Evolution and the Bible

Why, we may ask, is it necessary to see the evolution vs creation debate as significant? In fulfilling the Great Commission we are called upon to wake the world to the dangers that face them at the end of time. That these dangers are real and will affect every person in this "space and time continuum" is a matter of truth or it is ridiculous.

We believe the resurrection was a physically verifiable event - that it was historical and that it was witnessed by hundreds who testified what they had seen, in their day. We believe there was an historical event known as the great flood of Noah and that the only reason another has not occurred is that God is a keeper of his word, and he promised it would never happen again.

So what about evolution? Here are some of the implications, taken from Reformation21. The main point is perfectly valid. Who is the final authority for the Christian? The God of the Bible. And he talks of creation, not evolution. So what about the claim that we must give in to the assured results of the scientific community?

Two things: First: the scientific community, even among evolutionists is not united about the facts on which the theory rests (oops - sorry, I keep forgetting they like to call it a fact now!) Second: there is a well- researched alternative approach which fits the facts into a creation model. There are at least two website you ought to be familiar with if you take Rick Philips' post (above) seriously. The first is the popular language Answers in Genesis site and the second the more technically oriented Institute for Creation Research site.

Revival Churches

Here is a link to a valuable article, from the Banner of Truth website, which should stimulate discussion in your congregation. If its principles are put into practice - with prayer and exhortation - it may well be used by the Lord to bring revival and renewal to the Church.

The general thesis is that we need to have a Church structure that is capable of taking those who are saved by the preaching and establishing them in the Christian faith. What appeals to me is that the article seems to make sense of the roles which are spelled out in Paul's letter to the Ephesians as well as the gifts which the Spirit gives to the Churches. Everyone who is Christian should be involved in the work and each is able to do some part in what needs to be done.

Perhaps the weakest part of the presentation is that dealing with recognition of your own gift but, since it is only supposed to be a presentation of the principles as an encouragement to think through how the local Church applies them, that is not too great a flaw. I recommend this to be read, marked, discussed, inwardly digested and put into practice.

E-Book on Preaching

Here is a useful addition to your reading. The author, one of the professors at the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary says he wrote it for the following groups of people:
Student pastors (as a course overview);
Elders of the Church (as a help in sermon preparation);
seasoned preachers (as a sort of "refresher") and
those in the pew (as insight into a pastor's study practice).

The idea for the book came from a TV series about how to make things and is about how sermons are made. Check it out - it has quite a bit of useful information and is a real help in letting a congregation know about what it takes for their minister to prepare a sermon (or two) each week.

If you are going to read this, I would recommend the download - as a .pdf file it's much easier to keep the whole in focus and to skim back and forth. I found the refresher quite encouraging - nice to know you have been doing what others recommend :)

The Sower - Part III: Implications

There are some implications of this parable we need to be clear about. We also need to make corrections to some common misconceptions. We can deal with both together.

1. Preaching is only 25% effective There are some who believe, quite sincerely, that we should only expect abut a 25% success rate on preaching. So, since that is the case, they feel justified in trying many other forms of spreading the Gospel, like drama, dance and concerts. This is a little like the joke about crows on a fence. "There are ten crows on a fence. One gets shot, how many are left?" Answer: "None. If you said nine, you know maths but you don't know anything about crows." If you think the sower threw 25% of the seed on each of the type of soil then your maths is good, but you don't know much about sowing.

A sower spreads most of the seed on the prepared soil. So, since this is a picture of the results of preaching it is fair to assume that preaching will have a greater success rate than 25% and that's before we find out that the Bible says: "God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

2. The Gospel is the sole message There are some who believe that "redemptive-historical" preaching is what the Church needs today. For some this means every sermon must, in some way or another be related back to Christ. The sower sows the majority of his seed on good soil. That means the rocks have to be removed, the ground turned over, the field watered, the crop protected from pests. Though these things are not mentioned directly in the text, the point of the sower's activity is to bring in the harvest. And we are told that some of the seed did germinate, grow and give a good return for the work done.

Preaching is designed as the means to accomplish all these tasks. It is vital to know what the Bible says about sin - or there will be no turning away from it. We need to know what the Bible says about God's justice - or we will not know the danger of being, as Jonathon Edwards said, "sinners in the hands of an angry God." Then we need the sincere milk of the Gospel in order to grow. We need to understand what are erroneous teachings and how we can properly show our gratitude to God in our daily lives in order to grow in sanctification. The Gospel is a part of all these things but the emphasis has to change according to need. Paul's letters give hints of how those things can be done.

3. Anyone can be a preacher There is truth in this statement. Anyone can be a sower. But to be an effective sower takes training and experience - otherwise a lot more of the seed will be wasted than is necessary.

God can (and sometimes does) choose people from every walk of life to become preachers. And he can, should he wish, give insight to the teaching of the Bible so that no further training is necessary. But God does not ordinarily do this. He gifts the preacher, calls him, prepares him and sends him. But the preparation is usually in terms of experiences which drive him to the Bible. Training in exegesis, Bible languages and so on are things that the young preacher has to learn, usually from older preachers. Paul encouraged such an attitude towards study in those he trained. He told Timothy for example that he should "study to show [himself] approved unto God, a workman who needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

The Bible reminds us that faith comes by hearing, hearing comes by preaching and that no one can preach unless he be sent. Since faith is the one essential for salvation and the world is in grave danger because of rebellion against God, it follows that the greatest need of the hour is for preachers. So therefore, we should be praying to the Lord of the Harvest to send forth workers into the fields. And be ready for him to choose to send us, not just expect that will mean someone else goes.

The Sower - Part II: Responses to Preaching

This parable shows us the four types of response to preaching. There are a couple of things that thinking about it, in the 21st Century requires us to say before we consider this parable.

1. Perspective: The parable is drawn from the perspective of those experiencing the preaching. For that reason we find no overt reference to God's sovereignty or the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion. Instead the whole thing looks as if our conversion is purely our work. We choose. We persevere by resisting temptation and so on. Human decisions have consequences and this is one of the passages we might agree that imply that reality. We note, however, that this is an implication, not the clear teaching of the parable.

2. The Devil: It is fashionable today to imagine the devil is a personification of evil, that he is not a real creature. This parable speaks of him as a real person; one who must be considered as such. He acts in this world, even though his power is limited by God. Again, this second element is not in view from the perspective of the parable.

The Parable
When the sower (the preacher) goes out to spread the Word of God there are four possible responses. Three represent the faulty responses, the last represents the expected one. They are: The effect of the birds, of the rocky soil, the weedy soil and the well-prepared soil.

1. The Birds of the Air We are told that the devil snatches the seed up before it has an opportunity to germinate. The preacher speaks to them, and they hear the words but they are unwilling to heed them. Like the Scribes and the Pharisees they have their own viewpoint on life and they are not prepared to even consider changing. If there was any likelihood of that happening the Devil makes sure they have answers for everything that might trouble their consciences and cause them to change. In our day and age these are those of whatever background for whom there is no impression made by evangelism or preaching, they know what they believe and the only result of the message given is to condemn them. They heard the Gospel and rejected it completely.

2. The Rocky Soil These are those who respond to the "altar call" or hear what is said in the preaching and respond enthusiastically. They even appear to be more Christian in their responses than those who are really born again. These are harder for people in the Church to deal with. They appear in all things to be genuine Christians. They talk the talk and appear to walk the walk. And, during times where there is no persecution, they may even continue for some time with the Church. It is the trials of the Christian life, however, that show the difference. Because they are not really rooted and grounded in Christ, they fall away.

3. The Weedy Soil These are less obvious in their profession of Christianity in the beginning. Like the seed which falls in the good soil their conversion is less flashy, it appears as genuine as the real thing. And like the seed on the rocky soil they appear genuine. The cares and worries of this world, however, eventually cause them to become offended at the Gospel and they leave. The thing that is upsetting to the Church about both of these responses is that they appear absolutely genuine in so many ways. Sometimes God will even use them to point out failings in our views of Christianity yet, in times of persecution one group will leave and the enticements of the world lead the others astray. Of both groups, however, we are warned: "They went out from us that it might be made manifest," says the Apostle John, "that they were not all of us."

4. The Good Soil These are those whose genuineness is marked by two things. They persevere to the end and they bring forth fruit. Now, while it is tempting to imagine that the fruit here is bringing others to Christ - and that, indeed, may be a result of their lives - what the parable has in view is the fruit of the spirit; Love, joy and peace and so on. It seems hard for those who are responsible to preach to be faced with the almost impossibility of detecting the genuine from the false conversions.

But we need to remember that it is the Lord who tries the heart. He it is who knows who are his and, without the spiritual gift given to the Apostles - who were able to see the heart of some of the new additions to the Church, we have to accept that there will always be some in the Church who are not true believers. This is designed so that we will not be discouraged should some depart from the truth, no matter how genuine their conversion appeared or how much progress they appeared to make in holiness.

Knowing, as we do, the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer we can be encouraged in our fight against temptation and persecution. We may not be able to stand against those arrayed against us, but (as the Apostle Paul reminds us) "Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world."

The Sower - Part I: Why Speak in Parables?

The Disciples asked Jesus this question. He said: "To you is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven but to them it has not been granted ... I speak to them in parables because while seeing they do not see, while hearing they do not hear, neither do they understand ... But blessed are your eyes because they see and your ears because they hear ..." The disciples' question was occasioned, no doubt by the way Jesus finished his parable ... "He that has ears, let him hear." It was apparent to them from that ending, that Jesus was telling the people something they should be listening to. The story about a sower, therefore, obviously had to be something more than just a nice story.

Jesus lays down three things he sought to accomplish by speaking in parables: to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; to shut the mouths of those who did not believe; to show the truth to those who did.

1. It all begins with understanding what parables are. They are revelations of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. That means each parable shows us a little bit about the kingdom of heaven. The sower tells us how it grows, the tares and wheat tells about the present state of the kingdom, the mustard seed and the leaven show the effect of the kingdom on the world. Each picture is designed to show an aspect of the kingdom so we can see a little of what "many prophets and righteous men desired to see ... and hear, but did not ..."

2. The reprobate - and even those who are temporarily members of the Church - are denied the full significance of what they hear for two reasons:
a) They were foretold to hear and see and not understand (Jesus quotes Isaiah the Prophet to explain this point.
b) They deliberately close their eyes and scarcely hear anything because of their hearts which had become dull so that they can avoid the consequences of using their organs fully.
Consequently the parables which reveal truths about the kingdom of heaven mean nothing to them. They are looking for a different kind of kingdom and can't see how the information in the parable relates to that.

3. The blessing which comes to the disciples, and the the truly born again, is that the parables give us pictures which help us understand things which we would not otherwise be able to know. These are mysteries of the kingdom. As such we need to remember:
a) that no one parable can explain all there is to know about the kingdom (or Jesus would not have told as many as he did). This means that no parable should be pushed past the point which Jesus is making in it. The story about the rich man and Lazarus tells us that outward prosperity in this life does not mean we will infallibly be blessed in heaven. Whether we can see what is happening in Heaven from Hell, for example, may or may not be true so we should not be dogmatic about it.
b) that each parable - being a picture - gives a glimpse of the reality, nothing more. This means that where we find a conflict between the teaching of one parable and another (without pushing interpretation past its legitimate meaning) we should remember the reality is greater than either picture.

That Jesus taught in parables has a general lesson for us all to learn. There are some things which we need to know that are straightforward. As one old lady once said to her minister: "It's not the things I don't understand in the Bible that worry me, it's the things I do know and don't do." The parables fit into the second level of things which are spiritual interpretations of the world and Church - both of which are now under the Lordship of Jesus the Christ.

The rule for interpretation is the same as for any other part of the Bible. Begin with what is plainly taught, especially where there is a clear explanation of that teaching. This we can be sure about. Then go to the less clear where the deduced teaching is clear and can be verified from other clearer passages in Scripture. These we can be fairly certain about. Finally, we can look at the more obscure teachings of the Bible, where there are less clear passages than we would like. These we have a responsibility to interpret for our own edification and may gain benefit from listening to others more versed in Scripture than we are. But, in any case, we should not be adamant that our teaching is right - we may only be glimpsing a part of the whole reality.

Evangelism from Jesus

I discovered a new book on Evangelism today. It was called "Learning Evangelism From Jesus and was by Jerran Barrs. This extremely short interview was what made me interested in it. Check it out for yourself and let us know what you think :)

Natural Theology and Common Grace

First let me provide a couple of definitions:
"Natural theology ... is that part of the philosophy of religion dealing with describing the nature of the gods, or, in monotheism, arguing for or against attributes or non-attributes of God, and especially the existence of God, purely philosophically, that is, without recourse to any special or supposedly supernatural revelation." - Wikipedia
And by Common Grace I mean: "Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore can not be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may is without warrant of the Word of God." - Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter X section IV

From the above definitions it is apparent that this subject has to do with what the natural man can deduce about God from their use of natural reason. What does God reveal about himself in nature? There has been a debate about this matter for a number of years and a contrast is often made between those of the old school (sometimes erroneously referred to as the Princeton School) and those of the Kuyperian school. I was reading a good explanation of a semi-related conflict and became impressed with the way the author, Dave Strain, dealt with the different responses. Read the interview and the comments here.

One of the things which led to this blog subject was the way Dave Strain used the idea of common grace. He pointed out, which the Bible does, that the natural man (that's the person who has not been regenerated) does actually know something of God even though he denies either that fact or the content of what the Bible says he knows. I had been accustomed to hearing Common Grace used to describe God's dealing with the unrepentant and the wicked. That he restrains (n pun intended) their behavior so they are not as wicked as they could be. It was natural theology (I was taught) which talks about what the natural man can know about God from creation.

Yet, thinking about it, there is the idea of grace involved. God did not have to reveal himself as clearly to fallen man as he does - yet he does just that. And, insofar as it does not lead to faith (in the natural man) it carries the idea of his "common operation" from the idea I had been taught. So, that God provides the basis of natural theology by his common grace shows how the two ideas can be linked.

This led to further thinking. One complaint against the view of evangelism which is advocated on these pages is - if we deny there is a common interpretation of the world, how can we talk to unbelievers with any hope of providing a reasonable basis for faith? Surely the natural man can develop a natural theology that demonstrates God exists (as witness the older form of philosophical "proofs" for the existence of God). It would seem it was just such a common interpretation (according to this view) that the Apostle Paul appealed to when he spoke on Mar's Hill (in Athens) Acts 17:16-34. But was it really?

It is our contention that Paul was using a common ground (they truly knew the real God of the Bible - even though they didn't acknowledge him as God). He spoke of the altar to an "unknown God" declaring it was him that he (Paul) would explain. He did not use natural theology to prove his existence (which the Athenians would certainly have appreciated) but declared to them the characteristics of the God of the Bible. By this procedure he avoided having to "prove" the hypothetical God was the actual God who exists. Paul rested his case on the common ground of God's revelation in nature. He then used the poets' statements to show that (even incomplete though they were) it was enough to condemn their idolatry which would be judged by Jesus Christ.

Paul used this procedure, I believe, because he knew the problem is not understanding who God is - nature declares his divine power and Godhood so clearly all are without excuse - it's sin. To become embroiled in myriad definitions and the possible debates about validity of argument was to waste time and likely to no purpose. All philosophical arguments like these can be tied up endlessly in counterarguments. Instead, Paul did exactly what we should be doing he used the common ground and developed his argument to show they were inconsistent in the sinful practice of idolatry (the thing that had exercised him since he had arrived in the city). He then warned them that such idolatry would lead to their condemnation because God had now given notice he would judge the world by Jesus Christ.

Natural theology? No. An awareness of common grace and the ability to use it (as shown in the truth behind the words of the Greek poets) to provide the reasoning the Holy Spirit uses to convict of sin. This is a extended example of a simple thing. It carries weight because - Paul really was well versed in the Greek culture, he knew his Scriptures absolutely thoroughly, he knew his Lord and he was absolutely sincere in his desire to save people from their sins. Ultimately, even for Paul, it was the Holy Spirit who made it fruitful.

Why do Christians believe the Bible?

We start with a number of basic beliefs. We believe that it is possible to know things truly. That there is order and consequence in the universe. That it is possible to build a rational construct and that these things are so because that's the way God made them. That God not only exists but that he has entered into a relationship with his creation and with man in particular.

We are taught that truth is established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. So here are my two:
As we study the Bible we discover there are some things that are so obvious we call them common sense. The sun rises each morning and sets each evening (not the other way around and the time it is "up" depends on your location on the earth's surface). Then we discover there are conditional statements which can be checked such as Proverbs 22:15 - "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; the rod of correction will remove it far from him." The course of our society over the past 40 years indicates the truth of this one. And finally there are statements we need to take on trust - especially those dealing with our final destination. So, my first witness - Bible study and investigation of its claims - demonstrates the Bible is to be trusted.
Next a comparison between the Bible and the religious writings of other religions shows the restraint of the Bible. Unlike those writings, its claims can be tested by history and science. Luke's writings, his Gospel and the Book of the Acts of the Apostles abound in historical detail which can and have been checked. And, in every case where Luke's history can be checked it has been confirmed. Checking the details of the fall of Jerusalem against the prophecies of Jesus in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 demonstrate how accurate were the words of the Christ. And that's before we enter the study of archaeology and how it confirms the Old Testament. My second witness, the study of the external data referred to in the Bible, demonstrates the Bible is to be trusted.
Then, for the Christian, it is possible to know the author. This usually starts as one of those conditional statements which can be investigated. As we search out the truth of the Bible's statements we can sometimes be surprised by the author himself. When that happens we understand the Bible more clearly than we ever did before and, in fact, even wonder why we didn't see it was sin which stopped us from truly knowing God. Then we understand the Bible as a letter written to all men and to us in particular and we believe it. My third witness also attests to the trustworthiness of the Bible.

So, from without and within, the Bible demonstrates it is to be trusted. Why do Christians believe the Bible? Because life and study demonstrate it is to be trusted.

Reformed and Evangelistic

There are two blog sites I ran into today that I think deal with the issue of the doctrines of Reformed Theology and the apparent conflict with the Great Commission. Calvinicm is often claimed to be an atmosphere in which evangelistic fervor cannot live.

The first of these sites found here is for the ministry of one Voddie Baucham Jr, the pastor of Grace Family Baptist Church in Texas. A lot of what he says is just plain common sense - like this quotation which says (among other things) that we should not have to check everything a man says about everything before we are prepared to quote him. If what he says here, for example, is to the point and accurate - well and good - after all we might have to throw out a lot of good people if we sieve them through (say) racist sunglasses.

The second site here led to another, the former home page of the Cork Free Presbyterian Church and the original article. It seemed to me that, for those of my readers who are interested in following up on some of the issues we discuss here, Colin Maxwell's Evangelism issues could well provide some food for thought.

Enjoy the reading :)

Evangelism and the Law of God

A few days ago this article appeared on the Arminian Today blog site. It is an excellent explanation of the importance of using the Law of God in the process of evangelism. Much of today's "evangelism" follows the procedure laid out at the head of the article and the "pray a prayer" step never seems to include any time to allow the Holy Spirit to convict the person of sin.

Reading this article could go a long way to explaining why we have so many "Christians" who live as if they belonged to a club (like Rotary with less obligations). This is an encouraging sign that there are those who are not of the Reformed camp who see the necessity of preaching the Law if people are to be born again. What's that you say? There are Reformed congregations who use the steps outlined at the beginning of the article? Surely not!!

Maybe this article should "stir us to jealousy" to whom God has granted the "oracles of God, and the Law ..."

The Purpose of Man - Part III

The Shorter Catechism says, not only that we must glorify God, but that it is our purpose to enjoy him forever. This reminds us that Christianity is not just a matter of duty - we ought to obey God and keep his commandments - but it is also a relationship. It is this relationship which helps us understand why God is as interested in our attitudes as he is our actions. In fact, most often it is the attitude which has the key role in assessing what we do.

Take this passage in Proverbs. "A proud look and a haughty heart and the lamp of the wicked is sin." An alternate reading of the text has "the plowing of the wicked" for "the lamp ..." Now we can understand the proud look being sin and the haughty heart. But while we might find it more difficult to class the plowing of the wicked as sin, how can we do the same with the lamp of the wicked? A lamp is surely neutral. It does neither good nor evil. Surely the fact that it is owned by a wicked person is not enough to class it as evil?

In this we show we have forgotten the role of relationship. The importance of the saying rests not on the word "lamp" but on the phrase "lamp of the wicked." It is not the lamp but what the person uses it for. A good man uses his lamp to light the way so he can act for the benefit of his neighbors. A wicked man uses his lamp so he can act for the detriment of his neighbors. God reminds us that intent is all important by calling such a lamp sin.

So saying we turn to consider the purpose of man. If our intent is to glorify God; if we seek to honor him in all we do and think; if we become downhearted when our "best-laid plans gang oft aglee" (as Robert Burns put it) and we - once again - show we have not overcome sin in our lives; then we can take comfort in the promise that it will not always be so. Even as we struggle to overcome our sin, so also the, whole creation groans and trevails awaiting the revelation of the Sons of God, says the Apostle. So there will come a day when we put off our mortal body with the corruption of the flesh and put on a perfect body, having been made into the very likeness of Christ himself.

In the garden of Eden, Adam walked with God every day. His was the communion of a perfectly good creature, made in the image of God, with his Creator. On the final day we will have that restored and more because we will (along with everyone else who has put their trust in Christ) also know him as our Redeemer and our King. We will enjoy his fellowship as those who love him and are assured (in a way that Adam never knew) that he loves us. There is no greater joy on earth than that between two people who have loved and had that love strengthened by the things they have suffered together. How much more the love we share with Christ who, though he was perfect, suffered on our behalf, in order that he might present us spotless before his father.

We will be able to gaze on his face, hear his beloved voice speaking and, above all rejoice that the whole world gives him the same honor as the very angels in heaven. We will know that no more will we cause him pain as he sees us fail to achieve what we long to do in his honor but will rejoice with us that sin has finally been defeated in our lives. How wonderful just to say: The good that I would, that I do and know that there is no evil to even resist - that is almost too wonderful to contemplate!!

Pray that this hint of what will be makes us long to serve him and do so without any of the sin that still clings to us. May we know the joy of being able to do as we long to now. The Catechism only gives us a glimpse of the joy that awaits us when finally we stand in his presence and hear: "Come the blessed of my father ..." the invitation to be with him and enjoy his presence forever. No wonder John ends his vision with "Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly."

The Purpose of Man: Part II

The second part of this blog about the catechism answer to the question: "What is the chief end (or purpose) of man?" is " ... to glorify God ..."

I was reading an article today about the need for heroes. The writer, Jon Foreman, said he had found a hero in John M. Perkins. He is, as we are told: "a man who devoted his life to those around him in simple and profound ways. He was quick to forgive, quick to utilize resources to help those in need. He has been a tireless civil rights worker who has endured beatings, harassments, and even prison for what he believes. With the help of his wife, Vera Mae, and a few others, he founded a health center, leadership development program, thrift store, low-income housing development and training center in his hometown of Mendenhall, Mississippi. His is a story of reconciliation, of forgiveness, of patience. He endured the suffering, holding on to a cause greater than himself."

It's great that Jon Foreman considers such a man a hero. So many others require more flashy evidence. Then came the quotation (emphasis added) that made me think about this subject: "His is a story that reminds me of a goodness beneath the system. Though Perkins was a devout Christian, he was quick to point out that this goodness is bigger than stale religion. Mr. Perkins once said that 'many congregations do nothing but outsource justice.'"

Suppose Mr Perkins' quotation is only partly accurate, then this is a telling indictment of the way many Christians view their beliefs. That someone can, with any legitimacy, label a congregation's Christianity as "stale religion" and see their work as "outsourcing justice" is a shame to us all. Has the Church really reached the point where our faith does not remind us of why we are here? Has her teaching really deteriorated to the point that some can imagine "outsourcing justice" is what it means to glorify God? And what about the idea that there can be a version of Christianity which is no longer fresh? All these questions may only be the result of one man's inability to find a local Church which is truly Christian but they do remind us that the task of evangelizing the nation is still a long way from complete.

Mr Perkins is an encouragement to believe the are some who take their role of glorifying God seriously and a reminder that we need to do much more than talk about serving God and our fellow man. We need to remember that our savior spent his whole life doing good as well as teaching. I remember talking about justification by faith to someone recently. They were hot to remind me that we are saved by faith alone and even quoted the Bible correctly to prove it. The problem I had with their presentation (and which led to a further discussion) was that there did not seem to be any need for us to "show our faith by our works," as James so beautifully puts it.

If, as the catechism puts it our main purpose in life is to glorify God, then we need to show it by more than just theological acumen. Perhaps a part of the problem is that so many of us are used to seeing Christianity in terms of its message and attacks on its theology. In such a context it can become easy to forget that Christianity is a life based on a particular relationship which has practical implications. There was a reason Jesus taught his disciples as they moved around Israel - he wanted them to learn to both do and teach as he did.

I read what Jon had to say about Mr Perkins and thought how important it would have been for young men (especially - but young women as well) to have learned to do what he was doing and to learn the Christian reasons why he acted as he did. Then I got to wondering why that same principle (based on what Jesus did) wouldn't work in today's Churches. I couldn't think of a single reason ... as long as it wasn't all taught by a minister/pastor.

There are a few advantages - young Christians would learn that there is no area of life which is not affected by the way we honor Christ; they would learn there are things each and every one of us can do to honor God in our lives, they would learn that doctrine and life are complementary parts of the same life, they would see that doctrine informs our actions, they would even learn that God loves us in spite of our failings. Hmmm Oh, and did I mention that Mr Perkins would eventually be considered "just another Christian" as I am sure he would want it to be.

The Purpose of Man - part I

"The chief end of man," says an old catechism, "is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever." Yet atheists and agnostics abound and every man seeks his own pleasure. So, as those who are called to "make disciples of all nations and to teach them to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded," we have a bit of a problem. Now what is really fascinating about the modern world (and the problem it presents us with) is that it used to be the Christians who were considered to be atheists. They had no representations of their God in their places of worship or in their homes. Now it is those we might have formerly called pagans and idolaters who are the real atheists.

That, being the case, perhaps we should define what we mean by the two terms above. An atheist, for our purposes, is someone who denies that there is any supernatural being who created the world, who has spoken to man in the Bible and to whom mankind is supposed to owe allegiance. If you checked the dictionary definition you will see that all I did was make the word God more specific. There's a reason for that which we'll come to below. There are at least two types of atheist, the practical atheist who is really an agnostic but lives as if he is an atheist and the theoretical atheist. One who has arrived at his conclusions by his reason and is prepared to defend his beliefs by logical debate is a theoretical atheist. The practical atheist is often likely to retreat to an agnostic position if pushed.

An Agnostic is one who either is not prepared to be committed to any belief in, is sure we can ever know for certain whether or believes it is impossible to know if the God of the Bible exists. That's using the phrase "God of the Bible" as shorthand for the same definition we used for him above. By the definition we can see there are about three types of agnostic. The first is indifferent to the whole debate often because he can see no use in belief or disbelief in God. The second believes that since God is supposed to be a spirit and we have no proven way of measuring or interacting with spirits we can never know for certain whether God exists, it remains a matter of conjecture. The last believes it is impossible to create any test the will prove the existence of any type of being we might call God it is a waste of time and effort to find out if God exists.

There do exist a number of ways to "prove" (read "demonstrate") the existence of God. So, when you read of scientists who have discovered wonderful things about the way the universe operates and attempt to persuade an atheist or agnostic their view is flawed, you are using one of these "classical proofs for God's existence," usually the cosmological argument. See the proofs outlined here and here. In all these proofs the best that can be expected is proof that a "God" exists. It is then necessary to show that such a God is, in reality, the God of the Bible. Even then it may not persuade the hearer.

One is reminded of the ancient philosophical paradoxes of Zeno where an aspect of reality is used to describe a situation and other aspects (which are also important) are ignored. The atheist or agnostic usually argues rationally from a set of premises which are incomplete. If you prefer a non-philosophical view it's a little like learning physics. I remember learning about the motion of an bullet in flight and being told to ignore gravity and air friction in my calculations. The problem is (as anyone knows) we can never ignore gravity while we are on the earth and the air does resist the passage of anything through it. So why ignore them? Surely all aspects of reality are important and we can only ignore them at our peril. We were told "because they are constant" - which is mostly true and was insignificant in the problems we were given. When it comes to the existence of God ignoring some aspects of reality can have eternal consequences.

So, how can we hope to make a reasonable (please note the word "reasonable") "defence of the faith" when dealing with atheists and agnostics? The Bible gives us some important details we need to remember about mankind. Romans chapter 1 tells us that the hidden things of God are clearly seen in creation, being understood by those that are made - even his eternal power and Godhood. God's purpose in this is so that they are without excuse because, recognizing God in creation they ought to worship and glorify him - but they don't. That means there will be flaws in the atheist and agnostic points of view which we can use to show they are inconsistent and must, therefore, be trying to hide from the reality of God which they know.

It's like catching a liar. It's much easier if you know the truth and test their statements by that truth. You can imagine this will require knowing your Bible really well and knowing your society and science well also. This is part of the reason why reformation and literacy go hand-in-hand. We become students of the Word (the Bible) and the word (language and how it relates to reality) when we become Christians just because we take the Great Commission seriously.

What has this to do with our opening statement? The chief end (or purpose) of man is to glorify God so it is our responsibility to call on all men everywhere to do so. If as Paul says they really know that is true then we have an ally in the conscience which is constantly excusing or accusing them. It is possible to use reasoning to help even the theoretical atheist see their flaws in logic but we should not expect to convince them of their errors. As sinners they will attempt to continue in denial unless God (our second ally) intervenes. And he does. He tells us he has chosen to use the foolishness of preaching (speaking up on God's behalf) to save those that believe. Paul presented a strong case for worshiping the true God before the crowd on Mars Hill in Athens. And the general response was he was a babbler, unimportant and possibly ignorant. Yet, even in Athens and as a result of that presentation there were some that believed.

We are responsible to glorify God in our speaking and leave the rest to him. The wonderful thing is that, if we do, we will see his working and this leads to joy as sinners come to know him and joy which will last until forever.

"Post-..." Jargon.

Ordinarily I am not in favor of compound adjectives although there are times when such adjectives are almost inescapable without using either a concise but obscure adjective or many words which mean the same as a shorter compound adjective. My writing is already too convoluted to make me feels easy using the latter option (though it is a preference - being simpler). Of the compound adjectives the ones which I feel are the most annoying are those formed by adding the prefix post- to another adjective.

There are many terms which have some use and so are acceptable on utilitarian grounds. Post-natal and post meridian are so much a part of the language we hardly notice them and, besides, medical terms are also well accepted. It is the rash of jargon "post-..." adjectives which seem to have sprouted like Topsy of which I speak. We do live in a post-Reformation and post-Enlightenment era. The "post" means after and the rest of the adjective defines what has passed. We could also use post-Apostolic and post-Nicene (though to be honest post-Chalcedon might be more useful. The last two terms mean we interpret doctrine with the understanding and insights which were defined in the creeds of Nicea and Chalcedon.

That being said we should no longer expect to find lack of clarity over the Trinity or the person of Christ (his divinity and humanity). Being post-Reformation should mean we interpret soteriology, ecclesiology and several other theological disciplines with the insights gained from the 16th Century debates (whether continental or British - Catholic or Protestant). And post-Enlightenment allows us to acknowledge some insights gained by recent archeological excavations and of some literary criticism - such as the role of suzereignity treaties of the ancient Hittites in understanding aspects of Biblical interpretation.

There are, however, two terms I am less happy about. The first "post-modern" implies we are no longer living in the modern era. It is too general to make any real sense and should be replaced by some other "post-..." term like post-ArtDeco or post-BigBand, if you will, where it is clear the fashion concerned has actually past. Modern means present day so post-modern implies the present day has past - obviously incorrect. If you are wanting to say future-oriented don't use a "post-..." term.

The other term I am opposed for the same sort of reason. It is the term "post-Christian." In the first place it implies that there was a time which we could call the Christian era - where the whole world was Christian. Such has never been the case so to imply that such an era has past is ludicrous.
In the second place our calendars have not changed if we are to say that we are past the "Christian Era" (assuming that it is possible to think of a way the term is appropriate). We are (so I am assured) still in the year AD2010. AD means Anno Domini ("the year of our Lord") and is a reference to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. So, unless our calendar has changed we are obviously still in the era in which Christ is Lord.
Thirdly, as a Christian, I object to Christians using this term because the Bible teaches that Jesus has ascended on high where he lives and reigns forever ... theologically speaking, then, it is impossible for us ever to get to a post-Christian era unless it is possible to throw him off his throne. Since we are talking about the one "... through whom all things were made and by whom was everything made which was made," such an event is so unlikely as to be impossible.
And finally, can you imagine trying to convince a post-modern, post-Christian inhabitant of one of our larger post-colonial cities that his post-educational interpretation of the universe was (being post-Edenic and post-diluvian sinful) that he needed to be saved so that he could, post-regeneration, become more Christlike? If he didn't get swamped by the adjectives he would certainly wonder why we were stuck in a former era.

A City set on a Hill

Jesus says these words to his Disciples when sitting with them on a mountain. It's recorded in Matthew 5:1-15 This passage has several things it is important for us to know about evangelism.

1. Since it is addressed to the disciples and just before the picture painted of the words of our title (verse 14a) it is clear that Jesus intends us to understand that it is the Church (those who are characterized as having the attributes we have come to know as the Beatitudes) who are to be known as the "light of the world." This is important whenever we consider that it is often the unbelieving who give the impression of being the "movers and shakers" in society. In reality it is the people of God who have the clearest view of what is important in life. That's because the beatitudes show the difference between man as God intended him to be and man as the world imagines he ought to be.

2. The City set on a hill is easy to find - in fact Jesus reminds us it cannot be hidden. In the darkness of evening or night (the situation pictured in this section) such a city is seen long before we can see its lights by the glow in the sky. Then, as we draw nearer, we can see the lights on the horizon making it clear that there are a large collection of dwellings there. And as we finally arrive at the final approaches to the city we begin to discern the individual dwellings and the illuminations within which give a glimpse of the lives of the people who make their homes within her gates.So it is with the Church, her influence is seen afar off. Then as we draw nearer we gain a view of the way she stands for truth. And, finally as we enter in the gates we see her love for her Lord and his for her in the lives of individual Christians.

3. The city cannot be hidden - it is perceived because of its nature. It doesn't have to have a program in order to be noticed. It doesn't have to have announcements on placards or boards in order to be noticed. Those things may have a function in letting people what particular city they have come across or in order to let people know what amenities are available in the city. But, in order to be noticed, all the citizens have to do is act as citizens should - in accordance with the King's laws.

4. The city was set (notice the passive voice). It did not set itself there on the hilltop - it had to have been founded, and since Jesus was talking about the Kingdom of heaven it seems reasonable to assume this city was set there by the Lord of the kingdom. This speaks of God's purpose in setting the city on the hilltop. It was so it would draw all men to it and through it, him.

Biblical Evangelism

If we look at the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20, we discover several things.
The Lord gives the commission on the basis of the fact that he now has all power in heaven and on earth (v 18). This implies that the point of making disciples is intended to be bringing the world to acknowledge his Lordship over all. As Paul says, "he must reign until all his enemies are put under his feet - and the last enemy is death." Twice, in this small passage of the Bible we are encouraged by this fact. First Jesus tells us that we are given this task because he has all authority granted to him and second as we are about the task he reminds us that he will be with us in all his power to accomplish that which is his purpose in sending us out. It is the Risen Lord who would have us fulfill this commission.

Then, the Greek of verse 19 actually says "Going, make disciples of all nations" - the only command in the section is "make disciples" and the present participle "going" implies an attendant circumstance to the main verb. It would be as accurate to translate "as you go ..." or "wherever you go ..." The point is that this command applies as much for home missions as it does for overseas missions. As we read the book of Acts we can see this at work. Stephen responding to the Sanhedrin, Peter and Silas singing in the jail in Philippi, Philip overhearing an Ethiopian reading on the way back to his country or Paul finding himself in Athens waiting for the rest of his companions to rejoin him; wherever they found themselves, they took the opportunity offered to speak for their Lord in order to make disciples.

According to the text (verse 19b and 20a), making disciples implies two things, baptizing and teaching the nations. So, not only are we told this is something the Lord Jesus requires of us (rather than an idea of the Church authorities), and not only where we are to do this but we are even told what it entails. In the light of my understanding of Covenant Theology, baptizing would be adding them to the covenant community and then instructing them of the obligations, blessings and curses such membership implies for them. If we think of the inauguration of the Old Covenant under Moses we notice there are similarities to what happened just before the Israelites crossed the Jordan to enter the Promised Land. They were to circumcise all the people and read them the Law of God. And again the book of Acts shows this in action, not just in Jerusalem but all the way to Rome.

But, if we focus, for a moment on the last section of verse 20 we will see how this approach differs from what is often called evangelism. In most cases today people are taught there are certain steps that have to be taken if we are to be successful in evangelism. Almost everyone, it seems, has a program for us to follow. I remember one which went each person speaks to one other until they make them a disciple. then the two speak to two others and so on. The program was promoted as a sure way to evangelize the world in our generation. Yet, verse 20 - right where you would expect the Lord to spell out in detail how to do these things - only contains the assurance that the Lord will be with us always, even to the end of the age.

I remember wondering why. Is there enough detail in the earlier verses to tell me how I am to make disciples (leaving aside the issue of whether I can actually perform a baptism for the moment)? I don't think so. Then I got to thinking about how we actually become Christian - it is the work of the Holy Spirit. That's what I had seen as wrong with the wonderful geometric progression of discipleship - it didn't allow for the possibility that the Holy Spirit might use our evangelism to convict of sin, but not savingly. As I remembered this it became plain that the reason Jesus reminds us he will be with us is because we only have to be faithful as witnesses or heralds, the result, the success or otherwise, is in his hands and we can trust him to use it his way.

That's why we find no evangelism program outlined in Paul's writings. It's why we find Paul just going from place to place and preaching. We see the results because the Lord is blessing his faithfulness. Do we find Paul including an altar call in his preaching? Do we see him passing out tracts as he travels? And, why does he seem to spend so long (compared with modern evangelists) in the various cities? Do we find him setting up a music group or even a Bible reading program? No, if we summarize what he was doing it was: arrive in a city; debate with the Jews; after being thrown out of the synagogue, reason with the Gentiles; baptize those who believed (and their households) and instruct them until the new Church was formed. We are not given any more details, all that is clear is that Paul's approach was very much more flexible than we might expect if he was using some of the modern systems.

The key element of Biblical evangelism is that we are working together with the Lord. Our role is to be as faithful to our responsibilities as we can. He will provide us with both the opportunities and the words to say and he will do the rest. The trouble with modern systems is that they require us to do more. They want us to produce believers by some kind of decision. There is seldom space left for the Holy Spirit to work in the heart of the person with whom we've been brought into contact.

We should expect that, if he has worked and the person has been convicted, he or she will take the initiative. It is the Holy Spirit's work to make our hearers think through the issues and make their response - Paul allowed that of the Jews. He discussed and debated ... then, only after they responded unfavorably, did he stop dealing with them and turn to the Gentiles. That response, however, was always brought about by the work of the Holy Spirit using the preaching to convict the hearers of sin.

On the Day of Pentecost, after Peter finished his speaking, the admonition to "repent and be baptized" was a response to the crowd's question "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" He didn't prompt it - he finished by letting them know in no uncertain terms that they had crucified the Messiah foretold by the prophets! It was the Lord Jesus, through the work of the Holy Spirit that brought the new disciples into being.

What a wonderful task, working with the Lord to bring about his kingdom! And we have not only the privilege of doing it but he requires it of us in order that we might see his glory extended everywhere. Now that's Biblical evangelism.

Evangelism, Apologetics and Missions

Why connect these three and how are they differentiated? The question was asked by a dear friend I told about this blog site. So, it seemed to be a sensible thing to deal with in a posting.

First - how differentiated
By evangelism I mean the two alternatives of "witnessing" ('being ready with an answer for the hope that is in you' of  I Peter 3:15b) about and "heralding" (or "proclaiming" as in Mark 1:45a) the Gospel. The difference between the two activities (it seems to me) is that one is responsive and the other initiative.
A witness answers questions about what they know or have experienced (as did the blind man whom Jesus healed before the Scribes and Pharisees) and a herald proclaims what has been given him to speak by the king (so is more akin to preaching). Both activities are considered to be a part of evangelism even though the methods used are different.
By missions I mean the same initial activity but the purpose of missionary work is the establishment of new congregations and is usually undertaken at the behest of a local congregation (or group of them). This will require more than just evangelism, it requires teaching and training the new members to be able to undertake the task of ministering to the needs of those about them, it requires encouraging the development of the structure of a Church (including the calling of and choice of elders and deacons), it requires the institution of the sacraments and beginning discussions with a Church body which will likely link the new congregation with other like-minded Christians in the nation or around the world. This work is designated in the New Testament as that of the Apostle (or "sent one" in Greek - the Latin verb for the same concept is "missio" - hence missions).
By apologetics I mean the disciplined discussion of the tenets of the Christian faith whereby a reasoned, logical, defence of the faith is provided to show that our beliefs are based on solid reality and that we do not follow cunningly devised fables. Generally the only difference between evangelism and apologetics is that the latter often takes place in a more formal setting. Missions may also include the necessity to be involved now and again in apologetics. Paul's discourse on Mars Hill in Athens (recorded in Acts:17:16-34) certainly gives an example of this kind of activity.

Second - how connected
Having explained how each is different from the other it should also be apparent why I have connected them here. I don't plan on limiting myself to content of each or just "how to"  postings. For, as you think about Missions, for example, it is apparent that many more subjects need to be included under this umbrella. The general focus, however, will be speaking about spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Historical Pastoral Theology

By the above term I am not referring to a discipline of theology which looks at pastoral theology in the light of history. I want to draw our attention to the fact that, so often, we become used to the distinctions made in systematic theology because of the debates of the past. Then we tend to use these distinctions when it comes to dealing with people in the real world. This has an unfortunate side effect. The Bible authors do not actually always follow the same distinctions we use. If we want to pattern our pastoral theology on the example (say) of the Lord or even the Apostles we need to decide how, if at all, we are going to use historically conditioned distinctions.
It has become common to think, in Reformed circles, of describing the members in the Church as either members of the visible or members of the invisible Church. The distinction is useful for understanding why some who appear to have never been "born again" should be accepted as a part of the congregation. It is based on the division Paul makes in Romans, for example, between those who are physically of Israel but not Israel according to the Promise. He gives a number of examples - Esau and Ishmael among them. In Paul's day there were also Ananaius and Sophyra and certainly others.
But, useful though the distinction may be, when it comes to dealing with individual members of the congregation, is it necessary for us always to be checking to see if other members (or even we ourselves) are actually members of the invisible Church? Does it not, at the least, make us less concerned to have those we consider lost do what they ought to be doing about living holy lives?
In a significant passage in I Corinthians 1:2 Paul calls the members of the Church he is writing to "saints." And, in chapter 6:9-11 of the same letter Paul shows that, though they had been sinners of many sorts, they had all been washed, sanctified and justified. They had, in short, become members of the body of Christ. And, if we accept that the "washing" refers to their baptism, that happened when they were baptized. They had, according to Paul, been baptized, sanctified (set aside for God's use) and justified (declared free from sin's dominion) and should now live out that reality.
This is significant when we consider what was going on in Corinth at the time. If we had to deal with members of the congregation who despised one another because of "spiritual gifts;" who claimed that one preacher was better than another and he should be followed so the Church was divided; who claimed they were holier than others because they lived a more "Biblical" life; or who were so incensed with another member they took that person to court, we might be tempted to class the whole lot as members of the visible Church but certainly not of the invisible one. Yet Paul makes no such distinction - he treats them all as truly members of the body of Christ, though sinful members.
Evangelism might seem to be the best solution to such problems. Call upon the sinful ones to repent and believe so that they might be saved and not suffer the condemnation due to them because they (obviously) were not believers. But Paul treats them as already believers and exhorts them to change lest they lose the blessings they already have in Christ. This would tend to make us look at evangelism and the Church differently. It should also have an effect on how we see the task of missions. More on these subjects later.
What has this to do with history and pastoral theology? I would contend that, occasionally, we need to re-examine our theological tools and decide if they are actually able to be used as the Bible indicates we should. That there are some who are members of the visible Church and will not make it to heaven is a reality. The reality on which the visible/invisible distinction is made. Yet, when it comes to reacting to sin in the congregation pastorally we need to treat all as equally responsible members of the congregation - we do not (after all) know for certain who is, or is not, a member of the invisible Church. The trouble is that attempting to discern who is actually born again leads to a form of legalism that was common in the Church and has its roots firmly embedded in the Judaism of Paul's day.
I recently read a book called The Baptized Body which makes a slightly different distinction. That between the historical and eschatological body of Christ. The historical body of Christ is the Church as she appears in history and the eschatological body is that form she will have at the end of time. The writer, Peter J Leithart, makes the point that the Apostles dealt with Church members as truly a part of the body of Christ because they were made a part of him by their baptism. While not agreeing with everything in the book the point is well made. We need to treat all members of the Church as truly members of Christ by their incorporation (in baptism).
To use a different metaphor there are no second class citizens in the Kingdom of Heaven. You are either a member or you are not. You can be a faithful member or a sinful one. Either way, you are answerable to the King of the realm for the way you behave. It seems that, in this case, perhaps we should be setting aside some historical distinctions in order to be more effective in our pastoral work. After all, it is possible to see that the Reformers did the same with medieval scholarship in some areas so that a clearer grasp of the Gospel could be recovered.

Jargon

Why do we use jargon? Why not just use "ordinary" language? Did the Apostles or Jesus Christ use jargon? I believe the answers to all these questions are important and say something about the way we use language.
First, by jargon I mean a word or set of words which have a specific meaning to one group of people and which may be incomprehensible or do not convey the same meaning to others. In the Philadelphia Story, Tracy calls the "True Love" a "yar" boat. For most people who have never seen the movie the word "yar" conveys little, if any, meaning and so it can be considered jargon.
Second, we use jargon because it is a shorthand method of saying something. "Yar" for example means something like, handles well, is trim, looks good, is a great boat and so on. Theologians have their own jargon. Apologetics, for example means "the science of attempting to explain or persuade someone who doesn't hold to Christian beliefs the reasonableness of the Christian faith."
Third, jargon is useful in situations where the meaning of each term is clear for saying a lot without having to spell out the meaning each time. In a group of Reformed theologians, for example, one would imagine that it would be appropriate to use the mnemonic TULIP for those characteristic beliefs of Calvinism (and yes, Reformed and Calvinism are themselves jargon terms). The qualifier is important because the purpose of language is to communicate ideas from one person to another. If the receiver doesn't know what you are talking about you have failed to communicate. Like all shortcuts the saving comes at a price, an increase in possible misunderstandings.
Fourth, Did the Apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ use jargon? Yes, at times. When the Lord Jesus was talking to the Jewish leaders of the day he said they should know "the Law and the Prophets." This was a shorthand way of saying they should know their Bible - entitled the Law, the Prophets and the Writings (in the Hebrew language, of course). Another time he spoke of John the Baptist and said: I tell you Elijah has come and a greater than Elijah is here ... the significant of which requires an awareness of a prophecy in the Old Testament.
So, what about us? I believe it is important at times to be aware of when jargon is appropriate or inappropriate and adjust our language accordingly. Inappropriate use of jargon is a quick way to have your hearers decide you are not worth listening to. If in doubt, spend the extra words.