The question I grapple with in this post is twofold: “Should our obedience to civil power and authority (governments) be absolute and unquestioning?” and “Is there a legitimate exercise of civil disobedience for Christians?” The three NT passages most reflective of apostolic teaching on the subject are Romans 13:1-10, Titus 3:1-8 and 1 Peter 2:13-17.
In essence, my argument runs as follows: I don’t believe that these passages are teaching blind and unthinking obedience to the will of government as is too often understood by Christians; rather they are teaching that it should be the normal, everyday, God-honouring experience of believers to be obedient, which is not the same thing. When the full context of these verses, especially Romans 13:8-10, is considered, we see the sharp outline of obedience against the background of God’s moral law. That is to say, obedience as a right attitude or action must be in keeping with God’s law and can not be divorced from it, without great risk. This means that for a government to act as “a minister of God to you for good” it must not ask the believer to contravene God’s law. A government looses its God-given authority when it—by its laws or demands upon its citizens—causes any to break the law of God and thus commit sin.
The question for the believer then is simple: “Will my submission to this law be wrong or cause harm?” In other words, “Will I be breaking God’s law if I submit to this human law?” And it would seem from Romans 13:8-10 (as well as Titus 3:8 and 1 Peter 2:15) that if the answer for the believer is “Yes, this would cause harm and would be wrong” (in light of God’s law) then he must not submit, or at least limit his submission as much as his conscience and his circumstances will allow.
The only qualifying factor is that Paul, in Romans, speaks of love for one’s neighbour and indeed reminds his readers of the great commandment of our Lord, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev.19:18; Mark 12:31) which is often referred to as one of the two great summary statements of God’s Law. And he has just finished saying that if you love your neighbour you will do him no wrong or harm. It would seem then that only one question remains, “Who is my neighbour?” Another man asked that of the Lord a long time ago and we remember the Lord gave him his answer in the form of a parable (Luke 10:25-37).
In the parable, a man is robbed, beaten and left by the side of the road for dead. He is passed by and ignored by two travelers, both representatives of the proper authorities. However, a contemptible stranger—a Samaritan—is also on the road that day and discovers the beaten man. His immediate response is to help him and get him to a place of safety so he could convalesce in peace, even providing the wherewithal for him to do so. This parable is used by Christ to help us understand what His message is about and what expectations He has of His followers. In telling His story, the Lord is saying that the definition of who our neighbour is must be expanded and thought of in a completely new way. Our neighbour, according to Christ, is the one who suffers when we can rescue, the one who struggles when we can lift up, the one who cries when we can comfort.
Peter says we should submit to “…every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (1 Peter 2:13) whether such ordinances are from the highest authority in the land or from designated governors. We should do this, says Peter, voluntarily as people free to choose and act. This sense of voluntary subjection is also found in Roman 13:1 where the word translated as “be subject” has connotations of a subjection that is freely given and not compelled. Such subjection should be consistent with the moral and saintly lives we now have as God's adopted sons and daughters. Peter's qualification—that we should act this way for the sake of Jesus—introduces the notion that there may legitimately be times when obedience to human authorities places us in opposition to the will of God. Remember that Christ came to the cross to fulfill all righteousness; to fulfill the law as a substitutionary sacrifice. In light of this, the Christian must use as his only criteria the law of God and the life and death of Christ that was the law’s fulfillment. If he can see no conflict between this and the demands being made by his government, then he is free to obey the government. But if the demands of the government would necessitate the Christian to wrong or harm his neighbour, he is not free to obey but must disobey for the sake of Christ.
An example we take from scripture is Acts 4:5-21. Because Peter and John had just healed a man in the name of Christ, and were preaching the gospel against the wishes of the authorities, they were thrown into jail and later brought before the Sanhedrin or ruling council (the proper and legitimate governing authority of the Jews). After some interrogation, the Council decided to order them to desist from spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. Peter and John both responded by saying in effect that the Sanhedrin could do as it pleased (which could have resulted in the death of the two apostles) but that both of them would continue to testify about Jesus. Thereupon, due mainly to public pressure, they were released. This scene is important as it shows the two seemingly breaking their own apostolic admonition to obey the proper authorities. In this case the Sanhedrin had, by the time of the apostles, become corrupt through the gradual turning away from the law as given by God's Holy Spirit and the ossification of the institution into a largely man-made structure ruled by tradition. Jesus recognized the same thing when he confronted the rulers and called them “white-washed sepulchers.” Incidentally, this is an ironic example of the admonition by Paul in verse seven of the passage from Romans, “Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” In calling the rulers white-washed sepulchers the Lord was indeed rendering them their due, but it was their right and proper due from His perspective, not theirs.
And too, we have testimony from such Reformation luminaries as the Scottish Presbyterian and Westminster divine Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661) who, in his work Lex Rex, argued that when the government gave up its rightful authority as delegated from God it became an instrument of oppression and should be resisted. One of the points of Lex Rex is that the Law (Lex) is king (Rex) and not the reverse, so rulers are not to be a law unto themselves. Nor should they use the law for unlawful ends. Other godly men of the Reformation have also either resorted to civil disobedience or have defended it in principle, including Martin Luther (1483-1546), William Tyndale (c.1490-1536), John Knox (1505-1572) and John Bunyan (1628-1688). Two modern defenders of the Christian’s right to civil disobedience were Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) and Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984). I cite these examples simply to point out the fact that Christians have a history of resorting to civil disobedience in the face of an authority that forces them to do wrong and to break God’s commandments. (Nowadays many of us tend to forget that the Reformation was itself the greatest of all Christian movements of civil disobedience.)
I should clarify, at this point, that this argument applies to believing Christians only, those whose consciences are, like Luther’s, “taken captive by the word of God.” I believe that they have a justifiable excuse for civil disobedience in some circumstances, simply because they are, paradoxically, trying to be obedient to law. But the law which they attempt to obey is a higher law. It is in fact God’s law, which Christians are not to willingly disobey.
This issue of civil disobedience is far from clear and whatever believing people think, I believe they should be patient with others who are going through much distress over the issue. Yet one thing is clear: each believer must respond according to the dictates of a conscience ruled not by the opinions of others, but by God, who is Lord of the conscience (WCF 20:2). Let us therefore be ruled by God’s requirements first, then by consciences ready to be forgiving and charitable to brothers and sisters who may disagree but are ready to put everything on the line for their convictions.
(It is my own conviction that the Christian religion, to the degree it maintains integrity with the commands and teachings of Christ, will always run afoul of human (as well as spiritual) powers, authorities and dominions. It cannot be otherwise. The teachings—not to mention the actions—of Christ are prominently and unashamedly counter-cultural and anti-worldly. There is simply no way for true biblical Christianity to co-exist on a peaceful footing with any other rival authority. This means that true biblical Christianity will always be in a state of persecution to one degree or another. And that degree is determined, not by the standards of the world, but by its own internal standards. As Christians more strictly maintain those standards, the more they will be persecuted.)
Soli Deo Gloria.
Monday, 30 July 2007
Monday, 23 July 2007
On Perusing Some Old Journals
We are in the middle of some renovations at our house. What started off as a fairly straightforward replacement of some old carpeting in a couple of bedrooms has somehow blossomed into a full-on revitalization project for the entire upper floor of our home. As part of the renovations, we had to dismantle and move several pieces of furniture, one of which was an old oak desk which I had used for a short while in one of the bedrooms before my son came back home to “start over.” (We decided to wait until our son had got himself re-established before doing any work upstairs, as he was occupying one of the rooms.) It was a big heavy old desk with lots of drawers and the whole thing had to be dismantled and moved, section by section, downstairs into our family room in order to allow the upstairs renovations to proceed.
One evening last week, while sitting and reading next to the old desk, I took a notion to go through some of the drawers to throw out old files and paperwork I deemed no longer important. In the course of doing so, I happened upon several old journals of mine (one going back to the early seventies). Needless to say, upon their discovery, I just had to stop and take a sachet down memory lane, if only for a few minutes. What I discovered was not quite a shock but it did leave me in wonder at the extent of God’s love and mercy for wayward sinners, who find it so easy to run away from the one thing they most desperately need.
While many entries in my journals were harmless enough and explored ideas for articles and plays I wanted to write, or were lists of one sort or another, too many entries were concerned with “mystical” experiences, philosophical ramblings, metaphysical ruminations, recounting of lucid dreams of a distinctly other-worldly nature and that sort of thing. Being a member of the baby-boomer generation, I was also one of the original “new-age” devotees, whose spiritual life was characterized by syncretism, superstition, rampant subjectivity and a magical approach to religious matters. Journal entries dealing with subjects of Celtic Mysticism, Kaballah, Buddhism, Sufism, Numerology, Astrology, Alchemy, Neo-Platonism, Rosicrucianism and the like abound. Most of this may seem harmless enough now, but in more than one entry, I recounted incidents and dreams in which strange, magical events were taking place and in which I was interacting with entities that were definitely non-human. In one entry, dated September 4, 1989, I describe a “shaman walk” in which I came into contact and conversed with the druidic, Celtic God Cernunnos. Needless to say, as I read this entry now, I am mortified. I believe that it is possible that I was in the presence of a demonic entity. In those days I was completely lost in a world totally at odds with the God of the Bible. I believe that there was a connection between my confused inner life and my outer life which would soon fall apart because of my growing alcoholism and my lack of true spiritual sustenance. These entries record encounters and experiences that were far from harmless. They are the record of one who came perilously close to what is often euphemistically called “insanity” by those who don’t know any better; by those who themselves are caught up in the “therapeutic” paradigm of human motivation, belief and behaviour. They are the record of one who was indeed playing with fire, but who was so desperately lost, that even this bizarre counterfeit was better than the emptiness and separation of being without Christ. Seeded randomly throughout the journals are several references to Christ and the bible but almost all are from this “new age” perspective, which is nothing other than the religious garb that Humanism uses to placate the more spiritually sensitive of its disciples.
I say all this as a kind of context because, as I read entry after entry (most of which, as I say—in spite of the impression I might just have given you—were in fact quite harmless, but grossly mistaken nevertheless) I was struck by how far away I seemed to be from Christ. Paradoxically, while I seemed to be one who was truly seeking God, (I believe I was, but was nevertheless caught in the clutches of superstitious error) I was simultaneously running away from God, trying not to discover Him. What might seem to be the writing of a sincere seeker after truth and godliness was in fact nothing other than the record of one who was trying to escape the scrutiny of God; just as did Adam and Eve in the garden and as did Jonah when he refused to preach the Gospel to the people of Nineveh and ran as fast and as hard as he could away from God.
Can this be true? Does not the Bible say that no one really seeks God, that no one is really righteous, “as it is written, ‘THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE’” (Romans 3:10)? Given this, could I really be seeking, yet simultaneously not seeking God? I believe in my case that I was, because I believe that when I was just a young boy, Christ came to me during a Christmas play at church, and even then put His mark upon me; perhaps not the mark of complete salvation, but rather the mark of promise. I was like the apostle Peter whose faith, in spite of all the bravado, needed help from the Master. But I soon turned to backsliding and before I entered my teen years, left the church. I was even then in rebellion, thinking to close the door on the One who could save me from my sin. I was probably one of those described by Paul: “For even though they knew God, they did not honour Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures…. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.” (Romans 1:21-23, 2:2). And indeed the judgment of God did fall upon me heavily. Anyone who knew me then could attest to the lost condition, the misery and the sense of hopelessness that characterized my life. I was one of those Paul describes, “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Romans 2:5). And indeed, I was storing up wrath through rebellion.
And this is what causes me to wonder greatly at the loving-kindness of God. For when I was still a sinner, he came to me again; not because of any merit in me whatsoever, but only because it was His sovereign good pleasure to do so. I am now no longer able to “think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance” (Romans 2:4) for now I know that kindness and have been made a recipient of it. This infinite patience of God for sinners is a truth that is personally overwhelming.
It is something for someone to talk about such things when they have no personal experience and therefore no real conviction of it; it is another thing altogether to be so far removed from God’s love and obedience to Him and to know, beyond doubt, that you are lost as a result. For make no mistake, the lost know their condition. Their ignorance is only superficial as Paul reminds us, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
Yet we have a faithful and true God, who does not change and with whom “there is no variation or shifting shadow” (James 1:17). And it is because of His faithfulness and His trustworthiness that we have a hope of redemption and the salvation of even the most depraved of souls.
Later the same evening that I read through the old journals, as part of my ongoing practice I turned to the chapter in James Montgomery Boice’s commentary on Romans wherein he recounts an anecdote told by Ray Stedman, From Guilt to Glory, vol. 1, Hope for the Helpless (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1978), p. 302: “Years ago Harry A. Ironside, that great bible teacher, told a story about an older Christian who was asked to give his testimony. He told how God had sought him out and found him, how God loved him, called him, saved him, delivered him, cleansed him, and healed him—a great witness to the grace, power and glory of God. But after the meeting a rather legalistic brother took him aside and criticized his testimony, as certain of us like to do. He said, ‘I appreciated all you said about what God did for you. But you didn’t mention anything about your part in it. Salvation is really part us and part God. You should have mentioned something about your part.’ ‘Oh, yes,’ the older Christian said. ‘I apologize for that. I’m sorry. I really should have said something about my part. My part was running away, and his part was running after me until he caught me.’”
Oh, what a glorious God we have in the triune God of the Bible. Let us never cease from praising Him and offering up to Him the glory that is His due for His great loving-kindness to us, “And Isaiah is very bold and says, ‘I WAS FOUND BY THOSE WHO DID NOT SEEK ME, I BECAME MANIFEST TO THOSE WHO DID NOT ASK FOR ME.’” (Romans 10:20).
Soli Deo Gloria.
One evening last week, while sitting and reading next to the old desk, I took a notion to go through some of the drawers to throw out old files and paperwork I deemed no longer important. In the course of doing so, I happened upon several old journals of mine (one going back to the early seventies). Needless to say, upon their discovery, I just had to stop and take a sachet down memory lane, if only for a few minutes. What I discovered was not quite a shock but it did leave me in wonder at the extent of God’s love and mercy for wayward sinners, who find it so easy to run away from the one thing they most desperately need.
While many entries in my journals were harmless enough and explored ideas for articles and plays I wanted to write, or were lists of one sort or another, too many entries were concerned with “mystical” experiences, philosophical ramblings, metaphysical ruminations, recounting of lucid dreams of a distinctly other-worldly nature and that sort of thing. Being a member of the baby-boomer generation, I was also one of the original “new-age” devotees, whose spiritual life was characterized by syncretism, superstition, rampant subjectivity and a magical approach to religious matters. Journal entries dealing with subjects of Celtic Mysticism, Kaballah, Buddhism, Sufism, Numerology, Astrology, Alchemy, Neo-Platonism, Rosicrucianism and the like abound. Most of this may seem harmless enough now, but in more than one entry, I recounted incidents and dreams in which strange, magical events were taking place and in which I was interacting with entities that were definitely non-human. In one entry, dated September 4, 1989, I describe a “shaman walk” in which I came into contact and conversed with the druidic, Celtic God Cernunnos. Needless to say, as I read this entry now, I am mortified. I believe that it is possible that I was in the presence of a demonic entity. In those days I was completely lost in a world totally at odds with the God of the Bible. I believe that there was a connection between my confused inner life and my outer life which would soon fall apart because of my growing alcoholism and my lack of true spiritual sustenance. These entries record encounters and experiences that were far from harmless. They are the record of one who came perilously close to what is often euphemistically called “insanity” by those who don’t know any better; by those who themselves are caught up in the “therapeutic” paradigm of human motivation, belief and behaviour. They are the record of one who was indeed playing with fire, but who was so desperately lost, that even this bizarre counterfeit was better than the emptiness and separation of being without Christ. Seeded randomly throughout the journals are several references to Christ and the bible but almost all are from this “new age” perspective, which is nothing other than the religious garb that Humanism uses to placate the more spiritually sensitive of its disciples.
I say all this as a kind of context because, as I read entry after entry (most of which, as I say—in spite of the impression I might just have given you—were in fact quite harmless, but grossly mistaken nevertheless) I was struck by how far away I seemed to be from Christ. Paradoxically, while I seemed to be one who was truly seeking God, (I believe I was, but was nevertheless caught in the clutches of superstitious error) I was simultaneously running away from God, trying not to discover Him. What might seem to be the writing of a sincere seeker after truth and godliness was in fact nothing other than the record of one who was trying to escape the scrutiny of God; just as did Adam and Eve in the garden and as did Jonah when he refused to preach the Gospel to the people of Nineveh and ran as fast and as hard as he could away from God.
Can this be true? Does not the Bible say that no one really seeks God, that no one is really righteous, “as it is written, ‘THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE’” (Romans 3:10)? Given this, could I really be seeking, yet simultaneously not seeking God? I believe in my case that I was, because I believe that when I was just a young boy, Christ came to me during a Christmas play at church, and even then put His mark upon me; perhaps not the mark of complete salvation, but rather the mark of promise. I was like the apostle Peter whose faith, in spite of all the bravado, needed help from the Master. But I soon turned to backsliding and before I entered my teen years, left the church. I was even then in rebellion, thinking to close the door on the One who could save me from my sin. I was probably one of those described by Paul: “For even though they knew God, they did not honour Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures…. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.” (Romans 1:21-23, 2:2). And indeed the judgment of God did fall upon me heavily. Anyone who knew me then could attest to the lost condition, the misery and the sense of hopelessness that characterized my life. I was one of those Paul describes, “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Romans 2:5). And indeed, I was storing up wrath through rebellion.
And this is what causes me to wonder greatly at the loving-kindness of God. For when I was still a sinner, he came to me again; not because of any merit in me whatsoever, but only because it was His sovereign good pleasure to do so. I am now no longer able to “think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance” (Romans 2:4) for now I know that kindness and have been made a recipient of it. This infinite patience of God for sinners is a truth that is personally overwhelming.
It is something for someone to talk about such things when they have no personal experience and therefore no real conviction of it; it is another thing altogether to be so far removed from God’s love and obedience to Him and to know, beyond doubt, that you are lost as a result. For make no mistake, the lost know their condition. Their ignorance is only superficial as Paul reminds us, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
Yet we have a faithful and true God, who does not change and with whom “there is no variation or shifting shadow” (James 1:17). And it is because of His faithfulness and His trustworthiness that we have a hope of redemption and the salvation of even the most depraved of souls.
Later the same evening that I read through the old journals, as part of my ongoing practice I turned to the chapter in James Montgomery Boice’s commentary on Romans wherein he recounts an anecdote told by Ray Stedman, From Guilt to Glory, vol. 1, Hope for the Helpless (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1978), p. 302: “Years ago Harry A. Ironside, that great bible teacher, told a story about an older Christian who was asked to give his testimony. He told how God had sought him out and found him, how God loved him, called him, saved him, delivered him, cleansed him, and healed him—a great witness to the grace, power and glory of God. But after the meeting a rather legalistic brother took him aside and criticized his testimony, as certain of us like to do. He said, ‘I appreciated all you said about what God did for you. But you didn’t mention anything about your part in it. Salvation is really part us and part God. You should have mentioned something about your part.’ ‘Oh, yes,’ the older Christian said. ‘I apologize for that. I’m sorry. I really should have said something about my part. My part was running away, and his part was running after me until he caught me.’”
Oh, what a glorious God we have in the triune God of the Bible. Let us never cease from praising Him and offering up to Him the glory that is His due for His great loving-kindness to us, “And Isaiah is very bold and says, ‘I WAS FOUND BY THOSE WHO DID NOT SEEK ME, I BECAME MANIFEST TO THOSE WHO DID NOT ASK FOR ME.’” (Romans 10:20).
Soli Deo Gloria.
Sunday, 22 July 2007
On Pilate, and the Persecution of God’s Remnant
On a doleful morning long ago, darkness was confronted by light, and the darkness understood it not, nor overcame it. Pontius Pilate was confronted by Jesus Christ. The man Pilate was in a position of apparent judgment: the world in judgment of the divine; the Devil in judgment of the Son of God. Here was a natural man confronted by the living Truth and who willfully refused to discern it. Instead, he resorted to the wisdom of the world and began to question Jesus in order to discover who He was. Yet Christ confounded Pilate’s worldly questioning with His divine silence. And when Pilate convinced himself that there was no real harm in Jesus, he thought of how he might let him go. This is how the world begins to treat the Church. By exposing her to the neutralizing influence of its own worldly wisdom, it believes it has made the Church safe and to be no different than any other belief system, just as Pilate came to think that Jesus was no different than any other small-time trouble-maker or Rabbi. At first Pilate was disposed to favour Christ by choosing to believe Him to be harmless and inoffensive; in the same fashion the world has been disposed to be tolerant and favourable to the Church. And, in fact, in its cloying and deceitful tolerance and favour, the world has actually neutralized the Church (at least in the developed world) and has made her harmless. She is no longer a threat to the world. In many cases, she has now been either neutralized to the point of being a laughing stock, or else she goes a-whoring after the very same corrupt values and standards of the world that are so soundly condemned by Scripture.
Yet for many people merely neutralizing the Church is insufficient. They are threatened by the light of the Gospel even when it burns but dimly and, like the mob in Jerusalem that day, would have it extinguished altogether; the indifferently tolerant who are in the world, like Pilate facing Jesus, will inevitably give sway to the growing fear-mongering of the intolerant mob. And just as Pilate tried to do that awful morning long ago, the tolerant ones will endeavor to quiet and placate the increasing hostility from the ones who feel most threatened. Just so, Pilate had the Christ scourged, in the mistaken hope that such an act would coddle the hostility of the Christ-haters. Yet when the mob perceives this tolerance as being sympathetic with the Church, the tolerant ones, in the name of tolerance, will quickly disavow themselves of any relationship and the faithful Church of the Remnant will be given over to authorities who will persecute it with increasing fury, just as Pilate gave Christ over to the soldiers after washing his hands. And when even that fails and the biblically faithful Church emerges from her persecution bent but undiminished in faith, the mob will resort to more permanent measures, just as did Pilate when he realized that all his attempts at neutralizing Christ and placating the mob had failed.
So we see in Pilate’s encounter with Christ a pattern for the world’s encounter with the faithful. And as Pilate did to Christ, so the world will do to the Church. As you have seen if you have followed the links above, much of the Church today has been hoodwinked by the devil (who was the real adversary confronting Christ) and has fallen victim to his soft wooing, going whoring after the things of the world. But the faithful Church will increasingly be persecuted until the end. If we are not hated, we are not disciples!
But in all of this, let us not forget that all these things took place by God’s “determinate counsel” as it is in the KJV, or by the “predetermined plan and foreknowledge” of God as it is in the NASB (Acts 2:23), as part of the great plan of salvation first announced in Genesis 3:15. God used Pilate, an ungodly man, to be the instrument (one among many) by which the original proto-euangelion of Genesis 3 would be accomplished. Does not this stagger the imagination and more importantly beggar one’s pride?
So then, let us take some comfort. Persecution will come; it is promised and prophesied. We will suffer, but in our suffering we share in the very life of Christ. This is the day that the LORD has made, let us be glad and rejoice in it.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Yet for many people merely neutralizing the Church is insufficient. They are threatened by the light of the Gospel even when it burns but dimly and, like the mob in Jerusalem that day, would have it extinguished altogether; the indifferently tolerant who are in the world, like Pilate facing Jesus, will inevitably give sway to the growing fear-mongering of the intolerant mob. And just as Pilate tried to do that awful morning long ago, the tolerant ones will endeavor to quiet and placate the increasing hostility from the ones who feel most threatened. Just so, Pilate had the Christ scourged, in the mistaken hope that such an act would coddle the hostility of the Christ-haters. Yet when the mob perceives this tolerance as being sympathetic with the Church, the tolerant ones, in the name of tolerance, will quickly disavow themselves of any relationship and the faithful Church of the Remnant will be given over to authorities who will persecute it with increasing fury, just as Pilate gave Christ over to the soldiers after washing his hands. And when even that fails and the biblically faithful Church emerges from her persecution bent but undiminished in faith, the mob will resort to more permanent measures, just as did Pilate when he realized that all his attempts at neutralizing Christ and placating the mob had failed.
So we see in Pilate’s encounter with Christ a pattern for the world’s encounter with the faithful. And as Pilate did to Christ, so the world will do to the Church. As you have seen if you have followed the links above, much of the Church today has been hoodwinked by the devil (who was the real adversary confronting Christ) and has fallen victim to his soft wooing, going whoring after the things of the world. But the faithful Church will increasingly be persecuted until the end. If we are not hated, we are not disciples!
But in all of this, let us not forget that all these things took place by God’s “determinate counsel” as it is in the KJV, or by the “predetermined plan and foreknowledge” of God as it is in the NASB (Acts 2:23), as part of the great plan of salvation first announced in Genesis 3:15. God used Pilate, an ungodly man, to be the instrument (one among many) by which the original proto-euangelion of Genesis 3 would be accomplished. Does not this stagger the imagination and more importantly beggar one’s pride?
So then, let us take some comfort. Persecution will come; it is promised and prophesied. We will suffer, but in our suffering we share in the very life of Christ. This is the day that the LORD has made, let us be glad and rejoice in it.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Monday, 16 July 2007
Learning Greek
I’m teaching myself biblical Greek.
Oh, I can hear the reaction: “What—is he mad?”
Yes, I probably am mad, at least semi-mad anyway. What man approaching sixty would even consider doing something like this? I mean, most men my age take up golf or spend quality-time bouncing grandchildren on their knee (one at a time, presumably). I’ve never been like that. Besides, my son has yet to engender any offspring. When I was less than half the age I am now, I began to translate the Old Testament from Hebrew into English. Did I know Hebrew? No. Was I trained as a translator? No. Did I have any qualifications whatsoever to undertake such a task? No. Did I finish my undertaking? Regrettably, no.
I’ve been contemplating this for some time now but have always been intimidated by the enormity of the undertaking. I’ve been using various Greek aids, lexicons and the like for a long time but that can only take your understanding so far and it is easy to get things wrong or out of context that way. Some people would consider me to be foolish or worse, a dilettante. Well, perhaps I am a little foolish; but for what, exactly? Am I foolish because I love God’s Word? Am I foolish because I want to understand it better? Am I foolish because I want to wring every last drop of meaning out of it? I hope the answer to all these questions is “No.”
What about the charge of being a dilettante? This could be truer for me since I have not received any formal training as a minister of the Word. I don’t want to be a dilettante. Who would? Or who would ever admit to such a charge, even if true. Not I. Yet it may very well be true of me. I hope and pray that I not be like the men Paul warned Timothy about—“vain janglers” as the KJV describes them— those who have forgotten or never understood that, “the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” Oh, let me not be one of the vain janglers, those “who have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions” (1 Tim. 1:5-7).
That unpleasant thought aside, why am I now undertaking this self-imposed task? Well, I’m not sure. I have struggled with a sense of calling for a very long time—long before I knew I was a Christian even. It was partly a sense of needing to know more and to experience more of the mystery of God I suppose. Christ has been in my life since I was about six years old, though I only came to realize this through the direct experience of His presence and His displeasure with my abundantly sinful life less than a decade ago. But I have always had an inner hunger or thirst that nothing could ever slake—until I experienced God’s gracious love and mercy in the person of Jesus Christ. And since coming to know Him, I’ve also come to want to know Him more deeply and completely. This I do imperfectly and always with less sincerity than I would like through prayer, worship and bible study. But how can a merely superficial understanding, gleaned from the experience of others, be enough? Perhaps it is enough, yet I still feel the need to go deeper.
Will I get very far? He knows; I don’t. I’ll try to give it my best shot though. I’ll keep you posted as to my progress. Perhaps those of my readers who are already well along this path—ministers, seminary students and the certifiably odd—could mentor me, or at least offer me some help from time to time. I’d appreciate it.
Bill Mounce, whose book Greek for the Rest of Us, is one of the resources I’ve begun to use, reminds his readers that, “it’s not a little Greek that proves dangerous. It’s a little bit of pride that proves dangerous.”
Lord, keep me from the sin of pride and the equally horrendous sin of self-righteousness that comes with just a little bit of knowledge. And I pray, Dear Lord, whatever I learn, turn it to your own glory alone.
Amen.
Oh, I can hear the reaction: “What—is he mad?”
Yes, I probably am mad, at least semi-mad anyway. What man approaching sixty would even consider doing something like this? I mean, most men my age take up golf or spend quality-time bouncing grandchildren on their knee (one at a time, presumably). I’ve never been like that. Besides, my son has yet to engender any offspring. When I was less than half the age I am now, I began to translate the Old Testament from Hebrew into English. Did I know Hebrew? No. Was I trained as a translator? No. Did I have any qualifications whatsoever to undertake such a task? No. Did I finish my undertaking? Regrettably, no.
I’ve been contemplating this for some time now but have always been intimidated by the enormity of the undertaking. I’ve been using various Greek aids, lexicons and the like for a long time but that can only take your understanding so far and it is easy to get things wrong or out of context that way. Some people would consider me to be foolish or worse, a dilettante. Well, perhaps I am a little foolish; but for what, exactly? Am I foolish because I love God’s Word? Am I foolish because I want to understand it better? Am I foolish because I want to wring every last drop of meaning out of it? I hope the answer to all these questions is “No.”
What about the charge of being a dilettante? This could be truer for me since I have not received any formal training as a minister of the Word. I don’t want to be a dilettante. Who would? Or who would ever admit to such a charge, even if true. Not I. Yet it may very well be true of me. I hope and pray that I not be like the men Paul warned Timothy about—“vain janglers” as the KJV describes them— those who have forgotten or never understood that, “the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” Oh, let me not be one of the vain janglers, those “who have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions” (1 Tim. 1:5-7).
That unpleasant thought aside, why am I now undertaking this self-imposed task? Well, I’m not sure. I have struggled with a sense of calling for a very long time—long before I knew I was a Christian even. It was partly a sense of needing to know more and to experience more of the mystery of God I suppose. Christ has been in my life since I was about six years old, though I only came to realize this through the direct experience of His presence and His displeasure with my abundantly sinful life less than a decade ago. But I have always had an inner hunger or thirst that nothing could ever slake—until I experienced God’s gracious love and mercy in the person of Jesus Christ. And since coming to know Him, I’ve also come to want to know Him more deeply and completely. This I do imperfectly and always with less sincerity than I would like through prayer, worship and bible study. But how can a merely superficial understanding, gleaned from the experience of others, be enough? Perhaps it is enough, yet I still feel the need to go deeper.
Will I get very far? He knows; I don’t. I’ll try to give it my best shot though. I’ll keep you posted as to my progress. Perhaps those of my readers who are already well along this path—ministers, seminary students and the certifiably odd—could mentor me, or at least offer me some help from time to time. I’d appreciate it.
Bill Mounce, whose book Greek for the Rest of Us, is one of the resources I’ve begun to use, reminds his readers that, “it’s not a little Greek that proves dangerous. It’s a little bit of pride that proves dangerous.”
Lord, keep me from the sin of pride and the equally horrendous sin of self-righteousness that comes with just a little bit of knowledge. And I pray, Dear Lord, whatever I learn, turn it to your own glory alone.
Amen.
Tuesday, 10 July 2007
Sharing Our Burdens
I am a duly ordained Stephen Minister. Stephen Ministry is about caring for those who are hurting and in need of emotional and spiritual help when life takes a wrong and perhaps unexpected turn. The ministry is named after Stephen, the first known Christian martyr and one of the first Deacons in the Church.
I was ordained to this ministry in a previous church than the one I now attend. The congregation was (and I guess still is) quite large, consisting of about six hundred members. Now, based on pure statistics alone, in a congregation of that size one would expect to find more than a few hurting and needy people at any given time: people going through marriage difficulties, people who have lost a job, or worse, a vocation; people who have lost a loved one or are facing death themselves.
The ministry was in full swing for the entire time I attended the church and yet not a single Stephen Minister was in fact ministering to the needs of anyone. This was not the fault of the ministry, or its leader, my good friend and brother Bob Barclay. In spite of encouragement from the pulpit, no one ever came forward to say, “Brother (or sister), I need to lean on you for a little while, just till I catch my breath.” We attended meetings, upgraded our training, prayed for one another and the congregation but still we seemed like an answer in search of a question. Was this a healthy congregation? Were its members strong and balanced all the time; immune from heartache, depression, grief or sadness? Of course not, no congregation is like that. So why didn’t people come to us and say, “Jamie or Bob or Margaret, I need some help.”
It seems to me that the whole notion we might not be emotionally, mentally or spiritually strong is loathsome to us. We’re ashamed to admit our need because this makes us seem weak. In our own eyes it diminishes our worth as Christians in comparison to those around us. Never mind that we’re called to bear one another’s burdens—and therefore, by implication, to share them with others (Gal. 6:2); never mind that we all have equal worth in the eyes of Him who made us as well as saved us; never mind that in the body of Christ, all the members have value and worth, even the weakest or most needy (1 Cor. 12:22, 23); never mind that, “if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart” (Ecc. 4:12). We somehow have the idea that because we as individuals have been given the Spirit of Comfort, Counsellor, and Paraclete in Christ’s very own Holy Spirit, somehow that same Spirit would not work just as well—or better—through the Body of Christ, which is His Church manifested in any local congregation or fellowship of other Christians. Perhaps we can attribute this attitude to the extreme individualism that is so characteristic of the age and which is so unchristian.
Speaking of His own impending crucifixion, Christ said, “These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). The obvious key words in this verse are peace, tribulation, courage and overcome. But there is a key phrase here that most people overlook simply because of its starkness and simplicity. It is the phrase, “in Me.” This is what gives meaning to the rest of the verse. It is only in Christ that we can get the courage to face the tribulations that are inherent in the world and so find the lasting peace we all crave. No two words, taken together, have nearly the richness, depth and importance of meaning than do these two words, in Christ. They are the very heart and soul of the Gospel and the Bible itself. If we do not have a sense of what this phrase in Christ (or in Me, when Christ refers to Himself) means, we will never understand what it is to be a Christian and will never understand God’s revelation of Himself in the Scriptures.
This is not the place to unpack the freight of meaning behind these two little words. Suffice to say that when we are in Christ, we have His very own indwelling Spirit in us as well, so that “He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man” (Eph. 3:16). But too often forgotten or overlooked, the Spirit of Christ always works in and amongst His chosen people, which is the true Church; not the church as an institution but the Church as the organic, dynamic, vibrant, and vital body of Christ! It is in Christ’s Body, the Church, that the Holy Spirit carries on His greatest work as Paraclete—Helper. It is in the Body of Christ, the assembly of all true, born-again believers, that the Spirit does His greatest work of healing. It is through one another, as members of the Body of which Christ is the Head, that we gain access to the comforting, healing power of Christ’s Spirit. But I believe many Christians have never actually worked out the ramifications, implications and consequences of being members of Christ’s Body.
In Romans 12:5 Paul says, “so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” I wonder if you are hearing what he is saying? Even though we are many in the sense of being individually unique, with our own personalities, talents and gifts, in another sense we are in fact one. And not one in the manner that a chunk of peanut brittle is one or that two things joined together by glue is one. No, we are organically one and indivisible in the same way a physical body is one. And when a physical body loses one of its members—an eye, a hand, a foot, an ear—it is diminished as a whole. This reality is reflected in the tone of the Meditation # 17 of John Donne: “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind....”
In Romans 12:5 Paul says that we are members one of another. We belong to each other as members of Christ’s body in the same way a wife belongs to her husband and a husband to his wife. We don’t merely have the privilege of caring for one another’s needs; we have a God-given duty and responsibility to care and to be cared for! A Christian who does not allow himself to be cared for by a brother or sister is not just doing harm to that individual; he is doing harm to the body of Christ and therefore to Christ himself.
It is instructive to listen to Paul once again, at length:
A person who does not grasp the fact that the members of his or her congregation are not like members of his or her curling club, tennis club, golf club, book club or whatever, simply does not understand the collective and essentially covenantal nature of salvation. Although we are saved as individuals, we are not saved merely or only as individuals, but rather as members of a body. The terms “brother” or “sister”, as they are used in Christianity, are not mere euphemisms; they are accurate descriptions of the fact of the new, regenerated life we share in Christ.
For this reason it behooves us to be willing and courageous enough to trust—as an act of the will—our brother and sister with whatever problems we might be faced with. If nothing else, we can get encouragement and prayer for our blessing, knowing that when these things come from a brother or sister who has the indwelling Spirit, they come from Christ.
Soli Deo Gloria.
I was ordained to this ministry in a previous church than the one I now attend. The congregation was (and I guess still is) quite large, consisting of about six hundred members. Now, based on pure statistics alone, in a congregation of that size one would expect to find more than a few hurting and needy people at any given time: people going through marriage difficulties, people who have lost a job, or worse, a vocation; people who have lost a loved one or are facing death themselves.
The ministry was in full swing for the entire time I attended the church and yet not a single Stephen Minister was in fact ministering to the needs of anyone. This was not the fault of the ministry, or its leader, my good friend and brother Bob Barclay. In spite of encouragement from the pulpit, no one ever came forward to say, “Brother (or sister), I need to lean on you for a little while, just till I catch my breath.” We attended meetings, upgraded our training, prayed for one another and the congregation but still we seemed like an answer in search of a question. Was this a healthy congregation? Were its members strong and balanced all the time; immune from heartache, depression, grief or sadness? Of course not, no congregation is like that. So why didn’t people come to us and say, “Jamie or Bob or Margaret, I need some help.”
It seems to me that the whole notion we might not be emotionally, mentally or spiritually strong is loathsome to us. We’re ashamed to admit our need because this makes us seem weak. In our own eyes it diminishes our worth as Christians in comparison to those around us. Never mind that we’re called to bear one another’s burdens—and therefore, by implication, to share them with others (Gal. 6:2); never mind that we all have equal worth in the eyes of Him who made us as well as saved us; never mind that in the body of Christ, all the members have value and worth, even the weakest or most needy (1 Cor. 12:22, 23); never mind that, “if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart” (Ecc. 4:12). We somehow have the idea that because we as individuals have been given the Spirit of Comfort, Counsellor, and Paraclete in Christ’s very own Holy Spirit, somehow that same Spirit would not work just as well—or better—through the Body of Christ, which is His Church manifested in any local congregation or fellowship of other Christians. Perhaps we can attribute this attitude to the extreme individualism that is so characteristic of the age and which is so unchristian.
Speaking of His own impending crucifixion, Christ said, “These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). The obvious key words in this verse are peace, tribulation, courage and overcome. But there is a key phrase here that most people overlook simply because of its starkness and simplicity. It is the phrase, “in Me.” This is what gives meaning to the rest of the verse. It is only in Christ that we can get the courage to face the tribulations that are inherent in the world and so find the lasting peace we all crave. No two words, taken together, have nearly the richness, depth and importance of meaning than do these two words, in Christ. They are the very heart and soul of the Gospel and the Bible itself. If we do not have a sense of what this phrase in Christ (or in Me, when Christ refers to Himself) means, we will never understand what it is to be a Christian and will never understand God’s revelation of Himself in the Scriptures.
This is not the place to unpack the freight of meaning behind these two little words. Suffice to say that when we are in Christ, we have His very own indwelling Spirit in us as well, so that “He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man” (Eph. 3:16). But too often forgotten or overlooked, the Spirit of Christ always works in and amongst His chosen people, which is the true Church; not the church as an institution but the Church as the organic, dynamic, vibrant, and vital body of Christ! It is in Christ’s Body, the Church, that the Holy Spirit carries on His greatest work as Paraclete—Helper. It is in the Body of Christ, the assembly of all true, born-again believers, that the Spirit does His greatest work of healing. It is through one another, as members of the Body of which Christ is the Head, that we gain access to the comforting, healing power of Christ’s Spirit. But I believe many Christians have never actually worked out the ramifications, implications and consequences of being members of Christ’s Body.
In Romans 12:5 Paul says, “so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” I wonder if you are hearing what he is saying? Even though we are many in the sense of being individually unique, with our own personalities, talents and gifts, in another sense we are in fact one. And not one in the manner that a chunk of peanut brittle is one or that two things joined together by glue is one. No, we are organically one and indivisible in the same way a physical body is one. And when a physical body loses one of its members—an eye, a hand, a foot, an ear—it is diminished as a whole. This reality is reflected in the tone of the Meditation # 17 of John Donne: “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind....”
In Romans 12:5 Paul says that we are members one of another. We belong to each other as members of Christ’s body in the same way a wife belongs to her husband and a husband to his wife. We don’t merely have the privilege of caring for one another’s needs; we have a God-given duty and responsibility to care and to be cared for! A Christian who does not allow himself to be cared for by a brother or sister is not just doing harm to that individual; he is doing harm to the body of Christ and therefore to Christ himself.
It is instructive to listen to Paul once again, at length:
For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body…. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” …But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it (1 Cor. 12:12-16, 24b-26).
A person who does not grasp the fact that the members of his or her congregation are not like members of his or her curling club, tennis club, golf club, book club or whatever, simply does not understand the collective and essentially covenantal nature of salvation. Although we are saved as individuals, we are not saved merely or only as individuals, but rather as members of a body. The terms “brother” or “sister”, as they are used in Christianity, are not mere euphemisms; they are accurate descriptions of the fact of the new, regenerated life we share in Christ.
For this reason it behooves us to be willing and courageous enough to trust—as an act of the will—our brother and sister with whatever problems we might be faced with. If nothing else, we can get encouragement and prayer for our blessing, knowing that when these things come from a brother or sister who has the indwelling Spirit, they come from Christ.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Tuesday, 3 July 2007
A Word for Leaders in the Church
“nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:3).
I was thinking lately of leadership within the Church; this after reading the section on the Church in Robert L. Reymond’s “Systematic Theology.” It is something with which I have a kind of (how shall I say it) abiding interest; I’m not sure why really. Nevertheless, Reymond’s book started a train of thought that led me to 1 Peter 5:3, which in turn has led me to this post.
In the context of 1 Peter 5:3, the “examples” being referred to were the Elders within the apostolic church. The word translated as “examples” that the Spirit used by way of Peter is tupos from which we derive our own words type, typical, typology and the like. In the Greek it has the basic meaning of a mark left from a stroke or a blow; the resulting impression, and so forth. The picture that pops into my mind is that of coins being stamped with an image, over and over again, one stamp for each coin. So as the original goes, so goes the stamped replica; the coins being minted are “typical” of the original.
In most English translations, the word used for tupos is “example(s)” and I think it is a pretty good word. It is good because it brings out a slightly different meaning of the Greek; the idea of “imitation.” To imitate something is to be like something; it is to become like some type or example given. (You could say by way of illustration that the minted coins were imitations—not forgeries—of their original). And in this verse from Peter’s first letter, the idea is that Elders are examples that other Christians are to follow, to imitate or to become like and not merely to obey.
I think this is very important, and it is an idea that I believe is somewhat diminished in the Church today. In those congregations that still maintain the office of Elder, the Elder is usually, and unconsciously I think, seen by the congregation as an “overseer” (Greek episkopos) which word commonly shares more similarity with our word “manager” (Greek oikonomos—from which comes the English “economy”). And undeniably, one aspect of the office of Elder is that of ruler, overseer, or manager. But as Peter clearly points out, rulership, oversight or management is only a part of this biblical office. In his Christian walk he is also an example for others to follow. And this is not only where Elders in the Church often fail—yes, Elders do sometimes fail—it is where we fail as well. We don’t strive to be like our Elders; if anything we merely try to be obedient to them in the same way workers are obedient to their managers, thinking this enough.
As Christians we are all to become more and more like Christ through the working out of our sanctification (Phil. 2:12-13). But the office of Elder was given, in part, so that we could see in the one who had the charge over us, a type that we could emulate or be like, the underlying assumption being that those who were chosen as Elders, were so gifted by the Holy Spirit as to be worthy of emulation and imitation. They are to be our “examples” in such a way as to make our emulation or imitation of Christ more comprehensible, “Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us” (Phil. 3:17). “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). In other words, the Elder is one who closely emulates the Master and so acts as an example of our own sanctification.
Over and over, Christ emphasizes the priestly or shepherding qualities of those who were to care for His Church. In this role these men were known as Pastor(s) (Greek Poimen) and it is this aspect of the office of Elder that I believe is undervalued in the Church today. The shepherd was the one who cared for the flock under his watch. The shepherd was less a manager of the flock than he was its leader, guardian and protector (John 10:10-15).
This train of thought—if correct (and I’ll be the first to admit it may not be)—leads to the conclusion that to be an Elder is to be like Christ but also to be seen as being like Christ. The Elder is an example. But more than this, the Elder is an example whether he likes it or not and he will be either a good example, worthy to be emulated and imitated as a type, or he will be a poor example, not worthy to be emulated. But it would seem clear from Christ’s references that He intended the leaders of His Church to be good examples rather than bad. So what kind of an example did Christ have in mind? How were the leaders of His Church to be exemplary?
Well for one—and perhaps most importantly, at least for me,—they were to be servants of the flock. Even in the verse we are considering, Peter makes it clear that Elders were not to see their duties first as overseers or managers, especially of the type that “lorded it over others” by being a kind of boss. Instead, they were to see themselves as examples—they were to lead by showing others the way of Christ—and this through servanthood, even as Christ came not to be served but to serve. Consider this: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-28, italics added). And from John’s gospel we have a wonderful picture of what Christ actually meant by the idea of what I term servant-love: “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself. Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded….So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, ‘Do you know what I have done to you? You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, [have] washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them’” (John 13:3-5, 12-17, italics added).
The servanthood we see demonstrated by Christ and which He exhorted His apostles (and hence all the leadership within the greater Church) to follow is one of lowliness and humility (Luke 14:7-14). It is one where the welfare of others and the progress of the gospel are demonstrated through gentleness, patience, compassion, truth and most of all, love. It is not a holier-than-thou walk; it is a walk based on recognition of one’s abject spiritual poverty and of loving-kindness to those of your charge. The light that Elders should let shine must not be a Pharisaical light but a Christ-like light; a light that demonstrates love for both the commandments of the Saviour and not just one or the other.
So after all is said and done, what application is there to be found here? May I offer the following? Elders (and Pastors and all those with a ministry in the Church) examine yourselves to see if you be true bond servants of the Lord, ready to do His bidding in and out of season, ready to protect and defend the gospel, ready to demonstrate—through action—your servant-love for others. In terms of being an example for others in your care, if your underlying attitude is not the equivalent of washing the feet of another, then I believe you may need to re-examine what you are doing and why you are doing it, even if this leads you to relinquish your office altogether. Remember this: as the original goes, so goes the stamped replica, therefore as the Elder goes, so goes the congregation. In this regard, let us remember the words of the Lord’s brother and the leader of the Jerusalem church before his martyrdom: “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). This is a fearful thought and a sobering warning for us all.
Soli Deo Gloria.
I was thinking lately of leadership within the Church; this after reading the section on the Church in Robert L. Reymond’s “Systematic Theology.” It is something with which I have a kind of (how shall I say it) abiding interest; I’m not sure why really. Nevertheless, Reymond’s book started a train of thought that led me to 1 Peter 5:3, which in turn has led me to this post.
In the context of 1 Peter 5:3, the “examples” being referred to were the Elders within the apostolic church. The word translated as “examples” that the Spirit used by way of Peter is tupos from which we derive our own words type, typical, typology and the like. In the Greek it has the basic meaning of a mark left from a stroke or a blow; the resulting impression, and so forth. The picture that pops into my mind is that of coins being stamped with an image, over and over again, one stamp for each coin. So as the original goes, so goes the stamped replica; the coins being minted are “typical” of the original.
In most English translations, the word used for tupos is “example(s)” and I think it is a pretty good word. It is good because it brings out a slightly different meaning of the Greek; the idea of “imitation.” To imitate something is to be like something; it is to become like some type or example given. (You could say by way of illustration that the minted coins were imitations—not forgeries—of their original). And in this verse from Peter’s first letter, the idea is that Elders are examples that other Christians are to follow, to imitate or to become like and not merely to obey.
I think this is very important, and it is an idea that I believe is somewhat diminished in the Church today. In those congregations that still maintain the office of Elder, the Elder is usually, and unconsciously I think, seen by the congregation as an “overseer” (Greek episkopos) which word commonly shares more similarity with our word “manager” (Greek oikonomos—from which comes the English “economy”). And undeniably, one aspect of the office of Elder is that of ruler, overseer, or manager. But as Peter clearly points out, rulership, oversight or management is only a part of this biblical office. In his Christian walk he is also an example for others to follow. And this is not only where Elders in the Church often fail—yes, Elders do sometimes fail—it is where we fail as well. We don’t strive to be like our Elders; if anything we merely try to be obedient to them in the same way workers are obedient to their managers, thinking this enough.
As Christians we are all to become more and more like Christ through the working out of our sanctification (Phil. 2:12-13). But the office of Elder was given, in part, so that we could see in the one who had the charge over us, a type that we could emulate or be like, the underlying assumption being that those who were chosen as Elders, were so gifted by the Holy Spirit as to be worthy of emulation and imitation. They are to be our “examples” in such a way as to make our emulation or imitation of Christ more comprehensible, “Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us” (Phil. 3:17). “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). In other words, the Elder is one who closely emulates the Master and so acts as an example of our own sanctification.
Over and over, Christ emphasizes the priestly or shepherding qualities of those who were to care for His Church. In this role these men were known as Pastor(s) (Greek Poimen) and it is this aspect of the office of Elder that I believe is undervalued in the Church today. The shepherd was the one who cared for the flock under his watch. The shepherd was less a manager of the flock than he was its leader, guardian and protector (John 10:10-15).
This train of thought—if correct (and I’ll be the first to admit it may not be)—leads to the conclusion that to be an Elder is to be like Christ but also to be seen as being like Christ. The Elder is an example. But more than this, the Elder is an example whether he likes it or not and he will be either a good example, worthy to be emulated and imitated as a type, or he will be a poor example, not worthy to be emulated. But it would seem clear from Christ’s references that He intended the leaders of His Church to be good examples rather than bad. So what kind of an example did Christ have in mind? How were the leaders of His Church to be exemplary?
Well for one—and perhaps most importantly, at least for me,—they were to be servants of the flock. Even in the verse we are considering, Peter makes it clear that Elders were not to see their duties first as overseers or managers, especially of the type that “lorded it over others” by being a kind of boss. Instead, they were to see themselves as examples—they were to lead by showing others the way of Christ—and this through servanthood, even as Christ came not to be served but to serve. Consider this: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-28, italics added). And from John’s gospel we have a wonderful picture of what Christ actually meant by the idea of what I term servant-love: “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself. Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded….So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, ‘Do you know what I have done to you? You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, [have] washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them’” (John 13:3-5, 12-17, italics added).
The servanthood we see demonstrated by Christ and which He exhorted His apostles (and hence all the leadership within the greater Church) to follow is one of lowliness and humility (Luke 14:7-14). It is one where the welfare of others and the progress of the gospel are demonstrated through gentleness, patience, compassion, truth and most of all, love. It is not a holier-than-thou walk; it is a walk based on recognition of one’s abject spiritual poverty and of loving-kindness to those of your charge. The light that Elders should let shine must not be a Pharisaical light but a Christ-like light; a light that demonstrates love for both the commandments of the Saviour and not just one or the other.
So after all is said and done, what application is there to be found here? May I offer the following? Elders (and Pastors and all those with a ministry in the Church) examine yourselves to see if you be true bond servants of the Lord, ready to do His bidding in and out of season, ready to protect and defend the gospel, ready to demonstrate—through action—your servant-love for others. In terms of being an example for others in your care, if your underlying attitude is not the equivalent of washing the feet of another, then I believe you may need to re-examine what you are doing and why you are doing it, even if this leads you to relinquish your office altogether. Remember this: as the original goes, so goes the stamped replica, therefore as the Elder goes, so goes the congregation. In this regard, let us remember the words of the Lord’s brother and the leader of the Jerusalem church before his martyrdom: “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). This is a fearful thought and a sobering warning for us all.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Saturday, 30 June 2007
The Canada I Love.
"He shall have dominion from sea to sea…."
The Canada I love is a land where politicians have integrity. It is a land where those who govern value the trust they hold. It is a land where their "Yes" means "Yes" and their "No" means "No".
The Canada I love is a country that embraces diversity but not at the cost of unity so hard in the winning. It is a country where morality is not an anachronism and upright men and women are heard in the land. They are neither afraid nor ashamed.
The Canada I love is a land where the agendas of the strident and corrupt cannot take hostage the virtue and uprightness of time-honoured traditions. It is a land where the apathetic and amoral are not entertained by the shameless and the perverse.
The Canada I love is a country where cherished values are worth dying to defend. It is a land that believes marriage is a God sanctioned bond between a man and woman rather than a social contract between persons, however sincere.
The Canada I love is a country of peacekeepers. It is a country on guard for the danger without and the danger within. It is a country of big hearts and strong arms, quick to help and quick to defend and always ready to reach beyond her own borders to the weak, the timid, the oppressed, the hungry.
The Canada I love is a country where safety is normal and security a right. It is a country of firm, swift justice tempered by tender mercy, a place where women and children are not hostages in their own homes. It is a place where the rights of the victimized are more important than those of the guilty. It is a place where the elderly are respected and all, regardless of belief or culture, are afforded dignity and peace.
The Canada I love cares for the sick. She clothes the naked and feeds the hungry. In her streets, there are no homeless.
The Canada I love knows the cost of sacrifice and the price of freedom. The Canada I love is a land where liberalism does not mean relativism, where democracy does not mean the rule of the hypocritical for the good of the greedy, where reward does not mean favoritism, where virtue does not mean wickedness and where rights are not determined by the powerful few who are unaccountable to the people it is their God-ordained duty to serve.
The Canada I love is a land of mighty oceans and majestic landscapes but more than this, it is a land of people proud and strong, good and kind. It is a land whose citizens are hard working, honest and diligent, a place of manifold opportunities where fear does not rule, where disgrace is unknown and where comfort can be found around the next turn of the road.
This is the Canada I love. And if you say that this is a country of my dreams, then I say to you, who sit in the seat of scoffers, that I will dream of this country glorious and free. I will ply the trade of virtue before I ever walk in the way of self-interest, of those who stumble in the dark, without the least notion of how great is this country, this Canada that I love.
May God bless this country and keep her safe.
The Canada I love is a land where politicians have integrity. It is a land where those who govern value the trust they hold. It is a land where their "Yes" means "Yes" and their "No" means "No".
The Canada I love is a country that embraces diversity but not at the cost of unity so hard in the winning. It is a country where morality is not an anachronism and upright men and women are heard in the land. They are neither afraid nor ashamed.
The Canada I love is a land where the agendas of the strident and corrupt cannot take hostage the virtue and uprightness of time-honoured traditions. It is a land where the apathetic and amoral are not entertained by the shameless and the perverse.
The Canada I love is a country where cherished values are worth dying to defend. It is a land that believes marriage is a God sanctioned bond between a man and woman rather than a social contract between persons, however sincere.
The Canada I love is a country of peacekeepers. It is a country on guard for the danger without and the danger within. It is a country of big hearts and strong arms, quick to help and quick to defend and always ready to reach beyond her own borders to the weak, the timid, the oppressed, the hungry.
The Canada I love is a country where safety is normal and security a right. It is a country of firm, swift justice tempered by tender mercy, a place where women and children are not hostages in their own homes. It is a place where the rights of the victimized are more important than those of the guilty. It is a place where the elderly are respected and all, regardless of belief or culture, are afforded dignity and peace.
The Canada I love cares for the sick. She clothes the naked and feeds the hungry. In her streets, there are no homeless.
The Canada I love knows the cost of sacrifice and the price of freedom. The Canada I love is a land where liberalism does not mean relativism, where democracy does not mean the rule of the hypocritical for the good of the greedy, where reward does not mean favoritism, where virtue does not mean wickedness and where rights are not determined by the powerful few who are unaccountable to the people it is their God-ordained duty to serve.
The Canada I love is a land of mighty oceans and majestic landscapes but more than this, it is a land of people proud and strong, good and kind. It is a land whose citizens are hard working, honest and diligent, a place of manifold opportunities where fear does not rule, where disgrace is unknown and where comfort can be found around the next turn of the road.
This is the Canada I love. And if you say that this is a country of my dreams, then I say to you, who sit in the seat of scoffers, that I will dream of this country glorious and free. I will ply the trade of virtue before I ever walk in the way of self-interest, of those who stumble in the dark, without the least notion of how great is this country, this Canada that I love.
May God bless this country and keep her safe.
Thursday, 28 June 2007
Can a Bad Person Translate the Good Book?
In the April to June 2007 issue of the “Quarterly Record”, the official magazine of the Trinitarian Bible Society, there is an ad hominem attack on the textual critic Dr. Kurt Aland. Aland was largely responsible for compiling and editing the Nestle-Aland Greek 26th edition and the UBS 1966 and 1983 Greek texts of the New Testament and which differ from the traditional “Received Text.” The UBS and the Nestle-Aland form the basis of most modern translations of the New Testament while the Received Text or Textus Receptus forms the basis of the Authorized or King James Version (along with the New King James Version) of the New Testament.
The stated purpose of the author of the article is to show “…what Kurt Aland’s theological views are concerning Biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility.” He uses the published opinions of Aland to “prove” that Aland’s work is unreliable at best and heretical at worst. He does this entirely through the use of the ad hominem fallacy by confusing the issue of biblical inerrancy and so on with irrelevant premises about Dr. Aland and his beliefs. I say irrelevant because I believe it is not important to God what are the personal beliefs or practices of men and women he chooses to carry out His work or His will. Modern Christians have the false idea that because God is good, He would only use good people to further His designs and good purposes. Many Christians, including the author of the article in the “Quarterly Record”, forget that God has often used “questionable” and even down-right bad people to carry out His will; people like Joseph’s brothers, the prophet Jonah, Balaam, the whole Assyrian army, the Pharaoh of the Exodus, Cyrus the Persian, Saul of Tarsus (after first converting him), Pontius Pilate, all the Jewish mob and most of the Sanhedrin who clamoured for Christ to be crucified. In one way or another God used these people as the means for carrying out His will and for bringing Himself glory.
If that is the case, as it demonstrably is, then why are so many Christians unable to admit that it is perfectly possible for God to use people like Kurt Aland to further His own glory? The author says “When we would evaluate the work of a textual critic—one who would compile a text of the original languages for the Bible—we must look for a man who believes the things we have just discussed [issues of inerrancy and infallibility]. He must believe that the Bible is the Word of God, because ‘every word of God is pure.’ He must believe that God has promised to preserve that Word pure, in every age. He must also believe that God will do this in the line of the true Church.” But why must a textual critic believe any of this? Does the author of the article in the Record believe that God is dependant on feeble, fallen sinners to protect His Word? Does he not think enough of God and His omnipotent power to believe that what God has said, He brings to pass? “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11 KJV).
Some will argue that the issue is the truth or falseness of a translation: the KJV being true and every other one being false. Yet, when the entire counsel of God's Word is taken into consideration, I do not think any significant Christian doctrine is being put in jeopardy by any of the best and most responsible modern translations such as the NASB, the NKJV or even the NIV (although I know many who will vehemently disagree with this opinion). The argument is nothing more than a red herring. It is brought out disguised as a legitimate argument by those who, more for cultural reasons than any other, wish to impose their own views on others by dressing up in pious garb.
The charge of heresy or even apostasy has often been leveled at modern textual critics and translators by men who are staunch defenders not only of the KJV but of the character of the men who translated the Received Text into the KJV. But for all their apparent godliness, many of these translators were far from perfect as individuals. In fact several of them could not truthfully be described as anything less than scoundrels and hypocrites. That did not deter God however, in His purpose of preserving His Word by having these men translate the Received Text into the most sublime translation of any, before or since. You see, it was up to God to preserve His Word, not us. He could never rely on mere fallen sinners to keep His Word pure and unadulterated, so He confounded the wisdom of the wise by using our very own sinfulness and imperfection to preserve His Word. (It is not often admitted, but Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1469-1536), the man who was largely responsible for bringing together the various fragments of the Byzantine text into what came to be called the Textus Receptus, the Received Text, and which is revered as the true Word of God by most Reformed Christians and virtually all “Fundamentalist” denominations, all of which denounce both Romanism and Humanism, was himself not only a Romanist Catholic but a Humanist to boot! An unlikely candidate for God to use for the furtherance of His good purpose, but there it is nonetheless.)
It is also worth noting that no translation of the Bible will be of any good—except perhaps as a paper weight or a door stop—unless the Holy Spirit makes it so. The author of the article in the Quarterly Record has said that, “[The Textual Critic] must also believe that God will do this in the line of the true Church.” The underlying assumption of this statement being that the true Church is an institution based on the KJV of the Bible, which it is not. The true Church is the sum of all true believers, regardless of what “church” they attend or what Bible versions they use. The true Church is the totality of all those who are born-again by the regeneration and justification given them by God. It is the Holy Spirit who enables the born-again believer to actually understand the Bible. Without the Holy Spirit’s working in the mind and heart of the believer, the Bible is just a book of rules, irrelevant customs and supernatural enigmas. “At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, ‘I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight’ ” (Luke 10:21).
Soli Deo Gloria.
The stated purpose of the author of the article is to show “…what Kurt Aland’s theological views are concerning Biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility.” He uses the published opinions of Aland to “prove” that Aland’s work is unreliable at best and heretical at worst. He does this entirely through the use of the ad hominem fallacy by confusing the issue of biblical inerrancy and so on with irrelevant premises about Dr. Aland and his beliefs. I say irrelevant because I believe it is not important to God what are the personal beliefs or practices of men and women he chooses to carry out His work or His will. Modern Christians have the false idea that because God is good, He would only use good people to further His designs and good purposes. Many Christians, including the author of the article in the “Quarterly Record”, forget that God has often used “questionable” and even down-right bad people to carry out His will; people like Joseph’s brothers, the prophet Jonah, Balaam, the whole Assyrian army, the Pharaoh of the Exodus, Cyrus the Persian, Saul of Tarsus (after first converting him), Pontius Pilate, all the Jewish mob and most of the Sanhedrin who clamoured for Christ to be crucified. In one way or another God used these people as the means for carrying out His will and for bringing Himself glory.
If that is the case, as it demonstrably is, then why are so many Christians unable to admit that it is perfectly possible for God to use people like Kurt Aland to further His own glory? The author says “When we would evaluate the work of a textual critic—one who would compile a text of the original languages for the Bible—we must look for a man who believes the things we have just discussed [issues of inerrancy and infallibility]. He must believe that the Bible is the Word of God, because ‘every word of God is pure.’ He must believe that God has promised to preserve that Word pure, in every age. He must also believe that God will do this in the line of the true Church.” But why must a textual critic believe any of this? Does the author of the article in the Record believe that God is dependant on feeble, fallen sinners to protect His Word? Does he not think enough of God and His omnipotent power to believe that what God has said, He brings to pass? “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11 KJV).
Some will argue that the issue is the truth or falseness of a translation: the KJV being true and every other one being false. Yet, when the entire counsel of God's Word is taken into consideration, I do not think any significant Christian doctrine is being put in jeopardy by any of the best and most responsible modern translations such as the NASB, the NKJV or even the NIV (although I know many who will vehemently disagree with this opinion). The argument is nothing more than a red herring. It is brought out disguised as a legitimate argument by those who, more for cultural reasons than any other, wish to impose their own views on others by dressing up in pious garb.
The charge of heresy or even apostasy has often been leveled at modern textual critics and translators by men who are staunch defenders not only of the KJV but of the character of the men who translated the Received Text into the KJV. But for all their apparent godliness, many of these translators were far from perfect as individuals. In fact several of them could not truthfully be described as anything less than scoundrels and hypocrites. That did not deter God however, in His purpose of preserving His Word by having these men translate the Received Text into the most sublime translation of any, before or since. You see, it was up to God to preserve His Word, not us. He could never rely on mere fallen sinners to keep His Word pure and unadulterated, so He confounded the wisdom of the wise by using our very own sinfulness and imperfection to preserve His Word. (It is not often admitted, but Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1469-1536), the man who was largely responsible for bringing together the various fragments of the Byzantine text into what came to be called the Textus Receptus, the Received Text, and which is revered as the true Word of God by most Reformed Christians and virtually all “Fundamentalist” denominations, all of which denounce both Romanism and Humanism, was himself not only a Romanist Catholic but a Humanist to boot! An unlikely candidate for God to use for the furtherance of His good purpose, but there it is nonetheless.)
It is also worth noting that no translation of the Bible will be of any good—except perhaps as a paper weight or a door stop—unless the Holy Spirit makes it so. The author of the article in the Quarterly Record has said that, “[The Textual Critic] must also believe that God will do this in the line of the true Church.” The underlying assumption of this statement being that the true Church is an institution based on the KJV of the Bible, which it is not. The true Church is the sum of all true believers, regardless of what “church” they attend or what Bible versions they use. The true Church is the totality of all those who are born-again by the regeneration and justification given them by God. It is the Holy Spirit who enables the born-again believer to actually understand the Bible. Without the Holy Spirit’s working in the mind and heart of the believer, the Bible is just a book of rules, irrelevant customs and supernatural enigmas. “At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, ‘I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight’ ” (Luke 10:21).
Soli Deo Gloria.
Monday, 25 June 2007
Revival in Our Generation
Though I know very little about it, the subject of revival has been much on my mind of late.
It seems to me that revival only takes place in the hearts and minds of those who are already regenerated and converted. That is to say revival (as opposed to revivalism) is not the same thing as evangelism. It seems to my limited understanding that evangelism and revival are often conflated, yet they are very different things. Whereas evangelism is the act of making known the gospel to perishing sinners, revival is the activity of the Holy Spirit to renew believers’ power, understanding, zeal, conviction and faith; it is the ripening of the Fruit of the Spirit within the Church in any given generation. Revivalism is also often confused with evangelism by many because revivalism has been used as a means for evangelism—primarily by Arminians—since the time of the so-called Second Great Awakening in America, by such men as Charles Finney and his ilk.
So revival belongs to the Church. Yet I cannot think of any manifestation of revival in North American denominations in this generation. There have been plenty of revivalisms however, especially within the Southern Baptist tradition and its various unofficial branches as found in congregations like Saddleback Church. (In fact, Saddleback created, packaged and marketed a kind of in-house revivalism several years ago called the “40 Days of Purpose.” The church I attended at the time was one of 1500 churches around the world that took part in that program of contrived and worldly revivalism.) But I’m aware of no genuine revival in the Church, at least in North America, for more than forty years. Can this be? Can the Holy Spirit just remove Himself and His power from the Church when she seems to need Him so urgently? Is it entirely His doing? Is He being arbitrary in His absence?
Judging from the messages to the seven churches in Asia as found in the Revelation, it would seem that the need for revival has been an issue for the Church from before the end of the apostolic era. If this is the case and the Holy Spirit—who alone can bring revival—has not seen fit to bring it to the Church in this generation, then what are we to make of such a state of affairs? Why would He withhold it from His own Church? This is a question that we—those of us who are still here on earth at any rate—ultimately cannot answer. Nonetheless, it is my own belief that if the Holy Spirit has not seen fit to bless us with revival, it is most certainly not His fault. This leaves only two apparent possibilities: it is no one’s fault and we as the Church do not need revival or else the Church herself has somehow hindered the advent of revival in this generation, and perhaps in generations to come. Could it be that Christ’s Church is sufficiently holy and sanctified that there is no need for revival? Could it be that she is fulfilling her purposes to a degree and in ways that are pleasing to our triune God? It is my belief that the Church has actually hindered the outpouring of Holy Spirit by becoming worldly and luke-warm and to that degree has hindered the progress of the gospel.
There would seem to be two predominant forms of Christianity in North America today. One has reconciled itself to the world and its values. The other has set itself largely apart from the values of the world, yet it seems to have gotten there by cutting itself off from any intercourse with the world whatsoever, as if it might become infected with the same terminal disease. The former is characterized as having a kind of fascination with the world, while the latter is characterized as having only a cold indifference to the world and its concerns.
Both forms of Christianity are reactive, not proactive. Christianity is reactive in the sense that it has allowed the world and its values to set the Church’s agenda; to be the determiner of what she believes and how she demonstrates her belief. The Church only exists because of the world (and by world I mean not the whole created order so much as the sphere of influence of fallen man). Without the world of fallen, sinful man there would have been no need for the Church because there would have been no need for redemption and atonement. It is by the Church and the working of the Holy Spirit through her that the continuing application of Christ’s atonement is made for the elect. The Holy Spirit cannot be divorced from the Church because He is the Spirit of Christ and she is His bride. Therefore, the church must be faithful to her Bridegroom. If the church is not faithful to the Bridegroom, she is not faithful to His Holy Spirit either.
Can we hinder the work of the Holy Spirit by our unfaithfulness, by our refusal to take the gospel just as Christ and the apostles delivered it? I would have to say yes. We are called to walk in the Spirit and to exhibit His fruit in our lives on a continuing and deepening basis. We are called to make our lives in Christ a reasonable sacrifice of service to Him (and this not once but daily) and to let our minds be renewed in Him (Rom. 12:1-2).
I hear you asking, “What does this have to do with revival?”
Simply this: to the degree and extent we are not fulfilling God’s commandments (Luke 10:27) as His disciples, we are grieving His Holy Spirit. And if we grieve the Holy Spirit, can we expect true revival? Is it not arrogant in the extreme to even ask for revival, let alone to believe we deserve it? We pray for revival, but perhaps we really should be praying for softer hearts. Perhaps if we truly confessed our sins, as well as our sinful nature, recognizing that we have been saved by grace and not by works (of obedience), we might be blessed with revival as the fruit of truly submissive and gentle hearts. Why would the Holy Spirit withhold it from us, if we were truly repentant and totally dependant on God for all that we need? Let us not be like the church at Sardis that had a reputation for good works but in reality was dead. Let us do the good works that God has ordained us as His children to do (Eph 2:10). Let the light of the redeemed Church so shine before men that they will see our good works and glorify our father in Heaven (Matt 5:16). If we do this maybe then we can begin to pray for a revival in the larger Church. For revival will break out in a given place in a given time by those God chooses to use for this purpose. Let us then be worthy of such an honour.
Soli Deo Gloria.
It seems to me that revival only takes place in the hearts and minds of those who are already regenerated and converted. That is to say revival (as opposed to revivalism) is not the same thing as evangelism. It seems to my limited understanding that evangelism and revival are often conflated, yet they are very different things. Whereas evangelism is the act of making known the gospel to perishing sinners, revival is the activity of the Holy Spirit to renew believers’ power, understanding, zeal, conviction and faith; it is the ripening of the Fruit of the Spirit within the Church in any given generation. Revivalism is also often confused with evangelism by many because revivalism has been used as a means for evangelism—primarily by Arminians—since the time of the so-called Second Great Awakening in America, by such men as Charles Finney and his ilk.
So revival belongs to the Church. Yet I cannot think of any manifestation of revival in North American denominations in this generation. There have been plenty of revivalisms however, especially within the Southern Baptist tradition and its various unofficial branches as found in congregations like Saddleback Church. (In fact, Saddleback created, packaged and marketed a kind of in-house revivalism several years ago called the “40 Days of Purpose.” The church I attended at the time was one of 1500 churches around the world that took part in that program of contrived and worldly revivalism.) But I’m aware of no genuine revival in the Church, at least in North America, for more than forty years. Can this be? Can the Holy Spirit just remove Himself and His power from the Church when she seems to need Him so urgently? Is it entirely His doing? Is He being arbitrary in His absence?
Judging from the messages to the seven churches in Asia as found in the Revelation, it would seem that the need for revival has been an issue for the Church from before the end of the apostolic era. If this is the case and the Holy Spirit—who alone can bring revival—has not seen fit to bring it to the Church in this generation, then what are we to make of such a state of affairs? Why would He withhold it from His own Church? This is a question that we—those of us who are still here on earth at any rate—ultimately cannot answer. Nonetheless, it is my own belief that if the Holy Spirit has not seen fit to bless us with revival, it is most certainly not His fault. This leaves only two apparent possibilities: it is no one’s fault and we as the Church do not need revival or else the Church herself has somehow hindered the advent of revival in this generation, and perhaps in generations to come. Could it be that Christ’s Church is sufficiently holy and sanctified that there is no need for revival? Could it be that she is fulfilling her purposes to a degree and in ways that are pleasing to our triune God? It is my belief that the Church has actually hindered the outpouring of Holy Spirit by becoming worldly and luke-warm and to that degree has hindered the progress of the gospel.
There would seem to be two predominant forms of Christianity in North America today. One has reconciled itself to the world and its values. The other has set itself largely apart from the values of the world, yet it seems to have gotten there by cutting itself off from any intercourse with the world whatsoever, as if it might become infected with the same terminal disease. The former is characterized as having a kind of fascination with the world, while the latter is characterized as having only a cold indifference to the world and its concerns.
Both forms of Christianity are reactive, not proactive. Christianity is reactive in the sense that it has allowed the world and its values to set the Church’s agenda; to be the determiner of what she believes and how she demonstrates her belief. The Church only exists because of the world (and by world I mean not the whole created order so much as the sphere of influence of fallen man). Without the world of fallen, sinful man there would have been no need for the Church because there would have been no need for redemption and atonement. It is by the Church and the working of the Holy Spirit through her that the continuing application of Christ’s atonement is made for the elect. The Holy Spirit cannot be divorced from the Church because He is the Spirit of Christ and she is His bride. Therefore, the church must be faithful to her Bridegroom. If the church is not faithful to the Bridegroom, she is not faithful to His Holy Spirit either.
Can we hinder the work of the Holy Spirit by our unfaithfulness, by our refusal to take the gospel just as Christ and the apostles delivered it? I would have to say yes. We are called to walk in the Spirit and to exhibit His fruit in our lives on a continuing and deepening basis. We are called to make our lives in Christ a reasonable sacrifice of service to Him (and this not once but daily) and to let our minds be renewed in Him (Rom. 12:1-2).
I hear you asking, “What does this have to do with revival?”
Simply this: to the degree and extent we are not fulfilling God’s commandments (Luke 10:27) as His disciples, we are grieving His Holy Spirit. And if we grieve the Holy Spirit, can we expect true revival? Is it not arrogant in the extreme to even ask for revival, let alone to believe we deserve it? We pray for revival, but perhaps we really should be praying for softer hearts. Perhaps if we truly confessed our sins, as well as our sinful nature, recognizing that we have been saved by grace and not by works (of obedience), we might be blessed with revival as the fruit of truly submissive and gentle hearts. Why would the Holy Spirit withhold it from us, if we were truly repentant and totally dependant on God for all that we need? Let us not be like the church at Sardis that had a reputation for good works but in reality was dead. Let us do the good works that God has ordained us as His children to do (Eph 2:10). Let the light of the redeemed Church so shine before men that they will see our good works and glorify our father in Heaven (Matt 5:16). If we do this maybe then we can begin to pray for a revival in the larger Church. For revival will break out in a given place in a given time by those God chooses to use for this purpose. Let us then be worthy of such an honour.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Wednesday, 20 June 2007
All about Grace
No, this is not going to be a discourse on the theological meaning of the word and idea of grace, no need to haul your lexicons down from the top shelf. What I mean to say by my title is that, for a Christian, it’s all about grace. In other words, where would you and I be (as born-again believers) if not for grace, the unmerited favour of God toward sinners? You know as well as I where we’d be.
So, it’s all about grace. It’s all about being reconciled to God because of God’s incredible redeeming love for His children, who only become His children because of His magnanimous grace toward them. This awesome truth should cause us to stop whatever it is we are doing and say out loud with great joy to the heavens, “Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!”
This thought was brought home to me very forcefully last night. I was reading a chapter from Romans, an Expositional Commentary by James Montgomery Boice and published by Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1992. In his commentary on Romans 5:15-17, Boice concludes with the following words: “…let us revel in grace, abounding in it even as it is abounding. Why? Because as D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones says, ‘It is only when you and I, and others who are members of the Christian Church, are rejoicing in this abounding grace as we ought to be, that we shall begin to attract the people who are outside the church [quoted from Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 5, Assurance, pp. 238, 239]. There are lots of things about Christianity that will always be unattractive to the world: holiness, discipleship, self-sacrifice, and more. There are scores of them. But grace is not one. Grace is attractive, and those who have received grace should be attractive too. Later on [in Romans] Paul is going to speak of grace ‘abounding.’ Let it abound! He is going to speak of grace ‘reigning.’ Let it reign! Let it reign until all about turn to you and say, ‘If that is Christianity, then that is what I want.’ Do not live like a pauper when God has made you a king.”
The same night I also read the following words from my copy of My Utmost For His Highest by Oswald Chambers [Discovery House, Grand Rapids, 1992, ed. Reimann, J.]: “…whenever the realization of God comes, even in the faintest way imaginable, be determined to recklessly abandon yourself, surrendering everything to Him. It is only through abandonment of yourself and your circumstances that you will recognize Him. You will only recognize His voice more clearly through recklessness—being willing to risk your all.”
If we are saved entirely by grace—and we are—then shouldn’t that lead to a kind of reckless abandon? Shouldn’t we be able to “give it up for Christ?” What is there to hold on to by comparison? And shouldn’t others be able to see the reckless abandon in us? Not in our irresponsibility, not in our antinomianism, but in our joy! “Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; And let them say among the nations, "The LORD reigns” (1 Chronicles 16:31). “Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice” (Php 4:4).
Surely this is what our Lord had in mind when He said, “No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light” (Luke 11:33)?
For we must remember that the light He was speaking of was not the light of the man in and of himself (not his own personality, his talents, his discipline), but rather the light being referred to was Christ Himself. He was (and more importantly is) the light that should not be hidden. He is the light that no one should cover, but rather openly display on a candlestick so that all may see. Is this not something to rejoice in? Is this not beyond ourselves? Are we then to take credit for it? By no means!
You may ask “Are you proposing some kind of Christian hedonism?” To which I answer, “No, at least not exactly.” And I would mean by this answer that I only propose to be what Christ wants us to be in Him: thankfully joyful for the sacrifice He has made and the work He has accomplished for us, undeserving sinners that we are. Even one of the most conservative documents of the Reformation (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question and Answer 1) recognizes that our essential attitude as born-again believers is to be found in our enjoyment of God: “What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” But this is only possible when we recognize our debt to Christ and then joyfully glorify Him through our willing obedience to His commandments.
Do we attract others because of our own joyful attractiveness? Should we not be “contagious” Christians, infecting everyone we meet with the joy we have received in Christ? Let us not stifle the light but rather let us take joy in it. Let us revel, in reckless abandon, in the grace won for us by Christ, the Light of the World. Let grace abound in our lives, let it reign! Let us not live like paupers when God has made us Kings!
Soli Deo Gloria.
So, it’s all about grace. It’s all about being reconciled to God because of God’s incredible redeeming love for His children, who only become His children because of His magnanimous grace toward them. This awesome truth should cause us to stop whatever it is we are doing and say out loud with great joy to the heavens, “Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!”
This thought was brought home to me very forcefully last night. I was reading a chapter from Romans, an Expositional Commentary by James Montgomery Boice and published by Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1992. In his commentary on Romans 5:15-17, Boice concludes with the following words: “…let us revel in grace, abounding in it even as it is abounding. Why? Because as D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones says, ‘It is only when you and I, and others who are members of the Christian Church, are rejoicing in this abounding grace as we ought to be, that we shall begin to attract the people who are outside the church [quoted from Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 5, Assurance, pp. 238, 239]. There are lots of things about Christianity that will always be unattractive to the world: holiness, discipleship, self-sacrifice, and more. There are scores of them. But grace is not one. Grace is attractive, and those who have received grace should be attractive too. Later on [in Romans] Paul is going to speak of grace ‘abounding.’ Let it abound! He is going to speak of grace ‘reigning.’ Let it reign! Let it reign until all about turn to you and say, ‘If that is Christianity, then that is what I want.’ Do not live like a pauper when God has made you a king.”
The same night I also read the following words from my copy of My Utmost For His Highest by Oswald Chambers [Discovery House, Grand Rapids, 1992, ed. Reimann, J.]: “…whenever the realization of God comes, even in the faintest way imaginable, be determined to recklessly abandon yourself, surrendering everything to Him. It is only through abandonment of yourself and your circumstances that you will recognize Him. You will only recognize His voice more clearly through recklessness—being willing to risk your all.”
If we are saved entirely by grace—and we are—then shouldn’t that lead to a kind of reckless abandon? Shouldn’t we be able to “give it up for Christ?” What is there to hold on to by comparison? And shouldn’t others be able to see the reckless abandon in us? Not in our irresponsibility, not in our antinomianism, but in our joy! “Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; And let them say among the nations, "The LORD reigns” (1 Chronicles 16:31). “Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice” (Php 4:4).
Surely this is what our Lord had in mind when He said, “No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light” (Luke 11:33)?
For we must remember that the light He was speaking of was not the light of the man in and of himself (not his own personality, his talents, his discipline), but rather the light being referred to was Christ Himself. He was (and more importantly is) the light that should not be hidden. He is the light that no one should cover, but rather openly display on a candlestick so that all may see. Is this not something to rejoice in? Is this not beyond ourselves? Are we then to take credit for it? By no means!
You may ask “Are you proposing some kind of Christian hedonism?” To which I answer, “No, at least not exactly.” And I would mean by this answer that I only propose to be what Christ wants us to be in Him: thankfully joyful for the sacrifice He has made and the work He has accomplished for us, undeserving sinners that we are. Even one of the most conservative documents of the Reformation (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question and Answer 1) recognizes that our essential attitude as born-again believers is to be found in our enjoyment of God: “What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” But this is only possible when we recognize our debt to Christ and then joyfully glorify Him through our willing obedience to His commandments.
Do we attract others because of our own joyful attractiveness? Should we not be “contagious” Christians, infecting everyone we meet with the joy we have received in Christ? Let us not stifle the light but rather let us take joy in it. Let us revel, in reckless abandon, in the grace won for us by Christ, the Light of the World. Let grace abound in our lives, let it reign! Let us not live like paupers when God has made us Kings!
Soli Deo Gloria.
Monday, 18 June 2007
How Is Faith Demonstrated?
In the book of Hebrews, chapter 11, we are given a list of people the writer thought exemplified living faith. He tells us who they were and gives a brief précis of events that, in his mind, demonstrated the faith being spoken of. When reading this list, we are confronted with two undeniable facts: first, nothing happened to these people until God made His will known to them and second, when they knew God’s will, they didn’t just sit on their hands and wait for God to unilaterally intervene in some miraculous fashion; they got off their duffs and acted. Let’s summarize what the writer says in chapter 11:
By faith:
• We understand God…3
• Able offered…4
• Enoch pleased …5
• Noah built and condemned…7
• Abraham obeyed and went…8
• …made his home…9
• …fathered Isaac…11
• …offered Isaac…17
• Isaac blessed…20
• Jacob blessed…21
• Joseph gave instructions…22
• Moses parents hid him…23
• Moses chose…25
• … left and persevered…27
• …kept and sprinkled…28
• The [Jewish] people…passed through…29
• The people marched…30
• Others conquered, administered, gained, shut, quenched and escaped, etc.…32-38
What do all these italicized words from Hebrews 11 have in common? They are all action verbs! While some of the qualities of faith are described in Hebrews in passive terms, most—as can be easily seen—are in fact active words. They describe an active living out of the Word of God, not a passive acquiescence to it.
This is instructional for us. Don’t misunderstand though: acting without knowing is just foolishness. We must know the will of God before we can act on it in obedience, but once we do know what God’s will is in any matter, we must act. We do not have the freedom to sit on our hands and do nothing. Obedience, like faith, requires action; even risk-taking at times (Abraham is perhaps our best example.)
However, often people say they don’t act because they don’t know the will of God, using this supposed ignorance as an excuse for complacency or fear. I remember reading a book on Bible study and in it the author said, in effect, “The problem [with Christians] is not that they don’t understand it [the Bible], but that they are unwilling to obey it.” More often than not, we know, or are perfectly able to discern, the will of God but we choose to remain in ignorance or to refuse to follow through with our understanding because we are either self-satisfied with our current position or fearful of what it might cost if we were actually to obey.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about other Christians. I’m talking about myself! I know perfectly well what God’s will is for me in almost any circumstance, but I don’t follow through. I like to think of myself as a disciple, but I know in my heart that this is nothing more than a sentimental affectation. I fail daily, not to understand God’s will for me, but to be obedient to it.
I wonder how many others there are just like me.
Soli Deo Gloria.
By faith:
• We understand God…3
• Able offered…4
• Enoch pleased …5
• Noah built and condemned…7
• Abraham obeyed and went…8
• …made his home…9
• …fathered Isaac…11
• …offered Isaac…17
• Isaac blessed…20
• Jacob blessed…21
• Joseph gave instructions…22
• Moses parents hid him…23
• Moses chose…25
• … left and persevered…27
• …kept and sprinkled…28
• The [Jewish] people…passed through…29
• The people marched…30
• Others conquered, administered, gained, shut, quenched and escaped, etc.…32-38
What do all these italicized words from Hebrews 11 have in common? They are all action verbs! While some of the qualities of faith are described in Hebrews in passive terms, most—as can be easily seen—are in fact active words. They describe an active living out of the Word of God, not a passive acquiescence to it.
This is instructional for us. Don’t misunderstand though: acting without knowing is just foolishness. We must know the will of God before we can act on it in obedience, but once we do know what God’s will is in any matter, we must act. We do not have the freedom to sit on our hands and do nothing. Obedience, like faith, requires action; even risk-taking at times (Abraham is perhaps our best example.)
However, often people say they don’t act because they don’t know the will of God, using this supposed ignorance as an excuse for complacency or fear. I remember reading a book on Bible study and in it the author said, in effect, “The problem [with Christians] is not that they don’t understand it [the Bible], but that they are unwilling to obey it.” More often than not, we know, or are perfectly able to discern, the will of God but we choose to remain in ignorance or to refuse to follow through with our understanding because we are either self-satisfied with our current position or fearful of what it might cost if we were actually to obey.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about other Christians. I’m talking about myself! I know perfectly well what God’s will is for me in almost any circumstance, but I don’t follow through. I like to think of myself as a disciple, but I know in my heart that this is nothing more than a sentimental affectation. I fail daily, not to understand God’s will for me, but to be obedient to it.
I wonder how many others there are just like me.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Wednesday, 13 June 2007
A Song
One of my favourite movies is “Spartacus” directed by a young Stanley Kubrick, with Kirk Douglas in the starring role. The film was made in 1960, when I was eleven years old. I have seen it many times and every year or two I trot down to the local video store to rent a copy (I somehow haven’t yet managed to buy the DVD.) But this post isn’t about the movie. It’s about a song from the movie, spoken one evening when everyone was resting from their toil, by one of the freed slaves in Spartacus’ growing army, Antoninus. Here it is in full:
When the blazing sun hangs low in the western sky,
When the wind dies away on the mountain,
When the song of the meadowlark turns still,
When the field locust clicks no more in the field
And the sea-foam sleeps like a maiden at rest,
And twilight touches the shape of the wandering earth,
I turn home.
Through blue shadows and purple woods,
I turn home.
I turn to the place that I was born,
To the mother that bore me and the father that taught me
Long ago, long ago.
Alone am I now, lost and alone
In a far wide wandering world.
Yet still, when the blazing sun hangs low,
When the wind dies away and the sea-foam sleeps
And twilight touches the wandering earth,
I turn home,
I turn home,
I turn home.
It still brings a lump to my throat when I read these words. The scene in which this takes place is a very important one in the unfolding story. But that is not what always affected me about the song. No, rather it was the sense of being lost, of being alone, that always made me want to cry.
The sense of alienation and of longing in the song is heightened by the poignant references to the natural beauty all around but which seems impotent to bring the singer any sense of relief or fulfillment. The pathos is almost tangible. And I can’t help but to compare this pagan song, with all its existential sadness, to a song more familiar to all of us: that of the 23rd Psalm:
The LORD is my shepherd,
I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside quiet waters.
He restores my soul;
He guides me in the paths of righteousness
For His name's sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil, for You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You have anointed my head with oil;
My cup overflows.
Surely goodness and loving kindness will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.
What a difference! What hope, what confidence, what assurance, what comfort!
When I was young, before I knew I was a Christian, before I had the assurance and hope that one can get only through a living relationship with a loving Saviour, I too was like the singer of the song from Spartacus; sad, lost and forlorn. But when Christ came to me and called me His own, I suddenly understood three very important truths: first, that the world is not the beautiful place I thought it was—for all its beauty still—second, that I was not alone, that I had Someone who gave my life its significance and its value; value that it had lost because of Adam’s fall from grace; third, that I too could turn homeward. I could turn homeward; but unlike the singer, I could see the true home of the redeemed in Christ. I could see that, indeed, Christ had prepared a place for me there, my own home to which I now can look forward with confidence and not with fear, because I trust the One who made it all possible. The longing of the singer was my longing, his pain and sadness was my pain and sadness; the parents he missed became my loving Father and the home for which he longed became mine because of the complete and finished work of a loving, merciful and compassionate Saviour who came to me when I was still lost in a far wide wandering world. So now when twilight touches the wandering earth, and as I wander through the valley of the shadow of death, through blue shadows and purple woods, I turn home; for He is ever with me and He guides me through life’s darkest days. Now I live for the great marriage feast of the Lamb that awaits me, where I know that my cup will indeed overflow and I will dwell in His house, my house, my home, as His adopted child forever.
Amen.
Soli Deo Gloria.
When the blazing sun hangs low in the western sky,
When the wind dies away on the mountain,
When the song of the meadowlark turns still,
When the field locust clicks no more in the field
And the sea-foam sleeps like a maiden at rest,
And twilight touches the shape of the wandering earth,
I turn home.
Through blue shadows and purple woods,
I turn home.
I turn to the place that I was born,
To the mother that bore me and the father that taught me
Long ago, long ago.
Alone am I now, lost and alone
In a far wide wandering world.
Yet still, when the blazing sun hangs low,
When the wind dies away and the sea-foam sleeps
And twilight touches the wandering earth,
I turn home,
I turn home,
I turn home.
It still brings a lump to my throat when I read these words. The scene in which this takes place is a very important one in the unfolding story. But that is not what always affected me about the song. No, rather it was the sense of being lost, of being alone, that always made me want to cry.
The sense of alienation and of longing in the song is heightened by the poignant references to the natural beauty all around but which seems impotent to bring the singer any sense of relief or fulfillment. The pathos is almost tangible. And I can’t help but to compare this pagan song, with all its existential sadness, to a song more familiar to all of us: that of the 23rd Psalm:
The LORD is my shepherd,
I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside quiet waters.
He restores my soul;
He guides me in the paths of righteousness
For His name's sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil, for You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You have anointed my head with oil;
My cup overflows.
Surely goodness and loving kindness will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.
What a difference! What hope, what confidence, what assurance, what comfort!
When I was young, before I knew I was a Christian, before I had the assurance and hope that one can get only through a living relationship with a loving Saviour, I too was like the singer of the song from Spartacus; sad, lost and forlorn. But when Christ came to me and called me His own, I suddenly understood three very important truths: first, that the world is not the beautiful place I thought it was—for all its beauty still—second, that I was not alone, that I had Someone who gave my life its significance and its value; value that it had lost because of Adam’s fall from grace; third, that I too could turn homeward. I could turn homeward; but unlike the singer, I could see the true home of the redeemed in Christ. I could see that, indeed, Christ had prepared a place for me there, my own home to which I now can look forward with confidence and not with fear, because I trust the One who made it all possible. The longing of the singer was my longing, his pain and sadness was my pain and sadness; the parents he missed became my loving Father and the home for which he longed became mine because of the complete and finished work of a loving, merciful and compassionate Saviour who came to me when I was still lost in a far wide wandering world. So now when twilight touches the wandering earth, and as I wander through the valley of the shadow of death, through blue shadows and purple woods, I turn home; for He is ever with me and He guides me through life’s darkest days. Now I live for the great marriage feast of the Lamb that awaits me, where I know that my cup will indeed overflow and I will dwell in His house, my house, my home, as His adopted child forever.
Amen.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Monday, 11 June 2007
Hard Words
There are many hard words in scripture and many of the hardest were first spoken by the Lord. We may think of such words as, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). Or “…cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 25:30). These are indeed hard words. But of all the words of our Lord that seem so hard, I am convinced the hardest, and yet the most comforting as well, are those from Mark 5:36, “Be not afraid, only believe.” Five little words: seemingly so benign and unchallenging we usually pass them over, being found as they are in the middle of a touching story of family tragedy.
“Be not afraid.” Yet who among us has not once been afraid? Who among us has not ever felt the apprehension that always comes with bad news? “Only believe.” Yet even the beloved Peter doubted, so much so that on one occasion the Lord had to pray for Peter’s very soul!
From the human perspective, these words are hard to understand in their fullness and even harder to live up to. It is our very lot to be afraid. Our fear has the same cause as our sin: the fall of man in Adam (Genesis 3:10). When Christ tells us to be unafraid it has the same weight and significance as when he tells us to be perfect even as our Father in Heaven is perfect, or to go and sin no more. But who among us is perfect? Who among us is able to go and sin no more? Are we then any more able to be unafraid? We are no more able to prevent fear than we are to prevent sin. But He is able. That is why He also says, “Only believe.” With these words He is telling us that He will take our burden of fear upon himself, just as He also takes our sin. With these words He is telling us that if we accept Him as Lord and Saviour, if we believe exclusively in Him, then fear, like sin, shall have no dominion. Because of Him, we need not fear that our sins are too many or too perverse, or that He is partial or His mercy too shallow. When we believe in Him, we must also believe what He has done, is doing and will do. We only need to believe that He is willing, able and sufficient for us.
In another place, He spoke these words, “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).
And it is here, in the complete and finished work of Christ that we are to find our salvation, not in ourselves and our own measly works, but in His perfect and permanent overcoming. He does not just command us to be brave but also reassures us that the basis and ground of our fear has now been removed, as far away as the west is from the east or the sun from the moon. Let us believe and be comforted by Him and the work He has accomplished on behalf of His people, the very work He was sent to accomplish by a loving, almighty, never-failing God.
And God’s commands to be unafraid are never to be taken alone, for in every case, whether stated or not, we are to understand and believe in God’s own reassurance and promise: “Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness” (Isaiah 41:10).
The words which are so hard for us to obey—impossible in fact—have already been obeyed for us by God’s very own “right hand of righteousness” who is the Lord Christ Jesus. Because of His perfect righteousness and His sacrifice upon the cross, where He took our sin upon Himself, we need fear not nor doubt but only believe. And then, like Thomas before us, we will be able to stand before Him and proclaim with all boldness “My Lord and my God.”
Soli Deo Gloria.
“Be not afraid.” Yet who among us has not once been afraid? Who among us has not ever felt the apprehension that always comes with bad news? “Only believe.” Yet even the beloved Peter doubted, so much so that on one occasion the Lord had to pray for Peter’s very soul!
From the human perspective, these words are hard to understand in their fullness and even harder to live up to. It is our very lot to be afraid. Our fear has the same cause as our sin: the fall of man in Adam (Genesis 3:10). When Christ tells us to be unafraid it has the same weight and significance as when he tells us to be perfect even as our Father in Heaven is perfect, or to go and sin no more. But who among us is perfect? Who among us is able to go and sin no more? Are we then any more able to be unafraid? We are no more able to prevent fear than we are to prevent sin. But He is able. That is why He also says, “Only believe.” With these words He is telling us that He will take our burden of fear upon himself, just as He also takes our sin. With these words He is telling us that if we accept Him as Lord and Saviour, if we believe exclusively in Him, then fear, like sin, shall have no dominion. Because of Him, we need not fear that our sins are too many or too perverse, or that He is partial or His mercy too shallow. When we believe in Him, we must also believe what He has done, is doing and will do. We only need to believe that He is willing, able and sufficient for us.
In another place, He spoke these words, “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).
And it is here, in the complete and finished work of Christ that we are to find our salvation, not in ourselves and our own measly works, but in His perfect and permanent overcoming. He does not just command us to be brave but also reassures us that the basis and ground of our fear has now been removed, as far away as the west is from the east or the sun from the moon. Let us believe and be comforted by Him and the work He has accomplished on behalf of His people, the very work He was sent to accomplish by a loving, almighty, never-failing God.
And God’s commands to be unafraid are never to be taken alone, for in every case, whether stated or not, we are to understand and believe in God’s own reassurance and promise: “Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness” (Isaiah 41:10).
The words which are so hard for us to obey—impossible in fact—have already been obeyed for us by God’s very own “right hand of righteousness” who is the Lord Christ Jesus. Because of His perfect righteousness and His sacrifice upon the cross, where He took our sin upon Himself, we need fear not nor doubt but only believe. And then, like Thomas before us, we will be able to stand before Him and proclaim with all boldness “My Lord and my God.”
Soli Deo Gloria.
Thursday, 7 June 2007
The Three-fold Office of the Minister
It was, I believe, John Calvin who first articulated the idea of the three-fold office of Christ: that of Prophet, Priest and King. This three-fold description is a tidy short-hand for the work, obligations and duties of Christ, but it is my opinion that as an archetypal pattern it also describes the role or office of the Minister or Pastor within the Protestant Church. The office of Minister is patterned after that of Christ and was ordained by Him, by way of the apostles.
Forgive me, but I like the tidiness of this approach. I guess it appeals to my natural tendency to two-pile (dialectical) thinking. And certainly one can easily find Biblical warrant for each aspect described, especially in the Gospels.
If you don't mind, I’d like to take a few lines of digital type to explore a little the idea of Prophet, Priest and King as it is embodied in the office of Minister or Pastor within congregations. Please understand this is entirely a subjective opinion and carries no authoritative weight.
Firstly then, Ministers hold the office of Prophet. A prophet was a truth-teller, but not necessarily a fortune-teller or futurist. He proclaimed God’s truth about Himself, His purposes and His promises as God made them evident to him. Prophetic proclamation in the OT is often signalled by the phrase, “Thus saith the LORD." In the Gospels, Christ alerts us to many of His prophetic utterances by the similar phrase, “Verily, verily, I say unto you.” So as prophet, the Minister must simply and directly proclaim God’s truth which of course is summarized in the Gospel, the good news, found in both testaments. This is the first and foremost duty of the office of Minister within the Protestant Church. This is part of the Great Commission, or the spreading of the Gospel to “all the nations.” It is a solemn duty and yet a joyous privilege to proclaim the Gospel to a perishing world. It is the ordained task of every Minister to undertake this in his official role of prophet. In this role the Minister speaks from God to the people. But additionally, teaching is also an aspect of this office. The Minister is the teacher of God’s Word. I personally believe that anyone who is not a practicing Minister or Elder within his own congregation (or who is not a student Minister in training) does not automatically have the authority to teach God’s Word. (I have in mind here many scholars and so-called experts in theology. However, anyone has the right to receive delegated authority from office bearers such as the Elders, enabling them to teach if they have the recognized gift to do so.)
Secondly, and importantly, ministers are obligated in their role as “under-shepherds of Christ” to care for and nurture other believers in the same way Christ cared for and nurtured His disciples and now cares for His Bride, the Church. This the Minister does in his official role as Priest. This is an aspect of ministry that many people don’t fully appreciate, especially in Reformed congregations, which can be so oriented to the dual role of Prophet/King. In this priestly role they are properly called “Pastors” or shepherds. The Pastor edifies or encourages believers of his flock in their faith. He supports those who are confused or whose faith may be in a weakened condition. He fends off the wiles of the devil (primarily but not exclusively through prayer and counselling) fencing his flock from evil. It is for these reasons, among others, that it is of utmost importance for a congregation to have a settled Minister, one who is part of the community of believers. Just as the shepherd lives with his flock and they know his voice, so the under-shepherd of a congregation of believers lives with them, forms relationships with them, becomes trusted by them and so is able to minister—to serve—them as their spiritual protector, confidant and counsellor. Congregations that do not have a settled Minister do not have the benefit of pastoral protection and strength.
Thirdly, the protestant minister holds Kingly authority as the governor within the congregation. His authority within the congregation, or the Church at large, is a delegated kingship or authority as he is acting as governor, representative and ambassador of the true King, Jesus Christ. In his kingly duties he is responsible for the rule and government of the congregation. This responsibility he shares with his Elders. In his role as governor, the Minister must use his wisdom and courage to make decisions concerning the welfare, direction, faithfulness etc. of the congregation for which he is responsible. In this role he is sometimes called to discipline those in his flock who are going astray through sinfulness or rebellion.
I believe that in his office as Christ’s governor he will be more effective if he can augment the duties of government with those of his pastoral office. He will find that the more he serves, the less he will need to govern. His government will be based on love and caring for those in his charge and so will less frequently need to resort to discipline. His standing orders are these, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-28).
But a congregation without her own Minister is going to be seriously deprived in this area. A congregation without a Minister will be more susceptible to error, complacency, worldliness and back-sliding. As well, individual members who need the reassurance of one they know, trust and indeed love will be more vulnerable to the wiles of the flesh, the world and the devil. It is of greatest importance therefore, for each and every congregation to have her own Pastor who is able and authorized to care for their entire well-being.
One final note: it could be that, for whatever reason, Christ may withhold a Minister from a particular congregation for a time. Since every flock must have a shepherd, so every congregation must have a Pastor or under-shepherd; I take this to be axiomatic of God’s will for His church and His people. If it is the case that a congregation has been without a settled minister for one or more extended periods of time, that congregation should do some serious soul-searching, going to God in prayer and perhaps even fasting in order to determine the underlying cause of this problem. In any event, the lack of a Minister should not be taken lightly by the congregation as it could be a sign of a very serious underlying problem of sin within the congregation. So much for the three-fold aspect of Ministry.
Soli Deo Gloria
Forgive me, but I like the tidiness of this approach. I guess it appeals to my natural tendency to two-pile (dialectical) thinking. And certainly one can easily find Biblical warrant for each aspect described, especially in the Gospels.
If you don't mind, I’d like to take a few lines of digital type to explore a little the idea of Prophet, Priest and King as it is embodied in the office of Minister or Pastor within congregations. Please understand this is entirely a subjective opinion and carries no authoritative weight.
Firstly then, Ministers hold the office of Prophet. A prophet was a truth-teller, but not necessarily a fortune-teller or futurist. He proclaimed God’s truth about Himself, His purposes and His promises as God made them evident to him. Prophetic proclamation in the OT is often signalled by the phrase, “Thus saith the LORD." In the Gospels, Christ alerts us to many of His prophetic utterances by the similar phrase, “Verily, verily, I say unto you.” So as prophet, the Minister must simply and directly proclaim God’s truth which of course is summarized in the Gospel, the good news, found in both testaments. This is the first and foremost duty of the office of Minister within the Protestant Church. This is part of the Great Commission, or the spreading of the Gospel to “all the nations.” It is a solemn duty and yet a joyous privilege to proclaim the Gospel to a perishing world. It is the ordained task of every Minister to undertake this in his official role of prophet. In this role the Minister speaks from God to the people. But additionally, teaching is also an aspect of this office. The Minister is the teacher of God’s Word. I personally believe that anyone who is not a practicing Minister or Elder within his own congregation (or who is not a student Minister in training) does not automatically have the authority to teach God’s Word. (I have in mind here many scholars and so-called experts in theology. However, anyone has the right to receive delegated authority from office bearers such as the Elders, enabling them to teach if they have the recognized gift to do so.)
Secondly, and importantly, ministers are obligated in their role as “under-shepherds of Christ” to care for and nurture other believers in the same way Christ cared for and nurtured His disciples and now cares for His Bride, the Church. This the Minister does in his official role as Priest. This is an aspect of ministry that many people don’t fully appreciate, especially in Reformed congregations, which can be so oriented to the dual role of Prophet/King. In this priestly role they are properly called “Pastors” or shepherds. The Pastor edifies or encourages believers of his flock in their faith. He supports those who are confused or whose faith may be in a weakened condition. He fends off the wiles of the devil (primarily but not exclusively through prayer and counselling) fencing his flock from evil. It is for these reasons, among others, that it is of utmost importance for a congregation to have a settled Minister, one who is part of the community of believers. Just as the shepherd lives with his flock and they know his voice, so the under-shepherd of a congregation of believers lives with them, forms relationships with them, becomes trusted by them and so is able to minister—to serve—them as their spiritual protector, confidant and counsellor. Congregations that do not have a settled Minister do not have the benefit of pastoral protection and strength.
Thirdly, the protestant minister holds Kingly authority as the governor within the congregation. His authority within the congregation, or the Church at large, is a delegated kingship or authority as he is acting as governor, representative and ambassador of the true King, Jesus Christ. In his kingly duties he is responsible for the rule and government of the congregation. This responsibility he shares with his Elders. In his role as governor, the Minister must use his wisdom and courage to make decisions concerning the welfare, direction, faithfulness etc. of the congregation for which he is responsible. In this role he is sometimes called to discipline those in his flock who are going astray through sinfulness or rebellion.
I believe that in his office as Christ’s governor he will be more effective if he can augment the duties of government with those of his pastoral office. He will find that the more he serves, the less he will need to govern. His government will be based on love and caring for those in his charge and so will less frequently need to resort to discipline. His standing orders are these, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-28).
But a congregation without her own Minister is going to be seriously deprived in this area. A congregation without a Minister will be more susceptible to error, complacency, worldliness and back-sliding. As well, individual members who need the reassurance of one they know, trust and indeed love will be more vulnerable to the wiles of the flesh, the world and the devil. It is of greatest importance therefore, for each and every congregation to have her own Pastor who is able and authorized to care for their entire well-being.
One final note: it could be that, for whatever reason, Christ may withhold a Minister from a particular congregation for a time. Since every flock must have a shepherd, so every congregation must have a Pastor or under-shepherd; I take this to be axiomatic of God’s will for His church and His people. If it is the case that a congregation has been without a settled minister for one or more extended periods of time, that congregation should do some serious soul-searching, going to God in prayer and perhaps even fasting in order to determine the underlying cause of this problem. In any event, the lack of a Minister should not be taken lightly by the congregation as it could be a sign of a very serious underlying problem of sin within the congregation. So much for the three-fold aspect of Ministry.
Soli Deo Gloria
Tuesday, 5 June 2007
The 50% Christian
Let me ask you a question: Are you a 50% Christian? What do I mean by that? Let me explain. By 50% Christian I don't mean someone who only lives the Christian life half-time. The 50% Christian does not describe someone who lives a worldly life during the week and then flips a switch and lives the Christian life (or some watered down version of it) on the Lord’s Day. No, that’s not what I have in mind.
The 50% Christian I’m referring to is one who does not (attempt to) fully live out the commandments of Christ as we are told to. Christ summarized the law of God very succinctly, “And Jesus answered him, 'The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these'” (Mark 12:29-31). So the Christian life can be broadly divided into obedience to two over-arching commandments: to love God and to love our neighbours.
The 50% Christian is one who does not love God and others (neighbours) but loves God or others. The division roughly resembles the one between hyper-Calvinists on the one hand, and liberals on the other.
The hyper-Calvinist is (stereotypically) one who is scrupulous about doctrine and worship but who can turn his back on someone in need. He is characterized by his zeal for God and his indifference to people. He is one who loves the first of Christ’s commandments but who hates the second.
The liberal is (stereotypically) one who is indifferent about doctrine and worship but who will be quick to help the needy or protest a perceived injustice. He is characterized by his zeal for social equality and his indifference to the holiness of God and Christian piety. He loves the second of Christ’s commandments but hates the first.
The hyper-Calvinist is one who, in self-complacency, will extol God’s sovereignty and His hatred of sin while he denigrates the free offer of the Gospel and God’s compassionate love for the sinner. He says, “God has chosen whom He will to save and has hatefully condemned the rest to perdition.”
The liberal is one who, in ignorance, believes that because God loves all people He must therefore save all people. He is one who understands God’s compassion but not His holiness. He says, “Since I believe in the inherent equality of all people, God must also believe in their equality before Him. Therefore all people are equal, so all will be saved.”
Now of course these are obvious exaggerations. Nevertheless I believe they embody much truth in the Church today. Well then, ask yourself the question. To quote the bard “To thine own self be true.” Are you a 50% Christian? If so, to which percentage do you belong?
Soli Deo Gloria
The 50% Christian I’m referring to is one who does not (attempt to) fully live out the commandments of Christ as we are told to. Christ summarized the law of God very succinctly, “And Jesus answered him, 'The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these'” (Mark 12:29-31). So the Christian life can be broadly divided into obedience to two over-arching commandments: to love God and to love our neighbours.
The 50% Christian is one who does not love God and others (neighbours) but loves God or others. The division roughly resembles the one between hyper-Calvinists on the one hand, and liberals on the other.
The hyper-Calvinist is (stereotypically) one who is scrupulous about doctrine and worship but who can turn his back on someone in need. He is characterized by his zeal for God and his indifference to people. He is one who loves the first of Christ’s commandments but who hates the second.
The liberal is (stereotypically) one who is indifferent about doctrine and worship but who will be quick to help the needy or protest a perceived injustice. He is characterized by his zeal for social equality and his indifference to the holiness of God and Christian piety. He loves the second of Christ’s commandments but hates the first.
The hyper-Calvinist is one who, in self-complacency, will extol God’s sovereignty and His hatred of sin while he denigrates the free offer of the Gospel and God’s compassionate love for the sinner. He says, “God has chosen whom He will to save and has hatefully condemned the rest to perdition.”
The liberal is one who, in ignorance, believes that because God loves all people He must therefore save all people. He is one who understands God’s compassion but not His holiness. He says, “Since I believe in the inherent equality of all people, God must also believe in their equality before Him. Therefore all people are equal, so all will be saved.”
Now of course these are obvious exaggerations. Nevertheless I believe they embody much truth in the Church today. Well then, ask yourself the question. To quote the bard “To thine own self be true.” Are you a 50% Christian? If so, to which percentage do you belong?
Soli Deo Gloria
Saturday, 2 June 2007
For the YouTube Generation
Just created a new webpage, for the "YouTube" generation. After surfing a couple of hundred blog sites in the last week or so, I'm overwhelmed by the number of people out there who are in utter despair and who are using their blogs and videos to cry out for help, for meaning, for purpose. These people are lost indeed.
For all the "YouTube" folks out there, this one's for you!
Soli Deo Gloria
For all the "YouTube" folks out there, this one's for you!
Soli Deo Gloria
Friday, 1 June 2007
Chastised Congregations?
Last Sunday evening after dinner, I read a sermon by JC Ryle (1816-1900) entitled “The Unchanging Christ.” It was based on Hebrews 13:8. In the sermon, Ryle discusses the faithfulness of Christ, in both His character and His work. He contrasts Christ’s faithfulness (his remaining the same) with the world’s changeableness. But an element of the sermon struck me as especially important. As part of his argument, Ryle takes aim at the erroneous idea, which often springs up in the Church, that once a church (in this context a local congregation—or even a denomination) has become established, the Lord will preserve and continue to bless her to the time of His second coming. But surely such a view is not warranted, either from personal experience, history or Scripture. Permit me to quote Ryle at length:
“... we ask you to mark that even churches continue not the same. Alas! There is only too much evidence that they too may fall to pieces and decay. Where are the churches whose faith and patience and love and zeal shine forth so brightly in the Acts and Epistles of the New Testament? ...They are gone, they are dead, they are fallen; they kept not their first estate, they became high-minded and puffed up with self-conceit; they did not persevere in well doing, they did not abound in the fruits of righteousness and so the Lord who had grafted them in, did also cut them off like withered and useless branches…. Doubtless, beloved, there are promises belonging to Christ’s church generally—the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; the Lord will never leave Himself without a witness—but there is no assurance that the church of any particular place or nation shall abide unchanged, except she continue faithful…if she does not hold forth the light of the pure gospel, if she leaves her first love, if she suffers false prophets to teach and seduce, if she becomes lukewarm, and says, “I am rich and increased with goods,” if she rests content with having a name to live while she is dead, and plumes herself on keeping hold of the truth while she does not witness to it—we are bold to tell you, however long God’s mercy shall spare her, her candlestick shall sooner or later be removed, for we know this fearful threat has been over and over again made good.”
And we can see from Scripture what Ryle was talking about, in the book of the Revelation. In chapters two and three, we have a record of congregations who were far from perfect. These congregations were, at least by our own often dismally low standards, what we would suppose to be God-fearing, holy and pious; and so they were, to a degree. Yet of the seven churches mentioned, only two were not soundly rebuked by the risen Christ for one thing or another. And was not even the Temple itself cataclysmically overthrown because of the complacency of the priesthood and the Jewish Elders and the general apostasy of the whole Jewish nation? Therefore let no one assume that his own church or congregation has been blessed or is being blessed by the Lord. (An obvious example of a contemporary denomination which is not being blessed by Christ is the Anglican/Episcopalian. It is in jeopardy of being torn asunder because of its own rebellion and especially by the open sinfulness and worldliness of its leadership. In the same sermon quoted from above, Ryle has these prophetic words about his own Anglican denomination: “Yes! Even we have reason to watch and to pray and to be humble and fear; no church so well ordered but through the sin and faithlessness of her members she may be overturned.”)
The Laodicean congregation (Rev. 3:15-17) is probably the best NT example of the harm of complacency within congregations. This was a church, a congregation, which had developed a kind of indifference to her own condition. She was a stagnating church and her leadership was therefore likely complacent. We can imagine a very sleepy, perhaps self-satisfied, congregation. I don’t know how long this church had been stagnating in its complacency but we do know that Paul was concerned with her spiritual well-being when he wrote his epistle to the Colossians in the late 60’s or early 70’s AD. If Revelation was written, as most believe, in the early 90’s AD that means she had been in her sleepy condition for at least thirty years. Did God speak to her in all that intervening time? Was he expressing His displeasure with her by chastising her repeatedly or was He silent after His first warning in the letter to the Colossian church? I don’t know.
We must realize that God does not always bless us as we would choose to be blessed. Nor do we often recognize that a blessing may start out as a rebuke. Indeed, often He will bless us, both personally and corporately, with that which may cause short term discomfort and pain. It is rather like—pardon the rather obvious illustration—a woman in childbirth. She is at first in discomfort, then severe pain, but finally after much travail and effort, she is joyful. What mother would later say, as she held her little one in her feeble and weary arms, that her pregnancy and even her labour was not ultimately a blessing to her? And what will she do? She will praise God and glorify Him for giving this blessing to her. So it is with Christ’s will for His Church. Certainly, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her as the True Church. But that is not to say that any congregation, as Ryle warns us, will not come, at some point, for some known or even unknown sin, under chastisement or even judgement, as was true for the Laodicean congregation. Because ultimately, He must have the glory. It must be for Him that the church receives her blessing from Him. If by her activity or lack thereof in bringing God the glory that is His due through her ministry to Him, to herself and to the world, how can a congregation, or even a whole denomination, ever expect to receive His blessing? May He then not do to that church as He pleases, just as the potter may do with his clay, destroying one vessel and creating another?
Soli Deo Gloria!
“... we ask you to mark that even churches continue not the same. Alas! There is only too much evidence that they too may fall to pieces and decay. Where are the churches whose faith and patience and love and zeal shine forth so brightly in the Acts and Epistles of the New Testament? ...They are gone, they are dead, they are fallen; they kept not their first estate, they became high-minded and puffed up with self-conceit; they did not persevere in well doing, they did not abound in the fruits of righteousness and so the Lord who had grafted them in, did also cut them off like withered and useless branches…. Doubtless, beloved, there are promises belonging to Christ’s church generally—the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; the Lord will never leave Himself without a witness—but there is no assurance that the church of any particular place or nation shall abide unchanged, except she continue faithful…if she does not hold forth the light of the pure gospel, if she leaves her first love, if she suffers false prophets to teach and seduce, if she becomes lukewarm, and says, “I am rich and increased with goods,” if she rests content with having a name to live while she is dead, and plumes herself on keeping hold of the truth while she does not witness to it—we are bold to tell you, however long God’s mercy shall spare her, her candlestick shall sooner or later be removed, for we know this fearful threat has been over and over again made good.”
And we can see from Scripture what Ryle was talking about, in the book of the Revelation. In chapters two and three, we have a record of congregations who were far from perfect. These congregations were, at least by our own often dismally low standards, what we would suppose to be God-fearing, holy and pious; and so they were, to a degree. Yet of the seven churches mentioned, only two were not soundly rebuked by the risen Christ for one thing or another. And was not even the Temple itself cataclysmically overthrown because of the complacency of the priesthood and the Jewish Elders and the general apostasy of the whole Jewish nation? Therefore let no one assume that his own church or congregation has been blessed or is being blessed by the Lord. (An obvious example of a contemporary denomination which is not being blessed by Christ is the Anglican/Episcopalian. It is in jeopardy of being torn asunder because of its own rebellion and especially by the open sinfulness and worldliness of its leadership. In the same sermon quoted from above, Ryle has these prophetic words about his own Anglican denomination: “Yes! Even we have reason to watch and to pray and to be humble and fear; no church so well ordered but through the sin and faithlessness of her members she may be overturned.”)
The Laodicean congregation (Rev. 3:15-17) is probably the best NT example of the harm of complacency within congregations. This was a church, a congregation, which had developed a kind of indifference to her own condition. She was a stagnating church and her leadership was therefore likely complacent. We can imagine a very sleepy, perhaps self-satisfied, congregation. I don’t know how long this church had been stagnating in its complacency but we do know that Paul was concerned with her spiritual well-being when he wrote his epistle to the Colossians in the late 60’s or early 70’s AD. If Revelation was written, as most believe, in the early 90’s AD that means she had been in her sleepy condition for at least thirty years. Did God speak to her in all that intervening time? Was he expressing His displeasure with her by chastising her repeatedly or was He silent after His first warning in the letter to the Colossian church? I don’t know.
We must realize that God does not always bless us as we would choose to be blessed. Nor do we often recognize that a blessing may start out as a rebuke. Indeed, often He will bless us, both personally and corporately, with that which may cause short term discomfort and pain. It is rather like—pardon the rather obvious illustration—a woman in childbirth. She is at first in discomfort, then severe pain, but finally after much travail and effort, she is joyful. What mother would later say, as she held her little one in her feeble and weary arms, that her pregnancy and even her labour was not ultimately a blessing to her? And what will she do? She will praise God and glorify Him for giving this blessing to her. So it is with Christ’s will for His Church. Certainly, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her as the True Church. But that is not to say that any congregation, as Ryle warns us, will not come, at some point, for some known or even unknown sin, under chastisement or even judgement, as was true for the Laodicean congregation. Because ultimately, He must have the glory. It must be for Him that the church receives her blessing from Him. If by her activity or lack thereof in bringing God the glory that is His due through her ministry to Him, to herself and to the world, how can a congregation, or even a whole denomination, ever expect to receive His blessing? May He then not do to that church as He pleases, just as the potter may do with his clay, destroying one vessel and creating another?
Soli Deo Gloria!
Wednesday, 30 May 2007
Thoughts on the Preaching of Eternal Damnation
A group from our church has been meeting on Friday evenings to study the book of Romans, and as is normal for gatherings in our home, there are several “bird walks” during the course of the evening. One such bird walk at a recent meeting was a lively discussion concerning the state of the church in North America and Europe (we all agree from personal experience it’s deplorable!) and the belief that a contributing factor to the casual attitude Christians have concerning worship in particular but also all things theological is our off-hand approach to the righteousness of God and His hatred for sin. This of course led to a discussion about how hell as the promised punishment for sinners is no longer being preached from the pulpits nor is being believed in the pews (forget about non-believers—shudder).
Just for fun, I asked the small group (all of whom had been attending our current church for less than three years, but whose accumulated years as believers totalled well over a century) within the last five years how many times had they heard a sermon preached on this subject of hell as the punishment for unrepentant sinners. To a man (or woman) they said “To their recollection, never.” This came as something of a surprise to me when I considered how important this subject is in the Bible, especially in the NT, especially in several discourses of Christ, the very Son of God, who created hell for the devil and his angels as their rightful punishment for rebellion and who will one day condemn them (along with all unrepentant, unbelieving sinners) to its flames and torments forever. And let us not forget the warning Christ gives all people in Matthew 10:28, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” The Greek word translated as “fear” is phobeo and means essentially to “be afraid, be very afraid.” It is common nowadays to hear people, even ministers of the Word, say that phobeo (fear) really means reverence or respect. Certainly in some few cases that is true. But far and away in both the OT as well as the NT, the words which are translated by the English word “fear” mean fear in the sense of being afraid, of terror, of fright, of dreadfulness and the like. This is but one example of where a liberal approach to Scripture is not only misleading, it is misleading in a very serious way, which in fact might contribute to a lackadaisical attitude toward the ever present danger of perdition.
We all agreed that we weren’t advocating that our preachers (our church currently has no minister of the Word, and we are being preached to by pulpit supply and two ministers-in-training) preach hell-fire and damnation exclusively. Such preaching inevitably gives rise to Christians who are legalistic, Pharisaical and cold-hearted (and maybe not even saved!). No, we are all born-again by God’s redeeming love, not His wrath against sin. No one wants to be beat upside the head with the Law, rather we want—and need— to be comforted, consoled and encouraged by the truth of God’s great love for His people, who “…so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
On the other hand, how can we truly know salvation without even a glimpse of damnation? It is critical that we come to know our own sinfulness and depravity and the hopelessness of our condition (”… being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness…whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans1:29-32). It is essential that we recognize the true nature of our condition so that we can repent of it and turn in faith to the all-sufficient saviour who has promised that if we come to Him (being drawn to Him through the working of the sovereign grace of God) He shall in no wise turn us away, “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled” (John 17:12).
Salvation only makes sense in contrast to perdition; heaven only in contrast to hell. This is not a popular message in “seeker-sensitive” congregations such as those based on the Saddleback/Willowcreek model, where what you hear constantly is a pandering from the pulpit to the “felt needs” of the members and the “seekers” in their midst. This is not to deny that some people (even in congregations like Saddleback, even under the heretical preaching of Rick Warren and his minions) do seek God, for we are commanded to seek Him: “Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near” (Isaiah 55:6). But we also know that the Bible, which all authentic Christians accept as true, claims that there are none who are good, no one who seeks God: “…as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; (Romans 3:10) unless God Himself regenerate him and draw Him unto Himself: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44).
There are, undeniably, some in these worldly apostate assemblies, who are in fact seeking to know the one true God and who will one day by justified by Him. But all such must first come to an understanding of their own sin and the just and well-deserved reward for that sin, which is eternal punishment in hell. So let not our ministers and pastors abandon the preaching of hell entirely. But let it be as a sobering corrective, and a splash of cold water, not only for the unbelieving but also for the lukewarm and the backsliding among us. Oh that we would all come to fear Him who has the power to destroy both body and soul in hell.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Just for fun, I asked the small group (all of whom had been attending our current church for less than three years, but whose accumulated years as believers totalled well over a century) within the last five years how many times had they heard a sermon preached on this subject of hell as the punishment for unrepentant sinners. To a man (or woman) they said “To their recollection, never.” This came as something of a surprise to me when I considered how important this subject is in the Bible, especially in the NT, especially in several discourses of Christ, the very Son of God, who created hell for the devil and his angels as their rightful punishment for rebellion and who will one day condemn them (along with all unrepentant, unbelieving sinners) to its flames and torments forever. And let us not forget the warning Christ gives all people in Matthew 10:28, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” The Greek word translated as “fear” is phobeo and means essentially to “be afraid, be very afraid.” It is common nowadays to hear people, even ministers of the Word, say that phobeo (fear) really means reverence or respect. Certainly in some few cases that is true. But far and away in both the OT as well as the NT, the words which are translated by the English word “fear” mean fear in the sense of being afraid, of terror, of fright, of dreadfulness and the like. This is but one example of where a liberal approach to Scripture is not only misleading, it is misleading in a very serious way, which in fact might contribute to a lackadaisical attitude toward the ever present danger of perdition.
We all agreed that we weren’t advocating that our preachers (our church currently has no minister of the Word, and we are being preached to by pulpit supply and two ministers-in-training) preach hell-fire and damnation exclusively. Such preaching inevitably gives rise to Christians who are legalistic, Pharisaical and cold-hearted (and maybe not even saved!). No, we are all born-again by God’s redeeming love, not His wrath against sin. No one wants to be beat upside the head with the Law, rather we want—and need— to be comforted, consoled and encouraged by the truth of God’s great love for His people, who “…so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
On the other hand, how can we truly know salvation without even a glimpse of damnation? It is critical that we come to know our own sinfulness and depravity and the hopelessness of our condition (”… being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness…whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans1:29-32). It is essential that we recognize the true nature of our condition so that we can repent of it and turn in faith to the all-sufficient saviour who has promised that if we come to Him (being drawn to Him through the working of the sovereign grace of God) He shall in no wise turn us away, “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled” (John 17:12).
Salvation only makes sense in contrast to perdition; heaven only in contrast to hell. This is not a popular message in “seeker-sensitive” congregations such as those based on the Saddleback/Willowcreek model, where what you hear constantly is a pandering from the pulpit to the “felt needs” of the members and the “seekers” in their midst. This is not to deny that some people (even in congregations like Saddleback, even under the heretical preaching of Rick Warren and his minions) do seek God, for we are commanded to seek Him: “Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near” (Isaiah 55:6). But we also know that the Bible, which all authentic Christians accept as true, claims that there are none who are good, no one who seeks God: “…as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; (Romans 3:10) unless God Himself regenerate him and draw Him unto Himself: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44).
There are, undeniably, some in these worldly apostate assemblies, who are in fact seeking to know the one true God and who will one day by justified by Him. But all such must first come to an understanding of their own sin and the just and well-deserved reward for that sin, which is eternal punishment in hell. So let not our ministers and pastors abandon the preaching of hell entirely. But let it be as a sobering corrective, and a splash of cold water, not only for the unbelieving but also for the lukewarm and the backsliding among us. Oh that we would all come to fear Him who has the power to destroy both body and soul in hell.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
