Atheists, Africa and Almighty God (Don't go, Jonathan!)

Jonathan Hunt tells us that he's losing interest in blogging. One thing he's been good at, though, is pointing us to some interesting stories. Here's the latest - homosexual and atheistic Times sketchwriter Matthew Parris reluctantly admitting that the Christian gospel really does change hearts, and even that 'rebirth is real'. Congratulations to Parris once more on his clear sight. Don't go, Jonathan - where will I get the stories from?

Happy New Year to all my readers - seven so far...

Of whom the world is not worthy - a story of forgiveness in prospect

This morning I held my granddaughter in my arms again; she truly is beautiful. I'm awestruck every time I see her by the power of God.

Then, I read this story about forgiveness and I'm awestruck by the power of grace.

The mystery of preaching

[Thomas] Cook was an itinerant Methodist preacher who was much used of God in Britain and overseas. On one occasion he was to make a week-end visit to a church, and the Christian home where he was to be given hospitality was full of expectation. There was a maid servant in that house, however, who was not a Christian. She could not understand the fuss in preparation for the preacher, and on going to the butcher’s shop to collect the meat on the Saturday morning before his arrival, she declared to the butcher, ‘You would think that Jesus Christ was coming.’ That Sunday something happened to her under the preaching of this man. When she was in the shop again the next Tuesday, the butcher remembered her irreverence and asked light-heartedly if Jesus Christ had come. With great earnestness the girl replied, ‘Yes. He came.’

(Iain Murray, Lloyd-Jones Messenger of Grace, page 54)

The Power of Preaching

But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!" (1 Corinthians 14:24,25)

‘The most wonderful things that are now done on earth are wrought in the public ordinances. Here the dead hear the voice of the Son of God, and those that hear do live… Here he cures diseased souls with a word… Here he dispossesses Satan… Wonders these are, and would be so accounted, were they not the common work of the public ministry. It is true indeed, the Lord has not confined himself to work these wonderful things only in public; yet the public ministry is the only ordinary means whereby he works them.’ (David Clarkson, ‘Public Worship to be Preferred before Private.’)

This sermon of the Puritan David Clarkson is quoted by Jim Packer in the book ‘Preaching’ edited by Samuel T Logan. Packer continues ‘What Paul describes is rare in our time, no doubt…’

The heart of the gospel

Adrian Warnock is keeping us abreast of the Chalke debate. Adrian is right again; this is no time for debate and certainly not for coolness; it's a time for white-hot passion. When Spurgeon stood for the truth in the Dowgrade Controversy, it broke his heart that some of his own students stood against him. What would he think now, when liberalism and unbelief (for that's what it is) is invading evangelicalism with its car driven by a graduate of "Spurgeon's"?

It's a good time to include some Spurgeon on my blog. Here he is:

THE heart of the gospel is redemption, and the essence of redemption is the
substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. They who preach this truth preach the
gospel in whatever else they may be mistaken; but they who preach not the
atonement, whatever else they declare, have missed the soul and substance
of the divine message. In these days I feel bound to go over and over again
the elementary truths of the gospel. In peaceful times we may feel free to
make excursions into interesting districts of truth which lie far afield; but
now we must stay at home, and guard the hearths and homes of the church
by defending the first principles of the faith. In this age there have risen up
in the church itself men who speak perverse things. There be many that
trouble us with their philosophies and novel interpretations, whereby they
deny the doctrines they profess to teach, and undermine the faith they are
pledged to maintain. It is well that some of us, who know what we believe,
and have no secret meanings for our words, should just put our foot down
and maintain our standing, holding forth the word of life, and plainly
declaring the foundation truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Even now, despite the emphasis, clearness, and distinctness of the language used here and elsewhere in Scripture there are found men daring enough to deny that substitution is taught in Scripture. With such subtle wits it is useless to argue. It is clear that language has no meaning for them. To read the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, and to accept it as relating to the Messiah, and then to deny his substitutionary sacrifice is simply wickedness. It would be vain to reason with such beings; they are so blind that if they were transported to the sun they could not see. In the church and out of the church there is a deadly animosity to this truth. Modern thought labors to get away from what is obviously the meaning of the Holy Spirit, that sin was lifted from the guilty and laid upon the innocent. It is written, “The Lord hath laid on him the
iniquity of us all.” This is as plain language as can be used; but if any
plainer was required, here it is, — “He hath made him to be sin for us.”
The Lord God laid upon Jesus, who voluntarily undertook it, all the weight
of human sin. Instead of its resting on the sinner, who did commit it, it was
made to rest upon Christ, who did not commit it; while the righteousness
which Jesus wrought out was placed to the account of the guilty, who had
not worked it out, so that the guilty are treated as righteous. Those who by
nature are guilty, are regarded as righteous, while he who by nature knew
no sin whatever, was treated as guilty. I think I must have read in scores of
books that such a transference is impossible; but the statement has had no
effect upon my mind I do not care whether it is impossible or not with
learned unbelievers: it is evidently possible with God, for he has done it.
But they say it is contrary to reason. I do not care for that, either: it may be
contrary to the reason of those unbelievers, but it is not contrary to mine;
and if I am to be guided by reason, I prefer to follow my own. The
atonement is a miracle, and miracles are rather to be accepted by faith than
measured by calculation. A fact is the best of arguments. It is a fact that the
Lord hath laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all. God’s revelation proves the
fact, and our faith defies human questioning! God saith it, and I believe it;
and believing it, I find life and comfort in it. Shall I not preach it?
Assuredly I will.

“E’er since by faith I saw the stream
His flowing wounds supply,
Redeeming love has been my theme
And shall be till I die.”

And, for what it's worth, I will too.

Sign here!

There's a vicious rumour promoted by Jonathan Hunt (see here and here ) that my blog has only one reader. Leave your comment here to confound the bloggard!

Oh goody - there's going to be an inquiry

Baby P had a short life of pain and brutality and was eventually killed by those who should have protected him. So it's great to know that an inquiry (maybe even several inquiries) will be set up to see how wicked social workers could possibly have allowed this. The thinking seems to be this:

• There's no doubt about who killed baby P
• There's no question of it being provocation or self-defence: baby P's kung-fu skills were not yet sufficiently developed for this to be an issue
• Therefore we need an inquiry so that next time someone's tempted to abuse a child they'll think 'Better not; could trigger an inquiry. Might even get social workers into trouble...'

Or: we could just execute the killers.

Meanwhile, just to prove that we have got our priorities right, a loving father spends a night in police custody for smacking his son. Welcome to Madland.

Why I am (still) not a charismatic

Two years or so ago I blogged a post on 'Why I am not a charismatic.' Recently, trawling through some of my old blogs I discovered an anonymous comment - anonymous in the sense that Artimus conceals his identity (though I suspect he's an old friend). Artimus is a charismatic; he's polite throughout (which is good) and thinks some of my arguments are well made. (I agree - humbly of course). But his criticisms are worth looking at, partly because they are very typical of pro-charismatic arguments. First he says

However, you started by saying that you were not a charismatic because you read your Bible, but conclude with appealing to Stuart Olyotts exegesis of 1 Cor 13:10.

Well no, my friend; I don't appeal to Olyott as if having him on my side settles the matter. All I've done is explained how my doubts about the gifts arose and what, in the end, settled the matter for me. What settled the matter was a proper understanding of 1 Corinthians 13:10 - the fact that Stuart explained it to me is largely irrelevant. He's not the authority; he just taught me what the passage means - and that's what Bible teachers do.

Secondly, he says

this verse... talks about 'perfection' or 'perfect'. I just fail to see how this can be a description of the present day church.

No again my friend. I didn't say it describes the church. Nor does Olyott. I've never come across anyone who does. What we believe this word refers to in this context is Scripture - the 'perfect' revelation. Wouldn't you agree Artimus that the Bible does 'represent perfection'?

Then he says

Surely Paul could have chosen a better word like 'completion' or 'fulfilment' rather than 'perfection' to avoid confusion?

But Artimus, Paul wasn't writing in English. If you mean 'the Greek for completion or fulfilment' - that's exactly what Paul has done! The word is 'teleios' and its basic meaning is 'complete'. It's translated in several ways: perfect, mature, adult, full. Its verb form is the word used in Luke 2:43: 'When the festival was ended...' Luke doesn't mean that the festival had reached perfection. He means it had been completed, come to an end. The contrast in 1 Corinthains 13:9-10 comes out very well in the ESV: 'we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes the partial will pass away.' 'Partial' is contrasted with 'complete'. Partial what? Revelation - that's what NT prophecies are. Complete what? Revelation. What's the complete revelation? Scripture.

Then

My simple understanding would be that 'perfection' refers to when Christ returns and the imperfect or 'Partial' as the ESV puts it, is replaced by the sinless perfection that Christ will bring.

Yes, I know that's what charismatics think it means - or something like it. But it doesn't fit the context. What's left when the perfect has come? Verse 13 tells us: faith, hope and love. But faith is 'being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see,' (Hebrews 11:1). According to the New Testament then, when sight has come (heaven) faith has gone; it's been replaced. To put it baldy - there's no need for 'faith' in heaven. (Some throw up their hands in horror at this. Won't we still trust God? Of course we will - but it isn't me that contrasts faith and sight - it's the apostle.)

And then he says

I find nowhere in Scripture the slightest hint that miraculous gifts are only foundational

Well, that's odd - because it's what the New Testament calls them. 'Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household,20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone' (Ephesians 2:19,20). Here it's clear that the office, or gift, of apostles and prophets are part of the foundation of the church, and a foundation is laid at the beginning. It's not a continual thing. New Frontiers folks, as I understand it, see the need of apostles and prophets at the foundation of every local church. But 'church' throughout Ephesians (there are 9 references) means 'the universal church' - as in 5: 25, 'Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.'

Finally, Artimus says of me

your post did have the slightest hint that 'anyone who is a charismatic' a) Doesn't read their Bible, b) Must check their brain at the door when they go to church c) Accepts everything that presents it's self (sic) in the name of spiritual gifts.

Nothing is true of everyone in any camp. But I think a), b) and c) - while caricatures - can be shown to have a flavour of truth about them. Look.

• a) Doesn't read their Bible? Many charismatics do read their Bibles, of course. But all of us are in danger of reading them with our presuppositions as filters - see my post on this. In this instance it goes like this: 'Our church has tongues, which are in the Bible. Does yours?' 'No; but then, your church doesn't have the tongues which are in the Bible, either.' 'Uhh?' A charismatic church has something it calls tongues, we don't. But look at what the charismatic church has and ask 'Is it what's in the Bible?' Answer: no. See the original post where I spell this out a bit.
• b) Must check their brain at the door? Oh, dear. How hard it is not to be rude. Listen - I know many charismatics are intelligent people. I'm an ardent reader, for example, of Adrian Warnock's blog. But what am I to think when these intelligent people sit through services with reports of golden tea-leaves appearing? Or speak - as a New Frontiers magazine does and Artimus points to it as if it's a good thing - of having 'L-plates' on in healing ministries? Where in the New Testament is the idea of 'learning' to do healings?
• c) accepts everything that presents itself as a spiritual gift? OK: why does the sane and sensible Terry Virgo accept Rodney Howard-Browne, as it's clear from Terry's autobiography that he does? Where were the charismatic condemnations of the 'Florida revival'? Perhaps Artimus can find one or two examples of things that haven't been accepted, but generally we'd have to say 'guilty as charged', I think.

I could go on. I usually do. But that's enough for now. Artimus, if you're out there, please come back at me.

Evangelistic Preaching and Lloyd-Jones

I plan to produce a post sometime soon on evangelistic preaching. In the meantime, here's a proposal I'm working on for a DMin dissertation with WEST; I'd appreciate any help in refining it. "An evaluation of the evangelistic preaching of Martyn Lloyd-Jones with special reference to his Acts series of sermons and its relevance for UK pastors today."

New blog

My new photo-blog, at http://gracepreacherphoto.blogspot.com/ will hold photos of Abigail, our granddaughter, and - maybe - some of us, too.

Should Jonathan Ross be sacked?

So, after offensive and insulting, crude and vulgar phone calls to actor Andrew Sachs, Russell Brand has resigned, the controller of Radio 2 (Lesley Douglas) has resigned, and Jonathan Ross is suspended for twelve weeks without pay - costing him, some estimate, one and a half million pounds. The affair has dominated the news for almost a week; here are my thoughts.

1. Many have expressed surprise at the prominence this story has been given in a day when we're fighting wars, facing financial crises and on the verge of the US election. Well yes; perspective is important. But we shouldn't think that, because these other things are happening, anything goes on our radio shows.

2. It's been repeatedly said that there are different views of what is tasteful. True enough - but what Ross and Brand did on this occasion is actually illegal.

3. One thing that has surprised me is the attention given to whether the item should have been broadcast at the expense of whether the phone calls should have been made. Of course, broadcasting the program compounds the offence and makes the producers guilty as well as the presenters. But even if the producers had blocked the program, the calls had still been made. Ross and Brand would still have needed to be dealt with.

4. The BBC has repeatedly made the point that only two complaints were made on the day and a further three in the week following. The tens of thousands of complaints only came after the newspapers got involved and may well have been made by people who didn't hear the program. Well, again - true enough. But so what? Many people of taste and decency simply wouldn't listen to a Russell Brand radio program; they know what they would be likely to hear. As is often pointed out, we do have an 'off' switch on our radios. What is significant is that a number of those who did listen, and presumably do like Brand, were still offended. Those of us who did not listen are still entitled to express our outrage (or our approval for that matter) once the matter is brought to our attention.

5. It has been repeatedly said that these men are paid to be risqué and that comedy must continually push out the boundaries. But no-one has asked: why? Sure, comedy is in danger of becoming anaemic. But the idea that the boundaries need to be 'pushed out' takes for granted either that there ought not to be any boundaries or that there ought to be boundaries but the present ones are too restrictive. Pushing at boundaries will continually lower standards, it will never raise them; it will make more and more outrageous and filthy material acceptable.

6. This is just what can be seen to have happened here. Again, the point has been made that Radio 1 listeners, by a 2:1 majority, approve of the program - or at least did not find it offensive. Yes; and who are Radio 1 listeners? By and large, the younger set. The set that have grown up used to the crude and offensive style that Ross is apparently so proud of. Of course these folks are not going to be as offended by a further lowering of standards: their base line was lower to begin with.

7. David Cameron has not covered himself with glory by his intervention. Is it two years ago now that Ross interviewed Cameron and quizzed him about his masturbatory fantasies? Cameron should have left the interview at that point. Yes, he would have been lampooned for it. But he would have made the point that some things are not simply 'unacceptable' but also that they are not going to be accepted. Ross might - just might - have seen some writing on the wall. For Cameron to criticise now is like saying 'I knew the stable door was open and the horse would bolt eventually.' You should have shut it, man!

8. It's been interesting to see Chris Evans, plainly upset about Ms. Douglas' resignation, choosing his words very carefully. That is not a skill he is renowned for! But the BBC website quotes him 'We don't feel like we've been picked on undeservedly. It was a huge mistake and we all wish it hadn't happened.'

9. Has Mark Thompson - Director General of the BBC - gone far enough, or should Ross be sacked? I find that a difficult question to answer. On the one hand, Ross is genuinely talented, his shows command large audiences (and the BBC has a duty to bear that in mind) and this is only one incident. On the other hand, this is not only one incident (Ross has been warned before, and Thompson has said that Ross should consider this his final warning); Ross made the most offensive remarks on the program and it's strange that he should therefore be the one to keep his job; and - in the end - the only way to prove that 'no-one is above the law' (as Thompson said) is to, well, prove it. However, I suspect that the BBC has gone as far as it could without risking a massively damaging lawsuit from Ross himself. And even for Ross, a £1.5million loss is going to be painful.

10. So, on balance, yes Mark Thompson - well done. But please, now, don't rest on your laurels: do watch this man. Please ensure that the boundaries of comedy are pushed - back. It won't mean that nothing beyond 'I love Lucy' will be acceptable; but if it did, that would be preferable than where we seem to be heading.

David Tennant to leave Doctor Who




David Tennant announced yesterday, after four years playing the role of one of only two men to be known simply as 'The Doctor', that he would be leaving the role at the end of next year. The BBC has not yet announced who his replacement will be. I am, however, in a position to drop an exclusive hint to readers of this blog, following an interview and screen test two weeks ago (pictured).

The new role will fit in perfectly with pastoral ministry since I will be able to leave after the Sunday evening service, spend a few months saving the planet (again), and still be back in time to take Elaine out for coffee on Monday morning.

Max Hastings: Evangelicals are ‘stupid people’

Commenting on McCain’s chances – ever-decreasing, it seems – in next week’s presidential elections, respected journalist Sir Max Hastings says in Monday’s Daily Mail ‘McCain has still got the support of the God nuts. These include, dismayingly, many senior U.S. Army officers. For years, the U.S. Air Force has been a stronghold of Christian evangelicalism. American soldiers, alas, have caught the same disease. Many battalion staff meetings now start with prayers. Few ambitious career officers dare refuse to sign up for the Christian agenda. Most of them are solid for John McCain. Yet there are nowhere near enough soldiers, or evangelicals, or rich oil men to get this increasingly beleaguered old warhorse into the White House… To put it bluntly, the Republicans have become the party of America’s stupid people.’

He goes on to argue that a McCain victory, if it happened, would mean ‘more of the same’ – and includes among that ‘perverted religion.’ Since the only religion he has mentioned is Evangelical Christianity, it seems that – for Hastings – evangelicalism is perverted religion.

Hmm. I’m not qualified, by any means, to say whether Bush’s presidency has been ‘brutish’ and ‘a disaster’. On the other hand, I’m not aware that Hastings is qualified to comment on evangelicalism, or religion at all.

Let me grant straight away that evangelicalism has its odd-ball side: think of snake-handlers, tele-evangelists and ‘God wants you rich’ preachers. But just as Hastings wouldn’t want us to dismiss all journalists because of the existence of the Daily Sport, so we have a right to quibble if all evangelicals are dismissed because of some idiots and rogues. Come on, Max – you know better than that. (In case you don’t, look for example at Al Mohler, or the much-respected work of our own John Stott over many decades.)

Perverted religion? Evangelicals are Christians who take the great Christian creeds seriously. That may be wrong of us (I don’t think so – need you ask?) but it is hardly ‘perverting’ the Christian religion to do so.

And wasn’t it Obama who was exposed mid-campaign as sitting regularly under the ministry of a preacher of racial hatred?

A gentle introduction to the art of time-wasting (part 1)

Before I begin, a particular welcome to Jonathan Hunt who, it seems, actually has his blog set to let him know when I've blogged. Good on yer, mate, and good morning.

Question: Should pastors visit their flocks?

Answer: Of course they should. But not in the way that most pastors do!

Much pastoral visitation expected by the church member and performed by many pastors is a time-wasting exercise that actually undermines the true work of a pastor. But it need not be so!

To explore this, I propose to examine what the Scriptures say about the role of pastor-teacher, and the way these roles are often divided – the elder, we are told, is to be a pastor and a teacher. I propose then to show that this is not how the Scripture sees it – instead, the elder is to pastor by teaching.

A look at the work of Richard Baxter in Kidderminster (1647-61) will then help us see how this can be done.

Finally, we may glance at one or two contemporary attempts to apply Baxter's work.

OK? Let's go.

1. Scripture and the pastor-teacher
We may rightly trace the beginning of the role of pastor, or shepherd, to the Lord Jesus Christ himself, the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep (John 10:11). Of course, there are unique, redemptive aspects to the work of the Lord Jesus, but the following things drawn from John 10 about the shepherd’s work seem to be clear and transferable.

a) The purpose of the shepherd’s work is salvation, in both its narrow and broad aspects. On the one hand, Jesus is the man who enters by the gate (verse 2) and he is the gate himself – ‘whoever enters through me will be saved,’ (verse 9).

b) Knowing the sheep is essential to the proper functioning of the shepherd: ‘they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognise a stranger’s voice,’ (verse 4); ‘I know my sheep and my sheep know me,’ (14). Of course, there is here a reference both to election and effectual calling, which are unique to Jesus; but we have no cause to bypass the surface meaning.

c) The shepherd’s work is done, at least in part, by the means of words – hence Jesus’ emphasis on the voice (3,4,5,16,27).

I would not maintain that we could derive a pastoral theology from this chapter alone, and to attempt to do so would leave my selection of the above elements open to a charge of arbitrariness. However, from what we learn in the rest of Scripture we can turn back to this passage and learn how the Lord Jesus functioned (and functions!) as pastor of his people.

Next in the developing theme of pastoral ministry we need to consider the call (or re-instatement) of Peter, also in John’s gospel (John 21:15-19). After the appalling fall of Peter by the fireside, and the glorious shock of the resurrection of the man he had disowned, we can only image Peter’s despondency, and the grace of the Lord Jesus in giving him this new commissioning is often commented on. For our purpose, we need to notice again three things.

a) the motive or even qualification for the work Peter does is not, primarily, love for the people he will serve but love for the Good Shepherd himself: ‘Do you love me?… Feed my lambs… take care of my sheep… feed my sheep.’ This is important for a number of reasons. First, the sheep often behave in unlovely ways, and the pastor may be tempted to ask ‘Why should I still serve them?’ The answer is not to be found in any liberalised or rose-tinted anthropology, nor even in a confidence in their improvement by grace, but in the faithfulness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Second, the weakness of those called, like Peter, to be under-shepherds; often, the plain fact is that we do not love our charges, and we never love them as we should.

b) The work to which Peter is called: he is to feed, and to take care of, the flock of God.

c) The Lord Jesus graciously gives Peter a warning of the cost of such under-shepherding. As the Great Shepherd lay down his life for his sheep, so Peter himself will be called to die in the service of that flock (18-19). In the Western world such radical pastoring is, happily, rarely demanded; but the existence of this word to Peter rebukes those of us who are tempted often to cavil at smaller sacrifices. The words of Wesley
‘To spend and to be spent for those
Who have not yet my Saviour known…’
reflect no more than the proper attitude of an under-shepherd in Christ’s flock.

It is to the rapidly-expanding church in Acts that we must next turn in pursuit of the Biblical model of the pastor. Once again, it is Peter who is centre-stage here. After the Spirit is poured out at Pentecost, Peter delivers the first sermon of the new era, and three thousand people respond to his powerful message and are added to the church that day (Acts 2:41). That is not the end of the growth; ‘the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved’ (2:47); by 4:4 there are five thousand (male? The Greek is ανηρ) believers. In both chapters 3 and 4, Peter’s preaching ministry is in evidence again.[1] In 6:1 the number of disciples is still increasing, and in 6:7 the number of disciples in Jerusalem increases rapidly. This rapid increase led to a crisis in the church, and a restriction enforced by defining the ministry of the apostles.

The occasion is the discontent of the Grecian Jews over the distribution of food (6:1). The twelve apparently recognise the validity of the complaint, but declare that I is not their work to wait on tables; seven men are therefore chosen who will liberate the Twelve to ‘give [their] attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.’

Following this, and perhaps following on, the Pauline letters reflect the existence of two ‘offices’ in the early church – that of elder and that of deacon.[2] It is easy to show that the elder, the overseer and the pastor are three ways of referring to one office. There is disagreement though over whether there were two ‘kinds’ of elders – the teaching elder and the ruling elder, 1 Timothy 5:17. I will take the view here that while in any team of elders there may be some who are more gifted in one way than in another, yet there is one ‘kind’ of elder, not two, and that ‘μαλιςτα’ is better taken as ‘namely’ rather than ‘especially’.[3]

The key text in Paul is Ephesians 4:11, ‘It was he (Christ) who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers.’ It is widely recognised that Paul deliberately did not say ‘some to be pastors and some to be teachers’ precisely because the pastor is the teacher: so Christ gave some ‘to be pastor/teachers’ we might say.

Let us consider that for a moment. Lincoln will only go so far as to say that pastors and teachers
were overlapping functions, but that while almost all pastors were also teachers, not all teachers were also pastors. Whether the two functions were performed by a single individual with a particular local situation may well have depended on what gifted persons were present in that situation. The one definite article is therefore best taken as suggesting this close association of functions between two types of ministers who both operate within the local congregation.[4]

O’Brien agrees but is a little stronger: ‘All pastors teach (since teaching is an essential part of pastoral ministry,) but not all teachers are also pastors.’[5] However, since both agree that all (or almost all) pastors were teachers, their reservations need not concern us here. Hodge[6] takes issue with Calvin, who divided the two into distinct offices, thus:
The thing is well nigh impossible. The one function includes the other… It was however on the ground of this unnatural interpretation that the Westminster Directory made teachers a distinct and permanent class of jure divino officers in the church. The Puritans in New England endeavoured to reduce the theory to practice, and appointed doctors as distinct from preachers. But the attempt proved to be a failure. The two functions could not be kept separate. The whole theory rested on a false interpretation of Scripture. The absence of the article before [teachers] proves that the apostle intended to designate the same persons as at once pastors and teachers.’[7]
And Hendriksen[8] deals with the objection that
this non-repetition [is not] sufficient to prove that one group is meant
by adding
we have a parallel in 1 Timothy 5:17b, where mention is made of men who, in addition to exercising supervision over the flock together with the other elders, also labor in the word and in teaching. These shepherds and teachers are one group.

It is my contention that not only are they one group, only one function is being described: they pastor by teaching.

Before we turn to that, let us look a representative example of an evangelical where the opposite assumption is made: that one man is the pastor/teacher but sometimes he pastors and sometimes he teaches; and in fact a man may be ‘a good pastor but a poor teacher’, or ‘a good teacher but a poor pastor.’

For that example, the excellent Derek Prime seems to make this assumption when he writes[9]
Shepherding and teaching should not be separated. Preaching and pastoral work help each other. Visiting enhances our preaching in that it helps us to appreciate how our fellow believers think, their problems, and their temptations.’

Indeed, while he is critical of it, his view of pastoral work seems to leave open the charge of Huckleberry Finn who, when asked what pastors do in their visiting, answer
‘Oh, nothing much. Loll around, pass the plate – and one thing or another. But mainly they don’t do nothing.’[10]

However, we should exempt Prime from too much stricture, since he lists the goals of pastoral care as:
Feeding the flock, the proclaiming of the whole will of God, the presenting of every believer perfect in Christ, the preparing of God’s people for works of service, and equipping them to be fishers of men… What is important is not how many visits we have achieved, but how effective they have been in furthering these objectives.[11]

In other words, for Prime at least a part of his pastoral visitation is taken up with teaching.

Visiting the sick
Perhaps the area which most spotlights the disjunction between the Biblical work of the Pastor and the expected work of the Pastor is that of visiting the sick. It is taken for granted by most congregations, and by most pastors, that those in the flock who are unwell need to be visited, and need to be visited by the Pastor. When pastors are asked for the Biblical basis of this work, it is customary for them to answer in terms of caring for the flock, or knowing the people.

There is, as far as I can see, no suggestion anywhere in the New Testament that the Pastor/elder will visit those who are unwell, with one exception. There are surely two reasons for this. One is, as I have attempted to demonstrate, the Pastor’s work is that of teaching; he is the pastor-teacher and it is just as accurate to call him ‘Teacher’ as it is to name him ‘Pastor.’ To put it as plainly as possible, when he is not teaching, he is not pastoring. But those who are unwell are not generally in a position or mood to be taught. The second reason is that it undermines the work of the ‘ordinary’ Christian, the non-elder. Again, it is James who says ‘Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress,’ (1:27). This verse does not mention the visiting of the sick[12], but it does make it clear that there are needs within the church, needs of support and encouragement, which the body of Christ is to meet. But it is not the Teacher who is to attempt to meet those needs.

One of the more positive things within the church of Christ over the last few decades has been the re-emphasis on body ministry. However, even within so-called ‘charismatic’ churches, not everyone feels they have a ‘supernatural’ gift, and a proper understanding of 1 Corinthians 12:30 (where the form of question in the Greek requires a negative answer) makes it clear that this is so. What, then, are believers to do? They are to care for one another in their affliction. Let us imagine a lady recovering at home after some serious operation. What is it she needs? She may need company, and someone to pray with her. She may need help in managing the children during her illness; she may need help with housework, with cooking or even with finance. All of these things can be done by any Christian believer; they do not require one to be ‘set aside’ for that work. Yet if the concept is accepted that what they need is a visit from the Pastor, those other things are more likely, not less likely, to be neglected. Hence, sick-visiting may actually undermine the work of other Christians, and give the unbelieving world fewer opportunities to say ‘See how these Christians love one another.’ Hence, Philip Jensen’s words[13] ‘There is a real place for this ministry, but it is not the pastoral ministry.’

Are there exceptions to this rule? As mentioned earlier, there is certainly one Biblical exception, and there may be other practical exceptions.

The biblical exception is found in James 5:14,15: ‘Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up.’ Here, the person who is unwell takes the initiative and sends for the elders; but the purpose is not comfort and company, nor friendship or pastoral counselling: it is the Lord’s healing. This is a quite specific exception, and need not detain us.

There may of course also be practical exceptions. Though I have said ‘those who are unwell are not generally in a position or mood to be taught’, the ‘generally’ is important. Someone suffering from a life-threatening illness may be asking deep questions, and need a visit from a Teacher competent to answer them and encourage him. A Christian struggling with long-term illness may find her mind turning more than ever before to the age-old question of suffering and the problem of evil: that is natural and may require pastoral (that is, teaching) help. Or a young and otherwise healthy young man ‘laid up’ with a broken leg may be a perfect candidate for evangelistic visiting.[14] However, the point stands: the Pastor is visiting, under these circumstances, in order to teach. He has not done any pastoral work unless he does teach – or, at the very least, make future teaching possible.

To be continued...

References

[1] Peter also appears here as a miracle worker – 3:7, for example. It is beyond the scope of this project, but I do not deal with miracles because of the conviction that these are ‘signs of the apostles’ (2 Corinthians 12:12, c/w Acts 5:12) and so have no part in on-going pastoral ministry. But Peter was not only an apostle, he was an elder (1 Peter 5:1) and that aspect of his work continues in the contemporary church.
[2] Some query whether ‘deacon’ was an office at all, but this need not concern us here
[3] See T.C. Skeat, ‘Especially the parchments’ in Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 30, pt. 1, pp. 173-177
[4] Andrew T Lincoln, ‘Ephesians’ (Word Books, 1990), page 250
[5] Peter T O’Brien, ‘The Letter to the Ephesians’ (Eerdmans 1999) page 300
[6] Charles Hodge, ‘Ephesians’, Banner of Truth 1964 page 226
[7] ibid., page 226
[8] William Hendriksen, ‘Ephesians’ Banner of Truth 1972 page 197
[9] Derek Prime, ‘Pastors and Teachers’ Highland Books 1989, page 122
[10] Quoted in Derek Prime and Alistair Begg, ‘On being a Pastor’ Moody 2004, page 149
[11] Prime, op. cit., page 123
[12] though ‘distress’ (thlipsis) could conceivably include distress caused by sickness
[13] Philip Jensen, ‘A Ministry that Changes the Church’ Evangelical Ministry Assembly 1986, tape 3
[14] Jensen, op. cit., after saying ‘I never visit the sick’ goes on to list these particular exceptions.

Almost time for another post; hang on in there!

Abigail Benfold (4)

Abigail Benfold (3)

Abigail Benfold (2)

Abigail Benfold (1)

Elvis is alive and well and singing in... Wimborne







Always the greatest Elvis fan in the world, I looked forward keenly to seeing Lee Memphis King perform at the Tivoli Theatre in Wimborne last Friday. I'd seen LMK on the BBC's 'World's Greatest Elvis' (he came third; he was robbed) last year and knew his voice and performance were good. But I didn't quite expect what we got.

The show deliberately 'tackled' three periods of Elvis' career. First, LMK took us through the early years, with stunningly accurate vocals. Then, a quick change of costume into black leathers and a re-creation of the '68 Comeback Special. When the interval came I turned to Elaine and said 'His voice is just perfect for that era' - and it had been, with 'One night with you' and other classics sounding as near to Elvis as I could imagine.

But then, after the interval, the Las Vegas years. LMK was in a red jump suit, not the usual white. Still accurate though; white was not Elvis' only colour. He'd lost some weight, I thought, since the TV competition - or maybe it's just that TV famously adds ten pounds. At any rate, he looked good, 'quite like' the original. Then he began to sing.





I know what Elvis sounds like; I've been listening to him for 35 years. He sounds like Lee Memphis King. (Odd name, by the way; but I guess just 'Lee King' would suggest that water was running out somewhere...) He sang 'My Way' exactly as Elvis did: a deep, rich, Southern voice that suits the song far more than Sinatra's nasal New Jersey twang ever could. When he sang - at the end, as always - 'Can't help falling in love', he could have been miming to the King himself (but he wasn't; it was live).





But the highlight of the show - as so often in the Vegas years - was 'Suspicious Minds'. The atmosphere had been growing; the sense of being at 'an event' had mounted. Inevitably, large numbers took to the aisles, just to get closer to the stage. Just as Elvis had, LMK reached down, shook hands - but didn't kiss anyone - and the vocals never faltered. Never: perfect.





After thirty years, I've begun to suspect that Elvis is probably dead... and if he isn't, he's 73 years old, so I'll never get to see him live and in his prime. But that's OK; there are videos of his classic concerts, and - for live performances - there's Lee Memphis King to Take Care of Business.

An open letter to Adrian Warnock

Dear Adrian,



I confess I find your blog stimulating and frustrating in about equal measures. Stimulating because of your high view of Scripture and God's Sovereignty, your commitment to substitutionary atonement and your awareness of what is going on in the Reformed world and the Charismatic world alike. Frustrating because of the ease with which you accept reported miracles and your failure, repeatedly, to address some hard questions that you would, as a Christian psychiatrist, be in a really good position to consider. And I keep reading, because perhaps one day...


Then today you throw out a challenge: you publish a provocative quote from Lloyd-Jones where he accuses those who identify Spirit-baptism with conversion of 'quenching the Spirit', and you ask us to tell you what we think. Okay, then - I'll try.


I share your admiration for 'the Doctor' - what a man he was! What a preacher! I trained for ministry at London Theological Seminary which, as you will know, was set up by Lloyd Jones and some of his associates. The Doctor was still alive when I began there, and I had opportunity to discuss his views on Spirit-baptism with some of his closest acolytes (I do not mean the term unkindly).


Firstly Adrian, I think it might help if you could accept - in your heart as well as in your blog! - that the Doctor was never a closet charismatic. He knew personally Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders from probably three generations or more. He respected many of them. But he was never, apparently, convinced by them. Though his views on Spirit-baptism were certainly closer to yours than to mine, bear in mind: he did not draw the same practical conclusions as you have done. Ask yourself why. And ask: is it fair to quote Lloyd-Jones regularly as if he were 'one of you'?


Second, it's worth pointing out that within the Principality of Wales today there are Christian leaders who knew and respected Lloyd-Jones enormously and who agree with his views on Spirit-baptism and claim to have known that baptism. There are also others who knew and respected him enormously but disagree with his views on this point. As far as I'm aware, there's no obvious difference at all in the fruit of these men's ministries. It does not look as if either group has grieved the Spirit more than the other.


Thirdly I think it is worth asking whether LJ is likely to be right on this point. I mean: is it at all likely that an evangelical man who is genuinely trying to follow what the Scriptures say (or: what he believes the Scriptures say) may, by doing that, be quenching the Spirit who inspired the Scriptures? And not just that: quenching the Spirit in a uniquely powerful way ('There is nothing, I am convinced, that so 'quenches' the Spirit...')? I am afraid the Doctor is using a technique here similar to the 'shout loud because the argument is weak' one so beloved in preaching stories! He attempts to use theological fear to stop us looking carefully at what he says the Scripture says.


Fourthly, you know how rarely the phrase 'baptism in the Spirit' (or anything like it) is used in the New Testament. Once in each of the gospels; once in Acts. Those five relate the same incident. Then, once in 1 Corinthians 12:13. That's it. Now, 1 Corinthians 12:13 plainly refers to conversion; LJ admits as much but argues that since this is 'baptism by the Spirit' not 'baptism with or in the Spirit' it is plainly something different. Baptism with the Spirit, he says, is something the Lord Jesus does; baptism by the Spirit is something the Spirit does. What he does not face up to, however, is that the Greek in each case is the same: en pneumati. There is simply no ground in the original for the distinction the Doctor makes. Which rather queers his case - for if the clearest reference of all is to conversion, we are surely justified in allowing that to help us answer what 'Spirit baptism' means in the other cases. It is a basic rule of hermeneutics that the clear texts illuminate the not-so-clear.


Over the years I've thought a great deal about this. I have no doubt that LJ had a powerful and fresh experience of God after arriving at Westminster, as his biography shows. His passion for God, and his yearning that others should know God as he knew God, seems to have influenced his exegesis here in unwarranted ways.


Finally, one more thought. As you know, Adrian, Lloyd-Jones used 'baptism of power' as a synonym for 'baptism with the Spirit.' But even a cursory look at his own life would suggest that his greatest power was at Aberafon, before the Westminster experience - not after.


More could be said; but I must run.


Sincerely,


Gary