Loving Church

What else would you do with 40 minutes on a Sunday morning?

2012-01-26T06:33:00.000-05:00

Since September we have started a time called '40 minutes' on Sunday mornings at Twynholm Baptist Church.

We are encouraging people to come to church an hour earlier than normal to take a short course on something that might be doctrinal, practical, ethical or exegetical.

We have just begun the third course. Having completed Christianity Explored and then a great course on personal finances taught by Paul Mills, Leigh Porter has just begun a bible overview course, based on Vaughan Roberts' book, "God's big picture".

Over at 9Marks, Jamie Dunlop has written a great little article about the kinds of ways in which such a slot could be well used to bring about biblical change in the life of a congregation.

Kauflin on using the piano in public worship

2012-01-20T06:48:00.001-05:00

Here's an email I sent to our pianists at church this morning....

Hi Russ, Luke and Joseph.

I’m preaching on Psalm 95 this Sunday. There’s a lot about music in the first few verses.

“come let us SING... etc”

In doing some reading on the blog of my favourite ‘worship leader’ I came across these 3 vids that may be really helpful for you guys.

Listen to them in front of a piano one day!

Outline

Piano in Contemporary Worship, Part 1 from Sovereign Grace Ministries on Vimeo.

Piano in Contemporary Worship, Part 2 from Sovereign Grace Ministries on Vimeo.

Piano in Contemporary Worship, Part 3 from Sovereign Grace Ministries on Vimeo.

Enjoy!

Thanks brothers for your service in music. As you'll hear on Sunday, singing God's praises wouldn't be the same without music!!

Mike

Great verse for pastor/teachers

2012-01-18T06:40:00.001-05:00

I've just pinned this verse up on my wall (that's a thing in a room covered in plaster and paint, rather than a thing on a facebook page with lots of random comments), as it is a powerful reminder of the responsibilities before the Lord that those who teach God's word have.

"As for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD by failing to pray for you. And I will teach you the way that is good and right."

1 Samuel 12:23

Read it in context here

Seven False Christianities that stint gospel growth

2012-01-11T06:12:00.000-05:00

I'm off to my fraternal this morning. we've been reading 'How people change' by Timothy Lane and Ed Welch.

Here's a few quotes to recommend the book.
Things that easily replace the gospel as 'fake' Christianities
1) Formalism: "The gospel is reduced to participation in the meetings and ministries of the church"
2) Legalism: "Salvation is earned by keeping the rules we've established"
3) Mysticism: "more a pursuit of experience than a pursuit of Christ"
4) Activism: "whenever you believe the evil outside you is greater than the evil inside you, a heartfelt pursuit of Christ will be replace by a zealous fighting of the 'evil' around you."
5) Biblicism: "he has invested a great deal of effort in mastering the Word, but he does not allow the Word to master him.
6) Psycologyism: "sees Christ more as a therapist than a Saviour"
7) Socialism: "The gospel is reduced to a network of fulfilling Christian relationships"
8

Reaching Men - Reformation21 Blog

2011-12-15T11:47:00.000-05:00

Provocative as ever, Levy raises an interesting question here in 200 words.

Thoughts?

Reaching Men - Reformation21 Blog

HT: Perks

Less well known Carols

2011-12-08T10:37:00.000-05:00

Putting together the Church's Carol Services over the coming weeks, I'm always on the lookout for Carols that are less well known, with beautiful words and great music.

Let's start with the Herefordshire Carol...

Great little biblical theology of Fall and Redemption. Great music by Vaughan Willams.
Sadly King College didn't sing all the verses... Here they are.

This is the truth sent from above
The truth of God, the God of love
Therefore don't turn me from your door
But hearken will both rich and poor

The first thing that I do relate
Is that God did man create
The next thing which to you I'll tell
Woman was made with man to dwell

And after that, 'twas God's own choice
To place them both in Paradise,
There to remain of evil free
Except they ate of such a tree.

But they did eat, which was a sin,
And so their ruin did begin,
Ruined themselves, both you and me,
And all of their posterity.

Thus we were heirs to endless woes
Till God and Lord did interpose
And so a promise soon did run
That He would redeem us by His Son.

And at that season of the year
Our blessed redeemer did appear.
He here did live and here did preach
And many thousands he did teach.

Thus He in love to us behaved
To show us how we must be saved.
And if you want to know the way
Be pleased to hear what He did say.

Mark Dever at his best in Q&A

2011-11-01T09:06:00.000-05:00

Great stuff here for a Non-Christian to listen to...
Or great for someone who does Q&A with Non-Christians as a model of humble, brief, engaging and bold answering of honest objections to the gospel.

Limerick about sinless perfectionism

2011-10-06T17:38:00.000-05:00

Preaching on Phil 3:12-20 this Sunday.

For a lighter moment on 3:12 I thought we'd have a little limerick, inspired by the time when Spurgeon came across someone who claimed to have reached sinless perfection. When Spurgeon trod heavily on his foot his perfection dissolved!

There once was a man from Tangiers

Who said he’d not sinned in ten years.

So I poked his right eye

And his foul mouthed reply

Shows he’s worse than he sometimes appears

Great new website

2011-06-24T03:06:00.000-05:00

I've not read the book yet, but I love Mike McKinley's new website.

Here's the first of seven great little videos. Why not watch them, and choose one to pop on your facebook?

What is the Gospel? from Crossway on Vimeo.

Something to sing about!

2011-06-06T13:55:00.000-05:00

Bob Kauflin give three good reasons that we sing in church in ways that serve the word.

1) Singing can help us remember words.
2) Singing can help us engage the words emotionally.
3) Singing can help us use words to demonstrate and express our unity.

Read the whole excellent article here

Good summary of biblical eldership

2011-05-03T05:25:00.000-05:00

Just preached on eldership this coming Sunday at Twynholm.

Here are a few good resources at looking at the issue further.

Good summary From Desiring God

Should a church have elders?

What is the relationship between elders and the church?

Cafe Connect

2011-04-15T05:27:00.001-05:00

At Twynholm Baptist Church we are launching an international Student Cafe at the end of the Month.
Follow our progress here

Understanding Twynholm's Mission Field I: Rest

2011-03-18T06:05:00.003-05:00

I have tried to encourage the congregation at Twynholm to see our natural mission field in 3 different spheres, based on that memorable 80's advertising slogan.

Work: those who work in the vicinity of our church, or with whom we work

Rest: those who live near us or near the church

Play: those we socialise with, or who 'go out' in the vicinity of our church.

On the "Rest" section, I've been encouraging the congregation to understand who lives in the area.

It is an excitingly diverse mission field in itself.

Here's the profiles of the two 'wards' right on the doorstep of the church building, and nobody living within these wards would be more than about 10 minutes walk away

Munster Ward

Fulham Reach

The four next closest are:

Each of them would have at least some people living 5-10 minutes walk away.

Bell's book out yesterday. Deyoung already on the ball

2011-03-18T05:13:00.000-05:00

Rob Bell's book "Love wins" came out yesterday.
The thesis seems to be "If God is a God of love the gate to heaven will always remain open" - even after the last judgement. (Matthew 25:10? cf Genesis 7:16) Eventually everyone will chose that gate. (Matthew 7:13-14?)
Kevin DeYoung has already written a substantial review that is worth reading. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/files/2011/03/LoveWinsReview.pdf
Bell obviously has a following this side of the pond too, with a tour planned for the UK this spring.
http://www.greenbelt.org.uk/love-wins?gclid=CIWSus7t16cCFdFX4Qodij5x9g
What sounds like a very comforting message may instead end up patting people on the back, telling them that there is no urgency, and reassure them that all will be fine on the road, which, tragically does in fact lead to an everlasting destruction.

Rob Bell: discussion over. Love wins?

2011-03-01T05:31:00.000-05:00

Strangely, one of the most read posts on this little read blog has been a little review I did of one of Rob Bell's little nooma vids. In the comments there I was accused of accusing Bell of not believing the good news that Jesus rescues us from the wrath of God by dying in our place upon the cross. If in 22 vids he never teaches that, I suggested that he probably doesn't believe it.
Well, there is sadly no need for speculation any longer.
From his own lips he describes that gospel, the gospel we so desperately need, as not good news at all.

LOVE WINS. from Rob Bell on Vimeo.

This is an advert for his new book "Love wins" that has not yet been released. But how does it win, if it doesn't deal with our greatest problem... making ourselves subjects of God's good and perfect judgement?

I guess he will tell us in the book; but I fear that it will not be such good news after all.

Others have blogged about this
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/26/rob-bell-universalist/

Carson on the "therefore" of Matthew 6:25. Why should we not worry?

2011-02-24T06:32:00.001-05:00

“Because transient earthly pleasures do not satisfy and do not last; because moral and spiritual vision is easily distorted and darkened, because a choice must be made between God and money, because the kingdom of God demands unswerving allegiance to its values, therefore do not worry, and in particular do not worry about mere things.
But let us consider a more subtle connection.... Jesus has been minimizing the ultimate significance of material possessions; and no doubt not a few among his hearers find themselves wondering "but what about necessities?"... Jesus answers that just as earthly possessions can become an idol which deposes God by becoming disproportionately important, so also can earthly needs become a source of worry which deposes God by fostering distrust."

”

“If Only . . .” Living with Regrets | CCEF

2011-02-14T05:11:00.000-05:00

Good article here on how "living with regrets" can be a kind of inverted pride.

“If Only . . .” Living with Regrets | CCEF

The uncontested ruler

2011-02-13T02:30:00.000-05:00

I think this will be the conclusion to this morning's sermon on Matthew 6:19-24

There are celebrations in Cairo this weekend as President Mubarak has stepped down.

But we have to admit that it is unclear as yet whether whoever follows him will be any better.

One day there will be an uncontested ruler.

There will be no more protests against his rule, not because the citizens of the kingdom have no freedom, but because we will all be able to see perfectly; we will see perfectly that he is the perfect ruler; that he is the one in whom we find our purpose. That he is the one for whom we were made. That he is the one who alone is of infinite and lasting value. That he may for ever be our treasure.

Do you treasure Him?

Do you see everything in His shaddow?

Is He your master?

Carson on our propensity for hypocrisy. Matthew 6:1

2011-02-04T05:24:00.002-05:00

“We human beings are a strange lot. We hear high moral injunctions and glimpse just a little the genuine beauty of perfect holiness, and then prostitute the vision by dreaming about the way others would hold us in high esteem if we were like that. The demand for genuine perfection loses itself in the lesser goal of external piety; the goal of pleasing the Father is traded for its pygmy cousin, the goal of pleasing man. It almost seems as if the greater the demand for holiness, the greater the opportunity for hypocrisy.”

Brief Theology of Work

2011-01-22T02:13:00.000-05:00

This morning we have a mens breakfast at Twynholm where I'm speaking on a biblical view of work, so I've been going over some old notes.
This is a little theology of work I wrote a few years ago.
Sometime soon I'd like to revise it, expanding the section on "Frustration and Redemption" by looking in more depth at the "Work of Christ" in Redemption. But I hope it is useful in its present form.

Matthew 5:21-32. Further Reading on Anger, Lust and Divorce

2011-01-21T17:25:00.000-05:00

Anger.
Three very helpful articles available by David Powlison.Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
Great book on Resolving Personal conflict: The Peacemaker, by Ken Sande.

Lust
Good book on Lust for men and women: Sex is not the problem, Lust is by Josh Harris
Helpful online book on pornography for men: Sexual detox: a guide for guys who are sick of porn by Tim Challies

Divorce
Divorce, by John Murray
Good book for those who grew up with divorce understanding ways in which it might have affected them, and taking them to the gospel. Child of divorce, Child of God by Kristine Steakly. She also has a blog.

Marriage (obviously closely related to lust and to divorce, as the former is a distortion of what was intended for marriage and the latter is trying to escape God's good plans for marriage). In recent years there have been several excellent books written on marriage.
Chrisopher Ash, Married for God
Gary and Betsy Ricucci, Love that Lasts
Dave Harvey, When Sinners Say, "I do"

Don Carson on anger: ours and Jesus'

2011-01-20T11:31:00.001-05:00

“Our problem is that we burn with indignation and anger, not at sin and injustice, but at offence to ourselves. In none of the cases when Jesus becomes angry is his personal ego wrapped up in the issue. More telling yet, when he was unjustly arrested, unfairly tried, illegally beaten, contemptuously spat upon, crucified, mocked; when in fact he had every reason for his ego to be involved, then, as Peter says, ‘he did not retaliate; when he suffered he made no threats.’ (I Peter 2:23) From his parched lips came forth rather those gracious words, ‘Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing’ (Luke 23:34) ”

The Sermon on the Mount, 46-47.

Great Reading for the Sermon on the Mount

2011-01-11T05:13:00.000-05:00

Just started preaching on the Sermon on the Mount yesterday.
Sermon available here

Three great books to recommend to accompany the series

Small: Don Carson
Medium: John Stott
Large: Martyn Lloyd-Jones

If you come to our Sunday evening Services over the next couple of weeks there will be some copies of some of these books being given away for free for those who are quick a sticking their hand in the air at the appropriate moment!

Too funny... is this cabbie in your congregation?

2010-12-10T16:44:00.002-05:00

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/the-story-of-a-friends-cab-ride-in-london

Esther 1-2 wordle

2010-11-25T11:59:00.001-05:00

We start looking at Esther this coming Lord's Day at Twynholm Baptist Church.
Interesting that the wordle of Esther 1-2 shows us how the world is often seen. The decisions of kings and nobles is in the forefront of who seems to be in control of this world.The hand of God is unseen; he is never mentioned in the whole book, but he is clearly in control.

Lausanne with Lig

2010-11-24T07:40:00.001-05:00

On Sunday night at Twynholm we prayed for lasting fruit at the Lausanne Conference.

Here's a great little debrief from Lig Duncan

HT: Thabiti Anyabwile

Narnia Night with Michael Ward: November 19th, 2010

2010-11-08T10:03:00.000-05:00

The Revd. Dr. Michael Ward will be speaking about C.S.

Lewis, his imaginative world and why Narnia has been able to captivate generations of readers.

Dr. Ward is a world renowned expert on
C.S. Lewis, the author of “Planet Narnia”
and the inspiration behind the BBC Documentary, “The Narnia Code”.

He currently serves as Chaplain of
St Peter’s College, Oxford.

Programme:

6:30pm Talk and Q&A for Children.

7-8pm Talk for Adults

7-9pm Narnia video for Children

8-9pm Q&A, Book signing and refreshments

Venue: Twynholm Baptist Church,
324 Lillie Road, London SW6 7PP

For more info visit www.twynholm.org

Notes from Stuart Townend seminar on leading Corporate worship

2010-11-05T11:53:00.002-05:00

Stuart Townend on Corporate Worship: seminar given today at Oak Hill College

The "A.R.T. of Corporate worship"

A. ADORATION

1) The need for both objective and subjective

a. Objective reflection on the character and work of God

b. Subjective emotional response to those truths

c. Great to have had in the last 30 years more songs that have an emotional subjective element... these have caused us getting excited about the experience of worship, but the danger is that my experience of worship becomes the focus of the song, rather than the songs really being the act of worship by reflecting upon the character of God.

2) Truth in songs

a. Teaches us theology

i. More people learn their theology through songs than through sermons

ii. More likely you leave church humming a song than reciting the sermon!

iii. So we must ask the question: what sort of picture do our songs teach us about God?

iv. Full range of the characteristics of God: not just his love, but also his justice, his holiness etc.

v. Look at 3 months worth of your songs sung in church: are you choosing songs that reflect the breadth of the character of God

b. Gives a solid foundation for living

i. Do your songs reflect the reality of the world in which we live?

ii. Look at the life of Paul... the truth speaks into the troubles of life.

1. For I know that these present sufferings..

2. Consider yourself dead to sin but alive to righteousness

iii. Songs must put the reality of the different experiences of life in the perspective of the reality of the character and promises of God.

iv. Cf Psalm 22. The struggle between the present circumstances and the knowledge of God. “Am I going to believe God’s promises or give way to the difficulties of circumstances?”

v. Jesus’ instruction sending out the 72... Luke 10:20... they are hugely excited about the experience that they have: Jesus says their joy should be grounded in the reality of the gospel not experience.

c. Tells the story

i. Faith is not routed in dislocated ideas, but in history. We have a story to tell, and so there must be songs that tell the story.

ii. Too few songs tell the story.

iii. Story telling songs are great in evangelistic circumstances: non-Christians can sing “From the squalor of a borrowed stable” but cannot sing “I love you Lord” without lying.

3) Leading Congregational Worship

a. Remind people of the basis for entering in.

i. Not our feelings

ii. The basis is what God has done in Christ, and who
God is.

iii. We want to undermine the idea, “I couldn’t come to church today because I was in a mess, and I need to clean myself up before I can enter God’s presence”. No! We come to him to be cleaned up.

b. Must start with truth-declaring songs. We mustn’t try and set a ‘vibe’ with a song, but have the truth set the mode.

c. Must encourage an expectancy that God will be revealing himself as we come together to worship.

4) In personal Worship

a. Thanksgiving

i. True worshippers of God habitually give thanks to God. Idolators are those who “neither glorify him as God or give thanks to him.” (rom 1:21)

ii. Appreciation: not merely saying thankyou to God, but reflecting and exploring the goodness of what he gives

iii. Declaring God’s goodness to others (Ps 40:3)
Talking more openly with others about our thankfulness towards God for his work in our lives

5) Worship in Spirit

a. Worship is not dependent upon place or ceremony (John 4)

i. We can think about rituals or things that we do that ‘create’ worship

1. “Must be quiet and reflective”

2. “We must really be ‘going for it’ in song

3. Lifting hands in great emotion

ii. Going into the ‘sanctuary’, the ‘holy place where he dwells’

b. Worship is a response of the heart

c. Worship is on God’s terms and not ours

i. The danger of a consumeristic ‘this is my worship preference’ approach to worship.

ii. Those who lead worship are called to please God and serve the people, not just serve God and please the people.

iii. This means that we will sometimes do things that will displease the congregation, but please God.

d. Worship is Spirit-led and Spirit empowered

R. REVELATION

1) God is a God of self-Revelation

a. Revealed in Creation

b. Revealed in Christ

c. Revealed in Word

d. Revealed in our lives

e. The danger is that we so rely upon the means of revelation (songs, scriptures etc) that we do not look to the Spirit of revelation to use those means that he would reveal the Father and the Son.

2) Looking for God’s revelation..

a. In our preparation: praying for God’s help as we put the song together

i. Matt Redman, prefers the term “Lead worshipper” rather than “worship leader”. The Holy Spirit is the “worship leader”.

ii. Thinking and praying through the journey of a service that would flow and allow the Holy Spirit to be working.

b. In our leading: the need to be flexible to what the Spirit is doing, so that we can follow what the Spirit is revealing to his people

c. From God’s people.

i. In a context where others may lead in prayer or prophecy, being ready to be flexible as to how to move on from there with songs rather than thinking that their contribution is a diversion from the journey the Spirit is taking people upon.

T. TRANSFORMATION

1) Unconsciously: the experience of worship affects us – we come out of church experiencing and being more patient, more Christlike.

2) Renewing of minds. (Romans 12:1-3)

3) Sharpening of our consciences

4) Preparation to receive the word of God, so that when the preacher stands and preaches, our hearts are ready to receive.

Other comments in the Q&A

- Important to realise that ‘worship leading’ is delegated responsibility from church leadership. There is a need for the elders to have knowledge and responsibility for what goes on in the Sunday service, so that if the worship leader gets a phonecall over Sunday lunch saying “why did we sing that song?” the worship leader can say, “the pastor said it was fine, so you need to speak to him.”

- Really important to work with the musicians you have rather than try to ‘create a sound’ that you may not have.

How Members Can Serve the Church on Sunday Morning

2010-11-02T10:16:00.001-05:00

Great little list of things that every church meember can do to serve more faithfully every Sunday...

How Members Can Serve the Church on Sunday Morning

The circularity of atheism and the argument of irrefutable testimony

2010-10-23T15:58:00.002-05:00

There is a huge amount of circularity in much atheistic thinking.

It goes something like this.

1. It is fair to assume that there is no God because there is no compelling evidence [though they often prefer to use the lower case 'g' - perhaps we should refer to "richard dawkins"]
2. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not compelling evidence for the existence of God because it is not from reliable sources
3. The sources are unreliable because they believe in the possibility of the miraculous
4. Miracles can only happen if there is a God.
5. Therefore the miraculous cannot happen because it is fair to assume that there is no God

Thus the assumption that there is no God a priori rules out any evidence to the contrary.
Dawkins, for example says "‘accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are about as well documented as Jack and the Beanstalk’.'" Yet, I have never heard of him seriously interacting with those accounts. I would love to hear Dawkins attempt to try to refute the historicity of the gospel accounts.

One of the things I find so compelling about the gospel accounts of the resurrection is that the disciples are not presented as people who think that things like resurrections happen! As D.A. Carson points out, they are not sitting in the upper room on Friday evening saying, "I'm so excited, I can't wait until Sunday." They are despondent, disillusioned and fearful. They were as surprised by the resurrection as I think Dawkins would be. So much so that when 10 of them try to persuade the one who wasn't there that Jesus is alive, he says that he will not believe unless he not only Sees Jesus, but puts his fingers in the nail marks and his hand in Jesus' rather unique wound in his side. As it happens, seeing is enough.

Through history there have been many who have said that they would not believe unless they saw with their own eyes: but then for them, in the end, hearing has been enough: hearing about Thomas who should have believed on the testimony of 10 eyewitnesses, but didn't.

As much as we can, let's start moving our conversations with Non-Christians away from the details of irreducible complexity and intelligent design to irrefutable testimony.

First two preachers' classes outlined

2010-10-21T06:01:00.001-05:00

Here are the outlines of the first two preachers' classes. The first is pretty much 9Marks material.

Session 1: What is expository preaching

Introduction to the Class

What is the format of the class?

Reading a sermon from a well-known preacher
Seminar
Workshop

Why have the class?

What is preaching?
Why is preaching so important?
What’s missing from much preaching?

2. Defining Expositional Preaching

"An expositional sermon is a sermon in which the point of the Scriptural text is the point of the sermon applied to the life of the church today."

3. What expositional Preaching includes

The Bible

Books of the Bible
The Whole Bible
Testaments and Genres.
Scope.

The Bible’s Storyline
The Gospel

God
Man
Christ
Response
Seeing the Gospel through the lens of the text and the text through the lens of the gospel

Systematic Theology
Worldviews
Evangelism
The Preparation of the Saints

Session 2: Why Expository Preaching?

Intro: The alternatives seem so appealing!

There are basic truths that need teaching

Better to have Doctrinal sermons?
May seem to “teach the whole counsel of God” more quickly and thoroughly

There are obvious issues that need addressing

Better to have Topical sermons?
May seem more obviously relevant to people
May seem to deal with issues in the church quicker

The difference between food and medicine

Expository preaching tends towards a balanced diet; doctrinal / topical preaching may have quicker effects, and is therefore sometimes useful, but provide a bad overall diet.

Five reasons to make expository preaching the main diet of a congregation.

A. Expository preaching preaches the whole bible

2 Tim 3:16-17
Acts 20:17-31

B. Expository Preaching understands the limits of the preacher

Preachers are ignorant, God is omniscient
Preachers are foolish, God is wise
Preachers are sinful, God is perfect
Preachers are under authority, the bible carries God’s authority

C. Expository preaching encourages Berean listening

Acts 17:10-12

D. Expository Preaching models faithful bible reading.

We read the bible

To understand it
To have it ask us questions as much as we ask it questions Job 38:1-3

E. Expository Preaching keeps the church healthy

the testimony of church history

Pray for gospel witness in Fulham after stabbing outside our church

2010-10-20T06:42:00.001-05:00

There have been a series of stabbings in Fulham over the last year. On Sunday night, during our evening service, a 15 year old boy was stabbed right opposite our Church building. He's now fighting for his life. Pray for him and pray that the gospel would shine brightly in Fulham

Great quote from Augustine on variation in style in preaching

2010-10-19T08:58:00.000-05:00

51. But we are not to suppose that it is against rule to mingle these various styles: on the contrary, every variety of style should be introduced so far as is consistent with good taste. For when we keep monotonously to one style, we fail to retain the hearer's attention; but when we pass from one style to another, the discourse goes off more gracefully, even though it extend to greater length. Each separate style, again, has varieties of its own which prevent the hearer's attention from cooling or becoming languid. We can bear the subdued style, however, longer without variety than the majestic style. For the mental emotion which it is necessary to stir up in order to carry the hearer's feelings with us, when once it has been sufficiently excited, the higher the pitch to which it is raised, can be maintained the shorter time. And therefore we must be on our guard, lest, in striving to carry to a higher point the emotion we have excited, we rather lose what we have already gained. But after the interposition of matter that we have to treat in a quieter style, we can return with good effect to that which must be treated forcibly, thus making the tide of eloquence to ebb and flow like the sea. It follows from this, that the majestic style, if it is to be long continued, ought not to be unvaried, but should alternate at intervals with the other styles; the speech or writing as a whole, however, being referred to that style which is the prevailing one.

Read more here

Preaching class at Twynholm Baptist

2010-10-14T04:37:00.002-05:00

Next Wednesday sees the second of our monthly Preachers' Classes here at Twynholm.

Here's the outline of the course we are planning

Year 1

September	Expository Preaching I: What?
October	Expository Preaching II: Why?
November	Expository Preaching III: Imposters
January	Sermon Preparation: Overview
February	Sermon Preparation: Understanding the Text I
March	Sermon Preparation: Understanding the Text II
April	Sermon Preparation: Biblical Theology
May	Sermon Preparation: Key Sentence
June	Sermon Preparation: Outlines

Year 2

September	Sermon Preparation: Explanation and style
October	Sermon Preparation: Application I
November	Sermon Preparation: Application II
December	Sermon Preparation: Illustration
January	Sermon Preparation: Introduction
February	Sermon Preparation: Conclusion and Prayer
March	Self Preparation: Prayer
April	Self Preparation: Fear
May	Sermon Delivery: Passion and Exhortation
June	Sermon Delivery: Use of Notes

Year 3

September	Sermon Delivery: Face, pace and space.
October	Sermon Delivery: Ten ways to be boring.
November	Sermons within the life of the congregation
December	Preaching as a sinner standing in the place of God
January	Planning an Expository Series
February	Doctrinal Preaching
March	Evangelistic Preaching
April	Topical Preaching
May	Conversational or Narrative Preaching?
June	Concluding Reflections

Make-up of each session

8pm	Reading An extract from a great sermon
8:15	Seminar
9:00	Workshop (One person presents short sermon or outline. We all give feedback)
9:30	Finish

The Washington Post, Blind Spots, and the Noetic Effects of Sin

2010-10-05T04:01:00.001-05:00

Interesting article here on what future generations will see as the evils of this generation.

The Washington Post, Blind Spots, and the Noetic Effects of Sin

New 9Marks ejournal tackles the difficult subject of Hell.

2010-09-03T04:28:00.000-05:00

Challenging titles here...

PASTORAL PERSPECTIVES ON HELL

Pastoral Fearmongering, Manipulation, and Hell

By Mark Dever
Our culture sneers at fear, as if there really is nothing to fear but fear itself. Yet Jesus told people to fear hell, and pastors today should do the same.

There’s Something Worse than Death

By Kevin DeYoung
The doctrine of hell is ballast for our ministries, which will help us sail straight toward our most urgent task: proclaiming the gospel.

What Then Shall We Preach on Hell?

By Sinclair Ferguson
Hell is an awful and overwhelming reality. Yet where Scripture speaks, pastors must not be silent. Here’s some practical help for this demanding calling.

HELL IN BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Why Hell Is Integral to the Gospel

By Greg Gilbert
Some think that by minimizing or ignoring hell, they are making God more glorious and more loving. Far from it! The horror of what we have been saved from only intensifies the glory and wonder of our salvation.

Hellfire and Brimstone: Interpreting the New Testament’s Descriptions of Hell

By Andrew David Naselli
The New Testament graphically and horrifically describes hell, which raises a thorny question: how should we interpret those dreadful images?

How Does Hell Glorify God?

By James M. Hamilton, Jr.
Hell glorifies God by vindicating his holiness and faithfulness to his word, demonstrating his infinite worth, and magnifying his mercy and love toward the redeemed.

An Annotated Bibliography on Hell

By Gavin Ortlund
This article contains brief reviews of seven key books on hell.

Audio Interviews

Training Pastors

with David Jackman
Can you “make” a preacher or is preaching simply a gift? Find out in this interview with David Jackman, founder of the Cornhill Training Course.
Posted on September 1, 2010

Women, Christianity, and Feminism

with Carolyn McCulley
Carolyn McCulley discusses feminism, ministering to singles, Christian social action, and what it means to be a “crush catalyst.”
Posted on August 1, 2010

New Translation

The Korean translation of In My Place Condemned He Stood by J.I. Packer and Mark Dever is now available here: http://www.yes24.com/24/goods/3732515?scode=032&srank=1

Two great audios on Baptism

2010-07-30T10:46:00.000-05:00

Two great audios on Baptism

First Reply from abortion provider: Debate, circulate.

2010-05-28T09:58:00.000-05:00

I've just received a very courteous and gracious reply from Tony Kerridge, Senior Communications Manager (Press and Public Affairs)Marie Stopes International to my questions.

Here's the full text:

Dear Mr Gilbert-Smith

Thank you for your email and your honesty.

As I'm sure you will appreciate, as the senior manager in charge of MSI’s media activity around this advertisement, the past two weeks have been particularly hectic and pressurised.

I want to respond to your 20 questions, and I want to do so properly. In order to do this, I will need a little time, as the answers in this debate are never ‘yes’ or ‘no’, or black and white.

I am not in the office on Tuesday next after the bank holiday, so will pick up on these on my return.

I hope this is ok for your schedule. I wanted you to know that your questions will not be disregarded.

Regards.

Here's my reply...

Dear Mr Kerridge,

Thank you very much for you kind and swift reply. I would much rather that you replied in a careful and nuanced fashion than quickly in a way that would cause more heat than light, so I am most grateful to you for taking time to answer. I am also thankful for your commitment not to disregard my questions.

I shall delay writing any articles until I have received your reply. Though I will be saying a few words this Sunday, in representing the position of Marie Stopes I shall not say anything about you that is not on your website.

I am away for next week on a family holiday, so will not receive the email until the following week.

Looking forward to your reply.

Very sincerely,

Mike Gilbart-Smith.

Twenty questions for an aboriton provider who wants the taboo removed

2010-05-28T06:40:00.000-05:00

Marie Stopes International has this last week paid for the first TV advertisements for abortion in the UK. The advertisement looks as if it is directly pregnant women to an independent helpline.

Marie Stopes have said that they hope this advertising to move the UK away from the taboos surrounding abortion. I hope at least that one effect of the adverts will be to have an honest debate about abortion.

In order to help with this debate, I've written to Marie Stopes asking 20 questions that I didn't find answers to on their website.

Here's my email... I'll publish the response if and when I receive it.

Dear Tony,

I’m writing as a pastor of a church who is going to be addressing the issue of abortion in my teaching and in some upcoming articles in the light of your recent advertising. I want to make sure that I would not be misrepresenting you in any way at all, though I should make clear to you that I do believe that abortion, and particularly providing abortion is immoral.

However, I also want to be as courteous as I can with those with whom I disagree. I do not want to assume bad motivation for what you are doing. I understand the arguments of wanting to provide “safe” (obviously for the mother and not the baby) abortion when your fear is that if “safe” abortion were not provided, then back street abortion would inevitably be sought. The compassion you show to mothers I believe to be genuine, but misplaced.

I do happen to agree with what I heard a Marie Stopes spokesperson say when she was hoping that there would be a removing of the taboo about speaking about abortion. I too hope that this taboo will be removed so that there can be an honest public debate about abortion.

To contribute to this debate I hope to write some articles about abortion and about Marie Stopes in particular. There is much information on your website, but there were some questions that I didn’t find answers to, which I would be very grateful if you’d answer.

I must also be clear that intend to distribute your answers.

If you would rather meet in person to have a face to face conversation, I would also be very glad to do that.

(I will use the term “mother” for the pregnant woman). Feel free to exchange the term for “Pregnant woman” if you would prefer that term, or to use another term of your choosing.

1) When speaking to a mother will you always make it clear exactly what help is available to mothers who decide to keep the baby.

2) What ongoing support do you offer to mothers who decide to keep the baby?

3) Do you always ask mothers if they are feeling pressurised into having abortions from others (e.g. boyfriends, husbands, parents, or the general expectations of society)?

(Several women whom I have spoken to who have had abortions have told me that they felt immense pressure that in a society where abortion is legal, there will be people telling them that having an abortion is “doing the right thing” and that it is irresponsible to have the baby.)

4) Do you always suggest to mothers that it is never irresponsible to carry a baby and give birth once they are pregnant?

5) I’ve noticed in your FAQ’s that in more than sixty questions there is a lot of information about abortion, but there is no information on the development of the foetus. Do you think that the developmental stage of the foetus should be a factor that a mother should be informed about in order to have adequate information in making a decision as to whether to have an abortion?

6) I understand that you must legally have a sonographic scan before an abortion is carried out. What details from that scan will you always communicate to the mother so that she might make a correctly informed decision?

a. Will you always tell the mother the estimated age of the foetus?

b. Will you always tell the mother what this corresponds to in terms of development?

c. Could you outline the detail that you would go into as to the development of the foetus, with the following being a suggestive rather than an exhaustive list?

i. Will you tell the mother whether there is a heartbeat?

ii. Will you tell the mother whether the child has a brain?

iii. Will you tell the mother whether the child has a limbs and fingers and fingernails?

iv. Will you tell the mother whether the child has ears eyes and a nose?

v. Will you tell the mother which internal organs of the child are functional?

vi. Will you tell the mother the gender of the foetus if that is discernable?

d. If you don’t volunteer that information do you always ask the mother if she would be interested in knowing the facts about the foetus’ development in order to help her make her decision?

7) Do you have a policy in training staff that they avoid the terms “baby” or “child” in reference to the foetus?

8) Do you have a policy encouraging staff to use the term “pregnancy” instead of “foetus” or an equivalent term that would point to the fact that there is an organism other than the mother involved in the pregnancy?

9) Do you have a position as an organisation about when a human embryo/foetus becomes a human being?

10) Do you think that it would be morally acceptable to provide abortion even if you believed the foetus was already a human being?

11) If infanticide were legalised in some country, would you offer that as a service?

12) What is the minimum time allowed for a proper counselling session to look through all possible options before going ahead with an abortion?

13) How much did the NHs pay you last year to carry out abortions?

14) Do you think that there is any conflict of interest in Marie Stopes providing advice on whether a mother should have an abortion when Marie Stopes is paid for providing abortions?

15) In order to get your email address I phoned the 0845 300 80 90 number. Will my call automatically be counted in your statistics as being from a woman who called for advice but didn’t receive an abortion?

16) If a woman calls your line twenty times, will they be “counted” on your statistics of the number of women you’ve helped once or twenty times?

17) If after an abortion, the baby (I assume we can now use this term without controversy as she is outside the womb) shows some signs of life, do you have a policy stating that the medical personnel present should act to resuscitate? Do you have a policy saying that they may not act to resuscitate?

18) Would you carry out an abortion if the stated reason given by the woman was that she wanted a boy, and this foetus is a girl?

19) If asked would you carry out a selective abortion in order to remove the healthy girl from the womb and leave the healthy boy in the womb?

20) In your five abortion clinics in China, what proportion of those who are aborted are girls?

Thank you so much for your willingness to answer these questions. In removing the taboo from conversation about abortion I trust that you are wanting honest, open and informed debate. I hope that you taking the time to answer these questions will add to the honesty and help to remove the taboo from the abortion conversation.

Perhaps if you want to add to the honesty of the debate you’d also be happy to post the answers you give on your own website?

Many thanks,

Sincerely,

Mike Gilbart-Smith

This is too funny...

2010-05-07T09:15:00.000-05:00

HT: Dave Bish

Unity among Charismatics / Non-Charismatics

2010-05-07T09:11:00.000-05:00

Dave Bish has a good post on how those with a different view of the Spirit's work can work in gospel partnership on campus.

Great quote from David Wells, "The Emperor's Lost Clothes"

2010-04-30T11:22:00.001-05:00

In the past, Western Society was held together by three sinews: tradition, authority, and power. to change the image, these were the garments that covered Western society, and without them it had become indecent. Of these three, tradition might have been the first to do, although it went hand in hand with authority. Tradition is the process whereby one generation inducts its successor into its accumulated wisdom, lore, and values. The family once served as the chief conduit for this transmission, but the family is now collapsing, not merely because of divorce but as a result of affluence and the innovations of a technological age. In a video-saturated culture... film and television now provide the sorts of values that were once provided by the family, And public education, which used to be another conduit for such value, has also contracted out of this business, pleading that it has an obligation to be value-neutral. So it is that in the new civilization that is emerging children are lifted away from the older values like anchorless boats on a rising tide.
David Wells, No Place for Truth, 84.

Psalms are songs with different moods.

2010-02-12T12:18:00.000-05:00

As well as seeing different ways in which the Psalms point to Christ, it is helpful to see that the Psalms reflect the whole spectrum of human experience.

Belcher's analysis can be broken down into several different kinds of prayer/song.

This is useful in reflecting upon Christ, as the Psalms were His hymnbook. Much is gained when we reflect upon how each Psalm would resonate upon the lips of Jesus. Through Christ it is also pastorally useful to us as we pour out our hearts to the Lord.

This is the usual list of different kinds of Psalms. For a chart breaking each of the Psalms in their different categories see here.

1. Lament

a. Penetential

b. Imprecatory

2. Thanksgiving

a. Salvation history

b. Songs of Trust

3. Praise

4. Liturgy

a. Royal Psalms

b. Covenant Psalms

c. Songs of Zion

d. Temple Liturgy

5. Wisdom Psalms

6. Poems of the Law

This is so useful to know, not just so that we can understand the Psalms, but so that we can know who God is, who Jesus is and how we are to relate to God through Jesus.

That's going to be the outline to the sermon, I think...

Where is my hope? (Psalms is a a book about the coming of Christ)

Who is my God? (Psalms is a book about the character of God)

Who am I? (Psalms is a book written to help us speak to God)

There are 150 Messianic Psalms

2010-02-11T11:13:00.001-05:00

A very helpful book in preparation for Preaching one sermon on the whole book of the Psalms this coming Sunday has been Richard Belcher Jr's "The Messiah and the Psalms"
The point of his book it to help us to think how all the Psalms are fulfilled in Christ.
He has 5 categories of how Psalms are about Jesus.
1) Psalms of orientation
"Psalms of orientation emphasize that life is oriented towards God and a person is experiencing seasons of well-being that evoke gratitude for the constancy of God's blessing" (44)
2) Psalms of disorientation
"Psalms of disorientation deal with seasons of hurt, alienation, suffering, and death. Life seems chaotic and in painful disarray." (67)
3) Psalms of reorientation
"[Psalms of New Orientation] express thanksgiving for the faithfulness and deliverance of God through a difficult time of crisis and despair so that joy and blessing are a part of life again." (99)
4) Royal Psalms
"The common thread in the royal psalms is kingship. Many royal psalms refer specifically to 'the king' (2,18,20,21,45,72,89), or sometimes to the king as the 'annointed' (2, 18, 20, 45, 89, 132)." (118)
5) Directly Messianic Psalms
"They speak more directly of the Messiah and his work and are used in the New Testament in this way." (157)
Having laid out these different approaches to the Psalms, Belcher then expands the different ways in which Christ will then be preached from each of these different categories. Very helpful book!

Psalms is a book

2010-02-10T20:41:00.000-05:00

There are 66 books in the bible, unless you understand the Minor Prophets to be one book rather than twelve, in which case there are only 55, or if you understand Psalms to be five books rather than one, in which case there are 70.
But, let's stick with 66. One of those books is Psalms. I'm planning to preach a sermon on Psalms this week, having preached on Job last week.
We tend to think of Psalms as a collection of songs that reflect the different experiences of David and others. It is certainly that; but it is not a random collection. Those songs have been crafted into a book with a coherent message.
We tend to think of Psalms as being primarily about David; he is certainly in focus. But we must also recognise that Psalms is a post-exilic book. The focus is on David, because he is the model of the Messiah to come. Those who had returned from the exile and had not seen all the promises made to David come true. The return from exile has not marked the coming of the Messiah.
Psalms holds out an enduring Messianic hope to a post-exilic people. There is yet a rest to come.

how to wreck your church

2010-01-26T06:19:00.000-05:00

Great post here from Thabiti Anyabwile

Made up stories? Another great "a passion for life video"

2009-12-22T06:11:00.000-05:00

Isn't the bible a bunch of made up stories? from A Passion for Life on Vimeo.

Jesus is Israel, Herod is Pharoah, Israel is Egypt.

2009-12-17T17:34:00.000-05:00

It is recognised by everybody that "Out of Egypt I called my Son" (Matthew 2:15, quoting Hosea 11:1) has been one of the harder fulfilment passages Matthew's gospel. It is hard for several reasons.
1) Hosea 11:1 seems to be recalling a past event rather than anticipating a future event. This is noted by all the commentators. We misunderstand Matthew's use of "fulfilment" if we think that it means that it is a fulfilment of a predictive prophecy. Jesus is Israel. In being the seed in whom all the promises to Israel would be fulfilled, even the events of his life mirror the history of Israel. e.g. Blomberg, 67, "This is the first of several instances in Matthew in which Jesus recapitulates the role of Israel as a whole".
National Israel anticipated the life of the true vine, in whom the hopes and fear of all the years are met.
2) Matthew states that hosea 11:1 is fulfilled straight after he has recounted the journey of Jesus, joseph and Mary into Egypt, not out of it.
The majority of commentators (eg. Caron, Blomberg, Calvin, Nolland) suggest that it is put here rather than when he actually comes out of Egypt for structural reasons. Three scenes in 2:13-23 each fulfil one Old Testament allusion.
However, there is another possible (and I think probable) explanation. I first heard of it in a conversation with Michael Lawrence. I'd not arrived at Capitol Hill Baptist Church by the time he was at that point in his bible studies through Matthew's gospel. However, he explained to me how it makes perfect sense to see "Out of Egypt have I called my Son" to refer to Jesus' journey from Israel to Egpyt rather than the return journey.
Herod acts like Pharoah, even killing baby boys. Infanticide was seen as the most horrific of social crimes in the Old Testament. It is from such an Egypt that the Lord brought his son Israel in the Exodus.

Once you see this, there are all kinds of other parallels between the Exodus story and the flight to Egpyt that one sees. They flee at night (Exodus 12:8,12,29,30,31, 42) at the direct command of the Lord (Exodus 12:31). Both passages have the death of God's enemies front and centre: the one who seeks the death of God's people will die. In Exodus, there is no house without a dead son. In Matthew, the death of Herod himself is hightlight (2:15, 19, 20).

This fits also with the whole theme of Matthew's gospel. Jesus is the true Israel, and Israel is no longer the people of God, unless they recognise Jesus as their Messiah. See this theme recur here.

Then, if we have Jesus as our Messiah, even those who will not be comforted due to the exile caused by their rebellion, can in fact have the comforts of the New Covenant, hence the second quotation from Jeremiah 31.

however, these comforts come from the One who is despised and rejected. We deserve the exile; Jesus experiences exile his whole life, as he is called a Nazarene: the one who came unto his own, but his own received him not. Yet, to all who did receive him he, who believed in his name he gave the right to become children of God. (cf. John 1:11-12)

And I am glad and happy and comfortable to be reading and preaching from the NIV

2009-12-02T05:49:00.004-05:00

As a church Twynholm BC moved from the NIV to the ESV a few years ago. We have recently made a decision to move back. I'm delighted with the move, particularly this week.

Having preached on Matthew 1:1-17 on Sunday, I'm certainly glad that the NIV made the decision that not every "δε" needs to be translated by the word "and": a comma, or a full stop and capital letter are perfectly adequate and accurate.

The result is, that in 17 verses the NIV has 8 "and"s. The ESV has 42. Is that really necessary? I'm glad I didn't have to read the ESV publically last Sunday.

Here's an email I sent to a friend who asked me why we changed back.

I think we all recognise many of the strengths of the ESV. It is useful for as a bible study aid (rather like the use of an interlinear) for those who don't have biblical languages. It preserves connectives (even at the expense of good English), tries to use the same English word to translate the same oringinal language word where appropriate, etc. Has made some good choices in some places where the NIV has not done so well, (Eg propitiation over sacrifice of atonement etc.)

Anyway, that having been admitted, here are 9 problems with the ESV divided into 3 categories.

Please don't read the stuff below if you are considering buying the ESV's off us. Remember it's the extremely sound version, and I'll give you a good price...

A. Philosophy of translation. the "Exclusion of Subtlety Version"

1) it seems to be based on the assumption that a 'word-for-word' translation is more 'accurate' than a 'sense-for-sense' translation. This seems an entirely wrongheaded assumption to me. Surely faithfulness in translation is that which best conveys the sense of of the original in the target language.
2) the word-for-word thing is shown up by how many of its proponents seem to write as if either they are ignorant of basic linguistics, or they assume their readers are ignorant, and try to pull the wool over their eyes. E.g. to suggest that "adelphos" MEANS "brother" and not "brother and sister" begs the question as to whether the semantic range of two words in different languages, times and cultures are ever identical.
3) It seems interesting that those who are themselves bilingual (such as Carson and Silva) and therefore always trying to translate from one lanuage they know well to another seem to favour dynamic equivalence.
4) the fact that it is based so heavily upon the RSV frustrated even some of the translators. So, I remember [one of the translators of the ESV] saying that where he'd say it was a close call, but on balance he'd prefer to depart from the RSV, "on balance" wasn't enough to go for what he would feel was a more accurate translation.
5) The decisions made on gender inclusivity seem not to understand the ways in which the English language has moved on.
Lots more on this area in Carson's "The limits of functional equivalence" in "the challenge of Bible Translation" (Incidentally, if you have my copy of that book, please let me know. I can't remember who I leant it to!)

B. Readability. the "Extremely Stilted Version"
1) Surely there would be a way even to have a more formally equivalent translation that wasn't quite so wooden, and incomprehensible.
What is gained in the literalism of Numbers 27:1 " ¹Then drew near the daughters of^A)">(A) Zelophehad the son of Hepher" as opposed to "the daughters of Zelophehad approached"? and this isn't a one off example, it's a formalism that runs throughout.
2) Preservation of connectives may be quite useful at times in the development of an argument in Paul (though even then the pudding may become over-egged. But when every kai and de, and vav of a vav consecutive are translated "and" it becomes utterly ridiculous. There are more "ands" in Mark's gospel than verses! 1241 "ands" in the ESV compared with 693 in the NIV. For a fun exercise, turn to a random chapter of Mark's gospel and try and work out what would have been lost to the accuracy of sense if some of the "kai"s had been translated not with "and" but with "fullstop, capital letter." What would have been gained by the readability?
3) If readability isn't THE most important thing in our private devotions, (we can take time to read and re-read a sentence until we've understood the English) it is of vital importance in public reading. (If you didn't follow, it was too late). For us this has become the overwhelming factor as to why we are planning to abandon the ESV, particularly as about many of the congregation don't have English as a first language, and another large proportion left school at 16. I have two degrees, but even I don't read too well! Even if it was perfectly accurate, it wouldn't be much good if it is utterly incomprehensible - we might just as well read out the Greek and the Hebrew!

C. Marketing. The "exclusively sound version"?
1) With all the arguments and subtleties involved in bible translation, the way in which the ESV is being put forward by some as the only sound version for the discerning bible reader who really trusts that every word of the original is inspired, is frankly a little distasteful.

And verily, verily I say unto you, that, I have sufficient upon this subject said.

Mike

A pictorial representation of a Hebrew Cosmology

2009-12-01T10:22:00.005-05:00

In my previous post I made the point that assuming that Genesis 1 is attempting to be "Scientifically accurate" just doesn't work. This is not just because of the chronology of Genesis 1, but, even more obviously, because of its topology. Today I came across this picture that makes the point well.

HT: Mark Meynell

Confusing Converstions 9: Clicher Texts

2009-11-20T07:35:00.005-05:00

We should certainly take every verse of the bible seriously. However, we should also ensure that we do not "expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another." (article XX, 39 articles)

So, when people claim to have "the clincher" verse on either side of the debate, we should certainly listen, but we should certainly also weigh with other Scriptures.

A clincher verse for some creationists is Romans 8:20-21.

"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God."

The argument is that this shows that all decay and death (whether animal, plant??, radioactive??) is all a result of the fall. Even the second law of thermodynamics, it's argued, is a result of the fall. Perhaps this is why it is difficult to read the "science". Before the fall there would have been an entirely different science in place. (As far as I see, perhaps even a different mathematics, as the second law of thermodynamics is essentially the result of statistical mechanics)

The clincher for the non-literalist might be Genesis 1:6-8

⁶ And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." ⁷ So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. ⁸ God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

I would argue that there are not merely temporal problems in understanding the Genesis to be a literal scientifically accurate account. There are also spatial problems. Where is this place beyond the sky where these waters may have been stored (albeit possibly temporarily). It cannot be the upper atmosphere on a literalist reading, because the known universe is within the expanse/firmament, not beyond it (the sun, moon and stars are set within the expanse, not above it in 1:14-17).

I cannot see any way in which this makes sense within a scientifically accurate topography of the cosmos. It makes perfect sense if Moses borrowed the widely accepted topography of the universe in the Ancient Near East without challenging it, because that wasn't his point.

But I want to be cautious in suggesting that it is an absolute clincher. If other factors were to convince me of the necessity of the literalist view I would, by faith, have to trust that there was some way in which this did make sense within the early topography of the universe - a universe that was certainly a very different place to the one we know now, if there was not even any second law of thermodynamics.

Another Great Passion for life video. Science this time

2009-11-19T07:23:00.000-05:00

Hasn't Science disproved God? from A Passion for Life on Vimeo.

An atheist who thinks Christians are hateful if they DON'T seek to convert him.

2009-11-18T06:14:00.005-05:00

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?

“I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”

HT: Justin Taylor

Confusing Conversations 8: The apologetic imperative.

2009-11-12T05:37:00.004-05:00

Apologetics is an important discipline. We should consider carefully how to answer questions that the non-believer might have concerning biblical truths that we hold. Yet we should never hold truths just so that our apologetic response would be easier.
I've come across people from both sides of the creationist/theistic evolution debate who use as an argument for holding their position that it is an apologetic imperative.

The creationist might say, "It is an apologetic imperative that we hold to a six day creation. If we take a non-literal reading of Genesis Chapter One, the very first chapter of the bible, it will be impossibly complicated to then argue why we insist on taking a literal reading of the virgin birth, the sacrificial death and the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus. I just don't think that I'd be able to explain that to my next door neighbour."

The theistic evolutionist might say, "It is an apologetic imperative that we hold to an old earth, and some form of macro-evolution. There is such clear scientific evidence for them that if we don't follow that evidence where they lead, we will show ourselves to be obscurantists; I don't think I could even get a sounding for the gospel if I were to believe things like that."

Now, once one has decided whether or not one is going to take a literalistic view of Genesis 1, one could use these arguments to show why you think that view makes an important difference to your apologetics. But you should never start with the apologetic ease of a position and then decide whether you will hold it or not.

We should first be convinced by the text of Scripture one way or another, and then begin to think through the apologetic implications. Truth first, and then its defence.

Confusing Conversations 7: Symbolism

2009-11-06T05:18:00.008-05:00

This week I'm back in the pulpit, returning to the series on Genesis 1-3
One of the things that I've noticed as I've preached through the series is the rich depth of symbolism throughout the chapters.
I've noted in a previous post the symbolic imagery of the temple, certainly in Genesis 2-3, and possibly in Genesis 1. God is building for himself a tabernacle: this tabernacle is to be the source of all life within the cosmos, and as such functions as a miniature cosmos.
But the symbolism doesn't stop there.
This week, I'm preaching on Genesis 3:8-13. There are some points that are so deeply inlaid with symbolism, that I feel we end up missing something if we move from the rich language of the narrative and try to reduce it to an historical account: 'what it would have looked like if we had been there.'
Even translation of some of the phrases in 3:8-13 leaves you having to make hard choices that limit the symbolic richness of the passage.

e.g. 3:8. Here are some decisions that must be made in translation "And they heard the voice/sound of the Lord God['s] walking in the garden in the spirit/wind/cool/evening/early morning of the/that day. And the man and his wife hid themselves amoungst/between the tree(s) (singular but is plural signified, or just one tree? If just one, which tree was it? Was it the one they ate from or the one that would have given them life, or just one of the other trees that they were free to eat from?)of the garden."

If one says that this must be a straight historical narrative, the best way to understand the "voice" is that it is the sound of the Lord's walking: as it were, his footsteps among the fallen leaves. Hamilton translates it "rustling sound". But if one allows this to be a symbolically-laden retelling of a real event: one where the symbolism is so rich that one is not supposed to reconstruct the actual historical line of the event, where we are not supposed so much to picture it in every detail, but explore the theological significance of it all (rather like, as we said in a previous post a Judges 5 rather than Judges 4 type account) then we have no problem in understanding this as the very voice (word?) of God walking in the garden.

Another factor that has led me more towards such a reading are the many parallels between the opening chapters of Genesis and the book of Revelation. Revelation is without doubt the book of the New Testament with the richest and most frequent use of the Old Testament. (See Greg Beale's excellent introduction in the Revelation entry in the "Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament"). Much of the significance of the theology of Revelation is that the visions that I believe John truly saw, are written in language that picks up huge amounts of symbolism from the Old Testament. The symbolism then becomes the point. We are not somehow supposed to try to reconstruct the actual details of the visions, as if we need to know the exact visual experience of John. The symbolic narration of the visions is God's intention for us in the visions. But I'm seeing more and more similarities between the realities portrayed in Revelation and realities portrayed in the early chapters of Genesis.

There seem to be two approaches to the symbolism of Genesis 1-3.

First approach says, that unless the account is also historically accurate in every detail, the symbolism loses its significance. Historical truth is the truth that is being portrayed. If we cannot 'trust' the account in its historical details, how can we 'trust' the symbolism.

The second approach says, that for the purpose of symbolism that gives a trustworthy theological account of the real historical events, a trustworthy author might employ language to describe an event that is not strictly historically accurate. But that the way in which the symbolism is so clearly being employed means there is no deception; we are to trust the author because the symbolism takes us deeper into the theological realities of the situation than a straight historical account would be able to do. Judges 5 is in many ways theologically richer than Judges 4, yet necessarily less "realistic".

So, whatever your take on the literalism of Genesis 1-3, I urge you not to miss its symbolism, where much of the richness of the theology of the text will be found.

FIEL Conference 2

2009-11-03T12:15:00.002-05:00

The rest of the time at the FIEL conference was a great privilege.
1) I got to hang out with some great brothers and sisters: an older brother in ministry, Stuart Olyott; a fellow elder, John Folmar (who so graciously put up with my snoring - one night on the plane and 3 nights in a hotel room); the leadership of FIEL, including the director, Rick Denham: hugely gifted in terms of vision and business acumen, and Tiago Santos: a brother with great theological insight and pastoral vision (you could tell he's got a great pastoral heart even by how he translated - he wasn't just translating it, he was preaching it!)

2) What a privilege to have the opportunity to encourage, and Lord willing, influence a group of pastors in a part of the world that is starving for the gospel. I was constantly encouraged by conversations with people who had made great sacrifices, and had a joyful trust in the Lord, even though the fruit seemed to be slow to become visible.

3) I was fed in my own soul through listening to the teaching of John Folmar, Sturat Olyott, and Augustus Nicodemus (as much as I could understand his Portuguese.)

Below are the remainder of the 9marks talks given by John and me.

These are a couple of Q&As that all four speakers were involved with:

This is the second half of the talk that Stuart gave on not preaching boring sermons, followed by his final address:

FIEL conference

2009-10-27T19:24:00.004-05:00

Because I love the Lord's church, it is always a tremendous privilege to speak to other pastors. Each one represents a whole church. Anything that a pastor learns, or is encouraged by, will be multiplied in the congregation to whom the Lord has given him as a pastor.

It's been my first time speaking through an interpreter. It's hard in some ways; but it also gives you time to think!

Here's the 9Marks talks that John Folmar and I have given so far.

And here's a couple of great talks by Stuart Ollyott, whom it has been a real pleasure to meet this week.

Honouring a faithful pastor

2009-10-24T16:57:00.002-05:00

It's been a tremendous privilege to be back in Washington DC at Capitol Hill Baptist Church this weekend for a celebration of 15 years at Capitol Hill Baptist Church for Mark and Connie Dever.
A friend posted a video of the rather surprised Mark as he walked into a room that was waiting for him.

The Millenium, and two friends: a Rookie Preacher and a Seminary Professor

2009-10-19T08:17:00.008-05:00

I've been preaching through Genesis 1-3 in the morning services here at Twynholm. Yesterday we arrived at Genesis 3:1-7. In the evening service we take a passage related to the morning passage. Marcos Peters, probably still inside his first 10 sermons, preached an excellent message on Revelation 20:3 (the one who deceived Eve is bound so that he might not deceive the nations).
Taking us through from Eden to Babel to the coming of the kingdom in Christ Marcos argued convincingly for an amillennial reading (though he did well not to use that term!) This was then applied in a way that was encouraging for us, just as it would have been encouraging for the initial readers. Things may look tough, but Christ has won his victory through the cross and resurrection; he is enthroned in heaven; Satan is bound; we can have confidence to preach the gospel, knowing that today Christ is in the business of bringing people from every nation to enlightenment and salvation.

On the other side of the argument, my friend and dear brother Jim Hamilton has had a series of posts arguing for a premillennial reading. You can find them here, here, here, here and here. They are very coherent, and deserve serious thought.
One of the key arguments he uses is a comparison of Revelation 20:3 where Satan is bound so that he cannot deceive the nations with Revelation 13:14 where he deceives the inhabitants of the earth. Revelation 13 is clearly the church age, so Revelation 20 can't be, he argues.

Well, when it comes to the rookie preacher and the Professor of Biblical Theology, this time I'm with the Rookie!

Here's my reply to his last post:

Thanks Jim for these posts.
(Thanks also for your very helpful reflections on your first pastorate. This was very encouraging to me 18 months into life at Twynholm. Praying the Lord would make me more prayerful.)
As a fairly convinced amillennialist I’m interested in your comparison between the two texts, seeing deception in Revelation 12-13 and no deception in 20.
My own reading is that the deception of the nations is exactly what comes to an end with the finished work of Christ (not without exception, but without the Jew/Gentile distinction that existed before the coming of Christ).
Since Babel the nations have been deceived, and only through coming through Israel is there enlightenment in the Old Testament (focused on the temple in Jerusalem… I think someone’s written a good book about that!).
With the coming of Christ (and the Spirit) Babel is reversed (Acts 2) worship in delocalised (John 4) and repentance is granted to the Gentiles (Acts 10-11)
Jesus himself says that unless the strong man is bound, there can be no freedom.(Matt 12)
So I think that you are being a little harsh on the amillennialist. We don’t believe that Satan deceives nobody in the church age, but that the nations are not deceived as a whole. I’d suggest that we are paying very careful attention to the text, and particularly the force of the word “Nations”.

Jim then replied:

Mike, Thanks for your kind note and encouraging words.

On Rev 20, it looks to me like the kind of thing that Satan was doing in Rev 12-13 is stopped altogether.

Great to hear from you!

Jim

I replied to Jim:

Thanks Jim,
Yes, you argue very well the case that all deception has stopped; if people are wanting to think the issue through and hear the premil position argued for well, these posts would be a great place to start. Revelation 20:3 is of course your best verse if you are going to be premil. I would argue though that it’s your best verse in the same way that 1 John 2:2 is the best verse for a general atonement. Looks like a slam dunk case on a first reading (or, as a Brit I ought to say a plumb LBW decision).

I’m just wondering though that, given the huge emphasis on the breaking down of the Jew/Gentile distinction in the New Testament, that you could not at least understand why an amil reader would see it entirely consistent to describe such a cataclysmic change in terms as radical as the chaining of Satan so that he would no longer deceive the nations?
Grace and peace,
Your brother,
Mike

Jim replied:

Mike, I understand what you’re saying, but I think it’s wrong!

The reason is that Revelation 13:7 says this of Satan’s beast: “and authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation.”

So I think that when you read Rev 13, you see that Satan’s beast has Satan’s own authority (cf. 13:2) over the nations. Then in Rev 20 all that authority is stripped away from him.

Making that say the same thing is more than I’m interested in trying to do,

Jim

Confusing Coversation 6: Must a real event be told in an unstylised narrative?

2009-10-19T05:11:00.004-05:00

When people are trying to pin me down exactly where I stand on a lot of the questions concerning the historicity of Genesis 1-3, I'm often asked, "Do you believe in the special creation of man."

The simple answer to the question is, "Yes, absolutely." It is very clear to me from Genesis 1:26-31 that there is the WORLD of difference between human beings and the other creatures. We are specially and uniquely created in God's image. I preached on this a couple of weeks ago at Twynholm.
However, what is often meant in the question behind the question is this: "Do you believe in the special creation of man, and none of that nonsense about shared descent from apes?"
Here is another issue where I think there is unnecessary division between Christians who have the same anthropology of believing that all humans are made in God's image, no other creature is, and would have a very similar theology of what that means.
We all believe that human beings are not made "ex nihilo" but from pre-existent material. We are made from the dust; but God has so breathed life into us that we have become living beings of incredible value and worth. We all agree that we are "descended" from dust physically, but spiritually specially created. Does it diminish the value of human beings if God took his time in bringing us from dust to image bearing just as he took his time in forming and filling the universe?

I can understand the arguments on both sides when it comes to whether Genesis 2 should be taken as an entirely literal historical account in every detail. I am not yet utterly persuaded either way.

Take the rivers for example. Some people take those to be a sign that we could actually fairly accurately locate Eden to somewhere near the source (and others suggest near the mouth) of the Tigris and Euphrates. We can then make some guesses as to which rivers the Pishon and the Gihon are (or suggest that they no longer exist as their course was so altered by the flood.) If this is the reading, the point being made would be that this is a real place that existed at a real time, yet, due to the expulsion we cannot return there (though, why not, if we can locate it - would we still find a cherub stationed with a flaming sword, or has the tree of life died? or been removed permanently in order to be planted in the New Jerusalem?).

Others believe that Eden is much more of an idealised picture of the original dwelling place of man with God, rather than a literal account. The four rivers then might be Tigris, Euphrates, Nile (making a much more straightforward reading of 'Cush' as its normal location in Ethiopia) and Indus. The whole land - the whole ancient near east - thus receives its blessings from the place where God dwells with his people.

I think that there are New Testament controls that make it essential to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom are descended all people (I disagree with Denis Alexander on this). Just as we all sinned in the one man Adam, so in the one man Christ we are all made alive. Also, even if one takes much of the detail in Genesis 2 as figurative, the genealogies in Gen 5, and particularly the assertion in Gen 3:20 that Eve would become the mother of all the living, convince me that we have real events being described, even if the description is stylised.

It is possible for real events to be described in a stylised fashion; one might think of the description of the stars fighting against Sisera in Judges 5:20. Was it a real event? Yes! It's just been described in a more literal historiography in Judges 4. Does that mean that it cannot be described in stylised terms in chapter 5? Do we have to rethink our cosmology in order to accommodate fighting stars? No!

Christians can disagree as to the genre of Genesis 2, and still agree on its theology of man, of marriage, of the relationship between man and God, of work, of worship, and a hundred other central things. Let's not make it an issue to divide over.

Paul Mills on the Economic Crisis

2009-10-19T04:34:00.003-05:00

Lucas and Williams at West London Ministry Morning

2009-10-15T08:58:00.001-05:00

Had a great morning yesterday.
Blogged about it here and here

up with up

2009-10-15T08:55:00.003-05:00

Must take the kids to see this one after reading this...

Not sure that's what I meant... but maybe!

2009-10-09T12:54:00.004-05:00

When I was preaching on Genesis 2 last week, I mentioned that being made in God's image is not just about God doing things for us, but also us doing things with him. Adam is called to bring order out of chaos in Eden just as God had brought order out of chaos in Genesis 1.

Sometime the best memories of our parents are not what they did for us, but what they did with us.

So, a member of the congregation emailed me this...

HT: Dean Dryden

Confusing conversation 5: What God did, and What God could have done.

2009-10-08T15:15:00.002-05:00

"So you think that God took 14 billion years to make the world, not just 6 days. Don't you believe God is powerful enough to do it quicker?"
I have heard young earthers ask old earthers such questions.
But I hope that no self-respecting old earther would imagine for a moment that God couldn't have done it in 6 literal days, 6 literal seconds or 6 literal picoseconds.
Similarly I hope that no self-respecting young-earther would for a moment imagine that God would have shown himself more glorious had he chosen to create in less time than six days, but somehow he didn't because he couldn't.
If one is going to take Genesis 1 literally, the strange thing is not that God takes such a short time to form and fill the whole world, but that he takes such a long time. After all, he is the one who creates time - he doesn't need it! His whole infinite life does not experience the passing of time at all.
Somehow, God is bringing more glory to himself by taking his time.
Old earthers would argue that God brings even more glory to himself by taking billions of years temporarily, just as he brings more glory to himself in creating ten billion times ten billion suns.

Great New song on the love of Christ

2009-09-24T15:56:00.001-05:00

By This We Know Love from Sovereign Grace Ministries on Vimeo.

HT: Bob Kauflin

Confusing Conversations 4: Literally true, and truly literal.

2009-09-23T15:33:00.004-05:00

"If you don't believe that the first chapter of the bible is literally true, then how can you believe that the rest of it is?"

I hope that every Christian believes that the bible is literally, true. That is absolutely and entirely truthful in everything it affirms. So, wherever the bible affirms something as scientific fact, then it is scientific fact. Wherever it affirms something as accurate history, it is accurate history. But, the Good Samaritan is not historically accurate (it is a parable). Ezekiel 1 is not scientific fact, it is a vision.

However, this doesn't mean that to truly understand the bible, one must take the most literal interpretation possible. It is always literally (in the sense of totally and utterly) true; the truth is not always literal (in a sense that excludes all metaphor, parable, poetic licence, verbal imagery etc.)

Obvious other examples of this in the realm of cosmology are found in Psalm 19:6

"[the sun] rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is hidden from its heat. "

Are we to believe that the sun literally moves from one end of the heavens to another? No! We don't have to believe in a geocentric universe in order to believe that Psalm 19 is utterly true. It is just not true in a literal sense. In fact, to try to understand it as a true scientific account of the orbit of the sun is to utterly misunderstand it; to miss its truth; to distort it. This is fairly easy to see, as Psalm 19 is undeniably poetic. The sun has already been described as a bridegroom, and champion. Are we to envisage a marriage to the moon, or a little horse that the sun rides on? No, it's poetry that teaches how this majestic sun, seen everywhere, giving heat and light shines for the glory of God. But the poetry is more than just those statements; as poetry it attaches an appropriate emotional response of awe and wonder and splendour to those truths. The poetry conveys the truths in exactly the inspired fashion that its divine author intended.

Is Psalm 19 made more problematic had many (or all) of the early readers would have believed in a geocentric universe, and thus, if read literally, understood it to correspond better to the cosmology they held than we would understand it to. No: for that is not the intention of the passage.

What then is the intention of Genesis 1? Is it true literalistically? Does it employ poetic imagery? Does it even employ culturally accepted views of the world in order to convey truths?

These are legitimate questions to ask in bible interpretation. Let's not assume that if we come to different conclusions as to the intention of a passage, and therefore a different conclusion as to which truths are being affirmed in a passage, that we therefore have a different understanding as to whether the text is truthful. Let's all agree to trust what the bible really teaches and then work jolly hard at trying to understand it on its own terms.

Confusing Conversations 3: "Deism" is an accusation that can cut both ways.

2009-09-21T04:02:00.006-05:00

It seems common among Christians on both sides of the "Creationist vs. Theistic Evolution" debate to accuse one another of Deism rather than Theism. Deism is the idea that, while God was intimately involved in the creation of the world, he is largely, or totally uninvolved in the intricacies of its ongoing existence. This is contrasted with Theism, in which God not only made the world, but sustains its existence. He remains intimately involved with everything that continues to happen in his creation. The contrast is therefore the difference between a watchmaker who made it, wound it up and let it go and a composer who note only wrote all the notes, but also conducts the orchestra.

Some creationists accuse theistic evolution of deism: so, Wayne Grudem writes "The fundamental difference between a biblical view of creation and theistic evolution lies here: the driving force that brings about change and the development of new species in all evolutionary schemes is randomness.... But the driving force in the development of new organisms according to Scripture is God's intelligent design." (Systematic theology, 276)

Yet it seems here that Grudem has assumed, a priori, that the view of "randomness" that theistic evolutionists tend to believe in is one that is outside of God's theistic design. Yet every theist ought to believe that though there are apparently "random" and "chance" events the Lord is utterly sovereign in them all. The Lord has "designed" intentions in them. From the roll of the dice to the decision of free agents the Lord has intentions that are most certainly NOT random.

Proverbs 16 reminds us of both of these facts

⁹ In his heart a man plans his course,
but the LORD determines his steps.

³³ The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the LORD. (NIV)

Undoubtedly there are some who hold to theistic evolution who themselves tend towards deism. I have had conversations with people who suggest that God set it up in such a way that he knew something good would come out of it, but could not be sure what. So, Deistic Evolution posing as Theistic Evolution exists. But, I fear that it may betray some deistic assumptions on the part of creationists if they will insist that apparent randomness is incompatible with intelligent divine design.

On the other hand there are those who hold to theistic evolution who accuse creationists of deism.
Ever since Henry Drummond coined the phrase "the god of the gaps" it has been used as an accusation against those who hold to creationism, and more recently Intelligent Design. The idea is that people seem to think that science runs itself quite nicely, thank you very much, but there are a few things that cannot be explained without some kind of miraculous intervention from God. Like Drummond, they urge instead belief in "an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."

Well, though once again this accusation of a God only occasionally involved in His world may be fair for a few creationists, sure theistic creationism is also possible: that God is utterly involved in every moment, but differently involved in the miraculous.

Whichever position you take on the Creationism vs. Evolution debate, make sure that in avoiding falling into materialism, you don't inadvertently fall into deism: that would be a far more serious error than getting the Creationism vs Evolution question wrong.

Make sure also that you don't wrongly accuse a brother or sister in Christ who believes in the same God as you do of a theology to which they do not hold.

Confusing Conversations 2. "Creation vs. Evolution" is not a conversation

2009-09-18T09:17:00.008-05:00

I think it was Thomas Renz, a then lecturer at Oak Hill, who was the first to point out to me that Creation vs. Evolution really isn't a real conversation. It is the confusion of two conversations.

Really there is one staggeringly important conversation: Creation vs. Evolutionism

And one real, but far less important conversation: Creationism vs. Evolution.

The first conversation is vitally important because it is a conversation about worldviews. Is there a creator or not? Is the world utterly dependent upon that creator, or is "evolutionism" (the idea that evolution can explain everything) true? "Evolutionism" is a term used in different ways, but where used appropriately and not merely as a sneer, it is a materialistic philosophy that believes that evolution is not merely an historical explanation of what has happened, but also a philosophical explanation. Matter is all there is; matter happens to have thrown up these incredibly evolving organisms that have eventually, through an entirely materialistic process, led to the existence of humans.
By contrast, "creation" presupposes a theistic worldview: it assumes that the world is created by a divine being who is utterly in control of whatever processes have taken place to bring about humanity, and every other thing in existence, from the smallest molecule to the largest supercluster of galaxies. Whatever processes there may have been to get to where the creation is now, in a very real sense these processes can be described as his acts of creation.
All Christians should obviously be in agreement that "creation" rather than "evolutionism" is alone a satisfactory worldview that makes sense of the existence of our universe and everything in it.

The other debate is not about worldviews at all, though it is often confused as being so. It is a debate about ancient (Natural) History, the debate between Creationism and Evolution. It is a debate about the age of the earth; the time it took for certain species to come (be brought) into being. It is a debate about taxonomy: are the species fixed, or can there in time be sufficient divergence within a species that eventually one has multiple species.

These are, of course perfectly valid questions to be asking. But I hope that every theist at least recognises how these questions are far far less important than the questions of worldview.

The methodology by which we come to a particular conclusion on this second question might betray a worldview, and more of that anon; but it is inaccurate to imply that either position, in and of itself, encapsulates a worldview.

So in summary, we have two debates.

1) Worldview Debate: Creation (theism) vs. evolutionism (materialism)
2) History / Taxonomy debate: creationism (young earth / fixed species) vs. evolution (old earth, unfixed species)

Two questions to think about.
a) which debate is more important?
b) which debate is nearer the centre of the force of Genesis 1?

I think that all Christians who have read Genesis 1 carefully should be in no doubt at all that the answer to both these questions is (1)

For other posts in this series see here

Confusing Conversations about Creation

2009-09-01T10:42:00.003-05:00

In preparing for preaching a sermon series on Genesis 1-3 I thought it would be good to get a little more up to speed on where the lay of the land is at the moment in the debates between creationists / intelligent design movement / theistic evolutionists and the new atheists.
I have to admit, that the issues involved, and particularly their relationship (or lack of it) to a right understanding of Genesis One can be enormously confusing. Many people seem to be talking past each other. They thing they are having one conversation when their discussion partner thinks it is an entirely different conversation. The conversations are confusing, precisely because one conversation is being confused with another.
I thought I'd do a few posts to examine the confusing of the conversation conversations and how confusing it can be. And if you are not confused yet, just wait!

Sad, and very sad...

2009-07-08T06:19:00.004-05:00

"We come together in this place where… he brought joy as only he could."
"Though our hearts are aching we need to look up where he is..."
“I love [him] and I want to thank him so much for blessing me and every single individual on this earth…”
“He is going to live forever and ever and ever and ever."

Sadly, none of these quotes were intended to refer to the Lord Jesus, but to another very lost self-declared king.

Even as the coffin containing his corpse came in and the choir began,

“Soon and very soon we are going to see the king”

It was clear from the screams of fans in the congregation that they knew that the king they were hoping to see soon and very soon was the one whose body was being carried in that that moment.

Al Mohler put it well: " Where the Gospel of Christ is absent or eclipsed, this is all that is left. The messianism of Michael J. will just transfer to a new object."

The prayer of atheists.

2009-06-16T09:41:00.003-05:00

Noting
1) the lyrics of "The script" song "breakeven"
2) the fact that google returns over 6 million results for the exact sentence "pray to a god I don't believe in". seems people can't help it. Perhaps people believe there is a God after all.
3) Why, when I believe there is a God do I not more often turn to him in prayer? Are we too often practical atheists?

Great title for a conference...

2009-06-15T10:10:00.001-05:00

Great title for a day conference... maybe someone could give a blog that title!?
HT: Dave Bish

Conversation about sermon introductions

2009-06-15T08:07:00.003-05:00

Over at the 9Marks Blog a few of us have been having a conversation about sermon introductions.

Deepak asked the question. I gave the "textbook" answer. Mike McKinley replied, questioning the usefulness of many introductions. I nuanced and Aaron Menikoff chipped in. Mike retorted. I'm planning to reply and link to this post in case anyone wants to read a brief (and not particularly clever) introduction.

So, here's the text of the introduction from Sunday's sermon on Jephthah... (Judges 10-12) I think I actually said something a little different to this, but this was the manuscript I took into the pulpit.

“Intelligence without ambition is a bird without wings.”

Salvador Dalí quotes (Spanish painter, 1904-1989)

The point he’s making is clear: whatever natural abilities we have, we will not make the most of them unless we have ambition: a desire to use that which has been given us to serve some end.

What is your ambition? What are you intent on achieving with you life?

Fame? I wonder how many people around the country are already rehearsing their skills in order to attempt to have half a chance of fame in next year’s Britain’s got talent.

Wealth? Oscar Wilde once said, “Every man of ambition has to fight his century with its own weapons. What this century worships is wealth. The God of this century is wealth. To succeed one must have wealth. At all costs one must have wealth.”

Other ambitions seem far more down to earth than seeking untold wealth or fame, and yet can be just as much of a driving force in our lives. Perhaps you feel your ambitions are much more reasonable, and less, well... ambitious.

· A stable family

· A successful career

· A peaceful life

· Living to meet one’s great grandchildren

· Having a child

· Holding down a job

· Getting out of debt.

· Kicking a bad habit.

· Owning you own home

Perhaps you ahve to admit that you’ve given up on ambition. Your hopes have passed you by, and now you are content to live one day at a time, but occasionally you wonder if your life had become directionless: you feel as if you are not longer living, but only existing.

Ambition becomes a driving force that motivates one to sacrifice a great deal in order to serve your ambition.

What are you ambitious for?

What sacrifices are you willing to make in order to realise that ambition?

It is an important question because our ambitions set the direction of our lives, as much as we are able.

And in setting our life’s direction, it reveals what we think the purpose of life is.

What do your ambitions say about your understanding of the purpose of life?

Judges 10-12 introduces a new character who is nothing if not ambitious...

cartoon as a medium for apologetics

2009-06-03T09:30:00.002-05:00

Perhaps you may be wondering why I've branched into cartoons for my last couple of posts.
Is it because I've discovered a great artistic ability that had long laid dormant? (no, I discovered a website that will provide the drawings for me!)
But, more importantly I've come to the conclusion that strip cartoons are an excellent medium for presuppositional apologetics.
1) The best cartoons make people think, until they have worked out the irony of the situation. One of the hardest obstacles to the apologist is the fact that in an apologetic conversation people are coming up with their replies to the point being made before they have time to think about the point itself. The cartoon forces them to take that time.
2) The medium gets people off the defensive.
3) Cartoons are an excellent medium for demonstrating the untenability and laughability of a particular position in a way that is disarming.

There are some positives. What do you think the dangers are?

Ecclesiastes 12:14

2009-06-03T09:10:00.001-05:00

Learned how to embed with this one...

Romans 1:20

2009-06-02T06:28:00.006-05:00

or, for a clearer view go to...

http://stripgenerator.com/strip/248086/

Gideon, Fleeces and paralysis

2009-06-01T04:44:00.002-05:00

Having preached a couple of weeks ago on Gideon, it obviously raised questions about guidance: is "laying out a fleece" a good way forward when attempting to discern God's will?

Clearly in the Gideon narrative, he lays out fleeces not to try to discern God's will (he knows that God has already revealed it to him) but because he doubts God's word. Judges 6:36-37 make that very clear.

Gideon said to God, "If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised - look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said."

Twice he asks God to prove that he will keep his promises. This is not a model of seeking God's will, but an example of how we too often equivocate in response to God's clear will.

What then should we expect in searching for God's will for our lives?

This is a section from the sermon I preached a couple of weeks ago:

What do we do then if the Lord hasn’t spoken clearly on an issue: like our choice of career, church, or marriage partner?

I remember someone preaching this passage when I was a child and talking about how he had ‘laid out a fleece’ when he was uncertain as to whether to propose to his wife: he had said to the Lord that if three people talked about rings that day, then he’d propose to his wife that evening. Three people mentioned rings that day, and, by God's grace they were still happily married decades later.

Are these less than clear decisions the time to lay out a fleece? No! we are nowhere told that in Scripture; it just isn't a biblical model of how we are to make decision. Clearly God can direct our steps in very personal and clear ways; we are never told to wait for him to do that before we make decisions though: we are to pray for wisdom, search for wisdom in his word, and seek the wisdom of other disciples, and then make a decision that we trust will be wise. Indecisiveness is not a sign of humility; it is not a sign of maturity; waiting for God to reveal the future to us before we take any decisions is a sign of a lack of trust in the Sovereign Lord who plans everything to our good. It is sign that we think it is safer to do nothing…

Dave Bish reviews a book here that has the opposite advice for a life well spent: JUST DO SOMETHING!