"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.
Saturday 30 June 2007
Thursday 28 June 2007
Can a Bad Person Translate the Good Book?
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.
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.
Monday 25 June 2007
Revival in Our Generation
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.
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.
Wednesday 20 June 2007
All about Grace
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.
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.
Monday 18 June 2007
How Is Faith Demonstrated?
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.
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.
Wednesday 13 June 2007
A Song
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.
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.
Monday 11 June 2007
Hard Words
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.
“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.
Thursday 7 June 2007
The Three-fold Office of the Minister
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
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
Tuesday 5 June 2007
The 50% Christian
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
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
Saturday 2 June 2007
For the YouTube Generation
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
For all the "YouTube" folks out there, this one's for you!
Soli Deo Gloria
Friday 1 June 2007
Chastised Congregations?
Last Sunday evening after dinner, I read a sermon by JC Ryle (1816-1900) entitled “The Unchanging Christ.” It was based on Hebrews 13:8. In the sermon, Ryle discusses the faithfulness of Christ, in both His character and His work. He contrasts Christ’s faithfulness (his remaining the same) with the world’s changeableness. But an element of the sermon struck me as especially important. As part of his argument, Ryle takes aim at the erroneous idea, which often springs up in the Church, that once a church (in this context a local congregation—or even a denomination) has become established, the Lord will preserve and continue to bless her to the time of His second coming. But surely such a view is not warranted, either from personal experience, history or Scripture. Permit me to quote Ryle at length:
“... we ask you to mark that even churches continue not the same. Alas! There is only too much evidence that they too may fall to pieces and decay. Where are the churches whose faith and patience and love and zeal shine forth so brightly in the Acts and Epistles of the New Testament? ...They are gone, they are dead, they are fallen; they kept not their first estate, they became high-minded and puffed up with self-conceit; they did not persevere in well doing, they did not abound in the fruits of righteousness and so the Lord who had grafted them in, did also cut them off like withered and useless branches…. Doubtless, beloved, there are promises belonging to Christ’s church generally—the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; the Lord will never leave Himself without a witness—but there is no assurance that the church of any particular place or nation shall abide unchanged, except she continue faithful…if she does not hold forth the light of the pure gospel, if she leaves her first love, if she suffers false prophets to teach and seduce, if she becomes lukewarm, and says, “I am rich and increased with goods,” if she rests content with having a name to live while she is dead, and plumes herself on keeping hold of the truth while she does not witness to it—we are bold to tell you, however long God’s mercy shall spare her, her candlestick shall sooner or later be removed, for we know this fearful threat has been over and over again made good.”
And we can see from Scripture what Ryle was talking about, in the book of the Revelation. In chapters two and three, we have a record of congregations who were far from perfect. These congregations were, at least by our own often dismally low standards, what we would suppose to be God-fearing, holy and pious; and so they were, to a degree. Yet of the seven churches mentioned, only two were not soundly rebuked by the risen Christ for one thing or another. And was not even the Temple itself cataclysmically overthrown because of the complacency of the priesthood and the Jewish Elders and the general apostasy of the whole Jewish nation? Therefore let no one assume that his own church or congregation has been blessed or is being blessed by the Lord. (An obvious example of a contemporary denomination which is not being blessed by Christ is the Anglican/Episcopalian. It is in jeopardy of being torn asunder because of its own rebellion and especially by the open sinfulness and worldliness of its leadership. In the same sermon quoted from above, Ryle has these prophetic words about his own Anglican denomination: “Yes! Even we have reason to watch and to pray and to be humble and fear; no church so well ordered but through the sin and faithlessness of her members she may be overturned.”)
The Laodicean congregation (Rev. 3:15-17) is probably the best NT example of the harm of complacency within congregations. This was a church, a congregation, which had developed a kind of indifference to her own condition. She was a stagnating church and her leadership was therefore likely complacent. We can imagine a very sleepy, perhaps self-satisfied, congregation. I don’t know how long this church had been stagnating in its complacency but we do know that Paul was concerned with her spiritual well-being when he wrote his epistle to the Colossians in the late 60’s or early 70’s AD. If Revelation was written, as most believe, in the early 90’s AD that means she had been in her sleepy condition for at least thirty years. Did God speak to her in all that intervening time? Was he expressing His displeasure with her by chastising her repeatedly or was He silent after His first warning in the letter to the Colossian church? I don’t know.
We must realize that God does not always bless us as we would choose to be blessed. Nor do we often recognize that a blessing may start out as a rebuke. Indeed, often He will bless us, both personally and corporately, with that which may cause short term discomfort and pain. It is rather like—pardon the rather obvious illustration—a woman in childbirth. She is at first in discomfort, then severe pain, but finally after much travail and effort, she is joyful. What mother would later say, as she held her little one in her feeble and weary arms, that her pregnancy and even her labour was not ultimately a blessing to her? And what will she do? She will praise God and glorify Him for giving this blessing to her. So it is with Christ’s will for His Church. Certainly, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her as the True Church. But that is not to say that any congregation, as Ryle warns us, will not come, at some point, for some known or even unknown sin, under chastisement or even judgement, as was true for the Laodicean congregation. Because ultimately, He must have the glory. It must be for Him that the church receives her blessing from Him. If by her activity or lack thereof in bringing God the glory that is His due through her ministry to Him, to herself and to the world, how can a congregation, or even a whole denomination, ever expect to receive His blessing? May He then not do to that church as He pleases, just as the potter may do with his clay, destroying one vessel and creating another?
Soli Deo Gloria!
“... we ask you to mark that even churches continue not the same. Alas! There is only too much evidence that they too may fall to pieces and decay. Where are the churches whose faith and patience and love and zeal shine forth so brightly in the Acts and Epistles of the New Testament? ...They are gone, they are dead, they are fallen; they kept not their first estate, they became high-minded and puffed up with self-conceit; they did not persevere in well doing, they did not abound in the fruits of righteousness and so the Lord who had grafted them in, did also cut them off like withered and useless branches…. Doubtless, beloved, there are promises belonging to Christ’s church generally—the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; the Lord will never leave Himself without a witness—but there is no assurance that the church of any particular place or nation shall abide unchanged, except she continue faithful…if she does not hold forth the light of the pure gospel, if she leaves her first love, if she suffers false prophets to teach and seduce, if she becomes lukewarm, and says, “I am rich and increased with goods,” if she rests content with having a name to live while she is dead, and plumes herself on keeping hold of the truth while she does not witness to it—we are bold to tell you, however long God’s mercy shall spare her, her candlestick shall sooner or later be removed, for we know this fearful threat has been over and over again made good.”
And we can see from Scripture what Ryle was talking about, in the book of the Revelation. In chapters two and three, we have a record of congregations who were far from perfect. These congregations were, at least by our own often dismally low standards, what we would suppose to be God-fearing, holy and pious; and so they were, to a degree. Yet of the seven churches mentioned, only two were not soundly rebuked by the risen Christ for one thing or another. And was not even the Temple itself cataclysmically overthrown because of the complacency of the priesthood and the Jewish Elders and the general apostasy of the whole Jewish nation? Therefore let no one assume that his own church or congregation has been blessed or is being blessed by the Lord. (An obvious example of a contemporary denomination which is not being blessed by Christ is the Anglican/Episcopalian. It is in jeopardy of being torn asunder because of its own rebellion and especially by the open sinfulness and worldliness of its leadership. In the same sermon quoted from above, Ryle has these prophetic words about his own Anglican denomination: “Yes! Even we have reason to watch and to pray and to be humble and fear; no church so well ordered but through the sin and faithlessness of her members she may be overturned.”)
The Laodicean congregation (Rev. 3:15-17) is probably the best NT example of the harm of complacency within congregations. This was a church, a congregation, which had developed a kind of indifference to her own condition. She was a stagnating church and her leadership was therefore likely complacent. We can imagine a very sleepy, perhaps self-satisfied, congregation. I don’t know how long this church had been stagnating in its complacency but we do know that Paul was concerned with her spiritual well-being when he wrote his epistle to the Colossians in the late 60’s or early 70’s AD. If Revelation was written, as most believe, in the early 90’s AD that means she had been in her sleepy condition for at least thirty years. Did God speak to her in all that intervening time? Was he expressing His displeasure with her by chastising her repeatedly or was He silent after His first warning in the letter to the Colossian church? I don’t know.
We must realize that God does not always bless us as we would choose to be blessed. Nor do we often recognize that a blessing may start out as a rebuke. Indeed, often He will bless us, both personally and corporately, with that which may cause short term discomfort and pain. It is rather like—pardon the rather obvious illustration—a woman in childbirth. She is at first in discomfort, then severe pain, but finally after much travail and effort, she is joyful. What mother would later say, as she held her little one in her feeble and weary arms, that her pregnancy and even her labour was not ultimately a blessing to her? And what will she do? She will praise God and glorify Him for giving this blessing to her. So it is with Christ’s will for His Church. Certainly, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her as the True Church. But that is not to say that any congregation, as Ryle warns us, will not come, at some point, for some known or even unknown sin, under chastisement or even judgement, as was true for the Laodicean congregation. Because ultimately, He must have the glory. It must be for Him that the church receives her blessing from Him. If by her activity or lack thereof in bringing God the glory that is His due through her ministry to Him, to herself and to the world, how can a congregation, or even a whole denomination, ever expect to receive His blessing? May He then not do to that church as He pleases, just as the potter may do with his clay, destroying one vessel and creating another?
Soli Deo Gloria!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
