Strict and Particular

A Note on Changed Lives

2012-01-24T15:30:00.000Z

Doing some research into our Church's history, I came across this article in the magazine of the denomination we used to belong to in the 1930s. It is instructive, particularly given that the Bethel Society had Pentecostal roots.

A Note on “Changed Lives”

Can Satan Change Lives?

Practically every 'modern' movementseems able to produce 'changed lives', so that the true believer isapt to be considerable puzzled. Cults such as Christian Science andSpiritualism most certainly have men and women whose lives have beentransformed into characters of beauty. Surely evil could not producesuch fruits? Many think therefore that though such cults (and thereare many others!) may contain plenty of error in doctrine etc., yetChrist must be dwelling inthe lives of many of the adherents who are so clearly living the lifeof kindness, unselfishness and peace. Is it possible that Satancan change lives?

Someyears ago the Sunday School Times publishedthe testimony of a Christian woman who had been remarkably deliveredin answer to prayer from the Satanic cult of Bahaism. When she firstaccepted the teachings of this cult, there came into her life awonderful peace and quietness, and she had a remarkable control overher children that she had never had before. Please note that her lifewas 'changed' – but not by Christ. Finally she was delivered andentered into the 'fulness of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ' –and knew the meaning of the fruit of the Spirit, but not before.

SoSatan can change lives and apparently forthe better (but the word in italics is very important!), and the trueChristian has to be very wary in judging a new movement by its'changed lives'. There are counterfeits of the Christian spirituallife which are very subtle, very deceptive and highly dangerous, Theyimitate certain parts of the Fruit of the Spirit.Note, in passing, that there is only oneFruit of the Spirit, although it is in a cluster of nine parts (ReadGal. 5:22, 23). Then how may we tell the real from the false? Byobserving whether one special part of this fruit is present orabsent. One part of the fruit of the Spirit is absent from all falsereligions, even though other parts are simulated, and that part isFaith.No false cult brings its adherents to faith in the shed blood of theLamb of God as the only way of Salvation. If this one part of thefruit of the Spirit is missing, you may safely assume that that othereight are likewise absent no matter how plausible the counterfeitsmay seem.

Anon.The BethelMessenger December1937

The Communion of Old Books

2012-01-18T13:22:00.000Z

This morning, as I was hard at work in my study, I had occasion to take down the stout and handsome volume of Christian Dogmatics by J.J. Van Oosterzee, second edition, 1878. For the first time I saw the signature on the title page, 'R.F. Horton, Sept 1881, Dunedin, Hampstead'.

The eyes rested on the words, and I thought 'have I read them correctly? Is this really a volume from the library of the famous preacher of the early 20th century, Robert Forman Horton (see cartoon)?' The answer, after a little research, was yes, it is. His signature in 1881 is a little different from that of 1910 that appears in his autobiography, but it is the same hand. 'Dunedin' was his address at the time. I had a book from a noted man's library, complete with his underlinings to highlight passages he liked!

And that set me thinking about books in general. We own books; we ministers have many books, they are our helps in study, and good books are like old friends. Some books we allow to pass through our hands pristine and untouched, others get used. The marks of a previous owner can be seen as annoying when it is a fellow-unknown, a man who lived in the same relative obscurity we do, but when it is a man like Horton, a known, then suddenly those markings are important! Double standard, I thought, why shouldn't the markings by William L. Holder in his copy of Westcott's The Gospel According to St. John be just as valued? Or the many and varied marginal notes made by Wesleyan theological students at Richmond in the margins of the College's copy of Calvin's Commentaries on Genesis? Sheer prejudice, surely!

This is part of the joy of second-hand books; we are not their first owners, we are their stewards who hand them on to the next generation. They had owners before us, and unless the Lord comes again, or they shall be consumed in a catastrophe, they shall have owners after us. They come to us from all directions, some from great public libraries like Liverpool and Norwich, others from the libraries of theological colleges in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, The United States and Canada, great and small college libraries give up their stock. Yet others come from Church libraries, as the old is removed to make way for the new. But the vast majority come from private libraries, great and small. Bought and sold, the books move around, making one combination, then another. Books that belonged to men poles apart theologically come together in the library of a third man; books from Monasteries are found side-by-side with volumes from Free Church ministers. Books sent to Canada return from there to the shores from which they departed a century and more before, while other books remain within the narrow geographical limits within which they were sold.

Some books have spent all their working lives (as it were) in large libraries, and seem somehow lost in the smaller compass of a minister's study. Others bear in their bindings the marks of their previous exalted position, and seem to have come down in the world in their transition to the study, while others are in bindings so humble they look embarrassed to be found in such exalted company as Mr. Horton's copy of Van Oosterzee, which has a binding to match its background.

And by those books we hold fellowship, not only with the men who wrote them, but also in some ways with the men who read them before us. Those signatures in the front, those underlinings in the text, they all say that others have been there before us, and those others may still, by their marks and annotations, be there still to guide us, to argue with us, to held us and to annoy us. And that is the Communion of Old Books.

In Many Bookshops with Pastor Charmley: The Methodist Book Centre

2012-01-16T11:16:00.001Z

For a depressed industrial city in the Midlands, Stoke on Trent is well supplied with Christian bookshops. The largest is the Methodist Book Centre (established 1945). As the name suggests, this is not a specifically Evangelical bookshop, but an ecumenical Methodist shop. It has a huge selection of books from all sorts of perspectives, so discernment is needed in shopping, but hopefully anyone who actually reads this blog realises that. There is literally something for everyone here.

Located in a quiet side-street in Hanley, at the Bethel edge of the town centre (which is a good thing). It sells books, which is becoming something for comment where Christian bookshops are concerned. It is a browser's paradise; you can spend hours here just looking around, but be sure to buy something!

The staff are helpful and willing to order books in. The shop does not just sell books, you can buy almost anything a Church might want here, from Sunday school materials to hymn-boards and communion sets. Prices are fairly reasonable, and there's even a small fair trade cafe.

But be sure to come on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday, and drop in at the Bethel Bookshop, which I won't be reviewing because I happen to buy the stock for it.

In Many Bookshops with Pastor Charmley: Oswestry Christian Bookshop

2011-12-25T21:13:00.003Z

The Shropshire market town of Oswestry, not far from the Welsh border, is plentifully supplied with chapels, both Welsh and English language. It is also the home of this rather charming little bookshop. Not only did they give a warm welcome on a rather wet Christmas Eve, but they have what every good Christian bookshop needs - a good, reasonably priced, secondhand section upstairs, well provided with comfortable seats for the weary shopper who has been strolling around Oswestry and marvelling at the town's many grand churches and chapels.

Oswestry Christian Bookshop is a nice bookshop. It is unpretentious, standing in a quiet side street and positively exuding a Christian welcome. Splendid little shop, it deserves a visit, and it has the great advantage of being in a town that also deserves a visit.

"Should Christians Drink?"

2011-12-21T12:35:00.002Z

This morning I received a copy of the 'Sword and Trowel' magazine from the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. While the magazine contains some useful material, every so often a hobby horse comes up. This is inevitable with a single editor, of course, but it can be unfortunate. This copy was a case in point, as it contained the 'distilled' version of Peter Masters' book Should Christians Drink?

Peter Masters is well known as an advocate of total abstinence from alcoholic drinks; which is fair enough, he is entitled to his opinion, and I am entitled to mine. I have no objection to total abstinence as a practice, and share with the total abstainers a horror at the level of alcohol abuse in our culture; where young people destroy their health with alcohol, we have a problem. Where we differ, perhaps, is in our response.

Peter Masters and those like him say that because of the high level of alcohol abuse in our society Christians ought not to drink any alcohol at all, and by implication that Christian parents should forbid alcohol to their children; this will be a great witness to a drunken society. On the other hand advocates of Christian Temperance (self-control) such as myself, while agreeing that Christians may abstain from all alcohol (which is why the title of Dr. Masters' book is misleading, the true question is 'May Christians Drink?'), hold that a sensible and moderate use of alcohol, avoiding the sin of drunkenness and refusing to be a slave to drink, may also be a great witness, displaying as it does a mastery of our desires, and a true use of God's good gifts.

The fact of the matter is that my mother drinking a glass of wine with her Sunday lunch cannot be compared in the slightest with a student getting drunk out of his mind on vodka, and it would be a most bizarre leap of logic from, "she drinks a little wine, I can fill myself with spirits". Perhaps it would be possible, but is not temperance really as much a rebuke as abstinence?

All too often the advocates of total abstinence have gone too far; out of a misguided zeal they have branded advocates of Christian temperance aiders and abettors of drunkenness, when we condemn intoxication as firmly and as absolutely as they do.

The great argument for total abstinence is that it is inexpedient, in the present state of things in this nation, for Christians to drink alcohol, since this might lead the ignorant to drink to excess while pleading the pastor's glass of sherry as a defence. That has some validity. What has more validity is the argument that we should be careful because of people who have had alcohol abuse issues in their past. What worries me is books that go beyond the argument from expediency to argue that it is now absolutely sinful. That and the appropriation of the 'temperance' label by the total abstinence camp as if it belonged to them alone. The great evil is being enslaved to alcohol, and that is what all Christians must oppose. To demand more than that is to introduce a needless division among the Lord's people.

Sadly Dr. Masters crosses that line in his book, as he argues that under the New Testament, because Christians are all priests, and in Leviticus 10:8-11 the Levitical priests were forbidden from drinking on duty. The trouble with this argument is that it tends to bring in the rest of the ceremonial law with it! If this law that related to the Levitical Priests is binding on all Christians, then what other laws relating to that priesthood are? All of them? Some of them? Should all Christians wear linen trousers at all times (Exodus 28:42-43, the Mormon 'temple garments' worn under their clothing come from this passage)? The whole argument is based on the premise that part of the ceremonial law is still in force, but part of it is not; and as is usually the case when one comes across such an argument, it is always the part that the writer wants to enforce that is in force, and the rest is not.

Finally, there is a false dichotomy represented by the title of Dr. Masters' book; the question is really 'may Christians drink?' The answer to that must be 'yes', because God has no-where forbidden all alcohol, contrary to the beliefs of some people. I am firmly of the belief that we are not to call that sinful which God has not himself called sinful; we do not have that authority. The Pope may claim the right to define new sins, I trust no Protestant will try to follow him down that path. If Jesus made wine at Cana in Galilee, then I need an explicit New Testament passage to tell me that it is now a sin for Christians to drink in any and all circumstances (clearly in a situation where it is liable to cause a brother to stumble it is wrong). Dr. Masters' argument ironically resembles hyper-dispensationalism in this respect!

Contrary to the statements of some over-zealous folk, alcohol is not evil; alcohol never killed anyone, its abuse did. The problem is not the bottle of wine, but the man who drinks that whole bottle in one sitting and then follows it with another bottle until wine inflames him. It is not alcohol that causes drink driving, it is irresponsible and wicked people who drink to excess and get behind the wheel.

Drinking wine or beer in moderation, so as to avoid intoxication, is allowable, for Jesus came 'eating and drinking'. It is not however mandated; if you feel that you would be a better witness as a total abstainer, then that's your decision. I'm having goose for Christmas dinner, you can have turkey, I will not judge your turkey, don't judge my goose. I may raise a glass of wine, you can raise your glass of non-alcoholic drink, I do not judge your diet at all! And let me say to those Calvinists who are over-zealous in their championing of wine, you do no-one any favours by opposing total abstinence. The fault is in the enforcing of it as a law, not in the observing of it as a practice. On this point we should live and let live, and advocates of total abstinence and of Christian temperance should work together against the dreadful evil that is drukenness.

In Many Bookshops with Pastor Charmley: The Christian Bookshop, Ossett

2011-12-19T20:21:00.003Z

The great thing about independent bookshops is that they are all different; they have their quirks and their eccentricities. I come from a literary family (my father and my twin brother are both writers), and early learned the joy of the independent bookshop. Bookshops have their own characters and specialisms - no one person can specialise in all things, and no one bookshop can either. Quite often bookshops reflect their own background, just as people do; the former Anglican retains the Anglican stamp still, no matter how he may try to eradicate it. As for the man who is proud of his creed, how much more will he show it in his character?

It is so with this Strict Baptist bookshop that stands beside a Strict Baptist Chapel in the splendid Yorkshire town of Ossett. Between Huddersfield and Wakefield, Ossett proudly asserts its own character with its grand town hall and the soaring spire of its Parish Church, which has been mistaken for Wakefield Cathedral (by me!). Yet Ossett's greatest gem to me is the Christian Bookshop.

One enters a smart, light, modern shop on the ground floor, but if the shop is modern in appearance its theology is the good old theology of the Puritans and Reformers; not modern, and yet ever new. There is, I think, nothing worthless in this shop, it is all good stuff. It's the sort of bookshop I like, a bookshop that sells good books! The character of the stock is excellent, chosen with discernment and with more concern over what ought to be read than what the generality of Evangelicals are reading. What is lamentable is that so few Christian bookshops look like this.

Upstairs, however, is what I like best of all, a veritable Aladdin's cave of second-hand books; not cheap paperbacks (though there are such), but good old, solid books. There are many, many biographies in particular, many Strict Baptists, good old men who laboured in obscurity. The books reflect what a good Strict Baptist minister might have in his study. A man with a healthy bank balance might spend hundreds here, and any lover of good books will spend hours enjoying this excellent shop. Well done, say I, well done; there is at least here a Christian bookshop worthy of the name.

Six Books that Should Not Have Been Written (at least in the form they are in)

2011-12-19T19:06:00.004Z

"Of the making of many books there is no end" says the Preacher, and while there are very many good and profitable books in the world, there are also a large number of really bad ones out there. Christians have produced a large number of books, and behold that the good are very good, and the bad are very bad! The thought occurred to me that it might be of help to reflect on five of the worst I have ever read, six books that ought not to have been written, at least in the form that they have. They are presented in no particular order.

1. Alexander Hislop: The Two Babylons.

First published in 1858 as an expansion of a pamphlet published in 1853, the great burden of this book is to attempt to prove that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian at all, but is really just old paganism with a Christian veneer. In order to 'prove' his point, Hislop reduces all pagan worship to the worship of Nimrod, his wife Semiramis, and their son. In the course of this polemic the author denounces the very symbol of the cross itself as pagan. The root fallacy is that Hislop everywhere proceeds on the principle that similarity proves connection, which is by no means proven, and which has been shown to be false time and again. The arguments that he uses have been quite successfully adopted by such authors as those drawn upon by Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code to 'prove' that all of Christianity is in fact derived from paganism. The book is utterly useless, moreover, in the Roman Catholic controversy, for it proceeds not on the sound principle of addressing what the Roman Catholic Church now teaches or believes, but on a speculative theory as to the origins of its ceremonies and symbols. The book is calculated to produce a great deal of heat, but very little light. What is more, it is now horrifically outdated in terms of the scholarship that Hislop replies on. This book stands as an example of really bad anti-Roman Catholic polemic that should have gone out of print over a century ago; only foolish fanaticism keeps it in print.

2. Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk

This is another really bad piece of anti-Roman Catholic literature that ought to have been consigned to the dustbin of history long ago, but thanks to certain fanatics with more zeal than sense, it can still be obtained. It purports to have been written by a young woman who was an escaped nun, and in it she talks about terrible things going on in a particular Canadian nunnery. According to 'Maria Monk', the nunnery was nothing less than a seraglio for the Seminary across the street, the offspring of the illicit unions being smothered at birth and buried in the secret tunnel that linked the two establishments. It is perhaps almost needless to say that the story proved to be a fabrication from end to end, and no evidence of its truth has ever been found. 'Maria' had never been a nun, but was almost certainly mentally ill. Even were it true, it would be meaningless; the problem with the Church of Rome is not that its priests and 'Religious' are particularly wicked, but that its doctrine is wrong, and that is what these sensational works almost completely ignored. If every Roman Catholic priest was an exemplary moral person, and every nun a loving and humble person, Rome would still be wrong!

3. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins: Left Behind.

Projected as a trilogy, the Left Behind series began publication in 1995. The success of the first novel led to the saga being spun out to an obscene length. These books are probably some of the worst Christian fiction ever written. I am not a dispensationalist, but I do not refer to the theology that underlies these books; the rapture doctrine could, if handled well, be the basis for a compelling work of fiction, but Left Behind is not that. It is badly written, has cardboard characters, and singularly fails to rise above the level of the mediocre at any point, usually remaining far below that level. Put simply, this is a bad book, and the first in a series of bad books. It evidences an astonishing lack of imagination, while the protagonists are unpleasant, arrogant men who remain unpleasant even after their conversions. Now, this might be fine if we were meant to think of them in such a way, but we are actually meant to identify with them. The storyline is constructed on the basis of a certain understanding of the End Times that its authors regard this timeline as set in stone and unchangeable, which is fair enough; the failure is that they have their characters decide that they can do nothing to stop Antichrist and that they should therefore work for him. The authors' thought-processes at this point are beyond my powers to explain, but suffice to say that they are wrong. The problem is that they locked themselves into a narrative style that meant they only tell us what happens to two main characters, who therefore have to be at the centre of things, and then they decided that both had to be 'good guys'. It would have been far better either to have an omniscient narrator, or to have one of the two main characters end up on the bad side (as happens in the vastly superior end-times novel The Clock Strikes).

I have put Left Behind in the list because it represents everything that is wrong with Christian fiction; cardboard characters, a smug satisfaction with being 'not as other men are', and a pedestrian style that makes events that should be exciting dull as ditchwater. Oh, and it lacks all imagination, for which it should for ever be consigned to the dustbin of bad literature. Christian fiction is all too often synonymous with bad fiction; brethren, these things ought not to be so.

4. H.D. Williams: The Attack on the Canon of Scripture

This book is one of those where you read it with increasing irritation because it could have been a good book! There really is a modern-day attack on the Canon, as witness the arguments of the Jesus Seminar, and the arguments put forward by such men as Bart Ehrman, and there is a call for a good book on the subject; this is not it. No, this is a bad King James Only book by a man who does not understand the issue; it is not really about Canon Criticism at all, but textual criticism, it mixes up the question of the canon with the question of the text. The King James Onlyist is simply not equipped to deal with Ehrman. This is a missed opportunity.

5. Gail Riplinger: New Age Bible Versions

If anyone is surprised that I have included this book, then they ought not to be; my antagonism to Mrs. Riplinger is well-known. The reason for this is that she is a liar, and I have proven it (see previous blog entries). In the course of this book she fabricates quotations to make it appear that men taught things that they abominated, and denied that which they affirmed. This is not a book of scholarship, it is the product of a twisted mind. Mrs. Riplinger has convinced herself, I know not how, that every modern Bible version is a product of a Satanic plot to usher in a one-world New Age religion. Convinced that this is the case, she has set out to find evidence for it, evidence she thinks is hidden in the modern versions and in the writings of those responsible for them. To her mind these versions and their authors are certainly guilty, and so she proceeds on that basis. The result is, of course, entirely unconvincing to all those who are not already disposed to believe her. It is mildly entertaining in an absurd and tragic sort of way, but justifies the verdict of many, even King James Only people, who have pronounced NABV possibly the worst Christian book ever written.

6. Gail Riplinger: Hazardous Materials

A book so bad that one of the men quoted favourably in it wrote a rebuttal, HazMat as I semi-affectionately call it, is huge, rambling, and at times baffling. Though I have not been able to find any repetition of Riplinger's quote-manufacturing technique from NABV in it, it is if anything worse than its predecessor. First of all, HazMat is formless; it has no real progression in it, but is a collection of loosely-linked sections with only one connection, Riplinger's conviction that the study of Greek and Hebrew is bad and dangerous. The book is hysterical in tone, not to mention conspiratorial. On one page we are shown a picture of Archbishop Trench of Dublin wearing a medallion bearing a St. Patrick's Cross, which is labelled 'Masonic' on the grounds that Mrs. Riplinger has decided that the 'X' is evil, apparently not realising that such a cross may be worn for other reasons (such as Trench's Irish bishopric). She accuses Trench of 'putting a serpent on his book', when it is really the logo of his American Publisher (she spends about ten pages on the question without once tumbling to this simple explanation, which ought to have occurred to her in a matter of minutes). Oh, and she cites Hislop's Two Babylons, always a mark against an author. Add a rant against Calvinism, thoroughly pointless discussions of Cecil Rhodes and the Knights Templar, not to mention a discussion of the the Pyramids that literally caused me to laugh out loud, and we have a book that is surely even worse than NABV, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", as the Bard would say. I list Mrs. Riplinger as illustrative of the very worst tendencies in Fundamentalist literature taken to their extreme.

These are my opinions, and frankly I do not want to hear from Mrs. Riplinger's supporters until they have explained why it is acceptable for her to create bogus quotations to sustain accusations of heresy against men. The Bible says "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour", and unless you really want to argue that that only applies to Christians and therefore one can lie as much as one likes about those one deems to be non-Christians (a wretched sophism that I hope exists only in my imagination and perhaps an old Jesuit work or two), Mrs. Riplinger has flagrantly breached this law over and over. She refuses to listen to those calling her to repent, and therefore must be exposed publicly for the purveyor of falsehoods that she is.

The Sanctification of the Common.

2011-12-04T22:25:00.003Z

In 1880 Bishop Westcott wrote; "There was a time when it was usual to draw a sharp line between religious and worldly things. That time has happily gone by. We all at last acknowledge more or less that all life is one... as citizens and workers we take our share in public business, we labour to fulfil our appointed task, because the love of Christ constrains us" (The Historic Faith P. 11). At around the same time Horatius Bonar wrote:

Fill Thou my life, O Lord my God,

In every part with praise,

That my whole being may proclaim

Thy being and Thy ways.

Praise in the common things of life,

Its goings out and in;

Praise in each duty and each deed,

However small and mean.

And further back George Herbert taught us to sing:

Teach me, my God and King,

In all things Thee to see;

And what I do in anything,

To do it as for Thee.

A servant with this clause

Makes drudgery divine;

Who sweeps a room as, for Thy laws,

Makes that and the action fine.

]

This is that famous stone

That turneth all to gold;

For that which God doth touch and own,

Cannot for less be told.

R.W. Dale of Birmingham wrote: "There is no occupation in which man can be lawfully engaged, in which he may not see God... He meant us to employ our hands in honest labour, as well as our lips in thankful praise" (Week-Day Sermons Pp3-4).

Dr. W.E. Orchard, in one of his sublimest prayers, writes:

"Teach us not to despise the life we are called to live, since it was given us by Thee. Teach us not to neglect the task of to-day because we cannot see its eternal effect. Teach us not to neglect the little duties which are training us for a great stewardship. May we remember that this life of ours has been divinely lived, that this robe of flesh and strange infirmity has been Thy garment..." (The Temple P. 51).

Let none despise the 'common things of life'. It has become fashionable for men to say that the Christian has to be a man of 'audacious faith', and that we should all seek to be famous. No, we should all seek that Christ should increase and we decrease. Westcott, Bonar, Herbert, Dale and Orchard have it right; Christ has sanctified for us the "common things of life"; the carpenter of Galilee served that rural population, and I am glad of it. Simon the Tanner was as necessary for the Gospel's spread as Simon Peter the Apostle; for Simon Peter needed shoes made with the product of that tanner's labour! And we have a whole book in the Bible, the Book of Ruth, that is about ordinary country folk doing what ordinary country folk do! I am so glad we do, for we need the ordinary country folk; and the ordinary town folk as well!

God's ways are not our ways, and the things that man values are not those God values; we look at "the rich man in his castle" and see not "the poor man at his gate," yet God may value the poor man at the gate far higher than the rich. Our culture lionises the idle celebrity, the vulgar and the profane, and despises the poor and the pious; but God sees things as they truly are. Oh that we might see things more as God does, and less as the world:

"We ask for no far-off vision which shall set us dreaming while opportunities around us slip by; for no enchantment which shall make our hands to slack and our spirits to sleep, but for the vision of Thyself in common things for every day; that we may find a Divine calling in the claims of life, and see a heavenly reward in work well done. We ask Thee not to left us out of life, but to prove Thy power within it; not for tasks more suited to our strength, but for strength more suited to our tasks. Give to us the vision that moves, the strength that endures, the grace of Jesus Christ, who wore our flesh like a monarch's robe and walked our earthly life like a conqueror in triumph. Amen." (Orchard, The Temple P. 121)

That is a true perspective on life from a man who worked on the railways and whose father worked on the railways; a working man turned pastor who knows the value of the working man, of the ordinary men who keep our world going.

So if someone should suggest that somehow Christians should not live ordinary lives, they are sorely mistaken; and I would suggest teetering on the brink of heresy. May we pray for them Orchard's prayer, "Teach us not to despise the life we are called to live..."

Ecclesiastical Antiquarianism

2011-12-03T12:30:00.003Z

I am not one of the 'New Calvinists'; as a committee member of the Sovereign Grace Union with shelves groaning with Banner of Truth books, and one who goes to the Banner Conference every year (apparently it's expected of the pastor at Bethel), I am most definitely one of the old Calvinists.

It is a fact (apparently) that there are various sorts of Calvinists; as more people discover the truths of Reformed Theology, the varieties of that theology increase, and these varieties are now cross-denominational. One trend that worries me is that a number of men are writing and speaking in a way that gives the impression that they believe the perfect model for a Christian society is 17th-century Holland.

One of the glories of Christianity is that it does not require a specific culture; while Islam tries to conform every culture it touches to Medieval Arabia, Christianity is varied in its cultural expressions, though united in doctrine. The Ecclesiastical Antiquarian (as I have dubbed him) disagrees with that, he sets up one particular culture as normative for Christianity and laments that we no longer live in that world.

Another sign of the Ecclesiastical Antiquarian is that he starts to adopt an antiquarian vocabulary; I do not mean in doctrine, for there is is a technical vocabulary there, but in describing other groups. In Medieval Constantinople the canons of historical writing were set by the Classical period, meaning that no vocabulary not in use then could be used, so that Arab invaders were called 'Persians' because the Arabs had not been foes in the Classical period. In the same way there are men who insist on referring to all Baptists today as 'Anabaptists', apparently on similar grounds. Do they call Muslims 'Mohammedans' as well? Times change, and labels that were used in the past (and never really appropriate, since the term 'Anabaptist' was used as a catch-all for diverse groups who agreed in nothing but the rejection of infant baptism) cannot be meaningfully resurrected today.

We live in a world where by and large it has been recognised that uniformity in religion is not desirable; it is at this point that Ecclesiastical Antiquarians are often least attractive, as they wistfully look back on a golden age of uniformity, forgetting that it was not so golden, and enforced by cruel laws.

The fact is that there never was a golden age; we look forward to that in the world to come.

Now, let me add that I am a hymn-singing, NKJV-using Independent who values our traditions, not some iconoclast who wants to introduce anarchy; but let us be moderate and remember that we are not living in the 17th century, or the 18th, or the 19th, or even the 20th.

In Many Bookshops with Pastor Charmley: St. Paul's Bookshop, York

2011-11-29T13:32:00.004Z

To deal with the obvious first, St. Paul's is a Roman Catholic bookshop; it therefore sells vestments, icons, statues and all that sort of thing. But the first thing one looks for in a bookshop is not its doctrinal position, but the obvious - books. It is truly depressing how many 'bookshops' today really seem to sell books as a sideline. Well, St. Paul's in York is not like that; it sells books. In fact the whole of the basement is full of books. Nor are they just Roman Catholic books; I saw at least one book by Martyn Lloyd-Jones down there in the new section. There is also an extensive and broad second-hand section; not as large as that in Barbican Bookshop, but then Barbican Bookshop is special like that. The books are well-presented, reasonably priced, and of good quality. The shop is quiet and conducive to browsing. What is more, the staff are friendly and helpful.

York is really a wonderful place for book-shopping and for sightseeing. Two reasonably-priced shops that actually sell books is good going.

St. Paul's is on King's Square in York, close to the Shambles. It is open Monday to Saturday from 9 AM.

In Many Bookshops with Pastor Charmley: Barbican Bookshop, York

2011-11-21T23:06:00.003Z

The newest entry to 'In Many Bookshops' is an old acquaintance of mine, Barbican Bookshop in York, otherwise known as Wesley Owen, York. Now, modern Evangelical Bookshops have a tendency to be deeply depressing, a few books mostly by heretics, or just lacking all doctrine of any kind, and lots of junk. Barbican is what a bookshop ought to be - that is to say, it sells books. Lots of books! Arranged over several floors of the house in Fossgate, this is a peculiarly satisfying bookshop, and provides hours of enjoyment. Particularly satisfying is the splendid ascent to the large room of second-hand theological tomes at the rear of the shop.

I first made the acquaintance of this shop many years ago, but had no contact with it since about 2004, and feared it had either closed or changed its character. I found my fears wonderfully unfounded, and would urge anyone who can to go to Barbican Bookshop. What's better, the prices on the secondhand books are extremely reasonable. And best of all, it's in York, a lovely Medieval city.

An Open Letter to John MacArthur

2011-11-05T19:15:00.003Z

The open letter is a way of responding to another's statements that has been made infamous by Frank Turk over at the Pyromaniacs blog. He's the king of them, of course, and this will bear no comparison.

Dear Dr. MacArthur

I first came across your work when I was a young Christian at an Anglican college studying environmental science. Perhaps is defiance of convention, instead of drifting away from religion at college, I went from being a liberal Anglican to a Calvinistic Baptist. The Church at which I was converted had a small library, and the pastor under whose ministry I came to see my need of a Saviour from sin was a former Anglican curate who had become a Baptist. He was a great fan of C.H. Spurgeon, and it was through Spurgeon that I became aware of a man in California called John MacArthur.

There were two Christian bookshops in the city at the time, and in one of them (the more ecumenical one, ironically), I came across a glossy paperback called Ashamed of the Gospel. I appreciated the stand that you took then on the importance of standing for the truth, and even when a new edition came out, I kept my rather yellowed paperback of the first edition because it felt like an old friend. Your book The Gospel According to Jesus was an excellent reply to a heresy I first encountered in College, and while I would never describe myself as a 'fan' of yours (thankfully, horrible word to use in this context), I would say that I appreciate your ministry.

You probably know that I disagree with your eschatology, since I wrote a lengthy review of your popular commentary on Revelation Because the Time is Near, and I was one of those self-respecting Calvinists who was irritated by your claim that self-respecting Calvinists should be premillennialists, and your mischaracterisation of amillennial theology as 'replacement theology', but that's for another time. I have found your stand for the truth on the whole to be admirable.

However, just today, someone brought to my attention these words from a prayer of yours:

“This devilish conduct of infant Baptism has survived through two thousand years of church life from very early on, the third century, embedded in the fourth and still here. We could only ask, Lord, that the Reformation would be a complete Reformation.”

Initially I only heard it said that you had called infant baptism devilish, and I hoped that it had in fact been the Roman Catholic belief in baptismal regeneration ex opere operate that you were describing; sadly it proved not to be the case.

I understand that you think that infant baptism is wrong - I tend that way myself. But to call all versions of it, even the Calvinist version where infants baptised in infancy are not presumed to be regenerated, but are encouraged to trust Christ, and not admitted to membership in the Church without a credible profession of personal faith, 'devilish' is a rhetorical step too far. It preaches well to baptists, of course, but it really creates an unnecessary offence. the question of who are proper candidates for baptism is a secondary issue, albeit one that has been allowed (unnecessarily, in my view) to divide the Church. I am the minister of a Church that has an open membership, and I was pleasantly surprised to find how well that actually functions if it is allowed to. In this day and age, and I know you would agree, we need to contend for the Gospel, and baptism is not part of the Gospel.

You made the statement in the context of a prayer, and that is another matter that concerns me; statements made in prayer are not, the their very nature, backed up by exegesis. Perhaps you have exegesis, but prayer is not the place to describe those you regard as fellow-believers (such as Iain H. Murray, your Presbyterian biographer) as holding to a 'devilish' teaching, it appears to such as a slap in the face, and makes your more moderate Baptist brethren decidedly uneasy. It has also caused some extreme Presbyterians to crawl out of the woodwork and start declaring that Baptist Churches are not true Churches at all.

Dr. MacArthur, I retain a great deal of respect for you, but I would counsel you to remember that speaking the truth in love means treating fellow-Christians with respect, and that, it seems to me, you failed to do on this occasion. I salute you for your willingness to take a stand, but I am concerned that you are sending a mixed message here. On the one hand, you quite rightly receive Reformed paedobaptists into your pulpit, but on the other, you describe their views as 'devilish', while painting with a brush so broad that it covers both the Romanist doctrine of baptismal regeneration and the Presbyterian doctrine of covenant baptism; yet these are by no means the same thing, as you will see if you examine the relevant portion of a Presbyterian systematic theology text.

Please excuse my ramblings, and I remain your brother in Christ,

Pastor G. N. Charmley

A Plea for Fairness in Polemics

2011-10-27T11:28:00.004+01:00

I have a large number of works in my library that may fairly be called polemical in nature, that is, they are written against a false or heretical position. These fall into two categories, those that are good and those that are bad. The good polemic is that which seeks to fairly and accurately represent the position it is seeking to refute, and that which is directed against positions rather than persons - that is to say, it is free from the taint of ad hominem argument (arguing against the person rather than the position). Bad polemics are stuffed with misrepresentation and ad hominem.

Not all that is called ad hominem is really so - for example, showing that a person has misrepresented a source is not ad hominem, because it is really germane to the argument to show that that which is claimed for support is no support at all. True ad hominem is an attack on the character of an opponent - for example, I am reminded of a case in a Church court where a man accused of heresy retorted that his opponent had an adult son who had become an actor. It involves bringing in matters about a person that have no relevance to the point at question.

On the other side is misrepresentation. It is very easy to accuse a person or group of holding to positions they repudiate, or doing things that they do not do. To give a current example, it is no good policy to argue against Harold Camping that he is a dispensationalist, because he is not; though his eschatology included dispensationalist elements, it was in fact a form of amillennialism. I have heard someone say of Mormonism "they do not believe in the deity of Christ", of course they do - they simply re-define deity, being polytheists.

Misrepresentation comes in many forms, from the simple making of false claims without any evidence offered to substantiate them to the use of mutilated and out-of-context quotations, followed by a statement "and so you see that such-and-such believes this." Somewhere in the middle of these two is the drawing of false inferences from quotations. So, for example, In New Age Bible Versions, Gail Riplinger (P. 304) quotes Westcott's words "Christ was and is perfectly man" as if they somehow substantiate the claim that Westcott did not believe in the deity of Christ; that is a false inference, inferring from "Christ was and is perfectly man" 'and therefore not God', although the inference is monstrous and heretical, for if it follows from Christ being perfectly man that he cannot be perfectly God, then there can be no incarnation. Lest I be misunderstood, let me say that she at no point proves that Westcott himself felt a true incarnation of deity to be impossible, and therefore this false inference is mere smoke and mirrors.

Often false inferences are made by taking obscure quotations out of context, and then building on them structures that their foundations will not and cannot support. So to give another example from Riplinger (who I consider one of the worst polemicists I have ever read), on P. 313 of NABV, she argues that Westcott did not identify the historic Jesus with 'Christ'. This is shown to be patently false by the foregoing quotation "Christ was and is perfectly man", where 'Christ' is used expressly of the man. It is also formally refuted by the following quotation:

"Popular Christology is largely though unconsciously affected by Cerinthian tendencies. The separation of Jesus, the Son of Man, from Christ, the Son of God, is constantly made to the destruction of the one, indivisible Person of our Lord and Saviour." - B.F. Westcott, 'Commentary on the Epistles of St. John' P. xxxvi

Note that the only thing Westcott can be saying there is that Jesus is the Christ, and that the sort of separation that New Age heretics and false teachers make between Jesus and 'The Christ' is a destructive falsehood. The misrepresentation is of a common type: rather than going to a place where a writer is expressly treating a subject, you take a quotation that is not addressing the subject at all and present it as if it is. While this will have no effect at all on the discerning reader, who will look up your reference and marvel at your deceit, it will confirm the prejudices of the ignorant. Thus according to Riplinger, Westcott denied the deity of Christ, the sinlessness of Christ, and the unity of the person of Christ. In fact he affirmed all of these things explicitly, something that no reader of his works could ever doubt.

The use of ad hominem and misrepresentation may work well in a play to the gallery or to convince the ignorant, but in the long run it can only be destructive, firstly because it makes refutation a lot easier than patient work and careful attention to detail. The careless polemicist actually does most of his opponent's work for him, by lining up an easy row of targets to shoot at. It makes Christians look foolish, ignorant, and nasty. Lies are from the Devil, for he is the father of lies, and the children of God cannot, must not, do the devil's work.

It will be interesting to see if the Riplinger Defence League shows up. If they do, may I ask them to explain to me how fabricating quotations out of snippets taken from different books is consistent with Christianity. I confidently expect no reply to this request.

Is Mormonism a Cult? -1

2011-10-13T14:19:00.003+01:00

Is Mormonism a cult? That is q question that has been raised by a recent event during the Republican primaries in the United States of America. In a series of posts I hope to address this question.

First of all, however, we need to ask the very important question, what do we mean by a cult? The website Cultwatch has a helpful couple of definitions of the word. The first is the 'Modern' definition of a cult, that is the meaning of the word as it is understood in our culture.

"The modern definition of "Cult" refers to any group that uses manipulative psychological “Mind Control” techniques to recruit and control their members"

The second definition is the older one that is generally intended when people call Mormonism a cult:

"The historical definition of a cult is any group, which claims to be a Christian group yet teaches something that is not primarily a Christian belief."

Clearly we have to be careful what we mean by a cult, but also how that word is understood by other people. I would suggest that most people outside of conservative evangelical churches are operating with what Cultwatch calls "the modern definition."

Now, Mormonism is certainly a 'cult' according to the "historical definition", it is a religious group that claims to be Christian but whose teachings are in contradiction to historic Christian beliefs, a claim that I hope to show to be true in future posts. It is certainly not a cult by the 'modern definition'. While early Mormonism certainly exercised a great degree of control over its members, modern Mormonism (by which I mean the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) does not. There are liberal Mormons who acknowledge that the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith and was not translated from any gold plates; and these liberal Mormons are still members in good standing of the LDS church and teachers - a thing that no cult according to the modern definition could do. Thus we should not call Mormonism a cult to those whose primary or only understanding of the word is the modern definition, because it would lead to misunderstanding, and gives the impression that we are saying things about Mormonism that are not true.

Before the reader is tempted to anathematize me, let me re-iterate, according to the historical definition, it is a cult. It is a non-Christian religion that uses Christian terminology. If you like, it is a Christian deviation. The core beliefs of Mormonism are utterly inconsistent with the teachings of historic Christianity, and this is why we cannot accept Mormons as Christians.

God willing, I shall start addressing the reason I say this in the next post.

[Please note that I am addressing only the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, not any Mormon splinter groups such as the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS), the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Israel, or the Church of Jesus Christ Restored 1830]

Beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees

2011-09-21T12:03:00.003+01:00

"Beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees", Jesus said. The Pharisees in the Gospels are characterised by self-righteousness and legalism, they believed that they had a righteousness that was pleasing to God from their observance of the law and they looked down on others because of it.

And that is what we need to beware of. The tendency comes in so many forms, a pride in our right doctrine as opposed to the fellows down the road who don't have it, a pride in our standing apart from the ecumenical movement, even a pride in our separation from those Churches that do not separate from error.

Do not misunderstand me, doctrine is important - but if we know the truth, then it is because we have been led to see it by God, it is not because we are smarter than others. Indeed, there are many really smart people who are atheists! You have nothing that you did not receive, and therefore you have nothing to boast about.You did not open your own eyes, God opened them for you.

Not having fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness is important. There are many churches today that are not actually churches at all because Christ is not preached there - and there, but for the grace of God, we go. Again, it is Christ who keeps his people, we do not keep ourselves, and therefore the fact that we are not involved in such things as the ecumenical movement is a reason to fall on our knees and thank God, humbly, that he has kept us from being deceived.

The Pharisees earned their name from their desire to stand apart from the world - the name means 'separated ones'. There is much that is commendable in that desire, but sadly it took the wrong form. In their zeal to be 'separate' they added to the Law of God.

One of the worst manifestations of legalism is when a Church adds to the law of God. There is a story told of John Wesley, how he met a man who had been influenced by Russian Orthodoxy. The man said to Wesley words to the effect, "Mr. Wesley, you are a godly man full of zeal, one thing thou lackest - grow a beard." For this man, only men with beards could be saved.

The Bible condemns all those who said that "unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." Now, God actually commanded circumcision under the Law, and yet those who forced that upon the Churches are condemned. What shall we say then to those who impose a law that God has not spoken? The man Wesley encountered was a legalist of that type, a man who has an extra-Biblical law that he wants to impose on others.

And now let me be controversial: teetotalism is not commanded in the Bible. That means that to tell a person "unless you abstain from all alcoholic beverages you cannot be saved" is to fall under the condemnation of the legalist. Now, the Bible is quite clear that drunkenness is a sin, being intoxicated with alcohol is wrong. But alcohol itself is never forbidden by God. I recently had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of an hysterical tirade from a man on the internet who, because I would not agree with him that alcohol is in and of itself evil, called me a false shepherd. That is the leaven of the Pharisees.

Modern myths notwithstanding, Jesus made alcoholic wine at the wedding at Cana - it is clear from the passage that the wedding took place shortly before Passover, but the grape harvest in Israel does not begin until July, and so there was no fresh grape juice available. Grape juice naturally ferments when stored, and the technology to pasteurize it was not available in ancient Israel, thus they had been drinking alcoholic wine before it ran out, and what Jesus made was like that which they had been drinking already.

Before someone accuses me of saying that Jesus was encouraging drunkenness, I should add that a wedding feast would have a very large number of people - commonly whole villages took part - and that this is in the context of a culture with a strong taboo against drunkenness.

Now, I am not saying "unless you drink alcohol you cannot be saved", that would be silly. Rather I am saying let he who drinks in moderation do it to the glory of God, and let he who abstains do it to the glory of God. But let neither judge the other in respect of drink, knowing it is to God, and not to you, that the other answers. Do not bind the conscience of the moderate drinker or the total abstainer. Tell the drunkard that he is mocking God by his act, and tell the legalist that he is taking God's name in vain. Let every man be persuaded in his own mind, and then let him do what he will, within the limits that God really has prescribed.

Beware of legalism. It kills. I have used the absolute forbidding of alcohol as an example, but there are many others. We are not wiser than God, and to order abstinence where God has ordered restraint is sinful.

Jacques More, "Serious Mistranslations of the Bible" - first thoughts.

2011-09-08T14:45:00.004+01:00

A friend of mine has asked me to review Jacques More's book Serious Mistranslations of the Bible (2011, Jarom Books) for him, and I have agreed. A book with a title like Serious Mistranslations of the Bible is setting out to be controversial. After all, at least by implication More is saying that at least the vast majority of English Bible translations contain "serious mistranslations'.

But Jacques More is not the sort of man to shy away from controversy. A former motor-mechanic turned theologian, he began his career as a Christian author with Will There be Non-Christians in Heaven? in which he argued that there are those among non-Christians who are already born-again (See here). His second book argues that Church leadership should not be exclusively male, and his third book was an anti-Calvinist tract called So You Think You're Chosen? In many ways Serious Mistranslations is a sequel to these books, or perhaps a re-issuing of some of the material in these books in an expanded form. Thus it begins with a discussion of the Greek word eklektos, translated 'Elect' in many passages. More argues that it has been persistently mistranslated since the time of Augustine, and that its primary meaning should refer to quality rather than choice.

A quick check of every major committee-written English translation that I possess (KJV, RV, RSV, NASB, REB, ESV, NKJV and NIV), shows that none of them favour More's translation. Left to itself this would be an argument from authority and therefore possibly fallacious, but rather it should be a pause for thought. More is not a Greek scholar, he is a student of New Testament Greek. His book is worryingly lacking in footnotes for a volume that throws doubt on the truthfulness of all English Bible versions. This worries me. I have only begun to read it, but it seems that More's method of dealing with passages that he disagrees with is to claim that they are mistranslated by practically everyone else.

Perhaps it is the format of the book, but it certainly gives the impression that More deals with words alone, and without due attention to context, perhaps as a result of his education. I have a great deal of experience of godly people adopting word-study fallacies where they obtain the meaning of a word in one place from its meaning in another, rather than seeking the meaning of a word in its immediate context. I am no expert in Greek - but neither is More.

The man on his own may be right, but he needs to offer compelling arguments. In the interests of full disclosure, may I add that I am somewhat biassed against books like this one that are self-published, since they have not had to pass an editorial pen.

"Defamation of Religions"

2011-08-23T13:59:00.004+01:00

The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC) has been pressing (link) for "defamation against religions" to be placed on the United Nations' Human Rights agenda. The trouble here is that it is not overly clear about what this means.

We have seen Pakistan's blasphemy laws used as a blunt instrument against Christians, usually by people with a personal grudge. There are even some Muslims who feel that the central claims of Christianity are an 'insult to Islam', because if the New Testament as we have it today is true, then various claims of the Qur'an are, it follows, false. If Jesus is the eternal Son of God and not just a human prophet, then the Qur'an is wrong when it claims he is not. If Jesus died on the cross, then it follows that the Qur'an is wrong. And if the Qur'an is wrong, then it is not the word of God. At this point the sensible thing to do would be for us to reason together - but it has always been easier to use violence, as centuries of history have taught. And it's not just Muslims, it is found in Christendom as well, Roman Catholics against Protestants and State Churches against Nonconformists. The book of Acts records cases where Jewish and pagan leaders used violence in an attempt to silence opposition - it is always easier to do that than it is to allow true religious freedom.

Not that there is not such a thing as defaming a religion. The first example that comes to mind is the infamous 'Blood Libel" against the Jews, first invented in the Middle Ages. The Blood Libel is the idea that the blood of a Gentile child is part of the ingredients of the Passover matzos - a claim that is patently ridiculous in the face of the prohibition against eating blood that all Jews observe! There have been many lies told about religious groups with the intention of creating hatred against them, and there still are. A few examples that come to mind are the ancient claims that Christians were cannibals (probably based on a misunderstanding of the Eucharist) and committed incest (probably misunderstanding the Christian practice of calling one another 'Brother' and 'Sister'. Paul says that the Apostles had the right to have "a sister as wife', meaning freedom to marry a Christian woman). Modern claims that come to mind include one saying that all Muslim men have to kill a non-Muslim to be considered truly men, and that human sacrifices take place in Mormon temples. These lies really are defamation, and should be punished first of all by society - we should refuse to listen to them and treat those who maliciously repeat such claims as the troublemakers they are.

But to restrain religious freedom - and as an inheritor of the traditions of English Nonconformity wish to extend that freedom as far as possible - because one religious group is upset by another religious group's claims is frankly tyrannical. I do not like the claims of Islam about Jesus, God and the Bible - but they have the right to teach them, and I have the right to challenge them. I find the teachings of Mormonism about God frankly pagan - but I am very glad that they have the freedom to build their temples, as I have the right to give good and true reasons why Mormonism is not Christianity. My feelings - and your feelings - must not be made the basis of restrictive laws. Christianity is not spread by the sword in any way, and the truth will be triumphant over error in a fair contest.

Thoughts on the Atrocity in Norway

2011-07-26T12:43:00.002+01:00

We have all been shocked by the terrible crime committed in Norway last week. Anders Behring Breivik, previously an unknown man holding extreme and murderous political views, planted a bomb in Oslo before traveling to an island retreat where the youth wing of the governing party was holding a camp. The details are well-known as to what he did next.

It is quite plain what Christians are to think of such actions. The Bible is abundantly clear that "You shall not commit murder." Yet a word is perhaps necessary since Breivik claims to be a Christian.

That profession is quite false, he claims to be a disciple of Jesus, but Jesus "went around doing good". Jesus did not come to destroy, but to save, and in John 18:36 Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight." So, then, it is clear that a man who seeks to kill people is not a Christian, and cannot be. No murderer can inherit eternal life unless he first repents and believes in Jesus. Breivik is unrepentant, he is therefore still lost and in the gall of bitterness.

He is described by the press as "a right-wing Christian extremist." He is not a Christian, whatever he may claim, because he ignores the law of God. He is said to believe he is in a war. I have my suspicions that Breivik may be insane, but the reality of the matter is that he is not in a war. He is not a soldier except in his own imagination, and he has no warrant for committing the crime that he has committed.

Christians follow the Prince of Peace. No man does God a service by murder, whatever he may think, and the man who kills in Jesus' name is committing an act of blasphemy as he does so. "You shall do no murder" still stands in the Law of God, and the man who says, "I love God" but does not love his neighbour is a liar.

The message of Christianity is the Gospel, the word means Good News. Breivik's twisted ideology is one of hate, and is good news to none. I sincerely doubt whether he even knows the meaning of the word grace, or the meaning of love. For God's love is self-sacrificial, it is the love of Jesus dying on the cross to take away sin. And there is grace even for Anders Behring Breivik if he repents of his sins and trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ.

He is no Christian who commits murder. But we follow a Christ who was murdered, and who prayed for his killers, "Father, forgive them."

Why Harry Potter is not a Danger

2011-07-22T18:30:00.005+01:00

Well, here it is, the final film in the popular Harry Potter series is out. And with it comes the final flourish of anti-Potter hysteria among Christians. Let it be said that it is not everyone's cup of tea - this is a story of good versus evil, and the evil is seriously evil. Characters die in this film, there is fighting in it.

But the claims that Harry Potter is a danger to children, and the books and films are somehow teaching the occult are frankly fallacious. Yes, the stories are set in a fantasy world where magic as depicted in English folk-traditions is real. But that's just it, to J.K. Rowling, author of the series, those stories are not real, they are fantasy. The world of Potter does not exist - and no-one in their right mind would say that it does. Yes, in the novels that world exists alongside of ours, but in reality it does not - any more than any other parallel-world fantasy does.

The novels cleverly merge two genres, the genre of fantasy literature and the old British genre of the boarding-school novel. They aim to do one thing - to tell a good story. They chart the journey to adulthood of Harry Potter, the central character, and his friends. In the stories he overcomes the opposition of various evil characters, and finally has to face Lord Voldemort, the most evil wizard of all time. And Voldemort is satisfyingly evil as well, a man who has de-humanised even his own appearance.

What about the magic? Simply put, it is mechanical, and magic powers are something a person is either born with or is not born with - one cannot acquire magic abilities. Thus Hogwarts, the boarding school in the books, is a school where those with magic powers learn to use the powers they have, not a school where people learn to do magic. We might indeed say that magic in Harry Potter is like mutant abilities in X-Men - you're born with it. Hogwarts is like Xavier's Institute, a place where those with powers learn how to use those abilities.

The fictional magic of Harry Potter is a matter of those magic people saying the right words, often in just the right tone with the right accentuation. It is not the invoking of demons or spirits to do one's bidding, something that is a constant feature of genuine occultism. In fact the magic of Harry Potter is not religious at all - it may surprise some to learn that the only genuinely religious imagery in the books is Christian. Neopaganism, the New Age movement, and Wicca, are religious bodies, and practice a form of nature-religion, often with a feminist slant. There is no sign of that at all in Harry Potter. Magic is a tool in these books, not a religion, the Wizards and witches of Harry Potter are a race of people, not a religious body.

It is true that some Neopagan groups have used Harry Potter as a recruiting tool, but then Mormonism tries to use the Narnia books of C.S. Lewis for the same ends, even putting out a book arguing that Lewis unknowingly taught Mormonism. The abuse of a book for propaganda purposes tells us far more about the one abusing it than it does about the book itself.

There are those who argue against fantasy literature using Genesis 6:5, which reads in the KJV:

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

But this is to misuse the King James Bible. The word 'Imagination' in 1611 did not have the same restricted meaning as it has today. Thus the New King James translates the same passage as:

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The word 'Intent' has taken the place of 'Imagination', and that with good reason. The text is not simply saying that the ante-diluvians were taken up with fantasy about wickedness, but they were taken up with thoughts of wickedness. It is certainly not saying that the faculty of imagination is more depraved than any other - if it were, then the text would either imply that all fiction is full of wickedness, which is demonstrably wrong, or it would be warning us against all fiction simply because it is fiction, which makes no sense at all. The faculty of imagination is one we all possess, and may be used for good (as in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress) or evil. Simply quoting Genesis 6:5 out of context does not accomplish anything. One must prove that a book really is evil, and that is what the anti-Potter writers have failed to do. They have shown that Necromancy is evil, and that neopaganism is false religion, but that is beside the point.

So what needs to be proven? That Harry Potter teaches wickedness. So another track is to say that the lead characters often show disrespect for authority figures and disobey them. That is true, but needs to be qualified. First of all, the Bible records men's sins without praising them, so why would someone insist that a work of fiction present perfect characters who never do anything wrong? That is calling for all fiction to be utterly fantastic in another way. Secondly, there are times when the authority figure is abusing his or her power - are we truly saying that authority should be obeyed even when it is abused? Finally, the highest authority in the school, the headmaster Dumbledore, is always respected and usually obeyed. He too is shown as flawed, but he is good. So there are both good and bad authority figures. Harry discovers (as all children do as they grow up) that even those he respects the most are not perfect and have feet of clay. But he still respects them.

And finally, in these stories good is good, and evil is evil. The quote that someone maliciously lifted from the first book and presented without context, "There is no good or evil, only power", comes from the mouth of Lord Voldemort, the villain, and is intended to show how evil justifies itself. But the stories show plainly that there is a difference between good and evil, and evil must be fought.

In the end, to read or not to read is for the conscience of the Christian, and personal preference. It ought to be left there and not lifted to a matter of principle. No-one can read every book in English, and no-one should be made to feel guilty for having read or not read. What is to be deplored is the misrepresentation of these books by certain Christians, and the conflation of all fiction depicting magic as if it were all identical.

Fantasy literature is set in a world that is not ours, a world where there are dragons and magic, a world it is really rather easy to tell is not ours. The real danger is the subtle teaching of an ungodly worldview in books, films and TV shows that purport to be set in the real world, where godliness is mocked and ungodliness promoted. It is in shows that claim to be reflecting reality when they must be a distorting mirror (real life is not worth watching on TV). My fear is that Christians are so concerned about the occult that they forget that a godless worldview is just as dangerous as a worldview in which all is thought of as divine.

It's not about Big Names

2011-07-12T21:12:00.003+01:00

The celebrity is the phenomenon of our age. People were once famous for doing something important and/or heroic. Today the famous people are mostly famous for being famous. We have the distinctly unedifying spectacle of people who are famous for having appeared on a vacuous reality TV show, or having been part of a manufactured band. These are the famous - the celebs.

Now, while I find the whole thing nauseous, I find it all the more irritating in the Church. It is no accident that the most famous writers whose books load my shelves are dead, and have been for a while. They are also diverse. I do not buy into the idea of the Christian celebrity, it's all about Jesus, after all.

There are basically a couple of problems with the Christian celebrity. The first is that people tend to follow the celebrity uncritically. I am reminded of our most rebellious tutor at seminary, who set an essay on a passage that was designed to test this. The seminary was founded in part by a noted preacher of the last century, one who has a couple of multiple-volume sermon series' on New Testament epistles. This preacher had written on this text, but it was the opinion of our tutor that the famous man was in error. Fair enough - I think he was too. But the essay wasn't about that - it was about proving that we did exegesis of the text and did not just follow the famous man - or any other famous man - uncritically. Those students who failed dismally in the essay were those who said in effect, "The famous man said it, it must be true." The celebrity culture tends to lead to people uncritically accepting the famous man's views without actually examining it.

Related to this is the presentation of the celebrity as a modern saint. I have two biographies of the famous evangelist Billy Sunday. One is a whitewash, to be blunt. It covers up all his faults, and presents a very flat view of a great man. The other is honest without being a hatchet-job. We have faults - we all do. We are all sinners, and we need to be honest about that. The best of men are but men at best.

Jesus is not a celebrity. He is our Lord and Saviour, and the eternal Son of God. There is no room for a celebrity in the Church. And that means that you and I, dear reader, have to avoid making celebrities. "For all are yours, and you are Christ's."

Reasons why preachers don't preach on Eschatology

2011-06-02T17:55:00.004+01:00

Why is it that so few preachers today talk much about the Second Coming? In my opinion - and this is just my opinion - there are two main reasons.

1. Prophetic Speculation.

Well, I haven't taken a survey, but it is my feeling that the number one reason for this is that which Harold Camping represents - people who made predictions.

Now, of course these folk came from different regions, from the cultic fringe of the Watchtower Society's 1975 prediction to the more vague suggestions from the like of Hal Lindsay, who said "well, Israel returned to the Land in 1949, a Biblical generation is 40 years, and so we can expect the rapture before 1989." This of course led to excitement as 1989 approached, followed by disappointment. The result, however, was highly unfortunate - it meant that a lot of sane preachers were dissuaded from preaching on the subject of the Second Coming. Probably because I was converted in 1998, and had never been exposed to the sort of prophetic speculation that existed in the 1980s, I do preach on the Second Advent of Christ, and I have often heard people comment that "we don't often hear about that." Things were different before - but not very healthy.

Prophetic speculation is the enemy of preaching the Second Advent of Christ, and Harold Camping is going to have dealt another blow to Biblical preaching, as a new generation of preachers worry that if they talk about Christ coming again they will be associated with Camping.

2. Silly Controversy

Contrary to popular belief, some ministers dislike controversy, and there is nothing like eschatology to get Christians arguing. Now, I like a rational debate as well as the next chap - the trouble is there's a lot of foolish rhetoric flying around on all sides. To give an example, one chap has said in effect that "Harold camping is just a consistent amillennialist." I'm afraid that sort of language disgusts me. It's like saying that Dispensationalists believe that people were saved by their own obedience to the law in the Old Testament, or that R.C. Stam is a consistent Dispensationalist. It's just silly. Then there are those Dispensationalists who accuse amillennialists of holding "The Roman Catholic view" - and their counterparts who say that Dispensationalism is based on the work of a Jesuit priest. Neither actually move the debate on at all, they are cheap points-scoring tactics designed to appeal to the prejudices of one's own supporters. I'm afraid I have to say this sort of thing makes me very angry. This is an in-house debate, and can only be dealt with with care and sober minds. A disagreement about the timing of the Second Advent is not in itself a heresy. Jonathan Edwards was Postmillennial, C.H. Spurgeon was pre-millennial at the time of his death (having changed his views), and Calvin was probably amillennial. To make one's millennial view definitional of the Gospel is so wrong that people doing this has led people like myself to turn from the whole business is total disgust

But keep on preaching this: Jesus is coming back. In person. In the flesh, to judge both the living and the dead.

Prescription for Anxiety

2011-06-02T16:43:00.002+01:00

This has rather surprised me. This is last Sunday morning's sermon. Preaching in the course through John's Gospel I came to the text "Let not your heart be troubled, believe in God, believe also in me." So the question presented itself, how to present it? Well, it seemed that the best direction to take the message was to major on the fact that Jesus was reassuring anxious disciples. The title, I confess, is influenced by a book (which I have not read) by Leslie D. Weatherhead, who pastored the City Temple in London during World War 2. Weatherhead was a theological liberal who was into psychology (he wrote at least five books relating to psychology). But this sermon has nothing to do with Weatherhead!

What happened next was that, in about four days it has become the fourth most popular sermon on Bethel's SermonAudio page, with over 210 downloads. Why? I must confess that the only reason I can think of is that the sermon deals with a topic - anxiety - that a lot of people take some interest in. Or as one might say in a cynical mood, post a sermon with a psychological-sounding title, and people will listen.

Now, I'm a preacher first and foremost. I'm not a psychologist, I haven't studied the subject, and unlike Leslie Weatherhead I don't have a degree relating to it. . I don't intend to practice it, and if you need psychological help, find a good Christian psychiatrist. And don't expect to find me preaching a series on "Psychology in the service of the Soul." That was a Weatherhead series!

Why I don't think Barack Obama's a Muslim

2011-05-26T12:50:00.003+01:00

A friend of mine recently e-mailed me a link to a video on YouTube which he feels gives evidence that Barack Obama is in fact a Muslim. I disagreed with him and pointed to Obama's social policy, particularly his advocacy of homosexuality (evidence here). This is not compatible with Islam, which punishes homosexuality with the death penalty. On the other hand there is one solution that takes all the evidence into account, and that is that Obama is a liberal protestant. I have heard a liberal minister in a British chapel say that "Christians should reverence Mohammed." There was no doubt that the man was not a Muslim, yet he used a service on Ascension day to bewail the fact that Christians did not accept Mohammed as a prophet. Liberals, as we have been reminded by the recent actions of the Church of Scotland and the PCUSA, are accepting of and even promote homosexuality. So, if Obama is a Muslim his promoting homosexuality is inexplicable, but if he is a liberal protestant - which, it must be remembered, is his own testimony - then everything makes sense, it fits.

The reply I received was rather surprising to me, it was in effect "he's hiding the truth". Given that Obama has actually said "I am a Christian", we would have to say that if he is really a Muslim, he is flat out lying most of the time and pretending to be a Christian with a foolishly high level of respect for Islam. We would have to say that he attended Chicago's Trinity UCC for many years as part of an elaborate deception. That make him more than just a liberal Muslim, it would necessitate the conclusion that he is really a villain masquerading as a liberal. It would require him to really be a radical playing a part in order to further Muslim ends. Now of course if you think that he is really a Kenyan-born Islamic extremist who has been systematically infiltrating the Democratic party to further Muslim aims to dominate America, that would make sense, but for myself, I find this hard to believe, given how flimsy the evidence is. It's on a level with believing that the World Trade Centre was not really brought down by a terrorist attack. If you adopt a conspiratorial view of history you can of course believe all sorts of things on the flimsiest of evidence, but I am not sure that this is a good idea. In effect that is to say, "Because of this tiny amount of evidence here (which can still be explained if he is, as he claims to be, a protestant liberal) we should ignore everything else as just deliberate deception and conclude that he is a Muslim."

I'm afraid I can't do that. It is incumbent on us to examine all the evidence, not just that which agrees with our conclusions. To dismiss his voting record on homosexuality as a deception, to claim that his record as "the most liberal senator" is a smokescreen, seems to me a little perverse.

The claim has been made, "well, look at all the things Obama's said about Islam!" Look at these quotes:

"America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality. This year, may Eid also be a time in which we recognize the values of progress, pluralism, and acceptance that bind us together as a Nation and a global community. By working together to advance mutual understanding, we point the way to a brighter future for all."

"Islam brings hope and comfort to millions of people in my country, and to more than a billion people worldwide. Ramadan is also an occasion to remember that Islam gave birth to a rich civilization of learning that has benefited mankind."

"Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith."

"We see in Islam a religion that traces its origins back to God's call on Abraham."

"All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true faith -- face of Islam. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It's a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It's a faith based upon love, not hate."

The answer, of course, is President George W. Bush! The quotes, with many others, can be found here. I suspect that for every pro-Islam Obama quote that can be found we can find a very similar Bush quote - yet no-one is claiming that George W. Bush is a secret Muslim.

I do not know why there are people I regard as otherwise sensible who wish to believe that Barack Obama is in fact a Kenyan-born radical Muslim masquerading as a liberal protestant born in Hawaii. It truly baffles me that anyone would protest that the Hawaii certificate produced by Obama is an obvious fake and then, in the same e-mail promote a couple of clumsy forgeries claiming to be from Kenya as absolutely genuine!If you dismiss the Hawaii certificate (and I am not entering into the question of whether that is genuine or not), you must also dismiss the Kenya certificates.

Conspiracy theories are a form of false world-view, whether they make the great enemy Islam, Roman Catholicism, or the New Age movement. Instead of dealing with the world as it is the conspiracy theorist interprets evidence based on the conspiracy - the conspiracy becomes to him or her the necessary presupposition of his or her thought. Thus the interpretation of facts becomes a sort of game, one is required to "read between the lines", to take sentence fragments out of context, and even to weave them together into new contexts, because the true "context" is the conspiracy. That's not how you do research, that's how Harold Camping was able to say that we can know the date of the end of the world.

And where do you stop? Logically you end up with a vast, world-wide conspiracy, everything that happens is orchestrated by them, and the conspiracy theory becomes un-falsifiable. The conspiracy theorist's world becomes a private construct in which nothing is as it appears. In other words, taken to their logical conclusion conspiracy theories end in madness. Now, I am not saying that all conspiracy theorists are crazy, because most people who hold to some sort of conspiracy theory are inconsistent at some point. It is, however, dangerous, partly because it leads us to take our eyes off the ball. All the world's evils are not the result of Rome, Jack Chick (Jack Chick thinks that the Roman Catholics invented Islam, by the way), there are atheists, there are secular tyrants. The world to more complicated - but God is on the throne.

I don't think Barack Obama is a Muslim because there isn't enough evidence that he is, and the evidence that he is not is far more compelling. That's not the same as saying he's a fine upstanding Christian man - he isn't, he's a theological liberal from the Protestant tradition. It's certainly not the same as saying I think he's wonderful - I don't. But it is to say that I cannot accept the conspiracy theories!

The Challenge of Freedom

2011-05-25T17:46:00.003+01:00

On his state visit to the UK, President Obama said that this is a pivotal moment for the west, as we see change in North Africa and the Middle East. It is a challenge, he said. Now, it is a challenge, but may I say that it is every bit as much of a challenge to the Muslim world as it is to the west. There is much that is encouraging about the recent fall of dictatorships in North Africa. There is also much that gives cause for concern. The word 'Freedom' is much in the air, but one is concerned that it has not really been grasped.

Writing to the Galatian Christians, Paul tells them, "It is for freedom that Christ has set you free." This sums up what H.J. Taylor, in his book of the same name, calls "The challenge of freedom." The challenge is to use freedom to promote freedom. The temptation of course is to regard freedom as something that I have, and must guard jealously so that no-one else obtains it because that would be inconvenient. That is simply to replace one tyranny with another, which is a disaster.

Freedom must mean the freedom to speak one's mind or it means nothing. There are points of view that I find utterly repugnant - to give one example, I am disgusted by the shallow and bigoted policies of the British National Party. I am disgusted by militarism and by racism. But at the same time, I would not wish to live in a society where their rhetoric was a criminal offence. Freedom means the freedom to be wrong, the freedom to say things that are revolting and even stupid. Obviously there is a limit - and that is seeking to overthrow freedom, to destroy liberty in the name of liberty. Without free speech, there is no real freedom.

Freedom must mean the freedom of minorities, or it is simply the tyranny of the majority. It is to feared that this is what many in Egypt think freedom is, the freedom of a Muslim majority to persecute a Christian minority. Now, this also means that as Christians we must be prepared to allow for pluralism, and we must resist the temptation (for such it is) to restrict the liberties of others. The Gospel does not win any victories by the sword, and Christ's Kingdom is not of this world. So there must be religious freedom - not an enforced secularism, but a state that is not the instrument of any religious party.

The challenge of freedom is to use it for freedom. I am afraid that I do not see it being used for freedom in Egypt and Syria, and unless freedom is used for freedom, it will end in a new Tyranny even worse than the first.

Is the Love of Money the Root of all Evil?

2011-05-18T14:27:00.003+01:00

The answer many would give to my question is "Yes, of course, that's what the Bible says!" But is it really? Some KJV-Only teachers have in fact castigated the modern versions for this "change" to the Bible - Gail Riplinger (NABV Pp. 171-2) to name just one. But this is to miss the point. The quotation is the first half of 1 Timothy 6:10; it is not an isolated proverb but part of a larger argument that begins in verse 3. The argument is not that all evils are a result of the lust for money, but that the lust for money leads to all sorts of other evils which are not, in and of themselves, rooted in that lust. Paul's argument is that the love of money corrupts the soul and leads to further sin. R.Martin Pope in his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles notes on 1 Timothy 6:5: "The meaning is thus that these men viewed the spiritual life as a commercial investment; it paid as a profitable speculation." Paul's point isn't to tell us that all evil in the world comes from the love of money, but that the love of money leads on to all sorts of other evils. This is why the NKJV translates the passage, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil" - it fits the context better.

When one thinks about it, the common interpretation of the text is clearly wrong. There are many evils that are not rooted in the love of money and lead to - and can lead to - no financial gain. Rape is all about power and control, and by its very nature can lead to no financial gain - especially in the case of those men who rape women totally unknown to them. Honour-killing does not proceed from a financial desire, but from a twisted view of honour. Osama Bin Laden was a wealthy man who actually spent his own money to finance his Jihadist organisation.

But Paul doesn't mean that. He means that love of money has a corrupting tendency, and where it is allowed into the soul, and religion is interpreted in its light, the corrupted soul is laid open to "many foolish and harmful passions" in addition - for the love of money and the desire to be rich is in and of itself a foolish and harmful passion. He's not telling us that behind all the evil men do is the love of money, he's telling us that the love of money leads to much evil besides.

The Fall of King David

2011-05-13T15:54:00.000+01:00

David was the great example of a godly king in the Old Testament. In some ways he is greater than Solomon, for he was tempted as Solomon never could have been. Anointed by Samuel when he was probably about fourteen, he had to wait about fifteen years before he actually became king. He came from a humble beginning, and therefore he was subject to the temptations of pride. David faced unjust persecution, and therefore was tempted to violence as a tool for gaining his own ends. Called to be a warrior and to fight the Lord's battles, he was tempted, like Saul before him, to fight his own battles instead. David was exposed to the seduction of violence; kill Saul, and you shall be king. Fight Abner, and you shall be king. Approve the murder of Ishbosheth, for it brings the throne to you. He was surrounded by violent men, in particular Joab and his brothers who urged him to violence and who used it to gain their own ends. In all these temptations he did not yield because he remained humble and listened seriously to God's words which told him that he was a shepherd to care for and to serve Israel, and that he was answerable to God, the real King of Israel.

But he fell. 2 Samuel 11 recounts the story of this sad day. It is often said that it began with a look, but more correctly it began with a failure to look.

David first of all broke the first commandment - he made himself the supreme authority, his wishes final. And then he broke the tenth commandment, as he looked out and coveted his neighbour's wife. Having broken the first commandment and the last commandment, it was simple for him to break any of the commandments in between! And he did. He broke the seventh commandment, for he committed adultery with Bathsheba. Then he broke the ninth commandment as he sought to make it appear that the child was not his - he lied. Then David broke the sixth commandment, he arranged to have Uriah the Hittite killed in battle, and although the hand that killed him was the enemy, yet the reason he was put in that situation in the first place was David's desire for his death. Having done this, David proceeded to break the eighth commandment - he took Bathsheba as his own wife, and that was theft.

David was seduced by power, because he forgot that his power was not his own at all, and that power was not given him for his own glory, but for God's glory and for the good of Israel. Now, there are many men who we count great in Church history. Spurgeon built up a vast church, set up an orphanage and a college, and we honour him for his ministry. But Spurgeon did not set out to build a vast Church, or to set up orphanage and college; he set out to preach the Gospel and to glorify God. Indeed the key-note of Spurgeon's life may be found in that day when the young preacher heard as it were a voice, "Seekest thou great things for thyself? Seek them not!" And so, because he sought no great things for himself, he was entrusted with great things for God and His people. George Muller is famed for his orphanage. He set up a great thing - but he did not start the orphanage to amaze the world, but to care for orphans! No great work for God has been set up with the idea of it being great, but with the idea of it being good. Soli Deo Gloria! was the motto of the Reformation, and it is the motto of the Church in all ages. To God alone be the glory!

Humility - the Lost Christian Virtue?

2011-05-09T15:00:00.005+01:00

Long ago, back in the days when even liberals got their ethical framework from the Bible, we understood that the great Christian virtue, the central element of Christian character, was humility. Jesus' washing the disciples' feet in John 13 was the great example, and Philippians 2. 1-11 held a great place in personal ethics. The relevant section of that chapter reads:

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (ESV)

That is humility. Jesus, though Lord of all, made himself a slave for us. He came to serve us, and he still serves us. So we, as Christians, must do nothing out of selfish ambition or conceit (Philippians 2:3, NKJV). Rather our "ambition" must be for the glory of Christ, not to do some great thing.

The story of King David is not a story about a man who was regarded as "not king material" by his father (as if any father who was not already a king or their heir to a throne should have the conceit to think that his son would be king) and his family, but the account of a humble man to whom the crown came unsought. David might have said with higher meaning what Dr. Gill said when he was awarded the Edinburgh degree of Doctor of Divinity: "I never bought it, I never sought it, and I never thought it." So it is with any honours or worldly success the Christian may achieve. The Christian has no self-esteem because he does not think of himself at all. He lives to the glory of Christ, and for the good of others. David was a great king because he realised that he was made King for the glory of God and the good of Israel, not for his own glory. Preaching through the life of King David, I have been struck by the fact that, from the anointing in Bethlehem to his enthronement in Jerusalem, he never takes action to seize the throne. He doesn't even take the initiative to fill the throne when it is emptied by the death of Saul. David had many occasions when he could have seized the throne, but he never did, even though he had the promise of God that he would be king. It seems that the man had no ambition at all to be King. Far from the ambitious go-getter of bad sermons, David was a humble man whose ambition was to glorify God and to serve Israel in whatever way God chose for him! It is as if he says at every turn, "God has said that I shall be King. If that is what God wants, then let God bring me to the throne in his own good time. If the people want me to lead them, I shall lead them and protect them, for they are God's people. If I am to be king, then I shall be the very best King that I can be, but I shall never make myself king." He is the very reverse of Napoleon, who took the crown and placed it on his own head!

The height of David's ambition is service to others, first of all to God, but then to his neighbours, even the rebellious and increasingly unhinged King Saul, who was a man who did glorify himself. In 1 Samuel 15.12 we are told that "Saul came to Carmel, and behold he set up a monument for himself." There I see the whole key to Saul's downfall - "Behold, he set up a monument for himself." But David wants to be the best army officer he can be for Saul! He loved Saul, and wanted to help him. Even in the episode with Goliath, David was not moved by the promise of the princess or freedom from taxes, but by his concern for the glory of God. For David life was all about the glory of God and the good of Israel, "And David knew that the LORD had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel."

And in all this David is a type of Jesus, who is "Christ for us", to quote the Scottish preacher Hugh Martin. All Jesus does is to serve the Church - and should that not rebuke our pride? If the Son of God is among us "as one who serves", how dare we entertain dreams of glory! Do you know to whom glory belongs? It belongs to Jesus, the Lamb that was slain for us: "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever, Amen."

Therefore every sermon that encourages "Pride of man and earthly glory" is an abomination - I do not think the word is too high. The pulpit is not for the strking of human egos, it is for the lifting up of Christ. The Christian's prayer should be that of Mr. Wesley:

"Sink me to perfection's height,
The depths of humble love."

Why I Don't Believe the Conspiracy Theories

2011-05-03T18:10:00.003+01:00

Yesterday the news of the death of Osama Bin Laden, today the conspiracy theory in my inbox! I was somewhat shocked to see who the e-mail came from (but probably shouldn't have been, given that he had sent me a series of e-mails about the Obama birth certificate casting suspicions on the Hawaii certificate while championing two forged certificates purporting to come from Kenya). I was not surprised to find that there are people doubting the truth of the news of Bin Laden's death - I would have been more surprised to find that there were none.

So why am I not convinced? Simply because of Occam's Razor - the principle that the simplest explanation is most likely to be true.

Let us lay out the options. The claim that Osama Bin Laden was killed by US special forces the other day is either true or false. If false, then either Bin Laden is still alive, or he was already dead. Now, the claim has been made that the death of Bin Laden was announced to help the Obama re-election campaign - this is what the e-mail in my inbox suggested. If so, Bin Laden must be dead - otherwise Obama has in fact prepared a sword of Damocles to hang over his head - a living Bin Laden would sink the re-election campaign far more surely than a dead Bin Laden would help it. Assuming that Obama is not a gibbering idiot (as a gibbering idiot would not do something as devious as he is accused of), then it follows that Bin Laden must be dead, or at least Obama is reasonably certain that he is dead.

If Osama Bin Laden is dead, then it follows that either he was killed the other day, or he was already dead. So we follow the conspiracy theorists, what if Bin Laden was already dead? Then it follows he either died of natural causes, or he was killed by allied forces. Now, if he died of natural causes while with his own people there is no reason this would not have been reported - it would have denied the West a propaganda coup for one thing. So we have the option that he was killed by allied forces. That Al-Quaeda would not have reported this is unlikely, however - a dead leader is a martyr for the cause, after all, and I have lost count of the number of senior Hamas figures who have been killed and whose deaths were reported at the time. A non-US operation would also have reported this.

Granting for the same of argument that Al-Quaeda would not have reported Bin Laden's actual death, then it must have been by US forces. If it was not the operation reported in the news it would have been an operation that happened some time ago - which means either under the Bush administration or under Obama's. Indeed, there is a conspiracy theory circulating that says he was killed as far back as 2001, and the body was kept on ice until now. This is laughable for the simple reason that there has been a change in US administrations. If Bush had killed Bin Laden, then the death would have been used to back the McCain campaign. Unless one believes that the US is really governed by a secret cabal, and that presidential elections are all shams, in which case nothing really matters at all anyhow. So we are left with the option that Bin Laden was killed by American troops at some point during the Obama administration. In other words, it is all a question of timing.

Now, if Obama is the master-manipulator that the conspiracy theorists claim, the man who covered up the secret of his Kenyan birth in order to become president, surely he must be a very intelligent man. In fact he must be the most monstrous and cunning villain. Thus he would have carefully planned when to release this news if it is in fact faked. The contention is that the news was released now to help Obama's re-election bid.

There is just one problem with this: The date of the next US Presidential election is November 6, 2012, roughly 18 months away. That's an awful lot of time in an era when the public forget so soon. Now, the first Gulf War ended on February 28th 1991 in a resounding victory for America and her allies. Yet President George H.W. Bush lost the Presidential election in November 1992. On the other hand, the Falklands War ended on 14th June 1982, and one year later, give or take a few days. Margaret Thatcher's Conservative administration was returned to office. Given this, it is plainly a good idea to have the victory fairly close to the election date. If Obama had the power to stage the death of Bin Laden at any time of his choosing, to have done so in November of this year, or later, would have made more sense.

Finally, the actual events surrounding the death of Bin Laden are so antecedently improbable. That he should have been found, not in a cave in Afghanistan or in a tribal village, but in a Pakistani garrison town is surely a scenario no competent script-writer would have created. And that is to say nothing of its effect on the Pakistani government. In addition, we are now told by the Pakistanis that there are survivors, including Bin Laden's teenaged daughter, who witnessed her father's death. So we have witnesses. And consider the alternatives - that the US government staged the whole thing and risked antagonising the Pakistani government should it all have gone wrong, or that Pakistan, a nuclear power, knowingly allowed itself to be so humilated by the US for no reason - given that a staged 'killing' could have taken place anywhere with as much, if not more, believeability.

So I do not buy the conspiracy theories. The options are these: either the US government killed Bin Laden at some point in the last couple of years, managed to conceal the fact, and then staged a commando raid and killing in a sensitive part of a friendly country in such a way as to shame that nation internationally, all in order to possibly help the re-election of a president in 18 months' time, or the news story that we have all heard is true. Now, you may believe whatever you want to - it's a free country - but I find the conspiracy account to be so inherently implausible that it ought not to be taken seriously without good evidence in its favour.

I do think, incidentally, that the summary exection of even a man who has done what Bin Laden has done, in front of his teenaged daughter, is highly problematic ethically, but that is another matter!

Worship in Theological Training

2011-05-02T20:40:00.004+01:00

Ministerial training is absolutely necessary. Formal training, on the other hand, is not. We are all aware that C.H. Spurgeon and Martyn Lloyd-Jones had no formal theological training. But both men had rigorous intellectual training - Lloyd-Jones as a doctor, of course. Most of us, however, need formal theological training because we are not as able as Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones! Spurgeon trained himself, of course. He grew up in a house full of good theological books, and with a grandfather who was a faithful pastor.

At the same time, not all theological training is equal. When I was at Seminary there was talk of a young man who had been 'rescued' from a bogus college. He had come over from an African country expecting to be trained and found that in fact he was going to get a worthless piece of paper at the end of his time. Thankfully he had contacted a real seminary (which doesn't even give a piece of paper!).

Today I went to Didsbury, looking for the former Methodist College there. I found it. And I was glad to see the original chapel still standing just within the gates - as seen above. And that brings me to my point - that the first essential in theological training is that it must be grounded and rooted in worship and the local Church. The role of a theological seminary is not just to satisfy the craving of odd people for theological learning - it is not to have the mindset of the academy, in which subjects are studied for their own sake. No, a seminary exists for the Church, and the Church exists to worship. That means that even lectures must be given with the realisation that this is worship, we are considering the eternal God and his works, not just some dry subject.

And the same is true of the continuing training that we are involved in. The study must be the place of prayer as well as of study. And that was what the chapel at Didsbury reminded me of - because it was the largest building on the original campus. Either side of it are the old tutors' houses, but between the two is a chapel. Worship and learning must go together for the pastor, and for the Church.

A Good Book on Preaching

2011-04-29T20:25:00.004+01:00

The serious minister looks out for certain types of books. At the Banner conference, during the panel discussion, one of the speakers said, "read every book on the atonement that comes your way," or words to that effect. The same can be said, in my opinion, for books on preaching. It seems that the subject is inexhaustible!

In the latter part of the 19th century there was a proliferation of lectures established by denominations and by individuals to aid the denominations to which they belonged. One that I have mentioned before is the Free Church of Scotland Cunningham Lecture. This foundation gave us such classics as Buchanan on Justification, Smeaton on the Holy Spirit, and Laidlaw's Bible Doctrine of Man. The equivalent in the United Presbyterian Church, the Kerr lectures, gave us James Orr's The Christian View of God and the World, one of the first books on a Christian worldview published in English. The Congregational Union Lectures gave us R.W. Dale's classic work on the Atonement. Other trusts were more restricted in their themes - the Lyman Beecher Lectures on preaching at Yale Divinity School have given many a classic work, including one by R.W. Dale.

Which brings me to the volumes illustrated above. The Hartley Lecture was founded in 1897 by Sir William Hartley (of Hartley's Jam fame). This was delivered at the Primitive Methodist conference - although what was delivered at the conference was in fact a synopsis of a substantial volume, as can be seen above! What are shown are all the lectures from 1909 to 1932. They vary in quality, and in theology.

One of the best is the lecture for 1912, The Message and the Man, by W. Dodd Jackson. The subject of the book is preaching, and without a doubt this is a book that preachers ought to read.

The Primitive Methodist Church, like all the Methodist bodies, was founded on preaching, and Jackson is concerned that the Church shall go on existing as a preaching Church. Preaching, he reminds us, should be worship - and is, if it is really preaching. And although this is a book, the style is a preaching style. I rarely read 250-page books at a single sitting, but this is one of the one I have read all at once. Jackson sprinkles his prose with anecdotes and with apposite quotations from hymns. There is always a suitable illustration given. He was clarly in earnest about the subject, and that comes out in every line. It is a preacher's book in every way, and preachers ought to read it! It is a book that makes the reader excited about preaching and makes him take it very seriously.

Jackson begins with a section on 'The Man'. In six chapters he lays out what a preacher ought to be. He starts with what he calls his designation, his fitness for the work. The preacher has to be the right man for the job. Disturbed by the increasing professionalisation and respectability of the office - and the resulting entry into it of men who really had no business being there - Jackson calls for men who are audible, studious, and possessed of what he calls a preaching mind, a mind that can communicate truth to others. The man must be an earnest Christian, and have a real calling to the work. In the second chapter he calls for the minister to realise the importance of his work as "the very messenger of Jesus Christ to men," with a message from God to deliver. In chapter 3 he pleads "The need for certainty", the pulpit is not the place for the man who doubts the truth of the Gospel! In chapter four Jackson pleads for "Individuality", what Spurgeon called "eccentricity", that the preacher must be himself, and not try to be somebody else. In chapter 5 he calls for the preacher to have 'understanding', "this is only another way of saying that he must know what he is talking about." Finally, in Chapter 6, like a true 'Prim', he calls for passion in the pulpit. The true minister must not only know what he is talking about, he must be excited about it! He begins with the illustration of Whitefield's last days, which reminds me - there are few books for preachers as good as Dallimore's Whitefield.

Part 2 sets out 5 fundamental notes of preaching. The first is the note of accusation - the preacher speaks to sinful men, and must proclaim the judgement of God against sin, the great "Thou art the man!" The second note is that of pity - he preaches against their sins because he loves them, and wopuld have them to turn from their wickedness and live, and presents to them the Lamb of Calvary as their only hope. Third is the note of idealism - he does not just deal with things as they are, but lays out the way things out to be. He points towards heaven and holiness. The fourth note is that of edification, he seeks to build up the saints and to build the Church of God. The last note is the note of cheer. He says to men, "be of good cheer", not because he is a foolish optimist, but because he brings the Gospel, the good news of God's love, to them.

The final part of the book in on the form and deliverance of the sermon. It should be attractive, first of all, delivered in such a way as befits its contents. Secondly, it should be clear, the listener should be able to understand it. Finallythere is the need for the sermon to be an appeal, not just a lecture. It is truth set forth for a purpose, to turn sinners to repentance, to encourage saints in holiness, to reclaim the backslider. The sermon has an aim, and the whole discourse must be directed to that aim.

In the course of the book Jackson pleads for more expository and doctrinal preaching. He calls for sanctified learning, and illustrates his argument as he clothes a book with a great deal of learning behind it in attractive paragraphs that abound with illustrations and aphorisms.

Obviously, having been published in 1912, this book is out of print. But if you can find a copy, get it and read it. It will do you good. And if you're not a preacher, give one to your pastor if you can.

Equivocation!

2011-04-25T15:17:00.003+01:00

One of the most frustrating mistakes I have heard in sermons is that of equivocation over the use of a word. The two worst of these are "dream" and 'vision". Words mean things in context, and what they mean in the Bible is generally not what many modern preachers think they mean.

There are two uses of the word "Dream", and these must be kept separate. The first is what we see when we sleep (like my dreaming that the Royal Wedding was being held in Bethel!). This is what the word usually means in the Bible, although of course the dreams recorded in the Bible are mostly given by God as revelations. The second meaning, and the one usually meant by modern preachers, is the meaning used by Martin Luther King Jr. when he said, "I have a dream." It means an idea of the sort of future you want. The word 'vision' is closely related. In the Bible it means a visual revelation given by God - the Book of Revelation is an extended vision account. But in modern language it more often means foresight, looking to the future, and having a plan for that future.

Now, there is nothing wrong with using 'vision' this way, or 'dream', but the problem comes when preachers take the Biblical use of the words and assume that in fact the Biblical use is the other use, which I have called the "Modern use" for want of another way of putting it. The Biblical passages are simply not addressing that - and that's the problem!

There are two reasons for equivocating in the use of words in preaching, and by far the most common is the desire to say something whether the Bible addresses it or not! But ministers are called to show themselves approved, "Rightly handling the Word of God." This is decidedly not rightly handling, and may I suggest that the preacher who really thinks that Joseph's dream has any connection at all with his own 'dream' of changing the world needs to leave the pulpit and take a course in homiletics before he comes back.

Learning from those we Disagree with

2011-04-21T15:02:00.000+01:00

One of the sure signs of someone who is either a new Christian, a cage-stage new Calvinist, or just insufferably arrogant, is the sure and certain knowledge that he or she cannot learn from anyone who disagrees with them. Of course, usually that is on a specific topic - Calvinism (pro- or anti-), Eschatology (whatever position I don't hold), Church Government, Baptism, music, Gifts of the Spirit, the list goes on and on. A typical example would be the Calvinist who says, "John Wesley? He didn't have a clue! I can't learn anything from him!" Or the man who says, "John Stott holds to Conditional Immortality! Heretic! I can't learn anything from him!" I groan wearily, open a volume of Cardinal Newman or B.F. Westcott, and settle down to read something worthwhile. Which is to say, I read books by people I disagree with, and you should too.

One should always do that. Why? Because, contrary to popular belief, people we disagree with can have some pretty good ideas. And some of them write well. It's practically a cliche to say that Newman's English style is brilliant, but that's because it's true. And if Stott is wrong on eschatology (which he is), that doesn't mean he hasn't written some very good commentaries. Open Theist Gregory Boyd has co-written an excellent work dealing with the claims that the Gospels are legendary in nature. The fact that James Denney yielded too much to the higher criticism, and that he was of an Arminian bent, does not lessen the value of his book The Death of Christ. J.I. Packer's involvement in the Evangelicals and Catholics Together disaster does not automatically rob all his writings of value. The fact that R.W. Dale taught Conditional Immortality does not mean that his books are evil and should be burned (sorry).

To take a closer look at this, we can divide books by people we disagree with into two categories, books we actually agree with, and books we don't.

For the first category, it is a fact that many men who we disagree with in one area are extremely helpful in another. Most writers have written in more than one area (though that is less common today than it was in the past). While they may have written some dreadful stuff on one subject, they may have written helpfully on another, Boyd's co-authorship of The Jesus Legend would be a great example. I am amillennial, but I find many of John MacArthur's books helpful - he's not writing on escatology all the time! A.W. Tozer was an Arminian with a mystic bent, but his perception of the way American Evangelicalism was going in his day is excellent. John Wesley wrote a brilliant treatise on Original Sin against John Taylor of Norwich. To reject all the good someone has written because of the bad stuff they have also written is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face!

As for the second category, books you disagree with, reading these is optional, though mature believers will be helped by reading things they disagree with. It is a challenge. Read the best of the Arminians, and ask, why is this person wrong? (the answer is poor hermeneutics and an inherited tradition, by the way). And you will find that heretics can be very nice people at times. Sometimes they're nicer than the orthodox. Sometimes they're not, William Robertson Smith and William Hale White come across as quite insufferable! But Basil Martin, Leslie Weatherhead and W.E. Orchard are nice people.

This procedure helps you to think for yourself. The danger of only reading people you agree with (or worse, only people your pastor agrees with) is that, as you never get out of your comfort zone, you create a sort of mental cocoon around yourself, and the thinking processes harden. But when you read Newman, you have to ask why you disagree with him. You enter into a critical dialogue, a debate, with the author, and you have to think. And the great thing with a book is that you can actually put it down and do the thinking!

And finally, read biographies of people you disagree with. That can be most challenging of all at times, seeing those who did what was right while they thought what was wrong. Or did what was wrong when they thought what was right! And why was it people embraced false ideas? The answer is always more complex than "He was a secret Jesuit" or "He was just evil." Now, the answer is always "he was wrong," but the great question is, why was he wrong? And that is what the biography will help you with - even if the real answer isn't the one the biographer gives. Oh, and autobiographies are often more fun where this is concerned - and the more indiscreet and chatty the autobiography, the better. Basil Martin's An Impossible Parson is a good example. Newman's Apologia is more formal (but then Newman is always formal), but just as good in its own way. Most people, however, will prefer Martin's humour. And finally, the young minister should read ministerial autobiographies in order to give thanks that the quality of food in theological colleges has improved in the last century!

Oh, and this does apply to Fundamentalists as well, though I have generally found that liberals write better autobiographies. Now, I have a biography of Robert Newton Flew to read...

Facebook Theology

2011-04-20T14:45:00.003+01:00

The internet is a wonderful thing. It's also quite dangerous in many ways. First of all, it is a wonderful source of unverified information. Second, it provides a platform for a great many people who have nothing useful to say and don't know how to say it.

Twitter, Facebook, blogs, all can be very useful. I'm a pastor in a small Church in an inner-city location in the United Kingdom (in a place where the weather is absolutely wonderful right now!), and yet I have access to everyone else who has an internet connection. What could be more democratising? What could be more dangerous? Because writing on a computer screen has a rather peculiar property - it's impersonal. And other people I only contact through this medium are to a certain extent depersonalised too. That means that one can say on Facebook and Twitter things one would never say in person. It also gives a voice to people who would never have had a voice before (I say this as someone who has actually had stuff published in print magazines, the first piece with comments from the editor that most of the unsolicited material he gets is unsuitable for publication on multiple levels, including spelling, punctuation and grammar).

Now, this can be a good thing. It can also be a terrible disaster, as people who don't know the first thing about Reformed Theology, the Puritans, John Wesley, R.W. Dale, Westcott and Hort, and the King James Bible, demonstrate this at great length. It's funny sometimes, but it's also terribly frustrating.

Without the wonder of the Interwebs, we would never have known that the word 'Church' was derived from the name of the Greek sorceress 'Circe'. Of course, it's not, and the hilarious thing is that the video that claims this starts off by saying how unlikely it is that an Anglo-Saxon word should be derived from a Greek one, only to end up with one of the funniest false etymologies known to man - derived from a Greek Word! But you can find attacks on John Calvin, John Wesley, John Bunyan and John Wycliffe that use the same sort of tactics. All with a sublime disregard for reality.

Is there an answer? Probably not, the history of the Church includes a long history of scurrilous polemics, after all. And it does mean that false claims can be quickly dismantled. Anyone remember the Lost Tomb of Jesus business? Within about a week, the whole thing had been shown to be all smoke and mirrors, and the film, to my knowledge, never aired on any of the main UK channels.

But your statements about Reformed theology, or any theological topic, posted on Facebook, or tweeted, will accomplish nothing unless they are true, respectful, and Christian in tone. Calling John Wesley or John Calvin sour-faced haters may reflect on what a portrait looks like, but contributes nothing helpful. To anything.

But keep the videos with fakse etymologies coming. They're funny.

How NOT to Revive the Churches

2011-04-04T05:11:00.000+01:00

It is denied by no-one that the Churches in the United Kingdom are not what they once were. How are we to reach the masses? One common approach is to try to preach on practical subjects that will, it is thought, attract non-Christians. After all, doesn't everyone want to learn how to manage their time and money better, how to be a better parent or spouse, how to get ahead in life? Even granted that people do (and I'm not convinced by the argument), is this really what the Church is about? Don't we have a Divine commission? And if not, why bother in the first place? It seems to me that there are breat number of organisations that do life-coaching far better than I ever could, and life-coaching requires a one-on-one approach, it cannot be done to large numbers (I have actually received life coaching, so I know of what I speak). Motivational messages may help self-confidence, but again, aren't there conferences that do that sort of thing better than any Church can. No, the Church has a divine commission. God has spoken and given us a command to preach the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ as the saviour of the world. Abraham Taylor wrote in the 18th century that in too many pulpits, "The satisfaction of Christ was made nothing of, under pretence that He died to set us an example of patience, meekness and charity" (Quoted in Dale, English Congregationalism P. 555). Instead of preaching, "the great doctrines of the Gospel, and acquainting those who heard the word, on what foot, and by what aid, they must act in doing duty, a great deal of pains were taken to amuse them with mere moral babble, under the plausible name of practical preaching... as this way of preaching grew in use, Christ was very much left out, and some seemed to take pleasure, in being able to spin out an empty harangue, the length of an hour, without mentioning His name." It didn't work, and even if such an approach brings people in the doors, I have to ask a most unfashionable question - what's the point? What is the point in assembling a great crowd of people in a Church building on Sunday to hear a talk about how to manage your time and money? If Christ is not proclaimed, then frankly the talk or address had no business being given in a Church. The mission of the Church is to proclaim Christ. Not a 'Social Gospel' that is all social and no Gospel. We have a Saviour to proclaim. God pity us if we forget that and start talking about other things, until the poor people have to say, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him."

Onwards to Orthodoxy!

2011-03-26T18:29:00.005Z

Rob Bell's book Love Wins is the hot news topic right now. I doubt, however, whether it will be the hot news topic in a century - assuming for the same of argument that there is another century ahead of us.

Bell is, as Al Mohler has correctly pointed out, nothing more than a modernist liberal - albeit a modernist liberal in really hip glasses. Modernist liberal books simply do not last long, because they are dictated largely by the spirit of the age. The liberal is a man (or woman) who is concerned that historic Christianity does not chime with the spirit of the age, and is therefore in earnest to make it do so. The trouble is that this simply does not work. William Macgregor noted, "The victories of the faith have commonly been won not by the proclamation of a bare minimum of belief but rather of things strange and hard to accept, because they are so full of God" (Persons and Ideals [Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1939] P. 5). The liberal may, if he is well-placed enough, and his words are surprising enough, cause a stir, but liberalism has never built up churches.

Bell and his ilk are reacting against two things, what they perceive as the commericalness (if that is a word) and superficiality of the megachurches, and the self-righteousness of fundamentalism. We confessional Protestants are in complete agreement with him that both of these movements are false and dangerous.

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, probably the greatest preacher of the 20th century, was asked in an interview in 1970 whether he had reacted against the liberalism of his father. He replied that he felt that he had not, rather he and his father had both reacted against the respectable moralism that had replaced the Gospel in the Calvinistic Methodist pulpits that they were familiar with. His father had adopted the left-wing theologically liberal 'New Theology' of R.J. Campbell. Lloyd-Jones returned to the confessional Calvinism of the Calvinistic Methodist fathers. He returned, in other words, to the Gospel. What the post-Victorians rejected as "Puritanism", Lloyd-Jones found was anything but - it was moralism. True Puritanism was Gospel-centred, it was centred on Christ and him crucified.

And once again we see the reaction against moralism going in the same two directions. I have always said that I think that, at least in their initial critique of American Evangelicalism, the Emergents were basically right. They recognised the problem. But the solution they have found is no solution at all, it is just to follow the liberals of a century ago. On the other hand there are the 'Young, Restless and Reformed' people, and those who have embraced Confessional Calvinism such as myself. We have discovered that, as Lloyd-Jones put it, the true way is to go "on to orthodoxy." Not to go backwards, for it was the moralists who did that. The liberals want to beat a still further retreat. But we must go onwards to orthodoxy.

I am afraid that today's liberals are far behind their counterparts of the last century. Campbell's manifesto The New Theology is a solid hardcover of over 260 pages. Rob Bell's ignorance of the history of the Church, and of ancient civilizations, is quite apparent to all who saw his Nooma video that dealt with Mithra, Attis, etc (Nooma 15). Compare this with 20th century liberal T.R. Glover, who taught classics at Cambridge. Meanwhile confessionalists are producing good quality, thoughtful works. Now, literary quality is no proof of orthodoxy (otherwise we would all have to be Roman Catholics like J.H. Newman), but it is an indicator of the health or otherwise of a movement. For all their claims to be thoughtful, the new liberals of the Emergent Church are intellectually shallow. Now, when an intellectually shallow writer encourages people to change their theology and to abandon the theology that the Church has always held, we should have serious pause for thought!

Let us then go onwards towards orthodoxy, with all the intellectual rigour that is called for. That is what is called for. It is the orthodox that are read today, not Campbell and Glover. It is the orthodox who form, and have formed, Christian thinking. Truth endures, error passes away.

"The Church Should be Warned!"

2011-03-25T12:38:00.000Z

And so the saga of Michael Horton being seen in a picture with Rick Warren rumbles on. Conflicting reasons are given for why it's a bad thing, and conflicting accounts of what Horton did wrong. As I see it there are two complaints going round:

1). The problem is the picture, nothing more. Horton was unwise to pose like this, and the picture could be used by Warren's supporters to say that Horton approves of Warren

2). Mike Horton went to Saddleback, shared a platform with Rick Warren and failed to explicitly warn against Warren. He ought to have used the opportunity to denounce Warren as a false teacher.

The same people have made both claims, leading me to conclude that in fact what we have here is good people feeling uneasy about the picture, and then looking for ways to articulate that unease. The picture jars. Claim 1 is basically subjective, it is about possible interpretations of a picture.

Claim 2 is different, it is about strategy, and underlying it are two points. The first is a probable misunderstanding of what the Lausanne event at Saddleback was. It was not about Rick Warren per se. Lausanne was not founded by Rick Warren, it predates him. It was a 'conversation on global evangelisation'. To go there and to talk about Warren would be accepting an invitation under false pretenses. But to go there to put your point about the need for gobal evangelisation to be based on... well, on the evangel, the Gospel, is to take the invitation as offered. To present an alternative to Warren's ideas is the most effective way to undermine him in that context. What was the alternative? To leave it as a cosy chat between people of like mind.

I am concerned that a lot of the discussion has missed the context, and committed a serious category error in comparing Michael Horton participating in a conversation hosten by Saddleback to two other different matters. The first is John Piper explicitly saying that Warren is sound an inviting him to speak at the Desiring God conference. The difference is plain - it was Piper's ground, and Warren was explicitly said to be sound. The second is Ken Ham's being dropped from two homeschooling conferences. In these cases Ham was a speaker at a conference, giving an address, not a participant in a conversation. A conference speaker has far more freedom in what he can say.

To my knowledge, Horton was not booked to speak at any other meeting at Saddleback, nor has he done so since the Lausanne meeting last summer. Thus he could not be 'kicked out' of any. Note also that Ham did not refuse to speak at meetings where Peter Enns was speaking - he was given the boot. Finally we need to understand that different people may take different approaches in different contexts. A homeschooling convention is liable to be made up mostly more conservative Christians, many with little formal theological training. The audience at the Lausanne conversation would be less conservative, middle-of-the-road evangelicals. It would be reasonable to assume that the homeschoolers would not know who Peter Enns is (most people don't) or what he teaches. The same cannot be said for Rick Warren and a crowd at Saddleback.

Finally, let us be most careful not to lump Horton together with Piper. Piper has explicitly said Warren is sound. Horton has never said this. Well, you may object, no-one is saying that he did! Precisely, and that is why we must not lump him together with Piper.

Worship - Ecstatic and Christian

2011-03-22T16:17:00.004Z

The title of this post is of course meant to say that ecstatic worship is not Christian. Our worship is "with the mind also", the prayers of the Christian are contrasted with those of the pagans who babble and think that they will be heard for their many words. It is the worshippers of Baal on Mount Carmel who work themselves into a frenzy, and Elijah who calmly prays for God to answer.

In the 19th century the Quaker poet John Greenleaf Whittier wrote a poem about revivalism. The last part of it, beginning Dear Lord anf Father of Mankind is a popular hymn today. It is viewed with suspicion in evangelical circles, mostly (if not entirely) because its context is not known.

The first stanza of the hymn reads:

Dear Lord and Father of mankind
Forgive our foolish ways!
Reclothe us in our rightful mind,
In purer lives Thy service find,
In deeper reverence, praise.

Now, if you did not know its context you could be forgiven for thinking that "foolish ways" referred to sin. If it did, this would be a heretical poem. Only it doesn't. Instead it refers to revivalism. There are in fact 11 stanzas in the original poem before these words, all of them about ecstatic worship, pagan and 'Christian'. So 'our foolish ways' in fact refers to the revivalism of Finney with all its excitement and excess, its hot-house methods of 'conversion'. Whittier contrasts with this the calm of Christian worship:

O sabbath rest by Galilee!
O calm of hills above,
Where Jesus knelt to share with Thee
The silence of eternity
Interpreted by love!

At the old Quaker Meeting-House at the Pales, near Llandrindod Wells, one can get a good idea of what Whittier was about - a restful calm that, rather than exciting the emotions, calms and quiets them. Now, I would not go as far as the Quaker, but I would say this - worship that tries to induce an altered state of consciousness and to work on the emotions while bypassing the mind is dangerous, and is not Christian. No, rather we pray,

Breathe through the heats of our desire
Thy coolness and Thy balm;
Let sense be dumb, let flesh retire;
Speak through the earthquake, wind and fire,
O still small voice of calm!

Evangelical worship has become increasingly foolish, and liberal worship has done the same, when we have 'clown services', barking like dogs, rock concerts and the like. Whatever we may think of Whittier himself, or even of the hymn that has been made from his poem, we have never been more in need of the prayer he gives us to pray, "Forgive our foolish ways."

Secondary Separation

2011-03-22T15:42:00.004Z

It is clear that Christians ought not to have any fellowship with false teachers. What is less clear is what is meant by that word, 'fellowship'. In its narrowest sense it would refer to table and pulpit fellowship - that is to say that we are not to admit to the Lord's Table or to the pulpit of the Church those who do not teach according to the truth as it is in Jesus. By the same token we are not to participate in their table, or sit under their teaching. Thus a Christian cannot, and should not, participate in the Mass. To be a member of a congregation that is committed to heresy, either in its basis of faith (for example, a Unitarian congregation) or de facto (e.g. a liberal Methodist Church) is clearly wrong.

But what after that? Is it wrong for a Christian to be a member of an evangelical congregation that is part of a mixed denomination such as the URC? If so, Spurgeon was in error when he told people who had not left the Baptist Union to remain in the Union and to go on fighting to regain it. Is it wrong for a minister to accept an invitation to speak in a liberal congregation? If so I can think of a dear brother in Christ who himself left the Baptist Union after years as a BU pastor who still preaches at BU Churches. He is as valiant for truth as a man can be, even if we disagree on certain minor points of what we should be contending over. If anything he's perhaps over-zealous. Is he wrong to accept preaching invitations from such churches? Does that constitute 'Fellowship'? These are grey areas, and we need to acknowledge that they exist.

Secondly we need to acknowledge that good, sound men differ on their way of dealing with these grey areas. That's why some of us are not members of denominations we once were members of, while other good evangelical men are members of those denominations. We disagree, but we affirm that the situation is complex and there are no easy answers. Good and godly men facing the same grey areas may come to different conclusions. The fact that I think another man's approach is wrong does not mean I should denounce him in print or on the internet as a compromiser! Instead I should seek to understand why he does what he has done. A rush to judgement helps no-one and in fact damages the body of Christ. It also opens the one rushing to serious misinterpretation. To condemn someone because they have done something that someone, somewhere might possibly interpret, if they were thick as two short planks, as an endorsement of a false teacher is going too far and begins to wear the appearance of a witch-hunt.

Thirdly, we have to credit our fellow believers with some intellect. To take the recent Michael Horton example, Michael Horton is a seminary professor. His books are not exactly light reading, and are full of warnings against false teaching (my introduction to Horton as an author was through his book The Agony of Deceit). His readers are not typically ignorant, shallow evangelicals. He is best known for his work on The White Horse Inn, a programme that aims to help Christians to understand what they believe and why they believe it. It is a rather cerebral show, and Horton's followers are typically quite cerebral. In other words they are the last people on the planet to take a photograph of Horton with Rick Warren as a sign that Warren's fine and we are all to link arms with him and sing Kumbaya. Those who are likely to take such a shallow approach to a photograph are unlikely to know who Michael Horton is in the first place. Those are the people Warren appeals to, not Horton.

Thus we come to the question of 'secondary separation', as it has been called. No, in my opinion this can only meaningfully be done where one was actually united with someone in the first place. So, I am a pastor of a rather conservative Independent Evangelical Church that is a member of the FIEC, and of a local body called NoSFEC. John Piper is not a member of either of these groups, and nor is his Church. Thus, however much I may disagree with John Piper having Rick Warren speak at Desiring God, I cannot separate from Piper in any meaningful way, because I was never in fellowship with him in any meaningful way in the first place! I may voice my disapproval, but I cannot do anything else!

An Unbridgeable Chasm

2011-03-10T22:01:00.002Z

I watch in amazement at the flurry of activity that has followed the (now vanished) blog post about Michael Horton and Rick Warren. The poster of that has now as good as said that people should be warned about Michael Horton because he has been at Saddleback and was photographed with Rick Warren. The substance of what Horton said has, to be best of my knowledge, never been addressed by this person, or any of her partisans.

Now, first of all we need to separate any response to the post made by others to the content of the post itself, and the defences that have been mounted. I have no part in actions others may have taken, this is what I have said, in public, responding to vague accusations made in public. The accusation seems to amount to this: Michael Horton spoke at an event held at Saddleback, and was photographed with Rick Warren afterwards. This means that he is acting as a 'Bridger' between the Reformed world and Rick Warren.

Now, when the term was used of Dan Kimball, I thought I understood what was meant - that Kimball had a foot in each camp, a foot in the Emerging camp, and another in the broader Evangelical camp. Fair enough, I suppose you could argue that he is a bridger in that sense. But if speaking at a conference that is part of a parachurch organisation (not, as some have said, "shared the pulpit with Warren", which implies a Saddleback service), and being photgraphed with a man makes one a 'bridger' whom the Church must be "warned about", then we are being amazingly narrow.

Others have tried to take the focus off Horton by bringing in John Piper - but Horton and Piper are not in the same circles, Horton teaches at Westminster Seminary California, and is a confessional Reformed man. Piper has said Rick Warren is basically sound, Horton has said he isn't. I understand that people are worried, disappointment with Piper led to fears about Horton. But those fears are being expressed irrationally. It seems that some of Horton's critics will not be satisfied with anything short of Horton expressing a sort of second-degree separation, and simply cannot conceive of anyone going to anything like the Lausanne conversation unless they approve of everything that goes on there. The idea of a man going to such a thing therefore alarms them.

And how is this defended? By saying "well, people will assume he approves." My friends, do we really think that Reformed Christians are that shallow and foolish? That they base their opinions on pictures and reported facts? Or are not Reformed people readers, people who listen to multiple podcasts? Are they not in fact the least likely Christians to be led astray by a picture taken out of context?

And what is the alternative? Let me tell you what it is. It's giving up talking to people outside of our own little bubble. It's making absolutely sure that our message never troubles people in the Warren camp. And the result of "warning people about" Horton will be awful. After all, What are we warning them about? What is the content of that warning? That's what I can't see. Really, I cannot see the content of the warning about Michael Horton! And that worries me.

On Disagreeing

2011-03-04T20:43:00.003Z

I have had my attention brought to this blog post - by someone who wants me to take sides. I shall now attempt not to. On the other hand, take a look here as well as here.

Things are rarely simple. The picture is just that, a picture. It does not actually tell us what Michael Horton's attitude towards Rick Warren's theology is. I quote Horton: "Rick Warren believes that he is simply translating the gospel in terms that the unchurched can understand. However, the radical condition of sin is reduced to negative attitudes and behaviors and the radical redemption secured by Christ’s propitiatory death and resurrection are reduced to general and vague statements about God giving us another chance."

Obviously you don't go to pictures to find out what a person thinks about another as a theologian - Spurgeon was a friend of Edward White, a leading Annahilationist of the 19th century. You could have photographed the two of them together, smiling. Anyone who takes the photograph of Warren and Horton together as proving that Horton thinks Warren is fine, is being massively naive.

"What?" the reader may say, "haven't you read that blog post?" Yes, I have. I'm not saying that the poster thinks Horton is approving of Warren. Rather she's worried that Warren and his fans will use the picture to say as much. That would be an abuse.

So what about Horton's involvement in the Lausanne Movement? One commenter (and I find that the comments are where the irresponsible charges of heresy appear) cries "ecumenism!" Well, what do you mean by Ecumenism? The word is used in different ways by different people. Used positively it refers to dialogue between different Churches. It is sometimes used in the more negative sense by conservative evangelicals to describe interfaith dialogues. The term "Ecumenical Movement" is often used to refer to the World Council of Churches. It is very important to ask then what is being meant by calling the Lausanne movement ecumenical - I am assuming of course that the word is not just being used as an insult. The WCC united Protestant Churches from all traditions, Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Anabaptist and Disciples of Christ, Eastern Orthodox Churches and other Orthodox Churches, etc. It contains liberals, Evangelicals and Catholic and Orthodox Traditions with all their variations. There are almost 350 denominations in the WCC. Its basis is wooly, and deliberately so. The confession of Jesus as "God and Saviour" of the original basis has been removed to allow for Unitarian involvement in the movement.

So, having considered what the WCC, the flagship of Ecumenism, is, we can move on to ask what the Lausanne movement is. Its website is here. It will be seen from this brief history that Lausanne began with Billy Graham, and is fundamentally different from the WCC. It is not an inter-Church body at all, and (as one might expect from its roots) is concerned chiefly with evangelism. The statement of faith of Lausanne is first of all there - the WCC really doesn't have one - and secondly it is evangelical. Is it sufficiant? No, not really, but then this is not a Church! Am I at all involved in Lausanne? No, I'm not. But I have to say, to say of Lausanne "that's ecumenism" is in fact a meaningless statement. Yes, the general secretary of the WCC spoke at the 3rd Lausanne congress - which concerns me - but to confuse the two at this juncture is unhelpful. That Lausanne is moving in an ecumenical direction is undeniable, however. Incidentally, this blog post on the WCC website rather amused me!

Which leads to the final point - should Michael Horton be involved in it? There I cannot comment. That is up to him, not to me, to him and to the United Reformed Churches of North America, of which he is a member. Fundamentally, however, the question that faces us as regards the matter is this: is it something that sound men can be involved in? Not should, but can. There comes a time in the drift of organisations when they have to be left. But the choice to leave is up to the conscience of the individual. Of all people, Baptists should understand this. Horton has two choices, as I see see it, to take no part at all in the Lausanne "conversation" and leave it to the Rick Warrens of the world, or to engage and try to be a sane voice. I cannot tell him which he should do - that's up to him to work out in consultation with the people he works with. Just as I cannot be an Anglican, but would not dictate to those Anglicans who are in the C of E, faithfully preaching the Gospel. Or the Baptist Union evangelicals, for that matter. To stay or leave has to be a personal decision. Now, if asked for advice, I'd say get out of the C of E!

But the Church of England is a denomination. Lausanne's supposed to be a conversation. I suspect Horton will find that it is, like the Emergent "Conversation", fast becoming a monologue. Still, if he's going to be reminding them of the Gospel, that's all for the good.

Other Jesuses

2011-02-18T16:15:00.003Z

This past week I had another visit from a member of the Watchtower organisation, otherwise known as the Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm also reasing April DeConick's book on the Gospel of Judas. So my mind is moving on things unorthodox and Christological. Then I saw a comment by a Mormon that "Mormons do not believe in another Jesus."

Another than what? I thought. The answer is, another than Christians have historically believed in, another than that taught in the Nicene Creed. Let me give an illustration from American politics. Initial source here.

Ssaome conspiracy theorists say that Barack Hussein Obama, current President of the United States of America, is in fact a Kenyan-born man called Barry Soetero, who is a devout Muslim. On the other hand, his supporters say he was born in Hawaii, his name is Barak Hussein Obama, and he is a liberal Christian. Now, take a person who holds one of these views, and a person whom holds the other. Do they hold to the same Obama? No, Barry Soetero and Barack Obama are two different people, with different histories. One is eligible to be the president of the US, the other is not. It doesn't matter that both men are thinking of the same human being - they think such different things about him that they cannot both be true.

Just so with Jesus. Look at the Jesus of the Watchtower, or the Jesus of Mormonism, and compare them with the Jesus of the Nicene Churches. They are quite different. Fundamental to the Nicene faith is that Jesus is eternal, "of one substance with the Father", and that there is only one, eternal, God. The Mormon, on the other hand, believes that God became God, and was a man who lived on another planet, and that Jesus was born in the pre-existence to one of his father's spirit-wives. To the Mormon, not only was there a time when Jesus was not, but there was a time when the Father was not!

Or take the Watchtower. They say that Jesus is a created being, not co-equal with the Father, who is alone. And we could go on. The fact is that they do believe in a different Jesus. And ony one can be right!

Further Thoughts on Frank Turk's Open Letter

2011-02-09T10:26:00.004Z

It has been a little while since the Frank Turk/White Horse Inn question cropped up. In my defence, my brain mulls over things slowly at times. To remind any possible readers, the letter in question is here.

Mulling it over, I realised that the major problem underlying this letter is one of communication. In fact there is a category error being committed here.

The first is this: Following John MacArthur and others in the early stages of the 'Lordship Controversy', it seems at times that Turk wishes to make necessary consequences of the Gospel into parts of the Gospel. The non-lordship teachers said that repentance and a changed life were not required of Christians. In response some of the 'lordship' teachers made these part of the Gospel. It seems to me (and I may be mistaken) that Frank Turk is tending the same way. The fact is that Horton and Co. believe that the Gospel has consequences, and these consequences are necessary, they are just concerned to distinguish the consequences from the Gospel itself. Even in the quotations that Turk gives, the White Horse Inn hosts talk about the Gospel affecting how we live. So I ask: Do we agree that the Gospel has necessary consequences for our lives? If so, are we in fact arguing over a category mistake?

What the Gospel results in is not the Gospel, or part of the Gospel. Now, you may think I am straining out gnats here, but I am not. You see, if we confuse the results of the Gospel with the Gospel, we start preaching them as though they were the Gospel. In the 19th century temperance was regarded as a necessary consequence of conversion by many groups. At that point you can argue about what Temperance means, but the point is that it was regarded as a result of conversion. But then people began to preach for temperance, not conversion! The result was preached - not the Gospel that leads to the result! So it is today when you have Churches preaching life-change as the Gospel. No, the Gospel is Christ crucified for me - life-change is the result! We need to be crystal-clear on this fact.

Billy Sunday was an American evangelist, and one of Billy Graham's models. Whatever we may think of him, he makes a good case study here. When Sunday began his ministry, he called people to believe in Jesus. As time went on, however, he began to add various aspects of life-change to that call. In the opinion of Homer Rodeheaver, Sunday's music director, this led to a situation where "Very rarely does he give a definite, clear invitation for people to forsake their sins and come and publically accept Christ as their Saviour" (Quoted in Lyle Dorsett: Billy Sunday and the Redemption of Urban America [Eerdmans, 1991] P. 135).

The two must be kept distinct. Time and again failure to understand this has led to legalism. On the other hand, failure to understand that the consequences of the Gospel are necessary has led to antinomianism.

The White Horse Inn is not a Church, and it seems to me a little odd to tell people off for, on the one hand, being treated by some people as if their radio broadcast were the Church, and then to tell them off for not acting more like the Church! But we are all inconsistent, after all!

Unbalanced hangers-on

2011-02-02T17:14:00.000Z

Wherever there is strife, wherever there is controversy, there are partisans. There are people basking in reflected glory. This is a bad thing. Always. Visiting New York in the 1930s, Dietrich Bonhoeffer noticed that the students at Union Seminary, though they ridiculed stupid fundamentalists, were in fact much shallower than those they ridiculed. Of course many were - it is always much easier to climb on a bandwagon. But the same is true of Fundamentalism. And where the original parties in the controversy were thinkers, there are hangers-on who are not, and who become radically unbalanced.

Some of the imbalnce is due to youth, either in years or in experience. The young Calvinist goes through a 'cage stage', where he needs to be locked up as a danger to himself and others, and is in danger of becoming hyper! He becomes proud of the fact that he did nothing to save himself! Why? Because he hasn't thought through all the implications of what he believes! That, I think is the problem, people are attracted to Calvinism, to the Reformed Churches or even to Confessional Lutheranism, and as soon as they are in the door, everything else is wrong. So there is an imbalance. C.F.W. Walther had to deal with people who talked of "The only saving Lutheran Church", and said that outside the Lutheran Church there was no salvation - is it any wonder we have similar folk today?

Hangers-on, when they are unbalanced, go beyond those they hang on. For example, in a recent theological controversy on the internet, concerns were expressed over the fact that a certain apologist was associating with certain Emergent types. Along comes a hanger-on and says, "He's a full-blown emergent", or words to that effect. But that statement bore no relation at all to reality! We can't blame those who are hung on for the hangers-on. We can only say this: if all your reading is from one small publisher, from one perspective, from one man or circle of men - you really need to get out more. You really do need to know what you believe and why you believe it - not just listen to s show that talks about teaching you to know that!

Sanctified by Faith: A Few Thoughts

2011-01-30T16:44:00.002Z

A controversy has blown up over the question of the relationship of law and gospel in the Christian life. One of the contributions may be found here.

Put simply, the concern of Frank Turk and others is this: If we emphasise the distinction between the law and the gospel, are we in danger of Antinomianism? Are we denying that the Gospel has consequences?

The answer of course is no. I am not denying that the Gospel has consequences. It happens that on Saturday night, blissfully unaware of any of this, I was teaching a group of young people from Philippians 3. One of the major themes in Philippians is that the Gospel has an effect on our life, "Only let your conduct be worthy of the Gospel of Christ," Paul says in Philippians 1.27. So the Gospel has consequences, it is possible to live in a way that is worthy of the Gospel, and therefore to live in a way that is unworthy. In other words, the motive to holy life is the Gospel, not the law. The law shows us what a holy life looks like, but gives us no power to actually live that holy life.

The law governs by force, it is the paedagogos (a word that one of the members at Bethel now knows off by heart!), the harsh overseer who made sure the child went to school, did his homework and behaved himself! It is the message of what God demands.

The Gospel on the other hand is a message of what God has done for us in Christ to save us from our sins. But you see, it is a message of a great deliverance. That message changes everything. For we are delivered from the guilt of sin, and from its tyranny. We are born again, and led by the Holy Spirit. Gratitude, not obligation, drives us. Let me quote Thomas Chalmers on Romans 6:

"There is a sure transition from our being justified by faith to our being sanctified by faith. There is a provision made for this in the mechanism of the moral nature of man below; and there is a provision made for it in that celestial mechanism which has been set up in heaven... Faith makes known to us the love of God, and upon this gratitude calls forth the love of the heart to Him in return."

To return to Philippians 3, in the chapter Paul begins with legalism, with the Judaizers, and discards legal righteousness as rubbish. The only righteousness that matters, he says, is the imputed righteousness of Christ. But what does this lead to? It leads to a "pressing towards the mark", to holy living. Yes, there are the belly-worshippers (I'm sure there's a German compound word for that) who claim to be Christians, but the very fact that they are belly-worshippers proves that they are enemies of the cross. Jesus died to free us from our sins, not so that we could live in them.

You see, Jesus is the reward. If we really believe that, if we really are looking forward to living in the new heavens and the new earth in which righteouness dwells, then that will have consequences. But those consequences are just that. What I and the White Horse Inn folk are pleading for is that the distinction between the Gospel and its consequences not be erased - because the result of that is ultimately that the Gospel becomes something I do, my being changed, not that which changes me.

The law and the Gospel are always distinct. But they are never to be separated.

I would add that if you get all your teaching from a radio discussion show, you're radically unbalanced anyhow!

A few words for the Baptist Successionists

2011-01-18T10:16:00.004Z

If you are going to try to find a succession of valid Baptisms from Apostolic times to today, make sure they are valid baptisms. In other words, if you would not accept a man with that baptism into your Church membership, you can't accept him into your pedigree.

For most Baptists that would mean:

1. Baptism on profession of personal faith in Christ. It is not enough to be baptised because you have been through a course of instruction to prepare a person for baptism, there must be a confession of Christ as personal saviour.

2. Baptism with water. A symbolic rite involving tapping on the head with a copy of John's Gospel (which is what the Bogomils did) is therefore out of the question. Yes, there have been groups that have used 'Baptism' to describe a rite without water. We would not accept waterless baptism today, and if you would not today, you cannot accept it in the past.

3. Trinitarian Baptism. All Trinitarian groups would agree that a baptism that is not Trinitarian is not valid. Thus a Presbyterian might argue that Roman Catholic baptism is valid, but Unitarian baptism is not. So if a group can be shown to have been non-Trinitarian, then it cannot have had a valid baptism. Baptists hold not only to baptism on profession of faith, but also that it has to be the right faith!

4. Baptism by immersion. Practically all, if not all, Baptist Churches teach that immersion is the only valid form of baptism. If this is the case, then you cannot claim that a group that baptised by pouring or sprinkling, even if it was on a correct profession of faith, is in the succession of valid baptisms. If you don't accept it today, you cannot accept it in the past.

5. Denial of baptismal regeneration. Where baptism is seen as actually effecting the new birth, this contradicts Baptist teaching that baptism must follow a person's becoming a Christian. I am not altogether certain that all Baptists would reject a Cambellite baptism where it was understood that the baptism effected regeneration (and indeed there are a number of Baptist Churches that started out as Campbellite), but it certainly leads to some serious questions!

Now, it simply cannot be proved that every one of the groups in the claimed Baptist Succession was not flawed on one or more of these points. Many of the witnesses called upon by the Successionists are flawed at one or more of these points. I would therefore continue to say that Baptist Successionism is a figment no man can prove. It is an imitation of Rome, and if I may say so a far more shaky one. For Rome simply requires that one man laid hands on another, no matter what his doctrine or the ceremony in which the hands were laid on. But the Baptist Successionist must not only have a line of baptisms, but a line of true doctrine, and of the right mode and method of baptism!

Who killed Jesus?

2011-01-13T10:21:00.003Z

Who killed Jesus? A fashionable answer is that it was the powers that be, the political and religious elite. Thus, we are told, the death of Jesus shows the bankruptcy of these systems and calls us to oppose them. Now, on one level there is some truth in this. The Jerusalem elites wanted Jesus dead because he threatened their power. To Caiaphas the choice was between the life of one man and the survival of the nation. The fear was that a real live Messiah would destabilize everything and lead to a war with the Romans, a war the Jews could only lose - as it turned out in AD 70. Caiaphas was a politician, and he decided that if one act of injustice was to be the price for national survival, so be it.

Pilate was finally prevailed upon to agree to the crucifixion because the Jerusalem elite convinced him that to do otherwise would be to set himself against Caesar, against the Empire. Imperial peace and stability were what finally led Pilate to agree to what he knew to be an act of injustice. In the case of Pilate and of Caiaphas, while one can argue that they were motivated by self-interest, there is also a plea of 'the greater good'. There is the calculation that it is, in the final analysis, right to sacrifice one man for the lives of thousands.

But what is often overlooked is the common people. Their complaint was that Jesus was not the Messiah they wanted. Faced with the choice of setting free Jesus the Prince of Peace and Barabbas the violent revolutionary, they chose Barabbas. And they chose him freely, because he was the sort of leader they wanted, the leader Jesus was not, the man who promised liberation and victory over the Romans.

Jesus will not serve the Imperial agenda, but nor will he serve the revolutionary. He calls us to turn the other cheek, to go the extra mile, and to suffer for him. To die for him, not to kill for him. Now the cross is far more than this, but on the side of unbelieving men it is man killing God, because God will not fit in with our plans.

Why Christians should take Communion

2010-12-31T09:32:00.002Z

The Eclipse of the Pulpit

2010-12-27T09:04:00.000Z

The classic Nonconformist conception of the ministry has been to view it first and foremost as a preaching office. In distinction from the Laudian conception of the minister as a priest, the Independents, Presbyterians and Baptists regarded the minister's role as primarily prophetic, not in the sense of receiving new revelation from God, but in the sense of declaring the Word of God to the people. The minister was regarded as God's herald, declaring the Word of the Lord. Hence the form of the traditional English Nonconformist service, dominated by a sermon that typically takes up half the time of the service, more or less. It was a man's power in the pulpit, his ability to faithfully handle the Word of God, that determined his popularity, and the presses were occupied printing volumes of sermons. Thus Spurgeon was "The Prince of Preachers", and Joseph Parker was called "The Immortal Thor of Pulpitdom." The central feature in any Nonconformist chapel was a pulpit, whether a simple wooden box, or the vast marble construction of Parker's City Temple. The pulpit might be any sort of shape, but it was central, and it dominated. From that throne, the Word of God went forth. Typically the Communion Table was central too, below the pulpit, but it was the sermon, not the Sacrament, that was the centre of the service. Indeed, some of our Nonconformist brethren erred in practically neglecting the Sacrament. Of their emphasis on preaching we might say, "This ought ye to have done and not left the other undone."

One result of this emphasis on preaching was that the English Nonconformists had some of the most knowledgable congregations in the world, where cooks and cleaning-ladies could hold conversation on theology. It drove a publishing industry that ensured that millions of copies of sermons were sold at a penny a time in bookstalls and news-stands.

But the pulpit has been eclipsed. The illustration is of a battered and vandalised pulpit salvaged from a derelict chapel, but it illustrates a sad fact that in Nonconformity today the preaching of the Word is devalued. When a preacher takes his cues from the latest blockbuster movie, or 'felt needs', he is not preaching the Word of God. When the emphasis is placed on spectacle, theatre and dance, music and supposed manifestations of the Spirit, again, the Word is neglected. And ironically, whereas in non-evangelical Nonconformity what happened was that the Lord's Table replaced the pulpit as the architectural centre of the Church, the tendency among modern evangelicals is to move both out of the way and replace them with a stage, a performance space!

The imperative given to Timothy was "Preach the Word," and it is still the imperative for the minister today. Word and Sacrament ministry is what we need, not attempts to draw people in with spectacle. The crisis in Nonconformity is one of confidence in the Word of God, leading to a loss of the note of authority in preaching. Restore the pulpit, and let it enthrone, not the pastor, but the Word of God which endures for ever.

'Mere Signs'?

2010-12-20T08:59:00.003Z

Our Lutheran brethren often complain that we Calvinists view the Sacraments as "mere signs". Now, I grant that there are Calvinists who are actually Zwinglians in their view of the sacraments, and see them as only memorials. But this is not the Calvinistic doctrine. The Westminster Confession describes the sacraments as "Holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace," and adds that "there is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified."

This is the way it is with signs. The illustration is a road sign warning drivers that there may be children playing in the area. As it is, on a pole beside the road, the sign is not a 'mere sign', but conveys information about a possible danger. Take the sign, old and attractive as it is, and put it in a transport museum, and you do have a mere sign - it has been taken out of its proper context and no longer signifies anything. Take an example where the sign and the thing signified are always together, the speed limit. If a man is driving along a road and sees a round sign with a red border and the number 30 in the middle, he may say "it is just a sign", but if he drives fastyer that 30mph, he has broken the law, and if there's a speed camera in the area, he is going to find out that was no mere sign! So a sign, if it is actually in use, is never a mere sign, but a sign of a present reality.

So it is with the sacraments. In the Lord's Supper God is speaking to us, and conveying Christ's blessings to believing hearts. Therefore we sing with Mr. Spurgeon, "Amidst us our Beloved stands." The elements are not memorials of an absent Christ, but signs of a present Christ, known by faith. In baptism, God speaks to the one baptised assuring that person of his interest in Christ - again, to faith. Faith receives the blessings of the sacraments, and unbelief does not.

Words Mean Things

2010-12-17T19:56:00.003Z

One of my pet peeves is that sometimes even Reformed Christians can be careless in their use of words. I am told that I was a late developer in learning to read - but I hope I have made up for it since (my personal library contains over 3000 volumes, and that's just serious books). Part of learning to read any language is acquring vocabulary, but then vocabulary has to be used correctly - it is a common type of joke to present a person using real words, but in the wrong way. This is trickier than it first seems, because words may have a technical meaning that is not immediately apparent to the reader encountering them for the first time. The English word 'Expire' is derived from a Latin word meaning simply to breathe out, but in fact it has the restricted English meaning of to breathe one's last, and therefore to die!

When it comes to technical vocabulary, things get even worse. Sometimes this is because the vocabulary is inconsistently used, with some making it more technical than others. In other cases it is because vocabulary is archaic, and words change their meaning. This is often encountered when people read the King James Bible as if its word meanings were basically the same as those of today - which of course they are not.

Theology has its own technical language, and that includes the names of heresies. Clearly it is of the utmost importance that we do not fling accusations of heresy around with gay abandon and nary a thought for the consequences. A particular peeve of mine is the use of the word 'Gnostic' as an insult. Calvinists are told "Oh, you're gnostics." This post was sparked off by a chap on Facebook describing the Puritans as "Gnostic." But what is a Gnostic?

Gnosticism refers to a specific group of heretics in the early Christian centuries. Like 'Anabaptist', it was a title applied to these groups from outside, and so it is of necessity a little broad. Nevertheless we can define the Gnostic heresy.

Gnostics were dualists, holding matter and spirit to be opposed one to another. Matter is evil, spirit is good, and salvation is understood as being set free from the realm of matter. This salvation was attainable through the understanding of secret knowledge (Gnosis in Greek). This, in a nutshell, is the Gnostic heresy. No-one who does not hold these ideas should be described as a Gnostic, just as no-one who does not hold Jesus Christ to be a created being can be called an Arian. Words mean things, and should not be thrown about lightly.

It is also inclumbent upon us monergists to use language appropriately. Pelagianism teaches that all men are not dead in sin, that we are all born as Adam, morally at least, and that man can save himself. If a man teaches that the grace of God is necessary for salvation, he's not a Pelagian. Now, if he teaches that the grace of God is necessary but not sufficient for salvation, he may be a Semi-Pelagian, but that's a different kettle of fish.

Words mean things, and we must be careful how we use them - 'heretic' is another good example. Especially these words, negative labels, must not be used lightly and without thought. Heresy is a serious business, and the accusation must not be made without due care and attention. Words mean things, remember that!

Do Not Be Overcome by Evil...

2010-12-04T12:20:00.002Z

This morning I was shocked to read on the front of the local paper about an arson attack on the City Central Mosque in Hanley, Stoke on Trent. Now, I am a Confessional Reformed minister. I had a long talk on Wednesday with a local Muslim who was determined to convert me to Islam, and I am quite convinced forst of all that he was wrong, and secondly that Islam is a false religion, and Muhammed a false prophet. I am not a liberal or an inclusivist. But of course, I unequivocally condemn this act of vandalism, and I am very glad that the mosque was not badly damaged. Paul says in Romans 12:21, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." That is to say, when Christians are attacked and persecuted, we are not to take up arms against our persecutors, but to do good to them, to pray for those who persecute us, and do good to those who do us harm. This is a command to us. What Muslims need is the Gospel, not to be forced out of our cities. Of course, I have no delusions that the youths responsible for this outrage thought they were doing it in the name of Christianity. No, they were of the same ilk as those who have vandalised and violated the little Presbyterian Chapel at Saltney Ferry, near Chester, and those who scrawled graffiti on our chapel wall. They were yobs, nothing more.

But they point us to an important fact, that violence is never finally the answer. "All who take up the sword will die by the sword," Jesus said. This is true, violence begets violence. War, I would add, as the ultimate expression of violence, is always an evil. It is just that sometimes it is the lesser of two evils, as it was with Hitler in 1939. As Christians, we are forbidden to fight. As citizens of earthly kingdoms we may, but always remembering that war can never bring in the kingdom of God.

I unequivocally condemn the attack on the City Central Mosque. All Christians should join with me in doing so as well.

A Plea for Discernment (2)

2010-11-30T14:24:00.002Z

In the previous post I called for us to make the main thing the main thing, and not to go off on side issues, let alone our own hobby-horses. The trouble with our hobby-horses is that all too often they are not the issue at all - as witness the case I referred to in the last post, of the radio presenter who used the film The Golden Compass as a jumping-off point for a discussion of the influence of the occult on children's literature, when the central message of the book on which the film was based is in fact atheistic. I drew the conclusion from the programme that the presenter came with her own ideas, rather than letting the film actually dictate the programme content - which is a serious problem when one is supposed to be discussing the film!

Of a rather similar nature, in my opinion, was the attitude of Ian Paisley towards Donald Soper when Soper visited Northern Ireland. Soper was a theological modernist and arch-liberal, yet Paisley decided to criticise Soper for wearing a cassock, a garment he associated with Rome. Now, whatever one thinks of cassocks, one should agree that what Soper was wearing was of far less important than what he was saying! We have to make sure, when we criticize someone, that we keep our sense of perspective - what a man says about the atonement is far more important than what he may wear while saying it! Once more, whether the present Archbishop of Canterbury is or is not a member of the Gorsedd of Bards is not one half as important as his declared and public theology.

And, while I'm on the subject, about the celebration of Christmas. I have no problem with our brothers who refuse to celebrate it. Just, please, don't call me 'pagan' for it. After all, there is nothing pagan in getting up early and going to the chapel to proclaim that God has given his Son as a saviour for the world. Nor is there anything pagan in going there. We shall not be making sacrifices to Osiris, or anything of that sort.

A Plea for Discernment

2010-11-21T21:39:00.004Z

With the first part of the adaptation of the last Harry Potter book hitting the big screen, the Christian media (and particularly the fundamentalist portion) is full of claims that this is encouraging the occult. Now, this is not a defence of Harry Potter, or a condemnation. It is a plea for us to get beyond simplistically attacking the mere fact that the books and fils use the imagery of magic and witchcraft, and to address what is behind these trappings.

A few years ago I was treated to one of the worst, most superficial Christian responses to a film that I have ever heard (naming no names). It was supposed to be a response to the film The Golden Compass (remember that?). Now The Golden Compass was an adaptation of the first book in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. While using the genre of fantasy, complete with magic and witches, Pullman's books are in fact designed to teach atheism, and he is quite explicit about this. Yet this review treated the film as though it was occult propaganda. It seemed that the reviewer was unable to get beyond the trappings of the novel to its core message. I was deeply embarrassed by the review, and I have to say that I have never listened to the podcast in question since. Why? Because the review was utterly superficial, and there are more substantial things one could listen to. There was the problem, you see. Now it seems to me that to say of the Harry Potter stories, "The involve people who do magic, therefore they are bad" is on the same level. It simply fails to engage with the stories at all. Now you may say, "Christians ought not to engage with worldly entertainment", but if you do, then that is reason enough not to engage with Harry Potter without invoking a superficial argument about witchcraft. If you are going to try to say that it is all right for Christians to watch secular films and read fiction, but that they ought not to have anything to do with Harry Potter, then you need to actually offer substantive reasons.

The books and films do not encourage children to participate in the Occult, for in Harry Potter's world magic is something you are born with. The divide between the magical and the non-magical is absolute and unbreakable. Harry Potter has magic powers because he was born with them, just as Clark Kent has the powers of Superman because he was born a native of the planet Krypton. No character in the Harry Potter books acquires magic powers, they possess them by virture of their birth. Thus J.K. Rowling has actually done all she can to depict magic as non-transferrable. Secondly the magic in the books works 'mechanically', without the invocation of spirit-beings. Magic is not a religion in Harry Potter, it is a super-power, like Superman's X-ray vision, but with the trappings of English folklore. Unlike Spider-Man's Peter Parker, Harry Potter did not get his powers in an accident. Nor did he gain them by his own ability. He got them from his parents, like Superman. Thus, at least in J.K. Rowling's mind, the world of Hogwarts is necessarily separate from the world of her readers.

For this reason I am unconvinced by the argument that Harry Potter encourages dabbling in the occult. There are shows and films that do that, as well as books. So a critique of Harry Potter must go behind the stylized, fantasy magic and address the actual messages of the books. That I do not intend to do - merely to challenge Christians to think about content, and look beyond trappings. Otherwise we shall make ourselves look foolish, and may even find that we are ourselves doing the right thing for the wrong reason - and in such a way as to fail utterly to make the case for others doing the right thing, as in the case of The Golden Compass. And by the way "It's just not my sort of thing" is a thoroughly good reason for not doing something!

In Many Bookshops with Pastor Charmley: Eleos Christian Books, Welshpool

2010-11-12T18:44:00.003Z

Welshpool is an attractive little markey town in North Wales. Close by is Powis Castle. Like many small Welsh towns, it has a main shopping street, with various streets off it. It is also the home of Eleos Bookshop.

The shop is associated with the Kingswood Church, an old-fashioned Pentecostal Church (so I am told), and located above the Church meeting-room in what must be a former Church school that belonged to the Church of England. It is a welcoming, attractive bookshop, well-ordered and well-laid out. The staff are helpful, which is always a good thing. But best of all, the stock is good, and there are a lot of books in stock that are worth buying. It was a pleasant surprise to find Eleos in Welshpool, as Christian bookshops are becoming rare today, following the closure of many former Wesley Owen and SPCK stores. This one is very good indeed. While specialising in new books, there is a reasonable seletion of used books in stock too. This is another bookshop that is to be recommended.

In Many Bookshops with Pastor Charmley - Buxton Christian Bookshop

2010-11-08T21:36:00.005Z

The picturesque spa town of Buxton in Derbyshire is not to be confused with its smaller namesake in Norfolk (where I received a part of my education). Buxton (Derbyshire) is divided roughly into two parts, the lower town and the upper town. The lower town contains the main shopping centre and the spa. The upper town is centred on the old marketplace, where one may find Buxton Christian Bookshop - as pictured here.

This small shop contains two rooms, a new books, music and media section in the front, which is so-so, and contains the sort of stuff one expects to find in a Christian bookshop these days, and a Secondhand room in the back. It is this which makes a trip to Buxton Christian Bookshop worthwhile, because this room contains a veritable treasure-trove of old books of all sorts, where one may freely browse. In addition I found the staff extremely helpful. This is a nice little shop, and ought to be well-used. In addition there is a huge secondhand bookshop in Buxton, and a little way out of the town there is a similarly vast remaindered book store that has some great bargains in it. So go to Buxton - it looks nice, and it has bookshops!

In Many Bookshops with Pastor Charmley: St. Paul's, Westminster

2010-10-16T17:16:00.003+01:00

Last time I was in London, I sang the praises of the Catholic Truth Society Bookshop. This time it is the turn if its near neighbour in Westminster Cathdral's piazza, St. Paul's Bookshop.

St. Paul's is a proper bookshop, though it does sell other items, such as vestments and church furnishings (including some very nice lecterns, if you're looking for one that doesn't look like a music stand and have a spare three hundred quid or so). Refreshingly there was no canned music in the shop, which is dominated by towering bookcases arranged in an attractive number of spaces, so that the main shop feels like a maze of books - though an easy one. This shop feels like a serious bookshop, and is all the better for it. It also sells serious books, though of course there is some popular stuff in there. It had in the sets of the Church Fathers published by Hendriksen, and the sort of serious books that the student will welcome. Of course it is a Roman Catholic bookshop, and the stock is slanted towards Roman Catholicism. But on the other hand, it is serious Roman Catholic material, and not all of it is Roman Catholic. Visiting bustling London, I was very glad to be out of the bustle for a while in this literary oasis. The atmosphere of the shop is enough to lead the serious student to enter St. Paul's and to wonder why on earth there aren't more bookshops like this in the world? I suspect the answer is economics, and the relentless dumbing-down of Christianity in this country.

Review: 'The Trail of Blood'

2010-10-11T16:59:00.004+01:00

J.M. Carroll: The Trail of Blood (Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, Lexington, KY)

This booklet of 55 pages is famous. It has practically given its name to the whole Baptist Successionist dogma, and is referred to by just about everyone in that context. But how good is this booklet? Frankly, I was disappointed. There is no detail at all given of the supposed 'ancient Baptist groups', they are assumed, not proven - and yet no reputable historian today would agree with this. In fact, outside of a very small group of fundamentalist Baptists, no-one today would agree with the Successionists - and that includes many, many Evangelical Christians, even the Baptist writer N.R. Needham. Successionists like Carroll rely on a highly speculative historiography that is based in particular on works written before the 1890s.

Carroll's work contains no original research - and avowedly so, it is after all a record of a course of popular lectures, not an historical work. Yet even so, the work is lacking in details of the 'ancient Baptist groups'. In fact he has assumed that practically every heretical group from the early Church through the Middle Ages rejected infant Baptist, and that these groups were connected. So on P. 19 we read of "'Montanist,' 'Tertullianists', 'Novationists', 'Paterines,' etc." Now these are three different groups (no-one today thinks that a group called 'Tertullianists' ever existed). The Montanists were a charismatic group that taught the continuance of prophetic gifts, all centred on Montanus, their founder, who was regarded as a prophet. The Novatian Schism, on the other hand, was over the question of church discipline - Novation refused to re-admit those guilty of 'Mortal Sin' to the Church on profession of repentance. Both of these groups may have re-baptized, but that would have been because they did not recognise 'Catholic' baptism as valid! 'Paterines' is another name for the Medieval Bogomil movement. They were dualists of a sort, who believed that Jesus was the brother of Satan, and whose'baptism' was being patted on the head with a copy of John's Gospel! Thus each of the three groups mentioned here that actually existed were very different theologically.

More seriously, Carroll's understanding of the history of the Church is rather sketchy at times. He writes: "The fourth [ecumenical council] met at Chalcedon, AD 451, and was called by Emperor Marian; 500 or 600 bishops or Metropolitans... were present. During this council the doctrine of what is now known as Mariolatry was promulgated. This means the worship of Mary, the mother of Christ" (P. 21). In fact Chalcedon was called to correct mistaken view of the person of Christ, and the title 'Theotokos' applied to Mary was Christological in intent - to emphasise that the one born of Mary was indeed God. Only later was the Chalcedonian declaration used to glorify Mary herself (see K.S. Latourette, A History of Christianity [London, Eyre and Spottiswoode Ltd., 1964] 171-2 and Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies [Peabody, Mass., Hendrickson, 2003] 172-3). Harold O.J. Brown writes: "The term theotokos originally was intended to affirm the deity of Christ, but it gradually came to be a title of honour for Mary." Mariolatry was not imposed at Chalcedon - it arose as a corruption in popular piety.

On P. 23 we have another catalgue of names by which 'True Baptist Churches' were called: "Donatists, Paterines, Cathari, Paulicians... Petro-Brussians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Albigenses, and Waldenses." Who were these groups? The last was indeed an orthodox evangelical group - but today is rather inconveniently paedobaptist! The Donatists, like the Novatians, rejected all Catholic Baptism, but were not necessarily anti-paedobaptist! They could also be quite violent against Catholics. Paterines, Paulicians, Cathari and Albigenses are all names given to Medieval dualist groups. The Petrobrussians were the followers of Peter of Bruys, an ascetic who burned crosses and opposed the Catholic Church. He was, however, the originator of his party, not a member of an existing group. The Petrobrussians did not last long after Peter's death - unsurprisingly, really. The Arnoldists and Henricians were similar groups, also about the same time. All of these thrived in the 12th century, but they all have the same problem - they do not emerge from existing groups, but begin with a charismatic, ascetic leader. They were reactions against the corruptions of the Catholic hierarchy, and certainly de Bruys and his followers rejected infant baptism. It seems, however, that Henry of Lausanne, founder of the Henricians, and Arnold of Bresica, did not. Henry did however reject all sacraments administered by corrupt priests as invalid - so that he would re-baptize his followers if he had any doubt about their baptisms!

Waldensianism seems to have begun a little later, as a lay-renewal movement in the Catholic Church. Originally it was accepted, but in 1179 the 3rd Lateran Council refused to authorise them, and they were excommunicated in 1184, after which they merged with an Italian group called the Humiliati, who had broadly similar aims. Unlike the Petrobrussians they were not violent, and unlike the Arnoldists they did not ally themselves with political dissidents. As a result they remain in existence to this day. They sought to follow the New Testament. Although at first they tried to remain within the Medieval Catholic Church, they were finally forced into a separate existence. Persecution finally restricted them to the valleys of the Italian Alps, where they remained until the Reformation. Since at least some of them held, with the Henricians, that sacraments administered by corrupt priests were invalid, many joining the movement were re-baptized. The Waldensians themselves did not oppose infant baptism if performed by godly clergy.

Baptist successionism relies on the idea of an unbroken 'trail of blood' through the centuries. The book The Trail of Blood fails to establish such a trail - and indeed Carroll admits that he is assuming, against the evidence, that these groups were all orthodox!

On Pp. 32-33 we read, "During all these hard struggles for Reformation, continuous and valuable aid was given to the reformers, by many Ana-Baptists, or whatever other name they bore. Hoping for some relief from their own bitter lot, they came out of their hiding places and fought bravely with the reformers." This makes for good rhetoric, but is unfortunately untrue - I have been unable to discover references to any pre-existing baptistic groups who joined with the Reformers. All of the Reformation-era Anabaptist leaders, Balthasar Hubmaier, Conrad Grebel, Hans Denck, Menno Simons, were former Catholics. Hubmaier and Simons were both former priests, and they were by no means alone among Anabaptist leaders in being so. Grebel and Denck were both humanist reformers who rejected infant baptism. It is a fact that not one Reformation-era Anabaptist leader was from a pre-existing group, or gained his views from one.

In short, Baptist successionism is a speculative dogma, not a proveable historical fact. It is therefore something that should not be stated as such, and certainly cannot be the basis of any doctrine of the Church, any more than the dogma of Apostolic succession.

Utter Silliness!

2010-10-04T17:10:00.003+01:00

Editing my review of Bennett's Catholicism: East of Eden, I came across this quotation from Faber's History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses on P. 67. My reaction was one of disbelief followed by deep disquiet that this sort of thing is still believed by a worryingly huge number of Protestants. I quote:

"The Albigenses were a group of Christians, influential for their godly lives, who were condemned by the Church of Rome. George Stanley Faber, writing in 1838 provides an example of papal work, 'Avcording to the plan adopted by the inquisition of Langedoc, it was morally impossible for any of the accused Albigenses to escape [the charge of Manichaeanism]... No rational being can, by any conceivable possibilty, believe a syllable of the tales of Manicheism related of the Albigenses, when those tales rest upon such a foundation as that which has been laid by the Council of Narbonne..."

Note well. What Faber is in fact saying is that, because of the methods adopted by the Roman Catholics, we should discount all the evidence then available as to what the Albigenses believed. Faber's method utterly amazes me. Remember, the only actual evidence of the beliefs of the Albigenses (otherwise known as Cathars) available to Faber was found in the registers of that inquisition. Yet Faber decided to discount that, and amazingly to assume that in fact these people were "Protestants before the Reformation', on the basis that the Roman Catholic Church persecuted them. Yet we know that the Roman Catholics persecuted Jews in Europe and Muslims in Spain. In other words, merely being persecuted by Rome is no sign of orthodoxy! At most, therefore, all Faber should have been able to conclude is that the charges of dualism against the Albigenses were not proven. Instead he assumes them to be false, and projects onto the Albigenses the character of the Waldenses, an entirely different group!

Historians can only work with what exists, not with what does not, but Faber in effect reverses this procedure. Rome cannot be trusted, Rome says that the Albigenses were dualists, and therefore the Albigenses were in fact orthodox Protestants. Such reasoning condemns itself.

Contrast this method with the account of Albigensianism given in Harold O.J. Brown's magisterial Heresies Pp. 256-261. In brief he shows its links with Eastern dualistic groups, from which it derived its ordination. He writes: "As far as the Bogomils and Cathars are concerned, the testimonies that attribute moral purity to the leaders, but license to the generality of followers, are too numerous and unanimous to suppose them all to be hostile fabrications" (P. 257). This is the historical method - we use what sources we have, not uncritically, but with care. As far back as the 18th century, the Lutheran historican von Mosheim affirmed that the Alibigenses were dualists, and as Church history moved into the 20th century, so did other writers, for example the Frenchman Andre Lagarde, in his The Latin Church in the Middle Ages (Edinburgh, T. T. Clark, 1915), and Principal Adeney of Manchester in his The Greek and Eastern Churches (Edinburgh, T. T. Clark, 1908). By the time of K.S. Latourette's A History of Christianity (London, Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1964), a clear distinction is made between the Albigenses and the Waldenses. A modern work by a conservative Reformed Christian, N.R. Needham's 2000 Years of Christ's Power takes this line as well - one now taken by all but a few who cling to works that are derived from such unhistorical writings as that of Faber.

Thus we see (or ought to see) that the whole 'Trail of Blood' theory is based on writings that simply do not take history seriously!

Don't Call it Persecution!

2010-10-01T14:07:00.000+01:00

What is religious persecution? Le me state what it is not. It is not religious persecution to say that another person is wrong, and that their religion (or lack of it) will land them in hell if they do not repent. Sadly some people seem to think that is the case. Let me be a little more provocative - it's not even rudely telling someone that their religion (or lack of it) will land them in hell if they do not repent. That's just bad manners, but it's not persecution. It's my opinion that Christians ought to politely disagree with people. I have been trying to model that with a Jehovah's Witness on my doorstep recently. We finally parted still disagreeing, but amicably, and with him saying that we could be friends if it was not for the fact that we disagreeon some fundamental issues. But the people who rudely told him to push off were not being persecutors!

No, religious persecution means (as the dictionaries say) "to oppress or harrass with ill-treatment" for religious reasons. Ill-treatment is important. In a world where people are routinely killed for their religious convictions, to call being insulted by some witless fundamentalist hell-bent on living up to Lord Soper's definition "persecution" is an isult to those rotting in prison for the sake of Christ. The funny mentalist may be rude, he may be obnoxious, but he's not a persecutor. I speak as one who has been on the receiving end of King James Onlyism! Let's reserve 'Persuction' for the real thing, and adopt 'Religious irritation' for everything else. I speak as a former rligiously-irritating student! Not that I am any less outspoken - I'm just generally more polite!

Very Disappointing

2010-09-28T09:27:00.010+01:00

What is? This is. Now, I am just a pastor in a small Church in a small city in the Midlands. They call it 'The Church next to Tesco', and Tesco is due to move this year. But then, perhaps I'm representing all small-church pastors, especially those with a small mosque round the corner, where the second largest religious group (though by quite some way) is Islam (3.2% at the last census).

As Islam becomes more visible in the UK, and minarets start to join the spires and church towers in our cities, pastors and other Christians look around for books and resources to help us to understand this newcomer religion (the oldest mosque in Britain is only about 100 years old) in our land. The tragic thing is that some people will do what I did a few years ago, and buy Unveiling Islam by the Caner brothers on the basis that these two men are former devout Muslims. The trouble is, they're not! Ergun has pretended to speak Arabic, but has in fact been speaking gibberish. They pretended to be experts in Islam, in fact they are not. The use of references to 'Hadith such-and-such' should prove that - as I now know, there are no fewer than 6 authoritative Hadith collections, all different!

The facts are known now. But Ergun Caner is, according to this article, quite unrepentant. To be honest, it saddens me. First of all, and most importantly, because Dr. Caner shows his own condition to be bad. He has not repented of bearing false witness, and therefore shows that he is in a morally precarious position. He needs our prayers. Secondly, it saddens me because it affects our witness to Muslims. They already believe a lot of nonsense about us (my fellow ministers and I in this city have to reply to the assertion that we are paid by the government!), the last thing we need is Ergun Caner making things up about them!

This man is not an expert on Islam, he pretends to be. Avoid him, and tell your Muslim neighbours that he does not speak for you - he certainly does not speak for me!

[Additional note: I am reading right now the Autobiography of R.F. Horton, a noted Congregational pastor in London about 100 years ago. In it he refers to a difficult period he had when a cousin of his decided to become a Roman Catholic, and repeats, a statement this young man made when confronted with an example of deceit by a man who was in the process of becoming an RC. The cousin said, "But you may deceive in the interest of Religion." Now, I hope that today no Roman Catholics would agree with that statement. "Love hopeth all things". In 1917 Horton could count on all Protestants to agree with him. But by approving Ergun Caner, many Evangelicals have practically affirmed the sentiment of Horton's cousin. This is why I have been one with Dr. White from the beginning on this controversy, unless I condemn unequivocally the lies of Dr, Caner, I cannot hold up my head as an Evangelical. Those men like Norman Geisler who continue to give Caner a platform and credibility are bringing disgrace upon Evangelicalism. Had I been a Roman Catholic in the room with Horton and his cousin, I would have hung my head in shame at the statement. Now I say this - you may not deceive in the interest of religion. And if any man does so, let him beware of falling into the condemnation of the father of lies.]

Illustration: The former Bedford Chapel in Shelton, now a mosque

On Reading Good Books

2010-09-25T11:57:00.000+01:00

One does not have to read a lot of books on any subject, if one reads good books on the subject. It was the wisest of men who said, "Of the making of many books there is no end" (Eccles 12.12). It is simply impossible to read every book published on many subjects! So the answer is to read good books. To give an example. In her latest brick, Gail Riplinger has a (thoroughly unnecessary) section on the Knights Templar. When I criticised it, Riplinger's defender accused me of having made a special study of the Templar. The accusation is false - I had merely given a lecture on the Da Vinci Code, and read two books on the Knights Templar to do so, both popular books, not academic volumes. In contrast Riplinger's section on the Templar quotes more than a dozen works - all of them completely worthless! Why? Because they are books of fables and myths! (The reader is directed to Riplinger, Hazardous Materials [A.V. Publications, 2009] Pp. 843-851). They include the books underlying the Da Vinci Code, works by men described by leading British academic historian Prof. John Charmley as "Fabulists" (to come clean, he's my Dad, and it was a private conversation. The full quotation was "They're not historians, they're fabulists"). Therefore before reading a book one has to consider several points. First of all, origin. Who wrote it, and what else have they written? What qualifications do they have for writing it? If there is a brief description of the author on or in the book, what does it say? Then look at the bibliography, if there is one. Who are they citing? A large number of self-references and references to self-published works ought to set the alarm-bells ringing. Some authors are always worth reading, such as D.A. Carson and John Calvin.

Time is limited, so ask the question, is this the sort of book I'm looking for? If it's for leisure reading, the style is most important. Some academic writers have a terrible written style and should be avoided as leisure reading. So don't get Martin Gilbert's volumes on Churchill, get a smaller biography. Reading for serious information, make sure that the author has actually researched the book, and always be aware that where a passing reference is made to a person or event in a book not specifically dealing with that person or event, the author may well be in error. For example, John Pollock's description of Spurgeon in Moody Without Sankey is utterly inaccurate, but then it's not a biography of Spurgeon!

Particularly in terms of history and biography, there are volumes that are basically 'fluff', popular-level book relying on other popular level books. Avoid them like the plague they are. They will not help you at all. On the other hand, some classics ought to be read by everyone. In theology, where there is an early Cunningham Lectures volume on a work, it is usually worth reading ('Early' referring roughly to the preiod before 1900). This series produced Buchanan's standard work on Justification, Smeaton's on the Holy Spirit, and A.B. Bruce on The Humiliation of Christ. If you read the best, you will not have to worry so much about the rest.

Read more than one era. Old books are always worthwhile if they are good. But also modern writers are building on what has gone before. In terms of history it is most important to remember that historical research is always going on. Older books may be based on mistakes committed in the past that have now been corrected. And remember, a popular-level writer may well simply be repeating the mistakes of others!

And read well-written books. Reading good English will help you to write good English. Conversely, reading bad English will have a detrimental effect on your English style!

Book Review: Catholicism: East of Eden

2010-09-23T11:10:00.002+01:00

Catholicism: East of Eden – Richard Bennett. Pp. 336. £ 8.50. Paperback. ISBN 9781848710832
Banner of Truth

This is one of those books that I always want to be more positive about than I find I can be. One has a great deal of sympathy for Richard Bennett. He was brought up a devout Roman Catholic, and decided to dedicate himself to missionary work. He was priest in the West Indies, and clearly a very devout, though mistaken man. He is a very intelligent man, and his decision to dedicate himself to missionary work was at the expense of a university career.

As a former Roman Catholic priest, Richard Bennett has first-hand experience of the Church of Rome, and learned Roman Catholic theology from Roman Catholics. He is therefore qualified to present an insider’s view of Rome. This is the great strength of the book. Bennett is able to see through the smoke-screen Rome has erected, and through the confusion of ecumenical statements that are all give on the Protestant side and all take on the Roman side. The book is strongest as a personal testimony with theological reflection. Richard Bennett’s expertise and personal experience are obvious in his treatment of Roman Catholic theology and practice.

There is a very perceptive section on ecumenicism, pointing out that in fact what we have in the Ecumenical movement is a unity that is based almost ccompletely on the use of equivocal language. The chapter 'The Mystic Plague' is quite helpful too, and related. Mystical experience, divorced from doctrine, is a fruitful basis for the union of people belonging to groups with fundamental disagreements.

The section on marriage deals with matters that I for one was unaware of until quite recently, when another Christian remarked that a member of his family was kept from becoming a Roman catholic when he was told that, because his marriage was not a Roman Catholic one, it was no marriage at all, and his children were all illegitimate. Today Rome rarely speaks like that - but it lost at least one person many decades ago! If there is one criticism it is that perhaps Bennett tries to pack everything into a relatively short book. I personally prefer those works that seek to point out the most important differences between Rome and the Reformation churches - but that is just a minor criticism.

On the other hand, this book has a very serious weakness. In writing about the history of the papacy it is obvious that Bennett is far outside of his area of expertise, and he relies almost entirely on 19th century popular works that have since been superseded. The trouble is particularly with his treatment of certain medieval groups which 19th century Protestant groups assumed were evangelical, but which more recent discoveries have shown were not. This mars what is otherwise a good book. I was surprised that the only 20th century work he cites from is from a Seventh-Day Adventist.

Why is this a problem? It is a problem because all of these works treat the Albigensians and Paulicians as orthodox theologically. Yet today, with access to more information about these groups than 19th century Protestant historians had, no serious historian takes such a view. N.R. Needham's 2000 Years of Christ's Power is by no means an academic work, and he distinguishes between the orthodox Waldesians (whom he describes as "Protestants before the Reformation") and the heretical, dualistic Albigensians and Paulicians (Vol. 2, Pp. 114-7,309-313). Given that some of the works cited by Bennett are somewhat obscure, it will not do to say on this point "he is merely a popularizer". No, he has made the mistake of relying on outdated scholarship. We have to be very careful here. Our Protestant forefathers in their conflict with Rome often made the mistake of assuming that those who opposed Rome in the Middle Ages were of necessity in more or less full agreement with them. While there were such groups - like the Waldensians, the Petrobrussians and the Hussites, there were also groups that were not at all orthodox. Readers are directed to Harold O.J. Brown's magisterial work Heresies (Hendrickson, 2003) and chapter 14. For an in-depth study of dualist religions, see Yuri Stoyanov, The Other God (Yale, 2000). An older but still authoritative study is Sir Steven Runciman, The Medieval Manichee (Cambridge, 1947). It is telling that most of the works cited by Bennett are not actually studies of the Albigensians, but either Wylie's History of Protestantism, or studies of the Waldensians. This is undoubtedly the reason why they have merely repeated others' mistakes. However, given that Brown and Needham are on the market, there is really no reason for any modern writer to make such errors. Wylie in particular focuses on the Reformation era, not the Middle Ages.

It seems to me that Bennett is attracted to the idea of an alternative 'Apostolic Succession' of churches reaching back to before the rise of the Papacy and preserving the true doctrine. While understanding the appeal of such ideas to a former Roman Catholic, I have to dissent from it. For one thing, the Reformation came from inside the Medieval Catholic Church, not outside.

Having said this, it must not be forgotten that there is much in this book that the reader will appreciate, all relating to Bennett's area of expertise - modern Roman Catholicism. In my opinion it would be much improved if the ‘historical’ sections which deal with pre-Reformation times were either removed or revised in the light of research carried out in the 20th century. Read it carefully, and pay particular attention to the statements about modern Rome. The Reformation was necessary because of false teaching, and that teaching has not been reformed in Rome.

International Buy a Qur'an Day!

2010-09-08T09:54:00.005+01:00

Dr. James White has suggested that instead of a 'Burn a Qur'an Day' on 11th September we ought to have a 'Buy a Qur'an Day' instead, Christians should be buying copies of the Qur'an, reading them and finding out what it actually says. We have to make sure that we don't behave like ignorant Fundamentalists who have no understanding at all.

Now, it just so happens that I had already decided to do so. That and three of the authoritative Hadith collections, namely Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Sunan Ibn-i-Majah. The volumes arrived at my door today in two huge boxes, which rather amazed me. Then I found that Sahih Muslim and Sunan Ibn-i-Majah were both in small boxes inside the huge boxes. Despite the blurb on the internet, Sahih Muslim is in four volumes, not three! But Al-Bukhari, in nine volumes, came wrapped in the most amazing sackcloth and cardboard box, which was in turn wrapped in brown heavy-duty tape! The Islamic Book Service is certainly determined to make sure no harm comes to Al-Bukhari! But I persevered, and as the second picture shows, the books are now out of their boxes, and on my shelf, ready for serious study.

So go on, if you really want to engage with the Muslims, buy a Qur'an, read it, compare it with the Bible - and be amazed!

Now, if only those JWs would come back for a chat!

Update: They did! I pointed to John 1, Colossians 1 and 2, and then... well, then they had to go, leaving a JW Bible sudy book, and Proverbs 8. I in turn pointed out that Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is female!

Found at Mow Cop

2010-09-06T17:40:00.003+01:00

Last week was the Book Festival at Mow Cop Methodist Chapel, held in support of the Primitive Methodist Museum at Englesea Brook. I went up and down the Cop more than once. These books illustrated here are the cream of the crop. Clockwise from top left we have:
1. C.T. Bateman: John Clifford. 1904. This biography of the General Baptist leader was written during his lifetime. Clifford was Spurgeon's more politically-involved counterpart. Clifford heard Spurgeon first in the Tabernacle Baptist Church in Wellingborough - where I have preached.

2. Joseph Ritson: The Romance of Nonconformity. 1910. This book, 100 years old this year, was the sequel to Ritson's Romance of Primitive Methodism, and gives an outline of the history of British Nonconformity. Ritson was a Primitive Methodist writer.

3. A.C. Pratt: Black Country Methodism. 1891. A rare volume that gives a sketch of the rise of Methodism in the Black Country. For non-British readers I should explain that this is the area around Wolverhampton, and was called the Black Country because it was a centre of coal-mining. The book also has a good ornamental binding.

4. George Sudlow: Sammy Brindley and His Friends. 1905. Sammy Brindley was known as the 'Staffordshire Billy Bray'. He lived at Audley, near Newcastle-Under-Lyme. This delightful little book includes a great deal of dialogue in North Staffordshire dialect, as well as the history of local Methodism.

5. Frederick Overend: History of the Ebenezer Baptist Church Bacup. 1912. The bicentenary history of a Lancashire Baptist Church. Sadly there will be no tercentenary, Ebenezer Bacup closed in 1962 and the buildings were pulled down. Overend traces the history of the church back to its origins in the 17th century.

6. Edward Carey Pike: English Nonconformity. 1896. This volume was published by the Bible Christian Methodists, and embodies a series of lectures tracing the history of Nonconformity to the 19th century. The final lecture deals with the controversy with the Oxford Movement. The lectures were originally given to a ministers' fraternal.

Everyone who travels in Taxis in Stoke should watch this

2010-09-02T12:05:00.001+01:00

Kregel has revised its description of the Caners

2010-08-19T09:11:00.003+01:00

A while ago I posted a blog entry noting that Kregel publications had a misleading description of the Caner brothers on their website. I quote:
"Raised as Sunni Muslims, their father a leader in their local mosque, brothers Ergun and Emir Caner were immersed in Islam. Now Christians, respected evangelical scholars, and theologians, the Caner brothers are fully qualified to present an inside view of the Muslim life".

The actual product detail page said: "Raised as Sunni Muslims by a leader in the faith, brothers Ergun and Emir Caner have lived the Muslim life. Now Christians, and highly respected theology professors, the Caner brothers are particularly qualified to present an unprecedented insider's look at Islam."

Both of these have now gone (though may still be found on sites that took the original blurb from Kregel). Instead Kregel simply says that they were "Raised as Sunni Muslims" (which still seems to be stretching things). The Product detail page has been altered to read: "Raised as Sunni Muslims, brothers Ergun and Emir Caner converted from Islam to Christianity as teenagers. Now respected evangelical scholars and theologians, the Caner brothers are able to present an inside view of the Muslim life from a Christian perspective."

Note that they are now only said to be "Able to present an inside view of the Muslim life from a Christian perspective", they are no longer "Particularly qualified to present am unprecedented insider's look at Islam." The truth is out, and the Caner brothers have been demoted from experts to people who know something about Islam.

Thank you, Kregel, for responding to our concerns.

Book Review: Why Johnny Can't Preach

2010-07-30T12:53:00.000+01:00

T. David Gordon: Why Johnny Can’t Preach (Philipsburg, P. & R. 2009) Pp.108

This slender volume deserves to have an influence far above its size. Many have lamented the terrible state of the Evangelical pulpit today, that so many evangelical pastors are, frankly, lousy preachers. They can get up into the pulpit and ramble on for 45 minutes, and no-one has a clue what the point of the sermon was five minutes after it was delivered.

There is general agreement that this is so, where there has been little work is on why it is so. Gordon’s book is an essay in that direction. He argues that the problem is not, at least in Reformed circles, that the seminaries have declined, but that the students going in are rather different from what they were, having been formed by a culture where reading texts and writing considered, careful, structured essays are less common than they were in the past. Simply put, our preachers are suffering from an overdose of the trivial, and have not been taught how to read or how to write – at least not carefully.

Chapter 1 is dedicated to the thesis that “Johnny Can’t Preach.” R.L. Dabney’s criteria for preaching are used as a framework for good preaching, and some preliminary points as to why this is the case are set out. The next chapter is entitled “Johnny Can’t Read (Texts),” and argues that modern people, on the whole, do not know how to read a text deeply. Chapter three is entitled “Johnny Can’t Write,” a fact that most teachers today – and magazine editors – can attest! Chapter four is “A Few Thoughts About Content”, where Gordon explains some examples of bad preaching, and suggests that Evangelical preaching needs to be… well, Evangelical! The final chapter, “Teaching Johnny to Preach,” suggests some ways forward.

This is a unique work, and deserves to be read by all involved in ministerial training – especially the students. I then prescribe a volume of John Henry Newman (for style alone, I’m not going Roman Catholic), the works of Benjamin B. Warfield, and plenty of Calvin, all read carefully for style as well as information. Where possible ministers ought to write book reviews for a magazine – there are plenty of magazines out there, and part of writing a review involves reading a book carefully. Sadly the blog doesn’t help as it should, since there is no editor to tell the minister that his writing style is atrocious.

Get this book from your local Christian Bookshop. But if you think you'll get funny looks asking for Newman, you can get one of his books online. Or just ask for G.K. Chesterton.

Book Review - D.A. Carson on Scripture

2010-07-28T12:51:00.000+01:00

D.A. Carson: Collected Writings on Scripture (Leicester, Apollos, 2010) Pp. 335, Hardcover

D.A. Carson has, it seems, now reached the point where he merits a “collected writings” volume. This opening sentence should not be read as a criticism, because it isn’t – this book is an unalloyed good thing. The binding is another matter, however. Real cloth binding would have been far more appropriate than the rather cheap hardcover binding that needs to be hidden by the attractive dust jacket.

With the criticism out of the way early, we can move on to the contents. This book collects five essays and five book reviews that are broadly united by the theme of Scripture. They cover a period from 1983 to 2008, and all are worth the effort in reprinting them.

D.A. Carson is an excellent writer, and one of the men that our modern preachers need to read simply for style, let alone content! He is also a very thoughtful writer, and when he publishes a book, it is usually required reading. This book, although its various parts were originally published in a variety of places, is another required reading piece.

It begins with an essay on “Approaching the Bible” taken from the IVP New Bible Commentary, which serves as an introduction to the whole book as much as anything else. The second piece, “Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Scripture” deals with “recent developments” in 1986, when it was written. The realisation that we are now some 24 years from that date is rather staggering! Given the passage of time, it is remarkable how relevant this essay is, since it still falls within the period during which writings may be seen as “dated” rather than “classic”. The third essay, “Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: The Possibility of Systematic Theology,” is excellent, as it shows that Biblical theology and Systematic theology are not opposed to one another if properly understood. Chapter 4, on Redaction Criticism, is perhaps a little dated, since Redaction Criticism is no longer as much in vogue as once it was. Still, it is a helpful essay and useful in thinking through the application of literary tools in Bible study. The last essay in the first section, “Is the Doctrine of Claritas Scripturae Still Relevant Today,” is timeless, as it addresses the perspicuity of Scripture, and what this means and does not mean.

Part 2 is headed by two lengthy reviews, each of three books on the Bible, and then rounded off by three shorter pieces. Each review deals with questions that are still buzzing, the nature of inspiration, the Incarnational analogy as applied to Scripture, and the question of the truth of the Bible. Even if the reader has not read the books dealt with, he will be left informed about the current state of the question among Evangelicals.

This is a surprisingly easy book to read, considering the subjects dealt with, and ought to be required reading for anyone wanting to get a handle on the questions agitating the Christian world about the Bible today. Order from your local Christian Bookshop where possible.

Ergun Caner is Guilty!

2010-07-23T08:42:00.004+01:00

The title of this post is one no reasonable person can doubt now. Yet Norman Geisler and others seem to think otherwise! The evidence is all against them, as are the actions of Liberty Seminary - you simply do not demote a man who has done nothing wrong! The evidence is all out there, including audio presentations and videos of Caner disamminating his mythological past. Note well, plural, videos. Nor are the things said in the most recent of these videos (here) just off-the-cuff remarks or exaggerations. Caner has said, over and over, that he came to the US from Turkey as a teenager. Not just once or twice, but repeatedly, and in situations where he was recorded saying these things. At the same time, in other situations involving print media (including his books) he was telling the truth, that he came to the US at a very early age from Sweden.

There is simply no way that any rational person can come to any other conclusion than this - Ergun Caner has been telling blatant untruths to make himself sound more impressive than he actually is. These are not "misstatements". A misstatement would be my saying I first preached at Wattisham Strict Baptist Chapel in 2004 - it was in fact 2005. Or that when I was a child I almost set fire to the crib scene in St. Thomas' Church, Norwich, by leaning against a candlestick. My memory has, according to my mother, falsely placed this one, it was in St. Giles' Church. But St. Thomas' was the church we usually went to, hence the error of memory. The point is that both of these events actually took place! In terms of the candle incident, I was very young, and so I forgot where it happened, but it still happened. Caner did not go to a Madrassa in Beirut - and so that is a lie, not a misstatement. My saying that I almost set the crib scene alight in St. Thomas' Church in Norwich would be a misstatement, I am afraid that what Caner has said are mostly lies.

They are lies, please take note. Lying is a sin. "Everyone who loves and practices falsehood" is condemned to spend eternity outside of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 22:15, along with the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, murderers and idolaters! It seems to me that sadly far too many Evangelicals ignore this passage. God does not give ministers a pass on telling lies. What is more, lies can never serve the truth - let us beware of thinking that they can!

It appears that Liberty may be "letting Dr. Caner go," as they say. I was once "let go" from a job - it means being fired. Frankly, I am not surprised that Liberty's giving him the boot!

We are Not Infallible!

2010-07-18T14:01:00.002+01:00

Recently a friend gave me a copy of a work by J.C. Ryle entitled The Fallibility of Ministers. Based on Galatians 2.11-16, it is of course directed primarily against the dogma of Papal Infallibility. But the title reminds us that the truth is not merely that the Pope both can and does err, but that all ministers and teachers are subject to error. God alone is inerrant and infallible - and that is why His Word does not err and contains no mistakes. The Biblical authors were "Carried along by the Holy Spirit", as Peter says. We are not.

Whenever a teacher gets it into his or her head that he or she is infallible, that person is in for trouble. Firstly, because he or she has become a fanatic, and secondly because he or she has just placed his or her self above all criticism. In other words, that person has become a little pope, no matter how opposed to Rome he may be, or how warm are his protestations of protestantism.

Ministers are not infallible, we make mistakes. This is plainly seen when we consider that some men are Presbyterian, others hold to Independency to be the church order instituted by God. Some of us believe Baptism is rightly administered only to those who profess faith in Christ, others that it is rightly administered to their children as well. Both of us cannot be right (though both of us may of course be wrong). So neither my teaching, nor that of any other man should be regarded as in and of itself true. Ordination does not confer infallibility, any more than faith does.

So beware the man or woman who refuses to admit mistakes. One suspects that this idea that the minister is infallible has contributed to the cover-up over Ergun Caner - his defenders feel they must at all costs conceal the fact that they were so mistaken about the man! And, at the risk of re-opening an old controversy, this is Part of Gail Riplinger's problem - she refuses to admit she is capable of basic factual error, resulting in New Age Bible Versions still being in print, riddled with all the errors it contains! When I contacted AV Publications concerning a factual error in Hazardous Materials, I received a reply that was nothing less than a defence of a demonstrable factual error. What was it? Well, I pointed out that R.C. Trench did not choose to put the sybol on his title page, and it was in fact the publisher's logo. The reply, instead of accepting that an error had been made, said words to the effect of "well, why was he using an occult publisher?" The answer was that he wasn't, he was using a general publisher!

Beware the infallible teacher - and doubly beware the infallible female teacher!

Looking for Answers in the Wrong Place

2010-07-17T20:51:00.002+01:00

One of the most amazingly daft ideas I have ever come across is that somehow natural science can decide for us questions of morality. This is foolish, because natural science (I possess a batchelor's degree in environmental science from the University of Liverpool, so I think I know something about natural science) can only describe what is. Morality, however, is a matter of how human beings ought to behave, and that cannot be the same as how human beings do behave. Why? Because we are all agreed that there are boundaries to acceptable human behaviour. It is an unarguable fact that murder, pederasty, incest, rape and torture happen. Yet there are (thankfully) very few people who think that they are fine, good things - and quite right too!

So why is it that there are attempts to argue that we should accept homosexual behaviour because it is 'natural'? If natural science tells us that some people are disposed to homosexual behaviour, while others are not, then does it follow it's good? No! Moral questions are outside of the realm of natural science - and rightly so. Natural science tells us what is, it cannot tell us what is good.

Which is why you will not see our lawmakers going to scientists to learn ethics.

The Distorting Mirror

2010-07-14T09:06:00.002+01:00

This article crystallises certain thoughts I have expressed on other occasions in conversation. One of the great influences on the life of most of the population of this country, and of the world, is television. For this reason, television broadcasters have, potentially, a great deal of power. Television brings both reports of the factual (news and documentaries), and fictional drama, into the home.

As a 'factual' source, the spin that the broadcaster puts on the facts is all-important, and if only one side is shown, it appears to be the only side. Thus television's depiction of an issue is important for the formation of public opinion on it. It as said that the Vietnam war was lost, not in Vietnam, but in the living rooms of America, as the public at home saw a war that seems unwinnable (though arguably no more so that World War 1). It makes some of us wonder what would have happened had the Trenches of Flanders been shown on television in America? Would America ever have entered the First World War?

But this is just an example. More dangerous, in terms of opinion-forming, are dramas that are set in 'the real world'. I have always argued that Eastenders is far more dangerous than Harry Potter for children. Harru Potter, after all, lives in a fantasy world of magic, with dragons and other such magical creatures. Eastenders, on the other hand, is supposed to depict real life. But it cannot. After all, real life is not dramatic enough to hold an audience! The audience do not want their life to be depicted on TV (after all, they already live that!), but excitement, danger and adventure. Now, it is one thing for that excitement to be shown in a thriller, but the Soap Opera is supposed to be a realistic depiction of life. In fact the modern soap (with the possible exception of police soap The Bill) is a distorting mirror. The soaps have adopted ever more improbably storylines over recent years, in one case even bringing a character back from the dead! And so the depiction of a Christian pastor as a deranged killer is only to be expected - after all, the religious nutter is a common trope in sensational fiction (and let us be honest, that is what modern soaps are).

If this were an isolated incident, I would mutter something about a lack of imagination and go and do something else, but this is part of a pattern. The BBC has also been responsible for a number of dramas in which 'Christian' terrorist groups have appeared, despite the fact that no such group has ever existed. It is almost as if in the world these fictional characters inhabit it is Christians, not Muslims, who are making terrorist threats!

Despite the increasing Muslim population of many British cities, and the mosques rising among the chimneys and church towers in these cities, Islam still has the status of a "foreign" religion on TV, and therefore the BBC generally depict it favourably. All well and good. But it seems that there is an undue bias against Christianity, with Christian characters often being depicted in a negative way. What is the danger? It is that this distorting mirror will encourage people to think of Christians as "nutters", and all the while the protest is "we are just being true to life." Nonsense, TV is a distorting mirror. And if what people see on TV does not affect their behaviour, why does anyone buy advertising on commercial TV?

It has been said of the press that they possess power without responsibility. The BBC would do well to remember what Uncle Ben told Peter Parker: "With great power comes great responsibility," namely the responsibility to use that power wisely. As fr the viwers, we must recall that TV does not, and cannot, depict reality. Drama depicts the world the writer creates.

Incidentally, the murderous religious nut is a tired, hackneyed idea as well, and indicates a failure of imagination. Plus the writers of these negative potrayals (I myself saw the offending episode of the dire BBC series Bonekickers, which is second only to the BBC's Robin Hood in terms of direness) seem to have done minimal research on Christianity, leading to their characters acting like no real Christian on earth, mixing Protestant and Roman Catholic practice freely... and now I will be silent, before I burst a blood-vessel.

"Moral" means more than sexual!

2010-07-12T11:59:00.000+01:00

One of the most frustrating things about the whole Ergun Caner affair has been the insistence from some quarters (including Norman Geisler) that Ergun Caner has done nothing "Morally wrong." I beg to differ. It seems almost as if the only moral failing recognised in some quarters today is sexual. I used to think that the claim that some quarters of evangelicalism were obsessed with sex was a canard, now I'm not so sure.

Morality is about far more than one's relations with the opposite sex. Take this example. Was this man guilty of moral wrongdoing? Well, I don't see how you can say otherwise! He disobeyed the deacons and damaged church property, then tried to pack the church with new members. He was no heretic, guilty of no financial crime - but morally wrong.

Ergun Caner has not been caught with his pants down. He has, however, been caught with his pants on fire. Lying is a serious sin: "everyone who loves and practices falsehood" are listed with "the sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters" in Revelation 22.15 as being "Outside" the city of God. Liars beware!

So let's show some integrity. Let's admit that pastors who lie must be disciplined the same as pastors who sleep with their secretaries, pastors who fiddle the books, and pastors who break into the chapel after the deacons (or, more biblically, other elders) try to fire them.

Mis-selling

2010-07-08T11:34:00.000+01:00

Mis-selling an insurance policy or a mortgage is a serious offence. Mis-selling a book is much less serious - but it is still serious. Consider those "memoirs" that have been revealed to be works of fiction. People really believed (though in many cases really ought to have known better) that they were reading factual works, only to find that in fact they were reading fantasy!

Ergun Caner is a published author. I have read only one of his books, Unveiling Islam, from Kregel Publications. Recently I contacted Kregel with my concerns about the fact I bought the book on the srength of Caner's now-exposed false biography.

Looking on the Kregel website, I found the following description of the Caner brothers on the site: "Raised as Sunni Muslims, their father a leader in their local mosque, brothers Ergun and Emir Caner were immersed in Islam. Now Christians, respected evangelical scholars, and theologians, the Caner brothers are fully qualified to present an inside view of the Muslim life". The actual product detail page says: "Raised as Sunni Muslims by a leader in the faith, brothers Ergun and Emir Caner have lived the Muslim life. Now Christians, and highly respected theology professors, the Caner brothers are particularly qualified to present an unprecedented insider's look at Islam."

We now know that both of these decriptions are false. Ergun and Emir were in their mother's custody following a divorce when both brothers were under ten. Now, it so happens that my own background is similar in that point. Like the Caners, my mother was my custodial parent, while I saw my father at week-ends. Now, if Ergun and Emir Caner's mother was their custodial parent, they were in fact raised by their mother, not their father. If, as Emir has said, their mother was not a Muslim, then they cannot have been "immersed in Islam."

Which brings us to why Ergun's false story about the Madrassa was necessary. He was converted at 14, 15 or 16. This is very young for someone who received instruction in Islam only every other week-end from a non-custodial parent. Again, I was in a liberal Anglican church until I was 18. I learned liberal theology at secondary school - but I am no expert in liberalism! Only if I had been a liberal theological student could that possibly be the case - and hence Ergun Caner's non-existent training in the madrassa. Smoke and mirrors to get us to buy his books, and to make his reputation. Note Kregel's description of the Caner brothers: "Highly respected theology professors." For Ergun, this may change, if he does not repent and confess his lying!

Incidentally, the fact that the Caner brothers edited the series "the Costly Call" is rather unfortunate in the light of the now-revealed fact that Ergun has consistently represented himself as uffering far more than he actually did for becoming a Christian.

The Church is not a Democracy

2010-07-07T10:54:00.005+01:00

Recently our government here in Britain invited members of the public to suggest which laws they would like to see abolished. Predictably someone suggested the law of gravity. There's always one, isn't there?

Now, in a democracy, laws change. Drivers are no longer forced to be preceded by a man with a red flag (and a good thing too!). Dog owners no longer need a licence for most breeds, I don't need a licence for my aged Phillips Stealla radio. And in a democracy, the will of the majority is behind changes to the law. That is all well and good - in a democracy.

The church, however, is not a democracy. The Kingdom of God is a monarchy, and not a limited constitutional monarchy either! So the laws are not up for re-negotiation. The Episcopal Church USA has forgotten this in its mad dash to look just like the most liberal part of western culture, and the Church of England is not far behind. To be honest, if a man can be a clergyman and deny every essential tenet of the faith, I'm not going to get too excited just because suddenly a man who lives with another man as with a woman can be a bishop. They began with a doctrinal down-grade, it does not surprise me that "Where there is no revelation the people cast off all restraint." The will of God trumps the will of the majority every time, especially in the church. Now, one can go off and join the Unitarians, or found your own little group, if you think that Christianity's wrong, but please, don't call yourself a Christian! If you (British language coming up here) say you are a republican, but uphold the monarchy, you are not "a new kind of republican", you are a monarchist!

And this goes for all God has said. Norman Geisler is trying to defend Ergun Caner, but has actually ended up saying that lying is acceptable if it is "one of us" who lies. No, lying is never acceptable, especially if it is "one of us" who is guilty of it. Lying is a sin! But Geisler is bending over backwards to deny that Caner ever did anything wrong. Liberty University beg to differ, and I would not be at all surprised if Caner was no longer on faculty there in the 2011-12 academic year.

We are not at liberty to re-write any of God's laws, for any reason. Not even because we're sure he's a nice man and a friend. Now, is Jeffrey John's situation worse than Caner's? In one way, yesm because Jeffrey John is an apostate. But in another sense, both involve men flouting God's law, and others covering up for them. And now I need to see about the sparrow that just did a Kamikaze run on my study window.

The Shame of a Drunk Culture

2010-07-05T10:07:00.003+01:00

The BBC report the findings of a worrying recent study here. This is deeply worrying. We need no-one to tell us that drunkenness is a serious problem in our cities - at least, those of us who live in cities don't. Stoke on Trent police report that, while there has been an overall drop in crime, there has been an increase in drink-related violent crime.

Contrary to the traditional beliefs of some Protestants, the Bible does not forbid the drinking of alcohol - Jesus turned water into wine, not unfermented grape juice. There is nothing at all wrong with drinking alcohol. But what the Bible clearly forbids is drunkenness. "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whoever is deceived thereby is not wise" (Prov. 20.1). Drunkenness makes a man beastly, it takes away rational thought and leads people to behave foolishly, violently and shamefully. Secondly, while "a little wine" (1 Timothy 5.23) may do some good, drunkenness leads to damaged health: "Who has woe? Who has sorrows? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine" (Prov. 23.29,30). It is these folk who are to be found in the Accident and Emergency unit of your local hospital at the week-end, and these who are going to require serious treatment for their livers in the future. And all because we are trying to escape from the emptiness of our lives. We ought to be reading Ecclesiastes and facing it, not getting drunk and trying to hide from reality. "Do not be drunk with wine, which leads to debauchery, but be filled with the Holy Spirit." A man filled with wine is the opposite of a man filled with the Spirit.

On Narcissism

2010-07-04T15:41:00.004+01:00

Recently I watched through the run of the modern-day Battlestar Galactia. It is, as expected, quite different from the original in many ways. Very sensibly, characters are played with little if any similarities to the originals. Though it is great fun to watch Jamie Bamber as Lee Adama opposite Richard Hatch as Tom Zarek. Obviously the two Apollos work well together.

One of the most interesting of the new versions of original characters is Gaius Baltar. The original Baltar was a thoroughly rotten villain who deliberately sold humanity out to the genocidal robotic Cylons in exchange for power, alternately vicious and cowardly. John Colicos played the character perfectly, and is still great fun to watch in the role today.

In the modern version of the show, Gaius Baltar, played by James Callis, is weak, yes, but the defining characteristic of the character is his narcissism. Gaius Baltar has only one loyalty, and that is to Gaius Baltar. His narcissism blinds him to mistakes that he makes (which result in the genocide of humanity at the hands of the Cylons). James Callis portrays the character wonderfully.

Baltar is a villain in both versions of the show. But the modern Baltar is a villain because he is so utterly self-centred. At one point, discussing why Baltar did what he did, a character notes that Baltar always sees himself as the victim, never as the perpetrator. And that is the genius of the show's writers, they see this for what it is. The man who always sees himself as a victim is finally a villain, because his world revolves around himself. Only the man whose world does not revolve around himself is capable of doing truly heroic things - because he is the only man who is actually selfless.

It is therefore hugely ironic that modern evangelical preaching has tended to be self-centred, "be the best that you can be." But this is not the Bible's focus at all. The Bible focuses on God and what He has done, in Christ, for us. To Baltar, it is all his story, to the Christian, this is all God's story.

This is the first time I have written anything based on popular culture. It may well be the last.

Christians ought to tell the Truth! (updated)

2010-06-30T14:45:00.004+01:00

We, as Christians, follow Him who is the Truth. As such, we ought to be truthful. It is therefore profoundly disappointing to read this. Not overly surprising, but definitely disappointing. Liberty University has not "exonerated" Ergun Caner. If he was innocent of all wrongdoing, then he would have been retained in post as president and dean of the seminary. These are not merely honourary posts, at least if Liberty functions like a secular University. The deanship is no sinecure, the dean has many responsibilities. The president functions as the public face of the seminary. For Ergun Caner to have been removed from the deanship and presidency is a real demotion, and indicates that the Seminary leadership are in fact convinced that there was real wrongdoing on Ergun Caner's part.

So for the SBC Today blog to say: "This matter is behind us and we praise God that Dr. Caner is exonerated as he is retained at Liberty on faculty." is simply delusional, a failure to face facts. Men are not demoted wen they are found to be without guilt! We can all be glad that there have in fact been real consequences for Ergun Caner as a result of his falsehoods. What we all look for now is a statement from Caner apologising for what he actually did wrong.

As far as I am aware, the issue in Christian circles has never been that Caner was never a Muslim, it is that he claimed an expertise in Islam that he never possessed. It seems that the SBC today blog has forgotten this, and read only the words, "The committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager," without going on to read that he was nevertheless found to have uttered factually incorrect statements about his past. It is therefore less than completely honest to act as if the only real charge was that brought by certain Muslins, that Ergun Caner was a "fake ex-Muslim."

What is at issue, though, is whether or not he was ever a devout Muslim, whose father was a scholar. Many people bought Unveiling Islam because it was written by an ex-Muslim, a former insider with knowledge not available to those outside of Islam. I was one of them. If the book had merely been marketed as written by two Evangelical scholars of Turkish origins, I would not have bought that book. And herein lies another point - Ergun Caner has profited from his deception. His demotion will have brought with it a cut in salary. Unless Liberty is engaging in extremely dishonest behaviour (and there is no indication that they are), Caner will suffer financially.

Now, will he please put an end to this whole saga and make a public statement of repentance for the wrongdoing that led to his demotion? A pattern of embellishment has been recorded, and that pattern can only be denied by shutting one's eyes to reality.

Addendum:
Like Ergun Caner, I was converted out of a false religious system - liberalism. But most of my in-depth knowledge of liberalism comes from after my conversion. Why? Because I was a liberal in the pew, not a serious student of liberal theology. I freely admit this. Yet I attended a liberal Anglican church until 1998, and was confirmed in that tradition, with Bishop Montefiore's Confirmation Notebook, a volume that I have jokingly said teaches its readers how to say the Apostles' Creed without meaning a word of it. There is no evidence that Dr. Caner's knowledge of Islam was any greater than my knowledge of liberal theology was at conversion. I am no expert on liberalism. I was converted at 18, he was converted at 15 or 16 (I can understand that he might be a little hazy about the date, I was until I checked up on some immovable date-markers in 1998).

"All of Faith"

2010-06-24T09:14:00.001+01:00

Rev. Robert Jones

2010-06-13T13:35:00.003+01:00

In the old Primitive Methodist graveyard at Saughall, on the Cheshire side of the English-Welsh border, there is the grave of the Rev. Robert Jones, a Primitive Methodist minister. The picture of it was taken yesterday. The inscription is most interesting. It reads:

"Rev. Robert Jones: He was called to the joy and service of the higher life while preaching in the Primitive Methodist Church, West Bromwich, on Sunday morning June 8th 1902, aged 52 years. 'I have finished the work Thou gavest me to do.'"

This is one of the things that ensures that the service is cut short!

"Lost" Gospels?

2010-06-07T10:37:00.002+01:00

Every so often someone finds (or finds that someone else has found) that there are other documents known as 'gospels.' Immediately they conclude that this somehow proves that Jesus was not the way the New Testament says He was. So what shouls Christians think of these things?

Christians should not worry about these discoveries at all, because they affect absolutely nothing. Contrary to all the hype, they have no affect at all on our understanding of who Jesus is. At best they help scholars to understand the heretical sects that produced them.

So why is there so much fuss about them? First of all, people talk about them because they can be used by unbelievers to undermine confidence in the Bible. A classic case in point is The Da Vinci Code’s claim that there were “more than 80” gospels considered for inclusion in the New Testament. This is utter nonsense. At no point was there ever a meeting that decided which books belong in the New Testament. But to say that the early Christians held various radically different views of Jesus means that we can pick and choose which Jesus we want to believe in ourselves. It is a way of avoiding Jesus’ claims.

Second, people love a good conspiracy theory. This is why The Da Vinci Code sold as well as it did. The conspiracy theory TV series The X Files ran for years. We live in a day and age when people tend to distrust authority, and so the claim that the truth about Jesus was covered up is a sure seller.

Thirdly, most people today, even Christians, are woefully ignorant about the Bible. A poll showed that the best-known Bible verse among modern American is “God helps those who help themselves” – which is not in the Bible at all. Thus people can make the wildest and silliest claims about these documents, and people still believe them.

One of the problems is with the language used of them. What we understand by a Gospel is a narrative like that in our Canonical gospels. The so-called “Lost gospels” contain nothing of the sort. Instead they are usually collections of sayings attributed to Jesus. My advice to anyone who is worried about the lost gospels is that they should read one or two of them. I have read all of the most popular ones myself. You will soon see that they are a radically different sort of literature from the canonical gospels. Another name they are known by is the “Gnostic gospels”. This refers to the fact that they are the product of a varied movement known as Gnosticism that flourished from the 2nd century and into the 4th century. The name comes from a Greek word meaning “to know”. To the Gnostics salvation was a matter of having esoteric knowledge – and that is what these Gnostic texts teach. Secondly, the “Lost Gospels” are all very late documents. None dates from before about AD 150, while our Gospels, particularly Matthew, Mark and Luke, can all be dated with confidence to before AD 70. Matthew and John were written by people who knew Jesus. There is an old tradition that Mark’s Gospel is based on the preaching of the Apostle Peter, and Luke explicitly states that he interviewed eye-witnesses. In contrast the Gnostic gospels were not written until more than a century after Jesus’ death, and have no connection at all with the eye-witnesses. No Christian group ever accepted any of them, for their teaching utterly contradicts the canonical Gospels. The Jesus of the Gnostic gospels came to give deep teaching, the true Jesus came to die for our sins. The Gnostic Jesus would never have been crucified.

Sermon from Sunday Evening

2010-05-24T08:30:00.000+01:00

The Pentecost Sermon from Bethel

2010-05-23T14:33:00.000+01:00

How NOT to Answer those you disagree with

2010-05-21T08:13:00.003+01:00

It amazes me how many people in our post-modern culture take everything personally. Instead of saying "I disagree with you," or "you're wrong", the first answer some give is along the lines of, "You're being mean," or "You're lying!"

And this seems to crop up even in conservative Christian circles. James White has posted an e-mail received from a Caner defender that is sadly all too typical of a certain sort of person. Instead of replying to White's arguments, he attacks White personally. The amazing thing is that in the course of this diatribe he describes White as a "fraud". Now, the reason I am amazed by this is simple. The Caner Controversy is over the allegations that Ergun Caner is a fraud by some measure, as he has fabricated a back-story for himself that does not fit the facts. Yet instead of answering the charges, Caner has been silent, and those who are "defending" him, having no real answers (since Caner has not deigned to give us any), are therefore left with the temptation to resort to insults.

This is very much what "the Puritan" has done with my criticisms of Gail Riplinger. Instead of showing where I am wrong, and how Mrs. Riplinger's flagrant dishonesty in abusing the words of a dead man is really justified, he accuses me of "defending the devil", as if the worst sin in the world was daring to defend Westcott from flagrant lies. Gail Riplinger herself prefers to abuse her critics rather than engage with them. In her latest rant she suggests that the only reason anyone disagrees with her is pride - not the fact that her research is piecemeal and shoddy. To say that C.J. Vaughan sat in the House of Lords as "First Baron of the Realm" is incredible, and I am literally at a loss to think where she could have got such a ludicrous idea!

Both Mr. Daliessio and "the Puritan" have in common is this - they are attached to a leader in such a way that they take any criticism of that person very personally. Rather than attempting to show that the criticism is wrong, they attack the critic. Yet in both cases they do so with a double-standard. "The Puritan" criticises me for noting details in Riplinger's books, yet Riplinger herself majors on the details in the books of others! (What is more, how on earth can you criticize poor research without giving examples of individual problems?). Mr. Daliessio calls James White a "Fraud", when Ergun Caner is a documented fraud.

Neither actually helps. I have no anger towards Mrs. Riplinger, or Ergun Caner. They have both done things they should not have done, both have lied to the people of God in order to sell books and make a name for themselves. But what they need is prayer. They must come to repentance for what they have done. However, the manner of bringing men to repentance is not an easy one, and may require excommunication, not in a censorious spirit, but "in a Spirit of gentleness."

My bit on Caner

2010-05-18T11:49:00.007+01:00

I have hitherto refrained from commenting on the Ergun Camer saga as it plays itself out. Not because I am not convinced by the documentation that has been presented, but because I was not sure what to say. Tom Chantry has written a good piece on the use of exaggeration in the pulpit. however, that finally brought me to say something.

Chantry is quite right that there is an over-use of anecdotes in some preaching. What is worse is the mentality that thinks it is better to represent these anecdotes as having happened to me. This is just plain wrong. Now, I am not against the use of stories in preaching, but I believe that we must always be utterly truthful in what we say - I am reminded of the story of the British preacher who was preaching American sermons on the sly and was found out when he began a sermon by saying something along the lines of "As I looked out of my study window this morning at the Rocky Mountains..."

First of all, nothing justifies making out that something happened to you when it did not, nothing at all. That is not exaggeration, it is lying. Exaggeration is when you say that the fish was this big, when it was a great deal smaller, or when you refer to a trip that took an hour and a half more than it should have as taking "hours." If, however, I were to talk about my trip to Australia, I would be lying. I have never been to Australia!

So let me suggest that anecdotes must be told truthfully, predicated with "I heard of a man who..." or "the story is told that..." or some such phrase indicating that this is someone else's story! That will in no way reduce the ability of the anecdote to communicate meaning, and it will certainly improve honesty. Spurgeon, who had many interesting experiences himself, more often than not told stories that he had heard, and told them as stories he had heard. No-one ever complained that it lessened the impact!

So why do so many preachers today tell these stories about themselves? As I see it, there are two reasons:
1. This will increase the impact of the sermon. The idea is that a first-person anecdote is more effective. It seems to me that this is what is behind Caner's thinking. Instead of talking about other people being trained in Jihad and coming to America thinking all Americans hate Islam, he claimed that this was the way he had been. The trouble is, it's not true. How can we, who serve Him who is The Truth, possibly think that a lie, which is of the devil, can serve God's cause? The ends can never Justify the means, and indeed attempting to use means incongruous with the ends will never work! Chantry points to many people who have been so disgusted with this falsehood that they have left the church they were attending when it happened.

2. The preacher wants to be a star. Sadly I suspect that the reason anecdotes previous generations would have introduced as "I read of..." are now retailed as "This happened to me" is simple egotism. The preacher has become a star, it's all about him, and so he holds himself up as the example to everyone. Now, since many of us have rather unexciting lives, and may well have men and women in the congregation who lived very exciting lives, the only way I can make myself a star is to exaggerate, to embellish and even to lie.
Undoubtedly part of the problem here lies in the Victorian era's glorification of noted preachers. Joseph Parker, for example, was a star, his authorised biography is frankly terrible. One reveiwer described it as "a four hundred page essay in incense-burning", and this witness is true. What is far worse is when the one doing the incense-burning is the preacher himself!
It is not wrong for the preacher to refer occasionally to himself and his own life from the pulpit, but never is this to be done in such a way as to draw attention to the man in the pulpit. Our emphasis, to refer to an anecdote I believe I read in a Spurgeon sermon, is to be "not the man in the pulpit, but the Man in the Bible." The celebrity preacher mindset totally reverses this. Brothers, we are not stars, not celebrities, we are ministers, servants of Christ and the Gospel. We are but the instruments, like a pen in God's hand, and as Baxter put it, "What praise is due to a pen?"

God does not need falsehood, for He is Truth. "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all." For His sake, I think Caner should resign - but I pray that he will be restored, and that this will be a good discipline for him.

And now for Something Completely Different

2010-05-08T08:57:00.001+01:00

Wait for everything to go crazy, and watch out for the Se-Baptist.

Book Reiew: "Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials" by Kirk DiVietro

2010-05-07T10:37:00.003+01:00

When I received my copy of Riplinger's Hazardous Materials, my first impression was that this is a huge book. My second was that most of the matter was actually irrelevant, consisting in ad hominem attacks against a wide variety of people. Having read the book, I concluded that much of it was poorly researched, and guilty of the triple fallacies of ad hominem (Against the Man, attacking the writer, not the argument), Petitio Principi (Begging the Question, that is, assuming one's conclusions), and Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow, the conclusion does not actually rest on the premises, but on an unstated premise). Kirk DiVietro, in his new book Cleaning Up Hazardous Materials (Dean Burgon Society, 2010), comes to essentially the same conclusion.

DiVietro is a King James Only writer who is cited favourably by Riplinger, and it may be that his being linked to Hazardous Materials in this way has moved him to write this book. What concerns him is not that Riplinger defends the use of the AV, but that Riplinger has attacked all study of the original languages, and basically declared that God no longer uses the original languages, but vernacular versions. He disagrees strongly with her view of inspiration as an ongoing miracle that periodically produces new inspired vernacular Bibles from a line of inspired vernacular Bibles that reaches back to Pentecost.

It is DiVietro's contention that lexicons and language study aids are useful tools, and should be used as such. They were not intended to be the final authority for us, and a tool is only as good as the one who uses it. Clearly, if we make improper use of a tool the result will be bad. The purpose of studying the original languages, he says, is not to correct the Bible, but to make sure we actually understand what a passage means. It helps to prevent preachers making fools of themselves (DiVietro gives examples).

He notes that Riplinger's reasoning logically leads to the conclusion that no language can be translated into an unrelated language - which is plainly absurd. We can know what the Greek and Hebrew words mean, in context (Hebrew in particular is a very context-bound language, and has a relatively small vocabulary, certainly compared to Greek). There is, he points out, no evidence at all to support Riplinger's idea that the gift of tongues led to the creation of written documents - in all Biblical mention of tongues it is referred to as spoken (check the AV). Thus it is merely a baseless assumption that Bible translations were produced at Pentecost. This, he quite rightly says, is a huge problem for Riplinger.

It also leads to a misrepresentation of the AV or King James Bible, for it means that, instead of having been translated from the Greek, Riplinger's theory requires it to have been based on a line of vernacular Bibles from the Gothic through the Saxon, through Middle English, and finally to the English of the AV. It means Tyndlae must be understood not as the man who translated the New Testament from Greek to English, but as the updater of an older vernacular version.

DiVietro points out a number of places where Riplinger has misunderstood words and given false etymologies. One statement I puzzled over is the incorrect statement that Scrivener back-translated the AV. He did not, but I knew there had to be a basis for the statement. Riplinger cites D.A. Waite Jr. as the source. It seems from DiVietro's book (endorsed and edited by D.A. Waite) that she misunderstood a statement of D.A. Waite Jr. that in places where the KJV text had no known Greek support, Scrivener "Refused to backwards translate from Latin to Greek" to mean that in other places he back-translated from English to Greek (Pp. 202-8). She is mistaken (please note that I am NOT saying she deliberately misrepresented either Waite or Scrivener, but misundersttod what she read). In other places Riplinger gives false etymologies (probably not her own) for Hell (deriving it from Helios, the Greek word for sun, of all things, when it is fact derived from the Norse Hel, the underworld and the goddess of the underworld), and Ball (deriving it from Baal, when it is in fact derived from a Saxon word meaning a spherical object), neither of which are supported by any scholar at all. On P. 230 DiVietro shows that Riplinger's Greek etymology is apparently no better than her English, as she derives huiothesia from huios, a son, and then bizarrely states the second part comes from "thespian, from theo, means "adoption of." Like DiVietro, I can only hope this is a typographical error! A Thespian is an actor, and the Greek compound word huiothesia is in fact the Greek word for "adoption", derived from huios and thesis, which is related to tithemi, to place (Thus literally "to place as a son, to adopt"). Thesia does not mean to adopt, the whole word does. There is of course nothing wrong in translating the word "the adoption of children" as in Ephesians 1.5 in the AV. Riplinger has in the past admitted that she does not know Greek, and this may simply be an example of someone struggling with matters beyond her expertise. When I try to mend my own bicycle, I make a mess of it, because I am not trained in cycle repair. This does not make me morally wrong, just misguided in thinking I can fix my bike on my own.

Riplinger's defenders like to say that answers to her often pick up on little things. This is true, but then this is the woman who majors in picking up on little things in the works of others, including Archbishop Trench's badge of office and the number of pages in the Old Testament portion of Berry's interlinear! If a writer sees sinister meaning in little details, she should expect to be corrected when she makes mistakes in her own little details.

There are a couple of disappointments about this book. Firstly, it has the feel of having been rushed into print to answer Riplinger. I grant that the rambling nature of Riplinger's book makes it hard to construct a coherent reply, but a little more work on the clean-up would have been appreciated. Those who are not King James Only, and who do not use the TR, will obviously fault DiVietro on these matters, but as a New King James user with a couple of reservations about that Bible (1 John 5.7 and Acts 9.5-6, both of which have very little Greek support, the extra words in Acts having the support of a grand total of NO Greek manuscripts), I found this a very helpful book. Secondly, I do think that in a few places DiVietro is too harsh about Riplinger, finding deliberate deception where I saw only ignorant error, and I would caution against seeing sinister motives where there may be an innocent explanation.

Finally, it seems to me that the explanation for many of Riplinger's errors is that she forulated a thesis and then set out to prove it, quote-mining for that purpose, without taking sufficient care over the actual intent of the author. Anyone who has ever written a paper or an essay has probably done the same, of course! I know I have, and having re-read the section in context I have been deeply embarrassed to see my mistake! I saw what I wanted to see - and I suspect Riplinger has done the same in Hazardous Materials. The only thing that causes some pause for thought is that New Age Bible Versions is still in print, with knowingly doctored quotes. But where charity can lay the blame at the foot of error, she does so. And so do I.

Thus endeth the review, and my dealing with Riplinger for the present time.

"Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials" - first impressions

2010-05-06T09:26:00.002+01:00

Yesterday I received my copy of Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials by Kirk DiVietro (Published by the Dean Burgon Society). I have thus far read to P. 88. I had some reservations about this book. First of all, when there are these debates, it often happens that there is a great deal of ad hominem argument. Gail Riplinger is expert at this herself, and Hazardous Materials is full of this method of argumentation. Thankfully DiVietro avoids ad hominem and engages with Riplinger's actual argument. Obviously P. 88 is not a very long way into the book, but it is apparent that the main target of his criticism is Riplinger's strange view of inspiration, which sees inspiration as ongoing, and sees the original languages as no longer relevant to modern Christians, who are instead pointed to inspired translations in their own tongues.

DiVietro helpfully points out the proper use of lexicons (as opposed to their abuse), which is not to correct the Bible, but to understand it. We have all heard someone say "the Greek really means...", followed by a translation that is followed by no English translation, not even the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses, in that place. The lexicon can only show the semantic range of a word (i.e. its various possible meanings), only one of which is actually valid for the context. To take an example from English, the word "Ball" may mean either a spherical object or a posh party. It cannot mean both, and to read both meanings into any single usage would be absurd (the fallacy of "illegitimate totality transfer").

DiVietro aso takes exception to Riplinger's view that all lexicons must be written by saved people, pointing out that this would also mean that all interpreters for missionaries must be converted - an impossible requirement for a missionary making contact with an unreached people group! He points out that lexicons are not above the Bible, they are fallible human works (and hence need revision at times) giving lists of the usage of words. I have pointed out before that, if you insist on proof positive that every lexicographer and translator on a modern Bible version is saved, logically you must be able to provide proof that every AV translator was saved. Can you? Can anyone? I doubt it, seeing as there was a drunkard and a number of persecutors among the AV translators! (for documentation see earlier posts).

There are errors in the book, and DiVietro apologises for these. He was badly injured during a mission trip to Iraq. Still, the statement on P. 65 that "When the world spoke Latin, the Roman Catholic Church continued writing in Greek. Once vulgar language developed and people no longer understood Latin, they continued writing in Latin" is not correct. The Roman Catholic Church (despite its claims) did not exist in the early centuries, and Greek writing was, by the fourth century, mostly restricted to those areas that today are the home of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Roman Catholic Church historically spoke Latin, which is why it regarded the Latin Bible as the only authoritative version.

Despite the odd error, I have rather enjoyed the book so far. I pray Dr. DiVietro will recover enough to issue a revised second edition. A full review will follow. DiVietro himself will have to answer his critics, not me. I'm far too busy being the pastor of a small inner-city congregation in the Midlands.

Clean-up Begins

2010-05-05T13:01:00.001+01:00

Readers may remember last year's posts about Gail Riplinger, and Riplinger's defender "The Puritan". Well, a few minutes ago the postman delivered to my door a copy of Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials by Kirk DiVietro. Published by the Dean Burgon Society, this comes out of moderate King James Onlyism, and is warmly commended by none other than D.A. Waite, who has written the blurb on the back. He tells us that this books is needed for four reasons, "Because of the false view of inspiration," "Because of the false view of the King James Bible," "Because of the false view of lexicons and textual aids," and "Because of the correcting of pastors and other leaders."

DiVietro is quoted favourably by Riplinger, but he obviously does not agree with her! And quite right too! According to the author profile in the back of the book, Dr. DiVietro has relevant earned degrees. The fact that he is King James Only in a mild way is in some respects a help, as it means that he is a relatively sympathetic critic.

I am looking forward to reading this book of about 400 pages, which seems much better written than Riplinger - which is not hard! Much of what will be dealt with I suspect to be false arguments and logical fallacies. Plus He notes that Riplinger refers to Dr. Maurice Robinson (P. ii) as an editor of Berry's interlinear. Given that Berry's was published in the 1890s, I find that hard to believe (would you believe that he read it once?).

A lengthy appendix (Pp. 285-377) contains letters dealing with Riplinger's errors and dishonesty, as well as facsimiles of original documents and a table of corrections made to the original printed 1611 AV in later editions (mostly printing errors).

Yesterday Morning's Sermon

2010-05-03T10:28:00.000+01:00

This Morning's sermon

2010-04-25T13:36:00.000+01:00

Inerrancy - the real issue

2010-04-24T10:43:00.004+01:00

Several times on this blog I have had cause to refer to King James Onlyism, particularly as represented by the lunatic fringe, Gail Riplinger (whose latest book has drawn forth a rebuttal from one of the very sources quoted in it). Mrs. Riplinger has grown progressively more and more extreme in her views, to the point where her latest tome explicitly rejects the authority of the original languages, which she now holds God has finished with.

But all of this arguing over the identity of the text (and here it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the differences are far more than they are, and far more important) is distracting from the real issue - which is whether or not the Bible is true in what it claims. Traditionally it has been this claim that has set apart Evangelicalism from liberalism in its view of Scripture. The liberal holds that the Bible may and does contain errors of fact, mythological accounts, and other non-factual passages. In particular the liberal teaches at least the first twelve chapters of the book of Genesis to be purely mythological, and influenced by the myths of the surrounding nations. Liberals hold to late dates for the Old Testament, danying the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Bible), and the unity of the book of Isaiah. This needs re-stating in the light of the claims by Gail Riplinger and her ilk that anyone who disagrees with them, including B.B. Warfield, a contributor to The Fundamentals, is a liberal.

Yet this consensus no longer exists. In the latter part of the 20th century, evangelicalism as a whole has followed the same path as did the mixed denominations in the earlier part of the century. Instead of holding to the high view of Scripture found in the Princeton men, in Spurgeon, and in other Evangelical leaders, evangelicals have become 'wobbly'. Before I ever dealt with Riplinger, I reviewed here a book by A.T.B. McGowan The Divine Spiration of Scripture, and noted its defficiencies in not affirming a robust doctrine of inerrancy. Perhaps ironically, the flaw at the root of McGowan's argument was to reject (if only implicitly) the bistoric Reformed position that what is derived by good and necessary consequence from Scripture is also Biblical.

Another attack has come from America, from Peter Enns, former professor at Westminster Theological Seminary. An Old Testament scholar, Peter Enns has argued for an "Incarnational" understanding of Scripture (interestingly Dr. McGowan rejects this terminology for an entirely different reason), holding the Bible to be both a fully human document as well as a divine document. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with the terminology - Jesus is fully human and fully divine, yet without sin or error. Yet historically the call to recognise the "human" in the Bible has often been a cover for arguing against inerrancy! The fact of the matter is that it is only ignorant fanatics like Gail Riplinger who argue that there is no "human element" in the Bible, and they are not going to be reading Peter Enns! Like B.B. Warfield, the historic Reformed christian holds the Bible to have been produced by God in such a way that the authors wrote in their own style, with their own words - there is the human element - but that the Holy Spirit so moved them that what they wrote is also the very words of God, and therefore without error or mistake in the orginal manuscripts.

Yet Peter Enns claims that some of the Genesis narratives are mythological in nature, and that the Biblical narrators naively did not know this as they made use of pagan sources. He claims that since Biblical history is not objective, the presuppositions of the narrators have led them to distort history. He claims that modern definitions of truth and error cannot be applied necessarily to the Biblical text - but never actually explains what the ancient criteria for truth and error were. Unhelfully he does not mention which model of the incarnation his "incarnational" model of Scripture follows. This is important, as some models (e.g. kenotic models) actually predicate fallibility of Jesus.

Peter Enns pleads that his aim is apologetic. While at Seminary, I engaged in an in-depth study of the down-grade in the Free Church of Scotland, and I noted that it was an apologetic method that contributed to much of it. This false view of apologetics is that its aim is to make Christianity more palatable to the academic sceptic by abandoning certain positions that are viewed as simply "outworks" of the citadel of the faith. It was this that led Marcus Dods to argue that the Old Testament contained "errors and immoralities", and will lead no doubt (and has led in some cases) modern evangelical scholars to the same conclusions.

Enns also contends that the New Testament use of the Old is not as straightforward as it seems, that passages are taken out of context to apply to things that the original text was never intended to apply to. In a fascinating case of strange bedfellows, this argument has also been used by some dispensationalists to maintain their case where the New Testament seems to work against it.

And it is this down-grade in the very conception of what the Bible is that is the great threat, not a question of which English translation we ought to use, or even, dare I say it, relatively minor textual issues. My fear is that we will allow a minor issue to distract us from the main thing - which is the question of whether or not the Bible is true. Is Genesis a myth? Or is it history? Was there only one Isaiah? Does the Biblical history record facts and then interpret them, or have the authors allowed the interpretation to distort the facts? It seems to me that these are matters of infinitely greater importance than which English Bible we prefer! Take any honestly translated English Bible, even the most hopelessly flawed one-man translation, and you will not get a different Jesus or a different God from it. But once allow that Genesis contains myth that the author did not realise was not factual, and you are not far off saying that Jesus himself repeated such myths, thinking they were true - and then you have the errancy, not only of Scripture, but also of Jesus Himself!

Free Election advice

2010-04-21T15:16:00.002+01:00

Not long now until the General Election in this country. What should Christians do about it?

1. Vote! If we Christians do not vote, we are deliberately handing over control of politics in this country to Satan. On the other hand, if we do vote, then our voice will be heard.

2. Get informed. Christians need to know what the candidates standing in their area actually stand for. It may be that one of them is a Christian, it may be that none of them are. We need to know what people actually stand for and what they believe. If possible, contact your local parliamentary candidates. Note that if you can't contact one now, when he or she needs your vote, you probably won't be able to when he or she is your MP! So don't vote for someone who can't find the time to answer questions from a voter! Also find out about the past voting record of your sitting MP. Such information can be obtained from the Christian Institute, for example. Do not assume that because an MP is a Christian, he or she will take a Christian stand. Firstly, there are liberals in the churches (that's small 'l', not Liberal Democrats, this is a theological, not a party political point), and secondly, there are those who leave their convictions at the door of the House.

3. Think carefully. It may well be that you have to choose between the lesser of two evils in the election, between two candidates you disagree with! In which case you have to vote for the person you disagree with least. I am in complete agreement with none of my local candidates, and so will have to vote for the one I disagree with least!

4. Vote as a Christian. That means that the first question we must all consider at the ballot box is that of free speech. If I have free speech, then I can proclaim the Gospel. There are other desirable points, but this must come first.

5. Don't vote for the BNP. The bald statement may shock, and in some sense perhaps it ought to. As a pastor, I have to be non-partisan, but I simply cannot countenance the BNP in any way, shape or form, owing to the policies of the party. The BNP are a racist body that promotes hatred against non-white people in this country. The BNP leader has publically said that black churches will be robbed of the right to worship and refused grants if they operate in a 'historically white' area (Source: Evangelical Times May 2010). Of course, that could very well mean all of the UK, for mass immigration to this country is a relatively recent phenomenon. A BNP candidate in Norfolk has stated that, "I realised long ago that the BNP is the British equivalent of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, whom I admire and respect and who have great courage. That is why I joined." [Source]
In the 2009 Norwich North by-election the BNP fielded a man who calls himself "Rev." Robert West, and wore the garb of an Anglican clergyman - he is in fact a former Elder in the Apostolic Church, a Pentecostal denomination. Despite recent attempts by the BNP to portray themselves as defenders of our Christian heritage, in fact many of the BNP are neo-pagans. The BNP's Legal Director Lee Barnes has said: "Christianity is a semitic religion, it is creature of the deserts of the Middle East not the forests of the Northern Europe and its symbol the cross is an instrument of torture not of living redemption.…The icons of death are what the West once worshipped – Moses, Christ, saints, popes etc etc Now all these icons of death must be replaced by a living, organic religion which allows our people to reconnect once more with nature, the earth and the divine unfolding of the spiritual within the material and within Man. " [Source] He is of course a neo-pagan who worships Odin.

I refer to the BNP because they like to claim that they are chapions of traditional Christian values. Unless of course you regard love as a traditional Christian value... While Paul says that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentle, the BNP insists that black and white, in or out of Christ, is an important question. With this, the fact that one of their Prospective Parliamentary Candidates admires Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the fact of the "Reverend" Robert West, I can only conclude that the BNP is using Christianity for its own ends. They are courting Christian votes, but do not stand for Christian values. BNP members have been linked to racial violence and neo-Nazi thuggery.

6. Don't vote for any other party like the BNP. The Church is not well-served by Christians voting for such things. We must be very careful not to confuse Christianity with an idealised view of the British past. Nor should Christians vote for those who claim to support Christian values while in fact supporting nothing of the kind.

In short, engage your brain, think as a Christian and vote as a Christian.

Liberalism is not the answer

2010-04-15T08:20:00.002+01:00

When the Emergent Church first came on the British horizon, I read some of their material. My immediate thought was that they had good questions. They seemed to be dissatisfied with the shallowness of much of contemporary evangelicalism, something that I could very much identify with. Thus one Emergent writer wittily characterised Contemporary Worship as "Worship that is 30 years behind the culture." On the other hand they also rejected the narrow legalism of much of contemporary fundamentalism, with its anti-intellectual bias. Unusually for American evangelicals (witness British prejudice emerging) they seemed to be interested in the Church before the 19th century. A desire for more seriousness in worship is to be commended.

Sadly, even then it was obvious that not all was well. To the Emergents it seemed that there were only two options in terms of conservative evangelicalism, vacuous big-box megachurches where the 'sermon' is a self-help lecture, and shallow fundamentalism, where the sermon is libale to be a tirade against women wearing trousers and people using the New King James Bible. Now this is blatantly not the case. I was saved out of liberalism in a medium-sized (for the UK) Reformed Baptist Church where the minister used the NIV, and women wore trousers, while the pastor preached expository series' through books of the Bible. But it seems that in the US in particular, such churches were discounted because of their size (less than 100 in the congregation).

Thus Emergents, who even at the beginning seemed to me to have missed the right answer (namely that a Church should be a community, which probably does mean that most Churches should be under 150 members), and to have wandered off into the wilderness of theological liberalism. Liberalism is not the answer. I was brought up in a liberal Church (of a mild type, mind you) in the Church of England. The Emergents are more advanced liberals, and the effect of advanced liberalism is this - it tells people that God accepts them just the way they are. The end result of this is that people wonder why on earth they should give up Sunday like this when it's a lovely day, and the beach/golf-course/cinema is beckoning. Now, some preachers can hold a congregation whatever they say. Most can't, and that is why liberalism has a long record of closing Churches.

Protestant (and for that matter Roman Catholic) liberalism has already been tried and found wanting. I suggest that it is the Gospel, not liberalism, that is the answer.

Behold your God!

2010-04-13T10:39:00.003+01:00

The Easter evening sermon from Bethel, Hanley

April Fool's Day Special

2010-04-01T09:33:00.002+01:00

In honour of April Fool's Day, I feature a link to one of the sillier atheist claims about Jesus.

The first problem with this article is the tone - it is obviously addressed to fellow atheists, not to Christians. Becaue of this, it stretches things, and engages in nit-picking fault-finding. Every single claim here is secondhand, and has been refuted dozens of times. Undoubtedly the silliest bit is the claim about angels. Biblically, angels are presented as spiritual beings that are in consequence able to adopt a variety of physical shapes, often indistinguishable from humans (such as the angels in Sodom). No-where are they presented as winged humanoids. So, while we may have proven that the X-Man called Angel is unable to fly (which I hope we all realised is just fantasy, this proves nothing but ignorance on the part of the atheist writer.

The scepticism displayed about the Gospels is in radical contrast to the attitude displayed by historian Martin Goodman in his 2007 book Rome and Jerusalem. There Goodman treats the New Testament as a reliable source on a par with Josephus.

A word to the wise: Mockery is not the same as argument. You can assert all you like that you find the New Testament unconvincing, that does not make it unreliable!

As for the oft-repeated claim about paralells between Jesus and other ancient religious figures, one must actually demonstrate them, not just say they exist. Those of us who heard Dan Barker's debate with James White will recall how laughable some of them were when actually stated (most notably the "getting into a boat and sitting down" paralell).

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

Postmodernism exemplified

2010-03-29T10:12:00.000+01:00

I often regret having taken a module on "Rural Change" at university instead of "Postmodern Geographies." Why is this? Because Postmodernism is rampant as a philosophy! Although my father is an academic, he is most decidedly not a Postmodernist, and has written against it. Thus I exist in the world where history is a matter of facts, not just of opinions.

And, having referred to my father, may I say that he has a good point when he says that the Postmodern approach to history does not work. After all, who wants to say in public that the opinion that the holocaust did not happen is jolly good? Holocaust denial is a pariah subject in academic history, as witness the fate of David Irving. I saw no Postmodernists rush to his defence, declaring that his opinion is just as valid as the opinion that Hitler murdered millions of Jews, Gypsies and other "undesirables".

In my experience, Postmodernism can be wearying for the apologist. Let me give an example. A while ago I engaged a Postmodernist in debate on the internet (informally). He had stated that the Bible had been changed over time, and that we could not know what the documents originally said, because the "Church" had control of them (I summarize). I replied that in fact there has never been a time in which any one person or body had control of the text. Rome and Constantinople have never been willing to submit to each other. I also pointed out that the papyri found in Egypt were under no-one's control.

He re-stated his views, adding "How can you be true to yourself knowing this?" Note the implication that to disagree with him is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. Since postmodernism does not hold absolute truth to exist, it cannot say "you're wrong." All too often the substitute phrase or idea is "you are intellectually dishonest". Thus a personal attack takes the place of reasoned argument.

I answered that there are good factual reasons for holding his view to be factually incorrect, but we were arguing on different planes. He then changed his tack to the idea that "nothing in the Gospels is original", and that it is "an old tale new told." I replied that I would like to know what his sources are so I can examine them for myself, and pointed out that the parallels usually claimed are seriosuly over-stated. His reply was along the lines of:

"My view that the Gospels are 'an old tale new-told' is a deeply held personal belief..."

There you go. This is code for "back off or I'll be offended". Never mind that he began by attacking the trustworthiness of the Bible (surely a 'deeply held personal belief' of Christians, his "deeply held personal belief" cannot be questioned.

Now, for someone like myself, there is the temptation to view this as some sort of victory, showing that his ideas are not based on fact, but are part of an irrational belief system. The trouble is, Postmodernism doesn't really care for the facts, at least not this man's brand of it. This irritates me, as it makes debate all but impossible!

Don't Expect a Miracle

2010-03-27T11:12:00.000Z