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?

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)

Redeeming the Time

Blogging is a bit hit-and-miss, for which I apologise to my faithful reader.  The truth is, the older I get the busier I become.

Some of you will know that, for years now, I’ve been working on a DMin from WEST.  The research and dissertation is on the evangelistic preaching of Lloyd-Jones, focussing on his long ‘Acts’ series.  Sometimes it seems I’ve been working on it longer than he was preaching it!

The deadline is September 2014.  But if I leave it much longer, I’ll miss it.  I’ve determined that I should finish my first draft, at least, this year.  That was my intention anyway; but yesterday I discovered that supervision arrangements are likely to change at the end of this year – which adds a definite ‘frisson’ to the target.

So, I’ve just begun a two-week ‘push’.  Part of the problem with a piece of work this size, running alongside a demanding pastorate, is that every time I come back to it I’m in danger of having forgotten where I was.  From now until my just-after-Easter break, then, I’ve determined to work on it each day, rising an hour earlier and doing at least an hour and a half each day, in addition to my (supposedly usual) Thursday study.  And I’m not taking on anything else, other than my usual preaching, unless specifically asked and/or it’s urgent.  It’s only two weeks; I should be able to manage that.  And I think that I can make real progress in that time.

I’m not giving up blogging, I hope.  But it may be brief, and intermittent.  In the meantime, watch out for my two articles in ‘Banner’ magazine (first one in the May issue) on evangelistic preaching – in general, that is, not Lloyd-Jones’.

Lloyd-Jones: Wrong theology causes wars!

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

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

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

Of the reading of several books...

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

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

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

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

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




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

Engaging with Lloyd-Jones

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

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

Mind, Heart, Will - Lloyd-Jones

There is a form of preaching that specializes in appeals to the will.  It possesses little intellectual and doctrinal content, and there is nothing about it that ever moves the emotions; but tremendous pressure is brought to bear on people in the realm of their wills.  They are made to ‘decide’, and to do something – all the pressure is on the will.  The point I am making is that any of these partial emphases is unworthy of the name of the Gospel, this Gospel which the Apostle describes elsewhere as ‘the glorious gospel of the blessed God’ [1 Timothy 1:11].  It is so big, it is so great, that it takes in the whole man, it engages the entire personality.  If our minds and hearts and wills are not engaged we are not Christians.  ‘Thank God’, says the Apostle, ‘ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine that was delivered you’.  The whole personality of these Romans was involved in this change.  You cannot be converted in your mind only, you cannot be converted in your heart only, you cannot be converted in your will only; if you are truly converted and born again, the three are involved, the whole man is involved.[1]

---

[1] The New Man, 208/9

Back with a Bang!

Thanks to Adrian Warnock for pointing me to this very rare (and all too brief) interview with the good Doctor.

Wounded in the house of my friends? #2

See yesterday’s blog for an introduction to this. Now, now – don’t be lazy. You only have to scroll down a little bit.

3. Sermon or lecture Once, argues Murray, ‘lecture’ in preaching circles meant what is now meant by expository preaching. Lloyd-Jones called his work on Romans ‘lectures’, but ‘conceived the contents of his Ephesians series as ‘sermons’ and anyone comparing… can quickly see the difference.’

Well, yes – OK. There are different types of sermons, different purposes in mind, differing congregations, even. Yet (as Murray readily acknowledges) Lloyd-Jones’ ‘Ephesians’ series proceeded consecutively through the whole book. Nothing is proved – or even indicated – by this point, I think.

4. What helps the hearer most is best ‘At the end of the day, the best preaching is that which helps the hearers most, and in that connection the track record of the consecutive ‘expository’ method is not impressive.’ The danger is, Murray says, that the preacher becomes only a commentator; and ‘a sermon needs a text as the basis for a memorable message,’ especially if the preacher is not to introduce a whole series of ideas into the sermon and lose clear, over-all lessons.

The weakness here though is that Murray is criticising badly-done expository preaching and using it as a reason to call the very form into question – except in the hands of a favoured very few. In simple logic, that isn’t adequate: the remedy for poor preaching of any type is to improve it.

And the passage reads as if there are no dangers associated with ‘the other’ type (or types). Of course, Murray knows that there are. For example – a text may become a pretext: it may be ‘expounded’ in such a way that has no reference to the context at all. Spurgeon himself was not immune from this danger! (Nor was Lloyd-Jones: his sermon on ‘Revival’ in the midst of his Ephesians series is inspiring, but not warranted by the context.)

Too many tyros have tried to preach verse-by-verse through major books of Scripture with near-disastrous results. It is arguable that this is one of the reasons why ‘reformed’ preaching has, in more than one place, been criticised as ‘heavy’ or plain ‘dull’.

Well, indeed; I remember suffering a series of verse-by-verse expositions of Jeremiah! But the preacher saw eventually that it wasn’t a good idea. It may be, however, that reformed preaching is criticised as ‘dull’ because too many reformed preachers are ‘dull’ – or, indeed, are not really preachers at all. Is there any evidence that they would be less dull if they abandoned the consecutive method?

5. The best ‘fit’ for evangelistic preaching ‘Evangelistic preaching does not best fit the ‘expository’ mode; in fact, where the ‘expository’ is exclusively used, true evangelistic preaching to heart and conscience commonly disappears.’

There’s some truth in the ‘fit’ argument – though I suspect that where evangelistic preaching has disappeared other factors weigh heavier. (‘But there’s never an unsaved person there’). In fact, many preachers haven’t a clue how to preach evangelistically. They’ve no idea what interests the unbeliever, or how to excite a proper interest in the unbeliever, or how to get hold of an unbeliever’s attention before the sermon ‘proper’ begins. (I remember overhearing a surgeon say to a patient, ‘You need an operation or you’ll die; but I can’t operate on you while you’re behaving in this way, otherwise you’ll die on the table and that will damage my reputation.’ Brutal – but the patient listened to every word that followed!)

However, there’s another side to the ‘fit’ argument. Some parts of the Bible are written with an evangelistic purpose. John’s gospel is the supreme example: ‘these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name,’ (20:31). Frankly, if a man is preaching from any part of John’s gospel and cannot see the evangelistic application, he either does not understand the passage or does not understand the gospel. Or take the Acts of the Apostles: Lloyd-Jones' last evangelistic series of the Westminster years was on that great book. He treated it very differently from 'Romans' or 'Ephesians' - but it was consecutive and expository, passionate and clear. Choose the passage/book right, and consecutive exposition is a superb way of preaching evangelistically.

So, is Iain Murray right to sound a caution? Yes, I think he is. We’re not to be slaves to method. We have to be prepared to find out what ‘works best’ for us – and best helps our hearers. We have to consider the possibility that we ourselves might be ‘dull’ and ‘heavy’. And certainly we have to make sure that every sermon we preach can stand alone: as Iain D Campbell says on the blog referenced yesterday, ‘At last, I know that I am committed to two things: to a stand-alone sermon, and to a Christ-exalting sermon. The first is necessary because it is just possible that someone may wander into church, not having heard the gospel before, and hearing it now for the first and last time. In that case, it will not do simply to refer to last week's sermon, or anticipate next week's. Each sermon must be a study in itself, a complete unit, which can be transported out of the church and into the life of the hearer.’

But I think Murray overstates it. The thing the church needs most is good expository preaching. It doesn’t have to take as long as Lloyd-Jones typically did – see here, for example, to discover how another preacher did it.

Above all, let us labour to be both accurate and passionate, whether we preach consecutively or not. Years ago I taught a preaching class and asked ‘Which is most important in a sermon – to be sound, or to be interesting?’ Everyone of them thought ‘sound’ was more important. I disagree – to be sound but boring borders on criminal. Both are equally important.

Wounded in the house of my friends?

- expository preaching under critical spotlights

Expository preaching has received some criticism recently from surprising places. First, Iain Murray published an article in the February (2010) issue of Banner of Truth, online here.

Then, Iain D Campbell wrote ‘Some thoughts on pulpit methodology’ on the Reformation 21 blog and finally Peter Masters at the Tabernacle Summer School lectured on the advantages and disadvantages of the method (see here and scroll down to July 10^th).

Murray helpfully begins with a definition: ‘If this [expository preaching] means that the preacher’s one business is to confine himself to the text of Scripture, and to make the sense plain to others, there is nothing more to discuss… But ‘expository preaching’ has often come to mean something more. The phrase is popularly used to describe preaching which consecutively takes a congregation through a passage, or book of Scripture, week by week.’’

Murray’s right so far. Properly, the phrase refers to preaching which takes a text of Scripture and opens up (exposes, hence expository) its meaning to the congregation, together with its application to their lives. But, yes, in the minds of many it means a long series on a relatively short passage.

Murray has five criticisms to make.

1. ‘Know your gifts’. ‘It assumes that all preachers are capable of making effective sermons along these lines… Spurgeon was not unfamiliar with ‘expository preaching’… and he decided it was not best suited to his gifts. There is reason to think that being an effective ‘expository’ preacher is not such a common gift as some seem to think.’

Indeed there is! In fact, there is good reason to think that preaching is not such a common gift as some seem to think (but that’s a subject for another blog). But to suggest (as Murray does – see the whole article) that too many try to follow Lloyd-Jones who don’t have his gift – while holding up Spurgeon as an alternative model – seems to miss one rather important point: we don’t have Spurgeon’s gift, either.

2. ‘What is preaching?’ Murray argues that expository preaching is seen as supreme because of the idea ‘that the foremost purpose of preaching is to convey as much as possible of the Bible. But that idea needs to be challenged…’

Here I beg to differ. I don’t think so. On the contrary, it needs to be re-affirmed. Yes, a sermon has to be more than a lecture – it has to have as its purpose to ‘strike, awaken, and arouse men and women so that they themselves become bright Christians’ but when Murray continues ‘and daily students of Scripture’ I have to disagree. I've got into bother for this before so let me say straight away: of course, it’s a good thing to be a daily student of Scripture. But you won’t find in the New Testament that idea at all – as Stuart Olyott pointed out (to my initial surprise and consternation) in the Banner of Truth Magazine some years ago. Actually, it is the preacher’s job to acquaint his congregation with the whole Bible – though not usually in one sermon. Many people - even today - are illiterate. It's a noble thing for the educated to search the Scriptures daily and check up on the preacher (Acts 17.11). But that's not the same as saying preaching is there to produce Bible readers.

3. Sermon or lecture? I’ll come back to this…

Lloyd-Jones on Authority in Preaching

There was an old preacher in Wales about one hundred and fifty years ago who was invited to preach at a preaching convention held in a little town. The people had already assembled, but the preacher had not come. so the local minister and other leaders sent a maid back to the house where the preacher was staying to tell him that they were waiting for him and that everything was ready. The girl went and when she came back she said: 'I did not like to disturb him. He is talking to somebody.'

'Oh,' said they, 'that is rather strange, because everybody is here. Go back and tell him that it is after time and that he must come.'

So the girl went back again and again she returned and reported, 'He is talking to somebody.'

'How do you know that?' they asked. She answered: 'I heard him saying to this other person who is with him, "I will not go and preach to those people if you will not come with me."'

'Oh, it is all right,' replied the ministers. 'We had better wait.'

The old preacher knew that there was little purpose in his going to preach unless he knew of a certainty that the Holy Ghost was going with him and giving him authority and power. He was wise enough, and had sufficient spiritual discernment, to refuse to preach until he knew that he had his authroity, and that the Holy Ghost was going with him and would speak through him. You and I, however, often preach without him, and all our cleverness and learning, and all our science and all our apologetics lead to nothing because we lack the authority of the Holy Ghost.

(From'Authority' by DM Lloyd-Jones, IVF, London 1958 page 88)

Lloyd-Jones: The Authority of Preaching

From the beginning of his ministry to the very end, Lloyd-Jones was an evangelist. His wife claimed that no-one understood him who did not realise that he was primarily an evangelist. It was his practice, every Sunday evening, to preach 'the gospel' - that is, to use his gifts to apply the passage he was dealing with to unconverted hearers.

His series on the Acts of the Apostles (begun 10^th January 1965) was his last evangelistic series as pastor at Westminster Chapel, being brought to an end in 1968 (February 25^th) by his illness and subsequent retirement, when he had reached Acts 8 and the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch.

In one of these last sermons, Iain Murray says ('The Fight of Faith' page 581), his main theme ‘was that Philip could speak with authority because Scripture is a revelation from God, containing good news from heaven.’ Murray then quotes Lloyd-Jones,

‘I have no other authority as I stand in this pulpit. The authority of the cults is the authority of experience… That is not the case here. This is exposition of the truth and we have no other authority. My dear friends, let me put it as plainly and as simply as this: standing in this pulpit tonight on the 28^th of January 1968 I am doing nothing different from what Philip did with the Ethiopian eunuch.’

The three sermons following this, in February of that year, Lloyd-Jones preached from Isaiah 53, which Philip explained to the Ethiopian in Acts 8. This brought his evangelistic ministry at Westminster Chapel to a close.