Pseudo-Polymath posted an intriguing challenge to defend the differences that cause Christians to split into many denominations. Believing one another’s views to be heretical is the most obvious cause for division, but on the whole most of the groups have come into being simply because they thought the others were defficient in one or more emphasis. The new movements have an unfortunate habit of not simply redressing the balance, but taking their particular favourite thing to the extreme and making it all important.

A lot also seems to rest on how our differences affect the way we corporately worship. For the most part, a premillenialist and a postmillenialist will be able to sing the same hymns and enjoy the same sermons. The trouble comes when one group wants to allow or enforce something (e.g. head covering, speaking in tongues, women preaching, infant baptism, dancing) that another group wants to prohibit.

I have been studying 1 Corinthians recently. They get a lot of bad press for their divisions – “I follow Paul, I follow Apollos” etc. But at least there was just one church in Corinth. The Apollos crowd hadn’t started their own church. It is all too easy these days to walk out on one another and go down the road where we like the emphasis better. This positively encourages unbalanced churches as like minds gather together and congratulate themselves on being the only ones who have got it right.

Rey from Bible Archive has written some helpful thoughts on this, and has suggested that for him, regular breaking of bread, plurality of elders, multiplicity of gifts and “the financial support only by those who are in fellowship with one another” are the key distinctives he looks for (I am not entirely sure what he is getting at with the last one). Similarly, Adrian Warnock lists some of the distinctives of New Frontiers, a group of which I am part of also. As pseudo-polymath says, it would be great if more people could consisely and graciously define and defend some of the distictive emphases of their group. It may well spur the rest of us to be catalysts for change within our own church groupings to make sure that we are not unbalanced. At the very least it might reduce some of the ignorant caricaturing of one another.

I have been updating my commentaries database slowly over the last few weeks. There should be publication dates and links to the publishers websites for just about everything now, and you can choose for the ISBNs to link to Amazon UK or US. The US site tends to have more reviews and usually also allows you to “look inside”, which is a nice feature.

I have also added the Blacks, Hermenia, New Testament and Old Testament Library and Interpretation series, which more or less completes all the series I plan to track on the page. I will add some more individual commentaries over time. I have also now got ISBN links to both the UK and US versions of commentaries that are published separately. The US versions are often much cheaper, but not always available here in the UK.

Greg Haslam, pastor at Westminster Chapel is making his sermons available online. Greg succeeded R T Kendall who in turn succeeded Lloyd-Jones in this church famous for its expository preaching. Like his predecessors he is thoroughly reformed, but he is also a charismatic. He was a New Frontiers pastor in Winchester before moving to Westminster Chapel a few years back. Sermons by visiting speakers are also available on the site. I recommend particularly John Hosier and Michael Eaton.

I thought I would post something to explain why my site is called wordandspirit, since a number of my non-Christian friends have assumed that it is something to do with ghosts, and even to Christians the phrase can mean a variety of different things.

Where have you heard the phrase before?

Well there are numerous churches, books and events that all use the phrase in their name. It is a real favourite with evangelical charismatics (which is pretty much what I am). For example, David Pawson’s helpful book on uniting evangelicals and charismatics is called “Word and Spirit Together”.

There are a few places where the two terms appear together in the Bible, but only occasionally are the concepts of the “Word of God” and the “Spirit of God” directly linked in the same verse. Perhaps 2 Sam 23:2 or Acts 4:31 are the origins of the phrase.

Two extremes

You may also have come across the following classic (and rather cheesy) Christian quote:
With the Word but not the Spirit you dry up
With the Spirit but not the Word you blow up
But with the Word and the Spirit you grow up
(I tried to find out who originally said this, but although it is quoted hundreds of times on the web there is no general agreement)

The saying warns against two possible extremes:

First, consider a church that prides itself in being a “Word” church. That is, it places a high importance on being Bible based, having Bible teaching and believing sound Biblical doctrine. It is possible that despite this noble aim, it actually ends up being a place of dry orthodoxy, with a religion that is in the head but not the heart. Little or nothing is experienced of the Spirit of God moving in individual lives. Instead, spiritual wellbeing is viewed as correctly avoiding all doctrinal errors.

Second, consider a church that prides itself in being a “Spirit” church, that is, it places a high importance on encouraging prophecy and tongues and other manifestations of the Spirit in its meetings. It is possible that the Bible becomes neglected, and therefore there is no discernment of what constitutes a genuine work of the Spirit. Anything and everything goes with anyone who cares to question being labelled as judgemental. If left unchecked false teaching and immoral behaviour can creep in undetected.

A false antithesis

But of course in fact there is no conflict between the Word and the Spirit. The Spirit inspired the Word, and when he moves he will not act in contradiction to that Word. Careful Bible study and expository preaching do not quench the Spirit but rather allow him to speak. And there is nothing unbiblical about manifestations or gifts of the Spirit. In fact there is a good deal of attention given in the New Testament to the varied work of the Spirit.

I imagine that every evangelical church would want to characterise themselves as a “Word and Spirit” church, but the two extremes described above are very real dangers. Hopefully the theology expressed on this website will avoid either extreme and fully embrace all that the Word of God has to say and all that the Spirit of God wants to do.

I am well aware that many evangelicals believe it is more or less impossible to hold to charismatic views and still be fully committed to the Bible. I have compiled a list of around 40 criticisms or biblical arguments that I have heard levelled at charismatic churches in recent years. If I find the time I will post some thoughts on these over the coming weeks.

Why Word and Spirit?

Which brings me back to where I started. Why did I call my website wordandspirit? It wasn’t my first choice for a domain name, but it is one I am pleased with. My passion for studying the Word of God is the reason for my commentaries page, book reviews and articles. But I admit that I have posted very little here on the doctrine of the Spirit. This is partly because I am aware that a lot of controversy surrounds this question so I want to be especially careful what I say. It is also because I have been mainly thinking and studying in other areas in recent years.

However, the time has come for me to apply my mind once more to the New Testament teaching on the “charismatic” issues. I have recently finished reading Bruce’s commentary on Acts (which I studied as part of course on Acts with a very Pentecostal emphasis), and I also recently read a short book on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. I now am beginning some studies in 1 Cor 11-15 for a series of Cell Group meetings in the next few months, which has given me a chance to re-read Don Carson’s “Showing the Spirit” as well as use my NICNT 1 Corinthians commentary by Fee in earnest for the first time. I am anticipating that some articles and blog entries with a charismatic focus will come out of all this over the coming weeks.

The most exciting post of the week comes from Parableman about commentaries. As well as pointing out that Denver had updated their lists, he has updated his own superb recommendations and posted news of forthcoming volumes. He has his ear to the ground on who is writing what, and I was particularly pleased to see that there will be Pillar commentaries on Hebrews by O’Brien and Galatians by Carson. Not only that but BEC will publish on Galatians (by Silva) and Hebrews (by Carson again), so we will have a wealth of commentaries coming on these two books. This throws me into a quandry because I was about to buy NICNT Hebrews by Bruce and something on Galatians (Longenecker or Witherington). Should I wait? … Can I wait?

My brother has started his own blog. It’s quite useful as I don’t get round to phoning him as often as I should so I get to keep up to date on what’s going on. Adrian Warnock will be pleased that this is another New Frontiers blog as he goes to a New Frontiers church in Cambridge where he is a student. He mainly writes about his computer and his course on audio technology.

Finally, I discovered the Challies dot com blog this week (thanks again to Adrian Warnock) He posts a number of good book reviews which is why I have subscribed to his RSS feed. On his “about me” page he describes himself as follows:

I am…
*Christian* – I affirm that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour.
*Protestant* – I affirm the five “solas” of the Reformation.
*Reformed* – I affirm the principles known as Calvinism.
*Evangelical* – I believe the gospel (which is the original and truest meaning of “evangelical”).
*Fundamentalist* – I believe in “a return to fundamental principles and a strong or rigid adherence to these principles.”
*Conservative* – I am generally traditional and restrained in my beliefs and cautious towards change, especially when it seems to be change just for the sake of change.
*Liberal* – I am not limited to traditional views. I find much beauty in traditional Protestantism, but realize that in some areas traditions are not Scriptural. Where that is the case I am open to change and improvement.

So he sounds like a good bloke in my books. I would describe myself in pretty much the same way, apart from adding “Charismatic” to the list, meaning “- I believe in the ongoing availability and relevance of all the gifts mentioned in the New Testament and the importance of seeking to be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

I have uploaded a few new articles to my theology page.

Two are actually articles that I wrote last year but never got round to proof-reading and uploading to my site:
In at the Deep End (Mark 6:7-13;30-32) looks at Jesus sending his disciples out on his first mission, and the instructions he gave them.
On a Plate (Mark 6:14-29) tackles the story of the beheading of John the Baptist.

More recently, I have been writing and article on the lessons that may be gleaned from Exodus 18 (the story of Jethro’s advice to Moses), particularly in relation to church growth. The church I attend has been discussing the challenges related to growing larger recently and at a day conference I attended today, Exodus 18 came up as the speaker’s main text. This gave me the inspiration to put the finishing touches on my article and upload it.
Sharing the Load (Ex 18:1-27)

Fans of John Piper will probably be aware of the Biblical Preaching website that hosts his weekly sermons in MP3 format. He has been preaching a series on Romans that started back in 1998 and is still going (over 160 sermons later). In fact he seems to be stuck in Romans 12 at the moment. Anyway, the good news is that they have also been adding older sermons to the site and now the archive goes back as far as the first sermon on Romans.

Not many preachers could get away with preaching for so long on just one book, although Piper is a lightweight compared to Lloyd-Jones’ 368 or so sermons on Romans (and he didn’t even finish the book).

I am reminded of Spurgeon’s comments on preachers who embark on series of sermons in his classic book “Lectures to My Students”:

“I have a very lively, or rather a deadly, recollection of a certain series of discourses on the Hebrews, which made a deep impression on my mind of the most undesirable kind. I wished frequently that the Hebrews had kept the epistle to themselves, for it sadly bored one poor Gentile lad. By the time the seventh or eighth discourse had been delivered, only the very good people could stand it; these, of course, declared that they never heard more valuable expositions, but to those of a more carnal judgment it appeared that each sermon increased in dullness. Paul, in that epistle, exhorts us to suffer the word of exhortation, and we did so. Are all courses of sermons like this? Perhaps not, and yet I fear the exceptions are few, for it is even said of that wonderful expositor, Joseph Caryl, that he commenced his famous lectures upon Job with eight hundred hearers, and closed the book with only eight! A prophetical preacher enlarged so much upon ‘the little horn’ of Daniel, that one Sabbath morning he had but seven hearers remaining.”

I am trying out the Serendipity blogging software, which should make life a bit easier for me in terms of managing my webpage. If all goes well, I will move all the old entries from my existing blog accross to here.

Apologies if you had some problems recently accessing this site. I have been making a number of changes, but all should be finished before too long.

We’ve all no doubt heard a lot in the media recently about the Jerry Springer Opera that the BBC will be showing this evening despite a deluge of complaints from Christians. I thought I would add a few thoughts of my own to the the debate:

1. Everyone has standards of taste and decency

Many people have been angered that Christians should attempt to stop them watching something that they would genuinely enjoy and not feel at all offended by. But all of us surely have some standards that we would expect the BBC (or in fact any broadcaster) to adhere to. For example, which of the following things would you be happy to see broadcast on BBC2? The list includes some topics that I have heard debated recently on BBC radio.

• The video of the beheading of Kenneth Bigley
• A performance of a homophobic hate rap
• An evangelistic sermon warning that all who don’t accept Jesus will face Hell
• An anti-Semitic comedy
• A Creation-Science documentary rejecting evolution as fraudulent and bad science.
• A hard-core pornographic film

It should also be apparent as you consider this list that the idea that you have to first see something to have an opinion on whether it is suitable for public broadcast is ridiculous. As long as you have reliable information on the contents, then that is enough to allow an informed decision.

2. This program is merely one example of a broadcast that causes offence to Christians.

There are a number of different things that can cause offence to Christians:

• Blasphemy – particularly the use of the names of God or Jesus as curses, or representing them in degrading or mocking ways.
• Foul and obscene language, gratuitous violence and explicit sexual content.
• Misrepresentation or mockery of Christian belief and Christians themselves. (Often by the means of vilifying or belittling those characters who represent them in dramas or comedies)
• Promotion of ethics and philosophies that are in direct opposition to those of Christianity. (This can include all sorts of things from the encouraging sex outside of marriage to denying the existence of God).

This list is no secret – the BBC schedulers and the Opera’s script writers will have easily deduced that this program would be particularly liable to offend Christians. The BBC’s claim that “the target of the opera’s critique is not Christianity or religious belief” seems either extraordinarily naïve or wilfully ignorant. But let us not pretend that if this one program is not shown that all is now well. It is clear that a large amount of existing broadcast material will offend Christians in some way, even if it is not as repugnant to watch as this particular program.

And let us also readily admit that the church is not, and should not be above criticism. It is one thing to want to avoid hearing blasphemy (which is directed at God), but we should be willing to hear the complaints and accusations of an unbelieving world. The trouble is, it is extremely rare that the opportunity is given for Christians to respond with advocacy of Christian beliefs and ethics. If the BBC could be seen to be giving evangelical Christians a genuine opportunity to speak out, then perhaps the level of complaints would not have been so high for the Jerry Springer Opera.

3. Television shapes thinking and attitudes

In many ways, television is the ultimate propaganda tool. Watching a comedy or drama is not like going to church and hearing a sermon, or hearing a government minister set out his vision of a better society. In the latter cases, we know we are hearing an advocacy of a point of view and we critically evaluate it, but when we are being “entertained” by the television we are often also being educated without necessarily realising it. We are being taught what types of people to laugh at and despise, and what types of people to admire and emulate simply by the way they are portrayed in these programs.

So when people ask “Why don’t you simply not watch it?” they are missing the point. Of course those who complained were not planning to watch it. What they were more concerned about was the type of attitudes it encouraged in its viewers, in particular to derive entertainment from the mocking of God. It is certain that a good number of school children will be watching this (its on at 10 o’clock on a Saturday night), and its humour and language will be repeated round school playgrounds and workplaces around the country in weeks to come.

An analogy may prove helpful here. Imagine an astoundingly insensitive television channel broadcasting a comedy this evening which made a joke of people dying in a tsunami. There would be outrage. The relatives of the dead would consider it insulting and disrespectful. It would hardly matter that they were not going to watch it, or that the target audience were people who weren’t affected by the tragedy.

4. Paying customers have a right to complain

The BBC claims that “We are sensitive to matters of faith and religion in broadcasting”. If this is indeed true then they have no right to criticise license payers for informing them that their broadcasts have caused offence. Upsetting a large portion of your customers is a bad move for every business, but one that monopolies often feel they can get away with. In the UK you choose to pay your license fee to the BBC or you choose to watch no television whatsoever. The BBC apparently feels free to show what it wants because its position is so secure.

But of course, the BBC’s customers include not only Christians but people of many other world views. They have a right to be heard too. But if in this case the BBC is catering to those who enjoy a bit of anti-religious sentiment in their comedy, where is the corresponding programming for Christian viewers which allows Christians in their own (and hopefully more dignified) way to issue challenges of their own to the prevailing attitudes and beliefs of society?

5. “Freedom of expression is both a right and a responsibility”

This point is one made by the BBC themselves in their stock email response to complaints and it is a good one. If people are to be free to say what they want, then they must also be willing to accept their responsibility to be respectful of the feelings and opinions others.

As it happens, this particular program is hardly an issue of freedom of expression as the BBC is not obligated to broadcast any and every item that is made available on film. People can watch this at theatres and I presume that DVDs are available (or will be soon).

The email goes on to say that BBC2 “is there to present challenging work of all sorts”. I wonder if that would include the challenge of the gospel, or would they consider that to be taking “freedom of expression” too far.

I did email the BBC to inform them that I am disappointed with their decision to broadcast the program, but I did not tell them I wanted them to cancel it. Rather, I hope that the result of this controversy will be a more respectful attitude from the BBC towards Christian feelings, not just in deciding what not to show, but actively seeking to find more programs that Christians can enjoy watching. Maybe we can look forward to some evangelistic preaching on BBC2 later this year. Or then again, maybe the BBC will pay a meagre fine to OFCOM and then comission some comedies about Christians who complain about broadcast standards.