The Holy Spirit in the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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)

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

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.