New Vineyard

Why Does God Allow Suffering? Part 2

2009-07-14T13:34:00.000-07:00

In our last post (Part One) we looked at the problem of suffering and ended with the question, “What is God’s solution (the Bible's answer) to the problem of suffering?”

It is our intention now to try and answer the question as truthfully as we are able, but that briefly.

God’s solution to suffering is twofold. One, he has called to himself a particular people (the King James’ version of the Bible calls them a “peculiar” people) whom he has redeemed from the penalty of their sin; these are known as the elect or remnant (“So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace”; “And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: ‘Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved’” (Rom.11:5; Jer. 3:14) and only God knows their number. We’ll talk about them in a minute.

Second, because of his eternal and infinite holiness, justice and righteousness, God’s judgement against sin and rebellion must stand (somebody must pay the price). In the same way that God could not make a square circle or a four sided triangle, so he cannot change the judgement against sin, as that would be contrary to his very nature and being. But as we’ve seen from Genesis, God can and did find a way to mitigate the harm done by our disobedience. In the genesis account, God made coats of skin for Adam and Eve. But in the ultimate fulfillment of this mitigation we are told by the apostle John, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). This same message or “good news” is found variously throughout the entire Bible. It is God’s promise that because He still loves us He will find a way that will entirely undo the harm while still allowing just punishment for the crime of disobedience to his holy will and his just laws.

But first however, I can hear someone saying, “Hey, I wasn’t even around then, when Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Why should I be punished for his crime?” While it might be true that you were not around then, Adam was nevertheless our representative before God. That is, Adam was the first human who had a personal, intimate relationship with God, as God’s first born human offspring. Adam was the first to know God personally and experientially. Whether or not you believe that Adam was the first human being and sole progenitor of the human race does not alter that fact, made clear in the first few chapters of Genesis. Adam, because of his personal relationship with God (almost like that of a high priest, who represents the people before God) was by default our representative (even while we were in his loins, so to speak). Because of that, what he did, we do. In the same way that a nation is represented by its government and its ambassadors, and must live under the consequences of decisions made by the government, or in the way that a family must live under the consequences of the parent or parents, so too must we live under the consequences of decisions made by Adam. Moreover, because we inherited our human nature from Adam (as well as being made in the image of God) we inherit the very same qualities, traits or characteristics resident in him (and Eve—the biological inheritance) that create such strong tendencies to feel, think and act in the ways we do. In the face of such argument, there is no room to deny our involvement, even in our ignorance of the true state of affairs.

So all these of whom we have been speaking—Adam’s offspring—are guilty of the same crime as their father Adam. This includes the entire human race—every single human being who has ever lived or ever will live (Christ excepted). But we should remember from our first post that suffering is the result of our disobedience and cannot be blamed on a perfectly just and righteous God. It was caused as a result of an affront to God’s holiness and glory—his very nature—not to mention his laws, and because God is eternal in himself, so must his judgment. God is perfectly just and fair in condemning us and punishing us for our rebellion against him who is our creator and sustainer. The consequence of his justice we experience as suffering.

In the first part of this post we used the illustration of a judge. We said, “That once the judge had declared the one in the dock to be guilty, he suddenly came down from the bench and into the dock himself. There, he releases the guilty party, accepts the punishment on the prisoner’s behalf and newly declares the one charged to be justified, that is, found no longer GUILTY, as there is now someone else willing to take the guilty verdict and who is able to pay the entire price of the crime, to the very last penny. Now let’s add a slight but very important change to the illustration. Let’s say that instead of one lone criminal, there were a gang of criminals, all accused of the same crimes. After a fair and just trial, the judge is forced, because of the stipulations of the law, to find these men guilty of the crimes and pronounces the binding penalty, “Death.” But then the judge gazes over the criminal gang, resting his attention on one in particular. He removes himself from the bench, going instead down into the dock to join those he has just condemned. He points to the man he had previously looked at and tells the bailiff to release him and to set him free as the judge himself has decided to accept the guilt and to pay the penalty for the crimes and who then changes his previous declaration of “Guilty” to that of “Not guilty.” The condemned man is set free and his record expunged while the judge joins the others on the gallows and pays the ultimate price.

In this parable, the gang is the mass of humanity; all without exception. As such, all are found guilty of rebellion and subject to God’s punishment and wrath for their crimes. (It is important to understand at this point that God does not go out of his way to punish this gang. He merely leaves them to the perfectly fair and just outcome of their self-chosen rebellion.) The one selected or chosen by God represents God’s elect or remnant. These God foreknew from before the foundations of the world in a special way. They are the recipient's of God's saving love and for whom God is willing and able to make a sacrifice. The condemned criminal did not seek forgiveness, did not think to ask to be released. Rather it was the sole, sovereign and completely unconditioned choice of the judge to do what he did. In theological terminology this is “grace.” Grace is the unmerited favour of God toward those who, in fact, deserve condemnation as much as anyone else. They are the guilty declared innocent and made so by the substitutional sacrifice of a Saviour.

Now, admittedly this illustration is not perfect. It raises as many issues and questions as it attempts to resolve, nevertheless, taken as a kind of parable, it helps us to understand God’s solution to sin and suffering.

God’s solution to suffering is this: to permit it, because he must since it is a consequence of disobedience to his immutable nature and laws, but to provide a select number—and those he forms into his church, his elect—the wherewithal to accept suffering with a good heart and the assurance that they have a reward waiting for them, partially in this life—their freedom from eternal condemnation—as well as a promise of redemption and reward in a world remade in God’s true and original image.

The bible does not promise surcease from pain or suffering while being in the world. Indeed, in the OT, Job affirms the predicament of Adam’s race when he says, “But man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward” (Job 5:7). And Christ adds weight to this when he tells his disciples, “In the world you will have trouble” (John 16:33b). So it would seem that even for God’s chosen people, his elect, those he loves with a special love, there is no complete relief from the circumstances that cause suffering. And this is certainly true, as we can see from history. God’s people have fared no differently—in terms of their circumstances and experiences in the world—than others, “Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:4-5).

But yet we have this promise “that God loved the world and gave his son (as the payment for our sin) so that all those who come to believe in Him will be saved.” We are saved, not just from something—sin and death, “For the wages of sin is death”—but also for something—God’s glory and our enjoyment of him forever; “but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom.6:23).

In the verse quoted earlier (John 16:33b) there is more than the bare statement. There is yet another promise. Let me quote the entire well-known verse: “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33, italics added).

These words were addressed to Jesus’ church, God’s elect, “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word” (John 17:6). These people include others from different times as well as places, “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:20-21).

So what do God’s elect get that others don’t? The promise is not the eradication or abolishment of any experience that may culminate in suffering. In order to make that happen, God would have to disregard not only his will as revealed to us in scripture, but also his very nature, which cannot be. For God’s people, those who come to believe in him as Saviour and Lord (John 3:16), do not seek to escape suffering, knowing, as we have seen, that it is not possible to do so in any event, because of God’s justice and eternal purpose. Rather, the Christian (and the church as a whole) is not to escape from suffering but to be able to bear suffering with the dignity and the hope that assurance of faith will bring. God (in such verses as John 16:33; 15:4 among many others) has given us His promise that just as Christ has overcome the world, and has prepared a place in Heaven for us as his friends and disciples (John 14:2) and is eager to welcome us home (Matt.25:21) so we too, in Christ as God’s adopted sons and daughters, may overcome the world by being faithful (to him) to the end (2 Tim. 4:7; 1 John 5:4). This is our hope and assurance in faith. It is not by our own strength that we are able to overcome and bear our burdens, with dignity and patience, but rather it is the work of God who enables and empowers us to do so. On our own we would not have any such ability whatsoever, “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts” (Zech. 4:6); “’My grace [Christ’s] is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I [Paul] will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me."

Moreover, as an added “benefit” or as a partial compensation, God’s elect have the assurance that God’s strength will be used by God for their continuing growth in grace as a way to build character, “It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I might learn your statutes” (Psalm 119:71); “Behold, it was for my welfare that I had great bitterness; but in love you have delivered my life from the pit of destruction, for you have cast all my sins behind your back” (Isaiah 38:17); “According to his great mercy, he [God] has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:3-8). “But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed...for it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil. For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (1 Peter 3:17-18)

So, hopefully, we now come to understand that suffering is a consequence of having a fallen nature in a fallen world. While it is unavoidable it is neither God’s will nor God’s fault, but our own. Hopefully we have also come to understand that there is a partial reprieve in the here and now from the painful effects of these circumstances which so often result in varying degrees of suffering—but only for those who, as God’s elect, have come to believe the promise or “good news” and who repent, turning away from all that displeases God, “Zion [God’s people all together] shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness” (Isa. 1:27). “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). “Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live” (John 11:25). “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22).

Although we cannot hope to completely escape God’s punishment for our sin and the consequence of that sin which is suffering, yet we have a certain hope that there awaits a partial reprieve here and now, and eventually a complete and total redemption from all sin and suffering for God’s people and this by God’s revealed and eternal will, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.’ And he who was seated on the throne said, ‘Behold, I am making all things new.’ Also he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.’ And he said to me, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment’” (Rev. 21:1-6).

Soli Deo Gloria.

My Hiatus

2009-05-13T12:32:00.001-07:00

I believe a brief word is in order concerning the time away from posting to this site.

In all honesty, I’ve had to contend with serious medical problems for several years but which became most significant last July when I was diagnosed with Deep Vein Thrombosis and accompanying Bi-lateral Pulmonary Emboli. The seriousness of my condition caused me to drop out of seminary (PRTS) and to cut back on many of the activities I had been engaged in for some time.

Added to this chronic ill-health, I’ve been contending with issues around my congregation and (I believe) the attacks of Satan against her and her leadership over many years. After considering all my options and after much prayer, soul-searching and examination, I decided the best course of action was to leave the congregation all together, which my wife and I have done but recently. As a result of our departure, we have started a house church, along with another couple, and have been finding true peace and joy in our newfound worship of the Lord.
All these things and others not worthy of special mention have acted as hindrances to my contributions to this site. If there is anyone out there who was disappointed at the infrequency of my postings, I apologize.

I hope to take up my responsibilities afresh and to continue adding content to this site on a regular basis (once a month, at least).

Please pray for me.

Soli Deo Gloria

Why Does God Allow Suffering?

2009-05-12T11:47:00.000-07:00

Part 1

If there is a God—the God of the Bible—why would He allow suffering in a world He created “good, very good?”

This is a perfectly reasonable question to ask and sooner or later, must be faced by all people, either to deny the possibility of an intelligent, all-powerful, and all-loving God or to somehow come to understand that there is no contradiction between the God of the Bible, the one and only Christian God, and suffering in the world. Of course, given my self-imposed space restrictions I cannot go into this in any depth but will only be able to make a passing argument. Consequently, I do not expect to convince anyone of the truth of my position but if I’m able to make someone think about this, and perhaps even to explore the question further, then I will rest well satisfied.
It is important to point out right away that this issue was dealt with by the writer of Genesis in the third chapter of that book. Let me summarize for the biblically non-literate.

Chapter three opens with the serpent (Satan) tempting and deceiving Eve into disobeying God’s command not to eat of the fruit of a certain tree. She eats, believing Satan instead of God and, worse, she goes on to present the forbidden fruit to Adam who deliberately breaks God’s commandment by eating what he knew was forbidden. (Eve for her part was less blameworthy as she was tricked; not so Adam.)

Certainly, the change was drastic and immediate. Adam and Eve gain deep knowledge of good and evil but also experience shame for the first time. Their shame causes them to try to hide from God, which of course they cannot do. When God determined the truth, His first action is to blame the serpent; this he does roundly. It is best to quote the account at this point:

14 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
17 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

So we see both Eve and then Adam are punished for their disobedience, their failure to maintain God’s plan for them, and this through Adam’s own choices freely made, with no external compunctions. This is important to remember. If blame is to be apportioned, it must fall upon the deserving, not the undeserving, party; in this case on Adam. Here is where suffering begins; right back on day seven of the creation. (In other words, there was not a long, long time before our “innocence” was lost and we gradually began to suffer. According to the Bible, it happened almost right away!).

God not only cursed Adam and Eve, but the earth also (Gen. 3:18). Why the earth? It had done no wrong, it was made “good, very good.” Why the need to curse the very ground? I am not certain, but I think it must have had something to do with the fact that Adam was created from the “dust of the ground.” There was (and still is) a connection between the earth and Adam (and therefore the entire human race). If God had not cursed the ground as well as cursing our first parents, Adam would probably not have understood the gravity and depth of his disobedience. He would not have understood the magnitude of what he had done. He would not have understood how vast was God’s anger and horror over this act of simple and prideful disobedience or sin which was directed against Himself and all that He had made. It was an affront to God’s righteousness and justice that had occurred, as well as a betrayal of His love.

In any event, the earth too was cursed as we have read. But we also read of God’s great compassion and pity on these two lonely and forlorn sinners (for so they had become, forever. Sin, in its most basic form, is simply disobedience to God’s just and righteous laws as well as His nature. It is a fundamental affront to the very person of God Himself and all that has come to be because of who God is.)

So, in His love, pity and mercy for these two sinners God decides to mitigate the very curse He had just levied upon them. This He does through another shocking act. God “made for Adam and his wife garments of skins and clothed them” (Gen. 3:21). This means God killed one or more animals in order to provide the clothing needed (for protection and modesty). Remember, all this is taking place in Paradise, the Garden of Eden, the very representation of bliss and deathless perfection. Up to this point, death was unknown by Adam and Eve. They could have had no comprehension of it. I am sure this shocking act of God did two things for Adam and Eve.

First, it demonstrated, in no uncertain terms, the magnitude of wrong that had just taken place; it proclaimed the horrible consequences of what had happened; it declared the degree of revulsion, anger and wrath that God must have experienced as a result of what Adam had done; from that moment on, the relationship of love and reverential respect that existed between man and God was forever disrupted; we were forever made to be enemies of God through this one terrible act of disobedience. When Adam was given his clothing of skin, he must have slowly started to see the “big picture.” He would have begun to realize the depth of wickedness he had sunk himself into, and not only himself, but the entire human race to come. He would have begun to understand the terrible cost of his disobedience and what toil, hardship and death would mean. He would have been given a glimpse, through the realization of the reality of death, of God’s holiness, righteousness and perfect justice. Of course a righteous God—a God of law and order; a God of justice and fair-dealing; in whom the guilty will be held accountable—could never for a moment let the awesome disobedience of Adam go unpunished. Payment (and eventual restitution) must be made for his sin against God and God’s creation.

Second, it demonstrated God’s abiding love in spite of the grave disobedience of Adam, who was God’s child in a very special and unique way; it showed them that there was hope yet, that God still loved them, pitied them and experienced compassion for their predicament, self-chosen though it was. (Would not any human parent feel the same kind of sympathy for his or her disobedient child undergoing punishment for such selfish disobedience? I know I would.)

We have seen that suffering (especially in the form of death) came into the world as a result of our disobedience (“our” in the two senses that we were represented before God by Adam as well as by virtue of the fact that we are all Adam’s “offspring”, his inheritors, and as such we have inherited his predilection to pride and wilfulness. It is, as you might say, in our “genes”, that is, in our genetic make up as human beings. This fact is critically important and if you cannot agree with it, you will never understand the nature of suffering. Our suffering is part of the just and righteous punishment God has unhappily inflicted upon us as a result of our sin of disobedience against Him and His justice, the magnitude of which is beyond our meagre comprehension.

Whether Adam understood this or not is irrelevant. He was tested by God and came up short. He may not have understood the stakes he was playing for but He knew God, knew what had been given him and that should have been sufficient for his obedience. He failed and sin and suffering entered into the world because of the proportionate justice God had to levy in order to pay for, as well as punish, the sin. Therefore, sin, death and their sister suffering had to come into the world in order that God could restore a state of justice for the evil done.

In this light, we see that the responsibility for suffering could not lie with God, but with the guilty perpetrator of the crime. Can a judge, after the court has met to try a case of say, murder, and after the jury has pronounced its decision: “Guilty”, be held responsible for the consequent suffering of the guilty party who now—as a result of the judge’s fair and honest sentence—faces many years of hard labour in prison? Of course not. Would we choose to live in a society where laws were flaunted, ignored and overturned by mere whim? I would not. We want laws that we know are fair, just, meaningful and which will not change at the drop of a hat.

So, on the one hand we have God’s perfect and eternal justice (perfect in the sense of total sufficiency or total necessity; eternal since the crime was against God and God is eternal) and on the other we have God’s abiding (perfect and eternal) love for His creation, especially for Adam and the entire human race. These seem irreconcilable and in fact would be so except for one thing alone which we will take up for discussion in Part 2 of this essay. But let me summarize so far:

God loved Adam and Eve with a perfect and eternal love.
God (by being God) is perfectly and eternally righteous, holy, just and fair in all that He is and does.
The one who God loved perfectly, disobeyed God’s perfectly just and righteous command.
Therefore, because of God’s perfect justice, He must punish the guilty who, it so happens, is also the one He loves perfectly and eternally.

Part of the penalty, because of the magnitude of this sin of disobedience, is that both Adam and Eve are condemned to death (both spiritual and physical) and in addition, the earth is cursed, forcing even more suffering upon the fallen sinners while they live out lives of exile in a cursed world.

The penalty, harsh though it might seem, was also perfect, (because God is perfect by virtue of His being God) that is, in perfect proportions to the crime committed.

The penalty for Adam’s (and our) sin of disobedience is what we understand as suffering.

Suffering is the perfect and just outcome of the sin of disobedience. All the sickness, pain, toil, fear and hardship that are so characteristic of this world are nothing more than the consequence of the Fall, the sin of disobedience (pride in other words). For this we have only ourselves to blame and for us to blame God is in a sense to shoot the messenger. Remember, God is perfectly just and righteous, he could not—even if He desired to—circumvent His own justice and righteousness, nor does He desire to do so.

Therefore, we will have to experience, to one degree or another, the punishment of a perfectly righteous and just judge, God Himself, and this forever, as God is forever. This paints a very depressing picture and it may seem as though I am pulling the very rug out from under the feet of those who are in most desperate need of such a rug. Nevertheless, this is not the case.

Is there a way out of suffering; of pain and misery and death? No if we think we are able to pull ourselves out of the mire of suffering; no if we think that suffering will somehow run out; will burn itself out like a raging fire, before the end of the world, so that at least the fortunate few who are alive then will be able to experience lives of perfect joy and contentment and freedom from pain. Such thinking is unbiblical; it is mere indulgence and make-believe. No, suffering is part of the created order, thanks to the sin of pride and arrogance displayed in the Garden.

What then can we say? Suffering is the lot of all people to one degree or another; not all suffer equally but all suffer nevertheless. Is there no escape then? No. The price of our crime against God and His perfect righteousness and justice must be, and will be, paid. But now I ask you to consider something quite startling. Imagine in our hypothetical court case mentioned above, that once the judge had declared the one in the dock to be guilty he suddenly came down from the bench and into the dock himself. There, he releases the guilty party, accepts the punishment on the prisoner’s behalf and newly declares the one charged to be justified, that is, found no longer GUILTY, as there is now someone else willing to take the guilty verdict and who is able to pay the entire price of the crime, to the very last penny.

The Bible’s answer to pain and suffering is simple, straightforward and staggering in its beauty. In Part 2 of our essay, we will take up the question “What is God’s solution (the Bible's answer) to the problem of suffering.”

Soli Deo Gloria

Part Two

Brief Reflections upon Re-reading the Westminster Larger Catechism

2008-11-05T10:21:00.000-08:00

I have just recently finished a third reading of this monumental work in the P&R edition with a commentary by Johannes Vos.

What can be said of this work? It is truly a profound and detailed survey of Christian doctrine as well as practice. Once again, I am overwhelmed by the comprehensiveness of the work along with its obvious piety and reverence for our God. This is not to say that I agree without reservation with everything the catechism declares. I disagree with some important doctrinal statements made by the catechism, but I feel that this in no way diminishes the work itself.

On this reading, I have been most profoundly moved by two of its sections in particular: the Ten Commandments and the use of prayer. The section on God’s law (summarized by the Decalogue or the Ten Commandments) begins with question 91 in chapter eleven and ends with question 149 in chapter thirteen. The use of prayer begins with question 178 in chapter seventeen and ends with question 196 of the same chapter.

I won’t address at length why I have been so moved by these two sections. Suffice to say that I have been going through some spiritual trials that seem to hinge on these two issues. In any event, I can’t help thinking how valuable this document is to all believers, especially those of the Reformed persuasion. This I believe because of the comprehensive nature of the Catechism itself but also because of the profound and solidly biblical truth it conveys to our sinful hearts. Indeed, it is precisely because of sin in my life that this past reading has been so powerful and so full of meaning and significance. In the section on God’s law, I saw my image reflected back to me as if in a perfect and flawless mirror and not as if through a glass “darkly” to quote the AV. In the elucidation of God’s law and its requirements, I have come to see with fresh eyes just how poor a sinner I really am and how hopeless it is to assume that my own righteousness can cover my sins and my sin nature. Truly, the Catechism not only shows us the depth of our depravity it also witnesses to our inability to even understand that depravity by ourselves, let alone overcome it. It teaches us that we not only “feel guilty" because of our sin, but that we “are truly guilty" in a very real, objective way before the eyes of God for every infraction we have ever committed or will commit as well as for our very sinful nature, which causes particular sins to manifest.

When I first read this section of the Catechism, I was upset and angry. I felt, and as some have said, that the Catechism was more biblical than the Bible. I was angered by what I thought then was more a Pharisaic approach to true piety and spirituality, than a truly Christian one. I thought the Catechism enumerated and expounded our sinfulness with such over-bearing exactitude that the inevitable conclusion could only be an overwhelming sense of our guilt before a perfectly holy and righteous God. I thought this was unfair and excessive. I've since come to realize that this is exactly what the Catechism meant to do. Using the example of biblical exegesis of Scripture given to us by the Lord in His Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, chapter five, where Christ explains the ramifications of disobedience to the Ten Commandments (especially in the cases of murder and adultery) I have come to see that the Catechism is in no manner exhaustive in its enumeration of our sins but that each example given is merely representative of our true sinfulness.

The Catechism has shown me the error of thinking that my sin is not just as repugnant to God now, even after my salvation, as it was before. Now that I understand the law better and more acutely, my sin increases, it does not diminish! Now, I am in even greater need of a Saviour and Redeemer, but thanks be to God He has provided for my need!

The other section, that on prayer, was instructive for me on a number of levels, but with my most recent reading, the use of prayer for Christian decision-making seems to be in the forefront of my concerns. I've written a similar post (read it here) about this issue before my most recent reading of the Catechism. My position then was that while prayer is extremely important for the believer, and is something (as a means of grace) we cannot do without, it is nevertheless not to be used as a method or means for making decisions. Since re-reading the Catechism, my position has become even more firm. Nowhere in the Catechism is prayer held up as an means for arriving at a God-decreed or ordained decision. The basis for misunderstanding this is the notion that God has a separate or "individual" will for each and every person. I see evidence of this belief all around in what I have personally come to describe as the "New Pietism." This new pietism seeks to establish that because God loves us and cares for us individually, He therefore has a "will" for each of us alone. This is completely unbiblical, and as Friesen and Maxson have proven (conclusively, in my opinion) in their ground-breaking book Decision Making and the Will of God, there is no basis for believing in such a notion.

The Catechism certainly supports my own view. Using the so-called Lord's Prayer as its model, the Catechism explains not only what prayer is to be used for, but also how it is to be used. Of course, all this must be seen in its true relationship to the Bible. The Catechism is a subordinate standard and must never be understood separated from Scripture. To do this is to elevate the Catechism (or any other similar documents) to the same level as the Bible. And to do this is to fall into grave error. There is much about prayer that the Catechism does not address, but it never leaves the reader with false ideas about its subject matter, including prayer.

I will be spending much reflective time chewing over what I've re-learnt from this most recent foray into the Catechism and thank God that, in His wisdom, He has seen fit to provide such a wonderful instruction manual when He had already given us that most perfect and inerrant book, the Bible.

Soli Deo Gloria

Decision-making and the Will of God

2008-10-18T09:32:00.000-07:00

(Sorry for the long hiatus between postings. I've had some fairly serious health issues to contend with over the last several months.)

Person:
One (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary.

I have been giving a lot of thought of late to the question of decision-making and how that relates to the will of God. In other words, how do we, as Christians, make decisions? Do we make them on our own, without guidance? If so, should we be doing it that way, or should we be actively seeking to know God’s will for us in any given set of circumstances or when conditions arise that force us to make (conscious) choices?

Now, I’m quite engaged with this question as it relates to individuals. But as well, I’m reflecting on whether the same underlying principles affect how corporate bodies make decisions, hence the definition of the word “person” at the beginning of this post. (I understand that this definition may not be very good, but it will serve my purposes for now.)

I’m currently re-reading a book entitled Decision Making and the Will of God by Garry Friesen and Robin Maxsen. The main thesis of the book is that the commonly accepted (i. e. traditional) notion that God has a personal or individual will for each person is unbiblical and therefore untrue. The book upholds the theological ideas of God’s sovereign will and His moral will but puts to rest (quite handily, I must admit) the idea that we can discover God’s personal will for each us from various sources (including Scripture).

Before going on, let me give the four foundational principles of what the authors of the book call the way of wisdom:

Where God commands, [i.e. in His moral will] we must obey;
Where there is no command, God gives us freedom (and responsibility) to choose [i.e. make a decision];
Where there is no command, God gives us wisdom to choose;
When we have chosen what is moral and wise, we must trust the sovereign God to work out all the details together for good.

(To me, this sounds a lot like the Normative Principle of Worship [NPW] being applied in a broader context than just worship. Unlike the Regulative Principle of Worship [RPW] which really only applies to worship and so has limited application, the NP can seemingly be applied to any number of situations.)

The emphasis of the way of wisdom (outlined in these four points) is on individuals; single unique persons. However, I’m intrigued by the idea that if what the authors say is true (and false) for single unique persons then, given the way that cohesive, consistent, interconnected groups such as Christian congregations behave, perhaps the same could be said for them. In other words, if God sees each and every congregation as a (more or less) holistic entity whose constituent members act (more or less) in concert with one another (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor 12:20, 27; Eph 4:12, 25), should not the same hypothesis be true for them as for a person?

Put another way, if God’s sovereign will applies to individuals, could it not also apply to corporate entities acting in personal ways? Now we know that both God’s sovereign will and His moral will apply right across the board, without exception. A qualifying difference however, is that God’s sovereign will can never be known (except through prophesy) until after it has been accomplished, while God’s moral will has already been revealed in totality by the Holy Spirit in Scripture.

Now this is all very well and good but what can we learn about corporate decision-making from all this? Well, maybe nothing if my own hypothesis is wrong and there is no correlation or relationship involved in how individual persons make decisions and how corporate persons such as Christian congregations make them. On the other hand, if there is a kind of correspondence, then this could have important ramifications for group decision-making in congregations.

For instance, if a congregation is faced with the necessity of deciding a course of action and seeks—from the common assumptions, motivations, doubts, fears, confidence, assurance etc. of its constituent members—to know what the personal (corporate) will of God is by various means such as open doors, impressions, prayer, and so on, it will find the process difficult to impossible since there is no actual personal divine will, there is only God’s sovereign will and His moral will. So if the congregation, for instance, engages to know if God wants it to find or build its own building, it will be of no avail to ask God in prayer, “Do you want the [name of congregation] to find a new building or would you have us build one instead?” because this is to presumptuously assume that God will reveal His hidden, sovereign will through a means that runs contrary to His revealed moral will. (While we can ask for anything in prayer that God has indicated by His Word as valid, we are not to ask for anything which runs contrary to His will as it is revealed in and by Scripture.) If the congregation “waits on the Lord” and by this is meant it waits for an “open door” or subjective impressions, or the leading of the Holy Spirit and so on, then perhaps it is waiting in vain. For one thing, such “means” can give us no objective proof that what we are asking for is in fact part of God’s sovereign will (The question itself must be part of this sovereign will, else it would not have been asked in the first place, but the answer to the question will remain a secret until such time as God sees fit to make His will known.)

Now please don’t misunderstand me, I’m simply asking these questions. I’m not trying to defend the position of the authors of this book (although I’m in essential agreement with them). I merely pose the questions because they are of some concern to me right now. I can see the validity of the authors’ argument when applied to individuals. I’m not certain it applies to congregations when the members are acting in concert. Perhaps it does apply, perhaps not.

If it does apply then this should be a huge blessing to congregations in their decision-making which of course all but the most stagnant of congregations must engage in on a regular basis. From my own perspective (Reformed Presbyterian) the decision-making is essentially or largely the responsibility of the ruling Session (pastor and elders together). But again, this is a corporate structure. So even if the decision-making is accomplished by a small number of men acting in concert, all that can really be asked for or expected are qualities such as wisdom, discernment of the truth and perhaps courage to apply the truth once a decision has been arrived at.

I don’t know the answers to these questions. I will however continue to pray that the Session of my own congregation will seek to obtain the wisdom, discernment, courage and—last, but certainly not least—the power, to carry out the right course of action once a decision has been made.

I’ll probably have more to say on this subject when I finish re-reading this book.

Soli Deo Gloria

Some Thoughts on Developing a Christian Worldview

2008-07-30T13:11:00.000-07:00

I’ve been doing some thinking about—or rather some reflecting on—just how one develops a worldview. And since my own “coming out” as a Christian almost a decade ago, I now ask myself how my own Christian worldview has developed. What follows are just a few random ideas strung together as a kind of exploration of how I think it has come about in my own case and how it might come about in the case of others.

Firstly, one must take for granted that there is a God and that He is described both in His creation and in the Bible (or rather, He describes Himself, His attributes, His character and His plans and purposes, in the Bible). Eventually, one must come to a settled conclusion about this. I absolutely believe this settled conclusion must admit the following: that God’s existence is self-proving and self-evident. God cannot be “proven” by recourse to any other authority but Himself alone. This is huge—especially in a Post-Modern, Post-Christian Neo-Pagan, syncretistic society such as ours. To deviate from this position is, inevitably, to lead to spiritual confusion if not ruin. I can’t stress this point too strongly; read the history of God’s OT people for authentication! A Christian worldview begins and ends with God’s sovereignty, self-existence and self-authentication. To go anywhere else (such as the sciences) to prove the existence of God is to posit a higher authority than God and so is self-defeating.

In view of what we have just said, the obvious must also be true and fundamental, that God’s revelation of Himself can only be understood by us through our faith and faith alone. We do not believe in God because we can prove He exists. We prove He exists (apologetics) because we believe He does (exist).

Secondly, one must be grounded in God’s Word. And by that I mean the Bible, pure and simple. This second point is really just an extension of the first point: if God is sovereign, then so must be His Word. This is so because there can be no difference between God's truth and His being. God's truth can only be an expression of who God truly and surely is. Therefore the Bible is, like God Himself, self-authenticating and self-confirming. There is no other standard by or to which it may be compared or confirmed. Yet some argue that there is much in the Bible that is difficult to understand or that flies in the face of reality (usually as defined by modern science). But any parts of the Bible which we as individuals are unable to understand or that seem to be contradictory or impossible are simply parts that have not been revealed to us either because of our own ignorance and sin or because the sovereign God has, for His own inscrutable reasons, willed not to reveal those parts to us until such a time as He sees fit. For instance, many people today cannot come to accept many of the miracles of God described in the Bible. One example that comes to mind is the turning back of the shadow on the stairs in King Hezekiah's palace (2 Kings 20:9-11) which modern people consider to be impossible because it contravenes several physical laws of the universe. Yet Christians must see the turning back of the shadow as a thing perfectly possible for a sovereign God, whether we completely understand it or not. And why should we expect to understand everything there is to know about this sovereign God? If we understood everything about Him, we would be standing in His place: exactly the sin of Lucifer, who wanted to take the place of God in His arrogance and pride!

Yet even if we seek to confirm the Bible by physics, archaeology, history or the like, we are in effect admitting there is a secondary source of information which is equal to, on a par with, the Bible itself. Even though we use such "evidence" to prove the validity of the bible, in doing so, we are acknowledging that the Bible is not supreme in its self-revelation and that another source is just as important as the Bible. This is in effect to destroy the supremacy of the Bible or at least to cast doubt upon the truthfulness of its revelation. No, either we believe in the ultimate authority and sufficiency of the Bible or we do not. There is no middle ground! It is either sola Scriptura or it is nothing.

But don’t get hung up on which is the “right” version of the Bible at this point. (However, please take my advice on this and stick to essentially word-for-word translations such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), or even the King James Version (KJV, AV). The Bible is just what it purports to be—God’s Word. And it is a living Word, not dead. If God lives eternally, then so must His Word, which is a reflection of God’s very being. The Bible must become our own personal living word, relevant for our every need. Saturate yourself with it. But here it is wise to proceed with some caution. How are we to interpret God's Word and so understand it rightly? Is it up to each individual, unassisted, to determine for him or herself what is the truth of Scripture alone? This could easily lead to what one writer has called Solo Scriptura which is a private interpretation. For more on this please read this article (and read the third set of comments next).

Thirdly, read Christian historical documents and creeds (such as the Westminster Confession of Faith for instance) as well as a good history of the Church.

Fourthly, read from the related works and classics from men such as Josephus and Philo. The works of these men are largely contemporaneous with the NT accounts and letters and will tend to confirm what the Bible states as fact (yet be cautioned by our previous remarks regarding biblical authority and sufficiency).

Fifthly, read various theologians and their works of Systematic Theology. I recommend the works of such men (in no particular order of precedence or importance) as John Calvin, especially his “Institutes” and other Reformers, John Murray, the Hodges, Robert Reymond, Bruce Demerest, DA Carson, the Puritans, Thomas Boston, J. Greshem Machen, Wayne Grudem, JM Boice and so on. This is just a small taste of the riches that await.

Sixthly, begin to study philosophy and logic. These disciplines will teach you how to think critically so as not to be easily influenced or persuaded by competing ideas.

Seventhly, learn Greek and Hebrew so that you can read the Bible in the original languages.

And lastly: associate with godly people. Take fellowship with those who are also Christian and with whom you can explore your Christian values and ideas in an atmosphere of understanding, support and encouragement. At the same time avoid religious or theological discussions with those who are not equal to the task or who, worse, are not even Christian. To do this is to invite syncretism into your life and to potentially create confusion and uncertainty which are the two qualities you are trying to eradicate in the first place.

In this regard, imperative to keep in mind are the words of the apostle Paul: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2).

If you are diligent in your pursuit, these several starting tips should serve you well.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Love of the World?

2008-07-22T09:29:00.000-07:00

I’ve recently been meditating on 1 John2:15-16 in the context of how Christians should “be” in the world. This is partly due to the sermon preached for my little congregation last Lord’s Day.

As I meditated on God’s Word I observed that while we must live disciplined lives, repudiating what we know to be wrong and living out what we know to be right, we must also walk with caution between the Law and Grace. I think that we must be prudent in what we consider evil and worthy of rejection and what is in fact good and a blessing for us as we sojourn through this essentially foreign land we call earth or the world.

In the verses from 1 John 2, it is easy to hear that we must reject the world—indeed isn’t that what John forthrightly tells us: “Do not love the world nor the things in the world” (1 John 15a)? So far, no problem. But here we must be careful to understand what exactly John is referring to when he speaks of the world. So we read in verse 16 that by “the world” (or more exactly the "things of the world") John really means or intends certain characteristics: the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life. These are the things we must be on guard against, not the world as part of God’s creation, fallen though it certainly is.

This “love of the world” we must reject or wake up to is illustrated well by the reaction of those neighbours and other contemporaries of Noah after he had been instructed by God that the earth—the world—was about to be destroyed by a flood (Gen. 6:13). We read in Matthew, “in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away” (Matt. 24:38-39). Now “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” are not in themselves sinful and do not act as examples of the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life. It was the unthinking reaction to Noah and the looming reality of which he was the herald that illustrates the attitude of those who love the world. The description of Noah’s friends and contemporaries illustrates a kind of dependant stupor. They were oblivious—they “did not understand”—what was about to befall them or the reasons for it. It illustrates the need for a shift in one’s conscious awareness, a paradigm shift of extreme magnitude. The friends of Noah were on "auto-pilot" and could not understand that they needed an "attitude adjustment."

And it is here we must tread lightly. Too often it is the world as such—that is, the physical, tangible, and touchable created place we call the earth or the world—that we are warned against as being evil and worthy of rejection, rather than those qualities found within it as a result of Adam’s sin and subsequent fall and the cursing of the earth/world by God as a penalty for such disobedience. It is easy to think that we must employ our powers of discipline to reject the world—and many of the pleasures it yet affords—in order to be “good” Christians. One problem with this is that if we are not more critical in our thinking, we could easily be slipping into a quasi-Gnostic dichotomy of “physical equals evil; spiritual equals good.” Therein lies the real danger. The earth (and our physical bodies which are part and parcel of the earth) has been given to us as the venue in which we are to work out our salvation (with fear and trembling, knowing the dangers) and so we must be ever mindful of the implications of this fact. God did not remove His people from the earth or her temptations, rather He has put us here and has purposefully left us here so that through being in the world, we may, following in Christ (John 17:13-19), overcome it for our good. That we are to be in this world is God's will for us. To reject wholesale the world He has given for our sanctification is to reject His will and good purpose for His sons and daughters.

The world, we must always remember, was created by God. It was created “good, very good.” And while it has been cursed as a result of sin, it is nevertheless the world created by God and will be the only world until after the Judgment and the emergence of the new (Rev. 21).

To reject the world as such is a mistake for it is not itself evil and we are still blessed by God as an aspect of common grace (Ecc. 5:18; Matt. 5:45) but it is rather the heart of each and every person who has not understood the Fundamental Reality behind all appearances that is the real problem and from it proceed all the evils we must be on guard against.

Soli Deo Gloria.

The Self-Revelation of God

2008-07-19T21:01:00.000-07:00

Recuperating as I am from another physical ailment (sigh), I’ve been doing a lot of reading of late. Most recently has been Robert Reymond’s Systematic Theology, chapter six, p. 129, in which he discusses the various approaches apologists (Turretin, Hodge, Dabney and Berkhof et. al) have used to prove the existence of God; and how he considers all of them “unsound”, or at least incomplete and ultimately incapable of proof. Instead he says that evidence for God’s existence is self-proving and self-evident, (although obviously not to everyone). I concur.

I bring this up now, after reading a story from the TimesOnline regarding the latest heretical ideas exploding from the apostate minds of many from within Anglicanism/Episcopalianism.

It would seem from the article that the core problem facing Anglicanism is in fact the willful refusal of these people to accept the entire Bible as the Revealed Word of God (and as argued, for instance by men such as Reymond, not to mention the Apostle Paul, of course).

I’m not going to enter the fray as I am too far removed from the dialogue to add anything of importance or relevance. However, I use this article to add my own voice to support the traditional, Reformed view that God is self-existent, self-disclosing and self-revelatory.

God cannot be “proven” by recourse to any other authority but Himself alone. This is huge--especially in a Post-Modern, Post--Christian society. To deviate from this position is, inevitably, to lead to spiritual ruin (as is obvious to me in the case of the current state of the Anglican Communion in the west.) Remember, the watchword of the Reformation was—and still is—Sola Scriptura.

It seems that the defining issue facing the Anglican Communion is homosexuality, or more comprehensively, liberalism and the Normative Principle of Worship (NPR) as opposed to the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) of the Reformed tradition. Satan says, using the liberal branch (the apostate church) and the words of the Bishop of Armagh,

“Let us be clear on this. It has not yet been conclusively shown that for some males and some females homosexuality and homosexual acts are natural rather than unnatural. If such comes to be shown, it will be necessary to acknowledge the full implications of that new aspect of the truth, and that insight applied to establish and acknowledge what may be a new status for homosexual relationships within the life of the Church….It would be very strange if, with the same level of information about issues to do with homosexuality, we were not to incorporate that into our understanding of creation itself.”

This from the good bishop in spite of God's warning in Matthew that ""It is written, `MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD' " (Matt. 4:4).

In his world-view, the Bishop merely validates Paul’s analysis of the fallen human condition in Romans, chapters 1-3, which essentially describes the entire, complete and abiding condition of unregenerate humanity.

I cannot add anything to this argument which would not simply be comments on stupidity. Enough stupidity (and apostasy) has been expressed by Bishop Harper and his ilk within the Anglican Communion. To say more would be merely to guild the lily. Read what Bishop Harper has to say and decide for yourself.

Soli Deo Gloria.

This Pastor Has Guts

2008-07-13T20:00:00.000-07:00

As I spend time recuperating from yet another health issue, I recieved the following as a circular letter from a relative and brother in Christ. It seems prayer still upsets some people. Please read....

When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the newSession of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard:

"Heavenly Father, We come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good' but that is exactly what we have done.

"We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.

"We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.

"We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of speech and expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

"Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Amen!"

Soli Deo Gloria

Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Doing the Will of God

2008-06-18T09:08:00.000-07:00

Recently, I have been thinking more about the Holy Spirit. In two earlier posts (January 15, 2008 and January 21, 2008) I wrote of the Holy Spirit and His role in the Church. These posts were concerned with identifying the activities of the Spirit in the Church and specifically His manifestation within congregations and in the individual lives of believers. In the posts I argued that if we indeed, as Christ’s Church and as individual believers, truly do have the indwelling Holy Spirit, there should be tangible evidence to that effect. I also argued that if there is an obvious lack of His presence, then it is not because He has been withheld or withdrawn from the Church but rather that we, in some way, have rejected Him. I still maintain this belief.
However, this post is concerned with something slightly different. It is more concerned with the relationship of prayer, the Spirit and the revealed will of God: prayer without the Spirit is useless for the furtherance of the will of God, since the will of God is not to be discovered through prayer but through the serious study of and obedience to the Word of God which is a complete and sufficient expression of God’s will for His people, both collectively and personally.

But first, we should know how we are to pray. What are some marks that characterize Godly prayer?

We are to pray with humility in ourselves (James 4:6, 10; 1 Peter 5:5) but with boldness in Christ (John 15:7; Heb.4:15-16). We are to pray trusting that our prayers are heard, and not with a doubting attitude (Matt. 21:22; Mark 11:24; James 1:5-8; 5:14-15). We are to pray in the name of—or by the authority of—Jesus Christ (1 John 5:14-15) and by the efforts of the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13), not by our own efforts. Therefore, if we are grieving the Spirit (Eph 4:30) or quenching him, we can be assured our prayers will be of less or no effect. (See also Romans 8:26-27; Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; others: Rev. 1:10; Luke 10:21; Acts 19:21; Rom. 9:1; Eph. 2:18; Col. 1:8.)

In the fourth volume of his expositional commentary on the Gospel of John (BakerBooks, Grand Rapids, 1999, p. 1,312) James Montgomery Boice has this to say about the Holy Spirit and prayer (in the context of living a holy life or the experience of sanctification):

“A …way in which we will not find holiness is through prayer or still less, through prayer meetings. Prayer is important, and the Christian who is growing in the Christian life will inevitably find that times of prayer, both public and private, are increasingly precious to him or her. But however valuable prayer is, it is not the God-ordained means for growth in holiness. Prayer is preparation for such growth. But at what point in prayer does God actually speak to us and direct us in the way we should go? It is only when God the Holy Spirit brings the words of Scripture to our minds or directs us to the Bible for the direction we need. Apart from this corresponding reflection on the Word of God prayer is merely a monologue. As such, it may relieve our personal anxieties, but it does not provide direction. On the contrary, when we study the Word and pray over it, God leads us clearly and keeps us from the suggestions of Satan or the kinds of autosuggestion (or wish fulfillment) that all too frequently pass for divine guidance in the lives of some Christians” (emphasis added).

From a slightly different perspective, Ray Stedman has written:

“… the brutal fact is that, though every true Christian has the Spirit of Truth, thousands walk in darkness and understand no more about themselves than the most blind pagan around. Though we have the Spirit available to us, we are as deluded and as blinded as any worldling living next door. Though we have the potential he does not have, we are not getting into it. We may be Bible-taught, but we are not Spirit-taught. Why not? Because Jesus says "... he dwells with you, and he will be in you," and there is a vital distinction there.

“Now, please don't nail me to the mast for heresy. I know as well as you do that every believer, when he receives Jesus Christ, receives the indwelling Spirit of God; that He is in us from the beginning. We do not need later to pray for his coming. He is there right from the start. Historically, it was true that these disciples were not to receive the indwelling of the Spirit until the Day of Pentecost. He dwelt with them before but he was to be in them on the Day of Pentecost. But, having said all that, it is still true that, positionally, though the Spirit of God is dwelling in you, as far as you are concerned, experientially, it is as though he only dwelt with you. You are not laying hold of his indwelling life, and for all practical purposes he is not there, he is only with you.

“This is the explanation for the prevailing weakness in Christian living.

“The other night at our Board of Elders meeting we were wrestling with this problem. We were asking ourselves this question, "Why is it that though truth seems to be poured out continually in this place, through our teachers, in the pulpit and in so many ways, yet in many of our peoples' lives there is such a superficial shallowness? There is so little reflection of the truth our ears are hearing. Why is this? How is it that Christians can know so much and experience so little?" We were wrestling with this problem. I commented how disturbing it is to sit down with a group of people and mention some great promise of Scripture or Christian life that ought to be ours and to have everybody nod their head in agreement with it, and then to see the look of shock come into their eyes when you propose some action on it. They look amazed that you intend to take these words seriously, and act on them. As we talked about this, one of the young men who was with us said a very helpful and insightful thing. He said, "You know, I think I know what it is. I have found it in my own life. When I simply give up arguing back, and start obeying the Lord, I discover all these things begin to work. In my experience I have discovered it is possible to have God at arm's length, dwelling with me. And when he is out there, nothing works; but when I yield to his sovereign direction in my life, and I begin to act on what he says, then he is in me and things begin to happen." He put his finger right on the point. This is what Jesus says.

‘In you’ means that you are under the control of the Holy Spirit, and yielding obedience to his totalitarian sovereignty. It means the total collapse of all your rebellion against him.

‘Oh,’ you say, ‘I'm not in rebellion against the Spirit of God. Why, I'm a Christian. I don't rebel against him.’

“Let me ask you: ‘What kind of life are you living? Is it God-centered, or is it self-centered? Is it to please yourself that your activities are done and your desires aimed?’ Then you are in rebellion against the Spirit of God, and to have him dwelling in you means the total collapse of all that revolt until you are saying, ‘Lord Jesus, whatever you say, your word is my command. I am ready to obey.’

“It is not our relationship with Jesus Christ which counts before the world; it is our resemblance to him.”
(From The Holy Spirit and Prayer, an online Bible Study, emphasis added.)

Basically, Stedman says here what I have tried to say in my previous posts: the promises of the Spirit must be appropriated by us. If we grieve or quench the Spirit—the Spirit of Truth—by our disobedience and lack of trust, then we cannot legitimately expect to be blessed by Him. This holds true in all areas of our lives affected by Him, including our prayer life.

I believe both men are saying a similar thing from slightly different positions. The main point is, I think, that prayer is simply ineffective as a means for discovering God’s will (1 John 5:14-15) and that if we wish to know God’s will in order that we might be obedient to it, we must know God’s Word, for it is in His Word that God reveals His will.

(It is interesting to note, in this respect, how it is mentioned in the OT that it was the discovery of the Book of the law and the reading of it that God’s OT people discovered the deep error in which they lived and the kinds of conditions God had set out for their blessing. It always was a shock for them upon reading from the Book, just how fallen and sinful they had become. A good example of this is the discovery and the reading of Scripture as described in 2 Kings 22:8-13.)

So prayer is not given to us to determine God’s will. God’s sovereign will is hidden from us until after it has been worked out in temporal and spatial terms (Deut 29:29). God has given us the Canon of Scripture for us to determine His will. If we cannot determine what God’s will for us is by consulting Scripture, it means that we have the freedom to make choices as we see fit, dependant on our level of knowledge, wisdom, circumstance and experience. Everything we need to know about God and His will is evident in Scripture. To use prayer as a means for establishing just what His personal will is for use in any set of circumstances is an act of mistrust.

So then, prayer is not to be used as an excuse for not appropriating the promises God has made to us through faithful and trusting obedience. It is through just such obedience that the promises of God are made manifest as such in our lives. This is the obvious thrust of the OT passages of cursing and blessing, in which God specifies “if you do this, I will bless you. If you do that, I will curse you” (Deut. 30:15-20 for example).

(Sidebar: In this passage, God says do this that I "may bless" you. The use of the word "may" indicates that the required behaviour is in keeping with and is a reflection of God’s holy character and can therefore be a blessing. That is, God is almost forced by the constraints of His own holy and just character to give blessing when the attitudes and behaviour of His people are in accord with His own character and nature. This of course is in no way to deny God’s covenantal graciousness in blessing His people in spite of the fact that they almost never were sincere in their efforts to be like Him.)

Now we are called to pray “in the Spirit” (Eph. 6:18) and we know that the Spirit helps us in our praying (Rom. 8:26). But if we are not obedient to the will of God, doing those things that He has clearly called us—as Christians—to do, what kind of prayer life should we expect to have? If, as Stedman describes, we merely have the Holy Spirit with us —experientially, not positionally—instead of in us experientially, can we live holy lives that are pleasing to God? I think not. It is not enough to simply pray. The Christian life is an active life of obedience to the revealed will of God. We must do. We must act. We must not be afraid. We must appropriate the promises and blessings of God by undertaking to do them.

When we have grieved the Holy Spirit, He must, by His very nature, remove himself from us in an opposite manner to the one of God being able to bless us, described in the sidebar paragraph noted above. When we, experientially, are in accord with the providential and revealed will of God, then as said above “God is almost forced by the constraints of His own holy and just character to give blessing.” But if we are not in accord—through the inner blessing of the Holy Spirit of Christ—with God’s will then how can we expect to have any of our prayers answered.

When we pray, our prayer is effective to the degree we pray in the authority of Christ (in His name) and in the power of the indwelling Spirit: “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it” (John 14:14), “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Luke 11:13), "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you” (John 14:16-17), “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:26).

Let us go down on our knees in humble submission to God and be bold then, doubting nothing, going to Him in prayer to adore and praise Him, to seek His forgiveness for our sin, to offer up our heart-felt thanksgiving for all His blessings, to make our own petitions and to intercede on behalf of those whom we know are in need of His loving-kindness. But let us also be quick to then rise up, gird our loins and to undertake the task of obeying our God through obedience to His Word in the power and courage of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Thoughts on Obedience and Discipline

2008-06-12T11:00:00.000-07:00

On July 10, 2007, I wrote an article on sharing one another’s burdens within the context of the Church. In the article, I tried to make it clear that obedience and discipline were needful, not because of church rules, bylaws, regulations, traditions and such like, but rather because according to the Bible, we are our own mutual support system: we belong one to another.

Recently, this issue has come up again with even greater force and this time has it has caused me to reflect more on the “discipline” aspect rather than on sharing burdens. At the outset, let me clarify that I am in no way a disciplinarian. I believe that discipline, when it becomes necessary, already is an indicator of failure; that something has gone seriously out of whack and should not have gotten to the point where discipline must be considered a solution. It may mean that the congregation has fallen down on its duty (and privilege) to support and assist an offending brother or sister or it could be that the unrepentant nature of the offender has made discipline the only option. But discipline, in my view, is always an indicator of a situation that has been allowed to grow and fester to the point where encouragement, gentle admonishment and even mild rebuke are no longer effective, as they should be.

Having said all that, I also believe that when discipline becomes necessary, it should be appropriate, just, decisive and swift.

Discipline is administered for three basic reasons: to restore the wayward offender; to prevent the sin/s from infecting others in the congregation; and to protect the purity of the Church and the honour of Christ. It should never be administered as punishment or as a response for anger or resentment caused by the offending person.

Restoration and Reconciliation
Since sin always causes division and strife within the congregation, it tends to destroy fellowship among believers. Without fellowship, reconciliation becomes virtually impossible. Consequently, a primary purpose of church discipline is to restore the offender to right behaviour (if not right attitudes) and to reconcile him with his brothers and sisters so that fellowship may again flourish. Often, it is only necessary for one person to discuss the matter with the offending party. If the situation is still in its infancy, it is relatively easy to show the offender the error of his ways and so restore a right relationship. (This is not usually possible in the case of egregious sin such as self-chosen adultery.) However, if brothers and sisters are not quick to see and evaluate the problem, there is a good chance it will grow to the point where discipline is required. This is one reason why our intersessory prayers for one another are so important. With prayer and loving, tangible concern, it is often the case that an erring brother or sister can be reconciled and restored. However, I must stress the tangible concern aspect. As James reminds us in a slightly different context, “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself” (James 2:15-17). Surely the same principle holds true for a brother’s suffering because of his sin as from a lack of food. And if this is so, then we are under the same constraints to do him well, not only through prayer, but through action motivated by love, working through faith.

Sinful Infection
“You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst….Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened” (1 Cor. 5:2, 6-7b).

There are two aspects to the prevention of sinful infection that need to be considered. First, there is the possibility that as a result of complacency or apathy within the congregation, the same sin affecting the original party, could, if left unchecked, infect others within the congregation causing them to sin in a similar fashion or degree, leading to a kind of tacit group approval to the sin and the consequent effects that grow from it. This often leads to an entrenched assumption that the original sin was not really so bad and that perhaps we (as a congregation) should just turn a blind eye to it and pretend that everything is alright and that we really are a biblically faithful church after all. This is terribly destructive and it is through such inaction caused by fear and apathy that Satan gets a firm grip on a group of believers, sowing discord and anger as he goes.

Purity and Honour
Even though we are fallen sinners and are not free of sin’s terrible effects, we must, as born-again believers and the people of God’s covenant, strive to bring honour and glory to Christ, and therefore to his Church. We do this through our praise and worship of Him, but we also do it through the protection of right doctrine and biblically warranted practice. When a so-called believer persists in evident sin, even to unbelievers, this brings dishonour to Christ. Did not Paul say, “…just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless” (Eph. 5: 25-27, emphasis added).

Christ did not die as a penal substitute upon the cross so that His Church could ignore His sacrifice for her and so defile this supreme act of compassion and love. He is the head of the Church, and her character reflects upon His character and reputation. How often has God chastised His people—the Church—for bringing dishonour to Him, “They will eat, but not have enough; They will play the harlot, but not increase, Because they have stopped giving heed to the LORD” (Hosea 4:10). Any congregation that is wayward in her duty to discipline an obviously erring brother or sister is inviting judgement and is as guilty of defaming Christ and His gospel as is the offending member.

Christ’s Church does not have choice of never using discipline. She must always be ready to administer discipline for her own self-preservation for if she is unable or unwilling to do so at need, she is guilty of watering down her standards, those standards which are her portion and inheritance from Christ and the Holy Spirit, who is the true author of the same scriptural standards (2 Tim 3:16). This has largely been the case with the Church in the modern west. As we get farther away from our belief in absolute standards, we automatically lose the courage and conviction to uphold those same standards. Before you know it, the congregation has become infected with worldliness and has lost her authority. How can anyone believe that such a state of affairs is honouring to God?

But what sin merits discipline? Basically, any sin, once outwardly or publicly known, merits the exercise of discipline to one degree or another because Christ has been dishonoured in the sin or in the complacency of the congregation in not dealing with it decisively (and perhaps courageously). In biblical churches, it is the responsibility of the elders to actually carry out the discipline. If they are not willing to do so, they become part of the problem and are then as guilty of dishonouring Christ’s name and reputation as the sinning member and themselves will become answerable (1 Tim. 5:19-21).

So may we allow for evident sin to flourish within our congregations? Absolutely not! It is our duty and privilege to uphold those standards of righteousness that have been given to us in the Church in order that we may bring honour and glory to Him who died on our behalf, so that we might be presented to Him without blemish or spot. Therefore “let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready” (Rev. 19:7).

Soli Deo Gloria

The Christian Hope.

2008-05-01T11:14:00.000-07:00

The Basic Problem: God’s Standard of Righteousness (The Bad News)
“… the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…. “The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one” (Gen. 6:5; Psalm 14:2-3).

The Only Solution: Jesus Christ (The Good News)
[But] God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:16-17).

These are the extreme truths that make up the essence of Christian faith and hope. These are foundational truths that in themselves contain so much more, yet without these two extremes there can never be any real hope in life or after death.

And this is why HOPE is so important, because the hope we possess is not our own, nor is it dependant upon circumstances or conditions. We don’t depend on our own hope because we know that in ourselves we are completely incapable of changing anything; that we are in fact the problem and can never be, unassisted, part of the solution. We have no merit whatsoever in order to do good or become righteous. There is nothing in us that can guarantee even any reason to hope, let alone give us the assurance of hope.

Nor do we hope in circumstances, for we know that nothing in the world is certain; nothing unchangeable. In the world, all is nothing but shifting sand or chaff in the wind. Rather, our hope is founded upon the God of creation, Who is ever faithful and unchanging, and upon His inerrant Word. Because He is who He is and has accomplished everything necessary to guarantee our fulfillment in Him, we therefore are able to hope, knowing that with God nothing is impossible. The Bible says again “By grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, so that no one may boast.” It is the unmerited favour of God which is grace, received by us through our faith in Christ, that makes our hope possible. Christ and Christ alone is the ground and reason for our hope, and our hope is certain and sure and not merely a desperate wish for something better, because it is grounded in a faithful God who loves us and who has given us His very own Son as surety of the promise of our salvation.

If you are reading these words but have not yet surrendered yourself to Christ as your only and fully-sufficient saviour, you have no part in hope. Your lot is rather one of increasing despair and hopelessness. The best you can ever expect is wishing for something better. True Christian hope, which is not wishful but certain and trustworthy, will ever be beyond your reach. The only answer is clear and evident. God is confronting you even now, to give yourself to Him. Do not hold back, you have nothing to lose but your eternal salvation!

My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus’ Name.
On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand.

Soli Deo Gloria

Earth, Our Home?

2008-04-25T12:02:00.000-07:00

An issue that keeps coming back to irritate me like the proverbial “bad penny” is the notion that earth is our home.

Now this is of course a pagan notion. Non-Christians (including the Jewish people) have basically always believed this assumption (but ironically have rarely acted accordingly). Christians on the other hand, have been taught by the Bible that the earth is not their home. In 1 Peter 2:11 we are called “strangers and pilgrims” (AV); “aliens and strangers” (NASB); “sojourners and pilgrims” (NKJV). We are—that is God’s elect—told that the Kingdom for which we long and which has been promised us, is not of this world (John 18:36).

To care for the world as it is is not of primary concern—or at least should not be—for the Christian. This, of course, is an idea that runs completely counter to the prevailing non-Christian world view, but so it is.

Another related idea that runs against the underlying beliefs of the “green generation” is the idea of the creation ordinance of dominance. We are told in the bible to dominate the life around us in the world (Gen. 1:26-28 for instance). And the Hebrew words used for dominance make it very plain what is intended (subjugate, rule, tread down, make subservient, bring into bondage). There is no idea of a coddling stewardship here. Why? Because this earth was never intended by God as our final home! We have a new earth and a new City to look forward to. We have no interest in the current earth. Our home awaits us yet.

Does this give us a licence to flagrantly mistreat this earth? I would say no, but nevertheless we must guard ourselves against a maudlin attachment to this world, with the false notion that the earth itself constitutes our salvation and reward, instead of an all-sufficient Saviour, in Whom we must put our entire hope and faith.

Soli Deo Gloria

The Lie and The Truth!

2008-03-08T08:08:00.000-08:00

This post is about the lie that the world and the devil use to lull people into spiritual somnambulance. Words from me cannot do justice. Here is what God Himself says:

Behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams," says the LORD, "and tell them, and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness. Yet I did not send them or command them; therefore they shall not profit this people at all," says the LORD.

Wake up! Pay attention! The truth confronts you!

(The first clip is from the site "A little Leaven", the second is doing the rounds on YouTube.)

Decide for yourself!

This is also what God has to say in His inerrant Word:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ....In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.

God Help you!

Thoughts on the "Social Gospel."

2008-03-06T09:45:00.000-08:00

This is just going to be a short rant on the pejorative and thoughtless use of the term “social gospel.”

It is common among fundamentalists of today to use this term in ways which denigrate, in a passive/aggressive sort of way, all those for whom the betterment of society, the help of the downtrodden poor and generally the alleviation of unnecessary suffering or hardships are valid—albeit partial—expressions of their Christianity. This is unfortunate and, in my view, dishonouring to Christ.

The common response of these people is to create a “package” through an arbitrary and false dialectic of “either/or” which in turn allows him or her to isolate the whole idea, to allow him or her to begin applying hedges, warnings, restrictions and eventually prohibitions against what has come to be seen as something illegitimate and impure, “not the Gospel.”

But of course this process of isolation is only partially based in reality or the Bible. A case in point is the reliance on such verses as Deut. 15:11a “For the poor will never cease to be in the land;” and which Christ referred to in Matt. 26:11: The—false—sentiment behind these verses can only be maintained by reading such verses, and others like them, out of context and in so doing are to deny many other verses such as: Deut 15:7; 1 Sam. 2:7-8; Job 29:12; Psalm 72:13; Prov. 22:22; Matt. 19:21; Luke 18:22 (chosen almost at random!) that clearly indicate God’s greater and overarching concerns for the poor and the needy.

In fact, in order to maintain this dichotomous belief, one has to ignore entire sections of the Bible altogether, in both Testaments, but especially in the Gospels, Acts and one or two of the apostolic letters. (I’m thinking of the obvious passages such as Matthew 22, 25 and Luke 14 as well as others.)

To imply that a “social gospel” even exists is downright dishonest. The only ones who would be willing to defend such an idea are those for whom the complete and finished work of Christ has not been accomplished (i.e. liberals). There is only the Gospel. There is no “other Gospel” with which it must compete. The choice of the “true gospel” over against the “social gospel” is not—however much the fundamentalists among us would like to have it—an “either/or” choice. It has been presented to us that way of course, in an attempt to keep people from realizing the falseness of the whole idea. It is subterfuge, pure and simple. The choice is and always was a “both/and” choice. The Gospel is a call to fallen sinners to repent and believe in God’s one and only Son for salvation from the guilt and dominion of sin and from eternal destruction. There is no other Gospel. But this gospel is based on love; love for God and love for others. This fact simply cannot be denied by anyone claiming to be a Christian. The gospel includes a compassionate response from disciples of Christ even as He taught and exemplified. God’s loving-kindness for the suffering and ill-treated is evident in page after page of the Bible; God’s love of justice and fair-dealing is everywhere expressed. It seems to me that those who call themselves “Christian” cannot turn away from these truths without turning away from their Lord and King for whom these truths were self-evident.

Those among us in the Reformed tradition who tend towards the view that there are two competing gospels: the one “true gospel” and the other “social—read false—gospel” at the same time pride themselves on being the inheritors of the Reformation itself and those lofty ideas, doctrines and principles rediscovered in the Bible by men such as Zwingli, Beza, Bucer, Knox, Calvin and Luther and wrested from the grasping hands of those who had either forgotten or who deliberately chose to ignore those very things in favour of dark superstition, oppressive social and political control of the people or conversely a new humanism that would place man at the very centre of the universe.

But these same people forget their own history, or have never bothered to learn it. They forget, for instance that when John Calvin came to Geneva, that city was a cesspool of immorality and suffering and that it was largely his biblically-based program of social reform that made the city a silk purse out of what had hitherto been a sow’s ear.

Wherever the Protestant Reformation took hold, conditions of average people improved dramatically. To assume that a significant part of the “success” of the Reformation, and the spread of the Gospel was not due to social change brought about through various means (including a bent for republican democracy, universal education and social welfare for the disenfranchised) is simply to ignore history (and we all know what happens to those who ignore history).

Nor is this truth is not confined to the Reformation. Throughout the history of the Christian church during revival after revival, the spread of the Gospel and the improvement of average living conditions has gone hand in hand. I think now of the labours of such Christian men (some Calvinists, some not) as Samuel Rutherford, William Wilberforce, John Newton, George Whitefield, the Wesleys and so on. Again, to deny this simple fact is to deny the truth and to grieve the Holy Spirit as well, who was and is the actual agent of such change.

So let us hear no more charges against the “social gospel.” In fact, let the term drop from our vocabulary. “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4-6).

Soli Deo Gloria.

Experimentum!

2008-03-03T09:58:00.000-08:00

In several posts over the last little while, I’ve been exploring ideas that for me are not settled or necessarily resolved once and for all. One of these ideas is the relationship that exists between the Testaments; that is, the idea of continuity verses discontinuity between them. I’ve even said that I’m flirting with New Covenant Theology (partly as a response to my examination of the testaments).

I’m afraid that in this I have been saying things that have concerned many people whom I love and respect. Rest assured brothers and sisters, I have not lost my moorings! This morning I came across an article written by Joel Beeke that actually explains what some of my underlying assumptions are, first and foremost as a Christian. I’d like to reproduce one paragraph from the article as a kind of creedal statement, if you will allow me the use of such language. It is my belief that these words should be true for every Christian but sadly are not. I believe that the Bereans, for instance, were representative of the attitude of Christian Experience and as such are modals to be emulated.

“Christian Experience. Calvin used experiential (experientia) and experimental (experimentum) interchangeably, since, from the perspective of biblical preaching, both words indicate the need for examining or testing experienced knowledge by the touchstone of Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). Experimental preaching stresses the need to know by experience the truths of the Word of God. It seeks to explain in terms of biblical truth, how matters ought to go, and how they do go, in the Christian life. It aims to apply divine truth to the whole range of the believer's experience: in his walk with God as well as his relationship with family, the church, and the world around him. We can learn much from the Puritans about this type of preaching. As Paul Helm writes: ‘The situation calls for preaching that will cover the full range of Christian experience, and a developed experimental theology. The preaching must give guidance and instruction to Christians in terms of their actual experience. It must not deal in unrealities or treat congregations as if they lived in a different century or in wholly different circumstances. This involves taking the full measure of our modern situation and entering with full sympathy into the actual experiences, the hopes and fears, of Christian people’”.

Mr. Beeke’s article is really focused on experimental preaching. But surely there is a direct connection between the experimental preaching of God’s Word and the experimental (or experiential) living out of it in the day-to-day life of every Christian. Well, that’s my belief at any rate. If all that is said and written about amounts to nothing more than words on paper or blog postings (this in reference to a recent valuable exchange of thoughts and comments over at the blogsite of friend Mark Jones at Thomas Goodwin) then I for one can do without it all as it won't help me to be salt and light as I am called to be and told that I am! The Christian life is an experienced life or else it is useless! Let's spend more time in the Word and prayer and less time worrying about whether so and so is an antinomian or worse.

As usual, your thoughts are always welcome.

Soli Deo Gloria.

An All-Sufficient Saviour?

2008-02-28T10:22:00.000-08:00

In talking with many Christians today, I’m becoming increasingly alarmed at how a critical understanding seems to be lacking in the life of these Christians: Christ as an all sufficient saviour.

It seems to many that we have a Jesus who can save our souls but not our minds. He can enable us to be “spiritual” without enabling us to overcome physical affliction in this life. Is that all it means to be Christian? If it does then we’re no better off than anyone else, and for us Jesus is not an all-sufficient saviour!

What does it really mean to “believe in Jesus” and to call Him “Lord and Saviour?”

James Boice has an interesting discussion in the second volume of his commentary on the Gospel of John [The Gospel of John, Volume 2, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1999]. In it he discusses the issue in terms of the “bread of life” passage of Christ in John 6:48-59. The main thrust of his two chapters is that of “eating.” In a nutshell the point Boice makes is that believing in Christ is the same as “eating” Him; it means to feed upon Him. But this in turn is a mysterious concept. How is one to “feed upon Christ”?

Well, one way, according to Boice is through bible study. Through bible study we come into intimate contact with Christ, thus rendering Him available to be fed upon. But our feeding is only in proportion to our hunger. No hunger, no feeding. We must recognize our need for Him as well as the truth that we receive through our study of Him in the Bible: that He is not only sufficient for us but that He only is capable of taking away our hunger. But this involves appropriation. If we have a sumptuous meal set before us and do not partake personally, that is, do not appropriate for ourselves the food that alone takes away all hunger, then we shall never be full; we shall continue to experience lack.

Part of the dilemma is that we have compartmentalized both the person and the work of Christ. We no longer see Him as the second person of the Godhead. We see Him and His work as essentially limited in scope. Yes, we think He saves our souls, but not our bodies. Yes He is our lord, but is not thought of as sufficient to actually be our LORD. We fail for instance to believe that a bodily resurrection is what He promises for all those who believe and (except in some quasi-Gnostic sort of way) which He will deliver! God saves entirely and completely. He leaves nothing behind or unsaved. He is God and God saves completely, wholly and perfectly. Nothing is left to be done. Our problem is that we do not take Christ at His word! We do not really believe Him at all! No wonder the church today is ineffective, weak and worldly!

God saves all of us, completely. He leaves nothing undone, nothing will be left behind. Regardless of what confronts us here and now, we have One who will wipe away every tear! Every means every. It doesn’t mean some. It doesn’t mean most. It doesn’t mean nine out of ten! Every single tear you have ever wept or ever will weep will be redeemed by Christ; perhaps not today, perhaps not even tomorrow. But someday. And why? Because in a sense it is already accomplished, though it may seem like not yet.

We can not be Christians and believe in Christ and…something else. It is not Christ and but Christ only: “Solus Christos.”

We cannot believe in Christ and…our cats and dogs.
We cannot believe in Christ and…our mothers and fathers.
We cannot believe in Christ and…our sons and daughters.
We cannot believe in Christ and…our bodies and health.
We cannot believe in Christ and…our psyche and our whatever.
We cannot even believe in Christ and…the law.

Such thinking and weak belief betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of our Faith and our knowledge of Christ. If we put dependence for fulfilment and happiness on anything (as the keeping of the Law, for instance) or anyone other than Christ we are not really Christian at all. And even this self-focussed attitude—my happiness, my life, my contentment, even my obedience—is really missing the entire point. It’s not about YOU or what Christ has done, can do or will do for you; it’s about what you have done, can do and will do for Him, to live a life worthy of the sacrifice of the cross. But this we must do in and through Him alone. He has fulfilled all the requirements including giving us the ability and the desire to love Him and to live in and for Him. So we must feed upon Him and Him alone. He is the bread of life, which if we eat, we will never be hungry for anything else.

Getting back to Boice, he summarizes his thoughts by reminding his readers that feeding on Christ, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, refers to what Christ has been speaking of all along in this important passage from John. He has said that people must “believe” in Him (John 6:29, 35, 47); must “come” to Him (v. 35); must “look” at Him (v. 40); must “listen” and “learn” from Him (v. 45). This is what constitutes our “eating and drinking” of Christ’s body and blood. Let me quote Boice to summarize this point:

“Have you committed yourself to Jesus Christ so that He has become as real to you as that [eating and drinking]? Is he [in His fullness] as real to you spiritually as something you can taste or handle? Is he as much a part of you as that which you eat? Do you think me blasphemous when I say that he must be as real and as useful to you as a hamburger and French fries. I say this because, although he is obviously far more real and useful than these, the unfortunate thing is that for many people he is much less.”

These are for many Christians strongly convicting words, or should be. They point out the inadequacies of our professions of faith and point directly at the real paucity of belief in the lives of so many Christians. It is because we do not eat and drink Christ, that we do not grow in sanctification.

It is Christ, all of Christ and nothing but Christ or else it is nothing at all.

Soli Deo Gloria!

A Couple of Random Seed Thoughts/Peregrinations

2008-02-21T13:11:00.000-08:00

The Death of John the Baptist.
I’ve been going over in my mind the relationship that exists between the OT and the NT. It is something to which I return every so often because it is not perfectly clear to me even though I consider myself a believer in a single covenant of redemption. The (thorny) issue of the Christian and the Sabbath is one aspect of the relationship that leaves many uneasy. (For instance, I’ve come to the—tentative—conclusion that there is no Christian "Sabbath" and that the Lord’s Day should not be celebrated in the manner it was in the OT, as this is a form of legalism and a harking back to the old covenant. Further to that is the fear that I am rejecting the special, holy, commemorative, celebratory nature of the Lord’s Day; that somehow I am rejecting the commandment of such a day as well as the graceful blessing that this day brings when we celebrate it to God’s glory in a spirit of thankful remembrance and loving obedience to the person and work of Christ on our behalf. But this is simply not the case. What is in view here, is a "legalistic" or even "Pharisaical" observance instead of a joyful celebration.) But the relationship between the various classically defined elements of the whole Law: civil, ceremonial and moral is still an issue among Christians.

As I ponder these and other issues, I seem to be flirting with a position of “Christian Libertarianism” if not downright “New Covenantalism.” And central to this must surely be the confusion of John the Baptist over Christ’s identity and purpose while John was in prison. I believe John’s confusion was a portent of the ultimate fulfillment (though he did not comprehend it as such from his prison cell) and passing away of the old administration of God’s covenant with His people. According to Scripture, John was the last of the OT prophets (i.e. Mal 3:1). His death at the hands of Herod cannot be understood as an accident or a coincidence but must be understood as an integral part of God’s overall plan of redemption, in which Christ was and is the cornerstone. When John said to his disciples “He must increase; I must decrease” (John 3:30) he was not merely proclaiming his humble devotion to Christ in a lucid moment. He was in fact uttering a prophetic statement; even his last. If that is the case, his statement is also the last statement from the OT to the people of God. John’s statement is in fact the testimony of the OT about itself: that the new covenant spoken of by earlier prophets (most notably by Jeremiah and Ezekiel) was now being fulfilled and that the old was passing away because it had been completely fulfilled through Christ. I think this is amazing! As the last OT prophet, John the Baptist is saying in effect that the old dispensation is no longer needed and he says this as its last and official representative (besides Christ).

Being Still or Being About God’s Business
Another question that pops up from time to time is the issue of waiting for things to happen and being actively involved in their unfolding. I’m a doer by nature. I have trouble sitting back and waiting for things to happen. But, being the good Calvinist that I am, I also believe that God works sovereignly and providentially in bringing about His good and perfect will. Yet I know from Scripture that He does this through secondary causes as well as directly through supernatural means.

The question that confronts me often is, “Am I trusting in God to bring this (whatever it might be) about in His own good way and in His own good time, or am I relying on my own knowledge, skills and abilities to force the desired results?” “Am I defining the problem and providing the solution?”

One aspect of this is prayer of course. I believe that prayer is necessary and desirable. But I do not believe that prayer, by itself, is the automatic solution to every problem. It must be an important component, but I don’t believe that it must be the exclusive component. We have been given God’s revelation in the Bible. We are told how we are to please God and given many examples to follow. We actually rarely need God’s supernatural intervention in revealing to us how He expects us to act in the world.

Do I just sit and pray about something and do nothing else but wait for God’s answer? Or do I become actively engaged in the situation or circumstances? I have always believed that to act is better than to refrain from acting. Perhaps the issue is governed more by personality than by theology. However, I have a strong sense that Scripture tells me to get off my duff and get doing.

On the one hand, we have the passage in John that tells us that the work of God is to believe in the one He has sent. This could mean that we don’t need to do anything else but believe. Christ has said as much over and again, in John 6:29 for instance. Then again we have passages such as James 2:20 that seem to be telling us that some degree of action is required.

Really, there is probably no definitive answer to be arrived at other than to accept a certain dynamic tension between the two positions. While we must believe in Christ (who He said He was and what He came to accomplish, and this by faith) we must also work to bring about the Kingdom (Matt. 25:14-46). It is a constant struggle that we must always be aware of. It seems to me the only way to know for certain is by constant reference to Scripture, prayer, and plain common sense. Indeed, perhaps the answer lies in such verses as Eph 2:10: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them (emphasis added).”

Any helpful thoughts?

The Spirit of Power, Not Cowardice

2008-01-21T10:31:00.000-08:00

“For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline” (2 Tim. 1:7, NASB).

NOTE: This post will not be concerned with the still somewhat controversial filoque issue. For a full discusion of that subject I would advise the reader to consult the section in SB Ferguson's exceptional work The Holy Spirit in Contours of Christian Theology, Gerald Bray, General Editor, IVP, Illinois, 1996.

In this second instalment of my own subjective peregrinations concerning the Holy Spirit, I’d like to consider the Holy Spirit in the Church from a primarily personal perspective; that is, in the walk of the believer, the born-again one. And I guess that I should be explicit about my underlying assumption: one not born again—of the Holy Spirit that is— will not walk in or by the Spirit, will not be transformed in any meaningful way by the presence or activities of the Spirit and so will in no wise be saved in spite of his or her behaviours and confession, “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God … Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit’” (John 3:3, 5-6). “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Rom. 8:9). “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead” (James 2:26).

This should make my position clear. But to clarify further, if one is a covenant child and has inherited the benefits of the covenant, it is of absolutely no importance, for without the Spirit, you are dead. All the obedience, all the tithing, all the Sabbath-keeping and all other works of the Law in the world will avail you not in such a case (“Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. The foolish said to the prudent, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the prudent answered, ‘No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.’ And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut. Later the other virgins also came, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open up for us.’ But he answered, ‘Truly I say to you, I do not know you’” (Matt. 25:7-12).

This post will concentrate on the four qualities of the believer Paul enumerates for his protégé Timothy: timidity, power, love and discipline.

Timidity
Paul says that we are not given a spirit of timidity by the Holy Spirit. By contrast, he says we are given a spirit of power. The AV uses the word “fear” in place of the NASB’s “timidity.” I think it a much better rendering of the Greek. In fact, an even better one is “cowardice.” We are not to be cowards in Christ. Our lives as Christians cannot be marked by cowardice or fear, if they are, how then can we honestly believe we are indwelt by the Spirit? We are hypocrites.

But what exactly is meant by the words timidity, fear and cowardice, especially in the daily round of life as we live it in the world?

The opposite of the word cowardice is the word courage. So then, it must be fair to say the Spirit gives us courage. Courage for what purpose? Well, not just to feel brave, at least not only. It is to experience and fully live out, according to the filling we are given by the Spirit, those things we looked at in our last post: Spirit filled assurance, grace, love, mission, peace, praise, prayer, preaching, sanctification, and so on. All these things require us to be courageous in our commitment. We do not get this courage from ourselves. It is part of what the Holy Spirit provides in His role as Paraclete, the one who comes alongside to help, succour and assist. A frightened Christian is still a Christian but he is able, through the Spirit, to overcome His fear, believing in the words of our Lord and Saviour “…but take courage; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

A Christian who is motivated by fear is grieving the Holy Spirit by denying the very truth of the words spoken and promised by his Lord and King, Jesus. What kind of Christian is that? A Christian is ready to accept challenge, ready to be hurt, ready to take risks for Christ. He is not afraid of change, not afraid of being wrong, not afraid of being foolish, not afraid of making enemies if must be. The Spirit puts us out onto the “high seas” where danger abounds. He places us in dire straights for the sake of the Gospel and the salvation of lost souls.

The Church is like a boat. A boat sits in the water. It is not part of the water, yet without water, the purpose and meaning of the boat is lost. The boat is really properly known and understood in relation to the water in which it sits. But a boat is not meant to just sit in the water. No, it was meant to move through the water. A boat is a vessel. It is designed to not only be carried by the water—but also to carry through the water. She takes her cargo from place to place, harbour to harbour, resting betimes and unloading and reloading so that she may begin the journey all over again.

A boat that sits in the harbour is a safe boat, no doubt. Chances are, very little risk of harm will come to her. On the other hand, she will gradually become fouled with barnacles and weeds the longer she is prevented from moving out into open water. The barnacles and weeds will slow her down even to the point of preventing her from moving at all in carrying out her intended purpose.

Let this not be the fate of our congregations, nor of ourselves, through fear and timidity. We have a vessel made for salvation, let us man the oars and raise the sails, catching the wind of the Spirit in exuberant faith and assurance, knowing the very Spirit of God is our motive power and that our rudder is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Power
Where does the power within the church come from? It does not come from the Law, for as we read from one commentator (Adam Clarke) in referring to 1 Cor. 15:56, “The law of God forbids all transgression, and sentences those who commit it to temporal and eternal death. Sin has its controlling and binding power from the law. The law curses the transgressor, and provides no help for him; and if nothing else intervene, he must, through it, continue ever under the empire of death.” So the law has no power to save from death, it only condemns the sinner of his fault and at most enables the sinner to understand his terrible predicament. It offers no saving solution.

No, Paul makes it very plain that power comes to the Church (of all true believers) by and through the application of the Spirit (of Christ’s redeeming work, wrought for His elect on the cross and guaranteed for him by the Resurrection).

Do we have such power? Do you? Are you fearless in your defense of the Gospel? Are you ready to proclaim your faith openly in the face of hostile opposition? Are you ready to love those who are not saved, perhaps giving them solace, perhaps giving them food or clothing? Are you ready to take risk knowing that the will of the Spirit is what is motivating and empowering you to do so? These things are manifestations of the Spirit’s power in the Christian.

The Greek word, dunamis, refers primarily to a resident kind of enabling energy or force. That is, the force belongs to the cause of the force in an intimate connection by nature. It is in the nature of the Spirit to be powerful. The power does not come to the Spirit by another. It resides in Him as an aspect of His very nature and being, even as the wind is its own power. The power of the Spirit therefore is not alien to Him and is given to us as part of the ministry of Christ. If therefore we do not have the power of the Spirit, we then are grieving the Spirit by that degree.

A boat without power is useless. The power we receive comes to us from the wind in our sails. We hoist our sails through our assured faith, catching the power of the breath of God so that he may empower us for good, for “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them” Eph 2:10).

Love
As I have stated elsewhere (7 November, 2007) I believe that love is one of the core constituents of the true church.

And we see from Paul that true Christian love comes to us from God and is part and parcel of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. In fact, a yardstick by which we may measure our true Christianity and our walking in the fullness of the Spirit is the degree to which we are experiencing and expressing love in our Christian walk, under all situations and conditions.

If we hold on to our love, dispensing it only to those we believe are worthy to receive, are we really being children of God? Are we then no different than the priest and the Levite who could so easily pass by the man by the side of the road, even breaking their own law by doing so? We may be doctrinally pure, being well versed in theology as well as Church history, government and ecclesiology. Our worship may be refined to a biblical purity that is beyond reproach and we may even be respected leaders in our congregation, but all of that is worthless without love: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing” (1 Cor. 13:1-3).

Love is the reason the boat traverses the long passages through lonely waters and stormy weather; it is to bring a measure of bounty and blessing to those who are without the goods needed for fullness of life. Likewise, the boat of the Church and of the Christian is to bring the Good News to those suffering in want and misery, even the rich and powerful.

But it is also to express our loving-kindness to other Christians, brothers, sisters and loved ones with whom we have to do. It is not only a part of the spirit’s ministry to enable evangelism, teaching and the like, essential as these are. It is also part of His ministry to show us Jesus and His compassion for those who struggle in their own depraved falleness. The Holy Spirit calls to mind our own deplorable condition, always reminding us of our abiding depravity in and of ourselves as separated from the love and peace that we obtain only in God. When we are confronted with the effects of our own falleness—our fear, our anger, our depression, our hatred, our envy—regardless of the triggers of life that cause these things to raise themselves up, our only hope is the indwelling of the Spirit, reminding us that we are, in spite of our selves and our overpowering emotions, children of the Most High God and that He is working in us to do His good and perfect will for us, “For I know the plans that I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for calamity, to give you a future and a hope” (Jer. 29:11).

Discipline
The word behind the English is the Greek sophronismos. The word means an admonishing, calling or encouraging to soundness of mind, moderation and self-control. And of course, in the context, it can only be the Spirit who can give such an admonishing.

The word is similar to the word used in Gal. 5:23 which is egkrateia in Greek, meaning self-control of our passions and appetites (more on this aspect in my next post). This is not what Paul is hinting at in our verse from 2 Timothy. In our context I’m pretty sure he is saying that our consciences are pricked in such a way by the Holy Spirit, that while we have the courage, power and love of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit Himself will discourage us from being carried away uncontrolably by these strong spiritual forces. He will so order our understanding and its external expression that we will not be carried along on winds of subjective impressions, emotional outbursts or even maniacal ranting. This runs foul of most Charismatics and Pentecostals of course, but as I pointed out in a previous post (1 November, 2007) such ranting cannot be considered truly Christian in light of the whole counsel of God’s Word, and can only be considered as an aberration at best.

In this post, I have looked at the main points of the presence and work of the Spirit as given us in Paul’s letter to Timothy. So much more could—and must—be said. However, I think it is safe to say that the presence of the Spirit is something objective, real and to be desired and prayed for with all one’s mind, heart, soul and strength. The Spirit is the empowering of the Church as well as the individual believer. He is not only the same Spirit that brooded over the waters of Creation, and without whom creation would not have been, He is also the counselor and Helper of our souls, leading us to God and strengthening us in our sanctification and holiness. Without the Spirit our Christianity is nothing because it is the Spirit who applies the redemption won for us by Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria.

The Holy Spirit in the Church

2008-01-15T13:19:00.000-08:00

It has been a blessing to me that this past weekend, two congregations received the benefit of the learning and wisdom of James Wright, Lecturer in Greek, New Testament, and Systematic Theology at John Wycliffe Theological Seminary, Johannesburg, South Africa. He was with us as conference speaker on the subject of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer and the corporate life of the church.

As I took my leave of him after our Sunday afternoon service, I couldn’t help a friendly jibe that because of him, I’d hardly slept a wink all weekend, what with the rich banquet he had fed us. (I hope he took my comment in the spirit it was intended.) Consequently, I feel compelled to explore the issue of the Holy Spirit at some length beginning with this post.

I have often felt—in my vastly limited experience—that the subject of the person and work of the Holy Spirit is largely an untapped area of great wealth and that for a variety of reasons, especially in staunch Reformed and Calvinistic denominations, the subject of the Spirit is essentially a closed book. I believe this should not be and that to willingly turn away from the presence of the Spirit operating in and through the Church is a great misfortune for all Christians.

So this post is an attempt to sort out just some preliminary thoughts and observations from a purely personal perspective. It will be preliminary only and not exhaustive. In it I hope to show briefly that the Holy Spirit is given to the Church (as well as to the individual souls that constitute her), that the Holy Spirit is the empowering of the Church; that these two propositions being the case, there must be discernable evidence of His presence both individually and corporately in the life of the Church; that a lack of such evidence is—if not proof—a strong indication that the Church has grieved or quenched the Spirit. (Since the Spirit has not been removed from the Church, absence of His effects can only mean the Church has in some way rejected the Spirit.) Finally I’ll try to determine, at the level of the local congregation, what might re-establish our relationship with the Spirit and to begin to receive the benefits He has promised the Church.

Proposition One: The Holy Spirit has been given to the Church in its universal, hidden dimension as well as to every local manifestation of the Church.
First, the Spirit has been given to the Church and this by the will of the Triune God, but specifically as part of the ministry of Jesus Christ, who is acknowledged Head of the Church, which is His Bride. It is from Christ particularly that the Spirit has been given to the Church. We see this plainly from such verses as "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper (Paracletos) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you” (John 16:7, 13-15). And Paul says, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13). In this verse, Paul is indicating that the Spirit is given to the Church without distinction of place or person (Matt. 11:28). When Luke describes the pouring out of the Spirit in Acts 2:1-4, he is describing the pouring out in terms of person and place, indicating that the Spirit can be equally measured without distinction of limitation both in universal terms (since this is a fulfillment of the prophesy of Joel 2:28-29) as well as in personal terms (since this is an historical event in place and time given to a specific group of people). I believe that to press this further would be to simply kick a dead horse. It has always been acknowledged by the Church that she has been the recipient of the Holy Spirit (in both Testaments, i.e. Eze. 10:4).

Proposition Two: The Holy Spirit empowers the Church in various ways.
The Holy Spirit gives specific abilities, “Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘See, I have called by name Bezalel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. I have filled him with the Spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all kinds of craftsmanship, to make artistic designs for work in gold, in silver, and in bronze, and in the cutting of stones for settings, and in the carving of wood, that he may work in all kinds of craftsmanship’” (Exo. 31:1-5). And again, from the OT, “Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him; and He took of the Spirit who was upon him and placed Him upon the seventy elders. And when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied. But they did not do it again. But two men had remained in the camp; the name of one was Eldad and the name of the other Medad. And the Spirit rested upon them … and they prophesied in the camp. So a young man ran and told Moses and said, ‘Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.’ Then Joshua the son of Nun, the attendant of Moses from his youth, said, ‘Moses, my lord, restrain them.’ But Moses said to him, ‘Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD'S people were prophets, that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them!’” (Num 11:25-29). From the NT, we have many passages to choose from to show the empowering of the Church for specific purposes. “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). In this passage, we see the gift of the Spirit by Christ for the specific purpose of witnessing to the Gospel. A similar passage from John reinforces the intent of the Spirit to empower witness, “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning” (John 15:26-27). These passages are examples of specific empowerments by the Spirit for the work of the Church. But the Spirit also enables other functions as well. For instance, the Spirit enables the Church to function as the body of Christ: “But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Cor 12:7). “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, ‘Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?’ And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days” (Acts 10:44-48). Paul, discussing the power of the Spirit to produce faith in believers says, “This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?” (Gal. 3:3-5). “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please…. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:16-17, 22-24). “And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained’” (John 20:22-23). Finally, to summarize this proposition: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills”
(1 Cor. 12:4-7, 11).

While these verses are merely representative, they typify the variety of functions and powers given to the Church through the Holy Spirit. Many other verses could be used to catalogue the many gifts, fruit and powers bestowed on the Church for the purpose of manifesting Christ’s presence in the world and to the spreading of the Good News, but I believe these are sufficient to make my point.

Proposition Three: The first and second propositions being true, it follows that there must be discernable evidence of the Holy Spirit’s presence and activities in the Church.
This is where the rubber comes into contact with the road. If what we have said is true, it seems we must be able to see it. If what we have said is not true, then surely we have built our house upon the sand and the worldly ones and the ungodly are wiser than we.
Where do we find evidence of the Spirit’s presence in the Church? This is actually a somewhat difficult question to answer. There have always been spurious signs or evidences of the Spirit’s presence in the Church, as far back as apostolic times. Genuine marks or signs are difficult to separate from the counterfeit. In many cases we have neither the insight nor breadth of vision necessary to make judgments. We really only have the record that God has given us by which we may measure the truth of the matter. All else is unreliable, even the actions, behaviours and attitudes of other brothers and sisters in the Church. Too often, we cannot see that a particular course of action by someone is instigated by the Spirit, and we take it upon ourselves to rebuke the brother or sister in our own error. Conversly, we may take the apparent dedication, hard work and self-sacrifice of a brother or sister as evidence that he or she is labouring under the yoke of the Spirit for the Church’s good and edification. Yet this may be far from true. For instance, many of those in the days of the American revival meetings of Charles Finney thought that the Spirit was moving mightily across the land. But what the Church was really seeing was a divorce of the work of the Spirit from the promises (and their means) of the Spirit as given by Scripture. The divide has not healed to this day and the Church is poorer as a result of what she has let slip through her fingers. The situation is summed up well in an article by Clive Taylor, on the Highway website. To quote Taylor:
“A man of tremendous personality, force, and perhaps genius, Finney represents in belief and practice a bridge between the old religious world and the new. The great changes working themselves out in nineteenth century history became embodied in his life and experiences. He was a symptom of the changing times.

"Theologically the old world of Reformed historical Christianity was behind him: the world where the Bible was the word from the mouth of the living God, infallible and inerrant in which was to be found the sole authority for the beliefs and practices of Christians. Before him lay the new world with its modem approach to Scripture, an approach in which man is the judge of the Bible’s trustworthiness and value: a world of criticism and rationalism where the plain teaching of Scripture can be rejected if it cuts across enlightened reason! …This severance with the old doctrine led inevitably to a change in practice. The practice before Finney was of Biblical evangelism, where the Church’s methods were controlled by and subjected to the dictates of Scripture.… Quantity becomes the great mark of success. We are told, for example, that whereas certain skilful evangelists can expect in America to lead a soul to Christ in 35 minutes, it takes two or three hours in Britain! The old methods of evangelism so blessed by God appear to have suffered the same fate as craftsmanship, being driven out by mass production. Nowadays the old ways are hardly recognised to be evangelism at all, and those who speak out for love of truth against pragmatic and psychological evangelism are likely to be pilloried as opponents of God and salvation. This is exactly how Finney reacted to those who criticised his new measures in the nineteenth century. He claimed they were hyper-Calvinists, spiritually dead and unconcerned for men’s souls whereas the ministries and testimonies of these men bore eloquent proof to the contrary.”

These words refer specifically to witnessing and the spread of the Gospel by evangelicals but their wider application comes as a warning to us not to be smug in our ability to understand the workings of the Spirit, as we could very well be wrong! It comes down, in my mind, as it always does, to the truth of the Scriptures. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments described the person and work of the Spirit. If we then deviate from Scripture, we should not be surprised when we get lost. But this is just a warning against spiritual pride in ourselves; it is not to deny that there can be—must be—measurable evidence of the Spirit at work in His Church. I say these things by way of precaution and to allow for the Spirit Himself to be the final arbiter of His own truth.

So what discernable signs could one point to as evidence of the presence and working of the Holy Spirit in the Church? (Here I limit myself to the local congregation, mainly because it is easier to measure effects in a particular place in the activities of particular people and then use these results to prudently generalize the same in the larger context of the Church as a whole).

Proposition Four: The presence and activities of the Spirit can be discerned in the living out of the faith we have been given.
Where are we to find documentation of the Spirit and His activities if not in the very Scriptures inspired and given by Him? So if we are ever to find evidence of the Spirit, it is to the sacred Scriptures we must turn. Then by comparing that to what we can see and hear and experience in our own congregations, we can make some deductions about whether or not, or to what degree, the Spirit is at work among us. But we must proceed with caution. Our view, like our wisdom, is limited and so potentially dangerous.

For the purposes of this article, there is actually too much biblical material illustrating or giving testimonial evidence of the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. It is an abundance of riches. That being said, at least some of the clearly discernable passages and verses from Scripture must be quoted as evidentiary testimony. I will endeavor to keep to the more comprehensive passages (where they can still be separated from the less perspicuous) and only include one representative text for the sake of brevity.

(The short descriptions preceding the testimony are taken from the NIV Thematic Reference Bible, Alistair McGrath, General Editor, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1999.)

The Spirit and Assurance
The Holy Spirit assures believers of their standing in Christ and their eternal salvation.
“However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him….For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Rom. 8:9, 14-15).

The Spirit and Grace
The Holy Spirit is both an expression of God’s grace and the means by which it is experienced.
“But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Tit 3:4-6).

The Spirit and Love
Heartfelt concern and steadfast practical care is part of the evidence of the Holy Spirit’s presence in the lives of believers.
“That He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God” (Eph 3:16-19, emphasis added).

The Spirit and Mission
The Holy Spirit directs and empowers believers in their missionary tasks, bearing witness to Jesus Christ and preparing the hearts of men and women to respond to Him in faith.
“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

The Spirit and Peace
The Holy Spirit brings a sense of well-being, contentment and wholeness to believers, whatever their outward circumstances.
“Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen” (Heb. 13:20-21).

The Spirit and Praise
The Holy Spirit inspires believers to extol, worship and thank God. His aim is to glorify the Father and the Son.
“For we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3).

The Spirit and Prayer
The Holy Spirit intercedes for God’s people and also prompts their petitions, supplications and thanksgivings.
“In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God” (Rom. 8:26-27).

The Spirit and Preaching
True Christian preaching is grounded in the Word of God and applied by the Holy Spirit to its audience.
“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, To grant those who mourn in Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified” (Isa. 61:1-3).

The Spirit and Sanctification
The work of the Holy Spirit in enabling believers to lead holy lives dedicated to the service of God and conformed to His likeness.
“But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18).

The Spiritual Baptism
Baptism with the Spirit is a divine act, promised by John the Baptist and by Jesus Christ, whereby the Holy Spirit initiates Christians into realized union and communion with the glorified Jesus Christ, thus equipping and enabling them for sanctity and service.
“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself’” (Acts 2:38-39).

The Filling with the Spirit
To be filled with the Holy Spirit is to be energized and controlled by the third person of the Godhead in such a way that under the acknowledged lordship of Jesus Christ the full presence and power of God are experienced. Spirit filling leads to renewal, obedience, boldness in testimony and an arresting quality in believers’ lives.
“So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father” (Eph. 5:17-20).

Fruit of the Spirit
The living presence of the Holy Spirit in believers leads to Christlike virtues within them, just as a living tree will bear good fruit.
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:22-24).

The Spirit as Counselor
The Holy Spirit is the one who comforts, advises, and strengthens Christians, drawing them closer to Christ.
“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man” (Eph. 3:14-16).

The Spirit as Teacher
Having instructed God’s people in the OT, and Jesus Christ’s disciples in the NT, the Spirit of truth continues to reveal the truth of God to believers.
“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come” (John 16:13).

Proposition Five: Based on these broad categories, we are able to make comparisons in order to discern the Holy Spirit’s presence and work in any given congregation.
It is instructive to remember that in this area our vision and our wisdom are sorely deprived, lacking the ability to see into the hearts of men as does God. This should give us great concern for being judgmental or harsh in our appraisal of others. In this regards, the advice of Rupertus Meldenius is worth serious consideration: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things; charity.

If in your own experience, you cannot find the essential marks of the presence and activities of the Holy Spirit to be in evidence, you must first look to yourself and ask the obvious question: “Do I find the essential marks of the presence and activities of the Holy Spirit in evidence in my own life as a Christian?” If the answer is no (as it will always be to one degree or another) then you are forced into a situation of discomfort at your own shortcomings. And really, have you any right to criticize another for the same burden under which you labour? Of course not. This is Sunday School Christianity. So we must always be examining ourselves (2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 6:4; 1 Thess. 5:21) to ensure that we are not being carried away by the evil deceiver of men. Regardless of whether we can find evidence of the Spirit in our congregation, we must search first for Him in our own hearts and there to speak with Him and to be obedient to Him. This is a practice that, like prayer, should be continuous, rigourous and purposeful.

Having said that, we are nevertheless part of a community when we belong to a congregation and knowing that the collective attitudes, actions and behaviours of our brothers and sisters will often act as a kind of magnifying glass, making the abundance or lack of a thing more discernable, we are better able to see the lack and begin to take corrective measures, in keeping with Scriptural warrant. On that basis, and always keeping our own falleness and inability before us in a spirit of patience and compassion, we may proceed to discern our own congregational weaknesses.

If our congregation is manifestly unloving, that is to say, if it is void of sincere outward expressions of concern and love through tangible means such as giving emotional comfort, food or clothing, labour, or prayer to others in the congregation who may be in want, this would seem to indicate a lack of the presence of the Spirit.

If we are luke-warm in our testimony to unbelievers, this is evidence of the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.

If we are rigid and dogmatic in our appraisal of the holiness of others in the congregation, this is evidence of the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.

If there are backsliders among the brethren (as there usually are) and we do nothing to bring them back to a strong faith, this indicates the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.

If there is division or rancour in the congregation, this indicates the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.

If there open sin or a flaunting of holiness among the people, this would indicate the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.

If there is no fervency in prayer or worship when we come together as an assembly, this is an indicator of the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.

If we are not regularly manifesting the Fruit of the Spirit in our life together and in our walk with unbelievers, this is tangible evidence of the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.

Proposition Six: Because the Holy Spirit Himself has never been withdrawn, nor will ever leave the Church (since Christ’s Church will not be overthrown,
Matt. 16:18) the lack of the Spirit’s presence among His people must be due to the resisting by them of the Holy Spirit.
Since the Holy Spirit is the power of the Church: “For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline” (2 Tim. 1:7) and since He will always be a part of the Church, whether in her universal or her local manifestation, it follows that where there is evidence of a lack of His presence and power, it must be due, not to Him, but rather to ourselves. We read often in Scripture that the Holy Spirit can, in fact, be resisted (often with disastrous results): “But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them” (Isa. 63:10). “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Eph 4:30).
In what ways then is the Holy Spirit resisted?

The Spirit can be resisted through sin: For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please” [as a Christian, that is, in the Spirit] (Gal. 5:17).

The Spirit can be resisted through rebellion: “They also provoked Him to wrath at the waters of Meribah, So that it went hard with Moses on their account; Because they were rebellious against His Spirit, He spoke rashly with his lips” (Psalm 106:32-33).

The Spirit can be resisted through hardness of heart: “They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts” (Zec. 7:12).

The Spirit can be resisted through spiritual blindness: “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor. 2:14).

The Spirit can also be resisted in other ways, most notably through our own fear. This is a subject I'd like to explore at greater length in an upcoming post.

The Spirit is grieved when we fight against Him and His purposes for our lives and the Church (Isa. 63:10) or when we attempt to hold back the truth from Him who is the very Spirit of Truth (Acts 5:3) in both cases often leading God to cause us grief in return. We resist the Spirit when we struggle against Him in our own self-will, stubbornness and self-righteousness (Acts 6:9-10; 7:51). We quench the Spirit when we cease from rejoicing in God’s unmerited loving-kindness to His people and when we lapse in our prayers and supplications, not only because this is contrary to God’s will but also because it is a denial of our utter reliance on Him for all things (Php. 4:6).

What therefore is it needful to say in summary?

The Church has been given the Spirit of God and of Christ and the Spirit has not been withdrawn from her. The Spirit empowers the Church and all the living stones who are gathered together as a temple of the Spirit. But we may resist, grieve and quench the Spirit causing His just and righteous anger. When this happens, He may withdraw for a time or cause us to be chastised. We notice our grievance of the Spirit mainly by His absence; His presence is no longer a reassurance and a comfort. Instead, we are made confused and comfortless because we can no longer see His presence with our Spiritual eyes. What is the solution for such a problem?

We must, by diligent study of God’s Word and by prayer and supplication seek always to come into sweet accord with the presence of the Holy Spirit, knowing that He has been given to us by a benevolent and loving God for our grafting into Christ and our growth in godliness and Christlikeness; for we know that the Spirit we seek is none other than the sweet Spirit of our very own Lord and saviour Christ Jesus. To be like Him is to let the ministrations of the Spirit carry us along in the assurance we are not being deceived but transformed with every breath of God in us. “Behold, these are the fringes of His ways; And how faint a word we hear of Him! But His mighty thunder, who can understand?” (Job 26:14).

Soli Deo Gloria.

Hating the Lie

2008-01-08T09:47:00.000-08:00

I’ve recently had a heated conversation with someone I love and respect but with whom I have some disagreement. The issue concerns our attitude toward those who are living a life which is non-Christian but who believe they are sincere seekers after God (or more accurately, their own spiritual fulfillment). Specifically our disagreement centered on those who are from the so-called NewAge Movement and who embrace a syncretistic mixture of beliefs and practices which essentially (in my opinion) amounts to a self-centered preoccupation with their own feelings of emotional and physical comfort, well-being and pleasure.

The person I was discussing this with maintains that we must be generous to those people we know are not living as born-again Christians and that we must not be judgemental or condemning in our dealings with them nor in our attitudes toward them. This, I think, is reasonable, right and even loving as far as it goes. The trouble is, I don’t think it goes far enough.

(I liken the situation to the spread of drugs and the consequent increase in drug addiction among those for whom it would not have been a problem had not they be given the opportunity to experiment, and as a past believer and practitioner of the NewAge culture and world-view I think I speak with a modicum of authority here.)

The spread of NewAge beliefs and philosophies is damaging to those that Christianity terms as the lost; those who have not yet received the benefit of Christ’s saving grace. As Christians we are to spread the truth as revealed to us in Scripture and this means that we are sometimes to separate ourselves from the ungodly, not associating with them at all but also to oppose them as the promulgators of a horrific lie. We are to hate the lie, just as God does. And what is the essential lie of the NewAgers (and their less mystically, more “scientifically” oriented cousins, the Secular Humanists)? It is nothing more than a variation of the lie spoken first in the Garden of Eden by that old deceiver, Satan, “The woman said to the serpent, ‘From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, “You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.”’ The serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’” (Gen. 3:2-5).

The so-called truth of the New Age is really the original lie of the Old Age. The lie is, in effect, saying that human beings are at the centre of the universe (and in a strangely paradoxical way I actually agree, but we’ll save that discussion for another time). We are “co-creators” with God and essentially are “little gods.” The lie says “I’m OK and You’re OK.” It says that old age and disease are unnatural and can and should be eradicated (And again, I’m in qualified agreement here too, but for vastly different reasons.). It says that we are the masters of our destiny and our world; that we are perfectible in and of ourselves and that we have the entire necessary spiritual, intellectual, emotional and physical qualities needed to recreate our own Garden of Eden, wrought (of course) in our own image. It goes on to proclaim a focus, even a preoccupation, with life lived here and now, on earth. And if the more spiritually sensitive among the NewAgers and Secular Humanists give any thought to eternal destiny, they would have to admit to a kind of universal salvation in which there is no penalty for wrong; no price to be paid for all the evil ever done (since in the world-view of the NewAgers and Secular Humanists, we are the measure of all things, therefore to admit of ultimate evil is to be forced to admit the logical absurdity of positing ourselves as the perfection of all that is, since to admit evil is to deny the NewAger and Secular Humanist world-view altogether and to give agreement with the Christian world-view. Hence these deluded people are caught on the inescapable horns of an eternal dilemma). This is the lie we must hate. And quite frankly, we must also (lovingly) hate the perpetrators of this lie as being deceived deceivers; those who have been caught in the lie themselves and who, as Eve did to Adam, pass on the lie to unsuspecting others.

If our love and devotion to God and the Truth of His Word are operative in our lives; if we truly know ourselves to be, and are able to proclaim ourselves as, God’s chosen children then we have a spiritual duty to oppose the lie as well as the liars; not for any sense of justice, to exact vengeance, or to enter into judgment. No. We must oppose the lie because it is just that, a lie; the worst of all lies because it so offends God’s goodness, compassion, loving-kindness and sacrificial love not to mention His truth, righteousness, justice and sovereignty. (It is also something to be opposed because rational common sense tells us this attitude is just plain wrong. We see that every time we pick up a newspaper, watch a television program—take your pick—or read a book on human history.)

Paul had much to say about this lie and these liars “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Rom. 1:18-25). He goes on to quote from the OT “as it is written, ‘there is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for god; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one’” (Rom. 3:10-12).

In these words Paul sums up an essential difference between the NewAger and the Christian and that is that the NewAger likes to believe he is actually moving toward God in his search for “spiritual wholeness” through such agencies as Tarot, Holistic paradigms, chanting, various forms of body control and manipulation and so on. What is really happening, according to Paul and the entire corpus of Scripture, is that he is making himself and his own life into an idol and at the same time is in fact running away from God just as did Jonah in the story from the OT.

By placing himself as both the subject and object of creation and existence, he is denying that place to God and so is denying God’s sovereignty over all things as their creator and sustainer. How can a Christian not be righteously offended by such an affront to God?

And what then are we to do? I think, for myself, and for others too I would hope, I must always seek ways to deny the lie, to show it up for what it is; to do so with a burning hatred against all that offends God, but at the same time maintaining my compassion and love for those who are not only caught in the lie themselves but also attempt to catch others so that they all fall into the ditch together. Ezekiel speaks to us (at least I feel convicted by his words) very clearly in this regard: “Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me. When I say to the wicked, `You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself. Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself” (Eze. 3:17-20).

We fight the lie because the lie is an affront to God. But we also fight the lie and proclaim the truth because we are afraid. Of what are we afraid? For me, I am afraid that if I do not take every opportunity to share the Good News and to act as one who is willing to stand in the gap and oppose the lie, then I will risk hearing those awful words delivered to Ezekiel and never hearing the only words that I long to hear. Oh, I have assurance of faith. I believe with all my heart that I am saved. But when I get to heaven and come before the Bridegroom and Steward of the Banquet, I will not want to hear Him say to me “Go down, take your seat with the luke-warm and with those who had forgotten their first love as sojourners and strangers on the earth.” Rather, I long to hear Him say, “Come up, take your seat among the overcomers and welcome in to the joy of your Lord, good and faithful servant.” These are the only words I long to hear. May it be so.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Some Thoughts on a Serious Affliction

2008-01-04T11:44:00.000-08:00

Regular readers of this journal may remember my post from October 11 of last year (is it really 2008 already?) in which I described my experience with some symptoms of a heart attack. Since then, I’ve had several tests done by a cardiologist in Maple Ridge and am still waiting to hear back but I think if there was anything seriously wrong, I’d have heard about by now (I learned a long time ago that no news is indeed good news.)

However, even before this episode I had been noticing that I was getting stiffer and stiffer in my major muscle groups and in my major joints and that there was increasing pain as well. I thought this was the inevitable outcome of a fairly sedentary lifestyle, promised myself to do more walking in the future and then paid no more attention to it.

Unfortunately, my symptoms steadily worsened so that by the time Christmas rolled around, I was on prescription pain killers and using a cane more and more often. My symptoms were always worse in the morning upon rising (which some mornings was almost impossible because of the pain and weakness) and gradually subsided as the day wore on. This condition, at first just a minor annoyance, was becoming a real problem as I could barely get around in the mornings, could no longer do any real housework or other maintenance activities around the house (which we were trying to remodel) and was resorting more and more to pre-packaged and convenience foods as I could not stand up long enough to prepare a proper dinner for my wife and me (she also is very sick with a long-term bacterial infection and is only able to work part time; she is semi-disabled).

I finally was able to see the doctor my wife has been seeing and am now under his care. On my first visit (day before yesterday) Dr. Blaney took my medical history, gave me a thorough physical examination and confidently diagnosed my condition as polymyalgia rheumatica, (PMR) which is a condition caused by inflammation. PRM is similar—in some symptomatic respects—to diseases like rheumatism and arthritis but very different in other respects. It’s normally treated with prednisone which can only be considered as a treatment of absolute last resort since it causes a whole raft of other serious problems. Dr. Blaney was not eager to prescribe this drug and after I did my research, I heartily concur. I’ve just started a course of treatment and don’t yet know how it will work out for me but I remain confident.

But I really want to look briefly at a couple of other angles to the circumstances in which I find myself.

First, I want to state my firm belief that nothing that happens, happens outside of God’s sovereign control. (This is only fitting for a Calvinist!) This belief means that I did not get this condition or disease by “accident” since there are no accidents in a universe controlled by an omniscient and omnipotent God: “What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” (Job 2:10). And if I did not get the disease by chance, I did not get to see Dr. Blaney by chance, nor was it simply by my own choosing: “A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps” (Pr. 16:9). So my situation is one in which Almighty God is working out His own will for His own inscrutable reasons. And since I know that God is not merely all-powerful but all-loving as well, I can take some comfort there. Dr. Blaney may or may not be the instrument that God uses to cure me. Indeed, God, in His infinite wisdom may have decided that I shall not recover. But this does not cause me alarm since I believe and confess that the Lord Jesus is my Saviour and King and that in Him, I have nothing to fear. Dr. Blaney was given to me as I was given to Dr. Blaney, by a loving and compassionate God, and if I am fortunate enough to be released from this affliction it will be because God has, in His good and perfect will, released me and just so that God could receive the glory of it. So I consider myself blessed by God that He has given me a doctor of great knowledge and skill but I must always remember to put my trust first in God: “And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians” (2 Chron. 16:12). If I do that, then the outcome is no longer mine or good Dr. Blaney’s, but God’s and if I am in God’s hands, I can be in none better.

Second, as a Christian it is obvious that having received this affliction I would ask myself the inevitable question: “Did God visit this sickness upon me because of my sin?” That was the question Jesus’ disciples asked Him after the occasion of the healing of the blind man, “And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2). And indeed, I can tell you that I am a great sinner; none greater. But what was Christ’s answer to His disciples? “Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” (John 9:3). And while the OT seems to dwell on sin and illness, positing a causative relationship, it is equally true that both the OT and the NT recognize many causal factors for all kinds of affliction not least of which is original sin. We remember the words of Christ in Luke 13:1-5 concerning the relationship between calamity and original sin or the fall of man, “There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”

As well as being the result of the original and catastrophic fall of the human race in Adam, there are other causes, not all bad. For instance, one cause of disease is what appears on the surface as chance, but as we’ve seen, chance or randomness is something controlled by an all-knowing and all-powerful God who is rich in mercy (Eph 2:4-7) and “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim. 1:9, emphasis added).

Another cause is judgment as we must be willing to admit: “Fools because of their transgression, and because of their iniquities, are afflicted” (Psalm 107:17). But even then, if the afflicted—because of judgment—but turn in repentance and faith and call upon God in truth and sincerity of heart they would be made whole, “Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he saveth them out of their distresses. He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions. Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! And let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and declare his works with rejoicing” (Psalm 107:19:22).

A third reason or cause for affliction is testing. That was certainly the case with Job. It was also the case of David the psalmist: “Examine me, O LORD, and prove me; try my reins and my heart” (Psalm 26:2). David and Job both understood the nature of God’s testing or trying. God tests us to purify us and to guide our hearts and minds to Him as their right and proper and only object and upon whom we are to lean even as a sturdy and trusty cane or as a strong post in the ground.

So how then shall we respond, as born-again believers, to affliction and illness? Well, I believe that our response first must be grounded in the knowledge that it is an omnipotent as well as compassionate and loving God with whom we have to do. “But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies” (Lam.3:32); “The LORD will strengthen him upon the bed of languishing: thou wilt make all his bed in his sickness” (Psalm 41:3); “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose" (Rom. 8:28). This last testimony will give the Christian comfort in the midst of pain and suffering because he can put all his hope and trust in a faithful God who works all things according to the good pleasure of His will, “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Php. 2:13). But this should cause the unbeliever even greater fear and apprehension than his illness is causing, since for him there is no assurance of God’s good pleasure. Since the unbeliever is not promised any more than common (not saving) grace, there can never be any hope or assurance of a final relief from suffering. I cannot imagine going through a serious illness knowing that God has not chosen me in Himself and that therefore there is no hope for me. To be seriously ill or afflicted and not be a Christian must be a frightful thing!

And I believe that we must also approach our suffering with humble submission to the will of God, which we are enabled to do through our faith in a faithful Saviour, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (Job 13:15a). This was the attitude of Paul in response to the “thorn in the flesh” which was given him, “And lest I should be exalted above measure … there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me…. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Cor. 12:7-9).

Finally, we must pray. “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14); “So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children” (Gen. 20:17). We must pray not only for our own welfare, that Christ Jesus the “Great Physician” would release us from our infirmities, but that we may use our present affliction and infirmity to offer up to God the Glory that is due Him and Him alone.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Concern over Distinctives

2007-12-18T11:35:00.000-08:00

Lately a question that has been hovering around me like an annoying insect is, “Are our Reformed distinctives acting as an impediment to the flourishing of the Gospel?”

When I first realized that I had to be a Calvinist if I was to be a faithful witness of the Biblical revelation and therefore a faithful disciple of Christ, I was proud to be a part of the Reformed tradition with all its distinct beliefs and practices. I tended to look down on other Christians who were not so blessed, thinking them to be poorer cousins. I didn’t even think twice about the poor Catholics who were so far removed from the Truth.

And while I still believe that to be a Calvinist is to be a faithful, biblical Christian, and to be a faithful biblical Christian is to be a Calvinist, I’m no longer quite so proud of being distinct from other Christians and even less proud of being distinct from non-believers. After all, it was for the sake of poor wretched sinners that Christ came into the world. He did not come to save Calvinists, He came to save sinners!

So when I’m confronted by people who belong to denominations that flout the differences that separate them from others, it saddens me and even makes me a little angry. I came across a small Reformed Presbyterian denomination website the other day that seemed to be proud of the fact that they would not fellowship with anyone from another denomination who did not believe and practice what they did. The tone of their statement of beliefs was arrogant and hostile, not patient and kind. This is an old story, especially (it seems) among the Reformed and Presbyterian denominations. I’m not pointing out anything that has not been known for a very long time; it just saddens me when I see it, for we are meant to be one in the body of Christ, living in the bonds of peace, forbearing with one another, thinking more highly of others than we think of ourselves. Are these the hallmarks of your congregation or your denomination? They should be.

Usually, it is in the interests of purity or holiness that our distinctives become divisive. Too often, we allow ourselves to be misled by our under-shepherds into thinking that Old Testament Jewish ritual cleanliness is the same as New Testament Christian purity. But it isn’t. In the former, holiness and purity are attained through an emphasis on separation from the world or from other, less pure and holy—and therefore less worthy—brothers and sisters. Regrettably, many Christians still think like this. But the emphasis in the New Testament is not so much on separation from as on devotion to. As Christians—disciples of Christ—we are called to a oneness with and devotion to Christ, by Whom we are saved and through Whom the Law has been fulfilled. Yes of course the NT calls us to a degree of separation from the world, but this as an act of thankful obedience for what has been accomplished for us, never in the belief that the separation can save us (or add something to our salvation) or that it, unaided, can fulfil the demands of a righteous and holy God. We are obedient to the demands of God because this is well-pleasing to Him as well as being the chief means by which the Spirit works out our sanctification.

No, we do not become holy by separation from others; as Christians, we become holy by joining ourselves to Christ first and our covenant brothers and sisters next. This is what constitutes real, authentic Christian holiness or purity. Anything less is to deny the finished work of Christ and to repudiate the Church, who is Christ’s bride.

This is not to say we should have a laissez-faire attitude concerning the beliefs of other Christians. That would make us the same as the Post-Modern Secular Humanists who believe in everything and therefore in nothing. Our distinctives must be found first and foremost in the Bible. Those lacking a clear Biblical warrant for their distinctive beliefs should be met with a patient, forgiving and gentle attitude because through ignorance and poor teaching, they have come to maintain beliefs that are not to be found in or cannot be supported by Scripture. This is largely to the shame of their teachers, who will certainly answer for it one day.

Rather, we must recognize our unity in the Spirit and seek to work, worship and fellowship together wherever and whenever we are able. This does not mean to concede our firm convictions and to become apostates with those we know to be in error. We are not required to make concessions to our Biblical inheritance. We need only recognize the differences between one and another and to take our stand on common ground; that place where we can live in peace with the other, knowing that such a humble spirit is well-pleasing to God.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Marks of a True Church

2007-11-07T20:12:00.000-08:00

It has been commonly accepted since the Reformation and by virtually all Reformed denominations that there are three fundamental and necessary qualities or characteristics of a true or doctrinally pure church. These are: 1.) Biblical, expository preaching and gospel proclamation, 2.) Proper administration of the sacraments and 3.) Church discipline. Some have proposed others in addition to these three. For instance, JM Boice argues that there are six marks of a true church.

My own feeling, as I hinted at in my October 22 post, is that there should be, in addition to the three already mentioned, a fourth: love.

Now, before going any further, I’d like to say that I’m using this word love just because of its vagueness and lack of precision. It can stand well in the place of many other words which, in the Greek, have more particular meanings. In an earlier post, I argued for the use of the word “charity” rather than love because it was more precise and in the particular context was the better word as I was comparing it to what in the Greek is the word agapao or agape. Agape is a fairly precise word as it is used in Scripture. For instance, it is defined very well by Paul in 1 Cor 13 in its general sense. It is the word most often used by Christ. The English word love, on the other hand can mean very many things, depending on context. It is more fluid and free than other words. This is what makes it the very best of all words in the right context, but the very worst of words in the wrong context. The various Greek words—such as agape, phileo, eros and the like—have particular shades of meaning that a single English word does not capture. But this is exactly why I like the word love. It is because it is imprecise that it can be used to translate these other Greek words in a variety of circumstances and contexts without doing harm. Now with all these words, it might seem to be the case that there are as many different kinds of love. And in a sense, there are. There are, legitimately, at least two, possibly three, kinds of Christian love, depending on the setting or circumstances in which the love is expressed or described. One kind of Christian love is between the Christian and God; a second, between one Christian and another; a third, between a Christian and the non-Christian. Nevertheless, all three forms of love are nothing more than particular expressions of one underlying reality.

The foregoing is only just by way of introduction to my main point, which is that the quality of love (in its three forms of expression) must be considered as a fundamental and necessary mark of a true Christian church and if it is lacking or absent in even one of its expressions, the purity and truthfulness of the church must be called into question. Having said that, I acknowledge that the expression of love toward God is rarely lacking in the true church; if it is, we are not dealing with a church at all but rather some other kind of institution. Rather, it has been my experience that while love for God is typically evident, love in its other expressions is not always so. My belief is that love in all three of its expressions must be in evidence if a church is to be considered true or pure, “anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother” (1 John 3:10); “The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love” (1 John 4:8); “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 John 4:20).

There is no want of verses to validate my point, especially as it pertains to love for the brethren. One particular verse that I use as a proof-text is Rom 12:10, “Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another” (KJV).

In this verse, spoken to and about members of the Church, Paul uses two phrases to describe what he has in mind by the attitudes we should express toward one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. The first is “kindly affectioned” (devoted, NASB, NIV) and the second, “brotherly love” (in all translations).

The English “kindly affectioned” and “devoted” are used to translate the Greek word philostorgos and which essentially describes the love parents have toward their children. What kind of love is that? It is tender, protective, and affectionate. The other phrase “brotherly love” is the translation of the word “philadelphia” and which means the love brothers and sisters have for one another. But how should brothers and sisters love one another? Should their love not also be tender, protective and affectionate? This verse makes it evident that it should, for we express our kindly affection through our brotherly love. So we have here an admonition to be tender, affectionate and protective to one another. And are these not emotional qualities? Of course they are! Therefore, Christians in both their practice as well as their doctrine should not be afraid to be emotionally affectionate to their brothers and sisters in the faith. It has nothing whatever to do with one’s ethnic or cultural upbringing or milieu. It has nothing whatever to do with one’s heredity or whether you were abused as an impressionable child. It has simply to do with the quality of being a faithful and true Christian. Being kindly affectioned toward one another is fundamentally Christian.

As I mentioned there is no want of other verses which clearly justify my view. For instance, Peter says “fervently love one another from the heart” (1 Peter 1:22); “love the brotherhood”
(1 Peter 2:17); “keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8); “Greet one another with a kiss of love” (1 Peter 5:14). John says: “For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another”
(1 John 3:11); “…we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death (1 John 3:14); “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11). The best example from Paul is of course from the “love” chapter
(1 Cor 13:1-8, 13). These references all point to the necessity of loving our brothers and sisters as a condition of being truly Christian.

But of course our love cannot be limited to merely loving our brothers and sisters, for Christ has said to each and every one of us, “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?” (Matt 5:46). No, our love must extend beyond ourselves and the brethren; it must go out into the entire world beginning with our neighbour, “And He said to him, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matt 22:37-40). And of course we know that by the term “neighbour” Christ did not mean our covenant brothers and sisters alone, but everyone in need whom we are in a position to help (Luke 10:25-37). Nor is even this enough; we are to love even those we find unlovable. We are to love even our enemies, those who would seek to do us harm, “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven” (Matt 5:44-45, emphasis added). Finally, Christ expects us to complete or fulfill our love for others, to leave nothing undone in this regard, for immediately after saying we are to love our enemies, He goes on to say that we “are to be perfect (or complete) even as our heavenly Father is perfect”
(Matt 5:48). But perfect or complete in what? Why, our love of course!

And if we are to be complete in our love, how can we then withhold it from one another. We must be courageous in our love (1 John 4:18) if we are to be complete or perfect in it. If we have not love, we cannot take any comfort in our salvation. Nor can we fall back on a dependency on the Law, for love is the fulfillment of the Law. Let us therefore love one another. Let our love be warm, affectionate tender and sincere, “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good” (Rom 12:9). Let our love be fervent for one another.

Given all this, it only stands to reason that love must be one of the marks of a true church and without love not only is our faith empty but we show by this that we are not God's children. So whatever power to love is bestowed on us by the Holy Spirit, let us treasure it and nurture it and let us do whatever we may to express it fearlessly and without shame so that others, seeing our love may say, “Truly, this one is a child of God.”

Soli Deo Gloria.

From the Department of Egregious Irony

2007-11-01T15:29:00.000-07:00

In a the second of a two-part post in September, I wrote about the horrible reality of combining human and animal embryos and declared that the secular humanist scientists responsible for the outrage were creating an abomination. I should have known the Church would get there first! The World has nothing on us, and that's for sure!

I don't know what Bible these people are reading, but it surely can't be the same as the one in which I read: “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them…” (Gen 1:26-28a, emphasis added).

“And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name” (Rev 14:11).

Soli Deo Gloria?

When To Leave a Church?

2007-10-22T15:52:00.000-07:00

You can probably deduce from the post’s title that the topic of leaving a church is on my mind of late. When do one’s circumstances indicate that one should leave a church? This is obviously a very important question; one that, thankfully, most Christians never have to face or consider. But for a few, it can become an all-consuming concern.

For some, the reason for contemplating such a course of action lies in themselves. That is to say, they bring to a church their own unrealistic, perhaps overly idealistic, expectations of what the church actually is or can be. They are dysfunctional in themselves and so their expectations and their relationships with others in the congregation—especially the ruling body of elders—is also characterized by dysfunctional behaviour.

But this is not necessarily always the case. In spite of the fact many authorities maintain that the problem is almost always in the unhappy members, it has been my experience that just the reverse is as often the case. It is often the congregation that is dysfunctional and more specifically, the ruling body of the congregation (as the elders go, so goes the congregation). Now I don’t mean dysfunctional in an organizational sense. Usually, it is a kind of spiritual dysfunctionality that is the problem. We see examples of this in the first chapters of Revelation in the churches of Sardis, Ephesus and Laodicea. These churches were filled with born-again believers. Yet (in some respects) the congregations were nevertheless displeasing to Christ. There is nothing to indicate any organizational problems. They were criticised by Christ for their lack of commitment to Him and His Word and for their own sense of complacent self-righteousness (Rev. 2:4-5; 3:1-4, 15-18).

Some, when they think a church should be doing one thing or another, will get self-righteously angry that the congregation is not doing whatever it is he or she thinks it should be doing. They come to church with resentment or anger in their hearts. Coming to church this way is biblically unjustifiable and is actually down-right sinful. The problem for these people is that their understanding of both the form as well as the purpose or function of the church is incorrect or immature. They do not understand that every church and congregation has an inherent culture and is made up of people who are more or less in agreement with that culture. They fail to realize that the culture of the church or congregation is indifferent as long as it does not contravene Scripture or otherwise impede the progress of the Gospel.

For some, the culture within a congregation is intolerable. But that has nothing necessarily to do with the culture of that congregation and the congregation as a whole should feel no compunction to change, although it is free to do so. It is rather, given the admonishments in Scripture, the obligation of the unhappy individual to maintain the peace within the congregation and to learn to love and respect the congregation—and particularly those who are seen as the root of the problem—for the sake of Christ and to the extent he or she is able. Doing so is actually a form of sacrificial service to God and His good purposes. If they are unable to do this on their own, it is incumbent upon them to seek spiritual guidance from their pastor and elders. (But in point of fact, if a problem has become this serious for even one member of the congregation, it is a strong indicator that the ruling body of the church—comprised of the minister and his elders—is not performing its role in a manner intended by Scripture.)

But whether to stay or go gets more tricky at this point. According to the Biblical model, the unhappy individual should take his case to the offending party or parties, then, failing resolution, to the rulers of the congregation. But what if the rulers of the congregation are the offending party? One option available within the Presbyterian form of church government is to take the problem to a “higher court” usually the governing Presbytery. Even though most problems can and should be dealt with long before they get to Presbytery, occasionally the issue is too important or may have broader implications than can be fairly dealt with at the level of the local congregation. The problem here of course is that taking an issue this far is often perceived as inherently divisive by the church authorities if not by anyone else. Pressing the case this far up the chain of responsibility and accountability is considered to be “bad form” and to be breaking (or at least severely bending) the unity of the church. Partly because of this social pressure and—importantly—because we, as Christians, are taught to obey authority, this usually is a very unpleasant situation to be in. Consequently, all kinds of injustices, unbiblical behaviour and impediments to the progress of the Gospel are tolerated in the name of unity and obedience when they should not be.

When a high degree of dissatisfaction is being experienced by many congregants, and when there is a high degree of consistency or similarity in those dissatisfactions, it is a strong indicator that something serious has gone amiss in the congregation. It is traditionally one of the main functions of an elder to employ appropriate levels of discipline within his congregation, particularly with those for whom he has especial oversight. He is to maintain the integrity and purity of doctrine and to curtail evident sin in a sensitive but firm manner, much as a responsible father will discipline his errant children: always with love and with increasing severity as required. But in a healthy, biblical, Christ-centered church, this kind of discipline will (or should) almost never be necessary. Why? Because in such a case the ruling body will be caring for its flock in a loving Christian way. It will be engaged with its flock. It will express love for the people over whom it has a charge. The ruling body, acting as individuals, will be servants first and overseers second.

(It is a firm conviction by most biblical Christians that there are three marks of a true church: biblical preaching and gospel proclamation, proper administration of the sacraments and church discipline. I have no problems with these, except I think they are incomplete. There must surely be a fourth mark of a true, biblical, Christian church: love for the brethren. Surely if we love Christ, we will love our brothers and sisters and—what is perhaps even more important—we will be free and courageous enough to express our love openly and without shame. As I was reminded recently by a member of our bible study group, Paul makes it very plain for us: “If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2, emphasis added). Given this, who can deny the importance of love in the Christian congregation?)

So we see from this that it is often a difficult thing to decide when or if one should leave a congregation. In my mind, if one person has decided to leave a congregation this may not necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the congregation itself, its leaders or its culture. It could simply be a case of a bad “fit.” This is usually the case. However, when several households are experiencing difficulties within the congregation and when the people of these households do not appear to be in a state of rebellion or unrepentant sin and who exhibit no interest in embracing heretical beliefs, then the ruling body cannot assume that there is no cause for concern. In fact, they should be very concerned.

In such a situation, what should the congregants do who are experiencing the difficulty; in other words, should they leave or stay?

I believe the affected individual congregants should first make their concerns known to the ruling body in a respectful but honest way. It could involve emails and phone calls but should also include a face-to-face exploration of the problems. Failing resolution, it is in the best interests of all the affected parties to act in unison. Members of a single household or family going before the ruling body will often be seen as nothing more than malcontents, but when several households are represented the matter becomes far more real (as well as serious). Several members acting in concert might also necessitate calling formal meetings or even convening a judicial church court.

If the affected congregants are convinced by the ruling body that they are being disobedient, that should bring the matter to a close. However, if the affected congregants are convinced, after meeting and discussing the issues with the ruling body, that there is a problem within the church that conflicts with their understanding of the church and her purposes and responsibilities as determined by Scripture—with possible support from the denomination’s Book of Church Order, Constitution or other subordinate standards such as the Westminster Confession of Faith—then they are required to defend their position. To do so is not to be disobedient but rather obedient—to Christ and His Word. It is important to remember that the ruling body only has authority derived from Scripture. All its actions, attitudes and decisions must be the result of engaging with, and conforming to, God's Word.

There may come a time in the life of a congregation when a significant number of people can no longer remain in the congregation. But their leaving should not occur over frivolous matters. There must be some serious flouting of Scripture by the ruling body either in doctrine or practice before one should leave the church. Remember, we are not in church to please the elders but to please Christ. We are there not because it is expected of us but because we, as God’s people, are called to worship Him in spirit and truth. If you cannot do that according to your understanding of Scripture and cannot be convinced of the error of your ways, but rather are more firmly convicted of the rightness of your position, then and only then, should you consider leaving the church. But by then you must leave in order to remain faithful to Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Thoughts While Waiting in the ER

2007-10-11T16:08:00.000-07:00

I spent the entire evening last night—from 6:00 PM to 1:30 AM this morning—in the ER of my local hospital. I went there as a result of believing I might be having—or was in immanent danger of having—a heart attack.

This post isn’t about the horrible state of the health care system in BC. It’s not about using our medical resources better than we do; it’s not about the dedication and commitment of individual workers in the system. All these are worthy topics mind you. But right now I need to talk about something else.

Let me contextualize my own experience by the experience of another family. As I sat, waiting for my name to be called, I couldn’t help but notice a mother and (I suppose) daughter. They were going in and out of the entrance to the ER itself. Both were pale, their faces drawn. The eyes of the daughter were bleary and red-rimmed. Someone they loved was in big trouble this night. Soon other members of the family began to arrive; children, teenagers and middle-aged adults. They would disappear into the ER for a while and then emerge more distraught than when they went in. This continued for about thirty minutes and finally, walking right by me, they all went through the double doors of the waiting room and stood outside in the cold. I could just make them out through the frosted glass as they huddled together, holding on to each other, the young ones clinging desperately to the grown ups the grown ups embracing the children as if both to comfort and protect. The high-pitched weeping of the children intermingled with the groans and wails of the adults in a heart-tearing melody of grief and pain. Here, I thought, here is where we all come to. Here is where it will end for us; maybe not in a hospital, but definitely in grief, pain and misery.

And of course this forced me to think of myself and my own predicament. For all I knew, in a few hours or less, that could be my family on the other side of the ER door. It could be my body they would be wheeling down the hallway on a gurney, bound for the morgue.

A sobering thought. Yet here I was, with only my body to tell me it was in trouble of some kind, perhaps the worst kind. Everyone else was too busy to tend to me. That’s OK. I’ll wait my turn.

And as I waited, I prayed. I prayed to God, to Christ, that should it really be my time, that I was not placing any hope anywhere but in Him alone. I pled the shed blood of Christ, taking refuge in it and Him alone. “Oh Heavenly Father” I prayed, “Into your hands I commend my life and my spirit. To you and you alone do I look. Let your will be done in this as in all things; let my passing be as and when you determine. This only I ask; care for my wife and son and give them the comfort and the strength they will need.”

I prayed several times during the night. But at no time was I ever afraid. Perhaps I didn’t believe this could really be happening to me; perhaps I knew this was just some passing fit of anxiety or some other anomaly. But I believe there really was more to it than that. I believe that we as Christians really do have nothing to fear. That we have a friend and Saviour who is ever by our side and who is ever in waiting to receive us at our journey’s end. I do not count myself special in this. This is a blessing that comes as part of God’s covenant with His people. It is something He has promised to all of us and to each one of us.

I thought of that family and of how they were experiencing the death of a loved one. Were they Christians? I don’t know. Was the one being grieved over a Christian? I don’t know. But I do know that if they were Christians, their grief should have been mitigated by the simple fact of their faith. To be a Christian is to walk by faith, not by sight. It is to know the presence and compassion of a loving, sovereign God who works everything according to the good pleasure of His perfect will. He is with us even when we forget Him. He promised to prepare a place in heaven for each of us. These are comforting thoughts, but do us no good if we don’t really believe them. If we are Christians the end will be the same for all of us—a glorious end. But if we aren’t aware of these truths, if we don’t embrace them in the here and now, our lives will miss the peace we have been promised. The promise of peace is not just for the hereafter. It is for now. It is ours, but only if we appropriate it through faith.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Baptism and Protestant Bathing Phobia

2007-10-01T13:13:00.000-07:00

Sorry that I've been lax in my posting of late. I've been quite busy with one or two other concerns, the least important of which is Second Life (which I won't attempt to explain here). However, I found the following little snippet in my archives and thought it might be amusing to post. Here it is. Enjoy.

Let me say something you’re probably not expecting and which I hope doesn’t sound too ludicrous. I’ve done some research on the Reformation and the history of the Church and am confident that there is a close connection between those subjects and the beliefs and customs that surround bathing and personal hygiene as they were practiced in Elizabethan and Jacobean Britain. I think that it is possible that the reason there is so little recognition of baptism as immersion in the WCF and other Reformation documents is partly because the Jacobean Reformers had both a cultural and theological aversion to bathing.

For instance, during the Middle Ages the Church discouraged bathing in Roman style public baths, fearing the spread of syphilis and the plague. During the Reformation baths were associated with entertainment and immorality. Philip II of Spain is said to have authorized the destruction of the public baths built by the Moors on the grounds that washing the body was a heathen custom dangerous to Christians. It was believed that hot water especially dilated the pores and allowed harmful organisms to enter the body through the skin. Even newborn babies were not washed, and until the eighteenth century they were swaddled in bands of cloth that were changed twice a day at most. After 1760 baths and bathrooms began to spread very slowly, and as late as 1835 a young man asked through an American reform journal whether he should continue his habit of taking a warm bath every three weeks.

And Will Durant, in his The Story of Civilization, says “Cleanliness, in the Middle Ages, was not next to godliness. Early Christianity had denounced the Roman baths as wells of perversion and promiscuity, and its general disapproval of the body had put no premium on hygiene.” And again, describing the age of Reformation, Durant says, “Social and individual hygiene hardly kept pace with the advance of medicine. Personal cleanliness was not a fetish; even the King of England bathed only once a week and sometimes skipped.” The same historian, after describing the dressing manners, writes, "How clean were the bodies behind the frills? A sixteenth-century Introduction pour les jeunes dames spoke of women ‘who had no care to keep themselves clean except in those parts that may be seen, remaining filthy...under their’ and a cynical proverb held that courtesans were the only women who washed more than their face and hands. Perhaps cleanliness increased with immorality, for as women offered more of themselves to view to many, cleanliness enlarged its area.”

I don’t know if anyone else has made this connection. I don’t know but that it is a completely outlandish idea, devoid of merit, yet I find it more than coincidental. It would certainly not surprise me if the Reformers, many of whom were Puritans, found the whole idea of immersing ones body in water to be repugnant for two main reasons: firstly it probably was seen as a way of increasing, not decreasing the likelihood of disease and secondly (and perhaps more importantly) it was probably associated with the public baths of bygone eras, especially of pagan and then Catholic Rome, and which public baths had a reputation as centers of worldliness and immorality. Certainly, for whatever reasons, Jacobean and Reformed England was largely unwashed and unsanitary. Given this argument, it does not seem unreasonable for the Protestant Divines of the Reformation to have repudiated the immersive mode of baptism due to their own cultural bias and not simply on the biblical evidence.

Sinful Occasions (Revised)

2007-09-12T09:04:00.000-07:00

Last week (Sept. 6/07) I wrote about the latest (and what I consider perhaps the greatest) act of perversion and rebellion of our generation: the (potential) creation of hybrid embryos from human beings and animals for the purpose of medical research.

In this post, I will focus on two aspects I think are central to this issue and consider the inevitable out flowing of consequences engendered by this new and disturbing situation.

An affront to God
First, what the scientists are proposing is an affront to God, perhaps, as I mentioned in my previous post, the greatest affront to God. Of course these scientists are secular humanists and (I’m guessing) atheists. But how could it be otherwise? So for them there is no dilemma. They are not breaking God’s moral law because (so they believe in their foolish hearts) there is no God and therefore no divine moral law to be broken or obeyed.

Of course in their foolish pride, they have not been able to understand the ultimate and final outcome of such a world-view. God, in the inscrutableness of His sovereign will, has hidden it from their eyes. The true significance of the atheistic, humanistic world-view—that anything is attainable and permissible if we only imagine it—is summed up well by Shakespeare in his play Macbeth. When Macbeth was confronted with the failure of his mad and greedy hope for greater power and prestige than what had been providentially given to him, the illusory aspect of his schemes, indeed his very world-view, came into sharp focus:

“To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”

Macbeth V, v, 19

Is this not the echo of the same reality, the same conclusion reached by David the Psalmist: “Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity” (Ps 39:5) or of his son Solomon, the great King of Israel: “Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun” (Ec 2:11).

This is indeed the end of all humanist endeavours, the reality of this tragically mistaken world-view: chaos and meaninglessness. Without limits set by an all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful God, everything becomes relative and in that relativism, devoid of meaning and intrinsic value. When everything is the same, when one choice is as good as any other choice, when an animal and a man are inter-changeable, what is left but randomness, which is just another word for chaos?

But do we think it will stop with embryos alone? And what difference would that make if it did? The damage would already have been done. It will have been to deprive what was intended by God to be a creature after Himself from his rightful inheritance, his portion. God decided in eternity past to create those after His likeness, in His image. (Some may argue that for all we know each human embryo that will eventually be combined with an animal embryo is reprobate and therefore ordained for damnation anyway. But this is presumptuous. It is to attempt to see into the hidden, sovereign will of God, where even angels fear to tread!) The sovereign Creator was careful to separate the animals from man and made man to rule over them, as their master. Man was endowed with qualities shared by no other creatures. God was ever careful to determine the relationship that was to exist between animals and man. He placed a boundary beyond which He did not (and does not) want us to go (Gen 1:20-24; 2:18-20; 9:2; Ex 22:19). But we as a people in our arrogance and self-centered rebellion have flung this restriction in His face even as Satan did in Milton’s classic, Paradise Lost:

“O thou that with surpassing Glory crownd,
Look'st from thy sole Dominion like the God
Of this new World; at whose sight all the Starrs
Hide thir diminisht heads; to thee I call,
But with no friendly voice, and add thy name
O Sun, to tell thee how I hate thy beams
That bring to my remembrance from what state
I fell, how glorious once above thy Spheare;
Till Pride and worse Ambition threw me down
Warring in Heav'n against Heav'ns matchless King.”

Book Four, lines 32-41

But now the immortal soul given by God to man alone upon his birth, and which was to be, in the Sovereign intentions of God, the Imago Dei, is to be intermingled with animals. Oh how Satan must be relishing our disobedience to God and our willing obedience to him, which was the ultimate end of all his schemes after all:

“Though Heav'n be shut,
And Heav'ns high Arbitrator sit secure
In his own strength, this place may lye expos'd
The utmost border of his Kingdom, left
To their defence who hold it: here perhaps
Som advantagious act may be achiev'd
By sudden onset, either with Hell fire
To waste his whole Creation, or possess
All as our own, and drive as we were driven,
The punie habitants, or if not drive,
Seduce them to our Party, that thir God
May prove thir foe, and with repenting hand
Abolish his own works.”

Book 2, lines 358-370

The downward moral decay of human kind
The Paslamist described the unique place of man in God's great work of creation,

"What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
You make him to rule over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
All sheep and oxen,
And also the beasts of the field,
The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea,
Whatever passes through the paths of the seas."

Psalm 8:5-8 (emphasis added)

Paul was blunt and to the point when he described, not only the actual condition of lost humanity, but also the increasingly degrading effects of self-chosen sin. He observes that pretended ignorance of God’s existence and His intentions cannot be used as an excuse for our condition (Rom 1:18-25).

In his four volume commentary on Romans, JM Boice describes man’s predicament this way: “Although man is a mediating being, created to be somewhere between the angels and the animals, in Psalm 8 he is nevertheless described as being somewhat lower than the angels rather than as being somewhat higher than the beasts, which means he is destined to look, not downward to the beasts, but upward, toward the angels and beyond them to God and so to become increasingly like him. But if we will not look up, if we reject God as secularism does, then we will inevitably look downward and so become increasingly like the lower creatures and behave like them. We will become beastlike, which is exactly what is happening in our society. People are acting like animals, and even worse.” I'm sure the horrrible irony of these words, written before his death, would have made Boice shake his head in tragic dismay.

Now this downward moral decay works in generations. This means that when Moses recorded that God looked down on the human race and saw the depravity and wickedness (Gen 6:5) it is the same today; it is the same depravity. The truth of Jeremiah’s statement that the heart is desperately wicked (Jer 17:9) is as true today as it was in his time, but not more true. The important point being that the human race is not more wicked now than it ever was. A dead person can not be deader. No, what has changed is not our capacity for sin; that has remained constant. However, what has changed is our opportunity to sin. Our opportunity to sin has increased by several orders of magnitude as a result of Science and Technology. These have combined to enable mankind to sin in ways that Paul could never have dreamed of in his wildest nightmares. It is still the same depraved heart, but now it has so much more opportunity! This is exactly the case with the creation of hybrid human embryos. It was never possible in the entire history of mankind to do such a thing; not because there was not sufficient wickedness to do it, but merely the lack of opportunity.

This train of thought leads me to reflect on the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. It was the same evil pride and arrogance of Frankenstein to attempt to create animate life from lifeless corpses —given opportunity by science and technology—that even now drives these new Frankensteins on in their dark labours, “One secret which I alone possessed was the hope to which I had dedicated myself; and the moon gazed on my midnight labours, while, with unrelaxed and breathless eagerness, I pursued nature to her hiding-places. Who shall conceive the horrors of my secret toil, as I dabbled among the unhallowed damps of the grave, or tortured the living animal to animate the lifeless clay? My limbs now tremble and my eyes swim with the remembrance; but then a resistless, and almost frantic, impulse urged me forward; I seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit.”

But Doctor Frankenstein was brought to a sudden and unhappy repentance of what he had done. Too late, he realized the horrible error of his pride and arrogance, “The different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature. I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room, and continued a long time traversing my bedchamber, unable to compose my mind to sleep.”

In the novel, Doctor Frankenstein is made to pay for all his self-centered, essentially humanistic pride. In his own personal loss he was brought to recognize the hand of an almighty and sovereign Will and Power that no one in our own day seems able (or should I say willing) to acknowledge. In the end the realization of his sinful folly come upon Frankenstein—who is less a fictional character than he is a type of humanity—with devastating force and permanence: “All my speculations and hopes are as nothing: and, like the archangel who aspired to omnipotence, I am chained in an eternal hell…. I trod heaven in my thoughts [Oh what foolish pride!] now exulting in my powers, now burning with the idea of their effects…. Despondency rarely visited my heart; a high destiny seemed to bear me on until I fell, never, never again to rise.”

Like Frankenstein, we will suffer, and do suffer, from our own creations. In our desperate rebellion against the limits of life imposed by God, we reap, and will continue to reap, a bumper crop of death. Unless we are able, because of the sovereign will of God, to come to realize the futility and vanity of all our own self-generated creations and refuse to accept the fact of a sovereign God who is all-loving and all-wise in His eternal and infinite Fatherhood, we will perish, never, never again to rise. God have mercy!

Soli Deo Gloria.

Creation Threshold Broken

2007-09-06T11:01:00.000-07:00

In an article on OneNewsNow, first aired by the BBC on Tuesday, it was reported what had to happen sooner or later: we are about to cross a very significant threshold, beyond which nothing will ever be the same. I’m speaking of the creation of embryos which are part human and part animal!

Of course, since it is all being done in the sacrosanct name of Science, we should not be alarmed. Feel better now?

“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Rom 1:21-25, emphasis added).

When Paul penned these words through the Holy Spirit, who could have foreknown but God how tragic and perverse was the reality about which they spoke. Oh, how great is our Fall!

What can be said about this perversion? It staggers my mind. First, that this is exactly what God had intended all along: “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them” (Rom 1:28-32, emphasis added).

While Anthony Ozimic, political secretary for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, makes a few good points as reported in the article, I think he is missing the essential problem and the most distressing aspect to this new development. Who can believe for a single moment that there could be anything but condemnation and judgment left for the bulk of humanity? If approval is given by the authorities for what the British scientists are proposing, then we have effectively and unequivocally flung the ultimate insult into God’s face and will have taken our rebellion into the very heart of the Kingdom “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them…” (Gen 1:26-28a, emphasis added).

No, this cannot stand. God will have His vengeance. Perhaps I’ll have more to say when I’m not so upset and when I can do more research. In the meantime I think God Himself should have the last word: “Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, ‘If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name’”(Rev 14:9-11).

Soli Deo Gloria.

What does it mean to be Born Again?

2007-08-29T12:52:00.000-07:00

And [he] brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:30-31).

As I mentioned in my previous post (August 23) it had recently come upon me that the words of John 3:3 are probably the most important words in the Bible, and that everything else is either God’s preamble to them or commentary on them. (That is an over-simplification I admit; nonetheless it still contains an essential core of truth.) But I left the post dangling with several unanswered questions, “What does it mean to be born again; or how can I know for certain I am born again; or what are the qualities of this second birth?”

This installment is an attempt to answer those questions. But first let me say that millions and millions (probably billions and billions!) of words have been written already on answering these questions, beginning with the apostles Paul, John and Peter, progressing through the apostolic and patristic church to the Reformation where these questions and their answers were reformulated and then on into our own time right up to where you and I are right now: this little insignificant online journal. Here I wrestle with these questions and others like them not to make myself out to be an expert. Far from it; this journal is my way of grappling (I love that word!) with these ideas; engaging with God through His Word, coming to some sort of personal understanding and then recording what I have found so that it might be of some small value to someone else. I make no pretense (as I have said elsewhere) to authority. I’m just a weary foot-soldier trying to understand what it means to experience the unmerited favour of God.

So now that is out of the way, we can proceed.

What does it mean to be born again?
The words quoted from the verses at the head of this post are from the incident that occurred when Paul and Silas were in prison together. When an earthquake struck and the jail fell apart, the jailor, in absolute terror for his life, asked the two prisoners, now free, how he might be saved (presumably because Paul and Silas were now free and unharmed). I don’t think the jailor was asking them how he might attain to eternal salvation; that was almost certainly the last thing on his mind at the moment. He was probably just frightened of the authorities who would undoubtedly punish him with torture and death for losing his prisoners. So the answer he got from Paul was more than he could ever have expected.

In any event, the important thing (in the context of this article) is the statement by Paul that to be saved eternally, the jailer must place all his trust and hope in Christ. This is what it means to be born again. Sounds easy, doesn’t it? And in a way it is easy, nothing could be easier: no struggle, no effort, no rules to obey or tasks to accomplish; nothing that is but a total and absolute willingness to give yourself away to this person Jesus. But we have this dilemma: according to Scripture, we are dead in our sin; dead not sick, dead not impaired. There’s the rub, you see. How does a dead person do anything, even make a choice to surrender himself to someone he cannot see, hear or touch? Obviously he can’t. Lazarus could not bring himself back to life. Jairus’ daughter could not, nor could the widow’s son. But Jesus could and did. He brought them all back from the dead by His power, and He resurrected Himself after three days and three nights in the grave, proving that death had no ultimate power over Him but also that it has no power over those who have given themselves into His keeping.

So it is essential to give yourself to Christ without reservation. But by this I don’t mean intellectually. Many people think that because they agree with the main doctrines found in the NT and that they live basically good, moral lives in keeping with such ordinances as the Decalogue, and that they give generously to the Church (they may even tithe) and that they read their Bibles regularly, and that they volunteer in the sandwich ministry or do visitations, that they are Christians. No, they are Christians if, and only if, they have been born again, born not of the flesh but of the Spirit (of Christ). The new birth belongs to the Spirit; it is His handiwork alone. The new birth is unnatural and has nothing to do with life in the here-and-now and no amount of rule-keeping can make one a Christian.

We know from Scripture that two prerequisites to the new birth must be met: repentance and belief or faith. But both of these must come from outside us. They are alien to our very being and cannot be self-generated (in spite of what our Arminian brothers like to believe). So, we come back to Jesus’ words in John 1:13, “…who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” God and only God is responsible for our rejection of sin and our believing embrace of Christ as the single and sufficient Saviour. This mysteriously profound repentance and faith are characteristic of the new birth.

Having said all that, don’t make the mistake of assuming that I’m an antinomian and that I don’t believe in a life of obedience to Christ and his law. I do; just not as a result of any merit or righteousness in myself. I can’t earn my way into Heaven. Rather, the perfect and finished work of Christ enables me, while the indwelling of His Holy Spirit urges, encourages and empowers me, to accomplish acts of obedience and law-keeping. But even then, if I am not compelled to keep the—often inconvenient—law, why do it? Because I love Jesus, that’s why. I’m grateful for what He has done for me and a thankful heart is a glory to God. God saved me so that I would be thankful to Him. And this is the whole purpose of the new birth. It’s not for us. We don’t deserve it. Christ didn’t come to earth to save sinners as much as to be obedient to God’s will. And what is God’s will? It was, is and ever shall remain, that He should be glorified and in that glory, enjoyed.

How can I know for certain I am born again?
In many Reformed circles, this question is a bit of a hot-potato. On the one hand, we have those who say, and with some justification, that to think we are saved and to take pride in it as something to boast about, is presumptuous at best and very sinful at worst (because it may or may not be true). There are several warnings against this kind of presumption in the NT such as, (Psalm 5:5; Isaiah 13:11; Romans 2:4 ). Over against this is the Holy Spirit’s testimony in our hearts and minds that God has promised that those He saves, He saves eternally. This is the Doctrine of Assurance (also called the Perseverance of the Saints as it is expressed in the traditional Five Points of Calvinism—I prefer the term Preservation of the Saints, as it is more God-centered. That is, we are eternally saved because of God’s preservation of us in that condition and not because of our own perseverance in it.)

Many people have written about assurance, but for my money, no one can beat JC Ryle. On the subject of assurance of salvation, Ryle had this to say (in small part):

“I lay it down fully and broadly, as God’s truth, that a true Christian…may reach such a comfortable degree of faith in Christ, that in general he shall feel entirely confident as to the pardon and safety of his soul—shall seldom be troubled with doubts—seldom be distracted with fears—seldom be distressed by anxious questionings—and, in short, though vexed by many an inward conflict with sin, shall look forward to death without trembling, and to judgment without dismay. This, I say, is the doctrine of the Bible….my answer, furthermore, to all who dislike the doctrine of assurance, as bordering on presumption, is this: it can hardly be presumption to tread in the steps of Peter and Paul, of Job and of John [referring to scriptural passages Ryle had just been discussing]. They were all eminently humble and lowly-minded men, if ever any were; and yet they all speak of their own state with an assured hope. Surely this should teach us that deep humility and strong assurance are perfectly compatible, and that there is not any necessary connection between spiritual confidence and pride.”

What are the qualities of this second birth?
The qualities of the second birth must perforce be qualities we have in common (to a limited degree) with Christ and given or bestowed on us by His Holy Spirit through our continuing sanctification. The best known summary of these qualities is from the letter to the Galatians and is known as the “Fruit of the Spirit.” There are many other such lists. One, from the Letter to the Romans which I have recently been studying, is “for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17).

It is important to note that these qualities are all moral qualities. It is in this sense that we are imitators of Christ after the new birth. It is God’s moral will that we should emulate and be obedient to, with thankful hearts as well as minds; and this because He has enabled us to do so.

Let me just clarify that these qualities are not something to be bought and sold. They are not commodities to be traded and exchanged. They are not adopted as life-style choices. They are not anything we can generate from our own effort. Rather, they are the evidence—the fruit as it were—of a life radically changed from the inside out by God and Him alone.

So pray—if you are one who cares—pray with all your heart, mind, soul and strength for this repentance unto faith, this new birth from above, this incomparable gift from almighty God, for He is able to save even the worst of sinners. And if you think that describes you, Dear Reader, if you know yourself to be the worst of sinners, then you are very close to the Kingdom of God “Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near” (Isa 55:6).

Soli Deo Gloria.

Postscript
This post and the one before it are dedicated to the memory of a man by the name of Murdo Mackenzie. He, more than anyone else, was my spiritual tutor and mentor when I was young and wandering in the wasteland, before I knew anything of God’s saving grace. Murdo and his wife took a liking to me when I was still young. They would give me milk and cookies and would have me in their home as often as I wanted. They had no children of their own and perhaps that was the reason they seemed to like me. Murdo was a great Christian and evangelist and every time I went to his house I knew I was in for some gospel preaching. Sometimes we would argue. Sometimes I just sat and listened. His favorite passage was John chapter three and his favourite verse was the third verse. Perhaps that is why it is among my favourites as well. I know that Murdo and his wife are both with the Lord and it is going to bring us all great joy to meet again with one another in our Father’s house. I’m sure they’ll have the heavenly equivalent of some milk and cookies waiting for me on the kitchen table. I can hardly wait!

The Importance of John 3:3

2007-08-23T14:36:00.000-07:00

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

It has come upon me just yesterday afternoon that these are probably the most important words in the Bible, and that everything else is either God’s preamble to them or commentary on them.

Do I offend with my boldness? I don’t mean to. It’s just that I believe these words are describing the one necessary thing for salvation. Paul and the other apostles and contributors to the Scriptures are merely unpacking this single verse with all its freight of meaning and significance. For instance, what is Romans but an extended commentary on John 3:3; or rather should I say the working out of its significance and consequences in great detail. What are the great themes of the NT—grace, regeneration, justification and sanctification—if they are not the unfolding of the essential truth found in this verse?

It is often said that John 3:16 is the most beloved and well known verse in the Bible. So it may be, but when it comes to importance and urgency, John 3:3 says everything needed to be said. Verse 16 tells us that God loved (and loves) the world by sending us His only Son. It tells us that this was an internal act of His love (He gave His only Son) as well as an external demonstration or expression of that love to the world (that whoever believes). But it does not tell us that the mere coming of Christ is insufficient for one’s salvation (this is the essential reason why I don't celebrate Christmas). While it tells us that salvation is made available to those who would believe on Christ, it does not tell us how that is to happen. Yet John had already told his readers that the one only needful thing is to be born again, earlier in the chapter by recording Jesus’ speech with Nicodemus. He then offers commentary on His own words in verse eight when He says, “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit" (that is, “this is what happens to everyone who is born of the Spirit"). This indicates to me that the new birth is of an alien origin as well as character; it is “from above” and totally beyond our apprehension and control. Paul and the other apostles as well as the prophets of the OT explain this by recourse to God’s “election.”

The point being that this new birth is not and cannot be accomplished by us. John makes this painfully clear when he says, “…who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13). What words could be simpler and yet what words could be more hateful to the world and its need for pre-eminence and wickedness. The wicked don’t like to hear the truth of Scripture that the dead in sin cannot give themselves new life. So the new birth is despised by the world, and so are those who in fact are reborn as children of God. Each one of them is like salt in a wound to those worldly and once-born children of wrath.

But let me be even bolder. I would say that if you do not understand John 3:3 or John 1:13; if you do not know what they are saying viscerally as well as intellectually; if you do not have an emotional response to these verses; if you are not convinced of the assurance they provide, you are probably not one who has in fact been born again and therefore not a Christian.

This is harsh I know. It is meant to be. I don’t write these words to find favour; I write as one who cries Fire! Fire! to those who are asleep in a temple and who know nothing of their impending doom.

I write them as an appeal to non-believers yes, but also as a warning to the modern Pharisees who think themselves saved because they follow the rules and do all the right things rather than experiencing Christ; who see holiness as a separation from the world rather than as a dedication to God; who think that being saved is the result of acquiescing to biblical ordinances and prescriptions and traditions rather than of experiencing and living in a mystical union with Christ, Who, in that union, carries us along with Him in His holiness and righteousness before God.

People who think they are responsible for carrying out or even attempting to fulfill the demands of the law are those who fail to understand they are still trying to earn their reward. They fail to understand the truth that Christ has already fulfilled the law, so they are necessarily resorting to a subtle form of works-righteousness, instead of throwing themselves on the mercy as well as the finished and perfect work of Christ.

We will never be found righteous before God by attempting to keep the commandments (even though called to do so). Rather we are found righteous in Christ because He has already met all the requirements of the law Himself and has graced us with His protective and sustaining love in spite of all our weakness, foolishness and sinfulness.

This is something that ministers of God’s Word have been saying all along of course. This message is not mine, nor is it new. It is foundational to our faith. There will never be a time (until Christ’s second coming) when it will not be needed to be shouted from the very housetops, in the alleys and byways and streets of our villages, towns and cities!

What say you: have you been truly and incontrovertibly saved? Are you truly born-again?

Because if you are not born again of the Spirit of God then you are as one of the foolish virgins to whom it was said by Christ the Bridegroom, “Truly I say to you, I do not know you” (Matt 25:12).

But this begs the question, “What does it mean to be born again; or how can I know for certain I am born again; or what are the qualities of this second birth? I’ll try answering those questions from my limited knowledge as well as my personal experience next time. But let me end with this: Those who truly are born-again don’t need an answer from me. They know the answer already, for it lives in their hearts as well as their minds.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Recapturing Holiness

2007-08-17T10:08:00.000-07:00

I take up my pen (actually my keyboard, but I’m somewhat quaint in these matters) to continue my reflections begun earlier (August 6 and August 9) on the essential otherworldliness of Christianity and the fact that so many Christians (let alone non-Christians) don’t seem to really understand and believe this, at least not here in North America and even less (so I understand from the reading I do) in Europe and Britain. North American Christians seem to have an attitude that effectively denies the elemental other-worldliness found in the fundamental teachings of the NT.

In the previous posts I’ve been trying to say that the essential message of the NT (and especially the words of Christ taken as a whole) is one of other-worldliness. When you strip away the cultural and psychological accretions with which we ourselves have encumbered the Gospel, you will find an otherworldly quality, a disdain even, toward this life here and now that borders on what secularists consider truly bizarre and even somewhat suicidal. And if I were a secularist, I would consider it so (I was and I did!). We find over and over again in the NT what could easily be argued as contempt for this world: “And Jesus said to him, ‘The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.’ And He said to another, ‘Follow Me.’ But he said, ‘Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father.’ But He said to him, ‘Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God.’ Another also said, ‘I will follow You, Lord; but first permit me to say good-bye to those at home.’ But Jesus said to him, ‘No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God’” (Luke 9:58-62).

When we, as Christians, read words like, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm” (John 18:36) do we take the time to work out and understand the implications of this and many similar statements in the NT? What have words like these to do with us? Well, for one, we are told, in no uncertain terms, to “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matt 6:33, emphasis added). This means we are to spend our time looking and working for a kingdom which cannot ever fully be found or attained in this life. It means that the things which are necessary for us while we sojourn here will be provided for us. And what are those “necessary” things? Those things that are necessary are those things which sustain life and enable us to do the work of God, “Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal” (John 6:27). Everything else is superfluous and leads to worldliness.

Over and over again, Jesus warns us against our own satisfaction with the superfluous. His curative prescription for the disease of worldliness is radical surgery: “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell” (Matt 5:29-30). Hard words indeed! And while we are not to take them at their literal face value, they nevertheless underscore the absolute imperative facing us in our Christian walk. I don’t think this can be stressed too much. It is this sense of the urgent as well as radical that the modern Church has by-and-large lost. The modern churchgoer no longer experiences this radical other-worldliness. If we did, the world would be a truly different place because we would be truly different people. But instead, we are all like the rich young ruler, who could not give up that which enslaved him and held him back from the Kingdom. He was so close; by his own admission he did all that was required by the Law of Moses. And yet he had the besetting sin of love for the wealth of the world that he couldn’t completely give up or cast away. Are we not like that rich young ruler? We lack the courage—motivated by sure, firm, unshakeable conviction in the truth of the Bible and the working of the Holy Spirit on our consciences—that Christ requires of His followers.

Why don’t we have this sense of urgent, radical other-worldliness that characterized the early church? We are too complacent and consequently we have lost our sense of that essential, all-encompassing attribute of God that includes all His other attributes: that of holiness. We are no longer holy because we have, in our complacency and desire for creature-comforts and what I call easy-believism (the broad way and the wide gate), forsaken God’s holiness and therefore our own holiness, of which the radical other-worldliness of the NT is an expression. The other-worldliness of Christ and His teaching is nothing other than God’s holiness bursting (or perhaps seeping is a better word to use) into the world. What else could be the case? Over and over again, God’s people are called to be holy. Leviticus 20:26 is a representative verse from the OT: “Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.” And there are several representative texts in the NT that could be used to illustrate this essential teaching. One is Eph 5:27: “that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.” Another is the well-known verse from Hebrews: “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Heb 12:14, KJV). Many other verses could be used to support the idea that holiness is of paramount importance to the Christian’s walk. But let us not make the mistake of understanding such holiness to be complete and finished, for that will never be in this life. Rather, we must be partakers of God’s holiness each and every day. It must be characteristic of our lives as Christians. This experience of God’s holiness will help us to understand why Peter, for instance, addresses the recipients of his first letter as “strangers.” They were indeed strangers or aliens in the lands in which they sojourned but more to the point they were also (as are we) strangers, aliens and sojourners on this earth, and whose real home was heavenly, not earthly (“In my Father’s house are many mansions….”). Peter goes on to say: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:3-5, emphasis added). In these three verses Peter is teaching us that God’s remnant (among them the strangers to whom the letter is addressed as well as ourselves) have an imperishable inheritance reserved in heaven. In heaven, not on earth! He also tells us this inheritance will be (fully) revealed in the last time, the Day of Judgment. It is not for us now; it is not for us on earth. It is for us (in its fulfillment) in a later time and a new place. Peter also tells us that this inheritance is ours by God’s power and His will. It is not ours to determine.

However, we should not mistake this disdain for the worldly as being the same as indifference to it. The Scriptures are very clear that there is a reason for being here. It’s just not to be chasing after worldly pleasures and the like. The Westminster Shorter Catechism asserts that the chief end of man is to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever." That is why we are here; not to amass wealth, gain power, or make friends. But we can neither glorify nor enjoy God at all without holiness. “A highway will be there, a roadway, And it will be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean will not travel on it, But it will be for him who walks that way, And fools will not wander on it” “For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness” “Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years”(Isa 35:8; Heb 12:10; Rev 20:6).

It is this other-worldliness, this sense of holiness, which we must recapture if we are to give to God the glory that is His due. It is the spirit of sacrifice we must embrace if we are to be true followers of Christ. Can this shift occur within the mainstream church? I believe that this is not possible without a revival on a scale equal to that of the Reformation. The modern, mainstream church is essentially unbiblical. She is a bride with a questionable character and unsavory habits. The church at large has not yet become an abomination but she certainly is headed in that direction. She is not a slut or a harlot, who has gone whoring after strange gods and the things of this world. But she is syncretistic and has embraced false gospels to one degree or another. There are only a few congregations left who understand God’s holiness and which preach the true Biblical Gospel. (For all its failings, I count my own congregation to be such a one.) Yet even these, God’s true remnant, are in reactive mode, refusing or unable to balance the costly demands of the Scriptures with the legitimate needs and concerns of people here and now. We are no longer the salt and light Christ called us to be.

During the writing of this installment I happened to be studying Volume 3 of JM Boice’s Expositional Commentary on Romans. In the chapter I was reading while writing the balance of this post, I happened upon a quote from AW Tozer, from his book, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God, Their Meaning in the Christian Life (New York, Evanston and London: Harper & Row, 1961). So to add a degree of legitimacy to some of the things I’ve been trying to articulate, I’d like to reproduce the quote from Tozer that Boice included in his own book:

“The church has surrendered her once lofty concept of God and has substituted for it one so low, so ignoble, as to be utterly unworthy of thinking, worshipping men. This she has done not deliberately, [on this particular point I have to disagree with Tozer] but little by little and without her knowledge; and her very unawareness only makes her situation all the more tragic.

This low view of God entertained almost universally among Christians [I can verify this statement from personal experience] is the cause of a hundred lesser evils everywhere among us. A whole new philosophy of the Christian life has resulted from this one basic error in our religious thinking.

With our loss of the sense of majesty has come the further loss of religious awe and consciousness of the divine Presence. We have lost our spirit of worship and our ability to withdraw inwardly to meet God in adoring silence. Modern Christianity is simply not producing the kind of Christian who can appreciate or experience the life in the Spirit. The words, ‘Be still and know that I am God,’ mean next to nothing to the self-confident, bustling worshiper in this middle period of the twentieth century.”

These words were written forty-six years ago, and as I think you must agree, things have not improved! Yet through all this I’m confident God will care for and protect His people, not because of anything meritorious in them but because of His own faithfulness and the covenant He has made and because He has promised that when the trials and tribulations of this life are over, there shall be a reward: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away…. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away’ And He who sits on the throne said, ‘Behold, I am making all things new’” (Rev 21:1-5a).

Soli Deo Gloria.

The Christian and "Global Warming"

2007-08-15T09:17:00.000-07:00

In the huge debate over what is popularly known as “climate change” or “global warming” what should be the Christian’s position?

Why should this issue even be a dilemma for the Christian? Well, because it seems to call into question some biblical truths as well as non-biblical assumptions. The real problem for Christians is that it is difficult for all of us to separate our assumptions about truth from truth itself. Let me offer an example from some comments left by a reader of an article on global warming found on the Christian news service, (OneNewsNow). The reader says in part,”…the Great Creator is in control of all things, including His beloved earth, and His Beloved Creation, the Church [italics added].” The writer assumes that God’s earth is beloved, perhaps because at one point in its history God did love the earth; according to Genesis 1:31 He considered it very good. What the reader fails to understand though, is that God cursed the earth after the fall of Adam, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee” (Gen. 3:17-18a, emphasis added). The earth is no longer beloved by God, at least not in the way this person assumes. The reader has not really separated Biblical truth from his own assumption about that truth. But he does point out one thing that was and still is true, when He says, “…the Great Creator is in control of all things.” This much is true. We know that primarily from the Bible (for instance, in Neh 9:6) and secondarily from history and lastly (but with obvious limitations) from our own personal experience.

So the first apparent obstacle presented to the Christian by climate change or global warming is the seeming threat to God’s control—His sovereignty—over His own creation and all His creatures. At no place in Scripture are we led to conclude that God is not in control of all existence, including His earthly creation. Hence, many Christians infer that we cannot—or should not—worry about or try to fix problems like global warming because it denies God’s sovereign will as well as His sovereign ability. But this is not real truth, it is half-truth at best. We are told in Genesis that God put the man He had formed from the ground into the Garden of Eden, “to dress it and to keep it” (Gen. 2:15, KJV). As well, when, after the fall, God drives Adam out of the garden, it is still to cultivate the land, just not in the Garden, “Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken” (Gen. 3:23, emphasis added). What we deduce (by good and necessary consequence) from these verses is that God expects a certain kind of caring for or stewardship of the land. That was always Adam’s responsibility, both before and after the fall. And since Adam was our federal head as well as our progenitor, it is our responsibility as well. This means that we still have a God-ordained responsibility to care for the earth and to make it productive and fruitful. God nowhere relieves us of that duty of obedience. In this God has not relinquished His sovereignty, He has rather demonstrated it by commanding us to do His will.

We have a God-given responsibility to care for the earth, even in her fallen, corrupted nature after the manner of the gardener who cares for his garden. But if the science of global warming is true, it is not true in a vacuum. If global warming is causing pain or suffering, we must approach the problem on that basis. The earth is cursed. People are suffering because the earth is cursed; “in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life” (Gen. 3:17b). The cause of the curse is sin. These things are true and irrefutable. This being the case, it should not matter to the Christian if global warming is a man-created problem. We have never taken care of the earth as we ought to have done, our sin has seen to that. Global warming (if it really exists) can only be understood as another consequence of sin. Nor does it deny God’s sovereignty. God is in sovereign control but we cannot use that proposition to deny the reality of sin, however much we may wish to. God in His sovereign omnipotence and omniscience allowed the fall and therefore sin to happen. If we are so concerned about God’s sovereignty, why do we continue to disobey that sovereignty through our rebellious sin?

The globe appears to be undergoing dramatic climatic shifts, the like of which humans have not experienced (or at least recorded) before. I can’t imagine a person denying that. This could be part of the naturally recurring climatic patterns over geologic time or it could be a result of increasing green-house gas emissions caused by humans. It really doesn’t matter for Christians because we have our marching orders and our obligatory duty: subdue the earth, but care for her in doing so.

The second big problem for the Christian is that global warming is the result of burning “fossil” fuels. The existence of fossils seems to lend credence to the notion of evolution along with the refutation of the six days of creation. But here again, we are not separating out the truth from our assumption of the truth. The problem is that Christians deny global warming because they assume that to accept this proposition is to accept evolution and therefore deny creation. But really, this issue is much simpler than that. Oil, natural gas, coal and such like are in the ground. That is fact. In the context of the environment, it simply doesn’t matter how the fossil fuels got into the ground. This is not a theological issue. These fuels can be burned to release energy and so make it available for other uses (such as running our cars and trucks, as well as making the roads we run them along). That too is unavoidable fact. Dramatic climatic change because of CO2 emissions from burning such fossil fuels as oil or coal could very well be fact. (On the science of this I admit a large degree of ignorance.)

A third reason why Christians (in North America anyway) have not become involved in the issue of global warming, except largely to dismiss it, is the fact that the argument for global warming has been delineated as a political issue, specifically, it is a cause which has received greatest support from left-leaning non-Christians. This has acted as a dis-incentive for more conservative Christians, influencing them to either stay uninvolved or to take an opposing position from the perceived ungodly secularists on the left. But this is merely to bow the knee to those very same secularists. The problem is that Christian leaders have dropped the ball. They have let the secularists define the rules of the game and to frame the argument. As a consequence, Christians have been forced to be reactive rather than proactive (on this, but also on other issues such as homosexuality, abortion and the like).

On the other hand, ultra-conservative Christians have—in some ways—actually taken a more honest, biblical position in their refusal to become involved in this debate. They see themselves as sojurners and strangers on this earth, waiting for the fulfillment of their redemption, first in Heaven, then on the re-created new earth after the final judgment. The problem with this position is that it ignores the simple fact that we are all on this earth now and are called to be in the world though not of it. Moreover, the pietistic position is simply irrelevant to the greater, more vocal debate being carried on. These ultra-conservative, biblical Christians should rather be acting as a counter-point to the secularists, preventing them from high-jacking the issue as they obviously have. The mainstream church is completely ineffective in this as in all things. (I believe the future of the true Church is in the hands of these modern day Puritans and radical Biblicists. The mainstream church has simply caved in to the worldly agenda. It is no longer a church in the pure sense of the word.)

Given our God-ordained obligation not only to rule the earth but also to care for her, I’d say that the avoidance of Christians to take a clear position on stewardship of the earth because of political or possible theological implications is nothing more than grossly irresponsible. There are no theological implications other than those which are the result of the Fall of Man. Nor should Christians be averse to getting involved in political issues, especially those which pose a threat to our God-given mandate, in this case the stewardship of the earth, from which we came. There is a problem. We have a responsibility to mitigate the problem. Let’s get on with it! We as Christians must be concerned with mitigating the obvious physical symptoms of this problem. To do otherwise is simply to excuse our own sinfulness.

The Happy Man

2007-08-10T15:32:00.000-07:00

The Happy Man was born in the city of Regeneration in the parish of Repentance unto life. He was educated at the school of Obedience. He has a large estate in the country of Christian Contentment, and many times does the jobs of Self-Denial, wears a garment of Humility, and has another suit to put on when he goes to Court called the Robe of Christ’s Righteousness. He often walks in the valley of Self Abasement, and sometimes climbs the mountains of Heavenly Mindedness. He has breakfast every morning on Spiritual Prayer, and Sups every morning on the same. He has meat to eat that the world knows not of, and his drink is the sincere milk of the Word of God. Thus happy he lives and happy he dies. Happy is he who has Gospel Submission in his will, due order in his afflictions, sound peace in his conscience, real Divinity in his breast, the Redeemer’s yoke on his neck, a vain world under his feet, and a crown of glory over his head. Happy is the life of that man who believes firmly, prays fervently, walks patiently, works abundantly, lives holy, dies daily, watches his heart, guides his senses, redeems his time, loves Christ, and longs for glory. He is necessitated to take the world on his way to heaven, but he walks through it as fast as he can, and all his business by the way is to make himself and others happy. Take him all in all, in two words; he is a Man and a Christian.

REV. LACHLAN MACKENZIE of Lochcarron, Scotland

Values Reversal in the Gospel Message

2007-08-09T15:25:00.000-07:00

In a previous post (August 6, 2007), I reflected on the idea that the true Gospel is in complete opposition to many values people almost universally consider correct and normal (even Christian people). By the standards of the world, they (that is the teachings of the NT and their resultant values) must actually be considered insane. (The word usually used by the politically correct is eccentric.) The apostle Paul gave voice to this attitude by saying, “but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness” (1 Cor 1:23). In the forgoing post I said, “The New Testament…proclaims a complete surrender to the will of God. It proclaims the way, not of plenty, comfort and complacency, but of poverty, sacrifice, and struggle.”

I am constantly amazed that most contemporary Christians don’t seem to get this simple fact. They glibly assume that their faith is about “being nice”, “getting along”, “feeling good” or “love” without for instance examining what true, Christian love really is, “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13, emphasis added). Love, real love, is sacrificial, it is not about being nice, getting along or feeling good.

This train of thought was started by a comparison of the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:3-11) with those from the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20-23). I have always been struck by the tone of this portion of the Lukan sermon. Apart from its shortness, it is stronger than that from Matthew, more to the point. And as I observed in the previous post, it has a clear eschatological profile somewhat obscured in the Matthean sermon. Luke captures this sense of strength by his recording of the word “now”, thereby building a frightening comparison between what happens now and what will happen then (upon the Day of Judgment).

In this sermon from Luke, Christ makes it very plain that the Kingdom of God (“Heaven” in Matthew’s Gospel) is as different from the world of men as it could possibly be. Everything we take for granted as normal and desirable, even as Christians, Christ says is not worth the struggle to get or to keep, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Matt 6:19-21).

Being a true follower of Christ (“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments”, John 14:15) is costly. It requires sacrifice and total commitment in ways that we simply refuse to acknowledge seriously, including a willingness to suffer and die for Christ’s sake if that is what we are called or required to do (Rev 12:11). Jesus says, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it” (Matt 10:34-39 emphasis added). When we read words such as these, our first response is to trivialize them, to remove their sting, to explain them away as mere hyperbole. Do you think Christ was hyperbolizing? Do you think, in light of what He knew would later happen to Him at Calvary and what He told His disciples would also happen to them (John 15:18-21), that he was exaggerating? How can we explain these words and so many others just like them? What are we to do with them?

These ideas of suffering and death for the sake of Christ, do they not border on the insane? Can you imagine such a thing in today’s complacent, easy-going, post-Christian, materialist society as someone being persecuted and actually dying for Christ, perhaps horribly? But it is happening in other parts of the world. Even as I sit at my desk and write these words Christians somewhere are being threatened, beaten up, thrown in jail and killed. But we have grown fat in our wealth, materialism and spiritual complacency just as Moses describes in Deuteronomy and have shielded ourselves against the costly truth of Christ’s words.

Whenever I go through the exercise of reading the words of Christ from all four gospels, I am always struck by the essential other-worldliness of the statements. Modern Christianity has marginalized these passages, partly through the doctrine of the “carnal Christian” verses the disciple. We have fooled ourselves into believing there are two kinds of Christian: the ordinary, garden-variety who does not believe he is required to sacrifice his own worldly comfort and materialism for the sake of Christ, and the “super-Christian” who is able and willing to do so. This comfortable fallacy is not biblical and has nothing to do with being a Christian. Paul testifies of his own hardship as well as the danger of death in 2 Cor 11:23-27. And we also have the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, as further evidence of the power normally resident in the early Church.

In the modern era, the best known martyr is probably Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who resolutely condemned the whole idea of Christians who were not willing to sacrifice for the sake of Christ by describing the complacent attitude as “cheap grace”, that is grace without cost, without sacrifice. To quote Bonhoeffer from his best known work, The Cost of Discipleship: “The price we are having to pay today in the shape of the collapse of the organized church is only the inevitable consequence of our policy of making grace available to all at too low a cost. We gave away the word and sacraments wholesale, we baptized, confirmed, and absolved a whole nation without condition. Our humanitarian sentiment made us give that which was holy to the scornful and unbelieving [Matt 7:6]... But the call to follow Jesus in the narrow way was hardly ever heard.”

I’ve been talking about sacrifice and commitment as well as other-worldliness and the reversal of values and have probably confused you no end, Dear Reader, by not making clear what I believe to be the relationship between them. The point I’ve been trying to make, perhaps poorly, is that biblical Christianity is not, nor could ever be a compromise with the world. It is other-worldly in its very essence. Its values are not those that we naturally hold dear. They are strange and foreign. They are meant to be enjoyed in the fullest sense after we die, not before. It is this element, this idea that there will be no real return on our investment—other than as it were in small measure—until after our death, that is so difficult for us, “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor 2:14).

Please don’t understand though. I’m not suggesting that it is the duty of Christians to turn themselves into cannon-fodder or to become like the fanatical fundamentalists of Islam who gladly die (and kill) for Allah. Nor am I saying that the command given by Christ to the rich young ruler is necessarily binding on every one of us. I’m not saying wealth is bad, nor am I saying death is good. What I am trying to say is, first, we must not mistake the worldly blessings bestowed on us by God as having the same value and worth as the spiritual blessings we most often come to through struggle and sacrifice. Further, that we must not seek our reward here, in this life. Or more to the point, we must not look for the fulfillment of our reward here and now. While being a Christian will give us a foretaste of our reward in heaven, the fulfillment—the consummation of our marriage to our Bridegroom Christ—must wait, even for the Day of Judgment and the resurrection of the dead. Nevertheless, we have this first fruit made available to us through the atoning blood of Christ’s sacrifice and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, if we do not quench or grieve Him. But if our love for Christ is not sacrificial in its essential nature—if our love is not servant love—we will indeed quench the Spirit. Rather, our love, our commitment must be characterized by a willingness to go where we are called and to do what we are commanded, regardless of the personal cost. How many of us can say we demonstrate that kind of love? I can’t, at least not to the degree that I know—by the testimony of Scripture and inner conviction—is required of me. You see, I am the weakest of the weak. I often feel as did Paul, that I am the chief of sinners. Yet is that not how we all should consider ourselves? For it is not by our own power or will that we have the strength to make these sacrifices, but by the grace of God and the indwelling power of His spirit working in us.

I will probably have more to reflect on later, as I consider some of the real-life implications of this train of thought. Until next time.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Blessed Are the Poor?

2007-08-06T10:45:00.000-07:00

I’m sure you will agree we’ve often been captivated by the apparent inconsistencies of Scripture, so that you begin to wonder why a certain passage will say one thing and another parallel passage seem to say something else. I know I have. One such inconsistency has kept capturing my attention over the years. It is in the difference between Matthew 5:3 and Luke 6:20b in the Sermons on the Mount and the Plain respectively. Matthew says: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Luke’s Gospel says: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”

Now, I am not foolish enough to exegete the passages in all their contexts for that would take someone much more learned than I as well as several volumes worth of writing. Rather, I just want to talk about a few things I find interesting and perhaps develop one theme a little further in this and future posts.

Two things pop out at me initially. First, in the verse from Matthew’s Gospel, Christ is speaking to people in general. He is being somewhat hypothetical. On the other hand, in the verse from Luke’s Gospel, Christ is being very specific and is addressing His listeners directly; He says “blessed are you.” One wonders what gave rise to the directness of His speech in Luke. Had someone moments before come to Him to complain of his lack of worldly goods, or about the oppression of the tax collectors? Perhaps there were fewer listeners on the occasion of the Sermon on the Plain than there were for the Sermon on the Mount and so Christ could afford to be personal. Most of the commentators I’ve read believe that Christ was speaking directly to His disciples, not so much to the crowd. This works for me.

But, in any event, He seems to be saying plainly that in poverty, there was a certain kind of blessing to be had and the blessing of poverty was not the same as the blessing of wealth. It is here that I’m in danger of biting off more than I can chew, because there is so much to say and not near enough space to say it. For now, I just want to focus on this idea of poverty as an apparent blessing. One thing that comes through loud and clear—at least to me—is that Christ saw wealth as major hindrance to salvation. But more importantly, he saw poverty as a kind or type of condition for salvation. The Sermon on the Plain has eschatological implications lacking in the Sermon on the Mount. It was a sermon based on the coming advent of the Kingdom. Christ made it plain that heavenly rewards would come later, or rather after. He said in the Sermon, as He says elsewhere many times, that the wealth one pursues and obtains, is the reward one receives. For the wealthy, the wealth enjoyed here and now is the reward, perhaps the only reward, of what they desired most! In the writings of Paul we have a somewhat expanded explanation of the wealth/poverty dichotomy. He said: “[be] not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money”; “For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Tim. 3:3; 6:10, emphasis added). And from Hebrews, “Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have” (Heb. 13:5a, emphasis added).

So we see that it is not so much the wealth but the love one has for it, the hankering after it, which is so destructive. Now granted, many who are wealthy have gotten that way through no love of money on their part, as through an inheritance. And too, there are those who love a challenge, love to work and so amass wealth as a by-product of something other than the love of money. But that begs the question: Why then did Christ warn us of pursuing and being wealthy?
It seems unavoidable from my reading of Scripture, and especially the Gospels, that poverty was a condition that Christ considered in some way actually favourable for one’s spiritual life. Not that one should pursue poverty, for that would be as bad as pursuing wealth, in a perverse sort of way. No, what Christ had in mind, according to my understanding, was that one should be content with whatever it was God’s good pleasure to give. Paul certainly thought so, “Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am” (Php 4:11, see also 2 Cor 12:10; 1 Tim 6:8; Heb 13:5).

I believe Christ extolled the virtue of poverty because it accomplished three related goals: it removed the alluring distractions that the desire for and possession of money inevitably brings about; it mitigated the inexorable sin that accompanies the pursuit as well as the possession of wealth; it rendered one helpless and dependant and therefore more willing to submit to the idea of a divine providential Creator and Sustainer. That is, it removed the self-assurance and smug, self-satisfaction that is such an obstacle to our spiritual lives.

So when Christ said “poor” as reported by Luke, it had, on the one hand, a reference to real material poverty but on the other it referred to all those who had not yet found (or rather, been given) the Kingdom of God or Heaven. This was the real poverty that Christ came to earth to eliminate. In the Gospels, it is clear that Christ expects us to help and support the oppressed, exploited and poor in our midst. I believe this is illustrated by passages showing that He was aware of the need of the poor and was prepared to help that need and expected His disciples to do likewise (Matt. 25:34-36; John 13:29 for instance). However, in His inaugural speech in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:18-19) and again in answering the questions of John the Baptist’s disciples (Luke 7:22) Jesus loosely quotes Isaiah 61:1-2. This quote refers to the people of Israel. This and other references like it, referred to the whole unsaved people of Israel who were so much in need of God’s mercy, even as they once had been in Egypt.

The eschatological bias of the Sermon on the Plain actually reinforces the notion of the Gospel as intended for the spiritually poor, as when Christ says, “Blessed are you who hunger now for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh (Luke 6:21, emphasis added). The implication being that the poor, the hungry and the mourning shall all receive a spiritual reward at some future time. This is reinforced when Christ says of the rich that they are receiving their comfort in full; of the well-fed that they shall be hungry and of the laughing that they shall weep (vs. 24-25). Clearly, Christ had more in mind when He spoke these words than defending poverty or denouncing wealth. He was speaking to all those who could hear His message and the message was, “Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also” (John 14:1-3).

In Luke 6:20-26, we hear Christ giving examples of what to expect from life in the Kingdom. In these verses He repudiates the pursuit of wealth and the idea that wealth should rightfully be considered as a demonstration of God’s special blessing. By Jesus’ time, most people in Israel were as worldly as any other people and had taken the promise of wealth and prosperity, given by God (as in Deuteronomy 15:4) as something to be expected and which was a kind of entitlement and a mark of special favour (similar to the “health, wealth and happiness" gospel that is so prevalent in our own time). Christ was taking all these kinds and types of assumptions and standing them on their head, and not by any new message. The Gospel is not new; it is eternal and finds expression throughout the OT in one form or another. Christ was reversing what had come to be considered the norm and as a kind of entitlement, by actually fulfilling the law, by living out in complete obedience what God had truly wanted for His people all along. This reversal seems so different because we are so caught up in our own worldly pursuits that even though we have eyes to see, we are blind and have ears to hear, but are deaf. We have each of us become complacent. We have each of us come to expect an entitlement. We live as though we might not die at any moment. The New Testament does not extol material prosperity. It does not describe a “name and claim” gospel. Rather, it proclaims a complete surrender to the will of God. It proclaims the way, not of plenty, comfort and complacency but of poverty, sacrifice, and struggle until those who do not fail, those who overcome, will finally receive their reward in heaven, not on earth (Rev 12:11). This radical idea or values reversal is so deeply entrenched in the NT that most people (most of the time) gloss over it. We demonstrate by our love of life and the world that we don't truly understand the absolute nature of what Christ has been telling us. I'd like to explore this idea further in future posts but let me close with one final question. If we, as self-professing Christians, are not ready to die at any moment, nay--are not actually looking forward to our death--then I ask, "Are we really Christ's true disciples after all?"

Soli Deo Gratia.

A Word for Friends, Relatives, Acquaintances and Co-workers

2007-08-01T15:19:00.000-07:00

This is a word intended for those of you who have not yet seen the need to reflect upon any thoughts concerning your present spiritual condition and the impending eternal state that will come upon you in death. It is inconceivable that I should say nothing to you concerning your eternal destiny. Most people nowadays are not overly concerned with life after death. I hope this post will help to change that. So to you, beloved, I address my remarks and I pray they will take root in the soil of your souls and bear much fruit unto salvation.

But first, an illustration. There are many people all over the world who are on death row for horrible crimes. They sit in jail day after day, year after year, each one waiting for the sentence of death to be carried out. At first they are frightened and apprehensive about their execution, dreading that it could happen at any time. But after waiting for the execution that never comes, they begin to relax and to stop fretting and worrying. They begin to act as if there was no sentence of death. They begin to act in ways that are—relatively speaking, given their circumstances and lack of freedom—more or less normal. They go about whatever business the prison allows them, they form relationships with other inmates and even the guards; they dream, they plan and they harbour desires. So they continue, until that moment the almost completely forgotten sentence of death is carried out with swift justice. But by then it is too late for remorse or regret or repentance.

I put it to you beloved, that this illustration, imperfect though it obviously is, is nevertheless a picture of most people in the world today, including many of you. There is another example (among several) which is to be found in the Bible (Luke 12:16-21). It concerns a well-to-do farmer who looked at his abundant crops and decided he was doing so well that he needed bigger barns and silos so that he could store even more harvested grain. So he tore down his old barns and built newer, bigger ones. And on the very night they were completed he thought to himself how wise he had been and that now he could sit back, take it easy and enjoy all that he had built for himself. But as he was rubbing his hands together in gleeful anticipation of all the grain he could store and then sell, God said, “You fool! Tonight I will require your soul—this very night! Now what will you do with your fine new barns and silos and who will own what you have laboured so hard to build?” The story ends with the warning, “So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

Are you storing up worldly treasure for yourself, as did the man in the parable? Remember what Christ said on a different occasion: “Don’t store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves don’t break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:19-21).

The problem is that most people, like the criminal on death row and the farmer in the parable, give no thought to the sentence of death that has been passed on to everyone without exception and under which we live every day. Instead we live as if there is no death sentence against us and we live as if there is nothing to fear. And it would be a blessing for most of us if in fact death were the end. But that is not the case, at least not according to the Bible. Yet most people today, including many of you, Dear Readers, don’t think the Bible is what it claims to be: God’s Word and the Revelation of Himself and His ultimate plan for creation. What a perilous and foolish notion! In our own silly and infantile pride, we consider ourselves to be OK. We think that we can rely on our own belief that we have nothing to worry about; that even if there is a life after death, we’ll be alright. We don’t have anything to fear because we’re not like the horrid criminals in our illustration who have done something so awful as to deserve some sort of eternal punishment! We haven’t killed anybody. We’re not thieves, cheats, liars, pedophiles. We’re essentially good, decent people. We love our children and give to charity (sometimes). We might even call ourselves Christians or think that because we love the old hymns or believe in “God” that we have nothing to repent of and so nothing to fear. God surely couldn’t find fault with us?

No? What about the hypothetical possibility of being wrong. What if—against all “common sense”—it is the Bible that is true and the God of the Bible the ultimate determiner of all that is? Think about it, just for a minute. But please don’t think even for a second that God owes you anything except justice. And before you think that His justice is just what you want, consider the following propositions. If you seriously consider them, you’ll realize it’s not God’s justice you should want but rather His mercy. If God should treat you according to justice, you’re as good as doomed. Remember, God is perfect and eternal; therefore His justice must also be perfect and eternal. Do you really want to be judged by God’s perfect and eternal justice? I sure don’t!

Please consider whether or not you agree with the following propositions. If you don’t agree, it is of vital importance that you determine why not, and then change your whole mind before it is too late. If you agree, you had better do something about it—right now!

If God should forever cast you off, it would be nothing less than agreeable with how you have treated Him. Instead of ignoring God, or worse, finding fault with Him, you should use your intelligence and your ability to think and reason about how you have treated your Creator and Sustainer, the One to Whom you owe your continuing existence. Remember, God is perfect and we are called by Him to be perfect also. God’s standards of excellence are rigourously exact. If conducted honestly, you’ll be forced to admit that you don’t stand up well to such an examination.

Do you love God? Do you think of Him constantly and wish to be with Him always. When a man and woman are in love, they want to be together every moment. Every minute away from the beloved is like a day, every day like an eternity. Is that how you feel about God? Do you think lovingly of Him or do you blame Him as being the author of your misfortune when things go wrong? Do you go to a place of worship with regularity, not out of duty but because you love Him? Do you spend time in the company of His saints? Do you pray? Do you study His word?

In all honesty, you have slighted God in thousands of ways already. Everything you are and all that you have is from God, but are you thankful? Have you sought God’s righteousness and not your own? Then why should God care for you? Why should He welcome you into His heaven? You have refused God’s call time and time again. He has called you to repent and believe many times. You know He has. He is doing so even now! Yet you continue to ignore the call. You are like the foolish virgins who slept through the coming of the bridegroom. And when He comes and shuts the doors of the Wedding Hall, it will be too late to complain (Matthew 25:1-13).

But it is not just “God” you have rejected. You have rejected His one and only Son, sent into the world to die for such as you so that your numerous sins could be forgiven. Christ testifies of Himself that He is the promise of eternal life in Heaven and without Him, there is no hope! How could God and Christ accept you when you care nothing for them and even treat them with contempt everyday?

If God should forever cast you off, it would be nothing less than agreeable with how you have treated others.
Everyone believes in fairness. We think it right when the cheater is cheated or the bully gets his come-uppance. You think like that, don’t you? You want to be treated with that kind of fairness, don’t you? But is that how you always treat others, with fairness? Do you always treat others as you would have them always treat you? Of course not!

In fact, you have treated others with shabby disrespect, and do so all the time. You tell tales about others behind their backs; you spread rumours; you criticize others for the very same faults for which you are guilty. Admit it! You want to be treated fairly by others, even though you don’t really treat them fairly; more importantly, you want God to treat you fairly. Yet you are so arrogant that you can’t see that if He were to treat you fairly and as you deserve, you would indeed be cast off and damned! You harm others by including them in your own deceit, as when you act out your feelings of anger or lustful desire. Fathers have harmed their sons; mothers have hurt their daughters. On and on it goes. Yet you still think that God should treat you with fairness because you’re “not such a bad person.” Really!

If God eternally should cast you off, it would be nothing less than agreeable with how you have treated yourself.
While you cannot save yourself, you have nevertheless refused to do what little you could on your own spiritual behalf. There are many sins you could refrain from, but don’t. There are many steps you could take toward your spiritual reclamation, but don’t. You could place yourself among the company of God’s saints, to listen and learn from them, but don’t. You could read the Bible, but don’t. So then, should God be forced to take better care of you than you take of yourself? Why should God seek your welfare and blessing when you don’t seek this yourself but in fact actually pursue a course in life leading away from God?

Beloved—you know who you are— I say these things for your good. I ask these questions in the hope that they will spur you on, first to honest examination and then to action. Don’t follow the easy way, the one that is broad and wide. This will only lead you to a fate far worse than mere death could ever be. Rather, first, give yourself to Christ and second, follow the more difficult way, the way of righteousness, the narrow road that will lead to a glorious life here and now and to an even greater glory than you can imagine after death. Don’t delay! Death will come like a thief in the night and rob you of your ability to repent and believe. Christ stands at the threshold of your life and is even now knocking at your door. Oh poor sinner, let Him in before it is too late. There is no second chance after death, only the judgment.

(This post is inspired by a sermon of Jonathan Edwards’ entitled The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners.)For another look at this issue, see the short article on my home page entitled Why You need to be Saved

Soli Deo Gloria.

Thoughts on Civil Disobedience

2007-07-30T08:59:00.000-07:00

The question I grapple with in this post is twofold: “Should our obedience to civil power and authority (governments) be absolute and unquestioning?” and “Is there a legitimate exercise of civil disobedience for Christians?” The three NT passages most reflective of apostolic teaching on the subject are Romans 13:1-10, Titus 3:1-8 and 1 Peter 2:13-17.

In essence, my argument runs as follows: I don’t believe that these passages are teaching blind and unthinking obedience to the will of government as is too often understood by Christians; rather they are teaching that it should be the normal, everyday, God-honouring experience of believers to be obedient, which is not the same thing. When the full context of these verses, especially Romans 13:8-10, is considered, we see the sharp outline of obedience against the background of God’s moral law. That is to say, obedience as a right attitude or action must be in keeping with God’s law and can not be divorced from it, without great risk. This means that for a government to act as “a minister of God to you for good” it must not ask the believer to contravene God’s law. A government looses its God-given authority when it—by its laws or demands upon its citizens—causes any to break the law of God and thus commit sin.

The question for the believer then is simple: “Will my submission to this law be wrong or cause harm?” In other words, “Will I be breaking God’s law if I submit to this human law?” And it would seem from Romans 13:8-10 (as well as Titus 3:8 and 1 Peter 2:15) that if the answer for the believer is “Yes, this would cause harm and would be wrong” (in light of God’s law) then he must not submit, or at least limit his submission as much as his conscience and his circumstances will allow.

The only qualifying factor is that Paul, in Romans, speaks of love for one’s neighbour and indeed reminds his readers of the great commandment of our Lord, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev.19:18; Mark 12:31) which is often referred to as one of the two great summary statements of God’s Law. And he has just finished saying that if you love your neighbour you will do him no wrong or harm. It would seem then that only one question remains, “Who is my neighbour?” Another man asked that of the Lord a long time ago and we remember the Lord gave him his answer in the form of a parable (Luke 10:25-37).

In the parable, a man is robbed, beaten and left by the side of the road for dead. He is passed by and ignored by two travelers, both representatives of the proper authorities. However, a contemptible stranger—a Samaritan—is also on the road that day and discovers the beaten man. His immediate response is to help him and get him to a place of safety so he could convalesce in peace, even providing the wherewithal for him to do so. This parable is used by Christ to help us understand what His message is about and what expectations He has of His followers. In telling His story, the Lord is saying that the definition of who our neighbour is must be expanded and thought of in a completely new way. Our neighbour, according to Christ, is the one who suffers when we can rescue, the one who struggles when we can lift up, the one who cries when we can comfort.

Peter says we should submit to “…every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (1 Peter 2:13) whether such ordinances are from the highest authority in the land or from designated governors. We should do this, says Peter, voluntarily as people free to choose and act. This sense of voluntary subjection is also found in Roman 13:1 where the word translated as “be subject” has connotations of a subjection that is freely given and not compelled. Such subjection should be consistent with the moral and saintly lives we now have as God's adopted sons and daughters. Peter's qualification—that we should act this way for the sake of Jesus—introduces the notion that there may legitimately be times when obedience to human authorities places us in opposition to the will of God. Remember that Christ came to the cross to fulfill all righteousness; to fulfill the law as a substitutionary sacrifice. In light of this, the Christian must use as his only criteria the law of God and the life and death of Christ that was the law’s fulfillment. If he can see no conflict between this and the demands being made by his government, then he is free to obey the government. But if the demands of the government would necessitate the Christian to wrong or harm his neighbour, he is not free to obey but must disobey for the sake of Christ.

An example we take from scripture is Acts 4:5-21. Because Peter and John had just healed a man in the name of Christ, and were preaching the gospel against the wishes of the authorities, they were thrown into jail and later brought before the Sanhedrin or ruling council (the proper and legitimate governing authority of the Jews). After some interrogation, the Council decided to order them to desist from spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. Peter and John both responded by saying in effect that the Sanhedrin could do as it pleased (which could have resulted in the death of the two apostles) but that both of them would continue to testify about Jesus. Thereupon, due mainly to public pressure, they were released. This scene is important as it shows the two seemingly breaking their own apostolic admonition to obey the proper authorities. In this case the Sanhedrin had, by the time of the apostles, become corrupt through the gradual turning away from the law as given by God's Holy Spirit and the ossification of the institution into a largely man-made structure ruled by tradition. Jesus recognized the same thing when he confronted the rulers and called them “white-washed sepulchers.” Incidentally, this is an ironic example of the admonition by Paul in verse seven of the passage from Romans, “Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” In calling the rulers white-washed sepulchers the Lord was indeed rendering them their due, but it was their right and proper due from His perspective, not theirs.

And too, we have testimony from such Reformation luminaries as the Scottish Presbyterian and Westminster divine Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661) who, in his work Lex Rex, argued that when the government gave up its rightful authority as delegated from God it became an instrument of oppression and should be resisted. One of the points of Lex Rex is that the Law (Lex) is king (Rex) and not the reverse, so rulers are not to be a law unto themselves. Nor should they use the law for unlawful ends. Other godly men of the Reformation have also either resorted to civil disobedience or have defended it in principle, including Martin Luther (1483-1546), William Tyndale (c.1490-1536), John Knox (1505-1572) and John Bunyan (1628-1688). Two modern defenders of the Christian’s right to civil disobedience were Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) and Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984). I cite these examples simply to point out the fact that Christians have a history of resorting to civil disobedience in the face of an authority that forces them to do wrong and to break God’s commandments. (Nowadays many of us tend to forget that the Reformation was itself the greatest of all Christian movements of civil disobedience.)

I should clarify, at this point, that this argument applies to believing Christians only, those whose consciences are, like Luther’s, “taken captive by the word of God.” I believe that they have a justifiable excuse for civil disobedience in some circumstances, simply because they are, paradoxically, trying to be obedient to law. But the law which they attempt to obey is a higher law. It is in fact God’s law, which Christians are not to willingly disobey.

This issue of civil disobedience is far from clear and whatever believing people think, I believe they should be patient with others who are going through much distress over the issue. Yet one thing is clear: each believer must respond according to the dictates of a conscience ruled not by the opinions of others, but by God, who is Lord of the conscience (WCF 20:2). Let us therefore be ruled by God’s requirements first, then by consciences ready to be forgiving and charitable to brothers and sisters who may disagree but are ready to put everything on the line for their convictions.

(It is my own conviction that the Christian religion, to the degree it maintains integrity with the commands and teachings of Christ, will always run afoul of human (as well as spiritual) powers, authorities and dominions. It cannot be otherwise. The teachings—not to mention the actions—of Christ are prominently and unashamedly counter-cultural and anti-worldly. There is simply no way for true biblical Christianity to co-exist on a peaceful footing with any other rival authority. This means that true biblical Christianity will always be in a state of persecution to one degree or another. And that degree is determined, not by the standards of the world, but by its own internal standards. As Christians more strictly maintain those standards, the more they will be persecuted.)

Soli Deo Gloria.

On Perusing Some Old Journals

2007-07-23T18:42:00.000-07:00

We are in the middle of some renovations at our house. What started off as a fairly straightforward replacement of some old carpeting in a couple of bedrooms has somehow blossomed into a full-on revitalization project for the entire upper floor of our home. As part of the renovations, we had to dismantle and move several pieces of furniture, one of which was an old oak desk which I had used for a short while in one of the bedrooms before my son came back home to “start over.” (We decided to wait until our son had got himself re-established before doing any work upstairs, as he was occupying one of the rooms.) It was a big heavy old desk with lots of drawers and the whole thing had to be dismantled and moved, section by section, downstairs into our family room in order to allow the upstairs renovations to proceed.

One evening last week, while sitting and reading next to the old desk, I took a notion to go through some of the drawers to throw out old files and paperwork I deemed no longer important. In the course of doing so, I happened upon several old journals of mine (one going back to the early seventies). Needless to say, upon their discovery, I just had to stop and take a sachet down memory lane, if only for a few minutes. What I discovered was not quite a shock but it did leave me in wonder at the extent of God’s love and mercy for wayward sinners, who find it so easy to run away from the one thing they most desperately need.

While many entries in my journals were harmless enough and explored ideas for articles and plays I wanted to write, or were lists of one sort or another, too many entries were concerned with “mystical” experiences, philosophical ramblings, metaphysical ruminations, recounting of lucid dreams of a distinctly other-worldly nature and that sort of thing. Being a member of the baby-boomer generation, I was also one of the original “new-age” devotees, whose spiritual life was characterized by syncretism, superstition, rampant subjectivity and a magical approach to religious matters. Journal entries dealing with subjects of Celtic Mysticism, Kaballah, Buddhism, Sufism, Numerology, Astrology, Alchemy, Neo-Platonism, Rosicrucianism and the like abound. Most of this may seem harmless enough now, but in more than one entry, I recounted incidents and dreams in which strange, magical events were taking place and in which I was interacting with entities that were definitely non-human. In one entry, dated September 4, 1989, I describe a “shaman walk” in which I came into contact and conversed with the druidic, Celtic God Cernunnos. Needless to say, as I read this entry now, I am mortified. I believe that it is possible that I was in the presence of a demonic entity. In those days I was completely lost in a world totally at odds with the God of the Bible. I believe that there was a connection between my confused inner life and my outer life which would soon fall apart because of my growing alcoholism and my lack of true spiritual sustenance. These entries record encounters and experiences that were far from harmless. They are the record of one who came perilously close to what is often euphemistically called “insanity” by those who don’t know any better; by those who themselves are caught up in the “therapeutic” paradigm of human motivation, belief and behaviour. They are the record of one who was indeed playing with fire, but who was so desperately lost, that even this bizarre counterfeit was better than the emptiness and separation of being without Christ. Seeded randomly throughout the journals are several references to Christ and the bible but almost all are from this “new age” perspective, which is nothing other than the religious garb that Humanism uses to placate the more spiritually sensitive of its disciples.

I say all this as a kind of context because, as I read entry after entry (most of which, as I say—in spite of the impression I might just have given you—were in fact quite harmless, but grossly mistaken nevertheless) I was struck by how far away I seemed to be from Christ. Paradoxically, while I seemed to be one who was truly seeking God, (I believe I was, but was nevertheless caught in the clutches of superstitious error) I was simultaneously running away from God, trying not to discover Him. What might seem to be the writing of a sincere seeker after truth and godliness was in fact nothing other than the record of one who was trying to escape the scrutiny of God; just as did Adam and Eve in the garden and as did Jonah when he refused to preach the Gospel to the people of Nineveh and ran as fast and as hard as he could away from God.

Can this be true? Does not the Bible say that no one really seeks God, that no one is really righteous, “as it is written, ‘THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE’” (Romans 3:10)? Given this, could I really be seeking, yet simultaneously not seeking God? I believe in my case that I was, because I believe that when I was just a young boy, Christ came to me during a Christmas play at church, and even then put His mark upon me; perhaps not the mark of complete salvation, but rather the mark of promise. I was like the apostle Peter whose faith, in spite of all the bravado, needed help from the Master. But I soon turned to backsliding and before I entered my teen years, left the church. I was even then in rebellion, thinking to close the door on the One who could save me from my sin. I was probably one of those described by Paul: “For even though they knew God, they did not honour Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures…. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.” (Romans 1:21-23, 2:2). And indeed the judgment of God did fall upon me heavily. Anyone who knew me then could attest to the lost condition, the misery and the sense of hopelessness that characterized my life. I was one of those Paul describes, “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Romans 2:5). And indeed, I was storing up wrath through rebellion.

And this is what causes me to wonder greatly at the loving-kindness of God. For when I was still a sinner, he came to me again; not because of any merit in me whatsoever, but only because it was His sovereign good pleasure to do so. I am now no longer able to “think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance” (Romans 2:4) for now I know that kindness and have been made a recipient of it. This infinite patience of God for sinners is a truth that is personally overwhelming.

It is something for someone to talk about such things when they have no personal experience and therefore no real conviction of it; it is another thing altogether to be so far removed from God’s love and obedience to Him and to know, beyond doubt, that you are lost as a result. For make no mistake, the lost know their condition. Their ignorance is only superficial as Paul reminds us, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

Yet we have a faithful and true God, who does not change and with whom “there is no variation or shifting shadow” (James 1:17). And it is because of His faithfulness and His trustworthiness that we have a hope of redemption and the salvation of even the most depraved of souls.

Later the same evening that I read through the old journals, as part of my ongoing practice I turned to the chapter in James Montgomery Boice’s commentary on Romans wherein he recounts an anecdote told by Ray Stedman, From Guilt to Glory, vol. 1, Hope for the Helpless (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1978), p. 302: “Years ago Harry A. Ironside, that great bible teacher, told a story about an older Christian who was asked to give his testimony. He told how God had sought him out and found him, how God loved him, called him, saved him, delivered him, cleansed him, and healed him—a great witness to the grace, power and glory of God. But after the meeting a rather legalistic brother took him aside and criticized his testimony, as certain of us like to do. He said, ‘I appreciated all you said about what God did for you. But you didn’t mention anything about your part in it. Salvation is really part us and part God. You should have mentioned something about your part.’ ‘Oh, yes,’ the older Christian said. ‘I apologize for that. I’m sorry. I really should have said something about my part. My part was running away, and his part was running after me until he caught me.’”

Oh, what a glorious God we have in the triune God of the Bible. Let us never cease from praising Him and offering up to Him the glory that is His due for His great loving-kindness to us, “And Isaiah is very bold and says, ‘I WAS FOUND BY THOSE WHO DID NOT SEEK ME, I BECAME MANIFEST TO THOSE WHO DID NOT ASK FOR ME.’” (Romans 10:20).

Soli Deo Gloria.

On Pilate, and the Persecution of God’s Remnant

2007-07-22T20:41:00.000-07:00

On a doleful morning long ago, darkness was confronted by light, and the darkness understood it not, nor overcame it. Pontius Pilate was confronted by Jesus Christ. The man Pilate was in a position of apparent judgment: the world in judgment of the divine; the Devil in judgment of the Son of God. Here was a natural man confronted by the living Truth and who willfully refused to discern it. Instead, he resorted to the wisdom of the world and began to question Jesus in order to discover who He was. Yet Christ confounded Pilate’s worldly questioning with His divine silence. And when Pilate convinced himself that there was no real harm in Jesus, he thought of how he might let him go. This is how the world begins to treat the Church. By exposing her to the neutralizing influence of its own worldly wisdom, it believes it has made the Church safe and to be no different than any other belief system, just as Pilate came to think that Jesus was no different than any other small-time trouble-maker or Rabbi. At first Pilate was disposed to favour Christ by choosing to believe Him to be harmless and inoffensive; in the same fashion the world has been disposed to be tolerant and favourable to the Church. And, in fact, in its cloying and deceitful tolerance and favour, the world has actually neutralized the Church (at least in the developed world) and has made her harmless. She is no longer a threat to the world. In many cases, she has now been either neutralized to the point of being a laughing stock, or else she goes a-whoring after the very same corrupt values and standards of the world that are so soundly condemned by Scripture.

Yet for many people merely neutralizing the Church is insufficient. They are threatened by the light of the Gospel even when it burns but dimly and, like the mob in Jerusalem that day, would have it extinguished altogether; the indifferently tolerant who are in the world, like Pilate facing Jesus, will inevitably give sway to the growing fear-mongering of the intolerant mob. And just as Pilate tried to do that awful morning long ago, the tolerant ones will endeavor to quiet and placate the increasing hostility from the ones who feel most threatened. Just so, Pilate had the Christ scourged, in the mistaken hope that such an act would coddle the hostility of the Christ-haters. Yet when the mob perceives this tolerance as being sympathetic with the Church, the tolerant ones, in the name of tolerance, will quickly disavow themselves of any relationship and the faithful Church of the Remnant will be given over to authorities who will persecute it with increasing fury, just as Pilate gave Christ over to the soldiers after washing his hands. And when even that fails and the biblically faithful Church emerges from her persecution bent but undiminished in faith, the mob will resort to more permanent measures, just as did Pilate when he realized that all his attempts at neutralizing Christ and placating the mob had failed.

So we see in Pilate’s encounter with Christ a pattern for the world’s encounter with the faithful. And as Pilate did to Christ, so the world will do to the Church. As you have seen if you have followed the links above, much of the Church today has been hoodwinked by the devil (who was the real adversary confronting Christ) and has fallen victim to his soft wooing, going whoring after the things of the world. But the faithful Church will increasingly be persecuted until the end. If we are not hated, we are not disciples!

But in all of this, let us not forget that all these things took place by God’s “determinate counsel” as it is in the KJV, or by the “predetermined plan and foreknowledge” of God as it is in the NASB (Acts 2:23), as part of the great plan of salvation first announced in Genesis 3:15. God used Pilate, an ungodly man, to be the instrument (one among many) by which the original proto-euangelion of Genesis 3 would be accomplished. Does not this stagger the imagination and more importantly beggar one’s pride?

So then, let us take some comfort. Persecution will come; it is promised and prophesied. We will suffer, but in our suffering we share in the very life of Christ. This is the day that the LORD has made, let us be glad and rejoice in it.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Learning Greek

2007-07-16T11:02:00.000-07:00

I’m teaching myself biblical Greek.

Oh, I can hear the reaction: “What—is he mad?”

Yes, I probably am mad, at least semi-mad anyway. What man approaching sixty would even consider doing something like this? I mean, most men my age take up golf or spend quality-time bouncing grandchildren on their knee (one at a time, presumably). I’ve never been like that. Besides, my son has yet to engender any offspring. When I was less than half the age I am now, I began to translate the Old Testament from Hebrew into English. Did I know Hebrew? No. Was I trained as a translator? No. Did I have any qualifications whatsoever to undertake such a task? No. Did I finish my undertaking? Regrettably, no.

I’ve been contemplating this for some time now but have always been intimidated by the enormity of the undertaking. I’ve been using various Greek aids, lexicons and the like for a long time but that can only take your understanding so far and it is easy to get things wrong or out of context that way. Some people would consider me to be foolish or worse, a dilettante. Well, perhaps I am a little foolish; but for what, exactly? Am I foolish because I love God’s Word? Am I foolish because I want to understand it better? Am I foolish because I want to wring every last drop of meaning out of it? I hope the answer to all these questions is “No.”

What about the charge of being a dilettante? This could be truer for me since I have not received any formal training as a minister of the Word. I don’t want to be a dilettante. Who would? Or who would ever admit to such a charge, even if true. Not I. Yet it may very well be true of me. I hope and pray that I not be like the men Paul warned Timothy about—“vain janglers” as the KJV describes them— those who have forgotten or never understood that, “the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” Oh, let me not be one of the vain janglers, those “who have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions” (1 Tim. 1:5-7).

That unpleasant thought aside, why am I now undertaking this self-imposed task? Well, I’m not sure. I have struggled with a sense of calling for a very long time—long before I knew I was a Christian even. It was partly a sense of needing to know more and to experience more of the mystery of God I suppose. Christ has been in my life since I was about six years old, though I only came to realize this through the direct experience of His presence and His displeasure with my abundantly sinful life less than a decade ago. But I have always had an inner hunger or thirst that nothing could ever slake—until I experienced God’s gracious love and mercy in the person of Jesus Christ. And since coming to know Him, I’ve also come to want to know Him more deeply and completely. This I do imperfectly and always with less sincerity than I would like through prayer, worship and bible study. But how can a merely superficial understanding, gleaned from the experience of others, be enough? Perhaps it is enough, yet I still feel the need to go deeper.

Will I get very far? He knows; I don’t. I’ll try to give it my best shot though. I’ll keep you posted as to my progress. Perhaps those of my readers who are already well along this path—ministers, seminary students and the certifiably odd—could mentor me, or at least offer me some help from time to time. I’d appreciate it.

Bill Mounce, whose book Greek for the Rest of Us, is one of the resources I’ve begun to use, reminds his readers that, “it’s not a little Greek that proves dangerous. It’s a little bit of pride that proves dangerous.”

Lord, keep me from the sin of pride and the equally horrendous sin of self-righteousness that comes with just a little bit of knowledge. And I pray, Dear Lord, whatever I learn, turn it to your own glory alone.

Amen.

Sharing Our Burdens

2007-07-10T08:09:00.000-07:00

I am a duly ordained Stephen Minister. Stephen Ministry is about caring for those who are hurting and in need of emotional and spiritual help when life takes a wrong and perhaps unexpected turn. The ministry is named after Stephen, the first known Christian martyr and one of the first Deacons in the Church.

I was ordained to this ministry in a previous church than the one I now attend. The congregation was (and I guess still is) quite large, consisting of about six hundred members. Now, based on pure statistics alone, in a congregation of that size one would expect to find more than a few hurting and needy people at any given time: people going through marriage difficulties, people who have lost a job, or worse, a vocation; people who have lost a loved one or are facing death themselves.

The ministry was in full swing for the entire time I attended the church and yet not a single Stephen Minister was in fact ministering to the needs of anyone. This was not the fault of the ministry, or its leader, my good friend and brother Bob Barclay. In spite of encouragement from the pulpit, no one ever came forward to say, “Brother (or sister), I need to lean on you for a little while, just till I catch my breath.” We attended meetings, upgraded our training, prayed for one another and the congregation but still we seemed like an answer in search of a question. Was this a healthy congregation? Were its members strong and balanced all the time; immune from heartache, depression, grief or sadness? Of course not, no congregation is like that. So why didn’t people come to us and say, “Jamie or Bob or Margaret, I need some help.”

It seems to me that the whole notion we might not be emotionally, mentally or spiritually strong is loathsome to us. We’re ashamed to admit our need because this makes us seem weak. In our own eyes it diminishes our worth as Christians in comparison to those around us. Never mind that we’re called to bear one another’s burdens—and therefore, by implication, to share them with others (Gal. 6:2); never mind that we all have equal worth in the eyes of Him who made us as well as saved us; never mind that in the body of Christ, all the members have value and worth, even the weakest or most needy (1 Cor. 12:22, 23); never mind that, “if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart” (Ecc. 4:12). We somehow have the idea that because we as individuals have been given the Spirit of Comfort, Counsellor, and Paraclete in Christ’s very own Holy Spirit, somehow that same Spirit would not work just as well—or better—through the Body of Christ, which is His Church manifested in any local congregation or fellowship of other Christians. Perhaps we can attribute this attitude to the extreme individualism that is so characteristic of the age and which is so unchristian.

Speaking of His own impending crucifixion, Christ said, “These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). The obvious key words in this verse are peace, tribulation, courage and overcome. But there is a key phrase here that most people overlook simply because of its starkness and simplicity. It is the phrase, “in Me.” This is what gives meaning to the rest of the verse. It is only in Christ that we can get the courage to face the tribulations that are inherent in the world and so find the lasting peace we all crave. No two words, taken together, have nearly the richness, depth and importance of meaning than do these two words, in Christ. They are the very heart and soul of the Gospel and the Bible itself. If we do not have a sense of what this phrase in Christ (or in Me, when Christ refers to Himself) means, we will never understand what it is to be a Christian and will never understand God’s revelation of Himself in the Scriptures.

This is not the place to unpack the freight of meaning behind these two little words. Suffice to say that when we are in Christ, we have His very own indwelling Spirit in us as well, so that “He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man” (Eph. 3:16). But too often forgotten or overlooked, the Spirit of Christ always works in and amongst His chosen people, which is the true Church; not the church as an institution but the Church as the organic, dynamic, vibrant, and vital body of Christ! It is in Christ’s Body, the Church, that the Holy Spirit carries on His greatest work as Paraclete—Helper. It is in the Body of Christ, the assembly of all true, born-again believers, that the Spirit does His greatest work of healing. It is through one another, as members of the Body of which Christ is the Head, that we gain access to the comforting, healing power of Christ’s Spirit. But I believe many Christians have never actually worked out the ramifications, implications and consequences of being members of Christ’s Body.

In Romans 12:5 Paul says, “so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” I wonder if you are hearing what he is saying? Even though we are many in the sense of being individually unique, with our own personalities, talents and gifts, in another sense we are in fact one. And not one in the manner that a chunk of peanut brittle is one or that two things joined together by glue is one. No, we are organically one and indivisible in the same way a physical body is one. And when a physical body loses one of its members—an eye, a hand, a foot, an ear—it is diminished as a whole. This reality is reflected in the tone of the Meditation # 17 of John Donne: “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind....”

In Romans 12:5 Paul says that we are members one of another. We belong to each other as members of Christ’s body in the same way a wife belongs to her husband and a husband to his wife. We don’t merely have the privilege of caring for one another’s needs; we have a God-given duty and responsibility to care and to be cared for! A Christian who does not allow himself to be cared for by a brother or sister is not just doing harm to that individual; he is doing harm to the body of Christ and therefore to Christ himself.

It is instructive to listen to Paul once again, at length:

For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body…. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” …But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it (1 Cor. 12:12-16, 24b-26).

A person who does not grasp the fact that the members of his or her congregation are not like members of his or her curling club, tennis club, golf club, book club or whatever, simply does not understand the collective and essentially covenantal nature of salvation. Although we are saved as individuals, we are not saved merely or only as individuals, but rather as members of a body. The terms “brother” or “sister”, as they are used in Christianity, are not mere euphemisms; they are accurate descriptions of the fact of the new, regenerated life we share in Christ.

For this reason it behooves us to be willing and courageous enough to trust—as an act of the will—our brother and sister with whatever problems we might be faced with. If nothing else, we can get encouragement and prayer for our blessing, knowing that when these things come from a brother or sister who has the indwelling Spirit, they come from Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria.

A Word for Leaders in the Church

2007-07-03T10:02:00.000-07:00

“nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:3).

I was thinking lately of leadership within the Church; this after reading the section on the Church in Robert L. Reymond’s “Systematic Theology.” It is something with which I have a kind of (how shall I say it) abiding interest; I’m not sure why really. Nevertheless, Reymond’s book started a train of thought that led me to 1 Peter 5:3, which in turn has led me to this post.

In the context of 1 Peter 5:3, the “examples” being referred to were the Elders within the apostolic church. The word translated as “examples” that the Spirit used by way of Peter is tupos from which we derive our own words type, typical, typology and the like. In the Greek it has the basic meaning of a mark left from a stroke or a blow; the resulting impression, and so forth. The picture that pops into my mind is that of coins being stamped with an image, over and over again, one stamp for each coin. So as the original goes, so goes the stamped replica; the coins being minted are “typical” of the original.

In most English translations, the word used for tupos is “example(s)” and I think it is a pretty good word. It is good because it brings out a slightly different meaning of the Greek; the idea of “imitation.” To imitate something is to be like something; it is to become like some type or example given. (You could say by way of illustration that the minted coins were imitations—not forgeries—of their original). And in this verse from Peter’s first letter, the idea is that Elders are examples that other Christians are to follow, to imitate or to become like and not merely to obey.

I think this is very important, and it is an idea that I believe is somewhat diminished in the Church today. In those congregations that still maintain the office of Elder, the Elder is usually, and unconsciously I think, seen by the congregation as an “overseer” (Greek episkopos) which word commonly shares more similarity with our word “manager” (Greek oikonomos—from which comes the English “economy”). And undeniably, one aspect of the office of Elder is that of ruler, overseer, or manager. But as Peter clearly points out, rulership, oversight or management is only a part of this biblical office. In his Christian walk he is also an example for others to follow. And this is not only where Elders in the Church often fail—yes, Elders do sometimes fail—it is where we fail as well. We don’t strive to be like our Elders; if anything we merely try to be obedient to them in the same way workers are obedient to their managers, thinking this enough.

As Christians we are all to become more and more like Christ through the working out of our sanctification (Phil. 2:12-13). But the office of Elder was given, in part, so that we could see in the one who had the charge over us, a type that we could emulate or be like, the underlying assumption being that those who were chosen as Elders, were so gifted by the Holy Spirit as to be worthy of emulation and imitation. They are to be our “examples” in such a way as to make our emulation or imitation of Christ more comprehensible, “Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us” (Phil. 3:17). “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). In other words, the Elder is one who closely emulates the Master and so acts as an example of our own sanctification.

Over and over, Christ emphasizes the priestly or shepherding qualities of those who were to care for His Church. In this role these men were known as Pastor(s) (Greek Poimen) and it is this aspect of the office of Elder that I believe is undervalued in the Church today. The shepherd was the one who cared for the flock under his watch. The shepherd was less a manager of the flock than he was its leader, guardian and protector (John 10:10-15).

This train of thought—if correct (and I’ll be the first to admit it may not be)—leads to the conclusion that to be an Elder is to be like Christ but also to be seen as being like Christ. The Elder is an example. But more than this, the Elder is an example whether he likes it or not and he will be either a good example, worthy to be emulated and imitated as a type, or he will be a poor example, not worthy to be emulated. But it would seem clear from Christ’s references that He intended the leaders of His Church to be good examples rather than bad. So what kind of an example did Christ have in mind? How were the leaders of His Church to be exemplary?

Well for one—and perhaps most importantly, at least for me,—they were to be servants of the flock. Even in the verse we are considering, Peter makes it clear that Elders were not to see their duties first as overseers or managers, especially of the type that “lorded it over others” by being a kind of boss. Instead, they were to see themselves as examples—they were to lead by showing others the way of Christ—and this through servanthood, even as Christ came not to be served but to serve. Consider this: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-28, italics added). And from John’s gospel we have a wonderful picture of what Christ actually meant by the idea of what I term servant-love: “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself. Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded….So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, ‘Do you know what I have done to you? You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, [have] washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them’” (John 13:3-5, 12-17, italics added).

The servanthood we see demonstrated by Christ and which He exhorted His apostles (and hence all the leadership within the greater Church) to follow is one of lowliness and humility (Luke 14:7-14). It is one where the welfare of others and the progress of the gospel are demonstrated through gentleness, patience, compassion, truth and most of all, love. It is not a holier-than-thou walk; it is a walk based on recognition of one’s abject spiritual poverty and of loving-kindness to those of your charge. The light that Elders should let shine must not be a Pharisaical light but a Christ-like light; a light that demonstrates love for both the commandments of the Saviour and not just one or the other.

So after all is said and done, what application is there to be found here? May I offer the following? Elders (and Pastors and all those with a ministry in the Church) examine yourselves to see if you be true bond servants of the Lord, ready to do His bidding in and out of season, ready to protect and defend the gospel, ready to demonstrate—through action—your servant-love for others. In terms of being an example for others in your care, if your underlying attitude is not the equivalent of washing the feet of another, then I believe you may need to re-examine what you are doing and why you are doing it, even if this leads you to relinquish your office altogether. Remember this: as the original goes, so goes the stamped replica, therefore as the Elder goes, so goes the congregation. In this regard, let us remember the words of the Lord’s brother and the leader of the Jerusalem church before his martyrdom: “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). This is a fearful thought and a sobering warning for us all.

Soli Deo Gloria.

The Canada I Love.

2007-06-30T11:15:00.000-07:00

"He shall have dominion from sea to sea…."

The Canada I love is a land where politicians have integrity. It is a land where those who govern value the trust they hold. It is a land where their "Yes" means "Yes" and their "No" means "No".

The Canada I love is a country that embraces diversity but not at the cost of unity so hard in the winning. It is a country where morality is not an anachronism and upright men and women are heard in the land. They are neither afraid nor ashamed.

The Canada I love is a land where the agendas of the strident and corrupt cannot take hostage the virtue and uprightness of time-honoured traditions. It is a land where the apathetic and amoral are not entertained by the shameless and the perverse.

The Canada I love is a country where cherished values are worth dying to defend. It is a land that believes marriage is a God sanctioned bond between a man and woman rather than a social contract between persons, however sincere.

The Canada I love is a country of peacekeepers. It is a country on guard for the danger without and the danger within. It is a country of big hearts and strong arms, quick to help and quick to defend and always ready to reach beyond her own borders to the weak, the timid, the oppressed, the hungry.

The Canada I love is a country where safety is normal and security a right. It is a country of firm, swift justice tempered by tender mercy, a place where women and children are not hostages in their own homes. It is a place where the rights of the victimized are more important than those of the guilty. It is a place where the elderly are respected and all, regardless of belief or culture, are afforded dignity and peace.

The Canada I love cares for the sick. She clothes the naked and feeds the hungry. In her streets, there are no homeless.

The Canada I love knows the cost of sacrifice and the price of freedom. The Canada I love is a land where liberalism does not mean relativism, where democracy does not mean the rule of the hypocritical for the good of the greedy, where reward does not mean favoritism, where virtue does not mean wickedness and where rights are not determined by the powerful few who are unaccountable to the people it is their God-ordained duty to serve.

The Canada I love is a land of mighty oceans and majestic landscapes but more than this, it is a land of people proud and strong, good and kind. It is a land whose citizens are hard working, honest and diligent, a place of manifold opportunities where fear does not rule, where disgrace is unknown and where comfort can be found around the next turn of the road.

This is the Canada I love. And if you say that this is a country of my dreams, then I say to you, who sit in the seat of scoffers, that I will dream of this country glorious and free. I will ply the trade of virtue before I ever walk in the way of self-interest, of those who stumble in the dark, without the least notion of how great is this country, this Canada that I love.

May God bless this country and keep her safe.

Can a Bad Person Translate the Good Book?

2007-06-28T09:15:00.000-07:00

In the April to June 2007 issue of the “Quarterly Record”, the official magazine of the Trinitarian Bible Society, there is an ad hominem attack on the textual critic Dr. Kurt Aland. Aland was largely responsible for compiling and editing the Nestle-Aland Greek 26th edition and the UBS 1966 and 1983 Greek texts of the New Testament and which differ from the traditional “Received Text.” The UBS and the Nestle-Aland form the basis of most modern translations of the New Testament while the Received Text or Textus Receptus forms the basis of the Authorized or King James Version (along with the New King James Version) of the New Testament.

The stated purpose of the author of the article is to show “…what Kurt Aland’s theological views are concerning Biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility.” He uses the published opinions of Aland to “prove” that Aland’s work is unreliable at best and heretical at worst. He does this entirely through the use of the ad hominem fallacy by confusing the issue of biblical inerrancy and so on with irrelevant premises about Dr. Aland and his beliefs. I say irrelevant because I believe it is not important to God what are the personal beliefs or practices of men and women he chooses to carry out His work or His will. Modern Christians have the false idea that because God is good, He would only use good people to further His designs and good purposes. Many Christians, including the author of the article in the “Quarterly Record”, forget that God has often used “questionable” and even down-right bad people to carry out His will; people like Joseph’s brothers, the prophet Jonah, Balaam, the whole Assyrian army, the Pharaoh of the Exodus, Cyrus the Persian, Saul of Tarsus (after first converting him), Pontius Pilate, all the Jewish mob and most of the Sanhedrin who clamoured for Christ to be crucified. In one way or another God used these people as the means for carrying out His will and for bringing Himself glory.

If that is the case, as it demonstrably is, then why are so many Christians unable to admit that it is perfectly possible for God to use people like Kurt Aland to further His own glory? The author says “When we would evaluate the work of a textual critic—one who would compile a text of the original languages for the Bible—we must look for a man who believes the things we have just discussed [issues of inerrancy and infallibility]. He must believe that the Bible is the Word of God, because ‘every word of God is pure.’ He must believe that God has promised to preserve that Word pure, in every age. He must also believe that God will do this in the line of the true Church.” But why must a textual critic believe any of this? Does the author of the article in the Record believe that God is dependant on feeble, fallen sinners to protect His Word? Does he not think enough of God and His omnipotent power to believe that what God has said, He brings to pass? “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11 KJV).

Some will argue that the issue is the truth or falseness of a translation: the KJV being true and every other one being false. Yet, when the entire counsel of God's Word is taken into consideration, I do not think any significant Christian doctrine is being put in jeopardy by any of the best and most responsible modern translations such as the NASB, the NKJV or even the NIV (although I know many who will vehemently disagree with this opinion). The argument is nothing more than a red herring. It is brought out disguised as a legitimate argument by those who, more for cultural reasons than any other, wish to impose their own views on others by dressing up in pious garb.

The charge of heresy or even apostasy has often been leveled at modern textual critics and translators by men who are staunch defenders not only of the KJV but of the character of the men who translated the Received Text into the KJV. But for all their apparent godliness, many of these translators were far from perfect as individuals. In fact several of them could not truthfully be described as anything less than scoundrels and hypocrites. That did not deter God however, in His purpose of preserving His Word by having these men translate the Received Text into the most sublime translation of any, before or since. You see, it was up to God to preserve His Word, not us. He could never rely on mere fallen sinners to keep His Word pure and unadulterated, so He confounded the wisdom of the wise by using our very own sinfulness and imperfection to preserve His Word. (It is not often admitted, but Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1469-1536), the man who was largely responsible for bringing together the various fragments of the Byzantine text into what came to be called the Textus Receptus, the Received Text, and which is revered as the true Word of God by most Reformed Christians and virtually all “Fundamentalist” denominations, all of which denounce both Romanism and Humanism, was himself not only a Romanist Catholic but a Humanist to boot! An unlikely candidate for God to use for the furtherance of His good purpose, but there it is nonetheless.)

It is also worth noting that no translation of the Bible will be of any good—except perhaps as a paper weight or a door stop—unless the Holy Spirit makes it so. The author of the article in the Quarterly Record has said that, “[The Textual Critic] must also believe that God will do this in the line of the true Church.” The underlying assumption of this statement being that the true Church is an institution based on the KJV of the Bible, which it is not. The true Church is the sum of all true believers, regardless of what “church” they attend or what Bible versions they use. The true Church is the totality of all those who are born-again by the regeneration and justification given them by God. It is the Holy Spirit who enables the born-again believer to actually understand the Bible. Without the Holy Spirit’s working in the mind and heart of the believer, the Bible is just a book of rules, irrelevant customs and supernatural enigmas. “At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, ‘I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight’ ” (Luke 10:21).

Soli Deo Gloria.

Revival in Our Generation

2007-06-25T09:56:00.000-07:00

Though I know very little about it, the subject of revival has been much on my mind of late.

It seems to me that revival only takes place in the hearts and minds of those who are already regenerated and converted. That is to say revival (as opposed to revivalism) is not the same thing as evangelism. It seems to my limited understanding that evangelism and revival are often conflated, yet they are very different things. Whereas evangelism is the act of making known the gospel to perishing sinners, revival is the activity of the Holy Spirit to renew believers’ power, understanding, zeal, conviction and faith; it is the ripening of the Fruit of the Spirit within the Church in any given generation. Revivalism is also often confused with evangelism by many because revivalism has been used as a means for evangelism—primarily by Arminians—since the time of the so-called Second Great Awakening in America, by such men as Charles Finney and his ilk.

So revival belongs to the Church. Yet I cannot think of any manifestation of revival in North American denominations in this generation. There have been plenty of revivalisms however, especially within the Southern Baptist tradition and its various unofficial branches as found in congregations like Saddleback Church. (In fact, Saddleback created, packaged and marketed a kind of in-house revivalism several years ago called the “40 Days of Purpose.” The church I attended at the time was one of 1500 churches around the world that took part in that program of contrived and worldly revivalism.) But I’m aware of no genuine revival in the Church, at least in North America, for more than forty years. Can this be? Can the Holy Spirit just remove Himself and His power from the Church when she seems to need Him so urgently? Is it entirely His doing? Is He being arbitrary in His absence?

Judging from the messages to the seven churches in Asia as found in the Revelation, it would seem that the need for revival has been an issue for the Church from before the end of the apostolic era. If this is the case and the Holy Spirit—who alone can bring revival—has not seen fit to bring it to the Church in this generation, then what are we to make of such a state of affairs? Why would He withhold it from His own Church? This is a question that we—those of us who are still here on earth at any rate—ultimately cannot answer. Nonetheless, it is my own belief that if the Holy Spirit has not seen fit to bless us with revival, it is most certainly not His fault. This leaves only two apparent possibilities: it is no one’s fault and we as the Church do not need revival or else the Church herself has somehow hindered the advent of revival in this generation, and perhaps in generations to come. Could it be that Christ’s Church is sufficiently holy and sanctified that there is no need for revival? Could it be that she is fulfilling her purposes to a degree and in ways that are pleasing to our triune God? It is my belief that the Church has actually hindered the outpouring of Holy Spirit by becoming worldly and luke-warm and to that degree has hindered the progress of the gospel.

There would seem to be two predominant forms of Christianity in North America today. One has reconciled itself to the world and its values. The other has set itself largely apart from the values of the world, yet it seems to have gotten there by cutting itself off from any intercourse with the world whatsoever, as if it might become infected with the same terminal disease. The former is characterized as having a kind of fascination with the world, while the latter is characterized as having only a cold indifference to the world and its concerns.

Both forms of Christianity are reactive, not proactive. Christianity is reactive in the sense that it has allowed the world and its values to set the Church’s agenda; to be the determiner of what she believes and how she demonstrates her belief. The Church only exists because of the world (and by world I mean not the whole created order so much as the sphere of influence of fallen man). Without the world of fallen, sinful man there would have been no need for the Church because there would have been no need for redemption and atonement. It is by the Church and the working of the Holy Spirit through her that the continuing application of Christ’s atonement is made for the elect. The Holy Spirit cannot be divorced from the Church because He is the Spirit of Christ and she is His bride. Therefore, the church must be faithful to her Bridegroom. If the church is not faithful to the Bridegroom, she is not faithful to His Holy Spirit either.

Can we hinder the work of the Holy Spirit by our unfaithfulness, by our refusal to take the gospel just as Christ and the apostles delivered it? I would have to say yes. We are called to walk in the Spirit and to exhibit His fruit in our lives on a continuing and deepening basis. We are called to make our lives in Christ a reasonable sacrifice of service to Him (and this not once but daily) and to let our minds be renewed in Him (Rom. 12:1-2).

I hear you asking, “What does this have to do with revival?”

Simply this: to the degree and extent we are not fulfilling God’s commandments (Luke 10:27) as His disciples, we are grieving His Holy Spirit. And if we grieve the Holy Spirit, can we expect true revival? Is it not arrogant in the extreme to even ask for revival, let alone to believe we deserve it? We pray for revival, but perhaps we really should be praying for softer hearts. Perhaps if we truly confessed our sins, as well as our sinful nature, recognizing that we have been saved by grace and not by works (of obedience), we might be blessed with revival as the fruit of truly submissive and gentle hearts. Why would the Holy Spirit withhold it from us, if we were truly repentant and totally dependant on God for all that we need? Let us not be like the church at Sardis that had a reputation for good works but in reality was dead. Let us do the good works that God has ordained us as His children to do (Eph 2:10). Let the light of the redeemed Church so shine before men that they will see our good works and glorify our father in Heaven (Matt 5:16). If we do this maybe then we can begin to pray for a revival in the larger Church. For revival will break out in a given place in a given time by those God chooses to use for this purpose. Let us then be worthy of such an honour.

Soli Deo Gloria.

All about Grace

2007-06-20T08:38:00.000-07:00

No, this is not going to be a discourse on the theological meaning of the word and idea of grace, no need to haul your lexicons down from the top shelf. What I mean to say by my title is that, for a Christian, it’s all about grace. In other words, where would you and I be (as born-again believers) if not for grace, the unmerited favour of God toward sinners? You know as well as I where we’d be.

So, it’s all about grace. It’s all about being reconciled to God because of God’s incredible redeeming love for His children, who only become His children because of His magnanimous grace toward them. This awesome truth should cause us to stop whatever it is we are doing and say out loud with great joy to the heavens, “Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!”

This thought was brought home to me very forcefully last night. I was reading a chapter from Romans, an Expositional Commentary by James Montgomery Boice and published by Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1992. In his commentary on Romans 5:15-17, Boice concludes with the following words: “…let us revel in grace, abounding in it even as it is abounding. Why? Because as D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones says, ‘It is only when you and I, and others who are members of the Christian Church, are rejoicing in this abounding grace as we ought to be, that we shall begin to attract the people who are outside the church [quoted from Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 5, Assurance, pp. 238, 239]. There are lots of things about Christianity that will always be unattractive to the world: holiness, discipleship, self-sacrifice, and more. There are scores of them. But grace is not one. Grace is attractive, and those who have received grace should be attractive too. Later on [in Romans] Paul is going to speak of grace ‘abounding.’ Let it abound! He is going to speak of grace ‘reigning.’ Let it reign! Let it reign until all about turn to you and say, ‘If that is Christianity, then that is what I want.’ Do not live like a pauper when God has made you a king.”

The same night I also read the following words from my copy of My Utmost For His Highest by Oswald Chambers [Discovery House, Grand Rapids, 1992, ed. Reimann, J.]: “…whenever the realization of God comes, even in the faintest way imaginable, be determined to recklessly abandon yourself, surrendering everything to Him. It is only through abandonment of yourself and your circumstances that you will recognize Him. You will only recognize His voice more clearly through recklessness—being willing to risk your all.”

If we are saved entirely by grace—and we are—then shouldn’t that lead to a kind of reckless abandon? Shouldn’t we be able to “give it up for Christ?” What is there to hold on to by comparison? And shouldn’t others be able to see the reckless abandon in us? Not in our irresponsibility, not in our antinomianism, but in our joy! “Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; And let them say among the nations, "The LORD reigns” (1 Chronicles 16:31). “Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice” (Php 4:4).

Surely this is what our Lord had in mind when He said, “No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light” (Luke 11:33)?

For we must remember that the light He was speaking of was not the light of the man in and of himself (not his own personality, his talents, his discipline), but rather the light being referred to was Christ Himself. He was (and more importantly is) the light that should not be hidden. He is the light that no one should cover, but rather openly display on a candlestick so that all may see. Is this not something to rejoice in? Is this not beyond ourselves? Are we then to take credit for it? By no means!

You may ask “Are you proposing some kind of Christian hedonism?” To which I answer, “No, at least not exactly.” And I would mean by this answer that I only propose to be what Christ wants us to be in Him: thankfully joyful for the sacrifice He has made and the work He has accomplished for us, undeserving sinners that we are. Even one of the most conservative documents of the Reformation (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question and Answer 1) recognizes that our essential attitude as born-again believers is to be found in our enjoyment of God: “What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” But this is only possible when we recognize our debt to Christ and then joyfully glorify Him through our willing obedience to His commandments.

Do we attract others because of our own joyful attractiveness? Should we not be “contagious” Christians, infecting everyone we meet with the joy we have received in Christ? Let us not stifle the light but rather let us take joy in it. Let us revel, in reckless abandon, in the grace won for us by Christ, the Light of the World. Let grace abound in our lives, let it reign! Let us not live like paupers when God has made us Kings!

Soli Deo Gloria.

How Is Faith Demonstrated?

2007-06-18T10:07:00.000-07:00

In the book of Hebrews, chapter 11, we are given a list of people the writer thought exemplified living faith. He tells us who they were and gives a brief précis of events that, in his mind, demonstrated the faith being spoken of. When reading this list, we are confronted with two undeniable facts: first, nothing happened to these people until God made His will known to them and second, when they knew God’s will, they didn’t just sit on their hands and wait for God to unilaterally intervene in some miraculous fashion; they got off their duffs and acted. Let’s summarize what the writer says in chapter 11:

By faith:
• We understand God…3
• Able offered…4
• Enoch pleased …5
• Noah built and condemned…7
• Abraham obeyed and went…8
• …made his home…9
• …fathered Isaac…11
• …offered Isaac…17
• Isaac blessed…20
• Jacob blessed…21
• Joseph gave instructions…22
• Moses parents hid him…23
• Moses chose…25
• … left and persevered…27
• …kept and sprinkled…28
• The [Jewish] people…passed through…29
• The people marched…30
• Others conquered, administered, gained, shut, quenched and escaped, etc.…32-38

What do all these italicized words from Hebrews 11 have in common? They are all action verbs! While some of the qualities of faith are described in Hebrews in passive terms, most—as can be easily seen—are in fact active words. They describe an active living out of the Word of God, not a passive acquiescence to it.

This is instructional for us. Don’t misunderstand though: acting without knowing is just foolishness. We must know the will of God before we can act on it in obedience, but once we do know what God’s will is in any matter, we must act. We do not have the freedom to sit on our hands and do nothing. Obedience, like faith, requires action; even risk-taking at times (Abraham is perhaps our best example.)

However, often people say they don’t act because they don’t know the will of God, using this supposed ignorance as an excuse for complacency or fear. I remember reading a book on Bible study and in it the author said, in effect, “The problem [with Christians] is not that they don’t understand it [the Bible], but that they are unwilling to obey it.” More often than not, we know, or are perfectly able to discern, the will of God but we choose to remain in ignorance or to refuse to follow through with our understanding because we are either self-satisfied with our current position or fearful of what it might cost if we were actually to obey.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about other Christians. I’m talking about myself! I know perfectly well what God’s will is for me in almost any circumstance, but I don’t follow through. I like to think of myself as a disciple, but I know in my heart that this is nothing more than a sentimental affectation. I fail daily, not to understand God’s will for me, but to be obedient to it.

I wonder how many others there are just like me.

Soli Deo Gloria.

A Song

2007-06-13T08:55:00.000-07:00

One of my favourite movies is “Spartacus” directed by a young Stanley Kubrick, with Kirk Douglas in the starring role. The film was made in 1960, when I was eleven years old. I have seen it many times and every year or two I trot down to the local video store to rent a copy (I somehow haven’t yet managed to buy the DVD.) But this post isn’t about the movie. It’s about a song from the movie, spoken one evening when everyone was resting from their toil, by one of the freed slaves in Spartacus’ growing army, Antoninus. Here it is in full:

When the blazing sun hangs low in the western sky,
When the wind dies away on the mountain,
When the song of the meadowlark turns still,
When the field locust clicks no more in the field
And the sea-foam sleeps like a maiden at rest,
And twilight touches the shape of the wandering earth,
I turn home.
Through blue shadows and purple woods,
I turn home.
I turn to the place that I was born,
To the mother that bore me and the father that taught me
Long ago, long ago.

Alone am I now, lost and alone
In a far wide wandering world.
Yet still, when the blazing sun hangs low,
When the wind dies away and the sea-foam sleeps
And twilight touches the wandering earth,
I turn home,
I turn home,
I turn home.

It still brings a lump to my throat when I read these words. The scene in which this takes place is a very important one in the unfolding story. But that is not what always affected me about the song. No, rather it was the sense of being lost, of being alone, that always made me want to cry.

The sense of alienation and of longing in the song is heightened by the poignant references to the natural beauty all around but which seems impotent to bring the singer any sense of relief or fulfillment. The pathos is almost tangible. And I can’t help but to compare this pagan song, with all its existential sadness, to a song more familiar to all of us: that of the 23rd Psalm:

The LORD is my shepherd,
I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside quiet waters.
He restores my soul;
He guides me in the paths of righteousness
For His name's sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil, for You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You have anointed my head with oil;
My cup overflows.
Surely goodness and loving kindness will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

What a difference! What hope, what confidence, what assurance, what comfort!

When I was young, before I knew I was a Christian, before I had the assurance and hope that one can get only through a living relationship with a loving Saviour, I too was like the singer of the song from Spartacus; sad, lost and forlorn. But when Christ came to me and called me His own, I suddenly understood three very important truths: first, that the world is not the beautiful place I thought it was—for all its beauty still—second, that I was not alone, that I had Someone who gave my life its significance and its value; value that it had lost because of Adam’s fall from grace; third, that I too could turn homeward. I could turn homeward; but unlike the singer, I could see the true home of the redeemed in Christ. I could see that, indeed, Christ had prepared a place for me there, my own home to which I now can look forward with confidence and not with fear, because I trust the One who made it all possible. The longing of the singer was my longing, his pain and sadness was my pain and sadness; the parents he missed became my loving Father and the home for which he longed became mine because of the complete and finished work of a loving, merciful and compassionate Saviour who came to me when I was still lost in a far wide wandering world. So now when twilight touches the wandering earth, and as I wander through the valley of the shadow of death, through blue shadows and purple woods, I turn home; for He is ever with me and He guides me through life’s darkest days. Now I live for the great marriage feast of the Lamb that awaits me, where I know that my cup will indeed overflow and I will dwell in His house, my house, my home, as His adopted child forever.

Amen.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Hard Words

2007-06-11T09:00:00.000-07:00

There are many hard words in scripture and many of the hardest were first spoken by the Lord. We may think of such words as, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). Or “…cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 25:30). These are indeed hard words. But of all the words of our Lord that seem so hard, I am convinced the hardest, and yet the most comforting as well, are those from Mark 5:36, “Be not afraid, only believe.” Five little words: seemingly so benign and unchallenging we usually pass them over, being found as they are in the middle of a touching story of family tragedy.

“Be not afraid.” Yet who among us has not once been afraid? Who among us has not ever felt the apprehension that always comes with bad news? “Only believe.” Yet even the beloved Peter doubted, so much so that on one occasion the Lord had to pray for Peter’s very soul!

From the human perspective, these words are hard to understand in their fullness and even harder to live up to. It is our very lot to be afraid. Our fear has the same cause as our sin: the fall of man in Adam (Genesis 3:10). When Christ tells us to be unafraid it has the same weight and significance as when he tells us to be perfect even as our Father in Heaven is perfect, or to go and sin no more. But who among us is perfect? Who among us is able to go and sin no more? Are we then any more able to be unafraid? We are no more able to prevent fear than we are to prevent sin. But He is able. That is why He also says, “Only believe.” With these words He is telling us that He will take our burden of fear upon himself, just as He also takes our sin. With these words He is telling us that if we accept Him as Lord and Saviour, if we believe exclusively in Him, then fear, like sin, shall have no dominion. Because of Him, we need not fear that our sins are too many or too perverse, or that He is partial or His mercy too shallow. When we believe in Him, we must also believe what He has done, is doing and will do. We only need to believe that He is willing, able and sufficient for us.

In another place, He spoke these words, “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

And it is here, in the complete and finished work of Christ that we are to find our salvation, not in ourselves and our own measly works, but in His perfect and permanent overcoming. He does not just command us to be brave but also reassures us that the basis and ground of our fear has now been removed, as far away as the west is from the east or the sun from the moon. Let us believe and be comforted by Him and the work He has accomplished on behalf of His people, the very work He was sent to accomplish by a loving, almighty, never-failing God.

And God’s commands to be unafraid are never to be taken alone, for in every case, whether stated or not, we are to understand and believe in God’s own reassurance and promise: “Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness” (Isaiah 41:10).

The words which are so hard for us to obey—impossible in fact—have already been obeyed for us by God’s very own “right hand of righteousness” who is the Lord Christ Jesus. Because of His perfect righteousness and His sacrifice upon the cross, where He took our sin upon Himself, we need fear not nor doubt but only believe. And then, like Thomas before us, we will be able to stand before Him and proclaim with all boldness “My Lord and my God.”

Soli Deo Gloria.

The Three-fold Office of the Minister

2007-06-07T15:39:00.000-07:00

It was, I believe, John Calvin who first articulated the idea of the three-fold office of Christ: that of Prophet, Priest and King. This three-fold description is a tidy short-hand for the work, obligations and duties of Christ, but it is my opinion that as an archetypal pattern it also describes the role or office of the Minister or Pastor within the Protestant Church. The office of Minister is patterned after that of Christ and was ordained by Him, by way of the apostles.

Forgive me, but I like the tidiness of this approach. I guess it appeals to my natural tendency to two-pile (dialectical) thinking. And certainly one can easily find Biblical warrant for each aspect described, especially in the Gospels.

If you don't mind, I’d like to take a few lines of digital type to explore a little the idea of Prophet, Priest and King as it is embodied in the office of Minister or Pastor within congregations. Please understand this is entirely a subjective opinion and carries no authoritative weight.

Firstly then, Ministers hold the office of Prophet. A prophet was a truth-teller, but not necessarily a fortune-teller or futurist. He proclaimed God’s truth about Himself, His purposes and His promises as God made them evident to him. Prophetic proclamation in the OT is often signalled by the phrase, “Thus saith the LORD." In the Gospels, Christ alerts us to many of His prophetic utterances by the similar phrase, “Verily, verily, I say unto you.” So as prophet, the Minister must simply and directly proclaim God’s truth which of course is summarized in the Gospel, the good news, found in both testaments. This is the first and foremost duty of the office of Minister within the Protestant Church. This is part of the Great Commission, or the spreading of the Gospel to “all the nations.” It is a solemn duty and yet a joyous privilege to proclaim the Gospel to a perishing world. It is the ordained task of every Minister to undertake this in his official role of prophet. In this role the Minister speaks from God to the people. But additionally, teaching is also an aspect of this office. The Minister is the teacher of God’s Word. I personally believe that anyone who is not a practicing Minister or Elder within his own congregation (or who is not a student Minister in training) does not automatically have the authority to teach God’s Word. (I have in mind here many scholars and so-called experts in theology. However, anyone has the right to receive delegated authority from office bearers such as the Elders, enabling them to teach if they have the recognized gift to do so.)

Secondly, and importantly, ministers are obligated in their role as “under-shepherds of Christ” to care for and nurture other believers in the same way Christ cared for and nurtured His disciples and now cares for His Bride, the Church. This the Minister does in his official role as Priest. This is an aspect of ministry that many people don’t fully appreciate, especially in Reformed congregations, which can be so oriented to the dual role of Prophet/King. In this priestly role they are properly called “Pastors” or shepherds. The Pastor edifies or encourages believers of his flock in their faith. He supports those who are confused or whose faith may be in a weakened condition. He fends off the wiles of the devil (primarily but not exclusively through prayer and counselling) fencing his flock from evil. It is for these reasons, among others, that it is of utmost importance for a congregation to have a settled Minister, one who is part of the community of believers. Just as the shepherd lives with his flock and they know his voice, so the under-shepherd of a congregation of believers lives with them, forms relationships with them, becomes trusted by them and so is able to minister—to serve—them as their spiritual protector, confidant and counsellor. Congregations that do not have a settled Minister do not have the benefit of pastoral protection and strength.

Thirdly, the protestant minister holds Kingly authority as the governor within the congregation. His authority within the congregation, or the Church at large, is a delegated kingship or authority as he is acting as governor, representative and ambassador of the true King, Jesus Christ. In his kingly duties he is responsible for the rule and government of the congregation. This responsibility he shares with his Elders. In his role as governor, the Minister must use his wisdom and courage to make decisions concerning the welfare, direction, faithfulness etc. of the congregation for which he is responsible. In this role he is sometimes called to discipline those in his flock who are going astray through sinfulness or rebellion.

I believe that in his office as Christ’s governor he will be more effective if he can augment the duties of government with those of his pastoral office. He will find that the more he serves, the less he will need to govern. His government will be based on love and caring for those in his charge and so will less frequently need to resort to discipline. His standing orders are these, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-28).

But a congregation without her own Minister is going to be seriously deprived in this area. A congregation without a Minister will be more susceptible to error, complacency, worldliness and back-sliding. As well, individual members who need the reassurance of one they know, trust and indeed love will be more vulnerable to the wiles of the flesh, the world and the devil. It is of greatest importance therefore, for each and every congregation to have her own Pastor who is able and authorized to care for their entire well-being.

One final note: it could be that, for whatever reason, Christ may withhold a Minister from a particular congregation for a time. Since every flock must have a shepherd, so every congregation must have a Pastor or under-shepherd; I take this to be axiomatic of God’s will for His church and His people. If it is the case that a congregation has been without a settled minister for one or more extended periods of time, that congregation should do some serious soul-searching, going to God in prayer and perhaps even fasting in order to determine the underlying cause of this problem. In any event, the lack of a Minister should not be taken lightly by the congregation as it could be a sign of a very serious underlying problem of sin within the congregation. So much for the three-fold aspect of Ministry.

Soli Deo Gloria

The 50% Christian

2007-06-05T10:21:00.000-07:00

Let me ask you a question: Are you a 50% Christian? What do I mean by that? Let me explain. By 50% Christian I don't mean someone who only lives the Christian life half-time. The 50% Christian does not describe someone who lives a worldly life during the week and then flips a switch and lives the Christian life (or some watered down version of it) on the Lord’s Day. No, that’s not what I have in mind.

The 50% Christian I’m referring to is one who does not (attempt to) fully live out the commandments of Christ as we are told to. Christ summarized the law of God very succinctly, “And Jesus answered him, 'The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these'” (Mark 12:29-31). So the Christian life can be broadly divided into obedience to two over-arching commandments: to love God and to love our neighbours.

The 50% Christian is one who does not love God and others (neighbours) but loves God or others. The division roughly resembles the one between hyper-Calvinists on the one hand, and liberals on the other.

The hyper-Calvinist is (stereotypically) one who is scrupulous about doctrine and worship but who can turn his back on someone in need. He is characterized by his zeal for God and his indifference to people. He is one who loves the first of Christ’s commandments but who hates the second.

The liberal is (stereotypically) one who is indifferent about doctrine and worship but who will be quick to help the needy or protest a perceived injustice. He is characterized by his zeal for social equality and his indifference to the holiness of God and Christian piety. He loves the second of Christ’s commandments but hates the first.

The hyper-Calvinist is one who, in self-complacency, will extol God’s sovereignty and His hatred of sin while he denigrates the free offer of the Gospel and God’s compassionate love for the sinner. He says, “God has chosen whom He will to save and has hatefully condemned the rest to perdition.”

The liberal is one who, in ignorance, believes that because God loves all people He must therefore save all people. He is one who understands God’s compassion but not His holiness. He says, “Since I believe in the inherent equality of all people, God must also believe in their equality before Him. Therefore all people are equal, so all will be saved.”

Now of course these are obvious exaggerations. Nevertheless I believe they embody much truth in the Church today. Well then, ask yourself the question. To quote the bard “To thine own self be true.” Are you a 50% Christian? If so, to which percentage do you belong?

Soli Deo Gloria

For the YouTube Generation

2007-06-02T10:14:00.001-07:00

Just created a new webpage, for the "YouTube" generation. After surfing a couple of hundred blog sites in the last week or so, I'm overwhelmed by the number of people out there who are in utter despair and who are using their blogs and videos to cry out for help, for meaning, for purpose. These people are lost indeed.

For all the "YouTube" folks out there, this one's for you!

Soli Deo Gloria