Who's that preacher?

Convergence

2012-03-07T09:53:00.002Z

I’m troubled by this book. I’ve had it on my shelves for a blog review for months now, but ittroubles me and I’ve kept putting it off. The problem is this: though Sam Storms is a friend of, and much respected by, JohnPiper and Wayne Grudem and others of similar pedigree – I just don’t believethe book.

The book is a plea for the uniting of charismatic phenomena(tongues, prophecy and the like) and Reformed doctrine. In that its focus is on phenomena, not‘merely’ a deeper experience of God’s love, it is several stages beyond thearguments of Lloyd-Jones, and should not be confused with them.

A large part of the book is anecdotal, in the sense that itsays ‘this is what happened to me’. AndI don’t believe it…

Let me highlight three things that to me are major problems.

First, he tells us that he has lied in print. He went into print several years earlierarguing for a cessationist position when he not only did not believe that thegifts had ceased but actually was, himself, a tongue-speaker (at the time,suppressing the gift). If by his ownadmission he’s lied in such a way, why should we believe him now?

Then – second - there’s the type of prophecy hedescribes. A dream that a window intheir yard would be broken by a foul ball in a baseball game. And – wow! – baseball had never been playedin that yard. But sure enough, somevisitors to the home, knowing nothing about the dream, played base-ball in the yardand broke a window. Sure proof that Godis at work? Not really; the Bible gives fourclear marks that God is at work and this isn't one of them. (Jonathan Edwardsunpacks them helpfully and at length in ‘Distinguishing Marks.’ Storm professes to be an Edwards fan - he must have read it.) But this kind of thing – if it happened – ison a level with psychic claims in all religions and none. Why would Almighty God give a dream about awindow? Is there anything like this inthe Bible?

And then – third - there’s his demonology – more ‘Buffy’ thanScripture. A demon sat in their loungewrapped in a scarf and beckoning their daughter to come to him; a ‘force’ whichStorms himself compares to ‘Star Wars’: ‘a “wall” of energy or power or, as Isaid, what felt like “liquid air”, engulfed me. It actually pushed me backward a step or two.’ A demon-possessed mansmelling so badly that Storms asks ‘Do demons have an odor?’ and answers ‘Yes,they do! And it is far frompleasant!’ Is there any of this inScripture?

Some of it is pure spiritism: ‘Does the name “Derek” meananything special to you?' Oh, wow –again! A God who can make a name popinto your head, but not tell you what it means! Pop down to Waterstones in your lunch-break: you can read any number of mediums making thesame claims – and they’re frauds. It’s called cold reading, and easy to learn. Waterstones will also sell you the 'How to' books!

And if you want a fourth, there’s his naiveté; he apparently stillbelieves that Paul Cain was an anointed man of God even at the time of hisgreatest sin and hypocrisy. Really? And the respect for the ‘Kansas CityProphets’? Really?

So what do I think of Sam Storms? Is he lying? Exaggerating? Deluded, delusional, spin-doctoring, faulty in his memory,soft in his head, naive beyond belief? Possibly. Some of these things. Idon’t know. Just consider: if thesethings really happen, it’s very kind of the Devil, isn’t it, to make sure theyonly happen to charismatics? And reasonenough, in itself, never to become charismatic!

This is one of the most frightening books I’ve everread. Not because of the spiritual,evil, forces it describes. But becausestory after story is designed to undermine serious Biblical thought andreflection, and infect the Reformed community with the worst of charismaticclaptrap. It is a most frighteningtrajectory, if the Reformed get on to it.

Why 'quiet times' should be noisy

2012-02-29T09:51:00.002Z

'In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.'

Hebrews 5:7

A new-to-me duo - hilarious

2012-02-27T02:44:00.000Z

Lloyd-Jones: Wrong theology causes wars!

2012-02-24T10:22:00.001Z

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

And the leaders of the nations tried that approach withHitler. Afterwards that was calledappeasement. But they believed itthen. ‘Surely,’ said Mr NevilleChamberlain, ‘if only I meet him and talk to him man to man… I’m a businessmanand I’ve never failed yet when I meet a man across the table. It’s all very well sending diplomatic notesbut I’ll go to him. I’ll sit down withhim and appeal to him. He’s bound tolisten.’ And Chamberlain believedit! He was quite honest; he wasperfectly sincere. It was his theologythat was wrong.

DM Lloyd-Jones in ‘bornof God’ page 87

Much Missed

2012-02-22T05:30:00.000Z

Dan Phillips’ blog entry on ‘How flu is better and worsethan cold’ reminded me, oddly enough, of Mum.

Mum never had a cold; she always had flu. I’d seen a TV program where one of the tellydoctors (Hilary Jones, I think) had said ‘The difference is this: If somebodytells you there’s a fifty pound note on the front door step and you don’t careenough to go get it, you’ve got flu. Ifyou can get out of bed at all, you’ve got a cold.’

So I shared this piece of medical wisdom with my Mum. She agreed. Definitely, she said. Then she added‘You really feel bad with flu. I had flulast week, and could only just manage to go to work...’

She was a character, Mum. And she’s much, much missed still.

Sunday’s Silent, Secret Sadness

2012-02-21T14:06:00.001Z

(This, my first ever ‘guest post’, comes from a NorthernPastor known to me.)

It is Sunday evening, and the Sabbath is almost over. Once more it has been – I am told – ‘agood day’. There were good numbers atboth services. I preached at both andmanaged not to lose my way in either. I think Iexplained the texts fairly, and applied them with some warmth and passion. We sang heartily to the praise of God. We know that God was with us. It was a good day. And now I am home; no students called thisevening, no pastoral problems need my attention. It’s a warm home, a loving wife, a gracious God.

And yet. Yet my heartaches. I am but a breath, now, fromretirement. Only yesterday (it seems) Iwas a new minister; now, I’m the oldest man in our fraternal. And I have done so little.

Have I been faithful? Yes, I believe so. I havepreached everything I believe, popular or not. I have refused to ride hobby-horses – as far as I know. I have pressed the claims of God and ofChrist and his gospel, both in congregations and to individuals. There is much where I have failed. I have not studied enough. I have certainly not prayed as I should haveand am called to do. But I have studied,and I have prayed, and I have preached. God has blessed; we have seen many who are ‘hopefully converted’, manywho go on with the Lord, many who serve him in different ways and even indifferent countries.

But tonight, like most Sundays, as I drink my tea and warmmy feet a heaviness descends upon me, a secret silent sadness. We have not known the Spirit’s descent inpower! How many have heard me again, andthanked me again, and gone home unsaved again? How many ‘almost persuaded’ there are! How many ungodly professors have gathered again! (Just once. Most of them only come once). How little difference has been made!

I believe in preaching. I believe I am called to preach. I am honoured to be loved and respected so much more than Ideserve. But – oh, Lord! How long?

(Thanks to Stephen Baird for the photo, Arizona Lights)

More Mastermind

2012-02-20T02:00:00.000Z

Following on from a couple of weeks ago...

Jim Hacker

2012-02-15T05:47:00.000Z

After yesterday's brief reference, here is the man who once said 'I must find out where my people are going, and lead them there.'

When leadership fails

2012-02-14T11:45:00.001Z

I preached – or tried to – on Exodus 32 this last Sundayevening – the incident of the golden calf. What struck me most was the failure ofAaron’s leadership: how quick he is to respond to the people’s request to makethem gods; it is not the job of the true leader to follow the (wrong) demandsof the people.

Jim Hacker - the ultimate leader?

And how quick he was to blame God, or providence, or fate:‘Out came this calf!’ (verse 24).

How much weakened he was, too, by his failure to make use ofthe plural leadership that Moses had provided: ‘Wait here for us untilwe come back to you. Aaron andHur are with you, and anyone involved in a dispute can go tothem…’(24:14).

I have never regarded myself as a natural leader; any abilitiesI exercise in that direction are gifts of grace and part of God’s call. It has been a great relief, over the years,to come to an increasing understanding of what leadership is in the church, andin particular to surround myself with other leaders who can ~~take the blame~~ make up for my faults. My understandingis still growing – at this rate, by the time I retire, I may be ready to start(!) This much, it seems to me, is clear fromthe Scriptures:

Christ is the head of the church, and he, alone, has authority in it. No other ruler – pope, priest, queen, council – is to be tolerated at all. To tolerate such ‘rulers’ is effectively to turn the church of Christ into a human organisation.
Christ rules in his church only by his word: ‘Let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’ As the risen Christ walks among the lampstands, he does so to assert his rule (both making promises and issuing warnings/threats) as well as to speak by his word.
Chaos would ensue if every church member ‘did their own thing’ based on their (mis-)understandings of the Word. Babes in Christ need help to see its meaning; the rebellious need to be challenged, rebuked and corrected – and so on. Therefore, Christ has ordained under-shepherds in each church. Since they are to rule in Christ’s name, they must be able to show the relevance of the Word. This explains the one qualification elders need beyond being ‘godly men’: they must be ‘apt to teach.’ Seeing it this way helps clear away misconceptions. They do not need to be able to preach – they need to be able to apply the Word to church situations.
British people, and British pastors, are uncomfortable with the Scriptural vocabulary of ‘rule’. We are used to singing ‘Rule Britannia with its assertion ‘Britain never never never shall be slaves’; being ‘ruled’ sounds like ‘slavery’ – so we want democracy in our churches. It is part of our psyche. The predominantly congregational ecclesiology of the last century or so makes us uneasy about the idea of elders ruling.
Nevertheless, the Scriptures won’t allow us to escape the concept of rule. Elders must therefore rule:

By the Word, not their preferences. And it must be seen as such – hence, again, ‘apt to teach’.
From a life-style that shows their own commitment to Scriptural (not man-made) holiness.
Not with any view to financial gain – ‘not for filthy lucre’ – a phrase that’s used three times in the AV about elders, not once – and then once about deacons, too. (See 1 Timothy 3.3, Titus 1.7, 1 Peter 5.2 and 1 Tim. 3.8) The church’s affairs are not to be manipulated for the financial benefit of the elders.
Not for power, lording it over the flock (1 Peter 5.3). Like their Master, elders are to be servant rulers.
With a view to the expansion of Christ’s kingdom. The way the church organised in the first century led to a world turned upside down. Congregational democracy can prevent anything being done; elders must not tolerate this, nor initiate it.
With eagerness: ‘eager to serve’ (1 Peter 5.2).

Thus, it is wise:

To teach the churches the headship of Jesus; this is onetruth that may be self-evident to pastor/preachers, but almost certainly isn’tto most of the flock. Its implicationsmust be spelt out.
To show the churches how elder-government expresses that.
To encourage the elders to have a vision for growth, notmaintenance. Growth will not berestricted to numerical growth, but it will certainly include it.

(Conrad Mbewe’s chapter on eldership, in ‘Foundations forthe Flock’, has helped me order and express some of the above.)

A phenomenal talent, an awful tragedy

2012-02-13T03:26:00.000Z

Those with phenomenal talent seem to have a well-above average tendency to leave us early. It isn't yet known what killed Ms. Houston, but her destructive life-style was no secret.

The song that will always be most associated with her name has powerful, personal memories for me. While it was still a big hit, my own wife Elaine was in the midst of one of her sessions of serious illness, and she became frightened that, this time, I would lose patience and leave her.

In one of those Grand Romantic Gestures that only a Yorkshireman is capable of, I bought her Whitney's 'I will always love you' and said 'Listen to the lyrics of this.' Hmm; I should have listened first. For though the refrain is 'I...I...I... will always love you' the whole song is saying 'I will always love you, but I'm leaving you.' It wasn't - to be honest - a great help at the time.

Still - great song, wonderful voice, phenomenal talent - and an awful tragedy.

Who's the Man of God?

2012-02-11T10:42:00.001Z

A few years ago, I heard a good brother preach on 2 Timothy 3:16,17 - in which he said, among other (and better) things, that Scripture was useful so that the person of God may be thoroughly equipped for godly living.

I don't object, on this occasion, to the substitution of gender neutral language. I object that he's missed the whole point of the text.

Look it up: 'man of God' in both Testaments always means a preacher. In the OT, it's Moses or the prophets; in the New Testament, actually it's always Timothy.

What Paul is saying in 2 Timothy is not that the Scriptures are useful for everyone. Of course, that is true - it's just not what he's saying. What he is saying is that the Scriptures alone are all that the pastor/teacher needs for his work: he is, by the knowledge of the Bible, 'thoroughly equipped' for every good work he is called to do.

He is not saying that Betty Christian does her quiet time in the morning and finds that her set passage for the day corrects her doctrine and rebukes her behaviour. That is true, too. But what Paul is saying is that Timothy must use the Scripture to teach, correct, rebuke and train in righteousness. And he says it again in 4:2.

Two things follow from a proper understanding of the text. One, the pastor must correct and rebuke - and when church members take offence at that, as they often do, that's because they've misunderstood their relationship to the pastor. When a church member asks 'Who do you think you are?' the only proper answer is 'I think I'm the man of God. And this is what the Bible says a man of God should do.'

Two: what can't be done with Scripture is not the pastor's job.

Tout ça change...

2012-02-10T12:12:00.003Z

One of the things we noticed at yesterday's fraternal was the irony, or sarcasm, of the writer in 2 Samuel 11:4 (now she [Bathsheba] had purified herself from her uncleanness.'

Bathsheba is on her way to commit adultery, and she knows it. David has sent for her in order to commit adultery, and he knows it. But - hey! What's the moral law anyway? Provided the ceremonial law - the 'incidentals' of religion - are being observed...

One Christian lady whose husband has left her for another woman told me recently that he had told her 'I know what we're doing is wrong. But we are reading the Bible and praying together.' OK; that's all right then.

Jesus called it straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Confident Christianity

2012-02-09T17:13:00.000Z

Had the joy of hearing my 'old' colleague Chris Sinkinson today, on preaching Old Testament narrative. Chris pastors Alderholt Congregational Church, lectures at Moorlands Bible College in Apologetics and (apparently) serves as part-time heart-throb there, too. His lecture/seminar/fraternal was stimulating, as always. BUT the purpose of this little blog entry is to introduce his new book on apologetics, which he brought along today. Called 'Confident Christianity', it's a whistle-stop tour through history, philosophy and theology ('from ancient Greek philosophers via Enlightenment thinkers through to the worldviews of twenty-first-century thinkers' says Steve Brady's blurb) - with the aim of making Christians more confident in their faith.

Sounds heavy, eh? But that's the brilliance of Chris - it's not heavy at all. Chris is a brilliant communicator with an ability to make complicated things not just simple, but interesting too.

So easy, even a dog could understand it.

Whenever I think of Chris, I'm reminded of an old story about Billy Butlin (the founder of Butlins) and Fred Pontin (the founder of - well, have a guess). As a young man, Pontin worked for Billy, before striking out on his own. Later in life, Sir Fred had to introduce Sir Billy to someone and did so like this: 'Billy Butlin taught me everything I know about this business, didn't you Billy?' To which the older man apparently replied 'Yes, Fred. But not everything I know!'

I can't say anything like that about me and Chris - but we at MBC did give him opportunity to practice for a while.

Morecambe and Wise - Mastermind

2012-02-06T02:30:00.000Z

A truly awful photo.

What, the new one at the head of my blog? Yes, I know it is. But the old one - me and my granddaughter Abigail - is somewhat out of date now. While I look for a better one, enjoy yourself with this...

Well worth a read

2012-02-04T02:00:00.000Z

This little piece over at Jeremy Walker's blog - on God's fatherly care - is well worth a read.

Let me show you what I mean...

2012-02-03T13:00:00.000Z

An opinion in search of a text

Trying to think through the whole question of 'sola scriptura' as it applies to Christian behaviour, I posted yesterday an attempt to show that football was sinful. (Which I don't believe - see yesterday).

And I ended by saying 'Nobody argues like that, do they?' - and implying that, actually, lots of Christians argue just like that. Here's what I mean.

I’ve recently been challenged by some folks over a passingcomment I made, in private, that I would not tell new Christians that it was a sinto smoke. Now, let me be upfronthere. I have never taken a single drawon a cigarette in my life. As a child, Iwas subjected to the most effective aversion therapy imaginable by two heavily-smokingparents. I hate the habit.

But I know Spurgeon smoked. (‘Different era; they didn’t know howharmful it was.’)

DoctorLloyd-Jones smoked in the early part of his ministry. (‘Still a different era…’ No, really - it's not!)

And I know,too, that even today some ministers (particularly, it seems, of the heavilyPresbyterian kind) smoke. ('Different e- oh...') It doesn’tmake them right, of course; but is it a sin?

‘Surely,’ said one good and godly friend, a retired pastorwith many years experience, ‘Surely you would point out to them that their bodyis a temple of the Holy Spirit? Andthat they are wasting an awful lot of money?’

Do you know, I don’t think I would? Let me ask you, my friendly Retired Pastor,how many seriously obese people did you take on one side during your ministry,and tell them that their bodies were temples of the Holy Spirit? And that the money they were spending on toomuch food and sweets and the like could be much better used in theKingdom? None? Really? No, I’m not surprised.

Why am I not surprised? Because what you have is an opinion in search of a text. ‘I know smoking is wrong; let me find a textto prove it.’ And you’ve lighted on atext (1 Cor. 6.19) that’s actually aboutsexual immorality. It isn’t even aboutkeeping our bodies healthy at all!

Allow me, will you, to give another example. I was once very rude to a good brother who didn't deserve it, and I am genuinely sorry. But the point was a valid one.

It happened in this wise. A ministers' fraternal was talking about Christians and alcohol, and this GB said 'I recognise that alcohol is a gift from God. But I know that many young people abuse it, and therefore I gave up drinking a long time ago and think that all pastors should.'

To which I responded, without thinking, 'Did you give up having sex with your wife, too?'

Why ask such a shocking thing? Well, look:

'I recognise that x is a gift from God. But I know that many young people abuse it, and therefore I gave up x a long time ago and think that all pastors should.'

Now, if that is a logically valid argument, it is valid for whatever you put as 'x'. Put 'alcohol' in, and many Christians nod and smile. Put 'sex with your wife' in and you get an awkward silence before someone changes the subject.

Well, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have been rude to an older, godlier and often wiser brother. But what he had, I'm afraid, was an opinion in search of an argument.

If we continue to do that, when others (professing Christians or out and out worldlings) see through our arguments, we do immense damage to our claim that we base everything on Scripture. How can they believe that our refusal to let women preach is based on Scripture - when we claim that other things are, that plainly aren't? How can they believe that we stand against homosexual acts because Scripture insists on it, if we stand against alcohol with the same 'reason' - that turns out, on the easiest of examinations, to be false?

Do I have to say that I'm not, really not, suggesting that Christians should be encouraged to smoke or drink? I am, though, trying to apply the principle of sola scriptura - of 'good and necessary consequence'.

Comments are welcome, but - as other bloggers sometimes put it - the usuals will be observed.

Sola Scriptura?

2012-02-02T13:09:00.000Z

An opinion in search of a defence?

What does it mean for us, as evangelicals, to argue that theHoly Scripture is the only rule of faith and conduct? Only the other day, I quoted the Westminster Confession:

Chapter 1. VI: The whole counsel of God,concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, andlife, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessaryconsequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is tobe added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

What does it mean to say ‘by good and necessary consequencemay be deduced from Scripture?’

The first thing we have to say is that it is anadmission: an admission that not every circumstance we will meet is covered inScripture. Even more so now than whenthe WC was framed, life has changed beyond recognition. We cannot reasonably expect Scripture to sayanything about (for example) embryo research, and it doesn’t. But it is extremely dangerous to argue,therefore, that Scripture is an inadequate guide in this area (or anyother). We admit things have changed;and we look for principles and the necessary consequences of those principles.

The second thing it means is that we must deduce ourconclusions from the Scripture, and not impose them upon theScripture. It is too easy to decidefirst that something is wrong and then go looking for Scriptures to defend ouropinion. Because we are sinful and ourlogic/reason is flawed along with the rest of us, we may well find such adefence.

Let me give you an example. Suppose I held the opinion that football (soccer) is sinful. (I don’t hold that opinion. I hold it to be boring. I hold it to be pointless. I do not hold it to be sinful.) I then want to impose my view on the churchhere at MBC, and perhaps on the church at large. I need to prove my case from Scripture. Here goes.

1. There is no instance of soccer or any ball game (I might wantto be careful with that if, for example, I want to allow snooker or tennis aslegitimate) in the Bible; that alone ought to give us cause for concern.

2. Our own society is so obsessed with football that the languageof religion is used about it; Bill Shankly’s famous comment that ‘it is moreimportant than life or death’ is only one example.

3. The very fact that ‘the world’ is so obsessed is all the proofthat the spiritually mature need: we are not to love the world. We are told of those who do love the worldthat the love of the Father is not in them.

4. Those gifted at football may be taken very young and shelteredfrom real life and then emerge, still in their teens, into a job whose pay andlife-style is virtually guaranteed to ruin them.

5. The moral lives of many of those who do play football justunderline for us the enormous danger of this sport – see some of the raciertabloids, almost any day of the week.

6. Football gives rise to, and is supported by, an enormousgambling industry which is in itself sinful and should be shunned by anyonefollowing after holiness.

7. Vast amounts of time and money are spent on the game – by professionalsand amateurs alike. But we arecommanded to redeem the time because the days are evil; and we are to be goodstewards of our money (which is the Lord’s money).

QED, therefore: football has no place in a Christian’s life.

If we want to rub it in, we can easily show (or claim) thatpast worthies did not indulge in sports at all. We can also, probably, point to one or two people who have falleninto sin as a result of football. (‘Eee,our ‘Arold never drank at all until ‘e got into that footballing crowd. Now ‘e’s an alcoholic with two brokenmarriages and no end of affairs behind ‘im….’)

Then we point out that, if none of the arguments areconvincing on their own – well, surely, the cumulative effect must be? Are you so stubborn, so blind, that you can’tsee or won’t admit the very obvious?

Now then, dear reader. Are you going to give up football, then? No? Why not?

Because the argument isn’t Scriptural. It doesn’t become Scriptural just by quotinga few Scriptures. And it doesn’t becomea strong argument by piling one piece of nonsense on top of another.

But nobody argues like that, do they? No? Sure? Back tomorrow.

A tiny slap on the wrist for Mark Driscoll

2012-01-31T12:42:00.001Z

The excellent Dr Carson has come to the defence of those who need no defence - British gospel ministers. You can read the whole of his piece here. But for your delight and delectation - as they used to say - I post a little extract below:

In light of myfriend MarkDriscoll's recent comments aboutpastoral ministry in Great Britain, I wanted to share a few of my ownreflections on the diverse ministries that have prospered, or floundered,there. Between 1972 and 1996, I spent nine full years there, scattered overthat range of years; and since then, I have been in the UK between two and sixtimes every year. I am neither boasting nor complaining; I'm merelyestablishing that my knowledge of the country is not entirely superficial. Ihave no reason to doubt Mark's sincere concern for the gospel in the UK and foryoung ministers there. Nevertheless, you might be interested in hearing anotherperspective...
(5) But there is a bigger issue. We must notequate courage with success, or even youth with success. We must avoid everleaving the impression that these equations are valid. I have spent too muchtime in places like Japan,or in parts of the Muslim world, where courage is not measured on the worldstage, where a single convert is reckoned a mighty trophy of grace. I amgrateful beyond words for the multiplication of churches in Acts 29, but I amno less grateful for Baptistministers like my Dad, men who labored very hard and saw very littlefruit for decades in French Canada, many of whom went to prison (theirsentences totaled eight years between 1950 and 1952). I find no ground forconcluding that the missionaries in Japanin the 20th century were less godly, less courageous, less faithful, than themissionaries in (what became) South Korea, with its congregations of tens ofthousands. At the final Great Assize, God will take into account not only allthat was and is, but also what might have been under different circumstances (Matt 11:20ff). Just asthe widow who gave her mite may be reckoned to have given more than manymulti-millionaires, so, I suspect, some ministers in Japan,or Yorkshire, will receive greater praise onthat last day than those who served faithfully in a corner of the world wherethere was more fruit. Moreover, the measure of faithful service is sometimesexplicitly tied in Scripture not to the quantity of fruit, measured in numbers,but to such virtues as self-control, measured by the use of one's tongue (James 3:1-6).

Note, will you, two things.

First, Dr. Carson calls Driscoll 'my friend'. That not only establishes a friendly tone, it appeals to Driscoll who has said that he willingly takes criticism from friends. Good; now, let's seen the evidence.

Second: note how direct Carson is in the last paragraph I've quoted: 'The measure of faithful service is sometimes explicitly tied in Scripture... to virtues such as self-control, measured by the use of one's tongue.' Ouch!

Come on, Mark - time to stop laughing, stop preening, and put a double guard on your tongue.

Monday Magic

2012-01-30T03:00:00.000Z

The legendary David Berglas - stopping his own pulse...

2012-01-27T11:00:00.002Z

Of the reading of several books...

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012-01-26T10:47:00.000Z

Sin and Repentance

A friend – I should say ‘former friend’ because he won’t now meet with me – left his wife for another woman and, apparently, told his wife ‘I know it’s wrong, but I’ve said “Sorry” to God and moved on.’

Dear reader, it isn’t that simple, is it? Repentance is more – an awful lot more – than ‘saying sorry to God and moving on.’ Repentance is about change of behaviour.

Repentance means changing one’s mind, so that one’s views, values, goals, and ways are changed, and one’s whole life is lived differently. Mind and judgement, will and affections, behavio[u]r and lifestyle, motives and plans; all are involved. Repenting means starting to live a new life… Feelings of remorse, self-reproach, and sorrow for sin generated by fear of punishment, without any wish or resolve to forsake sinning should not be confused with repentance.

(From ‘Repentance’ in Sproul’s ‘Reformation Study Bible’

Repentance, then, is not saying ‘Sorry’ to God and moving on. It is saying ‘Sorry’ to God and moving back!

However, once I’d conquered the godly urge to seek FF out and hit him over the head with the biggest Bible I could find, several times, it did get me thinking about my own sin.

I haven’t left my wife – why would I? But (and please, dear reader, do not be too shocked by the confession) after almost forty years as a Christian believer, and thirty years as a pastor-teacher, I still sin. It isn’t, merely, that I am still tempted; I still fall. And, worse it seems to me, it is so often into the self-same sins that I fell into all those years ago. For all my prayers and all my (I think) repentance, if there’s been any progress, I cannot see it. I teach others what the Bible says about avoiding sin, what it says about walking in the ways of God and yet have advanced so very little.

Am I then hoist with my own petard? Have I been fooling myself about my own repentance, so that I am doomed and damned? What is the difference between me and Former Friend? Unsurprisingly, the Scripture is somewhat helpful:

1John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. 8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

2:1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defence--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

John says some things that are frightening for every believer struggling with sin, for they could be read as if no true believer sins: ‘If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth…Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.’ Wow- no pressure, then.

Yet at the same time, he makes it clear that he is talking about people who do sin. ‘If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins…’

The key is in 2:1. Let me paraphrase, just a little, to get to the heart of it: ‘My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not [walk in] sin. But if anybody does [fall into] sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defence…

The difference is between someone who fights his sinful nature but fails (on the one hand) and someone (on the other) who chooses the way of sin, or a sin, and walks in it. The first is inevitable (for if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves); the second is impossible (for ‘whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did’).

Unless God grants him true repentance, my FF is in eternal trouble:

Hebrews 10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

So - that's OK then, and I can go on compacently with my own sins? By no means! God foribd! Theological expletive! Such complacency about my own sin would, indeed, be to walk in sin and come under the same condemnation. Dear reader, I have no excuse for such complacency. And nor, I suspect, do you.

2012-01-25T13:35:00.000Z

Leaky Canoneers

Over at Biblical Christianity today

( http://bibchr.blogspot.com/ ) the inestimable Dan Phillips (always provocative, usually right, sometimes wrong, rotten taste in music) has had another go at what he calls ‘Leaky Canoneers’. (Well, somebody has to.) It’s a phrase that he uses for those who formally affirm Sola Scriptura but in practice think God is whispering in their ears. That is to say, our charismatic friends.

What he doesn’t mention – but I think would acknowledge – is that it is not only charismatics who can be guilty. I know a pastor in Christ who was told on one occasion that his (really very mild) taste in music was demonic. To the inevitable question ‘How would you justify that from Scripture?’ came the answer ‘I don’t need the Bible for this; my conscience is all the authority I need.’

It isn’t, of course, a new problem and it is one that the authors of the Westminster Confession addressed. Look how well they put it:

Chapter 1.VI: The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

Note especially that last paragraph: what do the Worthy Westminsters mean by ‘private spirits’? They mean that those who ‘just know’ they’re right must submit to Scripture. Those whom ‘God has told’ they are right must submit to Scripture. As Dan argues elsewhere – to be forced to submit to anything else is the worst kind of bondage.

Thanks be to God for his holy word!

Ring, ring - why don't you give me a call?

2012-01-24T08:44:00.000Z

Wait 40 seconds...

The viola player is Lukas Kmit; his reaction is humorous, courteous and brilliant.

Ruth Rogers/Andrea Bocelli

2012-01-23T03:08:00.005Z

Ruth Rogers is the current joint leader of the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra. Here, she duets with Andrea Bocelli.

A little culture for you all!

Eccentrics

2012-01-18T13:58:00.000Z

On Monday of this week, around 65 men gathered at the Eccentrics’ Conference to hear Stuart Olyott, Alec Motyer and Richard Bewes. They were disappointed; of that noble triumvirate, only Richard Bewes was present. Olyott and Motyer were prevented by ill health.

The Ubiquitous Geoff Thomas

So, on Monday and Tuesday of this week, around 65 men gathered at the Eccentrics’ Conference and heard Richard Bewes, Paul Mallard, Paul Blackham and Somebody Else. Most of the men were younger ministers and it was the first time I’d every attended a conference where I felt like an old man. Happily, though, the wonderful Geoff Thomas was present to make me feel better; while ever Geoff is in Aberystwyth, I know I’m a young man.

Paul B is well qualified to speak at such a conference; there is no-one quite like him. He’s full of mad-cap enthusiasm for the Bible (often seeing and pointing out things that are there but you’ve never noticed!), for church history, for doctrine, for the Lord Jesus. He has a unique way of getting a lot into his talks, too: he doesn’t finish about half his sentences, leaving you to fit in the rest while he goes on to the next thing he wants so say.

I've got the end of my sentence...

Here it is....

I've dropped it

Anybody see where it went?

Richard Bewes, by contrast, is quite a contrast. Quiet spoken, measured in tone and phrase, he spoke richly of the Rwandan Revival, of which he’d been an eye-witness. It is, I think, the first eye-witness account of revival that I’ve ever heard.

Paul Mallard

Paul Mallard is, I think, the best preacher that the FIEC has got at the moment. He’d been drafted in at very short notice, and preached with his characteristic warmth, clarity and enthusiasm first from Revelation 2:18ff (Thyatira) and then from the first psalm in the Bible (Exodus 15). He urged the men to be men; warned them that there were times when pastors just had to stand up and fight. Fine expositions, warmly delivered, gratefully received. We could have had more of him.

Gentle reader, you will be glad to know that no photos are available of Somebody Else. He managed, though, to be controversial while talking about the Church. Some loved what he had to say and were open with him about it; others didn’t, and muttered in dark corners (apparently). They were particularly annoyed, it seems, with the call to close all Bible Colleges – a call which he hadn’t made. (Paul Blackham, by contrast, lamented that he hadn’t made that call. Can’t win, eh?)

It was, however, a very good conference and Steve Levy (pictured here without his More Famous Brother Paul) is to be commended for the vision and for all the work he and his church put into it. Food was superb, hosts were great. Church could do with a bigger car park, though…

The More Famous Brother

Engaging with Lloyd-Jones

2012-01-13T04:45:00.001Z

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

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

Living as we please...

2012-01-11T00:01:00.001Z

Having been under fire a bit myself from time to time because of what I believe about Christian liberty and the rules of Christian behaviour - here's a summary of Stuart Olyott on Christian Liberty. You can hear the sermon yourself here - scroll down to TWB20.

As Christians, we may live exactly as we please, provided:

1. We do not disobey Scripture: some things are clearly forbidden, and others clearly commanded.

2. We do not disobey lawful authority - Romans 13

3. We do not do anything to hinder our own Christian life (but note: what hinders yours may not hinder mine)

4. We do not cause a weaker brother to stumble - Romans 14. But it is important too that we don't allow a tyranny from the weak. ('Let them be upset!')

5. We do those things which build up Christ's body

6. We do nothing to hinder the spread of the gospel

7. We do everything to God's glory - 1 Cor 10:31

It's a great disappointment to me that Stuart has had to pull out of the Eccentrics' Conference next week due to (his wife's) ill-health.

But here's an idea: I've written recently to Jonathan Watson at Banner of Truth, suggesting that they publish a collection of Stuart's 'Shorter Writings' - they've been appearing in Banner, EMW, RT and elsewhere for decades now. Jonathan's kindly forwarded the suggestion to Stuart himself; how about adding your vote to mine? You can email Jonathan direct at Jonathan@banneroftruth.co.uk - if both my readers contact him, that'll be a start!

Watch this space...

2012-01-10T09:42:00.000Z

I'm coming back - tomorrow. Have you missed me, either of you?

Grimshaw's remarkable conversion

2011-11-30T11:02:00.000Z

Lying on a table in his friend’s room was a book which attracted his attention and finding it was a theological work, he picked it up with quickened interest and crossed the room with it. He stood facing a small shelf of pewter dishes and there examined the book, which he discovered to be written by the Puritan divine, John Owen. ‘Instantly’, a friend recalled in after years, ‘an uncommon heat flushed in his face.’ Puzzled, he turned towards the fire, wondering if the sudden wave of heat had come from a reflection of the flames radiated from the pewter dishes.

Turning again to the volume he now held, he opened it ant the title page and read, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith. As he pondered on the title another flash of heat suddenly passed over him. Astonished by a second occurrence of this phenomenon, he reasoned that this must be a divine indication that the volume would be of crucial relevance to his need and so requested a loan of the book. We can well imagine that he lost little time in finding opportunity to read a book so strangely brought to his attention.

(Faith Cook, William Grimshaw of Haworth, pp 26-27)

This event led shortly and directly to Grimshaw’s conversion, and the remarkable ministry he was to exercise in Haworth. So, what does a crusty old cessationist make of it?

Honestly – nothing at all. It gives me not a single thought that I ought to revise my convictions. Nor do my convictions make me doubt the history. Why should they? What happened, happened.

Proper cessationism – that is, mine (!) does not hold that God never does anything remarkable. It does not even argue that God cannot work miracles today. I simply believe that the ‘sign gifts’ were given for an age, and for a purpose, that has now been superseded.

A cessationist is not a deist – though some of us sometimes, I fear, sound like one. We do believe in God’s direct intervention. We do believe in spiritual experience. We do believe God answers prayer – providentially, remarkably, miraculously at times.

I will admit to this, though: sometimes we are so good at seeing the speck in the eyes of some of our wiser charismatic friends that we do not see the beam in our own.

S H A M E

2011-11-25T09:51:00.001Z

Conrad Mbewe has a post on his blog today about a fellow pastor who committed suicide after a moral failure. It is a stark, warm and salutary piece. The pastor felt his shame so powerfully that he killed himself.

Moral failure. The blog makes clear enough what that moral failure was. In the UK, it's an epidemic. I've grown oh-so-tired - and, I confess, increasingly angry - over one story after another. And what bothers me most is the inadequate sense of shame.

No, emphatically not; I'm not suggesting that pastors guilty of moral failure should commit suicide. They need to trust in the mercy of Christ. They need to work hard to rebuild their marriage (but not their ministries). They need to do all they can to minimise the disgrace to Christ.

But shame would be a part of that. An awful lot less of 'well, my marriage had been a sham for years.' So what? If it's true, it increases your disgrace: you should have dealt with it earlier. With Christ and goodwill, miracles are possible. And true or not, there is no situation to which adultery is the right, proper, godly, moral response. No situation. Not a difficult wife, or a cold bed, or rebellious children, or stressful ministries, or a combination of them all.

There should be less, too, of 'Well, these things happen.' No, they don't. Measles happen. Road Traffic Accidents happen. Storms and hurricanes happen. Adultery is committed. You can't catch it by being in the same room as somebody who is affected. It doesn't come zooming round a stationary car when your visibility is impaired. It doesn't blow in out of a clear blue sky. Adultery is planned; it is committed; it is followed up.

I don't know what the cause of this epidemic is. I don't know what the solution is, or even if there is a solution. But I do know that Christians, and pastors most of all, need to learn to take responsibility for the way they live, and stop seeing themselves and their behaviour as victims.

Furthermore...

2011-11-18T08:36:00.001Z

One of these is good looking, intelligent and by all accounts a capable speaker. The other one is me.

Or:

One of these has a sponge for a head; the other is Dr Bunsen Honeydew.

Separated at birth?

2011-11-17T11:49:00.000Z

The mischievous Fr Z has posted these two pics on his blog.

One of them is a muppet. The other appears to be some sort of scary, orange-haired toy.

Has Peter Masters lost it?

2011-11-11T11:59:00.033Z

My regular reader will know that I have, once or twice, blogged about Peter Masters. This week, I was teaching my bi-annual session on 'Evangelistic Preaching' at the FIEC's PfS Course. It's immensely popular - with me, anyway.

Each time, I recommend the evangelistic preaching of Peter Masters as a good example of how it should be - along with some resources from the Tab. This year, I thought I'd better have a listen to a recent example. After all, he is no longer a young man: has he lost it?

So, I went to the Tabernacle Website, found the video of last Sunday evening's sermon (November 6th, on Galatians 2:20) and settled down to listen.

Has he lost it? Er, no. To be honest. He does look a little frailer than I remember - and he's far too much hair to be decent in a man that age... but his preaching was excellent. Really very, very good - especially the introduction. No hesitation in recommending the PfS students to go and have a listen.

I gave a different lecture on evangelistic preaching recently at WEST, to a very fine, friendly bunch of students. Word came back to me that few - if any - agreed with me that it ought to be a regular, weekly, feature of a pastor's ministry. It bothers me, that: what hope for the nation if good men stop preaching evangelistically?

A fine Brahms

2011-11-10T16:50:00.000Z

Last night the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra performed two works by Brahms - the Hungarian Dance number one, and the beautiful violin concerto; Andrew and I were there to hear them both. The BSO seemed to have quite a few different players and, to be honest, I didn't think they were as good as usual. But the soloist, Viviane Hagner, was excellent. I confess I'd never heard of Miss Hagner; she's German-born, 34 years old, very slightly built, and played beautifully. She'd stood in at short notice for the advertised soloist, Julian Rachlin, who is unwell.

How's that work, then? A string of musicians waiting for the last-minute call? At any rate, you would never have guessed that Hagner was a substitute; a great evening.

Did Jimmy Saville save my soul?

2011-10-31T06:11:00.006Z

Jimmy Saville - one of the most recognisable faces (and voices) in British Broadcasting for forty years, died yesterday at the age of 84.

In the 70s, he did more than anyone else to show the dangers of driving without seatbelts; the slogan 'clunk click every trip' changed my own driving habits, and meant that when I crashed my car at speed as an unconverted teenager, I got out and walked away instead of - well, the alternative. I was converted the very next day. 'Clunk click' made an eternal difference to me.

He was an enigma, our Jimmy. His charity work was legendary - running more than 200 marathons to raise more than £40million for charity - £20million for the spinal injuries unit at Stoke Mandeville Hospital alone. I don't know if it's still there, but when that new unit was first opened, the wall inside had written on it, in large golden letters, 'To the glory of Almighty God, with grateful thanks. Jimmy Saville'. I've no doubt he was sincere; whether his faith was the 'real thing' is a different question.

Did Jimmy Saville save my soul? Of course not. The Lord Jesus Christ did that. But one of the means he used to keep me alive until then was this eccentric, strange, lonely man. To the glory of Almighty God, with grateful thanks. Gary Benfold.

(no humour today)

What the Bible says about Presbyterianism - part 1

2011-10-27T02:51:00.001+01:00

What the Bible says about infant baptism - part 1

2011-10-26T01:28:00.000+01:00

Blackberry problems?

2011-10-24T00:30:00.002+01:00

When stem cell use is ethical

2011-10-22T05:59:00.001+01:00

Dr Peter Saunders quotes here from a New Scientist article - the whole article is here - about the ethical use of stem cells - that is, use that doesn't require killing anybody, born or unborn.

DID you know that you have accessible stem cells up your nose? Or that human fetuses shed stem cells into the fluid around them? Both of these seemingly random facts could spawn novel, personalised stem-cell treatments that, if not simple per se, are simpler than what has gone before.

What marks these treatments out is that they are eminently practical and ethically unquestionable. This is in stark contrast to much previous work, which has focused on human embryonic stem cells, or hESCs.

From the outset, the use of hESCs has been fraught with controversy. Only last week, after years of trying, and the notorious fraud involving Korean researcher Woo Suk Hwang, hESCs were finally created through a variant of the cloning technique that gave us Dolly the sheep. This fused skin and egg cells, leaving the nucleus of the latter intact. Unfortunately, human eggs are still required, embryos still perish in the process and in this case the embryos and resulting hESCs had three sets of chromosomes instead of two, ruling out medical uses.

A promising alternative to hESCs emerged in 2006 when researchers produced so-called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) from ordinary tissue such as skin. But to convert adult cells into embryonic-like cells means genetic reprogramming, for example with a virus, and the reprogrammed cells do not yet match embryonic stem cells.

Now there are different avenues of research that are simpler in many ways. In ‘Diabetic rats cured with their own stem cells’, we report how researchers cured diabetic rats by turning brain stem cells extracted through the nose into insulin-producing cells in the pancreas. They did this without any genetic trickery.

And in ‘Baby repair kit found inside the womb’, we report how congenital defects such as holes in the diaphragm could be patched up using a baby's own stem cells extracted from the surrounding amniotic fluid.

What's worrying is that he concludes by saying 'You won't read about this in any British newspaper'. Can any of you prove him wrong?

Cranmer on Gaddaffi

2011-10-21T11:54:00.000+01:00

Archibishop Cranmer - who knows a thing or two about the death penalty - reflects on the death of Gaddaffi. Here's a flavour:

To those who object to Gaddafi's execution or the manner of it, His Grace urges you to save us your sanctimony. There are those who say there should be no rejoicing in the death of any man. Well, put yourselves in the shoes of those who have lived under the brutal dictatorships of the modern era - Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Ceausescu, Saddam - and ask by what moral standard you judge the oppressed and persecuted? As you read your newspapers over coffee and lounge in the comfort of your cosy armchairs, reflect on the undeniable fact that some people are just evil. And when the sum total of the suffering they inflict reaches beyond endurance, those who have suffered will feel wholly justified in taking up the sword. Of course, they might themselves then die by the sword, but that is their choice. When the state ceases to bear the sword and justice is no longer seen to be done, judgement will fall somehow from the anarchic baseness of human nature.
What an awful shock death must be for the Muslim. But in fairness to Muslim friends, I'm not at all sure many of them would want to count Gaddaffi as a faithful one...

Modestly announcing... P R I C E C R A S H ! ! !

2011-10-19T16:38:00.003+01:00

Today I received the first copies of my new evangelistic booklet 'Gift', published by Day One. The blurb says

Few things equal the excitement of a child receiving gifts. What do those brightly-coloured parcels contain? Are the presents something we really want, or merely things we will feel the need to be polite about? Even in adulthood, the excitement persists—the excitement of not knowing and of discovery.

Such gifts, though, often end in disappointment. They prove to be without any practical use, or to be fragile and unable to last. Or, often, just to be something we never really wanted at all.

The greatest gift ever given was given by God, the gift of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Perfectly tailored by God to meet the greatest need we all have, yet God’s great gift is still largely ignored or misunderstood by mankind. In this little booklet, Gary Benfold sets out to show why we should take God’s gift of Jesus seriously. What is so special about this gift—and why is it still important, two thousand years later? He answers these questions by looking at the three questions we all have in mind when we open a new present: who is it from? What does it do? How much did it cost? These important questions are opened up from the Bible itself, and lead to a compelling argument for taking Jesus seriously.

Day One and 10ofthose.com are each offering good deals on multiple buys, and the author (me!) says

Friends may be interested in my latest evangelistic effort - called 'Gift', Jonathan Carswell at 10ofthose.com is doing a good deal on them, especially for multiple buys. Small enough (A5) to be enclosed with Christmas cards, and cheap enough too, can I encourage you to get hold of multiple copies and give them away? They're beautifully produced, in full colour and ideal (says he modestly) for churches to give away at their Christmas services.

In it, I try to answer the questions about the gift of God's Son that we tend to ask ourselves when we get any gift: who's it from, what does it do, how much did it cost? I hope it's attractively written, avoids jargon and explains the gospel clearly; and I will put an extract up here very soon. But at only a few pence for an individual copy, you can hardly lose?

PRICE CRASH! ! !
The Day One website says these magnificent booklets are £1 each - they're not! They are only 50p - and even less if you buy them in quantity...

Never, ever...

2011-10-18T12:35:00.002+01:00

The 12-word sermon?

On October 29^th 1941 Winston Churchill returned toHarrow, his old school which had assured his parents that he would never amountto anything. It was speech day; it wasthe midst of war. Knowing undoubtedlymore than he could tell the boys about the danger the nation was in and thefragility of our armed forces and carrying more of a burden then he could everhope to share, the popular version of his speech has it amounting to just 12words: ‘Never give in. Never, ever givein. Never, ever, ever give in.’ The truth is, though it contained words verylike that it was, in fact, a little longer – and in the midst of the battle,with ‘the miracle of Dunkirk’ a little over a year ago and D-Day still almostthree years away and all the burdens of the free world upon him, he said: wehave only to persevere, to conquer.

And so it is with us, though for very differentreasons. Christ reigns on high; hisSpirit moves in the world, in the church, and dwells within believers. The battle rages: but Christ died. Christ is risen; Christ will comeagain. We have only to persevere, toconquer.

Barrage

2011-10-10T01:06:00.000+01:00

Barrage are a Canada-based group of musicians. I include them here partly because the guy clearly visible at 12 seconds is Stefan Defilet, who's since gone on to much greater things. That is, he teaches me...

They went out from us...

2011-10-06T09:59:00.004+01:00

...we cannot be satisfied with a faith that lives most vibrantly in abstract theological concepts and the ease of Sunday-morning services. We cannot be satisfied with a Christianity that features episodic moments of ministry but otherwise is shaped by the values of the world. We cannot be satisfied with a Christianity that simply fills another slot in an all-too-busy schedule. We cannot be satisfied with a Christianity that allows us to live at the centre of our world. We cannot be satisfied with a Christianity that does not live the biblical hymns we sing and does not apply the biblical exhortations we have heard.
Self-righteous, self-satisfied, and externalistic spirituality is dangerous and must be resisted. It is not a by-product of true conversion, but flows from the man-centredness of secular thinking.

(Paul David Tripp, in 'Broken-Down House')

Joy - cut-and-paste

2011-09-17T18:56:00.000+01:00

This is a genuine cut-and-paste from the Tabernacle website today:

SPIRITUAL JOY - how it may be spoiled or increased (by Dr Masters)

Forgive me, but I found it funny!

Why won't they debate? The fear of God, perhaps?

2011-09-12T06:27:00.002+01:00

Well, Monday is the day for humour. So here's some, of a slightly different ilk. Polly Toynbee, President of the British Humanist Association, has withdrawn from her debate with William Lane Craig. Far be it from me to speculate...

What Cranmer thinks of Evangelicals

2011-09-09T11:49:00.000+01:00

Over at Cranmer's blog, you'll find this:

In His Grace’s experience, they are almost universally kind and hospitable; sing an awful lot of Shine, Jesus, Shine; believe the Canon of the Bible was handed down by God; praise the Lord when they find a lost saucepan; rejoice in Middle-East bloodshed and social breakdown, ‘for these things must be’; and their view of Church history begins with Acts and then jumps straight to Amazing Grace. Certainly, His Grace has never yet met an evangelical who grasps the Patristics, understands Chalcedon or appreciates the historical significance of any of the early Ecumenical Councils.

Now, that would be a bad thing, wouldn't it?

Global Warming Shock!

2011-08-30T19:00:00.001+01:00

An article on today's Daily Telegraph website tells us that scientists doing proper science have, at last, found the true causes of global warming.

It's - er, well - it's the sun. Now that's an inconvenient truth!

Some of us have long thought that anthropogenic global warming, while containing an admirable number of syllables for only three words, is a myth.

The problem is - living in the UK, we're not sure the sun exists, either.
PS Photo courtesy of Stephen Baird - follow the link for some awesome pics.

Reagan: 'I'm (partly) to blame'

2011-08-29T05:36:00.002+01:00

O! What a marvelous society!

2011-08-26T15:31:00.001+01:00

This morning I was proof reading my latest little booklet (to be anounced here soon) and so, naturally, I began re-reading the classic 'Eats, shoots and leaves' by Lynne Truss. Very good, it is, for a middle-aged old pedant like me.

I hadn't registered, first time around, that there is a society (O! marvelous society!) called 'The apostrophe protection society' - but there is! Quick, where do I join?

And then, while reading it, I received this in my email:

Before being called to pastor *** Church, I inevitably faced a raft of questions from its eldership. Beforehand, however, I also asked the elders some questions of my own. Since mentioning this in a prior post, I’ve been emailed several times to forward a copy of those questions to pastor’s in the same situation. Here then is a slightly ammended [...]

Now, I'm not quick to judge. Heaven forfend. It may just be a typo. And even if it isn't, I wouldn't say that anyone who thought that "pastor's" is the plural of "pastor" ought not to be in the ministry, entrusted with the sacred charge of edifying others. I wouldn't. Quite. (Oh, all right - I probably would.) But come on now - READ THE BOOK.

And when you do, here are some gems you will find in the very first pages:

My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou, not refraining thy foot from their way

contrasted with

My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not, refraining thy foot from their way

Then, there's Ronnie Barker's (from 'Porridge') offering when reading a fellow prisoner's letter from home:

Now I must go and get on my lover

as opposed to

Now I must go and get on, my lover

Then, there's:

A woman, without her man, is nothing

and

A woman: without her, man is nothing

Finally, the longest (and best?):

Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can be forever happy - will you let me be yours?

Jill

which is not quite the same as

Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men I yearn! For you, I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart I can be forever happy. Will you let me be?

Yours,

Jill

All the words are the same; but punctuation matters - doesn't it?

Aber-Man

2011-08-21T08:57:00.000+01:00

It’s been a long time, but I’ll try to get back to blogging this week; there are several things I want to say.

To get going, we’ll give the Monday humour a miss, and instead include this for a Sunday. I’ve recently returned from the Aber conference – not to be confused with an Abba conference – and was greatly blessed by the ministry of Geoff Thomas. Here’s an interview with him, done a few years ago.

The history of the piano

2011-08-01T04:51:00.003+01:00

'It's quite uninteresting - the first piano was built long after they didn't have any at all...'

Death of a Legend

2011-07-27T22:37:00.000+01:00

John Stott, one of the most respected and influential preachers of the age, died today at 90. Among the many tributes comes this delightful snippet from Richard Bewes, one of his successors at All Souls.

When I became Rector of All Souls, we would pray together every week. He would treat me as his ‘boss’, but then he was my ‘bishop.’ Because my own study tended towards untidiness, we would usually meet in his tiny two-room flat, for there was an iron discipline about everything that he did. One year we were both speakers at the Keswick Convention. At the hotel where we were staying, I asked the staff member responsible for cleaning our rooms what she thought of the Convention. “Well,” she replied, “I go down to the Convention, and I hear people praising one speaker and then another. But I judge these men not by their speeches but by their bedrooms!”

“On that basis,” I hazarded, “Who is the outstanding speaker at Keswick this year?”

“Oh,” she said, “There’s no doubt at all about it. It’s John Stott!”

The two of them - a little early

2011-07-18T05:45:00.001+01:00

Ted Ray of sunshine

2011-07-11T05:34:00.002+01:00

Is this the best way?

2011-07-07T19:00:00.001+01:00

Update: I've altered the title of this blog. I don't want to add to the accusations against CJ and distress him any more (in the, admittedly remote, possibility of him seeing this.)

Have you seen this? And the further comment, here?

Last year John Piper took a well-publicised 8-month break. The major reason seemed to be family issues - needing time to give to his wife and his children, to repair relationships and build for the future.

Now, CJ is doing something similar. This time, it's not family issues, but leadership issues. 'Over the last few years some former pastors and leaders in Sovereign Grace have made charges against me and informed me about offenses they have with (sic) me as well as other leaders in Sovereign Grace. These charges are serious and they have been very grieving to read. These charges are not related to any immorality or financial impropriety, but... include various expressions of pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgement and hypocrisy.'

So, a leave of indeterminate length, during which he hopes to pursue reconciliation with those he's offended. A third-party ministry is being asked to oversee and evaluate, and David Powlison and Mark Dever (both friends of CJ) have been asked to review the charges, and to counsel and correct CJ.

Now, I don't want to minimise sin. Especially the sin of leaders. And there's something great about CJ's willingness to listen, to be rebuked, to seek reconciliation. I'm a fan of his; and of Piper's. (Be warned: the commentator who always uses the comments section to attack CJ and SGM will have his comment removed. Again.)

But I think this is over-kill. If anybody's offended, and right to have been offended, apologise. And move on. And get on with the work. If they can't accept it at that point, it becomes their problem.

Not only is it over-kill; I fear it minimises grace - the very last thing CJ would want. Christian grace says sins are forgiven by God the moment we confess them, and should be forgiven by others too at the moment of apology. To turn it into a long process has more in common, I fear, with psycho-babble than grace. An extended leave to sort out our mistakes is an indulgence most Christians, and most pastors, cannot afford. Don't let Satan cripple your work, guys; time is short. Get on with it. You're good at what you do - by God's grace.

What next? Dever taking extended leave while he repents of finding only 9 marks of a healthy church? Macarthur taking extended leave while he personally scrubs all his recorded sermons clean of dispensationalism and prepares an extensive series on the Old Testament? Driscoll taking extended leave as a penance for his appalling sense of humour?

One thing you can be sure of: Begg won't join the bandwagon. He's a Brit; he'll be getting on with it.

Spurgeon - from a different angle?

2011-05-31T18:21:00.000+01:00

Well - who’d have thought it?

The following quotes are taken from ‘Why did the English stop going to church?’ by Dr. Michael Watts, then Reader in Modern History at Nottingham University. It formed the 1995 lecture of the Dr. Williams’ library. Watts does not appear to be evangelical, making his comments all the more illuminating.

The liberalisation of Christianity was intended to make the faith relevant to the men and women of the modern world. It had instead the effect of making the churches irrelevant to the needs of twentieth-century men and women. (page 11)

How… can we explain the difference between the religious histories of England and the United States? The answer seems to be that the American churches, to a far greater extent than English churches, have held on to the doctrines that produced the upsurge in popular religion in both countries n the first half of the nineteenth century: the doctrines of the sinfulness of man and of his ultimate destruction in the fires of hell unless rescued by the blood shed by Christ at Calvary… conservative churches grow and liberal churches decline because liberal churches offer commodities such as ‘fellowship, entertainment and knowledge’ which are also provided by secular organisations, while conservative churches offer ‘the one incentive which is unique to churches’: salvation, the ‘promise of supernatural life after death’ (page 13).

Spurgeon

Furthermore, and fascinating for Spurgeon fans, Watts writes

I began my study of Nonconformist history many years ago with an examination of the career of the great Baptist leader John Clifford. Inevitably, in the course of that study, I had to spend a good deal of time on the Down Grad controversy of the 1880s. In that controversy Spurgeon argued that the liberalisation of the English Presbyterians in the eighteenth century had led to the decline of Old Dissent and he warned that the liberalisation of Victorian Nonconformity that was occurring in his own day would, if not checked, issue in a similar conclusion. Clifford, as president of the Baptist Union in 1888 and as the most prominent of the Baptist liberals, had the task of defending his fellow Dissenters from what many of them regarded as Spurgeon’s libellous attacks. My own sympathies in the controversy were entirely with Clifford. It was not surprising that a young researcher should have scant sympathy for Spurgeon, the man who took some pride in his later years in the accusation that it would take a surgical operation to get a new idea into his head. Yet, a hundred years after the Down Grade controversy, I have to confess that both in his interpretation of history, and in his prognosis for the future, it was Spurgeon, not Clifford, who was right.

Well, who would have thought it? Abandon the gospel, and churches die…

Kathy Kirby

2011-05-23T05:05:00.001+01:00

Back in the 60s, it was (occasionally) possible for singers of enormous talent to emerge seemingly from nowhere. Kathy Kirby was one; she died last week aged 72.

How to understand your wives...

2011-05-21T17:54:00.001+01:00

... volume 1

(Thanks, Dan Phillips)

Death of a Giant

2011-05-19T13:54:00.000+01:00

On April 27th this year, David Wilkerson died in a car accident. Most famous for 'The Cross and the Switchblade' his ministry touched many thousands. This is how his son Gary writes of him

On Wednesday afternoon my father, David Wilkerson, passed away in a car accident. We grieve the loss of a beloved father, a faithful husband and a holy man of God. My mother, Gwen, his wife of 57 years, was in the car also, but we are told she will recover fully.

Dad’s 60-plus years of ministry have impacted the lives of those closest to him and extended to millions around the world. Today we feel a personal loss, but at the same time we rejoice knowing Dad lived life to the fullest, obeying God with devotion and loving Jesus radically.

He was known for his unlimited faith. He believed God could change the lives of gang members and transform the most desperate drug addicts. He believed that a dynamic church could be launched in the heart of Times Square, New York City. He believed he could be a man who loved his wife and children well. And he did.

Dad was not one for fanfare, acclaim or ceremony. He turned down invitations to meet with world leaders yet would give everything he owned to support a poor orphan or a widow in distress.

Like King David of old, Dad served God’s purposes in his generation. He preached with uncompromising passion and relentless grace. He wrote with amazing insight, clarity and conviction. He ran his race well and when his work was done, he was called home.

That's some testimony, isn't it? "He turned down invitations to meet with world leaders yet would give everything he owned to support a poor orphan or a widow in distress."

Mind, Heart, Will - Lloyd-Jones

2011-05-18T10:22:00.001+01:00

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

[1] The New Man, 208/9

Message to Richard Dawkins

2011-05-17T18:00:00.001+01:00

Don’t be intimidated!

The Daily Telegraph has reported that you will not debate with a foremost Christian apologist, William Lane Craig. It has even reported that one of your fellow Oxford atheists – Doctor Daniel Came – has suggested it looks like cowardice on your part.

Cranmer – once an Anglican Archbishop, now a Catholic blogger – has even gone so far (scroll down to May 15th) as to attack your credentials:

So, when we hear the shrill voice of Dr Richard Dawkins bleating about Professor Craig’s ‘relentless drive for self-promotion’, and rejecting the debasement of his eminent CV by debating with the distinguished Christian apologist, we should remember this: Richard Dawkins never contributed much to science; his Oxford chair was bought for him by a rich admirer; and the scientific ideas upon which he built his reputation are increasingly discredited. Those beguiled by his diatribes are listening neither to the voice of reason nor science.

Well, Dr Dawkins – here’s my advice. Don’t be intimidated; don’t let these people bully you into the debate.

It is better by far to refuse to debate and let people think you’re a coward, than to debate and let them know without doubt that your arguments (not to say your credentials) don’t stack up.

What God doesn't know

2011-05-17T10:17:00.000+01:00

Tim Keller, preaching on Exodus 14 at the 2011 Gospel Coalition Conference, quotes a hymn I've never heard:

Well may the accuser roar

Of sins that I have done

I know them all -

And thousands more -

Jehovah knoweth NONE!

He also points out that 'Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord' is, in Hebrew, basically 'Stand still and see the Yeshua (Jesus) of the Lord.'

Worth meditating on.

Virgin Mobile Customer Service - well, I never!

2011-05-06T15:21:00.001+01:00

Every now and again we're taken by surprise. In a world of rudeness, and big companies who don't seem to care for their customers - well, I never.

At the beginning of April we responded to what looked like an excellent deal from Virgin Media on a new mobile phone for Elaine. When the phone arrived, we couldn't use it to get on the internet, for whatever reason. Just very slow access, I think. But at the time I thought I was doing something wrong and we'd sort it. As a result, we let the fourteen-day 'cooling off' period go by.

But it turned out I was wrong; the internet access on this model was very slow, and there was nothing anyone was going to be able to do to change it. So I phoned Virgin, and they said - quite reasonably - that the 14 days had passed and there was nothing they could do. Frustrating - but fair enough; that is (after all) what their contract said. My bad, as they say.

Still, I thought it was worth another try. I found an address to write to in Trowbridge, and wrote what I hoped was a nice letter explaining my problem and asked them to reconsider: would they change the handset for a different type that I already knew well and was satisfied with?

Almost immediately (if you allow for the Bank Holidays) I got a call from a delightful-sounding young lady who identified herself as Chrissie from Virgin Media. She told me that the folks I'd already spoken to at Virgin were right (I knew that). Still, on this occasion they were prepared to help (I've been with VM for a good long while). Not only did Chrissie give us what we asked for, but also (tell no-one, OK?) she gave us more than we'd asked for. She offered us a better phone - the one we wanted - or (if we preferred) just to cancel the contract.

Less than 24 hours later, a new phone arrived; it's all set up now, doing exactly what we want it to do and we're delighted.

I tell you, I'm sticking with Virgin. If you want good customer service, they're the folks to go to.

If I knew how to get hold of Richard Branson, I'd be telling him, too.

Well done, that company!

Summer memories

2011-05-02T04:50:00.002+01:00

Ah, those were the days. Clark - remember this?

Back again... The Archies!

2011-04-23T14:48:00.001+01:00

I do apologise to my faithful reader; the relentless demands of the Day Job are making blogging somewhat occasional. I hope today's music my indicate the end of the trend. Listen carefully for this, until you find deep meaning in the lyrics - and then be sure, be absolutely sure, that you're wrong! (And it's 36 hours early, just to be friendly)

When the bright are REALLY daft (1)

2011-04-06T16:09:00.000+01:00

Don't you just love it when folks we have every reason to believe are intelligent say things that are just plain daft? I don't know if you saw the news items recently about 'books' found containing - among other things - 'the first portrait of Jesus'? The books - about 70n in all - are no bigger than a credit card, made out of lead, bound with wire, and - crucially - sealed shut. Dr Margaret Barker (former President of the Society for Old Testament Study' and therefore very, very bright, obviously) is reported as saying 'The Book of Revelation tells of a sealed book that was opened only by the Messiah.'

Well, indeed it does. Here's (some of) the relevant bit:

And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, "Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?" But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. Then one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals." Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the centre of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth." Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honour and glory and praise!" Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honour and glory and power, for ever and ever!" The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped. I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals...

... and then a large part of Revelation is concerned with the opening of the seals. Tell me, intelligent reader - does this look as if it might, possibly, refer to seventy leaden, credit-card scrolls? It does? Then it might also refer to seventy orange carrots! After all, anything's possible when you've decided that the text means only what you want it to mean...

Back bloggin'

2011-04-04T20:23:00.000+01:00

OK - now I'm back; hope to post again on Wednesday. God willing, as always.

Me and you (nostalgia)

2011-04-04T05:14:00.001+01:00

My Favourite Charismatic

2011-03-11T09:25:00.001Z

Expository Faithfulness from Sovereign Grace Ministries on Vimeo.

CJ is one of the most faithful preachers I've heard. This is great stuff - but listen, will you, to the way he introduces the Bible reading? Do we super-reformed types regard the public reading of Scripture with such seriousness?

Then, take a listen to the extended section when he gets to 'complete patience'.

I'm still not charismatic, Steve

2011-03-10T15:58:00.001Z

An old friend – Steve Utley – commented on my re-posted ‘Why I am not a charismatic’. Here’s my open response to him

Hi, Steve. Glad to hear from you. Actually, I suspected you’d responded last time I posted this, but anonymously – was I right?

Thanks for taking my post seriously. I’m always glad for any evidence that someone is actually reading them! I’ll take opportunity here to respond. Let me begin by saying that a) we’re in agreement about a lot, as you say; b) the gospel is bigger than this, and I quite understand that your church feels closer to some non-Charismatic churches than to some Charismatic churches who’re soft on the gospel, and c) you only took up one point in my post!

You write:

Unlike you, I am not convinced by the argument Stuart Olyott makes for 1 Corinthians 13:10. Much as I appreciate his work, I think that his exegesis of verse 10 does not stand comfortably within the passage.

My main objections to this exegesis would be that:
1. The context of the passage is 'the supremacy of love'
2. V.12 seems to qualify V.10 by stating that it will be when we see 'Face to face' we will know in full, until then we continue in part.
3. Immediately following this passage and upholding love as supreme, Paul then enters into a very explicit discourse on the use and administration of gifts without the slightest hint that they will disappear.

OK: one at a time.

1. Yes, the context is ‘the supremacy of love’ but that doesn’t mean that what he says about the gifts is not to be taken seriously. Love is supreme precisely because it continues when most other gifts have ended. There will be a time, says Paul, when only ‘faith, hope and love’ remain (verse 13). That ‘time’ cannot be a reference to heaven: for ‘faith’ is ‘being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see’ (Hebrews 11:1) and is explicitly contrasted with sight – the sight of heaven – in 2 Cor 5:7. And hope – ‘hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?’ (Romans 8:24). Remarkable as it seems at first hearing, if we define faith and hope as the New Testament does there is neither faith nor hope in heaven. But if that ‘time’ is not heaven, when is it? How can the sign gifts remain right until the end of the age?

2. Indeed, the phrase ‘face to face’ is very important. But it’s important to remember Paul’s Biblical background – he has not just plucked this phrase out of the air. He is alluding to Numbers 12:8 where Moses uses both the concept of ‘face to face’ and ‘dark speech’ (it’s translated ‘riddles’ in the NIV, not very helpfully). ‘Darkly’ or ‘dimly’ is also omitted from the NIV (what a nuisance that translation is at times!) but check in other translations. The close use of both concepts makes it very clear that Paul is alluding to Numbers: so what does the passage in Numbers speak of? It speaks of two different earthly revelations, and of the superiority of Moses’ revelation to that of other prophets. In other words, it not only fits with the idea that 1 Corinthians 13 is comparing the incomplete revelation of the prophets with the complete and clearer revelation of Scripture: it requires it. Nothing else makes sense of the allusion. And if you object ‘but he says we will know fully, even as we are known, and that can only refer to heaven’ think about it. We will never – not even in heaven after an eternity of eternities – know God as fully as he knows us; we don’t have the capacity for that. He is using the phrase though to contrast the lesser with the greater – NT prophecy (the lesser) with full Scriptural revelation (the greater).

3. As for him entering into an explicit discourse in chapter 14 without the slightest hint that they’ll disappear – he’s just told them that! What do you want him to do – end every paragraph with ‘and don’t forget – shortly after you’re dead, these gifts will disappear anyway; I just need to keep saying it in case somebody in two millennia misses it’!?

‘The New Testament has much to say on gifts, signs and wonders…’ you say. Well, no actually. Not that much. It has a fair bit to say on circumcision, too. My position doesn’t negate the passages that are there – it just understands them in the whole NT context. There’s no authority beyond the New Testament – we’re agreed on that. And I don’t appeal to any authority other than that – do I? You may not agree with my understanding of 1 Corinthians 13, but at least we both accept that it’s part of the New Testament!

Did you know I was present when Wendy was healed of epilepsy? I remember that Sunday morning so very clearly. I wouldn’t want to doubt that it was a most remarkable answer to prayer. Was it a miracle? I don’t know; I remember too that she had at least one further attack after that morning before they disappeared completely. And I know too that some forms of epilepsy do pass eventually. So I’m hesitant to use the word ‘miracle’ (which I think has a very narrow definition); but not remotely hesitant to say that it is one of the most remarkable answers to prayer I’ve ever seen. And yes, I’ve seen other, similar, answers. My position on healing is, I think, roughly the same as Lloyd-Jones’: God still heals, but there are no healers. (And I remember that Lloyd-Jones always insisted that he had never seen a genuine miracle). As for ‘real, tangible healings at Citygate’ I’ve no reason to deny it – my theology doesn’t require it! BUT I would caution you: be sure the people who seem to have been healed were actually sick with an organic – rather than psycho-somatic - illness, and had been properly and reliably diagnosed as such. Then be sure that they’re actually healed, and healed without medical intervention. Only then can you even begin to think of using the word ‘miracle’; the Roman Catholic Church, to its credit, examines all of Lourdes’ ‘healings’ in this scrupulous way. Such caution IS necessary; twenty years or so ago a well-known Christian woman hit the secular press with accounts of her miraculous healing and, sure enough, all tests revealed no trace of the disease she said she had had. It was only when a sceptical evangelical doctor eventually gained access to her medical records that it was shown she never had had the disease; she had self-diagnosed, and been mistaken.

Finally (for now!) you say

I find that most rejection comes down to a personal experience (as did I) which we just know in our bones is not authentic. But is that the right thing to do?

Well, no it’s not. But my reply would be that it’s the other way round: most people come to the Bible convinced that they’ve seen healings/tongues/prophecies etc and are therefore insistent that the Bible can’t mean what it says – and what Bible believers have believed it to say for most of the last two millennia.

Where, Steve, are the tongues that are not ‘angelish’? Where are the organic healings that make the medical profession and the world sit up and take notice? Why did no-one respond to the Pyromaniacs’ challenge for a well-attested, significant and accurate prophecy? Why did John Wimber – the most remarkable and famous charismatic of his day – promise David Watson (the most remarkable, famous British charismatic of his day) that his cancer would be healed (just before he died of it!) Why did people all over the world write to Watson with the same prophecy? Why was there not a single voice saying ‘I have heard from the Lord, and this sickness is to death’? Is it possible that the supreme and sovereign Lord allowed this so that we could face the facts – there are no true prophets today?

Well, blessings to you. We’ll have to meet up some time and have a coffee, instead of bumping into one another by accident. Give my love to your Mum and Dad.

Back with a Bang!

2011-03-03T10:45:00.000Z

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

Why I am not a charismatic

2011-03-02T11:44:00.001Z

Why I am not a charismatic

Because I read my Bible...

You see, it happened like this. I was saved in August 1973. In September that year, I went off to University - one of the oldest and most elite academic insitutions in the country (Bradford). There I met lots of other Christians and began to go to an Elim Pentecostal church. Everybody - but everybody - seemed to be speaking in tongues. It seemed like a good idea... so I began to pray for it. I got lots of guidance (apparently you can be taught this supernatural gift) and, eventually, I began to speak in gibber... er, the tongues of angels.

Straight away I knew that I was now spiritually superior to those of my friends who didn't gibb - er, speak in tongues. And deep down, that bothered me; if a gift was genuinely of God, I thought, it shouldn't make me feel superior. So I began to wonder. I don't think it took more than ten days for me to decide my own experience was spurious, and I gave up g - er, you know.

Now I'm not daft enough (and wasn't daft enough even then) to think that my false experience meant that everyone else's experience was false, too. But it did open the possibility up in my mind. I read one or two books - Signs of the apostles, for example. But mostly, I read my Bible. And the gifts in the Bible just didn't look like the gifts in the Elim church.

I really wasn't impressed by the 'prophecies'. I mean, there are prophecies in the Bible, right? And they're pretty dramatic. And they're accurate. The prophecies I heard weren't even interesting.

But it was really 'tongues' that got me. Why was the most prolific gift the one gift that couldn't be tested, I wondered? I mean, my friends told me that some gifts of tongues were human languages, and some were the languages of angels (1 Corinthians 13:1). But I only heard the ones that - well, weren't human. Why? Could it be that all these people were fooling themselves?

And anyway, I understand English. I'm pretty good at it. I know a figure of speech when I see one. 'Though I speak in the tongues of men and of angels' didn't read like a prescription to me, or even a description; it read like a sarcastic comment: 'I don't care if you speak Latin, French, English and Klingon - or even Angelish - if you don't have love I don't want to know.' But my friends were ever so, ever so excited about speaking Angelish, and I couldn't understand it.

And then, of course, the 'tongues' in the New Testament were never Angelish. They were always human languages - someone even pointed out to me, eventually, that the languages (tongues) spoken in Acts 2 were all named. Angelish wasn't any of them. Hmmm.

And so I kept reading my Bible, and kept watching. I realised that though the 'gifts' being used in the church were given the same namesas the gifts in the New Testament, that was all they had in common. I realised that I could call myself Elvis Presley, but it wouldn't make my voice the real thing. The only problem left: where were the gifts today, then?

It may have been as late as 1977 that I discovered the answer; Stuart Olyott explained to me what 1 Corinthians 13:10 meant, and it made sense. I know this is a controversial passage. Hey, those who are in the wrong find any Scripture passage that proves they're wrong controversial! If you already believe that 'the gifts' are being exercised in the church, perhaps 1 Corinthians 13:10 might not persuade you otherwise. But when you've already realised the truth - well, that's different.

Nearly 30 years later, I'm still persuaded. There were sign gifts - foundations for the whole church. Once the foundations were laid, those gifts were no longer necessary. I've never - not even once - seen anything 'enough like' a New Testament sign gift to make me wonder if I might have got it wrong. And I watched with fascinated interest while the Pyromaniac asked for one well-attested prophecy that the Charismatics had got right. The rude people slandered him; the polite people challenged his exegesis. (You can read about it starting hereand here) None of them gave the answer he'd asked for. QED, as they never actually said in my geometry lessons.

(This post originally appeared way back, and is reposted as a) still reflecting my opinions and b) part of the re-post program for February)

The Ultimate Camp Song

2011-02-07T01:30:00.004Z

One week into my study leave, here's a song from my childhood for all those of you that are already thinking about Summer Camp.

Have a break...

2011-02-01T15:43:00.000Z

From today, I'll be taking a break from blogging - for the whole month of February. I've been working since Adam was a lad on a DMin on the evangelistic preaching of Lloyd-Jones, especially from the book of Acts - his long, last series at Westminster Chapel. Now, I need to get it done.

The elders and church here have kindly granted me two months' study leave, one month at a time, to try and 'break the back' of the thesis: February is the first of those months. But fear not - I'm scheduling a few repeat posts to keep you going during the month.

And I'll be back on the first of March, God willing. I hope you'll both be back with me then.

Shadow Dancing

2011-01-31T00:33:00.000Z

After last week's wonderful example of pop-music dancing (!) I tried really hard to find a clip of the Shadows doing their famous walk-dance. But I failed, and there's only so much time you can give to these things.

So here are the Shadows anyway - magnificent in its way!

Ryle on baptism

2011-01-28T05:30:00.001Z

Found this on http://churchsociety.org/publications/tracts/CAT193_RyleBaptism.pdf: (Thanks to Dan Phillips on Team Pyro, once more)

11. But does not St. Paul say in his Epistles that Christians are “buried with Christ in baptism;” and
that baptized persons have “put on Christ”? (Gal. iii. 27; Col. ii. 12.)

No doubt St. Paul says so. But the persons of whom he said this, in all human probability, were not
baptized in infancy, but when they were grown up, and in days too when faith and baptism were so
closely connected that the moment a man believed he confessed his faith publicly by baptism. But
there is not a single passage in the New Testament which describes at length the effect of baptism
on an infant, nor a single text which says that all infants are born again, or regenerated, or buried
with Christ in baptism. As Canon Mozley says, “Scripture nowhere asserts, either explicitly or
implicitly, the regeneration of infants in baptism.” (Mozley’s Baptismal Controversy, p. 34.) Beside
this, we are expressly told that Simon the sorcerer, after his baptism, had “no part” in Christ, and
his “heart was not right in the sight of God.” Simon, therefore, could not have been regenerated, or
born again in baptism. (Acts viii. 21.)

Gentle reader, do you think there may be a reason why 'there is not a single passage in the New Testament which describes at length [or at short, for that matter] the effect of baptism on an infant'? Just wondering...

Temptations to Discouragement

2011-01-25T06:50:00.003Z

Where in ministry are you most regularly tempted to discouragement?

Have I failed as a husband and a dad? Have I preached the whole counsel of God? Why do I still struggle with the same sins with which I fought on the day I first believed? Do I really care enough for the people in my church? Is my teaching leading people to Christ or away from him? Am I driven solely by a desire to raise my own profile? These kind of questions periodically strike me down.

This is Carl Trueman being interviewed by CJ Mahaney; and to which I can only respond 'me too.'

I'm particularly (and perversely) encouraged by his admission that he still struggles with the same old sins. I remember 'confessing' that to Roger Carswell. Confession's good for the soul, yes? No, not always. Roger expressed such surprise that I came to the serious and long-term conclusion that I obviously wasn't really converted...

When music was fun

2011-01-24T04:15:00.001Z

Freddie and the Dreamers: 'You were made for me'

Back in these days, music was fun. And clock out that dancing! F and TD never took themselves too seriously. He died in 2006, aged 69.
Oh - and while you're watching - what an early episode of Blue Peter, with Chris Trace and Valerie Singleton. I can just about remember those days - and is that the famous Petra in the opening seconds? Surely, it is!

Liz Murray - Breaking Night

2011-01-20T16:32:00.000Z

I was very impressed with this young lady on this morning's BBC Breakfast News - I've ordered her autobiography, and will let you know if it's as impressive as I think it may be.

Wiersbe on Calvinism

2011-01-11T05:06:00.002Z

This miracle [the new birth] all began with God: we were chosen by the Father (Eph. 1:3-4). This took place in the deep counsels of eternity, and we knew nothing about it until it was revealed to us in the Word of God. This election was not based on anything we had done, because we were not even on the scene. Nor was it based on anything God saw that we would be or do. God's election was based wholly on His grace and love. We cannot explain it (Rom. 11:33-36), but we can rejoice in it.

'Foreknowledge' does not suggest that God merely knew ahead of time that we would believe, and therefore He chose us. This would raise the question.'Who or what made us decide for Christ?' and would take our salvation completely out of God's hands. In the Bible, 'to foreknow' means 'to set on's love upon a person pr persons in a personal way.' It is used this way in Amos 3:2: 'You only have I known of all the families of the earth.' God set His electing love on the nation of Israel. Other verses that use 'know' in this special sense are 1 Corinthians 8:3, John 10:14, 27; Matthew 7:23; and Psalm 1:6.

But the plan of salvation includes more than the Father's electing love; it also includes the work of the Spirit in convicting the sinner and bringing him to faith in Christ. The best commentary on this is 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14. Also, the Son of God had to die on the cross for our sins, or there could be no salvation. We have been chosen by the Father, purchased by the Son, and set apart by the Spirit. It takes all three if there is to be a true experience of salvation.

I don't want to put words into his mouth, but I rather suspect that Dr Wiersbe (incidentally one of the most gracious men I have ever met) would not want the label 'Calvinist'. And there's no reason why he should; we don't contend for labels but for truth. Nonetheless, this extract from his little commentary on 1 Peter ('Be hopeful') shows his commitment to unconditional election, does more than hint at effectual calling and is consistent with definite redemption. Good on 'im!

2011-01-10T05:11:00.004Z

Happy Birthday, Shirley

Dame Shirley Bassey - like Elvis and David Bowie - celebrates a birthday on January 8th. Always a powerful performer, she achieved her peak, some would say, with the assistance of two most helpful props men...

2011-01-06T10:13:00.000Z

Where have all the preachers gone - again (continued)

It's interesting to note that Carl Trueman assumes that those of us who care about the Exodus to the US - including Paul Levy on the same blog - are thinking uncharitable things about those who go. Particularly, he thinks we think that they go for the money. (And, if I read him right, HE thinks they go for the money too, and that's OK!)

Actually, I've said no such thing. I'm concerned about what's happening in the UK, not about why those who go, do go. OK? If I get chance, I'll try and do some blogging on the 'why' question sometime.

And for the record - again! - I've never been a pastor of a church in the North of England and defected to the South, which would be the proper parallel. Nor have I ever been approached by a church in the North interested in having me as their pastor. I'm quite happy to assume that this is an indication of the superior discernment of Northern Christians. It certainly isn't, though, a case of my hunting with the hounds while running with the hares.

2011-01-04T13:31:00.001Z

Where have all the preachers gone? (Again)

Do you remember this? And this? And this?

It's a running sore: so many of our preachers are going to America. And today, I hear that Liam's probably going, too. Worse still, it's Philadelphia - again. One city taking two of our better preachers in two consecutive years.

I'm not going to complain. But is it OK if I pray that the church will say a resounding 'No!'?

PS Furthermore, see this - put even better than I put it myself.

2010-12-29T10:12:00.000Z

Manslator!

At last - help for all men everywhere. Straight from Dan Phillips, this is designed to keep you going 'til I get back on track,

2010-12-20T19:49:00.000Z

Mud on the Road

Little bit late with Monday Music today - blame the snow, and the mud.

2010-12-13T05:50:00.001Z

Monday Music Plus! (How to be a one-buttock liver!)

This is still music, but it's rather more. The whole thing is well worth a watch. I'd not heard of this guy (Benjamin Zander) before - my ignorance, I'm sure. This video says a great deal about life and leadership.

2010-12-08T15:17:00.001Z

Douglas MacMillan

Here and here Reformation 21 (in the persons of Paul Levy and Carl Trueman) celebrates the ministry of the late Douglas MacMillan, the best preacher I ever heard. I'd never heard OF him when I was present at the Aberystwyth Conference back in 1979. He preached the now-legendary series on Psalm 23; this former Highland Shepherd and giant of a man made the whole psalm live. As an expositor, Lloyd-Jones was better; but as a preacher, MacMillan left him standing.

Not many years later, I met him. I'd gone for the very first time to the Bala Ministers' Conference. I'd only graduated from LTS two days earlier, but I really wanted to hear this man again. I remember going in to the dining room (sensibly, the conference began with lunch) and seeing that all the tables were already filling up. On each of them was a minister I was still inclined to call 'Mr' - Graham Harrison on one, Hywel Jones on another, Hugh Morgan, Andrew Davies... How could I possibly sit with them. (I'm a very shy man.) Oh, bless the Lord! There's one table with no-one sitting at it at all. Quick, Gary.

So I sat down, and was aware as I sat that someone had followed me and was sitting opposite me. Looking up, there was Big Douglas, stretching out a massive hand to me and saying 'Hello, I'm Douglas. Who are you?' (I'm not sure I could remember at that point!)

I've never forgotten that. As he walked into the dining room he must have seen those men - his friends. But he saw one young, lonely, nervous preacher sitting alone. He ignored his friends, and sat with me. He was a Big Man.

You've never heard him preach? In the words of the song, 'betcha by golly, wow! Some of his sermons are on the web; you could try this one, from a different 'Aber.' But really you need to get hold of his sermons on Psalm 23. The book's worth reading - but hear the sermons first, if you can. How about pestering the Evangelical Movement of Wales to put them on line? And the Free Church of Scotland to make many, many more available?

2010-12-06T04:06:00.001Z

Unexpected Messiah

Yep, most of you have seen this. Watch it again. At approximately 1:58 is, for me, the most amazing, spine-tingling moment in all of music anywhere. It gets me every time; and it's true, too!

2010-12-04T04:54:00.001Z

It's hard to be honest...

I pay for my prescriptions in advance; it's (marginally) cheaper since I have ongoing medication for migraines.

I've got a prescription waiting for me at the Pharmacy. Couldn't find my prepayment card, so phoned the Prepayment Office in Newcastle to find out if my last card was still valid. Whoops - no. It expired at the end of August. No problem, though - the nice people at the P-O are quite happy to take my money over the phone and issue me with a card that I can use from today. So I can pick my prescription up immediately. When the snow clears, that is.

But as I settle down to a nice cuppa, I think. And what I think is this - I'm sure I've had a prescription - without paying for it - since August. Check records and yes! I've had two. Oh well; nobody's likely to find out. Except God of course. Nobody's likely to call me to account. Except God of course.

Hmm. Better put the cuppa down and sort it. So I phone the P-O again and explain. Nice lady puts me through to a colleague. 'Oh, no - we don't deal with that. You'll need to phone your local health care trust.' Kindly, she gives me the number in Poole.

Phone the number in Poole. Another nice lady, who transfers me to yet another nice lady. Plainly, only nice ladies have got through the snow today. Anyway, this one says, 'Oh, no. We don't deal with that. You'll need to phone a number in Ferndown.' So I phone a number in Ferndown and get through to a lady - nice one - with a bit of an accent. (I should explain: it sounded very slightly foreign - Indian, perhaps. But the nice lady in Newcastle - now she HAD an accent. But it doesn't count, 'cos it's an English accent. And no doubt it'll improve - when the boat comes in.)

Anyway, I'm now talking to a nice lady in Ferndown - just up the road. And she says (can you guess?) 'Oh, no. We don't deal with that. You'll need to phone a number in Newcastle.' She gives it me. And it's the one I phoned to start with. I explain.

'Oh, OK then. I'll talk to my manager. Just a minute.' Manager comes on - she seems a nice lady, too. 'How can I help?' So I explain.

'OK then,' she says. 'Just give my your address and we'll send you an invoice for the prescriptions you haven't paid for.'

I don't mind the run-around; after all, I did it from my own home and it only took a few minutes. (About 20, I'd say.) But what strikes me - and it's struck me before - officialdom has no well-understood procedure in place to deal with honesty.

Don't you think that's odd?

2010-12-03T05:52:00.013Z

W o l v e s

Mt. 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them.

Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard!

Titus 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11 You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

For various reasons, the leadership here at MBC has had to consider what 'wolves' look like, in Christian terms. Here are some basic conclusions of mine based on the above texts:

1. Wolves are not a theoretical problem, but a real one

I think we can take it for granted that neither Paul nor the Lord Jesus are saying: 'For your information, there are wolves. But don't worry, you'll never meet one.' How can we take that for granted? Because the Lord says 'Watch out' and Paul says 'be on your guard'!

2. They are dangerous

Wolves eat sheep. When a church has wolves prowling around, the sheep are in danger. (Obvious, eh? Yep; sometimes the art of Bible teaching is 'stating the obvious'. Then illustrate, and apply.)

3. They are hard to recognise

That is, they are in sheep's clothing. They (apparently) bear many marks - or at least some of the marks - of the true believer.

4. It is possible to recognise them

Otherwise, there'd be no point being told to 'watch out'. They are not easy to spot, but the alert shepherd can spot them.

5. It’s the duty of the shepherds to recognise them

This is an area where greater discernment than the 'average' church member has is needed. Many church members never get beyond the mythical beatitude 'Blessed are the Nice.' But shepherds - elders, pastors, overseers - are to be chosen on the basis of spiritual wisdom and maturity. Discernment is part of that.

6. They are recognised by the effect that they have

That's the clear teaching of Matthew 7:16 (above), where Jesus mixes his metaphors. We recognise wolves not by their intentions - still less by what they say their intentions are - but by what they actually do and the impact that it has. This is a vital point to grasp.

7. Once they are recognised the shepherds must deal with them

Once again, it’s clear that neither Paul nor Jesus means ‘look out for them – and then do nothing about them.’ David (1 Samuel 17:34-37) describes the responsibility of the (literal) shepherd when the flock is threatened, and the (spiritual) shepherd learns his responsibility from the parallel. Often, though, that can be difficult, not least because...

8. They have friends on the leadership

‘From your own number’ (Acts 20:30) means they will have worked closely with other leaders, which makes them difficult to identify and painful to deal with. They have worked themselves onto the leadership somehow - obviously with an appearance of grace and orthodoxy and probably with genuine leadership gifts. Friendship is a good thing; but it may cloud our judgement. 'He can't possibly be a wolf - our children grew up together, we've spent holidays together, we get on really well.' Yes - but what do they do? (See point 6, above)

9. They are not just false teachers

Much of the stress seems throughout the New Testament is on false teaching, but some verses (e.g. Titus 3.10) make it clear that this is not always the problem. False teaching is certainly dangerous and divisive - but there are other ways of being divisive, other ways of damaging the flock. Even the false teachers, though, manage an appearance of orthodoxy, enough to be appointed to the leadership of the church.

Psst. Wanna hear a sermon?

Try Steve Levy: http://gracebaptist.org.uk/wp/?page_id=204&sermon_id=49 and let me know what you think.

2010-12-02T11:40:00.000Z

Today's the Day to pray for Kezia.

I don't know whether there are many/any readers of my blog who don't also see Martin Downes' 'Against Heresies' blog. Today's the day to pray for his nine-year-old daughter Kezia who was recently discovered to have a brain tumour and will be operated on today.

It's also a very good day to see what faith in the fire looks like.

God bless you today, Kezia. And your Mum and Dad, too.

2010-11-30T16:22:00.000Z

Back Soon...

...excuse the hiatus.

2010-11-24T14:22:00.001Z

Crossway - Customer Service (outstanding)

A while ago I e-mailed Crossway in the US to ask why I couldn't get the ESVin epub form, so that I could download it onto my Sony e-reader.

A while later, I received an e-mail in response from one Liz Young, the 'ebook and digital licensing co-ordinator' at Crossway, who assured me that in about a week it would be available. She encouraged me to get in touch again if I had any problems.

Two weeks later, I still couldn't find the file on Crossway's website. I emailed Liz and told her; there'd been problems, she said, but it was there now. She sent me the link. Sure enough, there it was, and I downloaded it. My computer could open it - but I couldn't get it to install on my e-reader.

So I emailed Liz. After a while, she emailed me back and... and we went back and forth like that for a while. She made suggestions, I couldn't do it and said so - and so on.

Eventually, after several emails over most of a day, I was finally able to download the ESV and install it on the e-reader. It's there now.

My point is this: Crossway's representative cared enough to sort out my problem from the other side of the Atlantic. She cared enough to consult her team to discover my problem. She cared enough to keep going until the problem resolved. Then, when I thanked her, she emailed again and thanked ME for alerting them to the problem so that they could help others.

And - to cap it all - the ESV download is free.

Now, that's what I call outstanding customer service. Thank you, Crossway. (Thanks, Liz)

2010-11-23T03:45:00.007Z

The Mighty Comma

Lynne Truss pointed out years ago that 'A panda is a large black-and-white bear-like mammal that eats, shoots and leaves' means something very different from 'A panda is a large black-and-white bear-like mammal that eats shoots and leaves.' But the difference is only one comma - a mighty comma.

This past Sunday we began our worship with Andrew King's excellent setting of the creed: 'We believe in God Almighty' and someone queried the theology; for one verse says 'Once baptised, our sins forgiven'. They took it to mean that we need to be baptised in order for our sins to be forgiven - and I've heard the point made before. I've even seen it in print.

Once more, it's down to the mighty comma. 'Once baptised our sins forgiven' WOULD mean 'Once baptised our sins are forgiven'. That, of course, is error. But put in the comma, 'once baptised, our sins forgiven' and it becomes a list - a list of things that have happened to the Christian. He has been baptised once, and his sins are forgiven. (It's based, of course, on the Nicene Creed - and see Ephesians 4:5.)

Then again, there's 'Praise, my soul, the King of Heaven'. As it stands, it is calling out to the soul to praise the King of Heaven. Take out the first comma, though ('Praise my soul, the King of Heaven') and it's calling on the King of Heaven to praise my soul. Quite a difference, eh?

Mind you, those of us who know the difference do make mistakes: my very own 'Why Lord?' should, of course, be 'Why, Lord?' As one reviewer pointed out.

2010-11-22T05:25:00.002Z

Very rare Buddy Holly

If you know just a bit about Buddy Holly, you probably think of 'That'll be the Day' as his first record. But not so: he'd earlier released 'Blue Days, Black Nights' on the Decca label, as well as 'Modern Don Juan'. Neither of them did well, Decca would not renew his contract so he signed with Brunswick Records, and the rest is (very, very brief) history.

2010-11-18T11:02:00.001Z

Strong imagery and Gospel Communication

Recently I was taken to task for expressing the opinion that someone was a wolf: 'Surely not - he loves the gospel. He may have his problems but 'wolf' is a bit strong.' Well, more of wolves in another post. But it set me thinking about the strong imagery - often negative - in the New Testament, and the anaemic , let's-not-upset-anyone communication that passes for preaching these days. I am, from time to time, 'corrected' when I use strong imagery in my own preaching. But here are some better examples than any of mine:

Jesus:

Matthew 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

Matthew 7:18,19 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Matthew 23:27 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."

Now come on Lord, that's a bit harsh. You know, the Pharisees love the Scriptures. I know they don't always agree with your interpretation, and in fact some of them might be hypocrites, as you say. But you can't tar them all with the same brush. I mean - look at Nicodemus. He came to you very respectfully, didn't he?

Other NT writers:

Acts 20:29,30 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

Galatians 5:12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

2 Peter 2:12-15 They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed--an accursed brood! They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness.

2 Peter 3:22 Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

Jude 12-15 They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted--twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Now steady on, Jude - you're getting carried away. I know Jesus is your brother and you've thought a lot about the things that he said - but even he didn't go that far. The men you're talking about hardly deserve your eternal damnation. Even if they did - wild waves of the sea? Moderate your language a bit old chap. This is England you know.

A need for balance?

Yes, of course. But where is the balance, when most preachers insist on speaking of wooden-handled manually operated soil excavation equipment? Where is the language that makes listeners sit up and think 'Wow! This is serious!' Where's the language that lets people know what the preacher really thinks? Whitefield repented in later life of a language too apostolical. Today's preachers need to repent of a language not apostolical enough.

Update on balance..
It's been suggested to me by my reader that balance isn't a helpful concept. Was Jesus - in any of those quotes - balanced? Er - no. Guess not. The correct 'balance' - if we must use the concept - has to be the balance of two different extremes. When Paul says 'speaking the truth in love' he doesn't mean 'Sometimes speak the truth. Sometimes speak in love. Get the balance right.' He means 'Always speak the truth. Always speak in love. Tell it bluntly, and do so because you love the gospel, love the God of the gospel, and love the person you're speaking to.' And that, dear friend, is the balance that's hard. Innit?

2010-11-17T10:29:00.002Z

Criticising Friends

This is a very old (1992) article from John Piper - you can either follow the link or read it below.

John Stott has served the church well as pastor, writer, evangelical statesman, missions mobilizer, apologist. He made a profound impact on me in 1967 at Urbana and fanned the flames of my growing zeal for the word of God. He crafted the Lausanne Covenant which I admire. I recall Laurel Bissett’s testimony of how she was converted reading Stott’s Basic Christianity. That story could perhaps be duplicated a thousand times over. I love John Stott and thank God for his ministry.

All the more then do I grieve at his abandonment of the historic biblical truth expressed in our Affirmation of Faith: “We believe in . . . the eternal felicity of the righteous, and theendless suffering of the wicked.” He wrote in 1988, “Emotionally I find the concept [of endless suffering] intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it . . . Scripture points in the direction of annihilation.” This is a tragic defection from historic orthodoxy by one who has championed “Basic Christianity” so faithfully.

Consider what he must do with the Scriptures. For example, on Mark 9:47-48:

If your eye causes you to sin pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.

If annihilation is in view, why would Jesus lay stress on the fire never being quenched and the worm never dying? Stott says that the worm will not die nor the fire be quenched “until presumably their work of destruction is done.” That qualification is not in the text. But the focus on eternal duration is confirmed in Matthew 18:8, where the term “eternal hell” is used.

In Revelation 20:10 John writes,

The devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Stott again struggles in vain to escape the clear intent of the eternal torments of the lake of fire. He says that Revelation 20:10 refers to the beast and false prophet who “are not individual people but symbols of the world in its varied hostility to God. In the nature of the case they cannot experience pain.”

But Stott fails to mention Revelation 20:15 where it says that “if anyone’s name (not just the beast and false prophet) was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” Similarly Revelation 21:8 says that it is individual sinners whose “lot shall be the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” And the torment that lasts “for ever and ever” in Revelation 14:10 is precisely the torment of people “with fire and sulfur”—that is, the torment of “the lake that burns with fire and sulfur” (21:8). In other words the “lake of fire” is in view not only, as Stott suggests, when the beast and false prophet and death and hades (20:13) are cast out, but also when individual unbelievers are finally condemned (14:10-11; 20:15; 21:8).

Conclusion: “Watch at all times, praying that you may be able to escape all these things” (Luke 21:36). Pray for evangelical leaders, that they would “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Soberly,

Pastor John

Note what Piper does, here. The balance is instructive. The first paragraph lays out the blessing Stott has been to the church, and ends 'I love John Stott and thank God for his ministry.' In fact, even earlier, the piece is entitled 'When a FRIEND takes a wrong turn' (emphasis mine).

Then, immediately, in the second paragraph he pulls no punches: Stott's unorthodox line on hell is called an 'abandonment of the historic biblical truth' and 'a tragic defection from historic orthodoxy by one who has championed 'Basic Christianity' so faithfully'.

Subsequent paragraphs attempt (I think successfully) to show what violence Stott must do to clear Biblical statements in order to maintain an annihilationist position. And after a call to pray that other evangelical leaders won't go the same way, Piper signs off with 'soberly' - it's a big issue, it's an issue that's made him grieve.

I do believe this is one of the areas (others include, for example, ecumenism) where John Stott has done the church a great disservice, making respectable - in some quarters at least - what has hitherto always been regarded as a dangerous departure. If the final fate of the lost is unconscious non-existence, then Jesus died in vain and the Father is a monster - giving his only Son to such agony to save the world from something they would never know about, never feel, never experience.

But I recoil (now - I did not always) from that attitude which says that therefore Stott is some kind of theological leper. He's a good man, a gift to the church - and a flawed man whose statements need to be weighed and sifted. And that, of course, is true of everyone.

May God give us Piper's grace, and Piper's discernment. And may the same God bless and draw near to John Stott in these days when age and ill-health are taking their toll.

2010-11-15T05:17:00.002Z

More Janine

Back to the serious this week: some of you have expressed appreciation of my occasional posting of Janine Jansen's videos - and I'm sure it's the quality of her playing, even though only men have commented! Here she is playing Bartok's Romanian Dances. It's the piece my very patient teacher has set me these past five weeks or so - though it doesn't sound much like this when I play it. (Which will be no surprise to those who've heard me; and still less to Stefan.)

2010-11-12T19:19:00.000Z

Memories of teen-age years...