A silly cycle, that repentance would break

I’ve been noticing a repeated cycle in my life:

I tidy something or improve one of my systems for working, and create a bit more order in my life; then I get excited about this and want to tidy more; then I realise that what I’m really doing now is to sort my life out so I can sort my ministry out so I can sort the church out and then sort the world out – I’m playing at being God.  So prone am I to control and self-reliance and idolatry!   Then, when consciously, or just semi-consciously in my conscience, I become aware of this sin, I feel guilty and wretched, and then instead of repenting of this bad element in organising things, I just give up and go back to being chaotic and yet to some extent trusting God in the chaos (“Lord, I trust you will help me, despite my chaos and lack of discipline, to survive and grow in grace and grow the church enough that everything will not be too bad”).

How much better it would be to repent of the self-reliance, and carry on, in a wise way and at a sensible pace, ordering my life and work.  The answer, from 2 Corinthians 7:10 and 1 John 1:7-9, is to not beat myself up when I spot the control-freakery, but to know Jesus died for it and so there is forgiveness, and in his Spirit there is power to change!

Being catholic spirited – or not

Here’s B B Warfield writing a book review of a book by a thoroughly Arminian Methodist theologian, John Miley: “The high quality of the Biblical and Theological Library, now publishing by the Methodist Publishing House, does honor to the great denomination which it represents.  Dr Miley’s Systematic Theology … is altogether a good book, which the Arminian should find rarely satisfying, and with which the Calvinist should count it a privilege to join issue.”  Shorter Writings off BBW, vol 2, p308.  He takes some of it apart pretty thoroughly over the next 13 pages, especially its adherence to the governmental rather than penal substitutionary theory of the atonement, but his overall verdict is not that it’s not worth the paper it’s written on, or should be avoided at all costs, or will do more harm than good, or comes from the pen of an enemy.

I can’t help contrasting the spirit of Warfield’s words with what is said sometimes about Christian leaders we don’t fully agree with in the modern Reformed movement that started in the 1950s.  The people on the receiving end seem especially to be any Christians not quite of our tribe, or maybe of our tribe but not quite of our clan, who are at the same time outwardly successful.  I remember hearing, accurately or not, that Martyn Lloyd-Jones was of the opinion that the the ministry of Billy Graham had done more harm than good – at least some of Lloyd-Jones’ followers seemed to think this was the case.  And there was a full-page review of a biography of Graham that I read 30 years or so ago that certainly said that.  Likewise some of the criticism of Tim Keller from conservative Presbyterian quarters strikes me as very different in spirit from Warfield’s, especially when one considers the closeness of Keller’s doctrinal views to those of the critics.

What’s going on here, leaving aside the possibility of bad motives?  I’m inclined to think that whether or not one agrees with J I Packer’s words near the start of his book Keep in step with Spirit may have a lot to do with it: “The truth is that just as notional knowledge may outrun spiritual experience, so a person’s spiritual experience may be ahead of his notional knowledge.  Bible believers have often so stressed (rightly) the need for correct notions that they have overlooked this.” p20 of the second edition, 2005.  In other words, though there is a link between right belief and the heart’s knowledge of God, motives and graces, it’s not a fixed link.  It simply is not the case that the more truth one adheres to, the better one is; it’s not true that the very doctrinal Christians are the goodies and the less doctrinal, somewhat fuzzy ones are the baddies – life is not as straightforward as that.

Therefore getting our doctrine totally sorted out, and opposing, resisting and generally regarding as some kind of enemies all the Christians who don’t agree with us – this is not the way to proceed.  We can, and really should, be catholic-spirited.  In this, Warfied and Packer are good examples.

Your practice can be better or worse than your theology

I worshipped in 2 different churches several months ago.  The first was a typical conservative evangelical British church, a Free church not an Anglican.  It was dull, especially the service as distinct from the sermon.  Why?  It was as though the dear people did trust Jesus and did want to meet him, but they somehow thought that they had to prove something to God and maybe also to each other in order to get right into his presence and know him speaking to them and blessing them.  For example, they must be reverent (most of the men wore ties and some wore suits), it was all very orderly, the songs were written a long time ago and were not very emotionally expressive, especially in the music (music that might have moved people and expressed emotion a long time ago but not in our culture, not for 98% of the population); it was all very correct, very biblical; you couldn’t say there was anything actually wrong with it technically.  Now of course there are principles and even dos and don’ts about Christian worship; but not only have these folk, as far as I could tell, imagined some dos and don’ts that aren’t in Scripture, their way of applying their rules is legalistic.  It was as if James 4, “Draw near to God and he will draw near to you” meant: “If you draw near to me in the right way and do a pretty good job, then I will reward you by drawing near to you.”

The second service was at a Pentecostal church – a trad AOG one that doesn’t teach the prosperity gospel and does have pretty good, warm, applied preaching of the Bible most of the time.  On this occasion the main pastor, who is a fine preacher, was away, and various members of the congregation were leading, preaching, singing solos etc.  It was a bit chaotic, the sermon was really an unnecessarily long personal testimony of how something the pastor had preached a few weeks ago applied to the speaker and maybe to us as well – but it was true, biblical, applied, warm, moving.  But more importantly, the whole service and atmosphere and the way the folk related to me and my wife was so different.  They weren’t thinking about rules or frightened of not doing everything just right, in case God was displeased and said nothing to them.  It felt, from start to finish, as though their attitude to the service was something like:  “Hey, God is great, Jesus loves us and is alive, the Spirit is real; and every time we meet in his name, he is there and is waiting to bless us, to speak, to revive and renew, to save any lost folk, to answer prayer…. so let’s go to meet him, let’s expect great things from him, let’s listen, let’s praise, let’s trust him and cast cares on him, let’s enjoy him and his word, and let’s love him and serve him until our next meeting in risky ways.”

The doctrine of justification which the Pentes do believe in a rough and ready, unsubtle way is alive and well in their hearts and in their worship.  The conservative evangelicals believe it in theory (they may have a more accurate view of it in theory) and to some extent in their hearts – otherwise none of them would be real Christians at all – but when it comes to church they are trying to be good enough to deserve God’s blessings (at least, that was the impression created by the whole event).  It’s hopeless, inconsistent and nearly dead.  Of course there are conservative churches, FIEC churches, Grace Baptist churches, that are much better than this; but there is something about being self-consciously conservative that doesn’t help believers to chill and trust God’s grace.  They just seem to think it’s too dangerous to focus mainly on grace and to meet mainly in order to enjoy God and revel in his love.  Oh dear.

The funny thing is that even many of their Reformed forefathers were, in key ways, more like the Pentecostals than them: for example, C R Vaughan in a book written in the 19th century (Vaughan was a conservative Presbyterian in the Southern states of the US and a friend of R L Dabney, so, conservative royalty), The gifts of the Holy Spirit, now in print with The Banner of Truth Trust, encourages his readers, whenever they are going to church, to think, “I am going to meet the Holy Ghost,” in other words, God is present and willing to meet us in his grace and totally undeserved love; Vaughan understood James 4 to mean not what most modern conservative evangelicals seem to think, but this:  “God is so loving and so willing to bless undeserving, sinful Christians that he runs to meet us with open arms every time we meet together and seek him with any desire and any faith at all; so let’s be encouraged to draw near – he is drawing near to us!!”

One upshot is this: all conservative, Bible-believing Christians should rush to their computers and buy a copy of Sinclair B Ferguson’s wonderful book: The whole Christ, which in a thoughtful, nuanced, Biblical, historico-theological way nails the subtle legalism of most conservative Christianity.

Two recent films

I, Daniel Blake: A Ken Loach film.  Quite a good political message about the inhumanity of the application of ESA etc to the poor; but the depiction of poor people is appalling – they are all saints and quite unbelievable, wooden.  I could not believe in them from minute 1 and so was bored.  Why does Loach do this and – dangerous question – why do some lap it up?  Edward Norman used to say that left-wing Anglican clergymen were so because they were “guilty public schoolboys.”  (He himself, at that time an Anglican clergyman, was a Heathian, one-nation Tory).  I wonder if something like that is going on with Ken Loach and some of his admirers:  They feel guilty about having money and living a pleasant middle-class life and not really caring about the poor, so they care in an uncostly way – adopt left-wing views and make or like films like this.  Is this too suspicious?

I guess the message is about the evil of the recent cuts in the social service budget under Conservative governments; but what I got from it – which Loach might intend – is how crazy it is to try running the whole of society by means of too many rules and regulations: officials at all levels of government and the civil service should have, and be encouraged to exercise, common sense and discretion to secure good ends, which should always be the good of people.  The way to stop abuse – in the social services, education, the health service, wherever public money is being spent – is not masses of regulations but tough (yet minimalist) inspection regimes.

Sully: stars Tom Hanks as pilot of the plane that landed in the Hudson river in 2009.  Amazing film – not “a great movie” but very good.  Yes, the plot was about the pilot’s vindication from suspicion of having made a bad judgment in the middle of the disaster, rather than about the disaster itself; but they manage to show the action twice over, and the ending is great.  Hardly a dull moment – Clint Eastwood in his 80s: well done!

I guess the message is something like: Doing your job really well can be astonishingly significant; so take pride in your work and serve others by working well.  And in the end such work and such workers will be vindicated.  This fits with the real “Protestant work ethic” which is not actually about money but about the dignity and inherent worth of any and all work that benefits others, despite Margaret Thatcher’s misappropriation of it.  Of course it does aid the flourishing of some forms of Capitalism but it is not actually Capitalism.

The primacy of the elusive

Christians get hold of the wonder of the emotional flow of good worship, and then think that if we can just create that each time – through music, the right kind of worship leading – we can know God every time. Some others get hold of the power of doing good, practical evangelism and spreading the word, and then think that if we just organise and motivate everyone to be witnessing and involved in spreading the word, the church will always be growing.  Yet others experience the refreshment and joy of good teaching, and the thrill of knowing the truth, or the thrill of God’s power in good preaching, and then think that if only a church has good teaching or preaching, and gradually everyone is getting doctrinally sorted out, all the other dominoes will in the end fall over too and God will revive us (or at least we will be first in line for his reviving touch).

All this is idolatry – it’s us doing something, sorting something in the church, and thinking that because we are doing this, God must bless in a certain way.  We’re trying to put God in our slot machine.  We must not be typical charismatics or typical evangelistic/missionary types or typical Reformed; instead we must see that the only thing the Bible says about what is central in our piety and church life is this:  go on in the living knowledge of and communion with God = abide in Christ = go further in the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.  Relationship with Christ is everything.

“But how?” say the practical types.  “Give us concrete ways of achieving this; don’t be vague.”  I resist!  The moment we reduce being close to God to one set of practical instructions, and come away from the elusive, slippery tightrope that the Bible gives us, we are in fact trying to nail God and his blessing down and we are unwittingly committing idolatry.  Instead we have to seek something quite elusive all the time; we have to keep our eyes on God himself daily, and be continually pressing in to know him better, continually seeking to discern what the Spirit is saying, continually adjusting our balance and changing our ways of praying, accessing Scripture, fellowshipping, running the church, evangelising, caring for others, etc, continually keeping in step with the Spirit – change, change, change all the time, based on seeking to have God himself at the centre.

Sometimes we will seem like Reformed types, but on closer or longer examination, not real ones; sometimes we will seem like charismatics, but on closer or longer examination, not real ones; sometimes evangelistic types, but not consistent, proper ones.  Such elusiveness may indicate that we are vaguely in the right zone – not perfect, but at least seeking to avoid the normal idolatries.  But may the Lord preserve us from thinking that our edgy, indefinable, ever-changing piety and church life is superior to that of others or guarantees his blessing!!  In that case, we would just be a 4th type of idolater.  In sum, we all need to adopt an approach to piety and church life that is elusive, edgy and ever-changing; conservatism and having things tied down is a spiritual disaster.

Some back up notes:

I think this is another way of saying: Beware trusting in the means of grace; use them but trust only in God.

I think this is also what Tim Keller is trying to do (note that in his book about philosophy of ministry, Center Church, he is adamant that he does not want to advocate one pattern of church life and ministry – instead he wants to give principles that will apply 100 different ways in different situations and at different times); and it’s also what a man from a very different part of the global church was saying in his chapter on “Jesus in the centre” – Roy Hession in My Calvary Road.  That chapter, together with the following chapter (especially the quote from Wesley Nelson) is a superb statement, in his revivalist and evangelistic context, of what I’m trying to say.

Where in the Bible do we get overall statements about the secret of the Christian life?  John 15, Abide in Christ, the end of 2 Peter: grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ, Galatians 5: Keep in step with the Spirit, end of 2 Corinthians: experience the grace of Christ, the love of God, the fellowship of the Spirit.   And when you look at the life of the church in Acts, there is no one outward formula to do with the word or worship or evangelism; instead you see that Christ is with them, the Spirit is on them, and there is a constantly changing variety of things going on – teaching, praying, suffering, sharing, miracles, evangelising… no one key, but an elusiveness at the point of means and human activity.  Then you look at the Bible’s main treatment of piety and the dynamics of a relationship with God, ie. the Psalms; and what do we find?  It’s a million miles from anything formulaic or 5 steps to walking in the Spirit or 4 ways to know God’s blessing; instead, a 100 different aspects to an elusive relationship with the living God.  This tells us everything: we can’t nail God down and shouldn’t try.  Live with danger, live on the edge, be ready to be baffled and to change all the time, use outward means but never trust them and don’t be rigid about them (and this is probably what Jesus was saying about the way to fast in the new covenant).

Church failure in the UK

I’m wondering if the 4 most common reasons for the failure of churches in the UK might be these:

1. Churches and especially their leaders don’t really believe the Bible and it’s message of supernatural salvation.  This was a problem even in the late 19th century, as B B Warfield’s great essay on Christian supernaturalism indirectly testifies. (available here: https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/warfield_supernaturalism.html  as well as forming chapter 2 of volume 9 in his collected writings)
2. Churches do believe the Bible and orthodox Christian doctrines but they think that believing them and teaching them is enough – without loads of prayer and love and community among the believers and service to the outsiders.  Orthodoxism, you could call it – orthodoxy without orthopraxy either in terms of communion with God or loving service to people.
3. Aversion to change – rigidity.  “We’ve always done it this way.”  “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” “Avoid change for change’s sake.”  There’s some truth in these last 2, at least on basic, humdrum matters such as the drains working or the way that rotas in a church work.  But an examination of the New Testament evidence reveals, pretty early on, that at the level of forms, structures, outward means, practices, things were changing in the earliest churches and in the ministries of the apostles all the time.  Paul was reversing his procedures and sounding quite different almost constantly – when he would have someone circumcised and when not, when he would preach in an expository way and when not, etc etc.
4. Aversion to risk – undue caution.  I’m not pleading for the deliberate maximisation of risk, or for taking wild, uncalculated risks.  I am saying that all good leaders – not only in the church but anywhere – have to take risks, and if they are of a cautious disposition they simply have to know how to overcome this impulse on a regular basis.

Alone, yet not alone!

A lovely passage from John G Paton’s extraordinary autobiography (this is p200) – he went from Scotland to the New Hebrides aka Vanuatu, to tell them about Jesus.

The danger, however, was so great that Nowar said, “You cannot remain longer in my house!  My son will guide you to the large chestnut tree in my plantation in the bush.  Climb up into it, and remain there till the moon rises.”

Being entirely at the mercy of such doubtful and vacillating friends, I, though perplexed, felt it best to obey.  I climbed into the tree, and was left there alone in the bush.  The hours I spent there live all before me as if it were but of yesterday.  I heard the frequent discharging of muskets, and the yells of the Savages.  Yet I sat there among the branches, as safe in the arms of Jesus.  Never, in all my sorrows, did my Lord draw nearer to me, and speak more soothingly in my soul, than when the moonlight flickered among these chestnut leaves, and the night air played on my throbbing brow, as I told all my heart to Jesus.  Alone, yet not alone!  If it be to glorify my God, I will not grudge to spend many nights alone in such a tree, to feel again my Saviour’s spiritual presence, to enjoy his consoling fellowship.  If thus thrown back upon your own soul, alone, all, all alone, in the midnight, in the bush, in the very embrace of death itself, have you a Friend that will not fail you then?

Gladly would I have lingered there for one night of comparative peace!  But, about midnight, Nowar sent his son to call me down from the tree…. 

Sunday morning 25th September

Alec Motyer, 1924-2016

I knew Dr Motyer at Trinity College, Bristol, in the late 1970s and then had renewed contact with him from the latter part of last year.  I’ve never known anyone who so loved the Bible, knew it, understood it, and spoke beautifully about it.  His writings are also of the highest calibre.  Tim Keller and Don Carson wrote an appreciation of him and his work here: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/keller-carson-tribute-alec-motyer

If you want help understanding Exodus, Psalms, Isaiah, Amos, Zephaniah, Haggai, Philippians, Thessalonians or James, he is your man!  His coverage of the Psalms in the 4th edition of The New Bible Commentary, and his TOTC commentary on Isaiah (the smaller of the two Isaiah comms and not the devotional translation of Isaiah) are my particular favourites.  He also wrote books about how the whole Old Testament fits together, such as Look to the Rock, and Roots.

Here’s what he said on Zephaniah 3:17:

It is in the fullness of his divine nature as the Judge and Redeemer of the exodus revelation that he [God] now comes to indwell his people.  He is the Judge who has wondrously ‘set aside the judgments against you’ (Zeph 3:15), the Redeemer who lives among his redeemed.  But he is also the intensely loving God.  Most often the Lord’s love is expressed by the Hebrew word hesed.  This is the love that issues in commitment, the ‘ever-unfailing’ fidelity of love, love that lives in the will as much as in the heart.  Here, however, the word is ‘ahaba, the passionate love of Jacob for Rachel and of Michal for David, the fond love of Jacob for Joseph, Uzziah’s devotion to gardening, Jonathan’s deep friendship with David, the devotee’s delight in the Lord’s law.  This too is the Lord’s love for his people, a love that delights him, makes him contemplate his beloved with wordless adoration, a love that cannot be contained but bursts into elated singing.

Amen and thanks be to God, to that.

The Jubilee of Leviticus 25 and politics

Chris Wright in his The mission of God says. “The moral principles of the jubilee are therefore [because of Psalm 24:1’s similarity to Leviticus 25:23] universalizable on the basis of the moral consistency of God.  What God required of Israel in God’s land reflects what in principle he desires for humanity on God’s earth – namely, broadly equitable distribution of the resources of the earth, especially land, and a curb on the tendency to accumulation with its inevitable oppression and alienation.  The jubilee thus stands as a critique not only of massive private accumulation of land and related wealth but also of large-scale forms of collectivism or nationalization that destroy any meaninguful sense of personal or family ownership. … It was not a free handout of bread or charity but a restoration to family units of the opportunity and the resources to provide for themselves again.” p296-7.

Whatever the complicatons of applying this today, this is great exegesis, and justifies some kind of unusual, creative, centrist economic policy that is neither typical left or right wing.