All I will say...

All I will say about the Late Lady Thatcher, copied unashamedly from the blog of Cranmer::

In the Commons, it was her friend Conor Burns who mingled just the right amount of personal recollection with her international political accomplishments. He paid moving tribute to The Great Lady from the very seat in Parliament where she made her maiden speech, and the place to which she returned after leaving No10. He ended with her own account of attending Mass at the Church of the Holy Cross in Warsaw in 1993: 

Every nook and cranny was packed, and the choral singing of unfamiliar Polish hymns was all the more uplifting because I could not understand the verses. It forced me to try to imagine what the congregation was asking of God. Foreign though this experience was, it also gave me a comforting feeling that I was but one soul among many, in a fellowship of believers that crossed nations and denominations. When the priest rose to give the sermon, however, I had the sense that I had suddenly become the centre of attention. Heads turned and people smiled at me. As the priest began, someone translated his words. He recalled that during the dark days of Communism, they had been aware of voices from the outside world offering hope of a different and better life. The voices were many, often eloquent, and all were welcome to a people starved so long of truth as well as freedom. But Poles had come to identify with one voice in particular - my own. Even when that voice had been relayed through the distorting loudspeaker of the Soviet propaganda, they had heard through the distortions the message of truth and hope. Well, Communism had fallen, and a new democratic order had replaced it. But they had not fully felt the change, nor truly believed in its reality, until today, when they finally saw me in their own church. The priest finished his sermon, and the service continued. But the kindness of the priest and the parishioners had not been exhausted. At the end of Mass I was invited to stand in front of the altar. When I did so, lines of children presented me with little bouquets while their mothers and fathers applauded.

...Of course, no human mind, nor any conceivable computer, can calculate the sum total of my career in politics in terms of happiness, achievement and virtue. Nor, indeed, of their opposites. It follows, therefore, that the full accounting of how my political work affected the lives of others is something we will only know on Judgement Day. It is an awesome and unsettling thought. But it comforts me, that when I stand up to hear the verdict, I will at least have the people of the Church of the Holy Cross in Warsaw in court as character witnesses.

In the Pink

Some time ago in another place I voiced (a little tongue-in-cheek) the opinion that A.W. Pink may not have been genuinely converted.  I based this speculation on the fact that though he travelled the world, living on three continents, he could not find a single church that was worth joining – and this at a time when, for example, Lloyd-Jones was ministering in Westminster.  ‘They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us’ (1 John 2.19).  I used the analogy, I remember, of a ‘minister’ conducting adulterous affairs on several different continents and arrogantly defending his right to do so.  We would not consider a man who was so contemptuous of his wife and marriage vows to be a believer or, at very least, a man to be admired.  Why then are we so wimpy about a man who was so contemptuous of Christ’s bride?

Recently, Pyromaniac Dan Phillips weighed in with his critique of Pink and does it so much better than I.  Tom Chantry’s replies (several of them) in the ‘comments’ section are illuminating and worth reading, too but the rest of the comments – not so much.

Of course, I have no way of knowing the state of Pink’s heart, regenerate or not.  But let it be faced about professed Bible teachers who dismiss all of evangelicalism that does not agree with them on every jot and tittle.  Such men are not to be followed.  They are not to be supported.  They are not to be admired.  Their souls are in danger.

Let the reader understand.

Too far, this time

Many years ago I read a piece by Peter Masters reviewing IVP’s ‘New Bible Commentary Revised’ in which, among other things, he criticised it for its ‘liberal’ dating of the Exodus.  I checked the book to see who this nasty liberal was and discovered – to my surprise – that it was Hywel Jones, a man I knew and know.  Now, Dr Jones may (or may not) be wrong about the date of the Exodus, but he’s certainly no liberal.  That was the first indication I had of how naughty Masters can be when criticising others – it wasn’t (by any means) the last.

I was surprised when he criticised Iain Murray, in the eighties, for compromising the gospel. I was saddened, when Lloyd-Jones died, that he got no mention in ‘Sword and Trowel’ – in spite of his major influence on evangelicalism in the UK and on Peter Masters personally.  (Even today, the Met Tab bookshop website only lists two of Lloyd-Jones’ books – and on closer examination they turn out to be two editions of the same title (‘Why does God allow war?’).)  It’s somewhat amusing therefore, in a sardonic kind of way, that Masters positions himself as the faithful upholder of the Lloyd-Jones position. And I’ve been saddened to see him condemn men such as Carson and Piper and Macarthur, none of whom have escaped his lash.  None of them are beyond criticism – of course not.  But they all – to a man – are faithful evangelicals standing for truth in a compromised world.  Masters’ thesis, however, seems to be that everyone outside his own small group is somehow neo-liberal – and to see just how small his own group is, check out the names of speakers at their Summer School.  How many different names can you spot?  How many of the UK speakers have you ever actually heard of?

My regular reader will know that I have, from time to time (and very recently) blogged positively about PM and the Met Tab.  I commended his evangelistic preaching in the only article I’ve ever written for Banner of Truth.  I  have tried to uphold the view that – although he is unnecessarily narrow and critical in some areas – he is a man of God, blessed by God and should be recognised as such.  Some of my friends ‘cluck’ in amazement at my support for him, even though it has been limited.

Now, however, he has taken a step too far for me.  The Sword and Trowel’s publication of the vicious attack on WEST is just too much.  You can read it here  and read, also, on the WEST website, a response from 'a friendly third party'  here.  

I take leave to wonder whether such articles would ever be published if the author were not confident of the protection of 1 Corinthians 6 which prevents believers going to a secular court to settle differences  (Actually, I’m not sure it does – but that’s a different matter.)  WEST is an Evangelical, Reformed Bible College standing firm on a strong basis of faith.   Palgrave, however – without any shame – attempts to destroy the work of that seminary as she suggests that they are to be condemned because of imagined association with various heresies and heretics.  Well, you may read the articles for yourself.  You may, of course, decide that her international credibility lends weight to her criticisms.  Or you may never have heard of her.

And then, today, an email comes to me – and other FIEC pastors – from another internationally-known theologian, ‘Susan’.  In it she attacks the FIEC for its involvement with the ‘Explicit’ conference later this month.

What connection does this have with ‘the Tab’?  As far as I know, only that the talks linked to are given by Dr Ted Williams at a Tab Summer School. 

Now, regular reader, you will know that I’ve expressed serious concern about Mark Driscoll – which must mean I have some reservations about Acts 29.  You may even have read my review in Evangelicals Now of Matt Chandler’s book ‘The Explicit Gospel’ (Chandler is a major speaker at the ‘Explicit’ conference’) which ends ‘In summary: it’s a good book in many ways, but for me its flaws and flippancy make it one that I’m unlikely to use.’  And I haven’t always agreed with the FIEC, either.  But when Andy Paterson is quoted as saying "Everything I have seen and heard confirms that these men love the gospel, love the Saviour, love the Bible and would be regarded as orthodox, main-stream evangelicals. I would also commend to you the ‘Gospel Coalition’ website where Chandler plays a significant role alongside Carson, Keller and Piper"  I see no reason to doubt him.   

But what of their associations – the people they meet with, fellowship with?  ‘Susan’ comments ‘I cannot comment on the Cardiff speakers, they may well be sound, however their association with Acts 29 and others raise serious concerns.’  But she fails to notice that, also involved in the Gospel Coalition and speaking at one of its conferences, is Joel Beeke – a regular at the ‘Tab’ Summer School. (See here)  The same logic would see the Met Tab condemned for its association with Joel Beeke who is himself associated, through the Gospel Coalition, with the ‘New Calvinists’.

I am not saying, of course, that WEST, or the FIEC, or any of the men involved are beyond criticism or should not be questioned.  BUT - and it's a big BUT (that's why it's in capitals), there is all the difference in the world between 'Brethren, I think this conference, or this partnership, is a serious mistake and I urge you to reconsider it for the gospel's sake' and 'Oh, look: WEST has joined the ranks of the compromised too.  Come out from among them and be separate!'  Readers can judge for themselves which category Palgrave and Susan fall into.

I have little doubt (a little doubt, to be frank) that both of these ladies are genuinely and sincerely concerned for the truth.  Certainly, that’s a Biblical concern: ‘Earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.’  At the same time, maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace is ALSO a Biblical concern – and there is none of that in these writings.

Perhaps it’s inevitable, in a fallen world, that we should all overplay one and downplay the other to some degree.  We have to learn to live with that.  But there are, I think, limits.  And that limit is now passed, in my opinion.  It is time for those who love truth AND gospel unity to show their disapproval of the Met Tab’s ongoing critical spirit by cancelling orders for Sword and Trowel and refusing to attend their Summer School, until these matters are put right.  But it won’t happen, for as Lloyd-Jones commented to TT Shields, ‘I’ve noticed that whenever dogs fight, a crowd gathers.’

Shame.

Disclaimer: lest I be accused of hiding it, I admit to counting Jonathan Stephen and Andy Paterson as friends (I hope they don't mind) as well as faithful gospel ministers, and I am currently doing a course of study with WEST.  

He'd still 'rather have Jesus'

Bev Shea was 104 years old last Friday.  Converted aged 6, God has kept him for 98 years!

A tale of two tabernacles

 

Recently during our brief break in London, we faced the usual question of where to worship.  We settled on East London Tabernacle in the morning, and the MetropolitanTabernacle in the evening. 

East London Tabernacle

Where have all the preachers gone? Gone to America, every one… But here’s one who came the other way.  Ken Brownell is American, an able preacher, and the Pastor of ELT.  I was at LTS with him 30+ years ago, and he’s been at ELT almost ever since. 

Founded by Archibald Brown – one of Spurgeon’s friends – this church is close to Mile End tube station, and close to another church advertising ‘miracle service here every alternate Sunday…’, which struck me as singularly unambitious! 

The philosophy of the church is very much that of MBC I imagine: sound and reformed teaching, a mixture of old songs and new songs led by a good band and pianist.  The preaching – on Jeremiah 13:1-15 (the linen belt) – was certainly good – good clear headings that got to the point of the passage well and applied the passage to the church at ELT.  It did, I felt, lack that indefinable ‘punch’ though – perhaps because it is a difficult passage.  The church was very friendly and welcoming and we had several invitations to stay to lunch.

Metropolitan Tabernacle

The big decision for me was to attend the Met Tab in the evening – my regular reader will know that I have blogged about it, and its pastor, from time to time.  Dr Peter Masters has been pastor here for around 40 years – yes, honestly!  It’s about 36 years since I last visited on a Sunday and was keen to do so this time because – well, he can’t go on forever.

From my point of view the Met Tab does most of the unimportant things wrong, and does so by conviction.  They are VERY separated: the FIEC and even the Grace Baptists seem to be too compromised for PM.  He believes (edited: see comments) that only the AV should be used in public worship, only the organ should accompany the singing, no songs at all from a charismatic stable should ever be sung (the Tab have produced their own large but narrow hymn-book), people should dress in ‘Sunday best’ to come to church, God must be addressed as ‘thee’ and ‘thou’, never ‘you’ (PM calls it ‘the reverent tense’ which really bugs me: it’s not reverent and it’s certainly not a tense!) and so on.

It would be wrong though to say that ‘there are no concessions to anything modern’ – the building is large, light and airy for example – nothing gloomy about it.  All their literature is brilliantly produced, crisp and modern-looking and in full colour; a screen at the front carries a simultaneous transcript of the sermon (!) for a number of deaf folk who sit there, and there is also ‘signing’ for them, and simultaneous translation via headphones into Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Korean and French - now that's impressive.  While in many respects it is old-fashioned (and I believe wrongly so), it is not ‘for the sake of it’ – where it is old-fashioned it is as a matter of principle.  Three out of the four songs sung that evening were Psalms, or psalm-settings.

There were around 400+ people there; the surprising thing to me was that between one-quarter and one-third (a guess, obviously) were young people – twenties or younger.  (Attendance in the mornings is, I was told, upwards of 700.)  Everything was very formal: all the sidesmen were in grey suits, as was the secretary who read the notices, (edited: see the comments) the men who took up the offering, the church leaders who accompanied Dr Masters from the vestry.  PM began the service with a solemn ‘Let us pray’ – on the stroke of 6.30.  Everything, from there, ran like a well-oiled machine. 

The preaching was very good indeed: PM always preaches evangelistically in the evening (Hooray!  Somebody ought to!), and on Sunday he was on the centurion (Luke 7:1-10) whose servant was healed.  PM’s points were breathtakingly simple – even obvious: 1. The centurion was awakened to his need.  2. He recognised his unworthiness.  3.  He realised the uniqueness of the Lord Jesus.  (If you’re interested, you can hear it or watch it by following the link here (http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/) to ‘When spiritual need dawns’.)  Though PM began the service hoarse and looking rather pale and frail (he is well into his seventies) there was little sign of it when he preached.

This too was a friendly church; on my way to the door I was stopped twice (by men in grey suits!) who introduced themselves, chatted for a while, and were very welcoming.  Exactly the same, I remember, happened the last time I was there – they’re (rightly) determined not to let anyone out without someone speaking to them.

First-thought lessons:

1. Strong convictions build a church (under the Holy Spirit – need I add that?)  PM is different from most, but he knows what he wants and why, his leaders seem to be united around that and the church has grown a multi-cultural and multi-age congregation.  It may be that (humanly speaking, this time) it is their very distinctiveness that has served to attract people.  Which brings me to…

2. A church where everyone knows why they do what they do is likely to be a strong church; hence there’s a need not just for convictions but for communication. 

3. Big men have big faults – I do think PM’s separatism has crossed the line (but see Romans 14.4).  Our faults, however, do not prevent God from working mightily.  (The Met Tab was more-or-less a dying church when PM went there.)

4. It is possible, and important, to do things well.  The Holy Spirit does not require sloppiness and has not promised to bless it.  Everything that is done in church therefore, being done ‘as to the Lord’, can and should be done as well as possible – whether it’s music, stewarding, preaching/leading, upkeep of the buildings, Sunday School and so on.  The impression of competence is important, not least because it reinforces the belief that the service of God is important. 

5. There are benefits to a long ministry – what one preacher called ‘a long obedience in the same direction’.  Of course there may be dangers, too – and perhaps PM’s failure, in his seventies, to have someone ‘in situ’ ready to take over will have disastrous consequences, as it did at Westminster Chapel.  But the benefits (provided it is a good, visionary ministry) surely outweigh the risk.

Funny nativity - priceless

'Now, don't forget to sing loud and clear, children...'

Liz Murray – Breaking Night, part 2.

Back in January last year, I promised I’d review this book.  At last, here it is.  

Liz Murray is a young, American woman with a Harvard education, and a career as a motivational speaker.  ‘Twas not always so; ‘born to a drug addicted father who was in and out of prison, and an equally dependent mother who was in and out of mental institutions, she seemed destined to become just another tragic statistic,’   (from the jacket flap).  This book is her story.

It is very well written; gripping and compelling (perhaps a little longer than it needed to be, but that’s just a quibble).  I’m pleased to say that there is very little bad language in it, even when quoting friends from life at its worst.  There’s no salacious scenes at all – just some hints about what was going on.  It is refreshing to find someone not glorying in dirt and evil.

It’s refreshing too to read someone determined to take responsibility.  She sees clearly that, however dark our situation, we are responsible for how we react to it – the need to make ‘empowering choices.’  (As I remember, she only lapses once from this, when she says that the addiction of her parents was ‘not their fault’ when it is plain that they had made wrong choices again and again when they had had no need to do so.  But you can forgive a daughter that unconditional love for her parents, surely!)  What I particularly love is that Liz does love her parents, and cherishes their memory – even though it seems to me, an outside reader, that there was very little to love and cherish.

So, young Liz found herself sleeping rough often, increasingly dependent on friends who would house her for a night, or nights – and increasingly fearful of the day of the day that it would stop. 

'At what point would I become too much?  When would they start saying no?  this couldn’t go on forever.  And just the thought of being in dire need and having to, one day, hear my friends flat-out say no to my hunger and my need for shelter – and to turn away from my desperation – well, the thought of that rejections was just too much to deal with.  I dreaded that moment of ‘no’ that I sensed was coming.  What does it feel like, the moment someone you love turns you down?  I didn’t want to find out.'

Getting to know a girl called Paige was a turning point.  Paige had been a runaway, but now held down a job, had her own apartment – and pointed Liz to the way out.  After several rejections, Liz enrolled at an ‘alternative high school’ in New York City – a school for anyone who was motivated, with or without money.  There the hard work began, and the climb our of dependence.

Here she tells how the climb took not one decision, but hundreds of day-by-day decisions that are empowering, rather than disempowering.  Early morning, cold and surrounded by sleeping friends – with an hour’s subway ride to get to school – the easy decision was to stay with them, warm, sleepy and – going nowhere.  The empowering decision was to walk away, get to school, and work.  Years of such empowering decisions took her first to Harvard, and then to more success as’ the founder and director of Manifest Living, a company that provides a series of workshops that empower adults to create the extraordinary things in their lives.’

What’s interesting about this video clip is the similarity – and difference – to Biblical holiness.  Liz emphasises that it’s not a once-for-all decision, and neither is holiness.  She emphasises that there are lots of pressures to hold us back – as there are with holiness.  She knows and declares powerfully that consistent movement in the same direction inevitably leads to real progress – as with holiness.  She is realistic about the temptations from well-meaning friends to be less committed – as with holiness.  The two big differences, of course: our goal is not our own prosperity, but pleasing him.  And we have, within, the Holy Spirit, driving us ever on and empowering us to make empowering changes.

An excellent book – and I commend it.

A little obedience

Hilary was a young woman we saw converted in Aylesbury.  She hadn't expected to be converted - she came to church to try and make a bargain with God, but he did exceeding abundantly above all she asked or imagined.

A few weeks later she came to see me.  She'd been reading in 1 Corinthians that a woman should not pray with her head uncovered (11:3).  She explained that, since she was the only Christian in her house, she did most of her praying in the bath.  Did God want her to get out and get a hat first, she asked?  She was serious - she just wanted to please him.

Though still very young, she died suddenly a year or two ago.  She never lost that joy in the Lord that made her want to please him in smallest details.  She never lost that willingness to understand - and then obey - the Bible.  

God give us more converts like Hilary.

The power of his... death!

[Some] teachers tell us that we must live in the light of the resurrection.  All God's power is being made available to us and we need to appropriate resurrection power.  But in the New Testament it is the cross, rather than the resurrection, that is the model for Christian living.  Jesus said that if we were not prepared to take up our cross daily, we could not be his disciples )Luke 9:23).  The cross speaks of death, not resurrection power.  Paul writes like that about his own life and ministry: we always carry around in our bodies the death of Jesus, he says (2 Corinthians 4:10).  When he goes on to speak of the life of Jesus being revealed, he says 'death is working in us but life in you.'  Again, he says of himself 'even to the present hour we both hunger and thirst and we are poorly clothed' (1 Corinthians 4:11).  The evidence of resurrection power in the life of the believer, according to Paul in Philippians, is that we share in his sufferings (Philippians 3:10).

Perhaps I may illustrate from my own life in a way that every Christian should understand.  There have been two major miracles in my life: the first is the one that plucked me from sin and washed my clean, took me out of the Kingdom of darkness and placed me in the kingdom of God's own dear So.  the second miracle is the one that has kept me, and keeps on keeping me, there!  For the Christian life is not always easy, and my own flesh reacts against its discipline; and yet, by grace, here I am.  And you too; if you are a Christian, you have known the same two miracles. 

There is, of course, more to come.  But it is 'not yet'.  There are things which we cannot have now not because we do not have enough faith, but because God reserves them for the life to come.

(from my 'Why, Lord?', page 69, published by Day One)

Sunset at Ulrome

This is a rather nice - especially since only taken with a mobile phone - photo of sunset over the sea from Ulrome, taken in September this year.  Tomorrow - Monday - we travel up (God willing) to clear the caravan - a caravan we've had since 1988, on a site we've been on since 1980.  Since then - when Elaine was pregnant with Andrew - we've holidayed on the same site three to five weeks a year, every year.  And we've never got bored.

Now, the caravan is old and tired and we just cannot afford a replacement.  If we could, it would make no sense to place it on a site that is at least five hours' drive away.  So, reluctantly, we've taken the decision to sell the caravan - for a pittance - and leave the site behind.

It won't be easy.  It has so many memories, almost all of them happy.  (One or two miserable ones when Elaine was at the lowest point in her first illness.)  Memories of Jo and Andy as children.  Memories of Mum and Dad and a generosity that daily seems to me to be more amazing than I'd ever realised.  Memories of arriving at 'the van' to find the fridge stuffed with chocolate (have you seen my figure?)  It's hard to believe it's over.  And I don't imagine, really, that we'll ever get back there.

And though I try to sit light to 'things', I'm a softy, too.  It will be heart-wrenching to leave.  Thank you, Lord, for more than 30 happy years of holidays.  For Mum and Dad.  For everything.

Sunset at Ulrome - in every conceivable way

Why I love Piper (and Calvinism)

John Piper is (probably) my favourite living preacher; I love the way exegetical accuracy and exemplary passion are merged in his every message.  And I love his doctrine; for me, too, Calvinism is something that makes me want to sing and (even!) dance.  For me, too - like for Spurgeon before us - 'Calvinism' is but a nickname for pure Biblical Christianity.

One of Piper's big influences though is the Roman Catholic GK Chesterton.  (It's OK, it's OK - even Lloyd-Jones quotes Chesterton).  And Chesterton, it seems, hated Calvinism.  Below is an extract from one of Piper's blog posts - I'd copy the whole thing, but Desiring God doesn't really like that.  You can find the whole thing, though, here.  Why does Piper love Calvinism, and Chesterton hate it?  It's because it's...

Not the Same Calvinism

But how then can Calvinism awaken such joy in me, and such hate in Chesterton? Because they aren’t the same Calvinism. He thinks Calvinism is the opposite of all this happy wonder that we have in common. The Calvinism he hates is part of the rationalism that drives people mad. Exhibit A:

• "Only one great English poet went mad, Cowper. And he was definitely driven mad by logic, by the ugly and alien logic of predestination. Poetry was not the disease, but the medicine; poetry partly kept him in health. . . . He was damned by John Calvin; he was almost saved by John Gilpin."

No, Mr. Chesterton, William Cowper was not driven mad by Calvinism. He was driven mad by a mental disease that ran in his family for generations, and he was saved by John Newton, perhaps the humblest, happiest Calvinist who ever lived. And both of them saw the wonders of “Amazing Grace” through the eyes of poetry. Yes, that was a healing balm. But the disease was not Calvinism — else John Newton would not have been the happy, healthy, holy friend that he was.

Abigail's fractions

Abigail is 4 - note that, 4; it's relevant.  She's our oldest grandchild and a darling, like the other two.  She's bright as a button and sharp as a razor, and has just started school.  So Rachel, her Mum, decided to do some fractions with her.

Picture the scene, will you.  Mummy and Abigail, book open at a page showing a farmer with his sheep.

Mummy:   Here's the farmer with four sheep.

Abigail:  Yes, Mummy.

Mummy:  Now, if he divides those sheep in two, what has he got?

Abigail:  Four dead sheep, Mummy.

True, true.

Charismatic Crackpot

We had a charismatic crackpot  in church recently.  Not all charismatics are crackpots, any more than all crackpots are charismatic.  Indeed, CJ Mahaney is one of my favourite preachers.

But this man, I fear, was both.  I’d never seen him before, but noticed him in the congregation.  He stayed quiet enough during the meeting, and I went to introduce myself to him afterwards.  Within seconds – literally – he’d told me of the wonderful ministry he had, the hundreds (literally) of amazing miracles God had worked for him in a few short weeks (more, in fact, than in the whole of Bible history) and that he was a direct descendant of a famous preacher (one who, incidentally, had no children…).  He told me he was full of the Spirit.  That he was on fire for God.  That he’d been a Christian for years before he was baptised in the Spirit.

I knew where this was going, so I smiled, and said ‘Well, my understanding of that is different from yours.’  I tried to wish him well and walk away, but he wasn’t having that.   It then went like this:

Him: Have you been baptised in the Spirit?

Me: In the Bible, baptism with the Spirit means conversion; it always does.

Him: No; I was a Christian for twenty years before I was baptised in the Spirit.

Me: No, you weren’t.  In the Bible, baptism in the Spirit is conversion – look at 1 Corinthians 12:12.

Him:  I’m on fire for God, sold out for Jesus.  It’s wonderful; everyone should be.

Me:  Undoubtedly.  But I’m a Bible man…

Him:  So am I.

Me:  … and in the Bible baptism with the Spirit is conversion.

Him:  It’s not; what about ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’  (He’s referring to Acts 19:2)

Me: If you read the passage, they replied ‘We have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit…’ and when they were asked what baptism they had received, they said ‘John’s baptism.’  These people weren’t Christians.

Him: They were men of God.

Me: It doesn't say so; whatever they were, they weren’t Christians.  They hadn’t heard of the Holy Spirit and they’d only received John’s baptism, not Christian baptism.

Him: Are you filled with the Spirit?  I‘m on fire, on fire – you should be on fire like me.  I’m on fire, I’m full of the Spirit.

Me: Well, you’re full of something, that’s for sure.  But it seems to me that it’s yourself you’re full of, not the Spirit.

Now you may accuse me of being ungracious.  Possibly.  But I had tried to get away without offence, debate, or rancour; and please note:

• a) he wasn’t – in practice – evangelical, though he may have claimed to be, and even thought he was.

Like many charismatics (I’ve said this before, haven’t I?) he responded to my ‘the Bible says’ with ‘my experience is…’  When I pushed  him about the Bible (a little more than the above extract suggests) he made one attempt to respond.  Good.  But it wasn’t a good one, and he hadn’t thought it out.  When that was pointed out, he switched from his own experience to my experience…

‘Sola Scriptura’ is the basic principle of evangelicalism.  Experience – true or false – is  never an adequate response to the Bible.

• b) he wasn’t Spirit-filled, either – though he certainly claimed to be

The Holy Spirit is given to glorify Christ, Jesus said (John 16.14).  But this man spoke of himself, not Christ.  There was no obvious humility in him (in fact, there was obviously no humility) which is a sign of the Spirit’s work (Eph. 4:2).

These people are dangerous.  They mislead the immature and hinder the truth.  There are few greater needs today than for the church of Jesus to leave behind its gullibility.

(See, by the way, Conrad Mbewe http://www.conradmbewe.com/2012/05/prophet-tb-joshua-does-it-again.html for another story – much more interesting than mine.)

Ian McMillan and National Poetry Day

Ian McMillan the Bard of Barnsley was on Breakfast News today.  TV regular, radio presenter, playwright, poet - his series of stories Richard Matthewman - co-written with the late Martin Wiley - are among the funniest things I've ever heard, and very poignant.  For I grew up in the same area, at the same time.

In fact the thing none of the sources tell you about IM is quite possibly the least important: I was at school with him.  Wath Grammar.  Comprehensive, now.  (It was then, but nobody admitted it.)

Anyway, this morning IM said poetry was important and we should have a go.  Here's my go.

Ian McMillan, they say, is a poet, 
From Barnsley they tell us he came.
Not so though, I know, and I'll tell you,
'Cos Darfield launched him to fame.

Now Darfield's a suburb of Barnsley,
But 'suburb's' too posh of a word,
We don't have suburbs in Yorkshire,
Just towns at the end of the road.

Our hero was grammared in Wath,
Queen of the villages, said Vic- 
Though she'd seen such a pick -
When they'd given it, wi' paint, quite a lick.

There 'George' Brown and BobGod they taught him,
English and history - and such
As would stand in good stead
When his poetry he read
And me - at the top of the class.

(I wish!)

It's hard to be a poet in Yorkshire,
Larkin and Ted Hughes say the same.
They don't care about rhyme
When they come out o't' mine
Just a pie, and a pint, is the game.

So he still lives in Darfield, but travels
To Barnsley, to Hull and beyond.
Down South if he has to - 
It's not rare that he has to - 
But his voice never changes
For Yorkshire he allus remains.

I'll stick to the preaching...

Sam Storms and Convergence

It occurs to me that I haven't ever said any more about Sam Storms' dangerous book 'Convergence' after this.

So here today is a link to a review by the redoubtable Tim Challies.  I share all his concerns, and it has the advantage (some of you will think) of being gentler than I.

Who wrote Hebrews? (3)

It was great on Sunday night to begin a series on 2 Corinthians, not least because no-one wanted to argue with me about who'd written it!  ('Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God...')  

I don't intend to spend the rest of my blogging career talking about who wrote Hebrews, but I thought it was worth one more shot.  Objections 'voiced' to my defence of Pauline authorship seem to be these:

1. Paul didn't say he wrote it, and if the had, he would have done.  Answer: no authorship is claimed in the letter, but someone plainly wrote it!

2. Yes, but 2 Thessalonians 3:17 ('I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters...') says that Paul did identify himself in all the letters he wrote.  Answer: no, actually it doesn't.  He says that he penned a final (not opening) greeting in his own hand.  2 Thessalonians is one of the few places where he draws attention to that (see 1 Cor. 16:21, Col. 4:18, Philemon 19;) and the final greeting in Hebrews may well be 13:22-25.  He does not, for example, draw attention to his own handwriting in 2 Corinthians - but see 13:11ff).

3. Hebrews could have been written with apostolic approval - like the gospels of Luke or Mark - and 'why could Hebrews not have been written by Barnabas, or Apollos, say?'  Well, it could.  But Luke and Mark were included in the canon because they were written with apostolic approval; Hebrews is there because it was believed to be by Paul.  Barnabas, Apollos, Priscilla etc; - they're just later inventions to make the (imaginary, in my mind) problem go away, as far as I'm aware.

4. How do I account for the canonicity of James or Jude?  That's a good question; perhaps we can come to it some other time.  BUT for now - note that it is only a peripheral question to this particular issue.  If you're trying to show that apostolic approval is or isn't the criteria for acceptance, then 'How about James and Jude?' is directly relevant.  Otherwise, not so much.

Now, here's another Big Gun:

Who is the letter from?  What was clear to the original readers is not immediately clear to us, because the writer does not give his name.  Paul is the most likely candidate.  There are lots of similarities between his other letters and this one, both in style and content.  Everything is centred on the person and work of Christ.  In addition, the writer has a close and affectionate link with Timothy (13:23).  What seems to clinch it, however, is the fact that the author's final sentence is, 'Grace be with you all' (13:24).  Every one of Paul's letters ends with some sort of similar benediction.  Closing prayers for grace are his unique signature tune (see 2 Thess. 3:18).

The Christian church has had a long history, and the centuries bear witness that most scholars have accepted Paul as the author of Hebrews.  The reason he throws some people off the scent by some changes in style, yet plays his signature tune without signing his name, is probably something to do with the awful persecution going on at the time.  In the Second World War many Allied broadcasts went out to continental Europe using varying wavelengths, but particular tunes were used in the programmes so that discerning listeners could identify their source and pick up hidden messages encoded within them.

In such circumstances those who do not recognise the tune, or who cannot crack the code, are left guessing. Guesses about who may have written Hebrews include Apollos, Aquila, Barnabas, Luke, Silas, Philip the deacon and Clement of Rome.  The list is actually much longer than this, but we do not need to pay any attention to it.  The fact is that if Hebrews had not been written by an apostle, or by someone writing under the supervision or influence of an apostle, the early church would never have accepted it as Scripture.  But it accepted it with very little hesitation.  Early Christians hummed tunes which many others have never learned.

(from 'I wish someone would explain Hebrews to me', by Stuart Olyott, Banner of Truth, page 3.)

Who wrote Hebrews? PS

Dr Lloyd-Jones isn't dealing with the question of Hebrews authorship here, but makes a point that I would say requires Pauline authorship:

And in a very interesting way we do know from history that when the early church came to define and to determine the Canon of the New Testament - there were large numbers of Christian writings by then, and the question was what should be put in and what should be left out - we do know that the Holy Spirit led the early church to decide in this way: they said that unless a document purported to be a Gospel or an Epistle and could be traced back to an apostle, either directly or indirectly with apostolic authority, it should not be included.  The test of apostolicity was the text that was employed by the early church in the wisdom given to it by the Holy Spirit in determining the New Testament Canon.  Now all this is indicative of the fact that an apostle is a man with unique authority; he is given the doctrine; he is given the truth.  The Lord gives it to him; the Holy Spirit guides him, and he transmits it.  He is a chosen servant, specifically sent to represent and to speak for the Lord in this way.

So - if you think Paul didn't write Hebrews, what evidence do you have of an apostle behind it?  And if the answer is 'None', then why is it in your Bible?

Who wrote Hebrews?

Who wrote Hebrews – and why it matters.

I promised my September resolution would be to get back to blogging.  One thing I plan to do is get round to writing those posts that, over the years, I’ve promised: the ‘7 habits’ one, the ‘Liz Murray’ one (the video no longer works on this entry - try Youtube) – maybe even the dispensationalist one (but it would be unwise to hold your breath for that!)

But first, a little piece on Hebrews.  I’ve always believed that Paul wrote Hebrews, and I still do – largely because the evidence against it is so flimsy.  The ‘traditional’ view is that Hebrews was written by the apostle Paul, sometime around 55-58 A.D.  This view is now often regarded as outdated and you may come across statements along the line of ‘Nobody nowadays believes Paul wrote Hebrews.’  Well, I do; let me give you some reasons (and you may also like to read Fred's).

1. Why ‘Pauline’ authorship is often denied

Remarkably few reasons are actually given, but they include:

a)      the Greek style is very different

b)      there is no opening greeting from Paul

c)      When Hebrews quotes the Old Testament, it quotes the Greek, Septuagint, version, whereas Paul does not

d)      2:3 seems to suggest that the writer had heard the gospel second-hand; Paul insists that he received the gospel personally from the Lord (see Galatians 1:11-12).

2. Why I still believe Paul wrote Hebrews

Starting with the ones above, then moving on:

a)      Stylistic differences may be easily accounted for.  For example, Hebrews may have been written in Aramaic for its Jewish audience, and then translated into Greek.  Or it may simply reflect different times and circumstances.  The Greek style of John’s gospel, 1,2 and 3 John and Revelation are said to be quite different, but they all come from John’s pen.

b)      The missing greeting is interesting but not conclusive; circumstances may have required it in some way.  It's a strange argument anyway: 'It doesn't say Paul wrote it, so he didn't.'  Hmm.  It doesn't say anybody wrote it - perhaps nobody did?

c)      If Hebrews was first written in Aramaic and then translated (by Paul or someone else) it would have been natural to include Scripture quotes from the Greek Old Testament.  And many writers on the Bible quote different versions at different times.

d)      This is the strongest argument, but is equally easily turned in favour of Pauline authorship.  Galatians tells us that Paul received the gospel directly from Jesus, but that it was confirmed by the other apostles (Galatians 2:5-9).  That’s just what Hebrews 2:4 says!

e)      The writer of Hebrews is very close to Paul’s ‘son’ Timothy – 13:23.

f)        Ancient writers from as early as 150 AD say that Paul wrote Hebrews (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, Origen, 185-253 AD).  The early church historian Eusebius also attributes it to Paul.

g)      The earliest collection of Paul’s writings, known as the Chester Beatty manuscript and dated about 200 AD, includes all of Paul’s epistles except the Pastorals, but does include Hebrews (between Romans and 1 Corinthians).

h)      Peter says clearly (2 Peter 3:15) that Paul had written ‘Scripture’ to Peter’s (Jewish) readers.  If that’s not Hebrews, we don’t know what it is.

i)        Writings were only accepted as ‘canonical’ by the early church if they had apostolic authorship or approval.

Why it matters

But does it matter?  I’ve always said ‘No’, but I’ve changed my mind.  Let me tell you why.

As I've said, the church decided which of the many writings available were ‘Scripture’ on the basis of apostolic authority: did an apostle write it?  If not, was an apostle behind it (as seems to be the case with the gospel of Mark)?  If yes, it was Scripture, God’s word.  If no, then it wasn’t – full stop.

If Paul didn’t write Hebrews, then there is no evidence at all of an apostle behind it.  If that’s true, it isn’t Scripture.  The comments we sometimes read (‘Oh, it’s so obviously God’s word; anyone can tell that…’) are so subjective as to be worthless.  And they’re effectively the ‘burning bosom’ argument that Mormons use to justify their own rubbish.

If you don’t think Paul wrote it – why is it still in your Bible?

A kind of magic

When they were children, we took Jo and Andrew twice to see Wayne Dobson perform.  Both times I was dragged on stage to be mocked, and to 'witness' this trick's performance.  And yes, I could see how he did it.

Keeping the promise...

OK, let's start September with a little light relief, courtesy of Chris ('I taught him all he knows') Sinkinson and Evangelicals Now:

A girl was being mocked in class by her teacher because of her Christian faith.  'Come on,' said the teacher, 'Explain to us why you're a Christian.'

'Well,' said the girl, 'My Mum's a Christian and my Dad's a Christian and they brought me up to believe in Jesus.  So I'm a Christian.'

'That's just ridiculous,' countered the teacher.  'What would have happened if your Mum had been stupid, and your Dad had been stupid?  What would you have been then?'

'In that case,' said the girl - not needing much time to think about it - 'I guess I'd have been an atheist.'

Resolution for September...

Start blogging again. Thanks for your patience.

Yorkshire ready to declare independence as medal tally rises?

...meanwhile, in an alternative* reality...

Is Yorkshire ready to declare independence as medal tally rises?

Our Northern correspondent Alicia Gilberthorpe Ainsley-Arkwright interviewed brothers Alf and Bert Greenlea after their recent triathlon triumph, where Alf gained gold and Bert, despite being given a one-hour time penalty after he mounted his bike two centimetres before the line, gained a bronze model.  Alicia began by asking about that penalty.

Alicia: So, Bert, you had to wait an hour because you’d mounted your bike early.

Bert: Ay, that’s right. It’s in t’rules.

Alicia: And that meant you came in a couple of seconds behind the silver medallist.  Do you think that’s fair?

Bert and Alf: Oh, ay.

Alicia: You do?

Bert: Ay.  It’s in t’rules, tha' sees.  Wouldn’t wanna cheat tha’ knows!  (Guffaws from both brothers at the idea.)

Alicia: But it was an hour penalty and you were only two centimetres early – isn’t that right? Just two centimetres?

Bert: Nay, lass, nay.  It were nearly an inch.  Rules are rules, tha’ knows.

Alicia: Will you be lodging an appeal?

Bert and Alf: No.

Alicia: You wouldn’t consider it?

Bert: No.

Alicia: Why not?

(At this point, Bert looks puzzled and glances at his older brother Alf, who decides to explain.)

Alf: It's alright, Bert.  'Appen t'lass is from dahn South.  Well, tha’ sees, (he begins) Bert got on his bike too early.  Tha' shouldn’t ‘a’ done that, tha’ knows Bert?

Bert: Nay, Alf, I know.  I dunno warra’ wa’ thinkin’ o’.’  'Ah tell thee, ah'm that ashamed.  That's not 'ow us Mam brought us up, is it?  To cheat?

Alf: Well, never mind.  Them kind men in t’office decided not to disqualify thee.  So tha’s gorra bronze medal.  (Bert smiles a winning, sheepish smile and looks up at Alicia.)

Bert: Rules are rules, tha’ knows!.

Alicia: How did you take up the sport?

Bert:  Ah, well, by accident really.  Our Mam were ill and we ‘ad to go get ‘er prescription.  It ‘ad been raining a bit…

Alf: Quite a lot, really. 
 Bert: Ay, well enough for t'street to be flooded, and we had to swim down to t'cross-roads.  

Alf: And when we got dahn there, well, t'road were blocked and we had to run ovver t'hill to go in t'back way.  

Bert: That only left us a little way away, tha' sees; and we were able to borra bikes.  

Alicia: And when you did get 'ome - home - eventually, you'd actually beaten world-record times, is that right?  

Alf:  I don't know abaht that.  We'd a' been quicker, but Bert stopped to chat up Mabel, daft 'apporth.  

Alicia: Mabel?  

Bert: Me wife.  

Alicia: You stopped to talk to your wife?  

Bert: Ay, well, she weren't me wife then, like.  I wa' just sweet on 'er.  

Alicia: And since then you've done all your training in the same Yorkshire streets, I understand?  

Alf: Ay, that's right. 

Alicia: Why didn't you go off to Miami or California like some of the other athletes?  

Alf: Well, tha' sees, it's me Mam again.  She like us to be 'ome in time for tea.  Miami and California - they're a long way away.  

Bert: 'Undreds o' miles, I think.  

Alicia: No, I know you couldn't have come home each day.  But you could have moved out there.  

Bert:   What, tha’ means live ovver there?  Warra’d I wanna do that for?  I wa' born in Yorkshire, me.  
  Alf: Ay, me too.  Though we did go to Manchester once.  Do you remember, Bert?  

Bert:  Ay, I do.  It were enough that, once.  Do you want to see us medals?

* Not, please note, an alternate reality.  That would be - confusing.

Where are they from again?

The Brownlee brothers, Alastair and Jonathan, made history yesterday by becoming the first brothers in a century to stand side-by-side on the winners' podium.  Alastair had won gold medal in the gruelling triathlon, and his younger brother Jonny, despite being penalised 15 seconds for 'getting on his bike too early', had won bronze.  For Jonny, the effort of trying to make up those 15 seconds meant that he collapsed in the treatment room after the race, and the medal ceremony had to be delayed an hour.

A remarkable achievement for two brothers.  Where are they from again?  Oh, yes:

Yorkshire.  And did they blub on the podium?

No, sir.  They did not.

Preaching on Youtube

To my enormous surprise, I found myself on youtube, preaching at the Grace Baptist Assembly last year.  The video is here.

Or, here.

Olympic Fever

No-one is more surprised than I that I've actually found these Olympic Games interesting.  I'm not a sporty type; my athletic figure is merely a natural gift.  Against my will, almost, I was massively impressed by the opening ceremony (and surprised; I'd always thought James Bond was fictional).  And I, too, gentle reader, was caught up in the euphoria on Super Saturday.

But I do have one grouse.  It's those men (and it is men) who blubber into the microphone when they haven't won.  'I've let everyone down.  I've let my Mum down (sob).  I've let my Dad down (sob).  My neighbour's budgie has given me such support.  I've spent months living in a tent in Arctic conditions (silly fool - ed.) and my whole life is pointless.  Blubber, blubber, sob.'

Hmm: here's a tip for those who are 'inspired by these games' that are 'inspiring a generation'.  If you can't face the possibility of not winning - don't compete. 

And guys - in general - stop blubbing.  Win or lose, you're men.  Quit yourselves like men, eh?

Reason to Believe

A significant song in my history...

John Owen - Beau Brummel Puritan?

Arguing that before we can recognise the Puritans we must wipe off from their faces some of the mud that has been thrown at them, Reeves* says:

For one thing, they did not even look like what we think of as the stereotypical Puritan.  We imagine that, amidst all the gaudy puffed sleeves and bodices of the Elizabethan period, and the jolly ruffs and doublets of the laughing Cavaliers, the Puritans just wore black - and scowled.  That is how their portraits show them, for that was their Sunday best (and sitting for portraits was a formal thing).  But on other days they might wear all the colours of the rainbow.  John Owen, probably the greatest Puritan theologian, would walk through Oxford 'hair powdered, cambric band with large costly band strings, velvet jacket, breeches set round at knees with ribbons pointed, and Spanish leather boots with cambric tops.'


Furthermore,


Contrary to popular impression, the Puritan was no ascetic.  If he continually warned against the vanity of the creatures as misused by fallen man, he never praised hair shirts or dry crusts.  he liked good food, good drink and homely comforts; and while he laughed at mosquitoes, he found it a real hardship to drink water when the beer ran out.


* Mike Reeves, The Unquenchable Flame, page 145-6

Lloyd-Jones on Evolution

One of the saddest things in modern evangelicalism is the way many preachers with no scientific training assume evolution must be true, because science says so, and then indulge in contortions to fit Genesis into it. Yet it isn't just Genesis: the whole gospel falls (it really does) if evolution is true.  The fact that there are many fine gospel men who manage, somehow, to hold them in watertight compartments doesn't affect that reality.

Here is Lloyd-Jones, who was scientifically trained, making the point:

But today people subtract from the gospel, do they not?  They say, 'We can no longer believe the early chapters of Genesis; science proves that they're not true.'  Actually, it does not, of course.
'But,' people say, 'evolution disproves Genesis.'But what is evolution?  It is just a theory.  It has never been proved and it never will be.  But why am I concerned about this?  It is because the gospel is a unit, a whole, and if you reject any part of it you will be in trouble with all the rest.
It is all very well to say, 'I think man has evolved out of the animals but I am still a Christian, I still believe in the doctrine of salvation.'  But how can you?  What do men and women need to be saved from? Why do they need to be saved?  Have they ever been perfect?  Has there been a Fall or not?  How many people fell if there was a Fall?  No, the whole of the gospel hangs together.

(Authentic Christianity, Vol. 3, page 35)