Convergence

I’m troubled by this book.  I’ve had it on my shelves for a blog review for months now, but it troubles me and I’ve kept putting it off.  The problem is this: though Sam Storms is  a friend of, and much respected by, John Piper and Wayne Grudem and others of similar pedigree – I just don’t believe the book.

The book is a plea for the uniting of charismatic phenomena (tongues, prophecy and the like) and Reformed doctrine.  In that its focus is on phenomena, not ‘merely’ a deeper experience of God’s love, it is several stages beyond the arguments of Lloyd-Jones, and should not be confused with them.

A large part of the book is anecdotal, in the sense that it says ‘this is what happened to me’.  And I don’t believe it…

Let me highlight three things that to me are major problems.

First, he tells us that he has lied in print.  He went into print several years earlier arguing for a cessationist position when he not only did not believe that the gifts had ceased but actually was, himself, a tongue-speaker (at the time, suppressing the gift).  If by his own admission he’s lied in such a way, why should we believe him now?

Then – second - there’s the type of prophecy he describes.  A dream that a window in their yard would be broken by a foul ball in a baseball game.  And – wow! – baseball had never been played in that yard.  But sure enough, some visitors to the home, knowing nothing about the dream, played base-ball in the yard and broke a window.  Sure proof that God is at work?  Not really; the Bible gives four clear marks that God is at work and this isn't one of them.  (Jonathan Edwards unpacks them helpfully and at length in ‘Distinguishing Marks.’  Storm professes to be an Edwards fan - he must have read it.)  But this kind of thing – if it happened – is on a level with psychic claims in all religions and none.  Why would Almighty God give a dream about a window?  Is there anything like this in the Bible?

And then – third -  there’s his demonology – more ‘Buffy’ than Scripture.  A demon sat in their lounge wrapped in a scarf and beckoning their daughter to come to him; a ‘force’ which Storms himself compares to ‘Star Wars’: ‘a “wall” of energy or power or, as I said, what felt like “liquid air”, engulfed me.  It actually pushed me backward a step or two.’ A demon-possessed man smelling so badly that Storms asks ‘Do demons have an odor?’ and answers ‘Yes, they do!  And it is far from pleasant!’  Is there any of this in Scripture?

Some of it is pure spiritism: ‘Does the name “Derek” mean anything special to you?'  Oh, wow – again!  A God who can make a name pop into your head, but not tell you what it means!  Pop down to Waterstones in your lunch-break: you can read any number of mediums making the same claims – and they’re frauds.  It’s called cold reading, and easy to learn.  Waterstones will also sell you the 'How to' books!

And if you want a fourth,  there’s his naiveté; he apparently still believes that Paul Cain was an anointed man of God even at the time of his greatest sin and hypocrisy.  Really?  And the respect for the ‘Kansas City Prophets’?  Really?

So what do I think of Sam Storms?  Is he lying?  Exaggerating? Deluded, delusional, spin-doctoring, faulty in his memory, soft in his head, naive beyond belief?  Possibly. Some of these things.   I don’t know.  Just consider: if these things really happen, it’s very kind of the Devil, isn’t it, to make sure they only happen to charismatics?  And reason enough, in itself, never to become charismatic!

This is one of the most frightening books I’ve ever read.  Not because of the spiritual, evil, forces it describes.  But because story after story is designed to undermine serious Biblical thought and reflection, and infect the Reformed community with the worst of charismatic claptrap.   It is a most frightening trajectory, if the Reformed get on to it.

Why 'quiet times' should be noisy

'In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.'  

Hebrews 5:7

A new-to-me duo - hilarious

Lloyd-Jones: Wrong theology causes wars!

And because of these two views – that God is love only and that people are essentially good – it is said that all that is necessary to put the world right is to show men and women the good way to live and give them a picture of life as it ideally should be… Set it before the nations that God is love and that people are essentially good.  They are bound to rise to it.  Appeal to them.  Be reasonable.  Do not say, ‘Thou shalt not’, but say, ‘Isn’t this wonderful?  Surely this appeals to you?’

And the leaders of the nations tried that approach with Hitler.  Afterwards that was called appeasement.  But they believed it then.  ‘Surely,’ said Mr Neville Chamberlain, ‘if only I meet him and talk to him man to man… I’m a businessman and I’ve never failed yet when I meet a man across the table.  It’s all very well sending diplomatic notes but I’ll go to him.  I’ll sit down with him and appeal to him.  He’s bound to listen.’  And Chamberlain believed it!  He was quite honest; he was perfectly sincere.  It was his theology that was wrong.

DM Lloyd-Jones in ‘born of God’ page 87

Much Missed

Dan Phillips’ blog entry on ‘How flu is better and worsethan cold’ reminded me, oddly enough, of Mum.

Mum never had a cold; she always had flu.  I’d seen a TV program where one of the telly doctors (Hilary Jones, I think) had said ‘The difference is this: If somebody tells you there’s a fifty pound note on the front door step and you don’t care enough to go get it, you’ve got flu.  If you can get out of bed at all, you’ve got a cold.’

So I shared this piece of medical wisdom with my Mum.  She agreed.  Definitely, she said.  Then she added ‘You really feel bad with flu.  I had flu last week, and could only just manage to go to work...’

She was a character, Mum.  And she’s much, much missed still.

Sunday’s Silent, Secret Sadness

(This, my first ever ‘guest post’, comes from a Northern Pastor known to me.)

It is Sunday evening, and the Sabbath is almost over.  Once more it has been – I am told – ‘a good day’.  There were good numbers at both services.  I preached at both and managed not to lose my way in either.  I think I explained the texts fairly, and applied them with some warmth and passion.  We sang heartily to the praise of God.  We know that God was with us.  It was a good day.  And now I am home; no students called this evening, no pastoral problems need my attention.  It’s a warm home, a loving wife, a gracious God.

And yet.  Yet my heart aches.  I am but a breath, now, from retirement.  Only yesterday (it seems) I was a new minister; now, I’m the oldest man in our fraternal.  And I have done so little.

Have I been faithful?  Yes, I believe so.  I have preached everything I believe, popular or not.  I have refused to ride hobby-horses – as far as I know.  I have pressed the claims of God and of Christ and his gospel, both in congregations and to individuals.  There is much where I have failed.  I have not studied enough.  I have certainly not prayed as I should have and am called to do.  But I have studied, and I have prayed, and I have preached.  God has blessed; we have seen many who are ‘hopefully converted’, many who go on with the Lord, many who serve him in different ways and even in different countries.

But tonight, like most Sundays, as I drink my tea and warm my feet a heaviness descends upon me, a secret silent sadness.  We have not known the Spirit’s descent in power!  How many have heard me again, and thanked me again, and gone home unsaved again?  How many ‘almost persuaded’ there are!  How many ungodly professors have gathered again! (Just once.  Most of them only come once).  How little difference has been made!

I believe in preaching.  I believe I am called to preach.  I am honoured to be loved and respected so much more than I deserve.  But – oh, Lord!  How long?

(Thanks to Stephen Baird for the photo, Arizona Lights)

More Mastermind

Following on from a couple of weeks ago...

Jim Hacker

After yesterday's brief reference, here is the man who once said 'I must find out where my people are going, and lead them there.'

When leadership fails

I preached – or tried to – on Exodus 32 this last Sunday evening – the incident of the golden calf.  What struck me most was the failure of Aaron’s leadership: how quick he is to respond to the people’s request to make them gods; it is not the job of the true leader to follow the (wrong) demands of the people. 

Jim Hacker - the ultimate leader?

And how quick he was to blame God, or providence, or fate: ‘Out came this calf!’ (verse 24).

How much weakened he was, too, by his failure to make use of the plural leadership that Moses had provided: ‘Wait here for us until we come back to you.  Aaron and Hur are with you, and anyone involved in a dispute can go to them…’(24:14).

I have never regarded myself as a natural leader; any abilities I exercise in that direction are gifts of grace and part of God’s call.  It has been a great relief, over the years, to come to an increasing understanding of what leadership is in the church, and in particular to surround myself with other leaders who can take the blame make up for my faults.  My understanding is still growing – at this rate, by the time I retire, I may be ready to start (!)  This much, it seems to me, is clear from the Scriptures:

1. Christ is the head of the church, and he, alone, has authority in it.  No other ruler – pope, priest, queen, council – is to be tolerated at all.  To tolerate such ‘rulers’ is effectively to turn the church of Christ into a human organisation.
2. Christ rules in his church only by his word: ‘Let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’  As the risen Christ walks among the lampstands, he does so to assert his rule (both making promises and issuing warnings/threats) as well as to speak by his word.
3. Chaos would ensue if every church member ‘did their own thing’ based on their (mis-)understandings of the Word.  Babes in Christ need help to see its meaning; the rebellious need to be challenged, rebuked and corrected – and so on.  Therefore, Christ has ordained under-shepherds in each church.  Since they are to rule in Christ’s name, they must be able to show the relevance of the Word.  This explains the one qualification elders need beyond being ‘godly men’: they must be ‘apt to teach.’  Seeing it this way helps clear away misconceptions.  They do not need to be able to preach – they need to be able to apply the Word to church situations.
4. British people, and British pastors, are uncomfortable with the Scriptural vocabulary of ‘rule’.  We are used to singing ‘Rule Britannia with its assertion ‘Britain never never never shall be slaves’; being ‘ruled’ sounds like ‘slavery’ – so we want democracy in our churches.  It is part of our psyche.  The predominantly congregational ecclesiology of the last century or so makes us uneasy about the idea of elders ruling.
5. Nevertheless, the Scriptures won’t allow us to escape the concept of rule.  Elders must therefore rule:
1. By the Word, not their preferences.  And it must be seen as such – hence, again, ‘apt to teach’.
2. From a life-style that shows their own commitment to Scriptural (not man-made) holiness.
3. Not with any view to financial gain – ‘not for filthy lucre’ – a phrase that’s used three times in the AV about elders, not once – and then once about deacons, too.  (See 1 Timothy 3.3, Titus 1.7, 1 Peter 5.2 and 1 Tim. 3.8)  The church’s affairs are not to be manipulated for the financial benefit of the elders.
4. Not for power, lording it over the flock (1 Peter 5.3).  Like their Master, elders are to be servant rulers.
5. With a view to the expansion of Christ’s kingdom.  The way the church organised in the first century led to a world turned upside down.  Congregational democracy can prevent anything being done; elders must not tolerate this, nor initiate it.
6. With eagerness: ‘eager to serve’ (1 Peter 5.2).

Thus, it is wise:

• To teach the churches the headship of Jesus; this is one truth that may be self-evident to pastor/preachers, but almost certainly isn’t to most of the flock.  Its implications must be spelt out. 
• To show the churches how elder-government expresses that.
• To encourage the elders to have a vision for growth, not maintenance.  Growth will not be restricted to numerical growth, but it will certainly include it.

(Conrad Mbewe’s chapter on eldership, in ‘Foundations for the Flock’, has helped me order and express some of the above.)

A phenomenal talent, an awful tragedy

Those with phenomenal talent seem to have a well-above average tendency to leave us early.  It isn't yet known what killed Ms. Houston, but her destructive life-style was no secret.


The song that will always be most associated with her name has powerful, personal memories for me.  While it was still a big hit, my own wife Elaine was in the midst of one of her sessions of serious illness, and she became frightened that, this time, I would lose patience and leave her.

In one of those Grand Romantic Gestures that only a Yorkshireman is capable of, I bought her Whitney's 'I will always love you' and said 'Listen to the lyrics of this.'  Hmm; I should have listened first.  For though the refrain is 'I...I...I... will always love you' the whole song is saying 'I will always love you, but I'm leaving you.'   It wasn't - to be honest - a great help at the time.


Still - great song, wonderful voice, phenomenal talent - and an awful tragedy.

Who's the Man of God?

A few years ago, I heard a good brother preach on 2 Timothy 3:16,17 - in which he said, among other (and better) things, that Scripture was useful so that the person of God may be thoroughly equipped for godly living.


I don't object, on this occasion, to the substitution of gender neutral language.  I object that he's missed the whole point of the text.


Look it up: 'man of God' in both Testaments always means a preacher.  In the OT, it's Moses or the prophets; in the New Testament, actually it's always Timothy.


What Paul is saying in 2 Timothy is not that the Scriptures are useful for everyone.  Of course, that is true - it's just not what he's saying.  What he is saying is that the Scriptures alone are all that the pastor/teacher needs for his work: he is, by the knowledge of the Bible, 'thoroughly equipped' for every good work he is called to do.


He is not saying that Betty Christian does her quiet time in the morning and finds that her set passage for the day corrects her doctrine and rebukes her behaviour.  That is true, too.  But what Paul is saying is that Timothy must use the Scripture to teach, correct, rebuke and train in righteousness.  And he says it again in 4:2.


Two things follow from a proper understanding of the text.  One, the pastor must correct and rebuke - and when church members take offence at that, as they often do, that's because they've misunderstood their relationship to the pastor.  When a church member asks 'Who do you think you are?' the only proper answer is 'I think I'm the man of God.  And this is what the Bible says a man of God should do.'


Two: what can't be done with Scripture is not the pastor's job.

Tout ça change...

One of the things we noticed at yesterday's fraternal was the irony, or sarcasm, of the writer in 2 Samuel 11:4 (now she [Bathsheba] had purified herself from her uncleanness.'  


Bathsheba is on her way to commit adultery, and she knows it.  David has sent for her in order to commit adultery, and he knows it.  But - hey!  What's the moral law anyway?  Provided the ceremonial law - the 'incidentals' of religion - are being observed...


One Christian lady whose husband has left her for another woman told me recently that he had told her 'I know what we're doing is wrong.  But we are reading the Bible and praying together.'  OK; that's all right then.

Jesus called it straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Confident Christianity

Had the joy of hearing my 'old' colleague Chris Sinkinson today, on preaching Old Testament narrative.  Chris pastors Alderholt Congregational Church, lectures at Moorlands Bible College in Apologetics and (apparently) serves as part-time heart-throb there, too. His lecture/seminar/fraternal was stimulating, as always.  BUT the purpose of this little blog entry is to introduce his new book on apologetics, which he brought along today.  Called 'Confident Christianity', it's a whistle-stop tour through history, philosophy and theology ('from ancient Greek philosophers via Enlightenment thinkers through to the worldviews of twenty-first-century thinkers' says Steve Brady's blurb) - with the aim of making Christians more confident in their faith.


Sounds heavy, eh?  But that's the brilliance of Chris - it's not heavy at all.  Chris is a brilliant communicator with an ability to make complicated things not just simple, but interesting too. 

So easy, even a dog could understand it.


Whenever I think of Chris, I'm reminded of an old story about Billy Butlin (the founder of Butlins) and Fred Pontin (the founder of - well, have a guess).  As a young man, Pontin worked for Billy, before striking out on his own.  Later in life, Sir Fred had to introduce Sir Billy to someone and did so like this: 'Billy Butlin taught me everything I know about this business, didn't you Billy?'  To which the older man apparently replied 'Yes, Fred.  But not everything I know!'


I can't say anything like that about me and Chris - but we at MBC did give him opportunity to practice for a while.  

Morecambe and Wise - Mastermind

A truly awful photo.

What, the new one at the head of my blog?  Yes, I know it is.  But the old one - me and my granddaughter Abigail - is somewhat out of date now.  While I look for a better one, enjoy yourself with this...

Well worth a read

This little piece over at Jeremy Walker's blog - on God's fatherly care - is well worth a read.

Let me show you what I mean...

An opinion in search of a text

Trying to think through the whole question of 'sola scriptura' as it applies to Christian behaviour, I posted yesterday an attempt to show that football was sinful.  (Which I don't believe - see yesterday).


And I ended by saying 'Nobody argues like that, do they?'  - and implying that, actually, lots of Christians argue just like that.  Here's what I mean.

I’ve recently been challenged by some folks over a passing comment I made, in private, that I would not tell new Christians that it was a sin to smoke.  Now, let me be upfront here.  I have never taken a single draw on a cigarette in my life.  As a child, I was subjected to the most effective aversion therapy imaginable by two heavily-smoking parents.  I hate the habit.  

But I know Spurgeon smoked.  (‘Different era; they didn’t know how harmful it was.’)  

Doctor Lloyd-Jones smoked in the early part of his ministry.  (‘Still a different era…’  No, really - it's not!)  

And I know, too, that even today some ministers (particularly, it seems, of the heavily Presbyterian kind) smoke.  ('Different e- oh...')  It doesn’t make them right, of course; but is it a sin?

‘Surely,’ said one good and godly friend, a retired pastor with many years experience, ‘Surely you would point out to them that their body is a temple of the Holy Spirit?  And that they are wasting an awful lot of money?’

Do you know, I don’t think I would?  Let me ask you, my friendly Retired Pastor, how many seriously obese people did you take on one side during your ministry, and tell them that their bodies were temples of the Holy Spirit?  And that the money they were spending on too much food and sweets and the like could be much better used in the Kingdom?  None?  Really? No, I’m not surprised.

Why am I not surprised?  Because what you have is an opinion in search of a text.  ‘I know smoking is wrong; let me find a text to prove it.’  And you’ve lighted on a text  (1 Cor. 6.19) that’s actually about sexual immorality.  It isn’t even about keeping our bodies healthy at all!

Allow me, will you, to give another example.  I was once very rude to a good brother who didn't deserve it, and I am genuinely sorry.  But the point was a valid one.

It happened in this wise.  A ministers' fraternal was talking about Christians and alcohol, and this GB said 'I recognise that alcohol is a gift from God.  But I know that many young people abuse it, and therefore I gave up drinking a long time ago and think that all pastors should.'

To which I responded, without thinking, 'Did you give up having sex with your wife, too?'

Why ask such a shocking thing?  Well, look:

'I recognise that x is a gift from God.  But I know that many young people abuse it, and therefore I gave up x a long time ago and think that all pastors should.'  

Now, if that is a logically valid argument, it is valid for whatever you put as 'x'.  Put 'alcohol' in, and many Christians nod and smile.  Put 'sex with your wife' in and you get an awkward silence before someone changes the subject.

Well, I'm sorry.  I shouldn't have been rude to an older, godlier and often wiser brother.  But what he had, I'm afraid, was an opinion in search of an argument.

If we continue to do that, when others (professing Christians or out and out worldlings) see through our arguments, we do immense damage to our claim that we base everything on Scripture.  How can they believe that our refusal to let women preach is based on Scripture - when we claim that other things are, that plainly aren't?  How can they believe that we stand against homosexual acts because Scripture insists on it, if we stand against alcohol with the same 'reason' - that turns out, on the easiest of examinations, to be false?

Do I have to say that I'm not, really not, suggesting that Christians should be encouraged to smoke or drink?  I am, though, trying to apply the principle of sola scriptura - of 'good and necessary consequence'.

Comments are welcome, but - as other bloggers sometimes put it - the usuals will be observed.

Sola Scriptura?

An opinion in search of a defence?

What does it mean for us, as evangelicals, to argue that the Holy Scripture is the only rule of faith and conduct?  Only the other day, I quoted the Westminster Confession:

Chapter 1. VI: The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

What does it mean to say ‘by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture?’

The first thing we have to say is that it is an admission: an admission that not every circumstance we will meet is covered in Scripture.  Even more so now than when the WC was framed, life has changed beyond recognition.  We cannot reasonably expect Scripture to say anything about (for example) embryo research, and it doesn’t.  But it is extremely dangerous to argue, therefore, that Scripture is an inadequate guide in this area (or any other).  We admit things have changed; and we look for principles and the necessary consequences of those principles.

The second thing it means is that we must deduce our conclusions from the Scripture, and not impose them upon the Scripture.  It is too easy to decide first that something is wrong and then go looking for Scriptures to defend our opinion.  Because we are sinful and our logic/reason is flawed along with the rest of us, we may well find such a defence.

Let me give you an example.  Suppose I held the opinion that football (soccer) is sinful.  (I don’t hold that opinion.  I hold it to be boring.  I hold it to be pointless.  I do not hold it to be sinful.)  I then want to impose my view on the church here at MBC, and perhaps on the church at large.  I need to prove my case from Scripture.  Here goes.

1.      There is no instance of soccer or any ball game (I might want to be careful with that if, for example, I want to allow snooker or tennis as legitimate) in the Bible; that alone ought to give us cause for concern.

2.      Our own society is so obsessed with football that the language of religion is used about it; Bill Shankly’s famous comment that ‘it is more important than life or death’ is only one example.

3.      The very fact that ‘the world’ is so obsessed is all the proof that the spiritually mature need: we are not to love the world.  We are told of those who do love the world that the love of the Father is not in them.

4.      Those gifted at football may be taken very young and sheltered from real life and then emerge, still in their teens, into a job whose pay and life-style is virtually guaranteed to ruin them.

5.      The moral lives of many of those who do play football just underline for us the enormous danger of this sport – see some of the racier tabloids, almost any day of the week.

6.      Football gives rise to, and is supported by, an enormous gambling industry which is in itself sinful and should be shunned by anyone following after holiness.

7.      Vast amounts of time and money are spent on the game – by professionals and amateurs alike.  But we are commanded to redeem the time because the days are evil; and we are to be good stewards of our money (which is the Lord’s money). 

QED, therefore: football has no place in a Christian’s life.

If we want to rub it in, we can easily show (or claim) that past worthies did not indulge in sports at all.  We can also, probably, point to one or two people who have fallen into sin as a result of football.  (‘Eee, our ‘Arold never drank at all until ‘e got into that footballing crowd.  Now ‘e’s an alcoholic with two broken marriages and no end of affairs behind ‘im….’) 

Then we point out that, if none of the arguments are convincing on their own – well, surely, the cumulative effect must be?  Are you so stubborn, so blind, that you can’t see or won’t admit the very obvious?

Now then, dear reader.  Are you going to give up football, then?  No?  Why not?

Because the argument isn’t Scriptural.  It doesn’t become Scriptural just by quoting a few Scriptures.  And it doesn’t become a strong argument by piling one piece of nonsense on top of another.

But nobody argues like that, do they?  No?  Sure?  Back tomorrow.

A tiny slap on the wrist for Mark Driscoll

The excellent Dr Carson has come to the defence of those who need no defence - British gospel ministers.  You can read the whole of his piece here.  But for your delight and delectation - as they used to say - I post a little extract below:

• In light of my friend Mark Driscoll's recent comments about pastoral ministry in Great Britain, I wanted to share a few of my own reflections on the diverse ministries that have prospered, or floundered, there. Between 1972 and 1996, I spent nine full years there, scattered over that range of years; and since then, I have been in the UK between two and six times every year. I am neither boasting nor complaining; I'm merely establishing that my knowledge of the country is not entirely superficial. I have no reason to doubt Mark's sincere concern for the gospel in the UK and for young ministers there. Nevertheless, you might be interested in hearing another perspective...
• 
  
•  (5) But there is a bigger issue. We must not equate courage with success, or even youth with success. We must avoid ever leaving the impression that these equations are valid. I have spent too much time in places like Japan, or in parts of the Muslim world, where courage is not measured on the world stage, where a single convert is reckoned a mighty trophy of grace. I am grateful beyond words for the multiplication of churches in Acts 29, but I am no less grateful for Baptist ministers like my Dad, men who labored very hard and saw very little fruit for decades in French Canada, many of whom went to prison (their sentences totaled eight years between 1950 and 1952). I find no ground for concluding that the missionaries in Japan in the 20th century were less godly, less courageous, less faithful, than the missionaries in (what became) South Korea, with its congregations of tens of thousands. At the final Great Assize, God will take into account not only all that was and is, but also what might have been under different circumstances (Matt 11:20ff). Just as the widow who gave her mite may be reckoned to have given more than many multi-millionaires, so, I suspect, some ministers in Japan, or Yorkshire, will receive greater praise on that last day than those who served faithfully in a corner of the world where there was more fruit. Moreover, the measure of faithful service is sometimes explicitly tied in Scripture not to the quantity of fruit, measured in numbers, but to such virtues as self-control, measured by the use of one's tongue (James 3:1-6).

Note, will you, two things.


First, Dr. Carson calls Driscoll 'my friend'.  That not only establishes a friendly tone, it appeals to Driscoll who has said that he willingly takes criticism from friends.  Good; now, let's seen the evidence.


Second: note how direct Carson is in the last paragraph I've quoted: 'The measure of faithful service is sometimes explicitly tied in Scripture... to virtues such as self-control, measured by the use of one's tongue.'  Ouch!


Come on, Mark - time to stop laughing, stop preening, and put a double guard on your tongue.  

Monday Magic

The legendary David Berglas - stopping his own pulse...

Of the reading of several books...

This time last year, I asked the good folks over at genevanet for suggestions of some substantial books to read in 2011.  The were very helpful.  And I didn't read any of them...
This year, these books are my targets to begin with; alongside them, I expect to read many lesser books.

First, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, 'Born of God' - sermons on John Chapter 1.  Lloyd-Jones is THE hero for me; I was awakened under his preaching, trained at the seminary he set up and am doing my doctoral research into his evangelistic ministry at Westminster Chapel.  I have at least two full shelves of his books, maybe more; but the publisher promises that this is one of his most significant yet.

Then, Packer on 'Serving the People of God' - vol. 2 of his shorter writings.  Dr. J.I. Packer was my first theological teacher - I'll never forget the impact his 'Introductory Essay' to Owen's 'Death of Death' had on my thinking, nor the sweetness 'Knowing God' had for me on first reading - and still has.

Third, Conrad Mbewe's 'Foundations for the Flock' - a newly published collection of his teachings on church and ministry.  Conrad himself helped me get hold of a copy (from here), and they couldn't have been more helpful - it arrived yesterday, and the 'dipping' has started.  (Definitely a dipping, not a sprinkling - a Baptist reading a Baptist book...)

Finally, Andrew Atherstone's and David Ceri Jones' editing of 'Engaging with Lloyd-Jones' - necessary reading for my doctoral research, but much more than that.  Interesting not least because DCJ used to be something of a Ll-J fanatic, I'm told, but now - well, isn't; while Atherstone is an Anglican who think Lloyd-Jones read the situation well in 1966!  On this one, at least, I plan to let you know what I think, if the Lord wills.  Keep reading.




And that's it for today. A little light-heartedness on Monday, I hope, followed by some serious postings next week.  Meanwhile, the Lord bless you and keep you and make his face to shine upon you this Lord's Day - whether you're preaching or listening, may it be 'as the oracles of God.'

Sin and Repentance

A friend – I should say ‘former friend’ because he won’t now meet with me – left his wife for another woman and, apparently, told his wife ‘I know it’s wrong, but I’ve said “Sorry” to God and moved on.’

Dear reader, it isn’t that simple, is it? Repentance is more – an awful lot more – than ‘saying sorry to God and moving on.’ Repentance is about change of behaviour.

• Repentance means changing one’s mind, so that one’s views, values, goals, and ways are changed, and one’s whole life is lived differently. Mind and judgement, will and affections, behavio[u]r and lifestyle, motives and plans; all are involved. Repenting means starting to live a new life… Feelings of remorse, self-reproach, and sorrow for sin generated by fear of punishment, without any wish or resolve to forsake sinning should not be confused with repentance.

(From ‘Repentance’ in Sproul’s ‘Reformation Study Bible’

Repentance, then, is not saying ‘Sorry’ to God and moving on. It is saying ‘Sorry’ to God and moving back!

  

However, once I’d conquered the godly urge to seek FF out and hit him over the head with the biggest Bible I could find, several times, it did get me thinking about my own sin.

  

I haven’t left my wife – why would I? But (and please, dear reader, do not be too shocked by the confession) after almost forty years as a Christian believer, and thirty years as a pastor-teacher, I still sin. It isn’t, merely, that I am still tempted; I still fall. And, worse it seems to me, it is so often into the self-same sins that I fell into all those years ago. For all my prayers and all my (I think) repentance, if there’s been any progress, I cannot see it. I teach others what the Bible says about avoiding sin, what it says about walking in the ways of God and yet have advanced so very little.

 Am I then hoist with my own petard? Have I been fooling myself about my own repentance, so that I am doomed and damned? What is the difference between me and Former Friend? Unsurprisingly, the Scripture is somewhat helpful:

•  1John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. 8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

•  2:1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defence--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

 John says some things that are frightening for every believer struggling with sin, for they could be read as if no true believer sins: ‘If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth…Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.’ Wow- no pressure, then.

  

Yet at the same time, he makes it clear that he is talking about people who do sin. ‘If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins…’

 The key is in 2:1. Let me paraphrase, just a little, to get to the heart of it: ‘My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not [walk in] sin. But if anybody does [fall into] sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defence…

  

The difference is between someone who fights his sinful nature but fails (on the one hand) and someone (on the other) who chooses the way of sin, or a sin, and walks in it. The first is inevitable (for if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves); the second is impossible (for ‘whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did’).

  

Unless God grants him true repentance, my FF is in eternal trouble:

•  Hebrews 10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

 So - that's OK then, and I can go on compacently with my own sins?  By no means!  God foribd!  Theological expletive!  Such complacency about my own sin would, indeed, be to walk in sin and come under the same condemnation.  Dear reader, I have no excuse for such complacency.  And nor, I suspect, do you.

Leaky Canoneers

Over at Biblical Christianity today 

( http://bibchr.blogspot.com/ ) the inestimable Dan Phillips (always provocative, usually right, sometimes wrong,  rotten taste in music)  has had another go at what he calls ‘Leaky Canoneers’.  (Well, somebody has to.)  It’s a phrase that he uses for those who formally affirm Sola Scriptura but in practice think God is whispering in their ears.  That is to say, our charismatic friends.

What he doesn’t mention – but I think would acknowledge – is that it is not only charismatics who can be guilty.  I know a pastor in Christ who was told on one occasion that his (really very mild) taste in music was demonic.  To the inevitable question ‘How would you justify that from Scripture?’ came the answer ‘I don’t need the Bible for this; my conscience is all the authority I need.’

It isn’t, of course, a new problem and it is one that the authors of the Westminster Confession addressed.  Look how well they put it:

Chapter 1.VI: The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. 

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

Note especially that last paragraph: what do the Worthy Westminsters mean by ‘private spirits’?  They mean that those who ‘just know’ they’re right must submit to Scripture.  Those whom ‘God has told’ they are right must submit to Scripture.  As Dan argues elsewhere – to be forced to submit to anything else is the worst kind of bondage.

Thanks be to God for his holy word!

Ring, ring - why don't you give me a call?

Wait 40 seconds...





The viola player is Lukas Kmit; his reaction is humorous, courteous and brilliant.

Ruth Rogers/Andrea Bocelli

Ruth Rogers is the current joint leader of the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra.  Here, she duets with Andrea Bocelli.


A little culture for you all!

Eccentrics

On Monday of this week, around 65 men gathered at the Eccentrics’ Conference to hear Stuart Olyott, Alec Motyer and Richard Bewes.  They were disappointed; of that noble triumvirate, only Richard Bewes was present.  Olyott and Motyer were prevented by ill health.

The Ubiquitous Geoff Thomas

So, on Monday and Tuesday of this week, around 65 men gathered at the Eccentrics’ Conference and heard Richard Bewes, Paul Mallard, Paul Blackham and Somebody Else.  Most of the men were younger ministers and it was the first time I’d every attended a conference where I felt like an old man.  Happily, though, the wonderful Geoff Thomas was present to make me feel better; while ever Geoff is in Aberystwyth, I know I’m a young man.

Paul B is well qualified to speak at such a conference; there is no-one quite like him.  He’s full of mad-cap enthusiasm for the Bible (often seeing and pointing out things that are there but you’ve never noticed!), for church history, for doctrine, for the Lord Jesus.  He has a unique way of getting a lot into his talks, too: he doesn’t finish about half his sentences, leaving you to fit in the rest while he goes on to the next thing he wants so say.

I've got the end of my sentence...

Here it is....

I've dropped it

Anybody see where it went?

Richard Bewes, by contrast, is quite a contrast.  Quiet spoken, measured in tone and phrase, he spoke richly of the Rwandan Revival, of which he’d been an eye-witness.  It is, I think, the first eye-witness account of revival that I’ve ever heard.

Paul Mallard

Paul Mallard is, I think, the best  preacher that the FIEC has got at the moment.  He’d been drafted in at very short notice, and preached with his characteristic warmth, clarity and enthusiasm first from Revelation 2:18ff (Thyatira) and then from the first psalm in the Bible (Exodus 15).  He urged the men to be men; warned them that there were times when pastors just had to stand up and fight.  Fine expositions, warmly delivered, gratefully received.  We could have had more of him.

Gentle reader, you will be glad to know that no photos are available of Somebody Else.  He managed, though, to be controversial while talking about the Church.  Some loved what he had to say and were open with him about it; others didn’t, and muttered in dark corners (apparently).  They were particularly annoyed, it seems, with the call to close all Bible Colleges – a call which he hadn’t made.  (Paul Blackham, by contrast, lamented that he hadn’t made that call.  Can’t win, eh?)

It was, however, a very good conference and Steve Levy (pictured here without his More Famous Brother Paul) is to be commended for the vision and for all the work he and his church put into it.  Food was superb, hosts were great.  Church could do with a bigger car park, though…

The More Famous Brother

Engaging with Lloyd-Jones

Having been at the conference that produced this symposium, I've been wanting to do a review of the book, but held back until I could do it properly.  Now, I've read a review that says most of what I'd want to say - it's Jeremy Walker's, here.  I particularly agree with what Jeremy has to say about the comments on Lloyd-Jones' treatment of history - comments that at the conference were made, I think, by David Ceri Jones but taken up and developed here by John Coffey.

I'm a big fan of Lloyd-Jones.  I'm doing my doctorate on his evangelistic preaching. I don't think he was infallible, and am quite willing to say precisely where I thought he was wrong.  I welcomed the conference, the critical analysis and some - emphasise some - of the papers.  One or two of the papers - which haven't found their way into the book - were delivered, to all appearances, by men who'd once met someone who'd heard of Lloyd-Jones vaguely, so shallow were their comments.  Others of the papers were somewhat thin.  Perhaps I'll be back to this when time permits; meanwhile, read Jeremy.

Living as we please...

Having been under fire a bit myself from time to time because of what I believe about Christian liberty and the rules of Christian behaviour - here's a summary of Stuart Olyott on Christian Liberty.  You can hear the sermon yourself here - scroll down to TWB20.

As Christians, we may live exactly as we please, provided:

1. We do not disobey Scripture: some things are clearly forbidden, and others clearly commanded.


2. We do not disobey lawful authority - Romans 13


3. We do not do anything to hinder our own Christian life (but note: what hinders yours may not hinder mine)

4. We do not cause a weaker brother to stumble - Romans 14.  But it is important too that we don't allow a tyranny from the weak.  ('Let them be upset!')


5. We do those things which build up Christ's body


6. We do nothing to hinder the spread of the gospel


7.  We do everything to God's glory - 1 Cor 10:31

It's a great disappointment to me that Stuart has had to pull out of the Eccentrics' Conference next week due to (his wife's) ill-health.


But here's an idea:  I've written recently to Jonathan Watson at Banner of Truth, suggesting that they publish a collection of Stuart's 'Shorter Writings' - they've been appearing in Banner, EMW, RT and elsewhere for decades now.  Jonathan's kindly forwarded the suggestion to Stuart himself; how about adding your vote to mine?  You can email Jonathan direct at Jonathan@banneroftruth.co.uk - if both my readers contact him, that'll be a start!

Watch this space...

I'm coming back - tomorrow.  Have you missed me, either of you?