Choosing barbarity

It is difficult to find words to describe the British parliament voting to legalise of a mother killing her unborn child, for any reason she wishes, at any time, up until the moment of birth (at which  point it then becomes in law a heinous offence, leaving the perpetrator liable to the maximum penalty in British law of life imprisonment). This, as if there were something magical about passing down the birth canal which transforms the baby from having no rights whatsoever, fewer rights in law even than a pet hamster, into someone who suddenly has the full set of human rights.

This distinction (which end of the birth canal you are) is of course entirely arbitrary, and it remains to be seen what judges and parliamentarians will do with it in future. How long until it is argued that Mother Smith was just about to have the child hacked to death or have its skull pierced and brains vaccuumed out, as was her hard-won  legal right, when unfortunately labour began, and child was unexpectedly delivered two weeks prematurely, depriving said Mother of her rights to bash its skull in instead of now having a legal duty to raise it responsibly and lovingly to adulthood? Why does a 40-week baby  still in the womb have zero rights, whilst, if born 5 weeks early, those rights are received? It can't be because "in the womb the baby is dependent upon its mother", because in law, parents have non-negotiable responsibility to take care of their children until adulthood. Baby is dependent upon its mother after being born too. And so as I say, how long will this current, inconsistent settlement stand (for the previous inconsistent settlement  could not)? And what is this horrific doctrine, that anyone who is dependent has no rights and can be killed, by any means whatsoever, without consequence? Who in the world is independent in any case? Do all those who voted for this reach their current stage in life having been abandoned at the moment of  birth to their own glorious independence? Last time  I checked, we had a government dominated by self-proclaimed socialists, at any rate.

The brute fact is that parliament has voted that the weak and vulnerable can legally  be killed, should their lives be deemed to be undesirable by those who hold power  over them. We delude ourselves, of course, if we pretend that this is a new thing. Thus has human government, human authority, ever operated, when it has been allowed to. Thus has the British government long operated, though for the 60 years until now in the case of human abortion under the pretence that it was still legally a crime and that there were proper "checks and balances" to prevent abuses, as if the ending of innocent life (rather than vigorous activity to defend it) were not in itself always an inherently heinous abuse. We pretend to be sophisticated, and we look down on the moral reprobates of previous centuries. The Romans, if they did not want a child, left it on a rubbish heap to die from exposure after its birth. We pretend that they are savages, but we are enlightened, because.... because what? Because we do our killing using pills, scalpels and vacuums instead of leaving it to the elements?

God, have mercy. This is us. This is who we are. This is what we want, and this is how we wish to live our lives. If anything should get in the way of self, then let its blood be poured out, has been our cry. Now we begin to throw off the pretence and to show who we are more openly. We hate God, and we love death. And God is allowing us to have what we wish for. God, save us from ourselves. May the death of your Son deliver us, and deliver the innocent who are assigned for slaughter.

"The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel"

I don't particularly remember coming across this document - "The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel" - at the time. I am not intending to comment on it as a whole. I do want to comment upon section 8, "The Church":

WE AFFIRM that the primary role of the church is to worship God through the preaching of his word, teaching sound doctrine, observing baptism and the Lord’s Supper, refuting those who contradict, equipping the saints, and evangelizing the lost. We affirm that when the primacy of the gospel is maintained that this often has a positive effect on the culture in which various societal ills are mollified. We affirm that, under the lordship of Christ, we are to obey the governing authorities established by God and pray for civil leaders.

WE DENY that political or social activism should be viewed as integral components of the gospel or primary to the mission of the church. Though believers can and should utilize all lawful means that God has providentially established to have some effect on the laws of a society, we deny that these activities are either evidence of saving faith or constitute a central part of the church’s mission given to her by Jesus Christ, her head. We deny that laws or regulations possess any inherent power to change sinful hearts.

These paragraphs reflect the concern of conservative evangelicals to guard against "the social gospel". In terms of the concerns that conservative evangelicals had/have, the social gospel would be seen as defining the mission of the church in terms of proclaiming Christ's love and advancing his kingdom by fighting against injustices in society. It is seen as the on-the-ground program of theological liberalism: the activities that churches give themselves to as their defining mission when the stop having the gospel of Christ incarnate, crucified, risen, ascended and returning, and all the consequences (such as the necessity of preaching this gospel, calling upon people to repent and believe upon him to receive salvation) at the heart of their life.

As always, there is the possibility of over-reaction. Christ commands his people to be zealous for good works. We are to demonstrate his love and compassion in action, and not only as a way of testifying to the gospel, but because the love of Christ dwells in us too and God's love is to be made known to the nations. A church that has no concern for good works does not reflect the Scriptures of either the Old or New Testament, which consistently testify to God's special concern for the suffering, the abandoned, the needy, in society.... and also consistently testify to his wrath against complacent religious people whose lifestyles proclaim that they do not particularly care.

I read the above section, its affirmations and denials, seeking to understand how the statement (i.e. its authors and endorsers) see these things.

Having read it, I'm still not sure, which is a curious thing.... because such statements are intended to remove ambiguity, to clarify, to advance understanding by being specific.

Why do I say this?

Firstly, the statement leaves an awful lot unsaid. The "primary" role of the church is spoken of. Does the church have secondary (or tertiary) roles? If so, what are they? Or is "primary role" a synonym for "only role" or "only required role", or something else? We're not told. The importance of maintaining the "primacy" of the gospel is maintained, which sounds good and something I am likely to agree with; but unfortunately it too is not explained. What things threaten the primacy of the gospel has to be inferred from the surrounding context, but there's multiple ways in which that could be done, so, we are left to give our best effort.

The church upholding the "primacy" of the gospel is said to "often" have a positive effect on society, by mollifying (Britannica dictionary: "to make (someone) less angry : to calm (someone) down"; Collins dictionary: "If you mollify someone, you do or say something to make them less upset or angry. ... Synonyms: pacify, quiet, calm, compose") societal ills; I wonder what that is intended to mean? Presumably in some way to reduce or remove, to a limited extent, those ills? To what end(s)?

So, having read the affirmations, a lot is unclear - but one of the good things about denials is that these can add a lot of clarity. Unfortunately....

... again, with the denials, the language is very ambiguous. Political or social activism (which are not defined, presumably have considerable overlap), are not to be viewed as "integral components" of the gospel. What would that mean? An earlier section defines the gospel as follows: "WE AFFIRM that the gospel is the divinely-revealed message concerning the person and work of Jesus
Christ". If the gospel is (which I agree with!) a divinely revealed message of good news about Jesus, then what would it mean for societal activism to be an "integral component"? Does it mean to deny that the doing of the good works is not itself part of the gospel? Or that proclaiming their necessity is not? Or something else? Since the gospel, by definition, is the proclamation of Christ, then the proclaiming of the importance of the church doing good works cannot be any "component" of the gospel; so what is the purpose of the word "integral" in the denial?

"Or primary to the mission of the church" - again, that word primary. What is the concern here? Something might be compulsory, essential, obligatory, required - and yet not be "primary". For example, I am obliged to all sorts of things, though my primary duty as a human being is to love God with all my being, and to love my neighbour as myself. What would it mean if I denied that all the things I'm required to do were "primary" - what is the importance of making this distinction? No doubt it has one, and that's not something I'm contradicting; but it's not explained. Is the church required to be conspicuous in good works? Are we intended to achieve this whilst avoiding that particular local churches should be conspicuous in particular good works? Is it being said that the church, as the church, officially and outwardly, must keep quiet about good works, but merely enable and encourage individual believers to perform them in a private capacity, so as to not cause misunderstanding about the church's "primary" mission? What is, and what isn't, being said here?

As noted above, what social and political activism are isn't defined, but, in the denials as in the affirmations, the emphasis in what is said falls upon improving the nation's legal code. Here, what comes immediately next, is "Though believers can and should utilize all lawful means that God has providentially established to have some effect on the laws of a society". That's an interesting flow/development of the statement; I wonder what the exact thinking is here? Are believers not meant also to utilise lawful means to alleviate the suffering of God's image-bearers, and to allow the love of God which is in their hearts by the Holy Spirit to be expressed to those in need? I do presume and believe that the authors of the statement think so.... but why is it not discussed?

The statement goes on to deny that the non-primary activity of attempting to change laws (as I say, I don't know why that is specially emphasised) is evidence of saving faith. Did anyone ever suggest otherwise? That sounds truly bizarre. Neither (the denial continues), does it constitute a "a central part of the church’s mission". Again, that word, "central". Does it constitute a required part of the mission? We're not told. This seems to be a non-denial denial. Are there really people who think that specifically changing laws is the central part of the church's mission? If there are, they must dwell a long, long, long way from the orbit of your average conservative evangelical church.

Does the church's duty, given by Christ, include good works? What can be affirmed or denied about that? How do those works related to the church's proclamation that Christ is Lord, and that in him God's love to the nations is declared? The statement appears to have nothing to say on this subject. It's not that I agree or disagree with it; it merely hasn't spoken.

Now I find that profoundly odd, and curious. I could, of course, do some more research. Presumably it was discussed at the time. I can't help noticing it, though. In fact, I looked through the statement specifically to see what it said about these questions, because it is an area I have concerns about. When outsiders say that evangelicals are far too concerned about laying down the strict confines of orthodoxy and it'd be great if they demonstrated more energy in condescending to help suffering people in their very messy, practical situations, it might well be because, ever since evangelicals made it a priority to clarify that they do not believe "the social gospel", we don't seem to have made it the same priority to so clearly, and conspicuously, make it clear that our lives are handed over to showing love to people in need. If something is not quite right with us, then would it not lead to statements like the above being written. Is it just me? Does it not strike you as odd that the statement has the ambiguities, and the omissions, that it does? Where does that come from, and how does that happen? Does the above statement strike you like paragraphs written by people who are busy getting their hands dirty, sleeves rolled up, sharing the love of Christ with people in deep need?

If we read the rest of the statement, the specific concerns of the authors in relation to society and culture in writing the statement are clearly to do with refuting sexual immorality, feminism, identity politics, "Black Lives Matter"-adjacent-type ideology (though remember this is 2018, not 2020). One line that repeats the ideas of section 8 is "And we emphatically deny that lectures on social issues (or activism aimed at reshaping the wider culture) are as vital to the life and health of the church as the preaching of the gospel and the exposition of Scripture." I again find myself wondering whether there has really been anyone of any note in, around or adjacent to Bible churches who has said that lectures on social issues are "as vital to the life and health of the church as the preaching of the gospel". But the next sentence is interesting: "Historically, such things tend to become distractions that inevitably lead to departures from the gospel." What are the "things" here? The only thing that seems to work grammatically is to say that it's the lectures and activism themselves, aiming to reshape the wider culture. i.e. They're positively dangerous. Does this only mean lectures/activism that are simply wrong (e.g. campaigning to redefine marriage) in themselves? Presumably not, since that's not a "distraction", that's just an evil. Evangelicals wouldn't speak of proclaiming false doctrine and denying God's creation order (things that are the concern of other parts of the statement) as merely a "distraction". The sentence comes in section 14, on racism. So does it mean that if the church speaks out or campaigns excessively about racism, then that is what tends to become a distraction and leads people away from the gospel? What in history is being referred to here? Must we actually, if we see actual (rather than pseudo-)racism prefer to keep quiet and do nothing because the defence of the gospel requires it? This sounds an extraordinary doctrine.... but it's outlined so briefly that it's really impossible to know.

Again, as I say, I could do more research and look more into this; as a statement from 2018, presumably there was debate about it at the time. For now, it's filed away in my head. But I must say that if this statement was intended to perform the normal function of such a statement, i.e. to clarify things and advance the state of understanding of one's position, by carefully distinguishing things that differ with accuracy and precision, so that the truth shines more brightly, then at least in the areas that I looked at it for, it badly failed.

The thought-world of Christ and the New Testament

Currently I'm reading the recently-published "Theonomy Old and New: A Reformed Baptist Assessment", which thus far is a very good book, critiquing a significant error, and one which after seeming to go into abeyance has seen a revival in recent years.

I was pleased and helped to see articulation and argument that it is not simply that paedobaptism in general is a root error that leads to prepares the way for receiving theonomist ideas, but specifically that theonomy is a more consistent outworking of some of the paedobaptist hermeneutic. Once the arguments that are made for Reformed paedobaptism are taken seriously, and allowed to come out of the narrow realm of disputes over baptism, and to influence other areas of theology, theonomy is one of the consequences. The things said within the paedobaptist hermeneutic about the precise nature of covenantal continuity can't be boxed up. The Reformers were neither paedocommunionists nor theonomists (and this is demonstrated clearly), but there were certain tensions in their arguments and overall views of God's covenant when they addressed paedobaptism specifically, which consistent thinkers will feel pressure to logically resolve one way or the other: either by ditching paedobaptism, or adopting, progressively, more and more unbiblical and wrong doctrines: paedocommunion, theonomy, political postmillennialism, stronger forms of preterism (e.g. interpreting the book of Revelation through the lens of preterism) and the progressive de-emphasising of Biblical mission with its replacement by deeper levels of political involvement and lobbying and/or attempts to replace other existing churches rather than to get the gospel to the unreached. The book hasn't made all of these links and I expect that it won't make all of them, (though where I've got to, has made several), but it's a set of logical connections I've been seeing more clearly.

Together with other recent studies, this book has also helped me more clearly articulate another matter. It's long been my view that, essentially, to be Biblical, we should not only be able to explain how our views and practices agree with the Bible's, but also that our way of seeing things should be such that, in the same situation, we'd actually say what the Bible says, with the same emphases. That is to say: there's something wrong with the posture by which, when our practices are challenged from Scripture, that we have to appeal to lots of doubtful small-print; or, if asked to explain a doctrine, then most of our explanation is caveats, carve-outs and apologies, rather than demonstrating that God's truth here is good and wholesome. To give a specific example, I can recall hearing explanations of Ephesians 5:21-31 (once at a wedding) where the main burden of the preacher appeared to be to tell us all the things that Paul didn't say - one was left with the distinct impression that he was embarrassed by the things that Paul did say. This can't be right.

As I say, it seems to me the right view that, to be Biblical, we must think as the Bible does, without fear or embarrassment. If we feel either of those, then we have further need of the transforming of our minds (Romans 12:1-2), so that we can better see and understand just how God's will is good, perfect and wholesome. Living in our Creator's world, it's those who don't have the same way of thinking as their Creator who have the explaining to do and ought to feel that something's wrong whilst they explain.

What connection does this have to the book and topics mentioned above? Simply this: there's a whole cluster of doctrines there which, when their proponents explain them, always require them to bring out what is (for them) implicit and in the background... but almost never (in their telling) makes it into the foreground. Or if it is in the foreground, it's in the foreground of the claimed interpretation of an Old Testament writer, and never makes it to be front-and-centre of any of the inspired (whether from the Son of God, or from his commissioned apostles) explanations of how to look at this subject area, or how they actually exegete the Old Testament. They are "doctrines of the gaps". Their proponents largely explain "how to read this-or-that text through the lens of the doctrine", rather than demonstrating that Jesus Christ, or Paul, or Peter, etc., had a specific burden to unfold and unpack that doctrine, glory in it, and make sure that the believers lived in the light of it in their daily lives. That's a very strong indication that the doctrine is false. And why? Because - and this is key - because in all the relevant areas, the New Testament writers are not silent, but they have clear doctrines that they self-consciously, deliberately explained, and applied. There are no gaps into which to insert other doctrines.

We can make this concrete. I've argued this recently in the specific case of postmillennialism: postmillennialism, if taken seriously, teaches its adherents to have a specific way of framing their thinking in regard of this present age, and how to see it, and how to live in it. Those consequences naturally and necessarily flow from its claims. But the New Testament has a different way of teaching believers to orient their thoughts towards this present age, and the two are different. You can read that post to see my argument for that. We can say the same about paedobaptism itself. The New Testament is not empty of detailed and deliberate explanations about how the New Covenant works, and how it relates in relation to the previous covenants (e.g. throughout the book of Hebrews, and the book of Galatians). Paedobaptism attempts to argue their schemes about precisely how circumcision and baptism relate, and whether the New Covenant is essentially "an administration" of a covenant with few practical differences in implementation to what came before, largely rely upon a priori claims, and explaining how isolated verses in other contexts can be read in harmony with their claims, rather than exegeting the abundance of available New Testament material that is specifically focussed upon these questions. (Here's an example of where I argue this in more detail in responding to a particular claim).

Paedocommunion, again, is not argued directly from statements that the apostles or Christ make about the Lord's Supper that would directly lead us to understand its nature and who the proper recipients of it would be, but from theological abstractions that are argued to lie in the background and indirect inferences from them.

Theonomy (and here's something related that I wrote recently that brings this out in response to a specific statement by a theonomist) does likewise. The New Testament has a clear doctrine of nationhood, that has been radically reshaped by the coming of the kingdom. A new nation, the true Israel, has been formed, which has out-moded the still-existing-but-fading-away nations of this present age. Christians live in a new epoch, through the resurrection of Christ, and are part of the nation that is eternal - which is defined not by ethnic descent, nor by physical boundaries, but by their second birth and the presence of the Holy Spirit. The previous understanding of nationhood has been transformed and changed. Meanwhile, the kingdoms of this world - as is well-argued in the book linked above - have been handed to the rule of the Gentiles, and we have been told that this is God's ordination (Romans 13) and that we should submit to them except in some clearly-defined and limited exceptional cases. So: the New Testament has a clear doctrine of nationhood, which the apostles laboured to teach; there is no vacuum into which theonomist thought can be injected.

If you do attempt to inject these various doctrines as the purported background of New Testament thought, then you can only do so by replacement. You're not filling in the presuppostions of apostolic thought; you're switching that thought for something else. The apostles had their own system of thought, and it led them to major on, emphasise and unfold the things that they did, instead of emphasising things like the reasons for baptising infants, capturing nation-states for theonomic rule, or taking heart and viewing the second coming of Christ in light of the doctrines of postmillennialism. They had a thought-world: we should live in it. If we do, then we can't accept these doctrines, we can't see them as harmless, and we must explicitly reject them. The people who believe these doctrines see them as very important, and as transformative. They're right. But also, more fundamentally, they're wrong, and it will help believers greatly to understand how that is, and the consequences of it. Which thought-world we live in matters, greatly: and we must live in that of Christ, as revealed authoritatively in his word.

Charismatic doctrine, charismatic reality

Doctrinally, I am a cessationist, which does not at all mean that I think supernatural events cannot or do not happen. Rather, it means that I think that the New Testament sign and revelation gifts have ceased. That is to say, that the state of affairs by which particular individuals were gifted to serve the early church in the role of apostles, prophets, miracle-workers or tongues-speakers or miraculous interpreters of tongues has ended. It belonged to the age of the apostles and incomplete inscripturated revelation, and ended when that age passed. From now, until the return of Christ, God intends the church to be ruled through an objective, written revelation - our fidelity to which will be judged upon the last day.

I can understand why an honest person, of honourable intent, might be persuaded otherwise, especially given the complicated ways in which people in general make up their minds. I  think that he would have to make significant and serious mistakes in doing so, and that further study without external pressures would lead him to change his mind. But nevertheless, I believe that a brother or sister in Christ could honestly and honourably believe that the Scriptures teach a non-cessationist, i.e. charismatic, position.

What I cannot understand, however, is how such a person with due respect for the Scriptures, could tolerate the practices of any charismatic church or movement I've ever come across. Rather, they ought to find it as offensive as I do. Theory is one thing, but practice is another. 

So, for example, you can believe that there are prophets today - but this is only honourable if you also believe in excommunication for false prophets. Once someone says "thus says the Lord", if they say something that it can be shown the Lord has not said, they're out, and that's it. That's is a clear and consistent standard in both Testaments, and never wavers in the slightest (e.g. Ezekiel 22:28, Jeremiah 14:14, Deuteronomy 18:22, Matthew 7:15, Romans 16:18, Revelation 22:18-19). There is no category, anywhere in Scripture, of the benign or sincerely misguided false prophet, who can be simply encouraged to try again next time. You can only believe in that category by sheer invention.

Similarly, it is quite clear that in the Bible, tongues-speaking was the miraculous speaking of a foreign language that could be understood if a native speaker happened to be present, and which should only be spoken in church if an interpreter was able to interpret it (Acts 2, 1 Corinthians 14). The "tongues of angels" (in chapter 13) would a) still be an interpretable language subject to the rules of 1 Corinthians 14, and b) is quite clearly a piece of hypothetical hyperbole for the purposes of argument, no different to the person whose faith can physically move mountains from one place to another in the next verse. The concept of an uninterpretable "heavenly" language, which thus can be freely babbled into the air, apart from insulting the inhabits of heaven, does not exist anywhere in the Bible, and violates every rule which Paul set down for the early Corinthians to follow in regard of the tongues gift.

The amount of charlatanry and quackery that pervades the charismatic world (come get your holy oil, just £200 a bottle! come get your miracle! let the man of God come and touch you! I've seen a revival that's going to sweep our city that you need to get ready for in the next 3 years - and I've seen this every year for the last 50! Oh, and here's a prophecy specially delivered from heaven's throne-room about the future health of your cat) ought to have all sincere charismatics up in spiritual arms day and night. They ought to be doing very little else other than creating spiritual whip-chords to drive all this fakery and blasphemy out of God's holy temple tout-de-suite, lest judgment swiftly fall. But as it is, they accommodate themselves to it: it's part of the furniture. It goes with the territory. If they were to rise up and apply some godly church discipline to all the fakery and buffoonery, or separate themselves from it otherwise, then they soon instinctively realise that they'd soon be in a church in which you only need your thumbs to count the membership, and likely that'll persist after accidentally putting one of them in the blender.

An excellent point I've seen made a few times in recent years is that if God has, in a special way, been blessing the Charismatic movement with supernatural gifts of discernment in recent decades... then how come the movement has had such an endless catalogue of frauds, thieves, child-abusers and rapists promoted as figure-heads throughout that time? Why did nobody use their gift to discern their presence and expose them? To just pick out one example, how come not one person who possessed this New Testament gift managed to discern Mike Pilivachi, for example? Or why not call out someone outside their movement, which would also be fine? There have certainly been plenty to choose from? Why are all the Christian leaders living double lives exposed through the ordinary means, and never through the gift of supernatural discernment? Can we go somewhere to find where all these supernaturally discerning people have explained their 100% failure rate and inability to out-perform anyone else who didn't have such a gift? Why so quiet about that?

Jesus said that by their fruits you shall know them.

Make disciples, and baptise them

Peter Leithart is very, very, very clever. He's someone whose learning makes me feel that I need to return to nursery school and try again to see if perhaps next time I could reduce the distance between us.

One of the dangers, though, of being so clever, is that you can talk yourself into believing all kinds of things, which a lesser mind would never be able to accept because they're too preposterous.

Which brings us to this Tweet:

Baptize nations, Jesus says. That is: Do for all nations what Yahweh did for Israel at the sea.

Chosen nation status isn't here cancelled, but universalized, as one people after another is incorporated into the chosen nation, each receiving a new political identity by baptismal death and resurrection, each called to its unique historical vocation.

Concerning the grammar of the Great Commission "make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name", much ink has been expended (and if we're going to expend ink on anything, I can think of few better places, so no complaints there!). How do these clauses correlate? Are the nations baptised and then discipled? Must one be a self-conscious disciple to be baptised? Are the disciples called out from the nations, or do nations each themselves become some sort of corporate disciple, nationally brought under the tutelage of Christ?

As with many such questions, the grammar can actually bear more than one construction, and the syntax isn't finally determinative (even whilst we can argue about which is the more natural or likely meaning)....

.... but on the other hand, what the disciples actually went out and did in response to this command is recorded in great detail and is as plain as the proverbial pikestaff. And no less plain is what they then instructed those disciples to carry on doing, and also what they entirely omitted to ever make mention of in their teaching.

So plain, that only someone very, very clever and very decided upon using that cleverness to believe and uphold a doctrine that appeals to them, could fail to register. (It's somewhat akin to arguing about Jesus' words to Peter, "upon this rock I will build my church" - if by this, Jesus was telling Peter about an unbroken line of universal pontiffs based in Rome, succeeding from him to all generations, then Peter never afterwards appears to have known anything about it, and that stubborn fact remains no matter what you can argue that the better syntax-level understanding of the words is or isn't).

The New Testament has a nation in it. That nation entirely supersedes and relativises all other nations. The kingdom of God is not a collection of nations, beginning with the apostate 1st century Israel and then one-by-one progressively assimilating one more nation at a time; and if it were, it has not yet begun, if the New Testament's teaching about discipleship means anything at all. The New Testament's actual teaching gives no countenance to the fever-dreams of some post-millennial theonomic Presbyterians, who hold that once your nation is covenanted, it's always covenanted, end of - and nations never really cease to exist, or come into existence, so there's always an ever-growing number of covenanted nations. The New Testament explicitly and directly redefines the meaning of nations. There are the old nations, which are passing away. They still exist as this old age still endures, and they certainly still have much relevance to our lives; but they are nevertheless passing away. (Analagously: my marriage to my wife endures and is deeply important, notwithstanding my membership of the bride of Christ - it will continue until death do us part, and nothing about Christ's espousal to his eschatological bride can reduce the importance of this relationship in the here and now; and yet, at the same time, human marriages are already passing away, from the New Testament's viewpoint - 1 Corinthians 7:29-31). The kingdom of God is the one nation that will remain, and it exists where there are real disciples of Jesus, who have been born again of his Spirit and are then pass through baptism as individuals and who now belong to his glorious Body. Other nations are around: but also already fading.

If Jesus was telling his apostles to assimilate old-order nations, one-by-one, into his kingdom, as the constituent parts of his kingdom, then they utterly misunderstood, failing to either do it, or tell anyone else to do it, or explaining a theology that would ground it. More than that, they were false teachers, who openly, clearly and pervasively taught in its place a new theology of nationhood that was simply wrong, because Jesus was actually still asserting the old theology of nationhood.

Peter Leithart is very clever. This is a great gift. But his postmillennial/theonomic beliefs, on this subject, have blinded him to what the New Testament does straightforwardly and explicitly and pervasively teach, both at a doctrinal level, and in terms of what program the apostles of Jesus actually implemented.

(So note, in the screenshot above, John is correct, not specifically because of the syntax, but because of the New Testament's sufficient and authoritative record of what was actually then done and taught by the apostles).

Christians' children are worse off if not baptised during infancy?

"Those who claim that Hebrew infants should be circumcised, but that ours should not be baptized, make God more gracious to Jews than to Christians." - Peter Martyr Vermigli (Commentary on Romans, chapter 4 verse 11)

This is, of course, an archetypal supporting argument within circles that teach infant baptism for children of believers. And on the surface, it has an immediate plausibility: if Jews' children received the sign of welcome into the covenant family, then why would Christians' children no longer possess that sign? Has this privilege been withdrawn from them?

It is, however, not truly an argument at all. It is not an argument, but a re-wording of the conclusion. It is a statement that only follows if the actual argument has already been accepted. If the actual argument has not already been accepted, it does precisely nothing to advance it.

How so? Lying behind the statement is the belief that circumcision and baptism are not only divine ordinances with similarities as well as differences, but are fundamentally and essentially the same thing. Any differences are of strictly limited import and finally of no real weight in any practical matter, for they are both "the outward sign of the covenant of grace", signifying and sealing the recipient's membership of that covenant.

And note there that another concept has been admitted which must be viewed in a certain way, in order for that equation to work: there must be a "covenant of grace", and this covenant of grace cannot merely be a unifying concept for understanding God's overall plans throughout salvation history. It is absolutely required that all actual historical covenants (or, at least all those after the fall) found in the Bible, again, despite all their differences, are in the end found to be essentially the same thing, and these differences all found to be of no final weight or import. All Biblical covenants in history do not simply flow from, reflect or advance the purposes of the covenant of grace.... rather, they are "administrations" of this covenant of grace. Note specifically that what cannot be the case is that the New Covenant is the one actualisation in history of an eternal covenant, i.e. the New Covenant is "the covenant of grace" with all the preceding covenants being entities that should be approached firstly upon their own terms, whilst still being intended to ultimately reveal, lead to, and having a deeply important underlying continuity with it. That position (i.e. the Reformed Baptist position) is not enough; all covenants must fundamentally be the covenant of grace. There is really, in practice, only one covenant, under different names and times. The signs and outward accompaniments may change, but the covenant is always one and the same. Jews and Christians must, at the root of it, be the same thing: members of the one-and-only salvific covenant. Again I repeat: we are not talking here about underlying unity, but of to-all-intents-and-purposes identity.

Only then, if all this is accepted, can you speak as Peter Martyr does. Only then can we say that the immediate offspring of a descendant of Abraham according to the flesh before the coming of Christ has received "more grace" than an infant born to believing Christian parents, if the former (assuming that it's a male child) is circumcised on the eighth day, whilst the latter is not sprinkled with sacramental water. But as I say: that's actually the thing to be proved. In and of itself, "but then that means God has been less gracious to Christians than he has been to Old Testament Jews!" is not any sort of argument. It is merely the re-statement of the thing to be proved, but using different words. And as such, in all honesty, it ought to be struck out of the canons of paedobaptist argumentation. It has no actual content that is specific to itself. It simply re-labels the other, real arguments. It is not a supporting sub-argument: it is merely the begging of the question.

The world's foremost false teacher

Tim Challies rightly reminds us that Pope Francis was the world's most well known and influential false teacher.

If your doctrine of showing kindness and respect forbids you to point out the sort of thing that Jesus and his apostles regularly pointed out concerning the particular danger of false teachers, and the need to clearly identify them, avoid them, and warn others against them, then it can't be the practice of the Son of God and those who told us to imitate them as they imitated him (1 Corinthians 11:1) that needs adjusting.

If you don't know in what points the published, official teachings of the Roman Catholic church - the ones that it is their stated aim to propagate, and which they do put vast resources into propagating - differ at essential points from the gospel of Jesus Christ, and at which they undermine and deny it - then the kindest thing you could do for the world's Roman Catholics is to study so that you can understand and clearly articulate that. There are said to be over a billion Roman Catholics in the world, so you're very likely going to meet a lot of them during the course of your life.

Postmillennialism - a theology of hope? On the contrary, a theology of hope misplaced

Postmillennialism is the doctrine that says that, before his second coming, Christ will establish clear outward supremacy amongst the nations, for a prolonged period of time (likely to be centuries at least). Not all people will be converted, but you will be able to say that "the nations have been converted"; the nations in general (or perhaps all of them) will acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, and will order themselves to live under his rule, and will willingly and gladly effectively abolish competing ideologies from public expression. In other words, the gospel's visible triumph is of the sort that means it comes to outwardly dominate over all other alternative beliefs, clearly and conspicuously, throughout the earth.

Postmillennial theologians routinely describe the attractions of their belief in terms of it being a theology of "hope" or "optimism"; a theology that means that we can live in this world with hope/expectation, and know that our labour is not in vain in the Lord. Other views are said to be pessimistic, depressing, lacking hope, and draining their adherents of motivation to serve Christ today.

One - in my view, fatal - problem with this description is that the New Testament clearly teaches Christians that they can, indeed must, live with hope, and know that their labour is not in vain in the Lord, upon different grounds. We look forwards with joy and expectation, because Christ has conquered sin and death, sat down at God's right hand, rules over all things, and is coming again in glory. That is to say, the New Testament explicitly provides other grounds for hope, and portrays those other grounds as entirely sufficient for the outlook that postmillennial theologians say that we need their doctrine in order to arrive at.

Or in other words again, in the New Testament outlook, we live with hope because of the gospel of Christ's death and resurrection, and return. Throughout, the accomplishments of Christ through his cross and empty tomb, through which the dark powers have been defeated, are declared by Christ's messengers to his people as the grounds of their joy and hope; and the culmination of these things is in his second coming to which we look forward with eagerness, as the night will soon be past and the dawn is at hand.

Inasmuch as postmillennial theologians tell us that it is the further announcement (if we, for the sake of argument, grant that this announcement is made somewhere) of the certainty of Christ's clear victory over opposing ideologies consisting in the (vast?) majority of people abandoning them that we find joy, hope, and reason to work for him, they have an irresolvable problem, which is as follows. Either the reasons that the apostles everywhere emphasised were a mistaken emphasis, or they were insufficient reasons for our rejoicing, or the extra reasons provided by postmillennialism are unnecessary.

i.e. We have the horns of a dilemma. Upon one horn, the constant New Testament emphasis upon hope, joy and victory in Christ's resurrection and return was apparently not enough. Any and all passages in which this reason is given need further supplementing by other reasons, and the apostles were mistaken to leave out those reasons in those passages. Christ's ascension and return are, apparently, only enough to rejoice in if you also supply the missing "in between" that during the period from one to another, the proportion of those who will voluntarily submit to him will also reach the threshold that postmillennialism requires (it is not enough that he has a representative number that cumulatively, across the ages, when assembled from across all their different tribes and countries, is the vast Revelation 7 multitude). Or alternatively, upon the other horn, it was enough, meaning that in fact we already have a "theology of hope" without having to accept the beliefs of postmillennialism. Postmillennialism is either false or redundant. Inasfar as you base your joy upon belief about what percentage will be converted before Christ's return, you fail to base your joy upon a foundation that Paul, Peter et. al. already saw as fully sufficient, and you either miss out, or you hold that they were incorrect to do so.

It is my view that a comprehensive study of what excited and motivated the apostles in their preaching and teaching reveals that postmillennialism answers a question that didn't interest them, and which they didn't teach anyone to ask, and which they would have highlighted as a mistaken question if someone had decided to. "Will the greater part of humanity be saved?" belongs to the category of things that God has chosen not to reveal and which are not our business. It is not for us to know the numbers and seasons which God has set in his own sovereignty. On the other hand, certain other spiritual realities, the dawning of the last times through the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, were entirely transformative for the outlook of the apostles and those whom they taught. Those things are revealed, and make all the difference. They make all the difference: they are what constitute the grounds of our certain hope of glory. Anyone who teaches that we must work in a certain way because God has revealed what proportion of humanity will in future recognise him during a substantial period of time teaches people to place their hope somewhere other than where we're meant to put it, and damages the spiritual lives of the hearers. He teaches them to not make his primary way of looking at reality to be the "two realms" scheme of the New Testament (the old realm of Satan, sin and death, and the new realm, which has already invaded history, of Christ, resurrection and life).

False motivations - ones which didn't interest the authoritative declarers of Jesus Christ and his will for his people at all, and which teach people to look at history and space-time reality using a different fundamental lens to that of the New Testament - are not good things, and are not indifferent things. It's not OK to say "oh, but wouldn't it be wonderful if it were true?" We are not called to be wise above what is revealed. It is not wonderful to decide to self-consciously adopt such a viewpoint as ones fundamental outlook on reality. God didn't make a mistake with the viewpoint that he told us to adopt. But here is another fatal problem for advocates of post-millennialism. If they can't say "you should adopt this set of beliefs, because it will give you hope and optimism for the future" (since it's clear from the Bible that we're already meant to have that for other reasons), then what can they say? What now is the marketing point to get people excited?

Further recommended reading; "Paul and the Hope of Glory" - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B085XNC5QS?psc=1 . It's not about post-millennialism, which gets a tiny mention at the very end. As I'm trying to say, that is the point.

Bodily searches

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/17/trans-women-uk-railways-strip-searched-male-officers

Trans women arrested on Britain’s railways will in future be strip-searched by male officers in an updated policy

i.e. People with male bodies (i.e., men) will in future have bodily searches carried out by men.

This is how the Guardian chooses to put it. For some reason they preferred not to also say the fact that it much more relevant to the great majority of people (though female sex abusers do exist): in future, women will not have to endure bodily searches carried out by men (or in Guardian-speak, "trans-men will in future be strip-searched by women"). Your wife and your daughters will not be subject to a man carrying out a bodily search. I wonder why the Guardian chose to direct us in a different direction?

The British Transport Police said same-sex searches in custody would be conducted “in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee” under updated guidance for public bodies.

Which makes sense, because a bodily search was something to do with your body, rather than whatever you believed your "internal sense of gender identity" was.

N.B. saying your "biological birth sex" is a way of trying to make something simple sound complicated. In this case, it sounds like that practice beloved of erring officialdom: obfuscating with unnecessary jargon in order to pretend that you previously weren't in gross dereliction of your duty. Your "biological birth sex" can just be called your "sex", with zero meaning either lost or gained.

Under the force’s previous policy, officers had been told that anyone in custody with a gender recognition certificate would be searched by an officer matching a detainee’s acquired gender

i.e. Previously, physical bodily searches were carried out as if they weren't something primarily to do with your body, but primarily to do with your non-physical inner beliefs about your internal "gender". So, men who claimed that they had an inner "female" orientation, could, on that basis, carry out bodily searches of females.

That policy could make no sense to anybody (because there's no sense in it). It was merely the desire of rabid ideologues who prefer their ideas above the real-world consequences of those ideas. (i.e. They're rabid ideologues, who lack humanity).

The world has plenty of such rabid ideologues, of course. There are all kinds of people suffering all over the world because people prefer their ideas to the flesh-and-blood human beings that their ideas hurt.

So the question then becomes - who in the British Transport Police is going to resign for failing to perform their duty of preferring real people over socially-preferred but actually harmful ideas?

The same question, of course, is now in play (following yesterday's court ruling) for many people in many domains and organisations. "Oops, it just slipped my mind for a moment that girl's bathrooms, women's changing rooms, women's refuges, etc., exist because of the differences of physical bodies, because of physical reality, rather than because of their users' abstract ideas - a subtle mistake anyone could easily make!" It's not really, is it?

The origins of Easter

The Daily Telegraph reports this, concerning a booklet on Easter produced by English Heritage:

Under the heading The Origins of Easter, it states: “Did you know Easter started as a celebration of spring? Long ago, people welcomed warmer days and new life by honouring the goddess Eostre, who gave Easter its name!”

It adds: “Fun Fact: Some traditions for Eostre included dancing around bonfires and decorating homes with flowers.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/12/english-heritage-claims-easter-isnt-originally-christian/

With C S Lewis' Professor Digby, I find myself shaking my head, and wondering what they do teach them in schools these days.

The above could go straight into a textbook of lexical fallacies, confusing completely the lexical origins of a word, and the actual referent of the word as used. i.e. it slides over between and confuses where the word came from, and what people are talking about when they deploy it.

When people say "Easter", they're almost always referring to the time of the year when Christians observe the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and that celebration itself. That's what they're talking about; thus, that's what the word means.

Along similar lines, when someone says to me "Monday", they're referring to the first day of the working week. It's generally the day on which they go back to work or school, or begin whatever their regular activities again after the weekend. They're not implicitly informing me that they worship the Moon or any other heavenly bodies. The fact that long, long ago people named these day in reference to the Moon can tell us something about those people; it doesn't tell us anything about anything that is being talked about if someone today says "I don't like Mondays!".

English Heritage, thus, have confused what "Easter" is with the possible long-distant origins of the word in the English language. In French, it is called "Pâcques", a word whose origins go back to the Hebrew Passover. Does this mean that "Easter" in England and France are fundamentally two different things? Once you cross the Channel, Easter "is" something else entirely?

So, the thing is what the word is used to refer to. Where the word came from is something else, and no doubt interesting. People all other the world re-deploy existing words, after swapping out the content. Sometimes they do this deliberately (because they want to supplant, replace and ultimately eradicate the memory of the former content; for example, the swapping-out of the meaning of words like "tolerance" and "diversity" during my life-time); sometimes it is done without any particular intent. It may be done quickly, or gradually. You could say that on our current trajectory, for a lot of people, "Easter" is "that time when the kids get a break from school because of the traditional Christian calendar, we give and eat Easter Eggs, and generally feel thankful that winter is gone and spring is here". Yes: in practice, quite not too dissimilar to what English Heritage says the festival that 8th-century Bede refers to was about ... though, it seems English Heritage there also may be projecting back their own beliefs. What Bede actually said is less secular: the Anglo-Saxon pagans of a period before his held religious feasts in the honour of the goddess Eostre. Bede is the only source we have that makes any reference to this; we do not know what sources he himself was drawing upon, and what other information there is about these feasts that would impact our understanding.

There is, of course, no real connection between pagan festivals to West Germanic gods observed by Anglo Saxons, and the festival of Easter as observed traditionally by Christians; there is no sense in which the events of an empty tomb in the near east and the preaching of a risen Messiah by disciples of Jesus in the first century and following, and the traditional beliefs about gods of parts of Western Europe, have anything to do with eachother, except in that the people of Europe in general decided to stop paying any respect to the latter, and instead give all respect to the former. i.e. The only connection is a decision to consciously carry out an entire replacement with something obviously different. So, "Easter" has no more to do with Germanic pagan gods than a Protestant family giving eachother "Christmas" presents means that they have decided that their salvation requires participation in the Catholic Mass after all.

All in all, we learn a few things about English Heritage from this, but essentially nothing about the origins of the thing that people call "Easter", as it's been present in our country's traditions and culture for the last millennium and a half or so.

Jesus, the heavenly bridegroom

It is well known to Christians that in the Scriptures, Jesus the Messiah is revealed to us as the bridegroom of his church. It is a theme well attested to in the prophets (e.g. Ezekiel 16, Isaiah 54:5, Jeremiah 2:2), Psalms (Psalm 45), gospels (Matthew 9:15, John 3:29), letters (Ephesians 5:22-33, 2 Corinthians 10:2), and Revelation (chapter 21 - and note the contrast with the great whore of chapter 18).

I think, though, that I'd either overlooked or forgotten the presence of this theme in John chapter 2, in the account of the first miracle at the wedding at Cana. Jesus is, of course, not the literal bridegroom at his wedding; he, his disciples and his mother were invited guests. His time has not yet come (v4). When Mary urges him to do something about the lack of wine, the reader should understand that this is one of the tasks of the bridegroom. Jesus' time had not yet come to reveal himself fully; and yet, it was already time to reveal himself to his disciples, those who trusted in him. He is a partially hidden bridegroom. The Jewish era brought wine, but it had run out. It was wine in finite and static water-pots (which we may contrast with the flowing waters of the Spirit proceeding from all believers, in John chapter 7). The Old Covenant was wearing out, but its promise remained unfulfilled, leaving people spiritually thirsty. But Jesus fills the water-pots with wine - the true wine, the best wine, and they are satisfied.

The wine was taken to the master of the feast, who was astonished by it. He did not know where it had come from. This is also a repeated theme of John's gospel; people do not know where Jesus has come from, but the reader knows, because this is the very first thing that he has been told in the first verse: he is himself God, who is eternally at the Father's side, and has been made flesh. The master of the feast calls the bridegroom, because it was the bridegroom who brings in the wine. But of course, the master of the feast has identified the wrong bridegroom. The one who has actually produced this wine which was the very best, and yet brought at last, was not the man he had called; that was Jesus. Jesus is the true bridegroom. Some know his identity (the servants and disciples) but others are in his very presence and see his miracles, and yet do not know who is amongst them.

This was the beginning of signs, and Jesus manifested his glory. But he wasn't merely helping people to have a good time; he was not only declaring that the time of Old Covenant water-pots had ended; he was also revealing that he was the hidden bridegroom, ready to feast his guests. The glory revealed includes the glory of being the true bridegroom.

In the very next scene, he goes to the temple - his "Father's house" (v16). Of course he does; for as Isaac brought his long-sought-after bride into his parent's tent, so Jesus must cleanse the divine house to make it a fit place for his bride to be taken home to. The false whore of Babylon must be driven out so that the chosen bride can be brought in. The temple must be cleansed so that God's people can dwell in the very holiest place in God's presence (a theme fulfilled finally at the end of Revelation).

I'm sure there's much more to be seen; I was studying a related passage rather than this one and so that is all I currently have. I hope will be able to return to it. But I can't help noticing too (and this was prompted by hearing a sermon on the fetching of Rebekah for Isaac recently) that there are at least 4 places in Scripture where a bride is found at a well of water:

• The first is Rebekah; we see that the bride is chosen and provided in God's foreordination and sovereignty.
• Then there is Rachel; in this account, the emphasis is that the bride is the kin of Jacob; they are of like nature. The deceiver (Laban) seeks to keep Jacob from his true bride.
• Thirdly, Zipporah: Moses comes far, from a strange land, to marry her. He is an outcast and enemy of the land's evil and tyrannical ruler, but is destined to bring redemption to God's people in that land. He takes up home in a far land and there he marries his bride. (He is, however, a "husband of blood" to Zipporah; the Old Covenant ministration if experienced without faith in the Christ that it foreshadowed ultimately brings death, not life - that had to await the one to come).
• Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well, which is the clear fulfilment of all of the above foreshadowings. She has had several other husbands, but none of them were the true husband who has now come to find her. What is in Christ is not more static water that must be laboriously fetched, time after time, but living water, which flows joyously forever. And it is not the blood of another that has to be spilt to establish or maintain the covenant; he freely gives his own.

It seems to me, though, that in chapter 2, John has reported a further partial accomplishment of this motif. At the wedding in Cana, Jesus is again found by the wells of water, and is revealed as the bridegroom; however, he is not recognised. He reveals his glory: but the principal actors at the wedding fail to see him (though the lowly servants do). He is unrecognised at a Jewish wedding; but later, a Samaritan woman (and village) recognise him. As at the end of the book, where the net is cast out "on the other side" to bring in a great catch, so it is here, with John's revelations of the heavenly bridegroom. Those who should see don't see; to those who were far off and lowly, he is graciously revealed. Some do not know who he is and where he has come from; they can only pose astonished questions and marvel without understanding. But some, without any right to such blessings, do know; they believe, embrace him, and receive life. Their bridegroom has come and found them where they were humbly and endlessly toiling for a finite supply of water; and he gives them eternal wine.

"Brothers, we are not political pundits"

This chimes so well with points I've blogged about on and off recently: https://clearlyreformed.org/brothers-we-are-not-political-pundits/. Very good article.

"Brothers, we can be pundits or we can be pastors, but we likely cannot be both." I don't know why the "likely" was included in that closing line, since the article preceding it made an excellent case that we just can't, full stop. The same man cannot both preach "please let me be completely clear that until you have Christ, you are lost and ruined, forever, and this matters more than the whole world; you need to understand that the kingdom of God has arrived in Jesus Christ, and transcends all the things you are attached to in this passing world" and also be someone known for responding to the 24-hour news cycle.

Anyone attempting to serve two masters will serve Christ badly, and quite often not be anything like as good as he thinks he is in the activity in which he's moonlighting too. Pastors and preachers are ambassadors. They must have the spirit expressed when Martyn Lloyd-Jones quoted Nehemiah when people told him that his oratorical gifts would be put to great use in parliament: "I am doing a great work; I cannot come down."

Learning by serving

If you want to understand better, then serve more, and focus your thoughts, energies and desires on those you're serving.

Big books can contain a great deal of profound wisdom. But our ability to absorb and rightly deploy any wisdom is seriously limited by unwillingness to hand over our lives for others and for God.

Without the desire to love God and love man, wisdom becomes knowledge which only "puffs up" (1 Corinthians 8:1). The raw materials are fed in, but they go into a machine whose innards are twisted, perverted - they are arranged not to produce the true good fruits, but something else, something lesser, something driven by an idolatry.

Jesus said "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority" (John 7:17). Failure here is why there are many who are "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:7) - whether in the absolute sense, or in a relative sense, Christians stunted in their growth.

The Internet bears witness that there are many who are working hard at many things, but that it all centres around that vile idol, self. They know a lot: but they know very little.

If you want your children to be able to navigate this troubled world with true, godly wisdom, then don't just teach them. Don't just show them an example. Make service a vital part of their curriculum.

The modern world is very much against us here; it treats children and young people as those who must just receive. All must be made convenient for them to pursue education, and anything that hinders this is very much secondary, if not completely optional. Service can come later, later, always later. But once they're learned this, they won't forget it. (I'm busy with my important degree, I'm trying to impress at my first job, I need to get a deposit, small children use up all of our energy, I'm now making it into the higher levels, etc. etc.).

Authentic service is also a great antidote against being led astray by heresy, errors and simple dead-ends. Notice in Ephesians 6:11-14 how inseparable working and serving together in life is with avoiding "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine". Love leads on to more knowledge and discernment (Philippians 1:9). A good heart sees things more clearly, and results in greater light flooding the whole being (Matthew 5:22). "Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life" (Proverbs 4:23). If our hearts are directed towards the love of God and the love of our unevangelised or suffering fellow-man, then this will help to keep us in the light. On the contrary, when the desires are elsewhere, then disease will ravage the whole body.

Is not failure here - failure to pay attention to sincerely doing the Master's will, practically, prioritising his priorities, in the tasks he's given us, out of love to the Master - behind so much trouble in the churches? One man has a doctrine he thinks he is so right about, another believes he sees some other issue so clearly, and perhaps both have some true and important things in what they say.... and yet, there's also a sense in the air that something important is not quite right. The machinery isn't going as it should, there is oil missing, and some parts are giving off noxious smells even if we can't quite describe exactly what they are.

Again: the master has given us work to do. There's much more sweetness in serving in some worthy causing alongside a brother or sister who has their heart in the right place, and yet hasn't understood a lot of things (and has misunderstood some others) in the Christian scheme of doctrine. There's no need to fret about them. If you keep serving with the desire to lift up Christ and help those who are in need, then you'll both draw nearer to Christ, and gain clearer views of his truth, and sweep away some of the mistakes. Progress will happen, because the way is open for light to come in. But on the other hand, you can be alongside brothers who are so, so doctrinally correct, and yet have a strong sense that something is still very wrong. The desire to do something costly for Christ just isn't there. Joy in service has departed. Some of the motions are still being moved through. But it's hard, hard, to stir people up to much of it. Why? Because the doctrines aren't being loved for the right reason. They're not in the service of crucifying sin that we might live with Christ, killing self so that we can serve others in his name. They're loved for some other cause - intellectual pride, one-up-man-ship, as tools to beat others down with, things to make us feel superior to those stupid worldlings with their Woke nonsense, etcetera, etcetera.

Brothers and sisters, if you want to know Jesus better, he's told us how. "Follow me". "Take up your cross". Find those whom you can serve in his name, inside and outside of the church. Seek to serve and thereby give a testimony to the marvellous love of your Saviour. You'll then find that so many things can be seen so much more clearly.

As the divine son, Jesus knew everything. As the incarnate one, Jesus had a perfect understanding of all the knowledge that he had, unclouded by any sin whatsoever. Driven by this perfect knowledge, he gave his life for others. We only really know anything to the extent that it teaches us to do the same thing.

In which I offer you my own profound and insightful analysis upon the election of Donald Trump

Following on from here.

Before the election of Donald Trump, American Christians, and Western Christians in general, were in the position of having sufficient freedom to preach the gospel, preach the whole counsel of God, reach out to the unconverted, raise their children according to the teaching of the Scriptures, demonstrate the reality of God's love through ministries of mercy to the needy, and generally do whatever they see as best in order to carry on their Master's business whilst they await his return.

Now that Donald Trump has been elected as US president,  American Christians, and Western Christians in general, are in the position of having sufficient freedom to preach the gospel, preach the whole counsel of God, reach out to the unconverted, raise their children according to the teaching of the Scriptures, and demonstrate the reality of God's love through ministries of mercy to the needy, and generally do whatever they see as best in order to carry on their Master's business whilst they await his return.

Now get back to work.

(The above is not an argument that the political sphere is irrelevant. Rather, it's an argument for the things it says).

God's temple: the best place to hide your idols

Stephen McAlpine nails it: https://stephenmcalpine.com/why-the-temple-is-the-best-place-to-hide-an-idol/

The killer quote in the article: “A [ministry] leader whose heart has been captured by other things doesn’t forsake ministry to pursue other things; he uses ministry position, power, authority and trust to get those things.”

Once, a missionary in Kenya observed to me that a number of people (thankfully, there are many who are not in this category) go to the mission field, or enter Christian ministry in general, because it gives them the opportunity to satisfy sinful and proud cravings that they'd never be allowed to get away with in the secular world, or in a bigger pond. Being lifted up high, away from scrutiny, controlling the information that goes to other places about yourself and your brilliance, controlling the mechanisms of accountability, and having open green fields in which to do things you couldn't do working alongside and under others - this offers such opportunities for the person who loves or is ensnared by something that they shouldn't.

The conservative evangelical church in the UK, and particularly Anglican conservative evangelicals, is being rocked (again) by scandal caused by appalling wickedness amongst well-known leaders, and the questions "who knew this?" and "for how long?", "when there were signs, why does it again look like the response was a cover-up, and how has it taken so long to come to light?" and, most damningly, "why did this have to be exposed by people outside the church, when the church is told to love justice, exercise repentance, and live in the light of the day of judgment when everything we declined to do and should have done will be revealed?"

Though there need to be specific answers for the specific cases, there's one big factor that is present in scandal after scandal. A lot of people love their reputation, position, influence, platform, conferences, networks, book endorsements, etcetera, at least as much as they love Jesus, and there are few signs we can see that this is changing. "Big cheese disease" seems to be present in every age: and thus, all the more reason why it needs dealing with.

But when did you last hear a prominent leader lay out, in detail, why evangelical celebrity cults and celebrity cultures are wicked, and a huge problem, and what in particular needs to be done to resist them and their evil influence? "Judgement must begin first at the household of God." "Physician, heal thyself." "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."

If you're not pointing out that the Emperor lacks clothes, is it because you yourself are still hoping to receive the Empire's favours? When you read the gospels and see how Christ acted faced with wickedness in God's temple, can you conclude that your silence is Christ-likeness, or is it actually something else?

Lord, may I live no longer than you give me grace to walk every day in repentance and serve in a way that gives honour, only, to your Son. May I see his glory, and in that light, my unworthiness. May he increase, and I decrease, every day. Amen.

John MacArthur: I beg your pardon?

On one of his ministry websites, John MacArthur tells you that he is - calls himself - "the World's Premier Expository Preacher" - https://macarthurcenter.org/the-expositor/ .

And yes, he does call himself that. It's his centre, in his name, and every statement it publishes, especially if it's prominent, is thus endorsed as his statement until he retracts it as erroneous. And that page has said so since at least June 2021, and so for at least 3 and a half years:

Why am I drawing your attention to this? Are we not meant to hide things in our brethren that are embarrassing or dishonourable? On the contrary, those who publicly represent Christ must expect scrutiny, and invite it; Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:1, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ", and in Philippians 3:17, "Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern."

John MacArthur wants your attention to be drawn to this fact, so that you can sign up to learn from him. That's why he's put it in big type, at the top a main page of an eponymous ministry websites.

What to make of this?

For one thing, Jesus Christ forbids his servants to receive titles from men; how much more does he forbid men to award them to themselves?

Matthew 23:8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

Plainly this prohibition cannot be made absolute; it does not extend to titles that recognise and are used legitimately in connection with an office; Christ's apostles, inspired by his Spirit, used the title "apostle of Jesus Christ" to introduced themselves. Paul (1 Corinthians 15:10) told the Corinthians, again under inspiration, that he had worked harder than all the other apostles. But then, there, there were only a small handful of other apostles. Evidently, Paul said it knowing it to be objectively true - but let's also note the full context of what he had to say:

1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.  

As far as I know, though, there is no office of "world's premier Bible expositor" that Jesus Christ appointed for someone to take up. Out of interest, when did MacArthur inherit this position, and who was his immediate predecessor?

Again, Paul said: "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ", 1 Corinthians 11, thereby drawing attention to his own example, which therefore cannot be absolutely wrong to do. But can you imagine Paul adding "and I am the world's premier imitator of Jesus Christ", even though that might actually have been true, given what we know of Paul's deep sufferings and what God, by the Holy Spirit, had to say about those sufferings?

You can make of John MacArthur awarding himself the title "the World's Premier Expository Preacher" what you will. I was quite sure that it wasn't me, so I'm certainly not disputing it on those grounds! Quite how MacArthur determined that he was the world's foremost explainer of the Bible, we are not told. We know that he is strongly against the concept of private revelations. We suppose he determined it some other way. However he determined it, he did think it was important to let us know.

Since you now know that John MacArthur has concluded that he is the world's premier expounder of God's word to man, and that he needed to tell you this, are you now helped to take him as seriously as such an important person should be taken?