Aber 2010 Dale Ralph Davis' Conference Addresses 3 & 4

(Jeremiah by Rembrandt)

Some more notes on DRD's preaching at Aber:

Address Three: "The Yoke is no Joke" (Jeremiah 27-29)

I. There is a decree that controls politics

Yahweh had decreed that many nations, including his own people would have to submit to the king of Babylon. The God of Israel is no tin pot tribal deity. He is not the little god of Israel, but the God of little Israel.. His will determines the rise and fall of nations. Jeremiah was to send yokes to the leaders of the nations as a vivid illustration of this principle, Jeremiah 27:1-6. Mighty Babylon  itself was also subject to his decree, Jeremiah 27:7. God's mighty sovereignty does not depend upon his people.

i.  Particular sovereignty

It is for us to acknowledge Yahweh's will in every situation. Whether the political context is favourable or not, we must submit to God's programme and wear the yoke that he places around our necks. Needed lesson for the church in UK.

ii.  Sobering sovereignty

Jeremiah 27:7, "until the time of his land comes". Babylon will fall. No such thing as America's "manifest destiny". The is USA not the chosen race, neither is the UK. The time will come when Yahweh will sovereignly judge this nation.

II. There is a dilemma involves truth

Hananiah took the yoke of Jeremiah's neck and broke it prophesying that within two years the yoke of Babylon would be broken and the captives of Judah would return to their own land, Jeremiah 28:1-4, 10-11. This flatly contradicted what Jeremiah said in chapter 27. Here is the dilemma: who to believe? Jeremiah refuted Hananiah's claims, citing the the message of the former prophets, Jeremiah 28:6-9, also he pronounced the word of Yahweh against the false prophet, foretelling his death, Jeremiah 28:12-16. Unlike Hananiah's words, Jeremiah's prophecy was fulfilled, Jeremiah 28:17. When the voices of false teachers (like Oral Roberts etc) contradict the teaching of your church, the dilemma must resolved by appealing to Scripture, Isaiah 8:20.

III. The prescription that governs life

i. Future hope

According to Jeremiah's letter to the exiles in Babylon, the captivity would be over in 70 years, Jeremiah 29:10. The people were encouraged to pray in the light of his promise, Jeremiah 29:11-14.

ii. Immediate challenge

The exiles were called to be faithful in a difficult situation that was not of their choosing, Jeremiah 29:6-7. So with us when we find ourselves in hard times that we cannot escape. Example of Christian woman who suffered a mental collapse, yet who faithfully served the Lord, ministering to other patients in the asylum. In the UK we would not choose to live in a climate that is increasingly hostile to the gospel. But we must be faithful to the Lord.

Our sovereign God always speaks the truth and he charges us to be faithful in our exile.

Address Four: "Jerusalem Burning" (Jeremiah 37-39)

I. You can resist the Word of the Lord and yet have a keen interest in it

Zedekiah expressed an interest in the Word of the Lord, Jeremiah 37:3, but failed to act upon it, Jeremiah 37:7-10. Jeremiah persisted in his message despite being imprisoned, Jeremiah 37:16-17. But still Zedekiah failed to listen. Indecisive king like a boneless chicken. Being interested in the Bible isn't enough. We have to receive the Word in faith and act upon it - see also Felix, Acts 24:24-27.

II. You can resist the Word though you have reason to believe it

What Jeremiah said regarding the king of Babylon beseiging Jerusalem came to pass, Jeremiah 37:19. But still he failed to believe. People do not persist in unbelief becasue of lack of evidence for the truth. Eyewitness testimony of the Gospels to the person and work of Christ. Like Zedekiah people refuse to belive despite the evidence set before them.

III. You can resist the Word by submitting to fear

People sometimes suggest that faith is the cowards way out - mere escapism from harsh reality. But in Zedekiah's case it was fear that kept him from faith. In fear he allowed Jeremiah to be lowered into a dungeon, Jeremiah 38:1-6. Zedekiah permitted Ebed-Melech to resue the prophet, but once again, fear kept him from obeying the Word, Jeremiah 38:17-19. He refused Jeremiah's words of reassurance and warning, Jeremiah 38:20-23. If only the king had had the courage to listen and act on what Jeremiah told him. Look what happened to him, Jeremiah 39:4-7. Jesus warns those who are too fearful to believe, Luke 12:4-5.

IV. Though many resist the Word there will be a faithful remnant

Ebed-Melech supported Jeremiah. Onesiphorous stood with Paul, 2 Timothy 1:16-18. Even in the darkest times there will be a godly remnant. William Still's aunt stood by him when his preaching on hell was disturbing the church. Will you stand with those who are battling for the truth and identify yourself with God's suffering people? Christ will build his church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. "Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will." (WCF XXV:V).

Just as seeing a T-Rex skeleton at the British Museum cannot give you much of an idea of what it would be like to confront a living and breathing dinosaur, so these brief notes can only give you the bare bones of DRD's ministry.  You just had to be there. Davis' preaching style is not as polished as you might have thought from simply reading his commentaries. He's a preacher and there was a healthy element of rough hewn spontaneity in his delivery. Sometimes the application could have been a little more pointed, but the messages were characterised by a good mix of insightful exegesis, well thought-out structure, bags of engaging illustrations (few of which are included in these notes) and plenty of relevance to the current situation. A good model of "big chunk" preaching that in some cases handled several chapters of Jeremiah at at time without skimming over the surface of the text. Made me think about trying to do a series on Isaiah or Jeremiah some day.

More reportage on the evening meetings to follow.

You can order CD or DVD recordings of these addresses from the Evangelical Movement of Wales.

Gilead by Marilynne Robinson

Gilead,  by Marilynne Robinson, Virago, 282pp

I usually read a novel or two when on holiday and this year I opted for Marilynne Robinson's Gilead. It is an unusual novel in that it takes the form of an extended letter from an ageing Minister to his seven year old son. Widower, the Reverend John Ames remarried and fathered a child late in life. He knows that he is mortally ill and wants to leave his son with some lasting impressions of the father who loved him so much. The narrative flits back and forth from Ames's observations on life at the time he was writing up his dying testament to memories of his own childhood and later years. Usually when pastors feature in a novel they are either charlatans or creeps. But, refreshingly, John Ames, a man of sincere faith and deep compassion is the real hero of the Robinson's story.

Ames's father and grandfather were pastors before him. Through Ames the writer vividly describes the strained yet poignant relationship between her main character's pacifist father and his eccentric, visionary grandfather, a combatant in the American Civil War. Ames's best friend, Robert Boughton is also a Minister. One of the amazing things about Gilead is the way the author gets into the mind and soul of her leading character as he endeavours to deal with life's challenges in the light of his Christian faith. The novel includes insightful reflections on the pastoral ministry some interesting theological discussion. Ames's favourite theologians are John Calvin and Karl Barth. Grace, forgiveness and blessing are the novel's theological keynotes, especially when Ames perceives a threat to his family from Boughton's wayward son, Jack. At one point Jack presses his father and Ames on the issue of predestination, seemingly worried that a sinner like him might not be among the elect. Neither Minister quite knows what to say and the matter is left hanging in the air. I think Calvin would have pointed him to Christ as the "mirror of our election". We can only know that we are amongst the elect by first looking to Jesus.

The novel's unhurried pace slowly draws the reader into the internal world of the dying Minister. The fact that Ames knows that his time is short makes him all the more aware of the often unobserved beauties of creation. He enjoys watching the sun come up in the silence of his empty church building. He delights in watching his son and a friend playfully splashing around in a water sprinkler and comments on the way the sunlight made the water droplets shimmer and glow. Often life is lived at such a pace that there is little time for  meditation on the simple blessings that the Lord so richly bestows upon us. Ames hopes that heaven will be a glorious amplification of the wonders of God's creation  rather than a negation of life in this world. If we are thinking in terms of the new creation, I'm sure he's right.

As the novel draws to a close the tension is ratcheted up. The preacher believes that his wife and young son are in danger of being drawn towards the villainous Jack Boughton and that they will be at his mercy after Ames is dead. The Reverend can imagine forgiving Jack for sinning against him, but forgiving him for wronging his friends and loved ones is altogether more problematic. You'll have to read Marilynne Robinson's exquisitely written and absorbing novel, Gilead for yourself to find out if grace, forgiveness and blessing win out in the end.

Aber 2010 Dale Ralph Davis' Conference Addresses 1 & 2

Having appreciated DRD's excellent commentaries on the Old Testament historical books (see here), I was looking forward to hearing him preach at this year's Aber Conference. His commentaries are characterised by careful exposition of the biblical text, God-centred theology, thoughtful application, lively illustrations and a great sense of fun. His preaching was no different. In four addresses he introduced us to the book of Jeremiah under the heading, "The True Word for Tough Times". Here is the gist of what he had to say in the first two messages:

Address One: "The Astounding Word" (Jeremiah 1)

We can sometimes take the Word of God for granted. It is a bit like a shut off valve on a toilet. It is only when the pan begins to overflow that we realise what a valuable thing the shut off valve is. When faced with tough times like the days of Jeremiah the prophet we really begin to appreciate just how astonishing is God's Word.

I. The Word of God is astonishing because it is relentless (Jeremiah 1:1-3)

a) It came in religious times

The reign of reforming king Josiah.

b) It came in hostile times

The reign of wicked king Jehoiakim who consigned Jeremiah's prophecy to the flames (Jeremiah 36).

c) It came in nervous times

The reign of Zedekiah, the "yo-yo king" - Jeremiah 38.

d) It came in disastrous times

Jerusalem falls (Jeremiah 39).

The opening verses of the prophecy show that whatever the religious or political climate, the Word of God just keeps on coming. That gives us hope for today and encourages us to preach the Word in season and out of season.

II. The Word of God is astonishing because it is so fragile (Jeremiah 1:4-8)

Jeremiah is but a youth. Who will listen to God's Word through such a whippersnapper? Yahweh often chooses to use unusual people to do great things for him. Abraham, the father of God's covenant people could not have children with Sarah. Jacob was a conniving twister. Jephthah was a reject. But Yahweh chose these people and used them for his glory. Before he was even born God had set apart Jeremiah, the fragile poet to be his mouthpiece in tough times, Jeremiah 1:5. So with all believers, we have been chosen by God and sanctified for his service, Romans 8:28-29. This principle also might help to explain why pastors are such a strange bunch of men.

III. The Word of God is astonishing because it is so dominating (Jeremiah 1:9-10)

It is the Word of God that destroys or builds the nations. That may seem ludicrous given the fragility of those who proclaim it, but it is the case. Yahweh watches over his Word to fulfil it, Jeremiah 1:12. His purposes are invincible.

IV. The Word of God is astonishing because it is so fanatical (Jeremiah 1:11-19)

Yahweh will send the Babylonians to chastise his people because of their rebellion against him. The one true and living God will brook no rivals. He demands the undivided devotion of his covenant people, Deuteronomy 6:4-5. So with Jesus, Matthew 10:37-39.

We need to repent from our idolatry and go to the cross of Jesus for forgiveness. Yahweh requires our all and will rest content with nothing less.

Address Two: "Is this Man a Believer?" (Jeremiah 15:10-21)

Jeremiah's message of judgement for Judah was getting him down. Chapters 2-10 of his prophecy are all doom and gloom. Chapters 11-20 reveal the prophet's conflict. At this stage the man is at crisis point.

I. Balancing on a paradox

Jeremiah was opposed and ridiculed. The people of his own town, Anathoth sought to take his life. He was forbidden to attend both wedding and funerals and was not allowed to get married (Jeremiah 16). This only made him feel all the more isolated and despondent. He was not even allowed to pray for the people, they were beyond that, Jeremiah 11:14. Yet despite all this Jeremiah found joy in Yahweh's Word, (Jeremiah 15:16). This is the paradox of the Christian life. We find joy in suffering and the resurrection power of Jesus is made manifest in his afflicted people, Philippians 3:10.

II. Stepping over the line

In Jeremiah 15:18 the prophet expresses his grief to the Lord. It is not wrong to ask "Why?" as does Jeremiah in 18a, but it is wrong to accuse God of being deceitful as in 18b. Anguish must not crowd out reverence. We may bemoan Yahweh's mysteries, "How long, O Lord?", but not deny his character.

III. Coming under an ultimatum

Yahweh summons his despondent servant to return to him, Jeremiah 15:19. He was not to turn towards the people and alter his message to suit them, but return to the Lord so that once again he might be the mouthpiece of his God. Sometimes the Lord speaks to us sharply and directly to shock us out of our sin and bring us back to him. See also Jesus' dealing with Peter in John 21.

IV. Resting in fresh assurance

What we need is not a new Word from the Lord, but to have his old Word freshly applied. So with the prophet, Jeremiah 15:20-21 cf. 1:17-19. Example of Pat Candy whose daughter was killed in a tragic accident. er grief Revelation 21:4 spoke to her with fresh power. Also when Martyn Lloyd-Jones was depressed he found strength in Titus 1:2. Spurgeon was feeling low when cholera hit London, but he received assurance through Psalm 91:9-10. We don't need a new book on every problem facing the church, but to pay heed to the good old truths of the Bible.

You can order CD or DVD recordings of these addresses from the Evangelical Movement of Wales.

Some holiday reading

We're off on holiday later this morning, with a week in Carmarthen followed by the Aber Conference. I usually take a few books with me when we go away. Often a novel or two and a couple of theological titles. Novel-wise in recent years it's been something by P. D. James and/or John Grisham. This year I thought I'd have a change from law-based fiction and have a go at Gilead by Marilynne Robsinson. It takes the form of a letter from a dying Minister to his young son. Sounds good.

Also I think I'll pack my recently aquired copy of The Poems of Edward Taylor, edited by Donald E. Stanford. I'm just getting into Taylor's work and being on holiday will give me a little more time to meditate on his wonderfully Christ-centred metaphysical poetry.

When it comes to theology, I'm not sure what to bring. I'd like to finish Vanhoozer's Remythologizing Theology. I've got as far of page 377 out of 539pp. I managed to get a free copy from CUP in exchange for reviewing it on the blog, so I'd better get cracking. On the other hand, a £70 heavyweight hardback hardly lends itself to reading on the beach. What if it accidentally got  smeared with sun cream, or splattered by one of Mr. Whippy's 99's melting in the hot sun? Unthinkable. But then again, we don't have to go to the beach.

I've got some books on Roman Catholicism on the "to read" pile in preparation for my Westminster Conference paper on Puritan Attitudes Towards Rome, but do I really want to take Pope Benedict XVI: Commander of the Faith on holiday? The question kind of answers itself. Although...

Of course, this is meant to be a family break, not study leave. So, I won't be able to spend too much time with my head buried in a book. But as nothing is more relaxing than a good read there will have to be room amongst the suitcases, beach cricket set and other holiday stuff for some reading materials. Swimming in the sea, watching Toy Story 3, evening walks along the beach and Remythologizing Theology. Sounds like a good holiday to me.  

Pope Benedict XVI and the United Kingdom

Pope Benedict XVI and the United Kingdom,

Free Presbyterian Publications, 2010, 108pp.

This publication has been timed to coincide with the state visit of Pope Benedict XVI (16-19 September). During his time in the UK the Pope will meet the Queen at Holyrood Palace, Scotland. He will address a gathering of both Houses of Parliament. Also Joseph Ratzinger will beatify Cardinal Newman, making him the first Englishman to be made a “saint” since the Reformation.

The impending visit has already caused some controversy, not least due to Ratzinger’s failure to deal with the problem of child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. Before becoming Pope he was Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Rome’s disciplinary body (formerly called The Inquisition). It is alleged that as Prefect he knew what was going on, but did little to prevent children being abused by paedophile priests.

Evangelicals might feel a little unhappy concerning the high honours that will be accorded to such a man. But it seems that by and large we have given up the fight when it comes to the controversy with Rome. We appear to have forgotten what the Reformation was all about. The aim of this book is to set out the influence of Protestantism on our national life and to expose Roman Catholic false teachings.

The Pope presides over a system of sacramental salvation. He claims to be head of the visible Church, with supreme and universal power over the people of God. Since 1870 Rome has regarded the Pope’s ex cathdera pronouncements as infallible, elevating his authority to the level of Holy Scripture. The Virgin Mary is regarded as “co-mediatrix” alongside Jesus, compromising the unique saving value of Christ’s finished work. The Reformers were right to battle against unbiblical Roman Catholic doctrine in their day. Still we must contend for vital, gospel-centred Christianity in opposition to the errors of Rome.

Not all readers will agree with the authors’ Presbyterian views on Church Establishment or that the Pope is the Antichrist. But here is a timely reminder that the man who is due to visit these shores in September is a powerful leader of a false religion. Roman Catholicism robs our Lord Jesus of his unrivalled role as head of the Church and the only mediator between God and men.

Perhaps the arrival of Pope Benedict XVI will give Evangelical Protestants a fresh opportunity to graciously explain the differences between Rome and genuine, biblical Christianity.

* Reviewed for September edition of Evangelicals Now.

Blogging in the name of the Lord: Gary Benfold

Gary Benfold

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

GB: A Yorkshireman by birth and conviction, I was 'awakened' through hearing Lloyd-Jones preach, and converted as a teenager in a Wesleyan chapel where they loved the Bible enough to move away from Wesleyanism when they saw it didn't fit. I went off to study Business Studies at Bradford University, taught in Rotherham for three years (to give me time to grow up - not sure it worked) and then began to train for pastoral ministry. I'm married to Elaine, and have two adult children and three darling granddaughters.

GD: You have a blog entitled, Who's that Preacher? What made you start blogging?

GB: I was just playing around to see if I could set up a blog - I'm not very computer literate. I didn't take it seriously for quite a while - one evidence of which is that this year I've posted almost as many posts already as in the whole previous five years. But I've continued because it gives me chance to reflect on issues - trivial and otherwise - that catch my attention, and share my thoughts with anyone interested. I've also discovered, just this past month, that the number of 'hits' goes up dramatically if I put a preacher's name in the title!

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

GB: Its weaknesses are obvious: the ignorant share what they don't know all too easily, and stoke up the fires more than is helpful. And light-hearted banter can be taken too seriously by the Reformed Thought Police and get 'slammed' in a national conference. Its strengths, though, will take longer to emerge: though I'm glad to have found my way to Phil Johnson and Dan Phillips, neither of whom I would ever have read otherwise.

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

GB: Oh, easy: Lloyd-Jones and Packer. I'll never forget the shock of reading Packer's 'Introduction' to Owen's 'Death of Death in the Death of Christ', and discovering that my free will wasn't free, and God's free grace really was. Both have exerted immense influence on me since, though I differ from each significantly.

GD: I well remember reading that intro in my lunch break when I worked in a steelworks in Newport many years ago. It's what put the 'L' into my TULIP. Describe your call to pastoral ministry.

GB: Hmm. I was converted just a month or so before I went up to university, and Bradford had an excellent CU - the only Reformed one in England at the time, I think - where we had regular visits from Stuart Olyott and Geoff Thomas and others of similar convictions. But the big turning point for me was a CU houseparty, where the preacher was taking us through 2 Timothy. I'd never heard systematic expository preaching before and I was absolutely gripped - I can still weep when I recall sections of it. I remember thinking 'If I could do that, it would be worth spending my life for.' Gradually over the next couple of years the conviction grew within that God was calling me to spend my life trying to exactly that. Ironically, the preacher that influential weekend was Roy Clements, who has since turned away.

GD: Where did you train for the ministry and what was the most helpful aspect of your training?

GB: I trained at the London Theological Seminary, from 1980-82. The most helpful thing was sitting under men who took the Bible and the Spirit seriously and were passionate about Christ. You were there later, I think - what did you find most helpful?

GD: I ask the questions round here, Gary. Now, what is the most helpful piece of advice that anyone has given you on preaching?

GB: Two things vie for first place: Alistair Begg 'Think yourself empty, read yourself full, write yourself clear, pray yourself hot'; he got it, I think, from Leith Samuel who himself got it from someone else. But it's deceptively helpful: the first thing is to write down everything you think the text is saying, during which some sort of structure will probably begin to emerge. The second stage insists on you checking to make sure you haven't missed the point, or something crucial. The third thing is obvious, I think; and the fourth, too easily neglected.

Rivalling this advice for first place is from Olyott: State, illustrate, apply.

GD: What is the relationship between Word and Spirit in preaching?

GB: You want a succinct answer to that? Are you kidding?

GD: No. But moving on, if time travel were possible, which figure from post-biblical church history would you most like to meet, and what would you say to him/her?

GB: That's fun, isn't it? Who wouldn't love to meet Spurgeon, or Whitefield? But I think I'd settle for Lloyd-Jones, and say 'thank you.'

GD: Did you enjoy the recent Evangelical Ministry Assembly?

GB: Oh yes. They're usually uneven, and this one was too. But it was great to hear Vaughan Roberts on Whitefield, saying things a Proc Trust Anglican needed to say; and electrifying (to me) to hear him describe Whitefield's first preaching in London and point to the door through which I'd entered a few minutes earlier and say 'He entered through that door; came down that aisle, and climbed into this pulpit.' Wow - history lives.

GD: I wasn't there, but I've just started listening to the MP3 downloads (see here). Good stuff so far. Should Evangelicals welcome the pope's visit to the UK in September?

GB: I don't think Evangelicals should care one way or another - he's just another leader of another false religion. But Englishmen (sorry, Guy - the British) should care very much. As I understand it, he still claims to be a head of state, and still claims jurisdiction over England. Isn't that right? [Sure is.] And he may be prepared to keep quiet about it for 'the long game' - the Vatican certainly thinks in centuries - but we mustn't think he isn't serious. Unless and until he repudiates all such claims, then he shouldn't be welcomed - should he?

GD: Certainly not. Care to name your top three songs/pieces of music?

GB: Beethoven, Violin Concerto (played by David Oistrakh); Beethoven, Piano Concerto no. 5 ('Emperor') (played by Ashkenazy); Bruch, Violin concerto (played by Janine Jansen).

GD: Is Elvis' version of "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" really better than the Simon & Garfunkel original?

GB: Oh yes; but Peter Masters' version far outstrips them both.

GD: I'll take your word for it. You are sometimes confused with fellow pastor-blogger Gary Brady. For those who can't tell the difference, which one are you?

GB: The one without a famous father-in-law. The slim one. The old one. The one who doesn't speak Welsh. (Spot the odd one out).

GD: You're both a bit odd. Right, what is the most helpful theological book you have read in the last twelve months? It is a must read because...

GB: I've re-read parts of Knowing God by J. I. Packer - it's theology that thrills the heart. If I may be frank - I wouldn't read some of the stuff you review. I'm not criticising anyone else for reading it, but I can't see how it would actually help me reach the lost or build up the saints... in fact, I think it would get in the way. Please feel free to shoot me down.

GD: I've always believed that pastors should read widely and deeply. I don't think that books have to have a direct relevance for pastoral ministry in order to be worth reading. That's my excuse anyway. Now, what is the biggest problem facing evangelicalism today and how should we respond?

GB: The thing that troubles me most is the defeatist and backward-looking attitudes of some of the Reformed movement in the UK - you may have heard me on this before. I don't say it's the biggest problem facing evangelicalism, but it certainly doesn't help. I could go on about this. I certainly don't want to be unkind to anyone. But I wish there was a conference in the UK like 'Together for the Gospel' or 'Resolved'. I've thought about starting one myself - a conference for happy Calvinists! But I might be the only one there...

GD: Lastly, which blogs do you especially enjoy reading and why?

GB: Pyromaniacs; Dan Phillips' Biblical Christianity - both of them for their combination of insight and wit and - sometimes - outrageous comments. Yours, of course - mostly to spot the spelling errors. (Just kidding). Melanie Phillips, for a different - and I think often more accurate - perspective on current news.

GD: Well, thanks for dropping by for this chat, Gary. I am to typing what Les Dawson was to playing the piano. Or as Eric Morecambe once said, "All the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order." I shall try and keep the typos coming just to entertain the pedants. See ya!

Edward Taylor on the Rose of Sharon

I've been dipping into The Poems of Edward Taylor, edited by Donald E. Stanford, University of North Carolina Press. Taylor (c. 1642-1729) was a Puritan Pastor who served in the small frontier town of Westfield, Massachusetts. He was a prolific poet in the metaphysical style of John Donne. The true value of his poems was not properly appreciated until the 1940's.

One poem is a meditation on Song of Solomon 2:1, "I am the rose of Sharon". Taylor, in common with his contemporaries saw this as a depiction of Christ. I'm aware that The Hebrew indicates that this is probably the Shulamite's self-description, rather than a reference to her Beloved. Also, while I think that the relationship between the Shulamite and her Beloved is a wonderful example of married love and is therefore typical of the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33), I'm a little wary of allegorising the details in the manner of some Puritan exegetes of the Song of Solomon. Be that as it may, Taylor's poetic meditation on Christ as the Rose of Sharon is a wonderful piece of devotional literature. Have a read of this verse and note the remarkable play on words in the penultimate line (p. 13).

But oh! alas! that such should be my need

       That this Brave Flower must Pluckt, stampt, squeezed bee,

And boyld up in its Blood, its Spirits sheed,

       To make a Physick sweet, sure, safe for mee.

       But yet this mangled Rose rose up again

       And in its pristine glory, doth remain.

See here for an earlier posting of one of Taylor's poems, which includes a link to more of his work.

The State has no right to act as if it were the head of the Church (2)

How should we configure the relationship between the church as subject to the Lordship of Christ and the State? Both are God-ordained institutions, but they have different roles. The task of the Church is to preach the gospel to the world and disciple believers. The function of the State is to govern the nation, upholding the rule of law using force if necessary. Here in the UK we are in the biblically anomalous position of having an Established Church. The Church of England is in effect the religious arm of the State. The Prime Minister appoints senior Anglican clergy including the Archbishop of Canterbury and Church of England Bishops sit in the House of Lords. As Free Church people we might like to see that position changed and the Church of England disestablished. But disestablishment does not mean that Church has nothing to say to the State. Hardline secularists might insist that faith-based values have no place in public life. But if Christ is Lord at all, he is Lord of all. As Abraham Kuyper famously said,

there is not one square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all does not cry out, ‘Mine!’.

Now, we are not saying that Christians should have the right to impose their faith or morality on non-Christians. But we refuse to retreat into religious ghettos. Jesus called us to be salt and light. Jeremiah wrote to the exiles in Babylon saying, Jeremiah 29:7. Church and State are distinct institutions, but Christians should be actively involved in public life. We have a biblical mandate to endeavour to influence and shape government legislation for the common good, Proverbs 14:34. The work of individual Christians such as William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury have had a beneficial impact on our country. So also the efforts of organisations like the Christian Institute.

Part of the problem we are facing is a shift in public morality away from virtue towards rights. Rather that Sate promoting the good (Romans 13), i.e. marriage as basis of family life, now we are in the realm of rights. The role of the State is to balance the competing rights of vested interest groups. Thus homosexuals demand the right to adopt children and the State accords them that right at the expense of the right of Christian adoption agencies to only allocate children to heterosexual couples. In this case the good of the child is not the utmost concern. That would involve the child being brought up in a loving, stable home with married adoptive parents. No, the main thing is the so-called right of gay couples to adopt.

Political Guru Philip Blond has argued that if we are to fix broken Britain then one thing we have to do is move away for moral relativism and a culture of 'rights'. We need to recover the idea of the common good. The collapse of virtue in society has led to the state having an ever more intrusive role, policing a society that is increasingly out of control. The recent proliferation of CCTV cameras bears witness to this fact. Christians should be actively bringing biblical values to bear upon public life in order to help shape a society that is based on virtue rather than rights. Our song is not “stand up for your rights” (Bob Marley), but “stand up for your love” (U2).

So, we will not withdraw from the public square. We acknowledge Jesus’ lordship over the whole of life. But we will not allow the State to dictate the teaching of the Church. Christ alone is our head.

The State has no right to act as if it were the head of the Church (1)

The Pharisees were out to ambush Jesus. The killer questions was, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or nor?” The dilemma for Jesus was this. If he said, “Of course not, Caesar is a tyrannical Gentile dog.” Then the Pharisees would have reported him to Pilate as a dangerous subversive. However, if he said, “Yes, of course, Israel is part of the Roman Empire and we should pay our dues.” then they would have denounced him as unpatriotic and disloyal to God’s own people, the Jews. Famously Jesus answered their question by saying, Matthew 22:21. The trouble is that Caesar can sometimes demand that which belongs to God. Early Christians were thrown to the lions for not confessing that Caesar is Lord. Obviously we are not in a situation where the head of state demands our worship. Ours is a different and more subtle challenge. Recent decades have witnessed systematic dismantling of the Christian heritage of our country. We are living in an increasingly secular society where the authorities have little patience with faith-based values. But we cannot give to Caesar that which belongs to God alone

Christian adoption agencies have been forced to close because they refuse to place children with homosexual couples. Christian registrars have been sacked for declining to officiate at Civil Partnerships. Gary McFarlane, a Christian marriage guidance counsellor was dismissed because he asked to be exempted from counselling homosexual couples. His appeal against his dismissal was rejected by Lord Justice Laws because his views were "held purely on religious grounds". They therefore could not be justified and would be "irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective ... divisive, capricious and arbitrary". The cases I’ve mentioned have affected individual believers, but the Church itself has recently faced challenges in this area. It was only with some difficulty that amendments were made to the Equality Bill that otherwise would have forced Churches to hire people whose beliefs and lifestyle are not on accordance with the teaching of Scripture. That happened under the previous government. But before the General Election David Cameron said in an interview,

I don't want to get into a huge row with the Archbishop here... but the Church has to do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through – sorting this issue out and recognising that full equality is a bottom-line, full essential… if our Lord Jesus was around today he would very much be backing a strong agenda on equality and equal rights, and not judging people on their sexuality.

Recently David Cameron signalled his support for the appointment openly homosexual Jeffrey John as Bishop of Southwark, although the appointment was rejected in the end.

Once again the issue is: Who is the head of the Church? Can the Church simply change its beliefs and practices and undergo a process of reinvention something like a political party in order to adapt to perceived public opinion? The challenge of intolerant secularism is akin to the challenge faced by the German Churches in the 1930’s. In their Barmen Declaration the Confessing Church stated,

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.

And

8.17 The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in Word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the Church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance.

The State has no right to try and impose its secular values on the Church and we must be prepared to resist this trend. As far as our beliefs and conduct are concerned the Church is subject to the sole headship of Christ. In the seventeenth century James VI of Scotland (who later became James I of England) attempted to impose his will on the Scottish Kirk. Andrew Melville told him where to get off in no uncertain terms,

Sirrah, ye are God's silly vassal; there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland: there is king James, the head of the commonwealth; and there is Christ Jesus, the king of the Church, whose subject James the Sixth is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, not a lord, not a head, but a member.

Knowing what we do of James, if anything Melville was being a little generous in describing the king as a member of the Church in any meaningful sense. But similar sentiments might be aimed at our present Prime Minister in his attempt to tell the Church what she should teach and believe. Quoting the Barmen Declaration once more,

8.18 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.

Jesus is our head and the Church is subject to his voice as expressed in Holy Scripture, which is our sufficient and authoritative guide in all matters of faith and conduct, 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Is the pope really head of the visible church?

In the Prime Ministerial Debates prior to the General Election, a question was asked that managed to unite Gordon Brow, Nick Clegg and David Cameron. It was this, given his stance on homosexual rights and abortion did the candidates welcome the Pope’s visit to the UK in September? All three politicians said that they welcomed the Pope’s visit. And all three agreed that he was wrong on gay rights and abortion. I think that they were unitedly wrong on both counts. It is not necessarily a good thing that the Pope is visiting the UK, although we agree with him on the issues raised by the questioner.

When he arrives in the UK for a four day official state visit, the Pope Benedict XVI will meet the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury, address a gathering of both Houses and Parliament and beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman. What should we make of all this? Hopefully it goes without saying that anti-papal bigotry is out of place. And I’m not sure that noisily protesting and waving placards is the best way to get out point over when the Pope arrives in our country. But when popemania hits the UK we might be given an opportunity to explain why we are not so enthusiastic concerning the arrival on our shores of Benedict XVI. I mean, not all Catholics are exactly over the moon about having the hardline Cardinal Ratzinger as the leader of their Church. When the Cardinal succeeded Pope John Paul II one American Roman Catholic complained, it "is like electing Rumsfeld after George Bush".

Now I realise that Evangelicals have largely lost interest in the controversy with Rome. We have other battles to fight such as the inerrancy of Scripture and the defence of our religious liberties, let alone the challenge of reaching the UK with the gospel. But we can’t get away from it that easily. In the face of a hostile secular society, Evangelicals are being increasingly drawn to Rome. After all, we are agreed on a good number of essential truths such as the Trinity and the virgin birth, sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ. In the States the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement has been actively trying to resolve outstanding differences between Rome and Evangelicals. Many question whether the divisions of Reformation were justified. Also in the States the Manhattan Declaration committed leading Evangelicals and Catholics to speak out on the issues of marriage, abortion and freedom of religion. Fair enough, but the Declaration also implied that both parties proclaim the same gospel. The UK’s counterpart, the Westminster Declaration included the obligatory Roman Catholic signatory.

But the Reformation isn’t quite over yet. Many of the great doctrinal differences between Rome and Evangelicals are unresolved and one of them is, “Who is the head of the Church?” So, what exactly does the Roman Catholic Church say on this matter? I quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

CRC 882: The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

This is a clear violation of biblical teaching. The blasphemous claim that the pope may exercise "unhindered power" over the Church is a direct challenge to the unique headship of Christ. The idea of the primacy of the Bishop Rome was unknown in the early centuries of Church history.

The New Testament knows nothing of hierarchical Church government with the pope lording it over cardinals, bishops, priests and people. Local Churches were led by their appointed elders. Elders served under the authority of the apostles. But all was in subjection to Christ, the one true head of the Church.

Our head, the Lord Jesus is Prophet, Priest and King.

His prophetic role is undermined by Roman Catholic teaching,

891: The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . .

As Prophet Christ continues to infallibly teach and guide the Church through the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures. The Spirit enables the people of God to recognise the Bible as the Word of God and understand its contents. The ascended Christ has gifted the Church teachers with whose task it is to explain and apply the Bible to his people, Ephesians 4:11-12.

We need no other priest than Jesus, our great High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. He atoned for our sins once for all on the cross. He ever lives to make intercession for us. Roman Catholic teaching denies this saying,

893: The bishop is "the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood," especially in the Eucharist which he offers personally or whose offering he assures through the priests, his co-workers.

Ministers are not priests who re-offer the sacrifice of Christ at the Mass. Christ's death atoned for sin once and for all, Hebrews 9:28. The only mediator between God and men is the Man Christ Jesus, 1 Timothy 2:5. In him all of God's people are constituted a royal priesthood, 1 Peter 2:9. We recognise no popes, bishops, clerical priests or any other supposed mediators between God and his people. Christ alone is sufficient for that task.

Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. The exalted Jesus is head over all things for the church, Ephesians 1:22-23. He, not the pope has "universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered", Matthew 28:18-20.

We therefore resist Roman Catholic claims concerning the pope's headship over the visible Church. The Bishop of Rome is a usurper and therefore cannot be a focus of unity for all Christian Churches. Christ alone is head of the Church. It would be an act of disloyalty to our Saviour to recognise any other Lord and head of the Church but him.

To be continued...