with our sin. Sin is that serious. We cannot afford to play with it. We cannot tolerate in our lives the sin that provokes God’s just wrath upon the world, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

We once lived as "sons of disobedience", walking in the way of sin, subject to God's terrible wrath. But that old life is dead and gone, 2 Corinthians 5:17. Now, rather than walking in sin we must mortify it. Sin is a killer. Kill it or it will kill you, Romans 8:13.

Some thoughts on the mortification of sin: Grammar

  

Colossians 3:5-7

When I was in school grammar was out, which might explain a lot. Beyond the basics of commas, full stops and spelling, little effort was made to teach us the meaning of technical grammatical terms. It was only when I began to learn Greek and Hebrew at the London Theological Seminary that I had to get to grips with the finer points of grammar. Of course you don’t need to know grammatical jargon in order to make yourself understood, but it can help.

In grammatical terms living the gospel-driven life is all about understanding the relationship between the indicative and the imperative. The indicative is a statement of truth – it indicates or describes something, “The water in the swimming pool is clear and warm”. The imperative issues a command:, “Jump in the water and have a swim.”

"What has all this grammar this got to do with me?" You might say. It is vital that we get this point and have a clear understanding of the relationship between the indicative and the imperative in the Christian life. As the early 20th century New Testament scholar, Gresham Machen said, “Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative...[it] announces, first a gracious act of God.”

In this case the indicative is this: Colossians 3:1, 3:3. The believer has died with Christ to the old life of sin and has been raised with him to a new life of holiness. That is the “triumphant indicative” describing the reality of our position in Christ. But we can’t leave it there. The indicative gives rise to the commanding imperative: because you are dead to sin and alive to God – “Therefore…”, Colossians 3:5.

Notice that we are not told that we must die with Christ and be raised with him. That is not something we can do. God does that for us as he unites us to Christ by the Spirit. But as those who are dead to sin and alive to God, believers must put sin to death and bring holiness to life.

Our union with Christ in his death and resurrection gives rise to the essential pattern of the Christian life, which is that of mortification (putting to death) and vivification (bringing to life). “You died” (Colossians 3:3) “therefore put to death” (Colossians 3:5). “You were raised” (Colossians 3:1) therefore bring holiness to life (Romans 6:11-13, 22). Alternatively, Paul speaks in terms of "putting off" sin and "putting on" holiness, Colossians 3:8, 3:12.

The triumphant indicative, “You died and been raised with Christ” leads inevitably to the compelling imperative, “You must therefore put sin to death and live a new life of holiness”.

That fact that the imperative is issued at all tells us that while the believer has been united to Christ in his death and resurrection, he or she is not perfect yet. We must work out what God has worked in, Philippians 2:12-13. If we are going to live the gospel-driven life then we are going to have to mortify the sin that remains in our lives. We are still “on the earth”, living in a fallen world and our “members”, the members of our bodies must not be used for sinful purposes, Romans 6:13.

Understanding the grammar of mortification concerns grasping that union with Christ crucified and risen is the the dynamic that empowers us to obey the apostolic command to mortify sin and live holy lives for the glory of God.  

George Whitefield - The Divine Dramatist?

I had to go to London on Wednesday to attend a meeting of the Kensit Memorial Trust, the body entrusted amongst other things with looking after the Kensit Memorial College, which is currently home to the London Theological Seminary. I chose to travel by rail rather than car partly so I could redeem some time by reading on the journey, which is a little difficult when driving. I almost finished Philip Blond's Red Tory, which I've been dipping in and out of for a couple of months and made a good start on The Imperative of Preaching by John Carrick, purchased at the Banner Conference back in April. In a chapter on The Exclamative, Carrick quotes from Harry S. Stout's The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism, and gives a withering critique of the historian's interpretation of the great 18th century preacher.

According to Stout,

To appreciate Whitefield's printed sermons fully, we have to read them less as lectures or treatises than as dramatic scripts, each with a series of verbal clues that released improvised body language and pathos. Words or phrases such as 'Hark!' 'Behold!' 'Alas!' and 'Oh!' invariably signaled the pathos Whitefield dramatically recreated with his whole body. The words were the scaffolding over which the body climbed, stomped, cavorted, and kneedled, all in an attempt - as much intuitive as contrived - to startle and completely overtake his listeners.

To which Carrick responds with almost Whitefieldian eloquence, tearing Stout's thesis apart with a powerful use of the interrogative.

This is an astonishing evaluation. We do not deny that Whitefield possessed remarkable natural gifts and abilities which, but for the grace of God in his life, might well have brought him great success and even fame on the stage. But to focus so exclusively on the natural at the expense of the spiritual is to do a grave injustice to the memory of this great and saintly preacher. What about Whitefield's prayerfulness? we ask What about Whitefield's spirituality? What about Whitefield's godliness?  Indeed, what about Whitefield's God? What about the whole concept of divine authority, power, and unction in preaching? What about the Spirit of God? In that most mysterious and complex of activities, namely, preaching, are these factors not absolutely pivotal?

While is is fitting for Christian historians to try and understand the natural historical factors involved in an episode like the Evangelical Revival, we must never forget that the living God is involved in the historical process and that he sometimes intervenes in a most powerful way. It is reductionist to try and explain  revival events or the effects of preaching that takes place in revivals on a purely natural level. The model historian for the Christian is not Kant with his dichotomy between the 'phenomenal' the and 'noumenal', but Luke, author of the Acts of the Apostles, Acts 4:31.

Patrick Soohkdeo on The Islamisation of the West

In an article on The Islamisation of the West Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund writes,

Governments and the public must be made aware of the danger of allowing Islamist activists to take over Muslim organisations and claim to represent all Muslims. The excessive demands of Islamists must be rejected, along with their blaming of host societies for all the difficulties faced by Muslims. It is important that democratic Western societies do not give up their hard-won heritage of equality before the law, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. It must also be made clear that tolerance must work both ways and that threats of violence are unacceptable. Muslim communities must try much harder to isolate and expose Islamists who reject integration and the violent radicals among them.

For Christians the growing Islamisation of the West can be seen as both a challenge and an opportunity to sharpen our thinking and renew our evangelism. As we Christians see Muslim zeal, commitment, and willingness to sacrifice, we should be driven to repent, to pray for revival and act boldly for God in this generation. We need to stand firm on our Biblical foundations, beware of compromises and reach out in love to Muslims, offering them the Gospel of salvation in Christ.

See here for the whole article (PDF).

A footnote on Justification and Sanctification

I'm currently reading and enjoying Kevin Vanhoozer's latest, Remythologising Theology. The book has proper footnotes rather than endnotes. Endnotes are a bit of a pain as it means having to flick back to the end of the book to look up the note. Life's too short for that.

I would be an exaggeration to say that some of the best material in the book may be found in the footnotes, but they are always worth a glance to the bottom of the page. Here is a choice note on justification and sanctification, where Vanhoozer elaborates on this point,

Participation in the triune God - otherwise known as salvation or eternal life - ultimately hinges on the nature of one's communion with Christ. Subsequent doctrines - justification, sanctification, ecclesiology, to name a few - all work further variations on the essential evangelical communicative act that is God's being "for us."122 (p. 279)

Footnote 122 then reads,

Justification and sanctification have to do with the way in which God "communicates" his righteousness and holiness to the ungodly. God declares those those who place their faith in Christ forgiven and directs and enables them to live accordingly by having the Spirit minister the gospel to them. In this way the forgiving word of Christ "dwells richly" in them (Col. 3:16). By means of word and Spirit, then, God calls or gathers a community of the word, a company of communicants (the church). In each case - declaring righteous, enabling holiness, summoning fellowship - we see that Christian doctrine is essentially a schema of triune communicative action, a description of what God is doing in, with, and through is Word.

Vanhoozer's emphasis is reminiscent of Calvin's insight that on union with Christ the believer receives the "double benefit" of justification and sanctification. The two aspects of salvation are distinct. Justification is a declarative act of God, while sanctification is a transformative act of God. But they are inseparable because union with Christ is union with the complete and undivided Saviour,

These benefits [justification and sanctification] are joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he illumines by his wisdom he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justifies; those whom he justifies, he sanctifies.....Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker of his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces [I Cor. 1:13]. (Inst. III.16.1)