One insight that Douglas Wilson describes well is this: We want a free nation: good. But free nations need free men. And there are no free men without Jesus Christ. None; none at all.
Hence I view the various likely outcomes of the upcoming UK general election as being like finding out which one of your limbs is going to be hacked off first, and whether it's going to be done with a blunt instrument or a newly oiled chainsaw.
One party leader, a self-professed atheist, wrote in a church newsletter that his party's policies were based upon Christian values. Ha ha.
Christian value number one is that Jesus Christ is Lord. Lord of all. Lord of our innermost thoughts; but also Lord of politics, Lord of taxation, Lord of government borrowing, Lord of social and family policy. Lord of all: or not really Lord at all.
When we start to evaluate by this Biblical standard, the fact is that Christian action as salt and light in the present UK political scene is basically about trying to stop the overwhelming stench from the rotting corpse finishing the country off sooner rather than later. That action is of value and has a good and proper place. I thank God for those doing it. But the regeneration of the UK will not come from gaining political agreement to a lobotomised set of Christian values. (That's not a veiled criticism of anyone in particular's work, by the way). It'll come when we eventually see, by the power and mercy of God, the original Christian value taking root once again. That's what made the UK truly great amongst nations; that's what makes any nation truly great. In the past, we bowed to the Lordship of Christ - and not in a hypocritical manner that was afraid to actually state his name and identity.
The universe belongs to Jesus Christ, being made by and for him: the pathetic and miserable game of trying to make the world work without recognising or acknowledging him won't work because it can't work. It's impossible, because Jesus actually is Lord. If we want to see the fruit of Christian living in the UK, then the huge task today is to trust in God and go to the painful, sacrificial work needed to plant the roots once again. Jesus Christ works through Christians. The most fundamental question for us who are Christians is whether the Lordship of Christ is a daily reality in our "ordinary" lives, or whether it's something that we like a politician just pay lip-service too when it seems like the right thing to do. How is it with you?
I suppose some passing atheist might think that this post is a call to set up a theocracy. If you do, you misunderstood everything I said.
Friday, 30 April 2010
Monday, 26 April 2010
The divine original
Yesterday I preached on marriage and divorce from Mark 10:1-12 - the message can be downloaded from www.graceeldoret.org. Here are a few thoughts following that.
Marriage is an illustration of why the doctrine of diviine creation is so important. After all, what is marriage?
Is it whatever society wants it to be? Is it a human creation, that we can mould and shape to the preferences of the hour? These questions have to be answered before we can even discuss ideas like "gay marriage", because they lie underneath them.
Jesus teaches us that to know what marriage is, and how it should operate, we must go back to the divine original. The original marriage was a prototype, a pattern for others to follow. Adam could not send Eve away without sending himself away; her creation from one of his ribs illustrated a permanent principle: that in marriage the two are intended to permanently be one. He could not take another wife, because there were no others to take: God made him one wife, not three. He could not take a man as his wife, because God made him an Eve to complete him, not a Steve. God set a binding pattern for us to follow - not to adjust according to the spirit of the age. Without the strong doctrine of divine creation, all of this falls apart. Attempts to re-sculpt marriage are basically atheism: they deny that there is any God who has set out a way for us to follow.
The fact that Western society's rejection of Biblical marriage has coincided with Western society's family breakdown is not a coincedence. Because we do live in God's creation and not the fantasy land of our own imaginations, if we don't follow the lines that God prescribed for us, things don't quite work. I might like to imagine in my head that my Land Rover Mark III is a nippy little BMW Mini, but if I actually try to live out that belief on the road it won't work out well for any of us. Rather, I need to drive it the way the designer intended. In the sexual revolution, the West decided that we can drive off a cliff and land safely at the bottom, simply because we wish it to be so. It's not working, and it never will. Sexual freedom is enjoyed not when we become slaves to whatever desire strikes us next (how could it ever be so?) It is enjoyed within the safety and protection of the limits that God set for us, and nowhere else: when we are free to have all that God wanted for us, protected from what he did not.
Marriage is an illustration of why the doctrine of diviine creation is so important. After all, what is marriage?
Is it whatever society wants it to be? Is it a human creation, that we can mould and shape to the preferences of the hour? These questions have to be answered before we can even discuss ideas like "gay marriage", because they lie underneath them.
Jesus teaches us that to know what marriage is, and how it should operate, we must go back to the divine original. The original marriage was a prototype, a pattern for others to follow. Adam could not send Eve away without sending himself away; her creation from one of his ribs illustrated a permanent principle: that in marriage the two are intended to permanently be one. He could not take another wife, because there were no others to take: God made him one wife, not three. He could not take a man as his wife, because God made him an Eve to complete him, not a Steve. God set a binding pattern for us to follow - not to adjust according to the spirit of the age. Without the strong doctrine of divine creation, all of this falls apart. Attempts to re-sculpt marriage are basically atheism: they deny that there is any God who has set out a way for us to follow.
The fact that Western society's rejection of Biblical marriage has coincided with Western society's family breakdown is not a coincedence. Because we do live in God's creation and not the fantasy land of our own imaginations, if we don't follow the lines that God prescribed for us, things don't quite work. I might like to imagine in my head that my Land Rover Mark III is a nippy little BMW Mini, but if I actually try to live out that belief on the road it won't work out well for any of us. Rather, I need to drive it the way the designer intended. In the sexual revolution, the West decided that we can drive off a cliff and land safely at the bottom, simply because we wish it to be so. It's not working, and it never will. Sexual freedom is enjoyed not when we become slaves to whatever desire strikes us next (how could it ever be so?) It is enjoyed within the safety and protection of the limits that God set for us, and nowhere else: when we are free to have all that God wanted for us, protected from what he did not.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Conference recordings
The Reformed Baptist conference in Nairobi, Kenya that I'm at this week is making the handouts and audio freely downloadable, here:
http://rebmik.org/rm/index.php/conference-2010/
Messages are about 65-75 minutes long, so it's something to get your teeth into! The conference theme is the gospel, and mine was on the purpose of the gospel (the glory of God). We had about 50 people there which is quite encouraging - it's our first one so it's a good start so far.
http://rebmik.org/rm/index.php/conference-2010/
Messages are about 65-75 minutes long, so it's something to get your teeth into! The conference theme is the gospel, and mine was on the purpose of the gospel (the glory of God). We had about 50 people there which is quite encouraging - it's our first one so it's a good start so far.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Free John Piper book on marriage
I dwell in a bit of a back-woods Internet-wise. By which I mean, I don't go out browsing much. So apologies if this is old hat. But, here's a freely downloadable John Piper book on marriage: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/45_Marriage/3338_This_Momentary_Marriage/
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
When youths are your leaders
" And there are gathered unto him vain men, the children of Belial, and have strengthened themselves against Rehoboam the son of Solomon, when Rehoboam was young and tender-hearted, and could not withstand them." - 2 Chronicles 13:7
Question: How old do you think "young and tender-hearted" Rehoboam was?
Answer: " for Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he began to reign" - 2 Chronicles 12:13.
According the word of God, Isaiah 3:4, being led by the young is a judgement of God upon a nation. " And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them." This ought to be obvious; younger people have less experience of life and of the world and of making mistakes. They can of course much better understand the points of view and experiences of people at different stages of life. Therefore when leadership is characterised by youth, something is wrong.
The last UK prime minister to win an election, Tony Blair, became an MP aged 29 and became prime minister aged 43. 43 is also the age of the two leaders of the two main opposition parties fighting the present election. Nick Clegg entered parliament aged 38, and David Cameron did at age 34. The present prime minister, Gordon Brown, entered parliament at age 32 and became shadow chancellor at age 38, then the real thing at 43. The present shadow chancellor is 38, having entered parliament a month after leaving his twenties. If David Cameron becomes the next prime minister, he will (all being well with his wife's pregnancy) be the third in a row to have shared 10 Downing Street with a baby.
In other words, these aren't one-offs; it's a trend. And the general opinion of the public is not that we are just blessed with an outstanding batch of prodigies; the public stock of politicians and their leadership is at a long-term low.
The Bible requires that church leaders prove themselves in their families, and particularly with their children; "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1 Timothy 3:5). This does not necessarily mean that a church elder has to have grown up children; the fruits of parenting policy can be seen well before this. But the basic assumption is that nobody is entrusted with responsibility in a larger area of life who has not proven themselves in a smaller. The UK has 58 million citizens; it cannot be and is not (as can be seen by reading their biographies) true that its political leaders learnt and achieved more in the 10 or so years of adult life before entering parliament than many other people did in the, say, 35 years before reaching age 55 at which perhaps suitable political leaders would become clear. Remember: at 41, according to the Word of God, Rehoboam was a youth.
Of course, there are prodigies; Spurgeon was a pastor in his teens, and Calvin wrote the Institutes in his twenties. And of course age does not automatically bring wisdom or blessing - we'd surely choose all of the above politicians in preference to Robert Mugabe, for example. But the point is that such as Spurgeon and Calvin are prodigies. When youth leadership is the norm, you are not witnessing the unfolding of God's blessing, but his curse. And the fact that nobody comments on this phenomena or finds it remarkable (or even thinks it's good, which presumably we must do, as these people didn't become leaders without winning chains of popularity contests) shows how far the curse has gone. That is the situation that the UK presently finds itself in.
Question: How old do you think "young and tender-hearted" Rehoboam was?
Answer: " for Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he began to reign" - 2 Chronicles 12:13.
According the word of God, Isaiah 3:4, being led by the young is a judgement of God upon a nation. " And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them." This ought to be obvious; younger people have less experience of life and of the world and of making mistakes. They can of course much better understand the points of view and experiences of people at different stages of life. Therefore when leadership is characterised by youth, something is wrong.
The last UK prime minister to win an election, Tony Blair, became an MP aged 29 and became prime minister aged 43. 43 is also the age of the two leaders of the two main opposition parties fighting the present election. Nick Clegg entered parliament aged 38, and David Cameron did at age 34. The present prime minister, Gordon Brown, entered parliament at age 32 and became shadow chancellor at age 38, then the real thing at 43. The present shadow chancellor is 38, having entered parliament a month after leaving his twenties. If David Cameron becomes the next prime minister, he will (all being well with his wife's pregnancy) be the third in a row to have shared 10 Downing Street with a baby.
In other words, these aren't one-offs; it's a trend. And the general opinion of the public is not that we are just blessed with an outstanding batch of prodigies; the public stock of politicians and their leadership is at a long-term low.
The Bible requires that church leaders prove themselves in their families, and particularly with their children; "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1 Timothy 3:5). This does not necessarily mean that a church elder has to have grown up children; the fruits of parenting policy can be seen well before this. But the basic assumption is that nobody is entrusted with responsibility in a larger area of life who has not proven themselves in a smaller. The UK has 58 million citizens; it cannot be and is not (as can be seen by reading their biographies) true that its political leaders learnt and achieved more in the 10 or so years of adult life before entering parliament than many other people did in the, say, 35 years before reaching age 55 at which perhaps suitable political leaders would become clear. Remember: at 41, according to the Word of God, Rehoboam was a youth.
Of course, there are prodigies; Spurgeon was a pastor in his teens, and Calvin wrote the Institutes in his twenties. And of course age does not automatically bring wisdom or blessing - we'd surely choose all of the above politicians in preference to Robert Mugabe, for example. But the point is that such as Spurgeon and Calvin are prodigies. When youth leadership is the norm, you are not witnessing the unfolding of God's blessing, but his curse. And the fact that nobody comments on this phenomena or finds it remarkable (or even thinks it's good, which presumably we must do, as these people didn't become leaders without winning chains of popularity contests) shows how far the curse has gone. That is the situation that the UK presently finds itself in.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Perseverance!
I love long-distance physical challenges. I just have limited opportunity for them (unless, that is, I neglect my work or family!).
On which note, I am in awe of Richard Hendron, who last Saturday (together with Jim King from the army) won the Devizes to Westminster 125-mile (non-stop timing!) canoe race for the third time. The previous two times it was amazingly by a minute - which if you all started together (which you don't because you have to choose your time in order to meet the tide in London) means that after 201 kilometres of river you could still be seen by the crew behind. But this time the competition was blown away by 70 minutes - which is about 8 miles! I have a dream that one day I'll paddle the course with one of my sons, but it won't be in the race unless they move back from starting Saturday (which means they finish early Sunday) - and I'm in the wrong country to train or attempt so it may have to remain a dream!
Today I enjoyed myself running because I beat my 5-mile record from had stood since September 2007. (That journal entry actually says I wasn't really trying so hard which I definitely was today!). This was the first personal running "record" I'd set since that day. It's been long! Stress fractures, runner's knees, moving country, adjusting to altitude. The 5 mile record (as opposed to 7.1, 10, half and full marathon which are the others I "race" myself at) was the softest target, but it feels good all the same. I could never have guessed it would take so long; only with a lot of perseverance have I got back to and at last overtake where I was. Which must be a lesson for the rest of life! I wonder how many things I've given up at and haven't achieved in family, work or other areas because I didn't have the needed single-mindedness.
On which note, I am in awe of Richard Hendron, who last Saturday (together with Jim King from the army) won the Devizes to Westminster 125-mile (non-stop timing!) canoe race for the third time. The previous two times it was amazingly by a minute - which if you all started together (which you don't because you have to choose your time in order to meet the tide in London) means that after 201 kilometres of river you could still be seen by the crew behind. But this time the competition was blown away by 70 minutes - which is about 8 miles! I have a dream that one day I'll paddle the course with one of my sons, but it won't be in the race unless they move back from starting Saturday (which means they finish early Sunday) - and I'm in the wrong country to train or attempt so it may have to remain a dream!
Today I enjoyed myself running because I beat my 5-mile record from had stood since September 2007. (That journal entry actually says I wasn't really trying so hard which I definitely was today!). This was the first personal running "record" I'd set since that day. It's been long! Stress fractures, runner's knees, moving country, adjusting to altitude. The 5 mile record (as opposed to 7.1, 10, half and full marathon which are the others I "race" myself at) was the softest target, but it feels good all the same. I could never have guessed it would take so long; only with a lot of perseverance have I got back to and at last overtake where I was. Which must be a lesson for the rest of life! I wonder how many things I've given up at and haven't achieved in family, work or other areas because I didn't have the needed single-mindedness.
Saturday, 10 April 2010
The apostles' creed
This is the apostles' creed, the oldest commonly known creed, coming from around 50 years after the latest writings of the New Testament:
Now, I don't think this or any man-made confession is infallible. For one thing I think that the arguments that "he descended into hell" was not intended literally by the confession's authors are implausible, given the position of that statement (coming after crucified, died, buried, and as a separate statement to that one). And I think that statement is false; Christ told the dying thief that "today" they would be together in paradise. Christ's sufferings are in the Scriptures uniformly attributed to the cross, not to a mythical "descent into hell". I think that those who have used the confession in the last 500 years in this sense (i.e., it refers to the cross) are right in intent, even if it is not really what the confession says.
But, coming back to my point, I think that the historical emphasis is very helpful. The confession arose in the times when the Gnostic challenge was very strong, and the fact is that Gnostic-type errors have never died, but manifested themselves again and again in different forms in the church. By Gnostic-type errors, I am talking about the tendency to separate history from theology, facts from ideas, values from events - flesh and blood from soul and spirit.
Theological liberalism is a form of Gnosticism. Theological liberalism sought to "de-mythologise" the Bible, stripping out the historical claims and keeping the ethical teaching. But in the Bible, the ethical teaching is a fruit, and God's historical actions in the world are the roots. Dig out the former, and quite quickly you won't have any consistent basis for the former - as the recent history of the West shows.
The Bible is a very earthly book. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. He acts in this world - not some mythical private sphere - to judge and to save. Jesus is Lord, not simply of our private values and personal beliefs, but of the hills, valleys and plains too; of the public, visible reality that you can see on Google Earth. He actually came into this world, lived, suffered, and died and rose - to be Lord of this world, not of a different or invisible one. He's Lord of all seven days of the week, not just Sunday; Lord of the world, not simply the church. When we understand that, we'll understand that secularism is actually functional atheism, and that secularism no more matches with Christianity than Gnosticism does - because it is (in its Christianised forms) a species of Gnosticism.
Theistic evolution is another crypto-Gnostic scheme, that separates God's acts from God's words. It relegates the creative accounts of Scripture to theological stories that are intended to teach theological ideas, but not because they tell an account of what actually happened in the real world. Fruits without roots again.
This insight is part of what gives me confidence as a missionary and elder. As I preach the gospel and spread the word in this world (badly, but with God's help to keep going forward), I have confidence that Jesus, as Lord of this world, will achieve his purposes. I believe that his word will transform real-world institutions - individual lives, families, places of work, cultures and even governments. Those things aren't in another sphere, where Jesus' Lordship is less important - they're an integral part of the very universe he is Lord over. We can pray and work with confidence, not just hunker down into a holy huddle waiting for the second coming to rescue us into a world where Jesus actually does reign.
Tomorrow I've been asked to address a student Christian Union on the subject of post-modernism. Post-modernism denies the validity of meta-narratives - i.e. of universally true stories which transcend local cultures and boundaries. The gospel is nothing else than a meta-narrative, and the Apostles' Creed hence denied post-modernism 1900 years in advance. I submit that a Christian who really appreciates the logic of the construction of the Apostles' Creed is a Christian who is well-armed against many of the erroneous -isms plaguing the church today. Once you've grasped Genesis 1:1, that in the beginning God made not just souls and Platonic realms of ideals, but the real-life heaven and earth in which we live, and once you've grasped the flesh-and-blood gospel of a Saviour who really suffered terrible agony on a Roman gibbet around 30AD, and once those insights have penetrated throughout your thinking, you're well on the way. Truly the ancients have a lot to teach us, even in the very fundamentals.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,I used to find this confession something of a puzzle. It seems relatively light on specific doctrinal confession, taking most of the space on recounting historical events. My mathematical and scientific mind wasn't so used to this kind of fodder. Over a number of years my thinking has changed - I hope, developed and matured. The construction of this confession is now something I appreciate and value very deeply.
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.
Amen.
Now, I don't think this or any man-made confession is infallible. For one thing I think that the arguments that "he descended into hell" was not intended literally by the confession's authors are implausible, given the position of that statement (coming after crucified, died, buried, and as a separate statement to that one). And I think that statement is false; Christ told the dying thief that "today" they would be together in paradise. Christ's sufferings are in the Scriptures uniformly attributed to the cross, not to a mythical "descent into hell". I think that those who have used the confession in the last 500 years in this sense (i.e., it refers to the cross) are right in intent, even if it is not really what the confession says.
But, coming back to my point, I think that the historical emphasis is very helpful. The confession arose in the times when the Gnostic challenge was very strong, and the fact is that Gnostic-type errors have never died, but manifested themselves again and again in different forms in the church. By Gnostic-type errors, I am talking about the tendency to separate history from theology, facts from ideas, values from events - flesh and blood from soul and spirit.
Theological liberalism is a form of Gnosticism. Theological liberalism sought to "de-mythologise" the Bible, stripping out the historical claims and keeping the ethical teaching. But in the Bible, the ethical teaching is a fruit, and God's historical actions in the world are the roots. Dig out the former, and quite quickly you won't have any consistent basis for the former - as the recent history of the West shows.
The Bible is a very earthly book. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. He acts in this world - not some mythical private sphere - to judge and to save. Jesus is Lord, not simply of our private values and personal beliefs, but of the hills, valleys and plains too; of the public, visible reality that you can see on Google Earth. He actually came into this world, lived, suffered, and died and rose - to be Lord of this world, not of a different or invisible one. He's Lord of all seven days of the week, not just Sunday; Lord of the world, not simply the church. When we understand that, we'll understand that secularism is actually functional atheism, and that secularism no more matches with Christianity than Gnosticism does - because it is (in its Christianised forms) a species of Gnosticism.
Theistic evolution is another crypto-Gnostic scheme, that separates God's acts from God's words. It relegates the creative accounts of Scripture to theological stories that are intended to teach theological ideas, but not because they tell an account of what actually happened in the real world. Fruits without roots again.
This insight is part of what gives me confidence as a missionary and elder. As I preach the gospel and spread the word in this world (badly, but with God's help to keep going forward), I have confidence that Jesus, as Lord of this world, will achieve his purposes. I believe that his word will transform real-world institutions - individual lives, families, places of work, cultures and even governments. Those things aren't in another sphere, where Jesus' Lordship is less important - they're an integral part of the very universe he is Lord over. We can pray and work with confidence, not just hunker down into a holy huddle waiting for the second coming to rescue us into a world where Jesus actually does reign.
Tomorrow I've been asked to address a student Christian Union on the subject of post-modernism. Post-modernism denies the validity of meta-narratives - i.e. of universally true stories which transcend local cultures and boundaries. The gospel is nothing else than a meta-narrative, and the Apostles' Creed hence denied post-modernism 1900 years in advance. I submit that a Christian who really appreciates the logic of the construction of the Apostles' Creed is a Christian who is well-armed against many of the erroneous -isms plaguing the church today. Once you've grasped Genesis 1:1, that in the beginning God made not just souls and Platonic realms of ideals, but the real-life heaven and earth in which we live, and once you've grasped the flesh-and-blood gospel of a Saviour who really suffered terrible agony on a Roman gibbet around 30AD, and once those insights have penetrated throughout your thinking, you're well on the way. Truly the ancients have a lot to teach us, even in the very fundamentals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
