John Stott – The Passing of a Giant


John Stott has died. He was 90.

John Stott is one of my most revered christian leaders. His writings have influenced me more than perhaps anyone else, although I enjoyed reading the likes of JI Packer, CS Lewis and Gordon Fee just as much. The church will miss him badly. I will miss him. Just on Tuesday night I was at Koorong and got another one of his books (The Cross of Christ). His emphasis on good preaching should be heeded by so many today.

If you have never read any of his books, go and get one – any one (start with Basic Christianity).

John Stott has run a great race, fought a great fight, and will certainly have the Lord say to him, “Well done, good and faithful servant”.

Was Anders Breivik a Christian?


Was Anders Breivik a Christian as some news reports have suggested? Does his self declared act of war in the name of Christianity hold any water?

I agree wholly with what Tim Dalrymple has said in this matter here in the Patheos website. Have a read if you can find 10 minutes to spare

 

Alpha Material


I have been trying to get an electronic version of the Alpha Manual (or Alpha Course: Why Jesus?) to no avail. I wonder why for a course that has attracted millions of participants the material is still so restricted. I would have thought it would be freely available but I suppose there may be an element of content, channel and course control or management which necessitates a more narrow distribution mode.

Does anyone know if I can get the electronic version of the Alpha course material?

“Speak Life, Speak Healing”… Hmmm….


“…go, plunge yourself in the Godhead‘s deepest sea; be lost in his immensity; and you shall come forth as from a couch of rest, refreshed and invigorated. I know nothing which can so comfort the soul; so calm the swelling billows of sorrow and grief; so speak peace to the winds of trial, as a devout musing upon the subject of the Godhead…”

That was Spurgeon, as cited by JI Packer.

Recently a speaker in church urged the congregation to shun the issue of right and wrong, but to choose life instead. I wondered about  that. There was a ribbing of the grey matter, of theology. We were asked to opt for life, not the choice between right and wrong.

I thought that was weird. For it is in knowing who God is – knowing what is right and knowing what is wrong about the teaching of God – that we can have life. It is a personal relationship with God and an aknowledgement of His lordhip and sovereignty over us, which gives us life. How can we acknowledge Him and His lordhip if we don’t know basic facts and truths about Him?

Anyway, I’m again grateful I am brought to this spot where I am again given the opportunity to learn and grow in Him.

And another thing…

I was just reading Erickson Millard again and this phrase jumped out at me:

The idea that God is simply something to be used or to solve our problems and meet our needs is not religion. Such attempts to harness him belong rather to the realm of magic or technology

I cant help but think of the “name it and claim it” branch of teaching. “Speak healing”, “healing is yours, claim it” and the likes… to me these phrases are a lot like harnessing God to solve our needs or problems. It is as though He is there to be used, so why not use it. It really sounds like magic or technology.

There is something to be said about experiencing God but there is a lot more to be said about knowing our God in all sense, as He should be known.

More on Stott


I was just reminding myself of something I read on the views of John Stott on gifts, as reflected in his interview with the publication Christianity Today

On Gifts:

The most important gift today, measured by Paul’s principle that we should excel in those that build up the church, is teaching. Nothing builds up the church like the truth, and we desperately need more Christian teachers all over the world. I often say to my charismatic friends, “If only you would concentrate on praying that God would give teachers to the church who could lead all these new converts into maturity in Christ, it would be more profitable.

Objectivity and clarity of thoughts and expression is always important.

Preaching – Pole Position


When asked if he thought the contemporary evangelical Christian tends to have a lazy mind, John Stott said he agreed. He continues: I

t has been characteristic of much evangelicalism (but even more of Pentecostalism). There are notable exceptions, and thank God for them. I think we need to encourage each other in the proper use of the mind.

Preachers are still the key people; the church is always a reflection of the preaching it receives.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the low standards of Christian living throughout the world are due more than anything else to the low standards of Christian preaching and teaching.

If we can recover true expository preaching as being not only exegesis but an exposition and application of the Word of God, then congregations will learn it from us preachers and go and do the same thing themselves.

We need to help our congregations to grasp and use the hermeneutical principles that we are using ourselves. We need to be so careful in the development of our evangelical hermeneutic that the congregation says, “Yes, I see it. That is what the text means, and it couldn’t mean anything else.”

The worst kind of preaching allows people to say, “Well, I’m sorry, I don’t agree with you. I think you’re twisting the Scripture.”

Sarcasm in theological academe


I can’t believe that having enjoyed myself in a deliciously instructive and educational treatise on the imminence of the Kingdom of God, Joel B Green et al (including I. H. Marshall no less) punctuated the discussion with this: “It is not therefore an exaggeration to say that sometimes the parables have a polemical tone in addition to their usage to illustrate the kingdom of God“. I would have thought: “like duh…” but it is nice to have an almost dead pan sarcasm in such work…

If only I could read on all night.

Second Experience? Hmmm


We have been doing a series on fundamental Christian beliefs in church and a couple of weeks ago we looked at the topic of the Holy Spirit. Unsurprisingly, the issue of a second experience (of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit I guess) came up, albeit cursorily. I was thinking about it when preparing some thoughts for cell discussion on Friday and continued thinking about it on the periphery. A short while ago I came across these statements:

1. The baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs the moment a person is saved. It is not the same experience as salvation but happens at the time of salvation. It is not a second experience following conversion.

2. God has given believers everything in Christ. When we are saved we are complete in Him. We lack nothing. There is nothing else for Him to give to us.

3. Nowhere are believers commanded to receive any second blessing that would give them power. All power is already available.

4. The power of the Holy Spirit working in a persons life is something that should be desired. Some who have legitimately experienced the Spirit’s power label the encounter as the baptism with the Holy Spirit whereas the Scripture calls this experience the filling of the Holy Spirit. previously mentioned, everything has been provided for us upon conversion. We only need to appropriate what God has already done for us.

I think I agree with these statements and am reasonably at peace with not having a second experience, although who is to limit God – He can show me otherwise.

 

In the meantime, I have to contend with the historicity of the Messianic Jesus seen through the incident of the Triumphant Entry…sigh indeed….

Gay Church in Malaysia? My Gay Thoughts Revisited


Gay Church? (Re-publishing in light of current interests in Malaysia…)

I have friends whom I think may be offended by what I’m about to write in this entry. It concerns homosexual practice. If you are one of these people, I hope you know by now that I believe God is real and He cares about us. He has great plans for us and I trust Him enough to know these plans are great ones. There is only one condition – that I must let Him be God and not try to play His role for Him. So, whatever my personal views may be about homosexual practice, they are secondary to what God has said in the Bible about the matter.

Personally, I don’t have any problems with homosexual practice. I am not one, have no such tendencies, and am prepared to accept that there are many with homosexual tendencies or preferences. To many, these tendencies and preferences are so strong they do not want to keep fighting them. They think perhaps life is to be lived, not fought against. They think a relationship is about commitment and sacrifice and building something together and there is nothing in a homosexual relationship which inherently precludes these virtues. I agree with these views. I would have subscribed wholly with them and would have supported same sex union as a logical consequence of these views. These however, are my personal views. As a Christian, I believe my personal views are not always the right ones. They can’t be. To insist that my personal views must prevail is to breach the condition set out above. His (perfect) plans wont work, and mine, which are no where near His (perfect ones) would kick in. My views really are a distant second to His, which is perfect.

I honestly do not know what to make of claims that homosexuality is a natural thing. It’s like someone who prefers one food to another, or has the natural tendency to use his left arm instead of his right. How can preference for one food over another or using one arm over another, be such a bad thing? Honestly, I don’t know. I dont know what harm there would be if say, half the world is gay. Maybe the world population would go down. The nucleus family would no longer be the norm. Is that a bad thing? I don’t know. If homosexuality becomes as common as a heterosexual union, it would be the first time since time immemorial, that the issue of parenthood becomes re-examined and the accepted convention of 2-sex parents is no longer. I don’t know what that does to the psyche of a child and how that affects his or her development and what sort of adult that child eventually becomes. It is such a vexed issue. It would certainly mean discarding what has worked for centuries, in favour of/exchange for acceptance of certain sexual preferences. Assuming the gays are right and it is perfectly “natural”. It is still only our way, not God’s. In fact, God wants us to subrogate our natural ways to His ways. The Bible speaks of dying to self in order to live. There are in any event, lots of things we naturally want to do but don’t, because they aren’t good for us. We wont go there for now however.

There is a Malaysian pastor who is now contemplating a gay church. This is just a bit whacky. Not that homosexual practice is whacky. It isn’t. It’s quite cool actually. It is however, against God’s ways. Jesus preached love and forgiveness and acceptance. That is true. He also however, preached obedience, repentance and judgment. These aren’t cool. They are however, core teachings of Jesus. To start a gay church would be like starting a church for any other perpetrators of any other practice which is against God’s ways.

We don’t for example, even think for a moment about say, a paedophile church. Before you scream murder, I’m not equating paedophilia with homosexuality. The obvious argument that one damages innocent young children while the other is between consenting adults is a familiar one with which I agree. However, again those are my views. They don’t matter. God’s views do. In fact they are the only ones that do. One doesn’t even have to proffer any arguments which a paedophile may put forward to justify the practice. You don’t need for example, to produce scientific evidence to show maybe some children aren’t damaged and may even acquire some life lessons. I know that is repulsive. I know society simply does not find paedophilia acceptable. My point is there will always be subjective views. Expert opinions change. Community rejection or acceptance of any matter is subjective. What is now unacceptable may be acceptable at different times, just as what was previously unacceptable may now be acceptable. The only objective standard is God’s. Okay, that is my belief. I know that to be true, because it is right there in the Bible (eg 1 Corinthians 6:9).

You know why the church today has credibility issues when they shout and thump their chests against homosexual practice? It is the issue of consistency. Homosexual practice is a sin, as is theft, lying, killing, jealousy, covetousness, and all the other practices listed in Exodus somewhere as well as in other parts of the Bible. In fact, remember Billy Graham’s 7 deadly sins? You hardly hear the church condemning these anymore. Why condemn homosexual practice but keep silent on theft for example? Why no word against murder? Why has the church not examined for example, the actions of people like George W and Robert M to see if they have perhaps committed murder? I know I know. George was defending his country, you may say. Really? From what? Terrorism? I thought that was in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and maybe Afghanistan? From oil drought? Ah…maybe he was then guilty of covetousness? Or did he not remember that and the other stuff in Exodus 20:15ff? If in lying and coveting Iraq’s oil he let his own view prevail over God’s that is as much a sin as homosexual practice is. Why didn’t the church condemn it but pretty much cover its head with ashes over homosexual practice?

So to the Malaysian pastors and churches crying out against that gay pastor, I say well done. However to sound a bit more credible, you should also take a stand against other practices which are against God’s ways. How many church goers in Malaysian churches today are guilty of sharp business practices (theft, lies, coveting)? How many have mistresses? How many overtly support regimes which condone murder (I have in mind the Malaysian police which the general public in Malaysia believes have committed murder in the summary execution of suspects in shootouts, pushing addicts off buildings, bashings in lock-ups and prisons leading to deaths)? Why does the church single out homosexual practice as a sin to condemn and leave the other iniquities alone?

So back to that gay church – no it wont work. I believe gay people in Malaysia aren’t Christians. If they turn up, it wont be because they are Christians – it would be because they are gay. It would be just another gay club. You cant for example preach on godliness because to be godly you need to well, subscribe to His ways. A homosexual practitioner has chosen to choose his own way over God’s. If however the intention of that church is to help practising gays get rid of that practice then that would be a great thing. That pastor could set an example and say homosexual practice is a sin in that it goes against God’s ways. It wont be a cool or popular thing to do, but godly.

Healed By His Stripes? Eh???


I still don’t understand Isaiah 53:5. Maybe it’s others’ reading of it that I don’t understand. Yet again, last Sunday, someone said all of our illnesses and diseases would be healed “by his stripes (or wounds)”. Someone mentioned it for a pre-communion message and the main speaker echoed this in his sermon. In fact the speaker went on to cite an example of a physical healing, to say “by His stripes we are healed”, in clear reference to Isaiah 53:5. In fact he referred to the pre-communion message and said he agreed with that.

Next time I hear this I will ask the person who makes that statement, to explain why he or she thought that verse meant physical healing. Everything in that verse suggests it refers to our spiritual healing.

“He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.” The whole context of that verse was on our spiritual healing. Our disease and illness was rejection of God which leaves us on the road to eternal separation from God, ie death. Jesus came to cure that – He came to bear our sins and die in our place. By His wounds, we are healed.

The problem with saying we are physically healed by His wounds is: the Scriptures doesn’t say that. Also, Jesus’ death and sacrifice is the perfect solution for its purpose, ie redemption of our soul and restoration of our relationship with God – that is  the “illness” it heals, not physical ailments. Very often we have unhealed diseases. Many suffer physical ailments for an extended period of time, without ever getting healed. Some go to their graves with their ailments. Does it mean Jesus’ stripes/wounds are inadequate in their case? Is Jesus’ death and suffering imperfect for our bodies? I sincerely believe this teaching is wrong. I am only a little a little guy – a puny one – when it comes to theology. This one however, is clearly problematic.