Friday, September 30, 2011

The Blood of the New Covenant

“This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Matthew 26:28
Octavius Winslow 1808-1878
The atoning blood of Christ possesses a pardoning efficacy. Through this blood, God, the holy God—the God against whom you have sinned, and whose wrath you justly dread, can pardon all your sins, blot out all your transgressions, and take from you the terror of a guilty conscience.
Oh what news is this! Do you doubt it? We know it is an amazing fact, that God should pardon sin, and that He should pardon it, too, through the blood of His dear Son, yet take His own word as a full confirmation of this stupendous fact, and doubt no more—”The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.”
Oh yes—blessed declaration! it cleanses us from all sin—”all manner of sin.” We ask not how heavy the weight of guilt that rests upon you; we ask not how wide the territory over which your sins have extended; we inquire not how many their number, or how aggravated their nature, or how deep their dye; we meet you, just as you are, with God’s own declaration, “the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin.”
Many there are who can testify to this truth. “Such were some of you,” says the apostle, when writing to the Corinthian converts, who had been fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners; “such were some of you, but you are washed.” In what had they washed?—where were they cleansed? They washed in the “fountain opened to the house of David, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and uncleanness.”
To this fountain they came, guilty, vile, black as they were, and the blood of Jesus Christ cleansed them from all sin. Mourning soul, look up—the fountain yet is open, and open too for you. Satan will seek to close it—unbelief will seek to close it—yet it is ever running, ever overflowing, ever free. Thousands have plunged in it, and emerged washed, sanctified, and saved.
To this fountain David, and Manasseh, and Saul, and Peter, and Mary Magdalene, and the dying thief, and millions more, came, washed, and were saved; and yet it has lost nothing of its sin-pardoning, sin-cleansing efficacy—sovereign and free as ever! Oh say not that you are too vile, say not that you are too unworthy! You may stand afar from its brink, looking at your unfitness, looking at your poverty, but listen while we declare that, led as you have been by the Holy Spirit to feel your vileness, for just such this precious blood was shed, this costly fountain was opened.
This “blood of the new testament” is peace-speaking blood. It not only procured peace, but when applied by the Holy Spirit to the conscience, it produces peace—it gives peace to the soul. It imparts a sense of reconciliation: it removes all slavish fear of God, all dread of condemnation, and enables the soul to look up to God, not as “a consuming fire,” but as a reconciled God—a God in covenant.
Precious peace-speaking blood, flowing from the “Prince of Peace!” Applied to your heart, penitent reader, riven asunder as it may be with godly sorrow, it shall be as a balm to the wound. Sprinkled on your conscience, burdened as it is with a sense of guilt, you shall have “beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.”
It is through simply believing that the blood of Christ thus seals pardon and peace upon the conscience. Do not forget this. “Only believe,” is all that is required; and this faith is the free gift of God. And what is faith? “It is looking unto Jesus;” it is simply going out of yourself, and taking up your rest in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ—this is faith. Christ has said, that “He saves to the uttermost all that come unto God by Him;” that He died for sinners, and that He saves sinners as sinners: the Holy Spirit working faith in the heart, lifting the eye off the wound, and fixing it on the Lamb of God, pardon and peace flow like a river in the soul.
Oh, stay not then from the gospel-feast, because you are poor, penniless, and unworthy. See the provision, how full! see the invitation, how free! see the guests—the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind! Come then to Jesus just as you are. We stake our all on the assertion, that He will welcome you, that He will save you.
There is too much efficacy in His blood, too much compassion in His heart for poor sinners, to reject you, suing at His feet for mercy. Then look up, believer, and you shall be saved; and all heaven will resound with hallelujahs over a sinner saved by grace!
The Octavius Winslow Archive
Τω αγαπησαντι  ημας  και  λουσαντι  ημας  απο  των  αμαρτιων  ημων  εν  τω  αιματι  αυτου.
Rev. 1:5b

Sola Scriptura – By the Scriptures Alone (2)

Continued from Part 1 here:
The issue of Sola Scriptura was an issue regarding the question of authority. Specifically, “is God’s authority invested in a book or in an Institution (the Church)?”
The Protestant Reformers believed in Sola Scriptura (the Scriptures Alone), and would declare the Roman Church to believe and practice Sola Ecclesia (by the Church Alone), for quite simply, what the Roman Catholic Church says to be true, is true because the Church speaks with infallibility and cannot possibly be wrong.
The response of the Roman Catholic Church was to remind the Reformers that the Church would not even have had the Bible except that Church councils actually defined what the Bible actually was. The reasoning went like this: if the Church is the Institution that declares the Bible to be the Bible, does not that indicate that the Church would have at least the same authority as the Bible, or even more?
RECIPIMUS
Both Martin Luther and John Calvin responded to this by reminding Rome that the key word the Church used, when it did define the Bible, was the Latin word “Recipimus,” which means “we receive.” The Church declared “we receive these books as sacred Scripture.”

In the New Testament, we are told, “as many as received Him (Christ) to them He gave the authority to be called the children of God.” (John 1:12)
But think about that in the concept of when someone receives Christ as Lord and Savior; they are certainly NOT giving any authority to Jesus. Jesus possesses all authority in heaven and earth, for He is Lord, whether or not a person acknowledges Him as such.
When the Church said, “Recipimus,” she was humbly acknowledging her submission to the authority of the Bible.
Dr. James White in his book “The Roman Catholic Controversy” has provided a very helpful synopsis of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura by outlining both what it is, and what it is not.

WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT
1. First and foremost, sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, a manual on governmental procedures, or a catalog of automobile engine parts. The Bible does not claim to give us every bit of knowledge that we could ever obtain.
2. Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge. The Bible itself asserts that it is not exhaustive in detail (John 21:25). It is obvious that the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to be sufficient as our source of divine truth.
3. Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.
4. Sola Scriptura is not a denial that the Word of God has, at times, been spoken. Rather, it refers to the Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation.
5. Sola Scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church “tradition.” There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola Scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.
6. Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS
1. The doctrine of sola Scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church.
2. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture, and in no other source. This is not to say that the necessary beliefs of the faith could not be summarized in a shorter form. However, there is no necessary belief, doctrine, or dogma absolutely required of a person for entrance into the kingdom of heaven that is not found in the pages of Scripture.
3. That which is not found in the Scripture either directly or by necessary implication, is not binding upon the Christian.
4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation (2 Tim. 3:14-17).
5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture (Matt. 15:1-9). There can be no understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture apart from an understanding of the true origin and the resultant nature of Scripture. The Reformers had the highest view of the Bible, and therefore had a solid foundation on which to stand in defending the sufficiency of the Scriptures.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, a key statement of the faith fought for in the Reformation, states:
The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (1:4)
It goes on to say: We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (1:5)
The very heart of the doctrine of sola Scriptura is then laid out in the next two paragraphs:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (1:6)
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (1:7)
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 1545-1563
Of course, just because the Reformation swept through Europe did not mean that the Roman Catholic Church disbanded. Instead, Rome engaged in a rigorous Counter Reformation. She took seriously the criticism of the moral scandals, and in reality there was a widespread moral reform in the Church. However an Ecumenical Council, which was the Roman Catholic Church’s official theological response to the Protestant Reformation, convened. This was called “The Council of Trent” and took place over an eighteen year period between 1545 and 1563. During this time, many issues were discussed in detail, not the least of which was the issue of justification by faith alone. Rome placed its anathema (curse) on the doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone), and on any who preached it.
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
But before the Roman Catholic Church even discussed justification (during the 6th session), the issue of authority was addressed in the 4th session. It was made very clear that there are two sources of authority in the world, namely Scripture and Tradition.
The Roman Catholic Church has always maintained a very high view of Scripture. Rome believes the Bible is the Word of God. However, it affirms that in addition to the Bible there is another infallible source called Tradition.
The inevitable question then becomes, “what if there appears to be a conflict between what the Scripture teaches and what the Tradition of the Church is?”
Luther, for example, saw a huge conflict between the Tradition of the Church and what the Apostle Paul wrote in his Epistle to the Romans concerning justification.
Rome believes that it is the function of the Church to give both the Bible and its infallible interpretation to the world. Therefore when Luther denied the tradition, in their minds, he was also denying the Bible, because Rome was convinced that the Tradition and the Bible agree.
BY WHAT STANDARD?
I’ve labored the dispute of the Reformers with Rome in the 16th Century for the simple reason that the issues raised then are exactly the same in our day. Today we are faced with the exact same questions: What is the authority? What is the standard? What is the absolute authority?
The word “authority” can be defined as “the right to impose obligation.” When legitimate authority speaks, it has every right to say such things as “you must,” “you should” or “you ought.”
Of course, when we hear these words, we often respond with the question, “says who?” or “why should I?” In other words, we ask, “by what authority, or by what standard do you try to direct me or hold me responsible?”
I hope you can see that this is not a vague, abstract and merely theological question. It touches everything relating to the life of the Church.

Wednesday Word: Dissatisfied?

If salvation required that our faith, love and repentance had to have a sufficiently high level before the Lord accepted us, none of us would be saved. Take the matter of faith for example. Does God require us to have a certain level of feeling in our faith before He saves us? Of course not!   He doesn’t ask us to feel lost or saved, for if He did none of us would know whether or not we felt lost or saved enough. He  does, however, want us to know that outside of Jesus, we are lost (Rom 5:12) —and in Christ we are saved—-we don‘t have to feel this! He wants us to know this and believe these truths for this is what His Word teaches. He wants His word to be enough to persuade us of the truth apart from feelings (Prov 30:5).The gospel needs no authentication from our feelings. The Scriptures are true whether or not we feel them to be true (Ps 33:4). Faith knows this and latches on to the truth! Faith, not feelings , knows that  in Christ there is everything we need for our salvation (2 Cor 9:8; 2Cor 3:5: 2 Cor 12:9)?”Furthermore, on this question of loving God I’ve heard Christians say, “I don’t think I love God enough.” Well, what did they expect? Do you know of anyone who has a perfect love for the Father other than the Lord Jesus? Now here‘s some good gospel truth; since we  have been reckoned as having Christ’s perfect righteousness then, in Him, we have already loved the Father perfectly.  This is wonderful!  Does this not release you to love the Father more? Or are you now walking contrary to gospel by demanding a perfect love from yourself? The bigger issue, however, is not your love for Him, but rather, Christ’s love for the Father on your behalf. As for this matter of repentance, some folks feel that they haven’t repented enough. Shock! Horror! None of us have!  And do you know what? if we  were satisfied with our repentance no one could put up with us for we would be filled with all manner of pride and self-righteousness. Repentance is a vital truth, but do you think that God will take note of your repentance and on the basis of such forgive your sins?  Is your repentance greater than the blood? Do you think that your repentance can atone for your sins and purchase God’s favour?  If all that’s needed to secure salvation is repentance then Christ could have stayed in Heaven and not have bothered with the cross.So tell me this, on what basis would you rather approach the thrice-holy God, with your repentance or with the Lamb’s blood?  Do you think your repentance now gives you that which only Christ can provide? Are you still trying to find the ground of peace in the perfections of your repentance?  If so, you are yet in the grip of self-righteousness! As a young, but learned clergyman, James Hervey, the 18th century English preacher asked an old ploughman what he though was the hardest thing in religion.  The old man replied that Hervey was a learned man and that he would like to know what he thought on that subject.  “Well” said Hervey, “I think it is to deny sinful self.  “I disagree,” said the old Christian, “I think there is a harder thing than that and that is to deny righteous self—–to deny ourselves a proud dependence on our own works and struggles and efforts and prayers for justification before God.”  Hervey afterwards said that at the time he thought the ploughman an old fool; but, said he, “I have since learned who was the fool—not the pious ploughman, but the proud James Hervey” (Gal 2:21).Christ alone is our resting place.  To be satisfied with Him is enough, for He is enough!
Τω αγαπησαντι  ημας  και  λουσαντι  ημας  απο  των  αμαρτιων  ημων  εν  τω  αιματι  αυτου.
Rev. 1:5b

Sola Scriptura – By the Scriptures Alone (1)

“Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” – Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 – 379 A.D.)
“We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. We deny that such a confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and the church.” – Chicago Statement of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy
“In the empire of the church, the ruler is God’s Word.” – Martin Luther – Works, Vol. 41, p. 134.
“I have learned to ascribe the honor of infallibility only to those books that are accepted as canonical. I am profoundly convinced that none of these writers has erred. All other writers, however they may have distinguished themselves in holiness or in doctrine, I read in this way. I evaluate what they say, not on the basis that they themselves believe that a thing is true, but only insofar as they are able to convince me by the authority of the canonical books or by clear reason.” – Martin Luther
“Since the church is Christ’s Kingdom, and he reigns by his Word alone, will it not be clear to any man that those are lying words by which the Kingdom of Christ is imagined to exist apart from his scepter (that is, his most holy Word)?” – John Calvin, Institutes
“Let the pastors boldly dare all things by the word of God. . . Let them constrain all the power, glory, and excellence of the world to give place to and to obey the divine majesty of this word. Let them enjoin everyone by it, from the highest to the lowest. Let them edify the body of Christ. Let them devastate Satan’s reign. Let them pasture the sheep, kill the wolves, instruct and exhort the rebellious. Let them bind and loose thunder and lightning, if necessary, but let them do all according to the word of God.” – John Calvin, Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians, p. xii
“…have you not read what was spoken to you by God…” – Jesus Christ (Matt. 22:31)
There has been an unprecedented crisis in the Church in the last two hundred years as to the question “Can we trust the Scriptures?” There has been a wholesale loss of the sense of authority.
To understand the issues involved in our day, I am convinced that we need to know something about the 16th Century Protestant Reformation. The central issue was Justification by faith alone (Latin: sola fide). Yet often overlooked is another controversy which was equally as serious for the life of the Church.
The material issue of the Reformation was the debate over justification by faith alone. The formal issue (the structure in which the whole debate ensued) was the issue of final authority – who or what speaks for God?

Martin Luther had two debates with the leading Roman Catholic theologians of his day (Martin Ek and Cardinal Cajerton). As Ek and Cajerton debated the subject of justification, they pointed out that Luther’s views differed significantly from the official position of the Church. For the Roman Catholic Church, both the former Church councils and the Papal declarations were binding upon all those in the Church. These men were able to demonstrate that Luther was in disagreement with both Church Councils and the Pope himself.
Martin Luther was perceived by many as being the most arrogant and pompous individual imaginable. They could not understand how one man could do as Luther was doing. They would say to Luther, “Who do you think you are that you would presume to know more than the Church Councils or the Holy Father in Rome?”
In these debates, Luther was asked if he stood against Pope and Councils.
Luther admitted that indeed he did. In his opinion, Church Councils could err as well the Pope himself. Of course, this was hugely disturbing and even considered blasphemous. Luther was quickly likened to the Bohemian John Hus, who had made similar statements to Luther’s around a hundred years earlier, and was burnt at the stake as a heretic.
Complete uproar ensued. Luther was excommunicated with a price put on his head. Finally, in 1521, an attempt was made for one final resolution.
Officials and princes of both Church and State met at an Imperial Diet convened in the town of Worms in Germany, in the presence of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles. Luther was summoned, after being given a safe passage of conduct, which meant that he was able to travel to and from Worms without the fear of being arrested or killed. His inquisitor demanded an answer: “I ask you, Martin, answer candidly and without horns – do you or do you not repudiate your books and the errors which they contain?”
Luther surprised everyone by asking for time to think about his answer. He was given 24 hours, and then he was to appear again to be faced with the same question.
As anticipated, after the assembly convened again, it did not take long at all for the same question to be presented to Martin Luther.
Luther responded, “Unless I am convinced by sacred Scripture, or by evident reason, I will not and cannot recant; for my conscience is held captive by the word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”
Notice especially the words, “My conscience is held captive by the word of God.” For Luther, God’s words were binding and had an authority far beyond the respected words of Church leaders or even Popes.
Luther left the Diet of Worms, riding off into the night. On his way home he was kidnapped by his own people (because they feared that the Church would do so themselves in order to kill him) and then transferred him to the Wartburg Castle where he translated the Bible into German, the vernacular of the people. The Reformation sparked by Luther swept most of the countries of Europe.
SOLA SCRIPTURA – BY THE SCRIPTURES ALONE
At Worms, the second slogan of the Reformation became established because of Luther’s defiance of all other ecclesiastical authority in the light of the Scriptures. That slogan was “Sola Scriptura,” which was the Latin phrase meaning “by the Scriptures Alone.”
What is “by the Scriptures alone?” Luther was saying that the ONLY written source in this world that had the level of authority to bind the conscience of a person is the Bible itself.
Luther had enormous respect for the insight, wisdom and collective teaching of the great theologians of the past, and that the Creeds and Confessions of the Faith were not at all to be despised. He knew that it would be unspeakably arrogant to create theology without any reference whatsoever to the guidance of the great teachers God had set in the Church. Yet, Luther and the other Reformers believed that no written document of men, no confession of faith, no creedal statement and no Council declaration had the authority to bind the conscience. The only person with such authority is God Himself, and only the word of God carries that authority.
As John MacArthur wrote, “Sola Scriptura, the formal principle of the Reformation, is essential to genuine Christianity. Yet this doctrine is under attack like never before. Christians who want to defend their faith must have a basic knowledge of this doctrine, know how to support it with Scripture proofs, and be able to discern the enemy’s attacks against it.”
This belief in the authority of Scripture alone to bind the conscience, as Dr. James White states, “does not mean that the Reformers rejected everything that every Christian in earlier ages has said: indeed, they often cited the early Christians as supporters of their own positions. However, they recognized that those earlier believers were not inspired, were not inerrant, and, in fact, quite often made errors in their judgments and beliefs, just as people do today. The only infallible rule of faith, they argued, is found in the pages of Holy Writ.”

The Quiverfull Movement: Raising “God’s Army”

Published in the Sunday Herald on September 25, 2011
“Calvinist pastor Doug Phillips, whose Vision Forum Ministry provides spiritual guidance, educational materials and an online catalogue of approved activities and clothes, has eight children. He preaches that Christianity can only triumph over secular liberalism if believers practice “multi-generational faithfulness,” by raising an army of devout soldiers. His 200 Year Plan envisages a godly United States, six generations from now, with fundamentalist evangelicals in the majority and a theocratic government in charge.”
Vyckie Garrison’s seventh child, Wesley, was born by emergency caesarean section, at the Faith Regional Hospital in Norfolk, Nebraska. She had planned to give birth at home, unassisted, but her uterus partially ruptured during labour, almost killing her. For a month, she was confined to bed, barely able to move, let alone look after her family.
The doctor said it would be reckless for her to conceive any more children. But when she turned to her friends, they offered bleak counsel, with the force of biblical truth. “I was told that a woman shouldn’t shrink back from supposed dangers and that we should honour God with our bodies,” she says. “Jesus died for us, we should be willing to die for him.” She became pregnant twice more, suffering two miscarriages.
Garrison and her husband, Warren Bennett, had originally decided to stop at three kids. He had a vasectomy, to make sure. But after reading The Way Home, by Mary Pride, they decided to reverse the procedure and called one of the “natural family planning” organisations listed inside the back cover. In the next six years, they were blessed with four more offspring.
Pride’s book is one of the founding texts of the Quiverfull movement, which encourages Christians to refrain from using all forms of birth control, including abstinence. Child-bearing women are like missionaries, to be commended for their courage and sacrifice. “I had it all calculated out,” Garrison says. “I had seven kids and they were each gonna have twelve. They were all going to continue in the faith, to be warriors for Christ when they grew up.”
Calvinist pastor Doug Phillips, whose Vision Forum Ministry provides spiritual guidance, educational materials and an online catalogue of approved activities and clothes, has eight children. He preaches that Christianity can only triumph over secular liberalism if believers practice “multi-generational faithfulness,” by raising an army of devout soldiers. His 200 Year Plan envisages a godly United States, six generations from now, with fundamentalist evangelicals in the majority and a theocratic government in charge.
The key verses of scripture are from Psalm 127: “Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They shall not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.” In his presentation, Phillips shows how the exponential multiplication of eight children begetting eight children of their own would change a godless country where two or three has become the norm. “Our age is defined by warfare against the Christian family,” he tells his followers. “For our children to be mighty in the land, we must embrace a long-term vision of victory.”
Quiverfull is a radical offshoot of the Christian Patriarchy movement, which is itself a subset of fundamentalist evangelicalism, and the nuances of observance make it tricky to estimate how many people adhere to its beliefs. What is certain is that tens of thousands of American families are withdrawing from the world, educating their children at home and living according to a literal interpretation of the Bible that stresses absolute submission to male authority.
“It is growing, and the reason it’s growing is that there’s a lot of fear among evangelicals right now,” says Garrison. “The more fearful evangelicals become, the more they retreat and start home schooling, and that is where they’re going to encounter Quiverfull ideals.
“Families are taught that getting into powerful institutions is part of their dominion mandate. They get internships at state level, get involved in political campaigns and in the justice system. That’s the whole point of having all these sons: to have an influence on policy and reclaim the country for God.” Patrick Henry College, the headquarters of the conservative Christian Home School Legal Defence Association, sent more interns to the George Bush White House than any other institution. Republican Presidential front-runner Rick Perry has close ties to Vision Forum, through multi-millionaire campaign contributor Jim Leininger.
Lewis Wells has been writing about the movement ever since his fiancee, from a hardline Christian Reconstructionist family, abruptly broke off the engagement, at her father’s decree. His website, Commandments Of Men, has become a hub for fundamentalists suffering a crisis of faith or looking for a way out. “The women I deal with – and I hear from new people practically every day – their education is how to be a submissive wife and mother,” he says. “They want to leave but they don’t know how. At lot of the girls resort to self-injury, cutting themselves, to deal with the hell that they live in.”
The Duggars: 19 Kids and Counting
A made-for-TV version of Christian Patriarchy can be seen on 19 Kids and Counting, starring Jim-Bob Duggar, his wife Michelle and their
litter of identically dressed, beatifically smiling children: Joshua, Jana, John, Jill, Jessa, Jinger, Joseph… and so on. “They show pictures of perfect families on perpetual picnics in flowery meadows,” Wells says. “And as much as it pains me to say this, professing Christians are some of the most gullible people in the world. They hook people with the perfect family portrait, talk about God, wave an American flag or two and otherwise intelligent people take the bait.”
This was, essentially, what happened to Libby Anne, whose parents were ordinary evangelicals until they joined a community of Christians educating their children at home. Anne’s mother had been a feminist at university and planned to return to work, but when a friend gave her a book by Debi Pearl, Created To Be His Helpmeet, her beliefs underwent a radical transformation. Through their No Greater Joy Ministry, Pearl and her husband, Michael, preach that a woman’s only godly role is to produce children and raise them the right way.
“The babies just kept coming,” says Anne, who uses an assumed name to protect her 12 brothers and sisters from criticism. “My parents always wanted to have a big family, maybe four, five or so, but they never stopped, partly because of this belief that they were raising up an army for Christ. They told us they were training us to go out and convert others.”
At home school, Anne learned that biblical values are under attack, that feminism is evil and that most people calling themselves Christians have been corrupted by worldly temptations. She was taught that science supports the belief that God created the earth in six days, around 6,000 years ago, and that global warming is a natural phenomenon. When a baby-sitter let her watch The Lion King, she was told that the cartoon glorified paganism. Her parents called this “sheltering” and encouraged her to believe that the world was a scary, dangerous place.
“They talked about the possibility of a second American revolution,” Anne says. “They saw a future when the government would put people in jail for home schooling and eventually just for being Christians. They saw the government through a very pessimistic lens, eroding our freedoms – by taking away the nativity scene on the statehouse lawn, for example.” One day, her father took the kids to the armoury and told them that “if need be, the resistance starts here.”
Anne is keen to point out that she had a happy, busy childhood and a good education, never questioning her beliefs. As the eldest daughter, she became her mother’s right hand, feeding, bathing, clothing, teaching and even disciplining her siblings. Another Debi Pearl book, To Train Up A Child, teaches that children should be spanked from the age of six months, to instil absolute discipline. Anne wielded the rod from an early age, the rule being that she could punish the children who were at least five years younger than her.
In fundamentalist households, fathers have absolute authority, derived from the Bible, specifically Ephesians chapter five, verses 22-24: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.” This works perfectly well for many families, but it can also lead to abuse. In Garrison’s case, her husband was blind, unable to be the sole bread-winner and poorly suited to the leadership position that God had assigned him. He beat and emotionally bullied the children, but failed to win their respect.
“I started seeing my kids completely break down,” Garrison says. “I recognised how abusive my husband had become as a result of this patriarchal teaching, which gave sanction to some of his worst tendencies. I had to step in and protect my kids because I didn’t want to see them getting hurt.” One child attempted suicide. When, during a brief separation, Garrison’s husband sent her a list of the ways in which she had been disobedient, she filed for divorce and won custody of all seven children. She now calls herself an atheist.
Garrison has collected scores of such stories, at her website, No Longer Quivering. The testimony of families who successfully pass on their beliefs from generation to generation is harder to come by. The Sunday Herald requested interviews with Vision Forum and No Greater Joy Ministries but received no response.
Joe and Kristine Sands - before they left the church
Joe Sands, the middle child of seven, was raised an Independent Fundamental Baptist and taught discipline at the back of a hardwood brush. “You absolutely had to spank,” he says, “because spanking was that magical tool that would get your children to do everything that you wanted them to do, and be perfect.”
Despite many doubts and private heresies, including listening to rock music and occasionally drinking beer, he stayed with the church until he and his wife Kristine had six kids of their own. But then, two years ago, a whooping cough epidemic swept through the congregation in Normandale, Minnesota, almost killing his son, Jack. “This movement is very paranoid about anything ‘worldly,’ which is a very relative term, so they don’t trust doctors and don’t believe in getting vaccinated,” he says. His crisis of faith began in earnest.
The obvious flaw in the 200 Year Plan is that it relies on children swallowing the belief system whole and replicating its rigid authoritarian structure in their own families. Girls wear purity rings and are expected to keep their hearts pure, until a suitable candidate for betrothal is found. Sands claims that in practice, few hardline patriarchal households stay together. “I explain it like the wet soap bar,” he says. “You’re going to lose the wet soap bar, so you press harder and it squirts out of your hand. I watched families break apart all around me as I was growing up. The sad part is that once the kids leave, the parents who are so indoctrinated reject them. My mother immediately rejected me when I left.”
Anne still has a relationship of sorts with her parents, but it has taken years to rebuild, since the day she came home from university and questioned everything they stood for. “Nothing that I can do or achieve in life – not my stable and happy marriage, not my child, not school or work – will ever please them,” she says. At least, thanks to the education they gave her, she is well-equipped to handle the world on her own, unlike Quiverfull refugees who have spent their entire fertile lives pregnant and raising children.
“They don’t have any money, any training, any idea how to navigate the world without their husband. It’s heart-breaking,” says Wells. For now, the informal support network run by Garrison is the only dedicated resource they have. “It can be really sad and overwhelming reading their stories,” she says. “Sometimes I just shut my computer off and walk away and think ‘I can’t deal with this.’ The one thing that is encouraging is that these are very tough women. When it comes time to get their life out of the pit, they’ll do it.”
Source: Andrew Purcell
Related Articles and Info:
What Is Quiverfull?
Quiverfull: Inside the Patriarchy Movement
Τω αγαπησαντι  ημας  και  λουσαντι  ημας  απο  των  αμαρτιων  ημων  εν  τω  αιματι  αυτου.
Rev. 1:5b

John 11:33-37

Good morning friends,
  When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled. And he said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” Jesus wept. So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man also have kept this man from dying?”
 As I had brought up several days ago we are seeing in this section a clear picture of both the divine and human natures of Christ in this account. It should be of no surprise that such instances should be seen in the gospel accounts. Many make (many times subconsciously) the mistake in confounding the natures of Christ in to one, that the divine nature of Christ overshadows the human nature. Christ is fully God and fully man united forever in one person and neither nature can be seen as dissolving into the other. Christ carried all the passions and emotions that we as humans do – yet without sin. So as we have a real sense of loss and grief at someone’s death, because He is sinless it seems to me that this sense of loss would be more acute in Jesus. It is true that the groaning of Christ may have been at the hypocrisy of the Jews in their “morning,” but I do not think that is the case. As we are reminded again Jesus “loved” Lazarus and while Jesus in His divinity knew what was about to take place, His humanness still had the grief of the loss of a love one. Consider for a moment the weight that this moment had on the humanness of Christ. Considering the death of a loved one, the grief of the sisters whom He loved and those who will witness the coming miracle and because of hardness of heart still not believes – it is no wonder “His spirit was troubled.” Jesus grief was real and observable as indicated by the comment of the Jews “see how He loved him.” The grief that Jesus shows is one of true grief and sorrow not mere anger at the hypocrisy of the Jews. This human side of Christ is important to us as we read of Christ as our high priest who can sympathizes with our humanness – temptations and all.
 Bill
 Heidelberg Catechism
Q. 15. What sort of a mediator and deliverer then must we seek for?
A. For one who is very man, and perfectly (a) righteous; (b) and yet more powerful than all creatures; that is, one who is also very God. (c) (a) 1 Cor.15:21; Jer.33:16; Isa.53:9; 2 Cor.5:21. (b) Heb.7:16,26. (c) Isa.7:14; Isa.9:6; Rom.9:5; Jer.23:5,6; Jer.23:6; Luke 11:22.
Τω αγαπησαντι  ημας  και  λουσαντι  ημας  απο  των  αμαρτιων  ημων  εν  τω  αιματι  αυτου.
Rev. 1:5b

You’ll not find it in your comfort zone

Joshua 10:25 “Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous. For thus the LORD will do to all your enemies against whom you fight.”


When God says “fight” its sinful to be passive. When God says “rest” its sinful to strive.


When God gave the land by way of promise to Israel, other tribes and nations were already occupying it. To take possession of the land would be no “walk in the park.” Israel would need a trained army of fighters, and they would need to be employed. Israel also had to wait on God for the specific military strategies at every stage. It would be presumptive to just go out and fight without the Lord’s sanction, just as it would be to remain passive when the Lord said, “now is the time to engage the enemy.” Just because the land was promised to Israel, the enemies of God did not lay down, die, or just move away saying “well here it all is for you then.” There would be fierce hostility and fierce combat if Israel was to see the promises fulfilled.


As we read the Old Testament record we notice that it was actually EXTREMELY rare for God to say “You dont need to fight this battle. I will handle this all myself.” What was usual was for God to say, “You go fight the enemy and know that I will be with you.”


Many times, we as Christians assume the rare thing is the usual thing – that God will just do everything for us. While it is true that God does it all in regenerating us dead sinners and bring us to spiritual life, the rest of the Christian life is a working out of our salvation with fear and trembling, knowing it is God who is at work within us (Phil 2:12,13). The Christian life is a cooperative venture.


As a child of God, you have many great and precious promises. Yet in this life, to possess them may well mean the scary thought of leaving the known, the comfortable, the predictable and the familiar. God will fulfill His many promises and will make you and shape you in the process. Yet His greatest blessings are found outside of the comfort zone. Smooth seas never made a great sailor.


Here’s a sermon I preached called “Rest and Fight!”


I trust it will be a blessing.


 

John 11:28-31

Good morning friends,
  When she had said this, she went and called her sister Mary, saying in private, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.” And when she heard it, she rose quickly and went to him. Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha had met him.  When the Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary rise quickly and go out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there.
 I find this to be an interesting phrase here, “when she had said this she went and called her sister Mary.”  “When she said this” is of course a reference to Martha’s confession. I have to wonder did the very act of her confession strengthen her faith and prompt her to get her sister. At times when we are bewildered or despondent the very act of confessing (bringing to memory) what we believe can give us a fresh focus and strengthen “weak knees and feeble hands that hang down.” While there is no replacement for the Scriptures, creeds and confessions are very helpful connectors to our faith. Catechisms are not for mere rote memory, but to give us a concise statement or touchstone of our faith. Martha’s confession appears to prompt her to go get her sister. It might be helpful if we knew what Martha said to Mary in secret, but all we know was it was enough to motivate her to immediate action. I would say that part of the reason for Martha’s secrecy was to protect Jesus from the Jews. It may be as well that Martha assured Mary that their “feelings” about Jesus tardiness were inappropriate. None the less Martha’s words struck a chord in Mary and she hopped up immediately to meet Jesus. As it is a very useful and important act for the church to corporately confess what they believe, it is equally useful and important to personally confess as well.
 Bill
 Heidelberg Catechism
Q. 15. What sort of a mediator and deliverer then must we seek for?
A. For one who is very man, and perfectly (a) righteous; (b) and yet more powerful than all creatures; that is, one who is also very God. (c) (a) 1 Cor.15:21; Jer.33:16; Isa.53:9; 2 Cor.5:21. (b) Heb.7:16,26. (c) Isa.7:14; Isa.9:6; Rom.9:5; Jer.23:5,6; Jer.23:6; Luke 11:22.
Τω αγαπησαντι  ημας  και  λουσαντι  ημας  απο  των  αμαρτιων  ημων  εν  τω  αιματι  αυτου.
Rev. 1:5b

A plea to prospective university students

From time to time, in the weeks leading up to the beginning of the new school year, I receive enquiries about churches in particular places. They usually go something like this: “So-and-so has got a place to study this-or-that at such-and-such university in such-and-such a city. Do you know of any good church that he or she could go to?”
My initial response is almost always to hang my head in my hands, because I am grieved over the failure of the prospective students and their parents and perhaps their pastors to consider the consequences of their actions and to plan accordingly.
What would you think of someone who told you that they had made arrangements to move to a new planet, and then asked if you knew if the atmosphere was breathable? Or that they were on their way to a new country, but they were not sure if there would be any food there that they could eat, and did you have any recommendations? You would look at them as if they were mad! Air to breathe and food to eat: surely these are your first considerations when planning such a significant step, not the questions that you worry about once the business of getting there has been accomplished!
So why is it that year after year, professing Christians students (and their parents) plan their intellectual, academic, professional or social development (or invest in the development of their offspring), and only subsequently ask whether or not their souls will receive faithful and loving care in the only environment on earth that Christ has ordained for the lasting health of his people?
Consider this: those three or more years at university occur at a seminal time of life under peculiarly trying circumstances. For many, this will be the first time away from home, away from the protection of parents and the shepherding of the pastors they have always known. They will go into a stimulating, demanding environment with a host of new enticements, fresh temptations, different companions, peculiar challenges, and unexpected opportunities. For many, the regular and immediate outward restraints of knowing and being known, of parental government and pastoral oversight, will be removed for a prolonged period of time. And all this at a time when the character is only just being formed, when physically, mentally, emotionally and very often spiritually, there is a degree of uncertainty and instability alongside rapid development. The previous anchor points of life are necessarily (and not necessarily unhealthily) being altered, and the soul may drop its anchors in better places, worse places, or simply be cast adrift. And into this potentially fruitful, potentially devastating environment goes the student, and he or she often does so without any notion of where they will find Christian care, compassion, example and instruction over the long haul. Could it be that one of the reasons why we see so many professing Christians falling away or losing their way during their university years is that they have headed off to their colleges and courses without first determining where and how they will obtain their spiritual sustenance?
This is not an argument against Christian unions and the like, nor is it an argument for stay-at-home-or-local schooling, but such a situation reflects a cripplingly low and badly mistaken view of the church, and the Christian’s relationship to it. One fears that neither the parents nor the pastors of the church from which the prospective student comes have ever made clear the Christian’s priorities, or – if one or other have set them forth – they have been thoroughly rebuffed. If that is the foundation, what will be the building? How strange to see a Christian parent providing books, clothes, funds, food, and making countless other investments in the success of a university place, and then seeming to just hope that their child will not make shipwreck of the faith along the way without making any of the appropriate provisions for the care of their souls!
I acknowledge that the prospective student may not be a Christian, and may relish the prospect of finally being out from under the compassionate, concerned and determined government of church and home. Even so, surely a concerned parent or pastor might give well-meaning counsel in the hopes that – whatever the young person’s response may be initially – should there ever be a softening, or a need for care, there will be someone on hand to provide it with faithfulness and tenderness? Is there no prospect that a message could be sent to a pastor in the university town to keep an eye open for an uncertain or slightly disgruntled new face in the congregation over the first few weeks of term?
Of course, the same holds true of decisions relating to employment and other spheres. A fantastic promotion, much improved prospects, a more impressive salary, a lovely new home in a much better area, a wonderful school for the kids and so on and so forth . . . and a potential spiritual dryness that will hold back the spiritual development of a child of God for the rest of their life on earth.
Now, to be sure, we cannot predict or pre-empt the work of God in such things. We make foolish errors often, but believers have a heavenly Father who is working all things together for good, and the battles fought as a result of our mistake may make significant contributions to our spiritual formation and yet prove a means of blessing. Of course we might make the best plans we can, under God, and discover that a distant or well-meaning recommendation amounts to nothing; people can be mistaken, sometimes badly; beneath the surface of an apparently healthy church may lurk a looming disaster. Nevertheless, none of this is an excuse to act foolishly or disobediently and expect the Lord to tidy up the mess afterward: “Trust in God and keep your powder dry.”
For the Christian who is a prospective student, this may mean more work and hard choices. It may mean sitting down with lists of universities on one sheet and churches on another and working out where there is an appropriate correspondence. It may mean beginning with a long list of universities and doing the research on faithful churches in those towns and cities, with a line drawn through those halls of learning without halls of holiness in the vicinity – no matter how otherwise enticing the prospects or how creditable the courses. It could require a couple of visits to see how the rubber hits the road in a particular congregation. It may mean that you make your plans and decisions with the words ringing in your ears, ratcheted into your mind, or written on your paper: “Those who honour me, I will honour, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed.” Should unforeseen dangers and trials then come, there is a promise for the child of God to cling to: “Lord, you know that in my heart and in my plans I set out to honour you. Father, please now protect and prosper your child!”
In the coming year, then, as you contemplate any move, whether it be a application for a university place, a shift in employment, or any other such change of place, consider your soul, and therefore consider the church. Make every effort to get yourself into a spiritual environment in which you will not merely survive but are likely to thrive. Before you go among wolves, seek out and set out after God’s appointed environment and God’s appointed under-shepherds for the salvation, succour, support and safety of his flock.
Τω αγαπησαντι  ημας  και  λουσαντι  ημας  απο  των  αμαρτιων  ημων  εν  τω  αιματι  αυτου.
Rev. 1:5b

A shepherd’s reading

S being another popular initial initial, as it were, for writers of pastoral theologies,today I offer you the Rs from the list and the first smattering of Ss (esses? Ssss?). The full list to date continues to be available here or from the sidebar under “Pastoral theology.” Comments and further recommendations are appreciated , and if you could put them on the full page, I will be able to keep track of them more readily. Enjoy and profit!
Reymond, Robert L. The God-Centered Preacher: Developing a Pulpit Ministry Approved by God. Coming from a slightly different stable to some of the other volumes, this book comes in two parts, the former a survey of eight needs for the modern pulpit, and the latter a selection of ‘approved’ sermons intended to demonstrate the model established in the first part. Fairly technical at points, and interacting with some significant opponents,  this Scripture-saturated, theologically acute, historically aware volume has much to offer. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Reynolds, Gregory Edward. The Word is Worth a Thousand Pictures: Preaching in the Electronic Age. Essentially a homiletical work developed out of some post-graduate research (I think), Reynolds sets out not to rehash some of the older classics, but to supplement them taking into account the rise of modern media. The bulk of the book is fairly typical academic hoop-jumping, all good stuff and very interesting, but interacting by obligation with things for the sake of racking up some scholarly points. In the latter portion of the book the pastor-preacher takes over and scores some good hits. Despite it being ten years old (and therefore not taking account of a decade of high-speed development) it covers a lot of ground and brings out some excellent principles. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Ryle, J. C. Simplicity in Preaching. Reminding us that in his collections of essays and addresses Ryle has a wealth of sound advice on preaching, this little booklet is concerned with simplicity, and – modelling its own counsel – gives us a series of pointed counsels as to how to develop it. Many a seminarian who has yet to discern the difference between his classroom disquisitions and his pulpit productions would benefit from this. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Shaw, John. The Character of a Pastor According to God’s Heart Considered. An ordination sermon grounded in Jeremiah 3.15, this is one of those more Puritanical treatments which drives at the heart of the ministry: the character of the minister. Short, simple, searching, will flush the spiritual system out. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Shedd, W. G. T. Homiletics and Pastoral Theology. Boy, how these 19th century gents liked to churn these things out! This one combines a series of lectures on sermon preparation and delivery and a survey of pastoral theology as it has to do with the various spheres of ministerial character and labour. Again, the style is of its time, but the counsels, directions and warnings are always substantial, Scripturally solid, often sweet, sometimes righteously severe, and properly searching. Will cover much of the ground that others cover, but these men have flashes of insight and turns of phrase that can make each individually valuable. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Smith, Steven W. Dying to Preach: Embracing the Cross in the Pulpit. A passionate and persuasive plea to preachers that they must embrace the cross in their pastoral ministry, dying to self so that others might live in imitation of Christ and, following the Lord, Paul. The focus is really on one’s theology of preaching. The author’s vigorous spiritual probing calls us back to self-examination as to whether we preach a crucified Lord in a crucified style. Review. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)


Τω αγαπησαντι  ημας  και  λουσαντι  ημας  απο  των  αμαρτιων  ημων  εν  τω  αιματι  αυτου.

Rev. 1:5b

“Controllers”: No Incidental Matter

“Test everything; hold fast what is good.”1 Thessalonians 5:21
“Controllers” are people who aren’t willing to let you live your life before God as you believe he’s leading you. They have all the issues buttoned down and have cast-iron opinions about all of them. These people only know black and white. There are no gray areas to them.
They insist you live your Christian life according to their rules and their opinions. If you insist on being free to live as God wants you to live, they will try to intimidate you and manipulate you one way or another. Their primary weapons are guilt trips, rejection, or gossip.
These people must be resisted. We must not allow them to subvert the freedom we have in Christ. Paul treated the legalism in the Galatian church as heresy, and he called down a curse on its perpetrators. I’m not prepared to go that far with our present-day legalists/controllers, but I want to tell you their actions are no incidental matter. Their presence in our evangelical ranks is much more than a minor irritant, like a fly buzzing around our heads. There are spiritual casualties all over our nation today because of the effects of legalistic controllers in their lives.
Controllers have been around a long time. More than three hundred years ago, the Puritan Samuel Bolton wrote these instructive words: “let us never surrender our judgments or our consciences to be at the disposal and opinions of others, and to be subjected to the sentences and determinations of men. It is my exhortation therefore to all Christians to maintain their Christian freedom by constant watchfulness. You must not be tempted or threatened out of it; you must not be bribed or frightened from it; you must not let either force or fraud rob you of it.”
 From the Devotional: Holiness Day By Day ~ Jerry Bridges
Τω αγαπησαντι  ημας  και  λουσαντι  ημας  απο  των  αμαρτιων  ημων  εν  τω  αιματι  αυτου.
Rev. 1:5b

An appetite for preaching

Tim Challies has been reading In Light of Eternity, a biography of Leonard Ravenhill?. He quotes from one of Ravenhill’s mentors, Samuel Chadwick:

I would rather preach than do anything else I know in this world. I have never missed a chance to preach. I would rather preach than eat my dinner, or have a holiday or anything else the world can offer. I would rather pay to preach than be paid not to preach. It has its price in agony of sweat and tears and no calling has such joys and heartbreaks, but it is a calling an archangel might covet; and I thank God that of His grace He called me into this ministry. Is there any joy like that of saving a soul from death? Any thrill like that of opening blind eyes? Any reward like the love of little children to the second and third generation? Any treasures like the grateful love of hearts healed and comforted? I tell you it is a glorious privilege to share the travail and the wine of God. I wish I had been a better minister, but there is nothing in God’s world I would rather be.
And a second quote:

Nothing makes for a preacher’s effectiveness more than a true conception of his calling. He is a messenger. That which he speaks is not his own. He is not at liberty to criticize, modify, or tamper with that which is entrusted to him; neither has he any right to withhold it from any person to whom it is sent. But he is neither a postman nor a phonograph. He delivers an open message which he has received from God for men. His first business is to wait for his message, and his next is to see that it is faithfully delivered.
May God give to his true ambassadors a greater appetite for preaching!

Τω αγαπησαντι  ημας  και  λουσαντι  ημας  απο  των  αμαρτιων  ημων  εν  τω  αιματι  αυτου.

Rev. 1:5b

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Some superb stuff supporting shepherds’ sincere strivings

As I mentioned previously, the Ss are in danger of being over-represented in pastoral theology authors (come on, authors beginning with other letters!).  So, in addition to last time, where we introduced the letter (is this starting to sound a little bit like a surreal episode of Sesame Street?), here is a bevy of Ss to keep you occupied for a while.
The full list to date continues to be available here or from the sidebar under “Pastoral theology.” Comments and further recommendations are appreciated , and if you could put them on the full page, I will be able to keep track of them more readily.
By the way, keep your eyes open for a competition which I hope to have in place shortly after completion of the list.
Spencer, Ichabod. A Pastor’s Sketches (2 vols). I suppose you could call these volumes an exercise in pastoral casuistry. They are really vignettes of pastoral interaction, covering a wide range of circumstances and character. One of their particular advantages is that – for young men who may have little experience of dealing with seeking souls, tortured consciences, arrogant hearts, or troubled lives – these give us an experiential head start until we have had some experience of our own. These books abound with practical pastoral wisdom for dealing with men and women in various stages of spiritual agitation and concern. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Spring, Gardiner. The Attraction of the Cross. “Nothing will interest you like the cross. Nothing can do for you what the cross has done.” So says Spring, having surveyed the narrative of the cross, and he then sets out to demonstrate his point by giving counsels concerning the cross of Christ. A feast of good things, a treasury stored with healthy and helpful thoughts concerning those matters which stand at the heart of faith. Somewhere between pastoral theology and pastoral practice, this book teaches the man and instructs the minister simultaneously. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Spring, Gardiner. The Power of the Pulpit: Thoughts Addressed to Christian Ministers and Those Who Hear Them. Distinctive not least because it is pastoral theology for the pulpit and the pew. After developing at length the principle of a powerful pulpit, Spring then ranges fairly far and wide over some typical topics of pastoral theology, as well as taking up some of the responsibilities of hearers of God’s Word. Spring always flows with sound advice and his words clearly gush from an ardent heart. I like him. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Spurgeon, Charles. An All-Round Ministry. Some of Spurgeon’s presidential addresses to his Pastors’ College Conference, these were the times when he sought to put an edge on the blade. These words stir the soul, engage the heart, humble the mind, and draw out the strength. For all Spurgeon’s personal and cultural distinctives of style, the man knew how to deal with the heart, and his love for Christ, for his church, and for the lost simply overflows in these sparkling pages. Read it often. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Spurgeon, Charles. Counsel for Christian Workers. A series of more generic addresses to those engaged in various spheres of distinctly Christian labour, these have much to encourage and direct the time and energy of labouring saints. We might wish we had more workers of finer temper, but this will both exhort us to be such ourselves and help us to forge those we have into more effective tools for the Master’s work. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Spurgeon, Charles. Eccentric Preachers. Instructive, hilarious, cathartic. If nothing else, this will release a man to be unashamedly himself, to be whatever God has made him, and to serve God accordingly. The man who reads it and decides to behave eccentrically is not being eccentric but foolish; I should hope that no-one of sense would fall into this trap. Given that many effective ministers do not necessarily fit a mould, I think that this is more helpful in enabling us to get on with our work than many might assume. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Spurgeon, Charles. Spurgeon’s Sermon Notes. I cannot say that I have ever actually used this for a sermon, though it is nice to have as an emergency (that said, I have more often than not cribbed something from Spurgeon’s printed sermons, so I am not claiming to be entirely independent!). Good for a crisis, so long as a man has learned to preach as his own what he necessarily borrows from another. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Spurgeon, Charles. Lectures to My Students. A beauty! Spurgeon goes places that others do not with a wit and insight that others lack. A wealth of counsels on countless topics, all breathing an atmosphere of true devotion to Christ and his people. I think this is a splendid book. Be aware, though, that in common with some of the other books of great men on such topics, they sometimes make assumptions that hold good only for men of similar gift, or give counsel that works best if you have their capacities and abilities and must be adapted for others. He does not often fall into the trap of laying down rules that we are not obliged to follow, but we must remember that Spurgeon is Spurgeon, and that he might wisely do what for us would be a mistake. For all that, make it a regular companion. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Spurgeon, Charles. The Soul Winner. Reveals the beating heart of Spurgeon the evangelist. I love this book and only wish I could show more benefit from it in practice and enjoy it by experience. I honestly think that Spurgeon can see what too many others have lost sight of, and he calls us to cultivate the character and the capabilities that will make us winners of souls, and then go out with earnest endeavour to accomplish our God-given ends. When our public and private labours are in danger of becoming tepid or aimless or meandering or merely academic, this will invigorate our souls. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Stewart, James S. Heralds of God. A curious book this, containing many good counsels but not grounding them to great degree in the Word of God. Many entirely right and healthy convictions come across masked in the language of philosophy or sociology. The tone is quite conversational and the whole is fairly urbane and cultured. By all means worthy of a read, and contains much to stimulate, but feels like it relies more on the light of nature than of revelation, and so lacks the cutting edge for which one looks in books of this kind. See also here. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Stalker, James. The Preacher and His Models. Taking his cue from the Old Testament prophets (including a fascinating treatment of false prophets) and the New Testament apostles, Stalker reviews the material under eight headings in which the character of a true preacher is set forth (sometimes by contrast). Stimulating, demanding and engaging, this book presses the Scriptural models into the soul of the modern minister. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Still, William. The Work of the Pastor. A shorter volume, but abounding in wit and sense. Willy Still was one of Sinclair Ferguson’s mentors, and this book focuses on the preaching and teaching of the Word as the pastor’s main concern and most effective tool. There are some very invigorating counsels here, delivered without punches being pulled, and with a minimum of fuss and extravagance. Good stuff! (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Stott, John. Between Two Worlds: The Challenge of Preaching Today. Some excellent counsel here from our Anglican friend, with lots of sound advice grounded in principle and long practice. One need not agree with every assumption or argument to find much to appreciate. Particularly engaging is his wrestling with the challenges of preaching in today’s world (it would be disappointing, given the title, if this were not so!). He helpfully identifies many of the problems, even if we might fine-tune some of his solutions. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)
Stott, John. The Preacher’s Portrait. To say that this is not much more than a series of word studies would be both to speak truth and to undersell the book terribly. Stott examines the language used of preachers and preaching in the New Testament to develop a composite portrait of the labours of the man of God. Handled with insight and conviction, these studies give a healthy roundedness to our notions of being a preacher of God’s Word. (Westminster / Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.com / Monergism)


Τω αγαπησαντι  ημας  και  λουσαντι  ημας  απο  των  αμαρτιων  ημων  εν  τω  αιματι  αυτου.

Rev. 1:5b

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Can the World Still Feed Itself?

Stated that way, it sounds like it’s a set-up to say “no, we need less people on the planet,” and so forth. I don’t think that way, and only gave the post that title because it’s the title of a very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal.


And, the answer of the article is: “Yes, says Nestle’s chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, but not if we burn food for fuel, fear genetic advances and fail to charge for water.”


I agree that the world can continue producing enough food for a long, long time as advances in technology and so forth continue. I don’t have any fear that the resources of the planet are insufficient to meet the needs of a massive, growing population. And, for those who want to see the new heavens and new earth as populated as possible (as I do), the growth of world population (and the corresponding spread of the gospel) is a wonderful, excellent thing. Along with it, of course, we have a responsibility to be wise and smart (and ambitious!) in fighting global problems, chief among them poverty in the developing world.


Now, back to the article. What I found interesting about it, and what I hadn’t thought much of before, was the connection between hunger in the developing world and conversion of food into fuel.


Here’s the first part of the article, which talks about that:



As befits the chairman of the world’s largest food-production company, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe is counting calories. But it’s not his diet that the chairman and former CEO of Nestlé is worried about. It’s all the food that the U.S. and Europe are converting into fuel while the world’s poor get hungrier.


“Politicians,” Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe says, “do not understand that between the food market and the energy market, there is a close link.” That link is the calorie.


The energy stored in a bushel of corn can fuel a car or feed a person. And increasingly, thanks to ethanol mandates and subsidies in the U.S. and biofuel incentives in Europe, crops formerly grown for food or livestock feed are being grown for fuel. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s most recent estimate predicts that this year, for the first time, American farmers will harvest more corn for ethanol than for feed. In Europe some 50% of the rapeseed crop is going into biofuel production, according to Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe, while “world-wide about 18% of sugar is being used for biofuel today.”


In one sense, this is a remarkable achievement—five decades ago, when the global population was half what it is today, catastrophists like Paul Ehrlich were warning that the world faced mass starvation on a biblical scale. Today, with nearly seven billion mouths to feed, we produce so much food that we think nothing of burning tons of it for fuel.


Or at least we think nothing of it in the West. If the price of our breakfast cereal goes up because we’re diverting agricultural production to ethanol or biodiesel, it’s an annoyance. But if the price of corn or flour doubles or triples in the Third World, where according to Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe people “are spending 80% of [their] disposable income on food,” hundreds of millions of people go hungry. Sometimes, as in the Middle East earlier this year, they revolt.


 

How to Glorify God at Work

A great post by John Piper. He gives quick thoughts on 9 areas:

DependenceIntegritySkillCorporate shapingImpactCommunicationLoveMoneyThanks

One additional word on skill: If you show love by being the first to order the pizza, or drive the van, or do whatever to serve people, but aren’t good at what you do, everything will fall flat. You have to be good at what you do. Good intentions are not enough.


And this usually means, in part, reading about your industry and about the best practices (and unconventional practices!) for your role and about management and about leadership and other such things.


Which likely means reading secular resources as well as Christian. You won’t learn what it means to be a great manager, for example, simply by reading Christian books on management (unfortunately!). Same with leadership. Marketing. And so forth.


And this is acceptable and good. As John Wesley said, “To imagine none can teach you but those who are themselves saved from sin, is a very great and dangerous mistake. Give not place to it for a moment.”


Likewise, the book of Acts points out that Moses (Moses!) was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds” (Acts 7:22). And we could go on and talk about Daniel (Daniel 1:4, 17), Paul, Luke, Joseph, the book of Proverbs (most scholars recognize that many of the Proverbs were adapted from the wisdom literature of other civilizations), Jonathan Edwards, and on and on.


The point is: If we want to glorify God in our workplaces, we need to learn from the best thinkers in our fields, whether they are Christians or not. And, this creates a better testimony to the gospel.


Don’t be the guy who volunteers first to go get the pizza, but that everyone groans about because he thinks that’s a substitute for being an expert in his role.


 

Is Leadership a Biblical Category?

Sometimes people say to me, “leadership is not a biblical category. The right terms are shepherding or stewardship or discipleship.”


Shepherding, stewardship, and discipleship are indeed critical things. And the absolute last thing I would want to say to pastors is “you aren’t shepherds, you’re leaders.” That would be horrible. Shepherding is a massive, valid, critical, and biblical category, and I think it communicates more about the nature of the pastoral role than simply the term “leader” does.


However, leadership is a biblical category. Pastoring (shepherding) is a type of leadership. And there are other types of leadership in the church and in all sectors of society everywhere that we are unable to properly describe and understand if we abandon the term “leadership.” Leadership is a good and right and proper category for these things.


In other words, if we abandon the category of “leadership,” we abandon an essential and necessary grid for understanding the task of (dare I say it) leading people. That’s what school superintendents, project managers, small group leaders, managers, CEOs, directors, vice presidents, marketing managers, executive pastors, senior pastors, and on and on, are doing.


Saying “that’s not leadership, that’s stewardship” doesn’t help a ton — stewarding what? Neither does saying “this is discipleship.” In the church and among Christians, that’s a helpful category. But is the marketing manager at Target discipling his or her employees? Maybe there is an element of that, even in the general arena of work. But if so, it’s discipleship in the context of leading a department, or carrying out whatever your role is.


We might be tempted to say that leadership is the right category for the task of leading outside the church, but it’s not a biblical category for inside the church.


But this would ignore the fact that the Bible actually speaks of leadership, and uses that term to describe the task of leading and shepherding inside the church as well. For example:



Luke 22:26: “Let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.


Hebrews 13:7, 17: “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. . . . Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls.”


Acts 5:31: “God exalted him at his right hand, as leader and savior.”


One interesting thing to note, and this is one reason this matters so much: In Luke 20:26, Jesus is drawing a contrast with how the Gentiles led, and how he wants the church led. The Gentiles lorded it over people and saw exercising authority and controlling people (for the leader’s benefit!) the main thing in leadership. Jesus said: “Not so. That’s a wrong view of leadership. It will not be that way among you.”


Here’s the point: If we remove leadership as a category of thought, we are unable to make these sorts of contrasts and comparisons. If what a person in the general society is doing can be called “leadership,” but what we are doing in the church can’t be, we lose the ability to learn from comparisons and contrasts. Jesus couldn’t have made the point he did here.


And, it is to be noted, Jesus’ point was not “you aren’t leaders.” His point was: “Lead in this way, not that that way. You will lead for the benefit of those you serve, not your own benefit. You will not focus on controlling people and exercising authority, but building them up for their good.” That’s true leadership.


The problem is not the concept of “leadership.” It’s that there are lots of wrong ideas about leadership out there. The problem is not leadership, but bad leadership.


We don’t need to be afraid of the term leadership — it is a biblical category. Let’s not eat the confusing fruit of overspiritualization that seeks to eliminate real, biblical, helpful categories in favor of more spiritual-sounding, but often ambiguous, ways of speaking.