Acceler8

Posted on by
1

I have been far too busy to blog in the last month, but I thought I would add a quick report on Acceler8, the newfrontiers regional Bible weekend I attended last weekend with my family.

It was the first event of its kind, so I was half expecting it to be something of a disorganized shambles, but I have to say I was highly impressed with how smoothly the whole thing ran. Credit to Luke Wood and the others on the event team.

Here are my highlights…

  • Excellent Bible teaching from Terry Virgo. I have heard him speak on no less than four holidays this year, and he hasn’t repeated a sermon once!
  • Great times of worship led by three bands who all did a superb job
  • Seeing God at work in our children’s lives, particularly Ben who made a commitment to become a Christian during the week, and has developed a real passion for prayer and worship.
  • With four small children, we really appreciated the relaxed schedule without having to rush between meetings all the time.
  • The chill out tent and afternoon activities were well thought out. The penny sweet table was a big hit with our children too!

And of course, no camping trip is complete without a few low points…

  • Freezing cold Friday night
  • Flooded tent Saturday night
  • The 10 minute walk from our tent to the toilets
  • Crashing out the 5-aside football in the first round
  • Sitting in traffic jams at Lyndhurst

I’m glad to hear that the event will be running again next year. I wouldn’t mind if they made it a day longer, to squeeze in a seminar or two (but keeping the relatively sparse schedule).

Book Review – Epistemology (W. Jay Wood)

Posted on by
1

This book is part of the "Contours of Christian Philosophy" series from IVP, and offers an introduction to Epistemology, from a Christian viewpoint. This volume is subtitled, "Becoming Intellectually Virtuous".

Wood argues that the "intellectual virtues" (e.g. wisdom, understanding, foresight, love of truth) are foundational to our pursuit of the truth. The ancient philosophers made a link between intellectual life and character, and the Bible repeatedly praises various intellectual virtues.

"Epistemology, then, is not (or ought not to be) concerned merely with the piecemeal appraisal of individual beliefs but with what kinds of persons we are becoming: whether we are intellectually humble rather than arrogant, studious rather than merely idly curious, insightful rather than dull, wise and not fools."

He then devotes several chapters to exploring different intellectual virtues (and their corresponding vices). There are virtues that motivate us to find truth, virtues that help us to maintain and defend our beliefs, virtues that enable us to communicate our beliefs, and virtues that enable us to apply our beliefs. A person of integrity is both morally and intellectually virtuous, and uses their intellect to promote human flourishing. As well as virtues to cultivate, there are intellectual vices to avoid. For example, obtuseness, gullibility, superstitiousness, close-mindedness, willful naiveté, and superstition.

Knowledge, like wealth, cannot be sought at any cost, but is subject to moral restraints.

There are very helpful sections on intellectual honesty and dishonesty, wisdom and prudence. Prudence is about practical wisdom – a prudent person learns about their strengths and weaknesses, and knows what actions to take to achieve a morally good end.

The philosophically isolated and aseptic manner in which many contemporary epistemological issues are discussed gives them all the lure of a good puzzle, with rewards commensurate to those that come from successfully tackling a tough brain-teaser. But seeing epistemological issues, and the academic life in general, as contributing factors to a well-lived virtuous life imbues them with much greater significance.

The next section of the book covers some of the more standard topics for an epistemology textbook. There is a chapter on foundationalism, where he critiques strong foundationalism – which ultimately ignores the problem of sin.

A chapter on epistemic justification sees him discuss and critique evidentialism and coherentism, before moving on to reliabilism. On the whole, I found these sections a little heavy going as a reader without much knowledge of philosophy, but the author does use plenty of example scenarios that help to ground some of the abstract language that is inevitably used in these sort of discussions.

It is at this point that the intellectual virtues are brought back into the picture, and the subject of religious belief is examined. How can we be justified in holding religious beliefs? He interacts with Plantinga and claims that internalist (evidentialism, coherentist) models of epistemic justification have problems when dealing with religious beliefs.

The book then closes with a very interesting look at the role of emotions in proper cognitive function. It is not enough to be simply intellectually capable, we must have right emotions and morals in order to think correctly. Though emotions can negatively affect reasoning, the lack of appropriate passions can do the same.

Whether or not this is the best book for explaining all the current epsitemological theories out there I do not know, but for me, the primary benefit of this book is to show the importance of the intellectual virtues, and demonstrate how interconnected with epistemic justification they really are. It is not enough for us to be impassive, correctly functioning thinking machines (i.e. computers), in fact, due to our fallen nature, we can never operate that way anyway. Rather, we are to seek wisdom, prudence, integrity that we may not only know the truth, but live it and communicate it.

Some Links

Posted on by
Reply

I haven’t had much time for blogging of late, so here are a few links you might be interested in…

Newfrontiers Guest Speakers

Posted on by

One of the things I love about the newfrontiers annual conference is Terry Virgo’s willingness to invite speakers from outside the movement to address us. While they share many of our core values, they typically bring their own distinctives that complement and even challenge those within our movement. In the last few years, we have had Mark Driscoll, Wayne Grudem, Rob Rufus, and CJ Mahaney amongst others.

So I was encouraged to hear that Terry Virgo is taking steps to get Tim Keller along next year (although sadly not for the Brighton conference). I have a lot of respect for Tim Keller after hearing and reading a lot of his material on the gospel and mission.

It got me thinking about who else I would like to see invited to a newfrontiers conference, either as a main speaker, or to do some training track seminars. Here’s a few of my ideas, along with a suggestion for a subject they could preach on…

Sam Storms – reformed doctrine and charismatic experience

Christopher Wright – Old Testament hermeneutics

Simon Ponsonby – loving God

Mike Reeves – church history

Tim Chester – church and the poor

Ravi Zaccharias – apologetics

How about the other newfrontiers bloggers? Who would you invite…

Book Review – Delighting in the Trinity (Tim Chester)

Posted on by
5

After thoroughly enjoying reading “Total Church“, I decided to get another book from the same author, and the subject of the Trinity was one that I felt I needed a better grasp of. In it Tim Chester seeks to explain the doctrine of the Trinity and show why it is such good news.

He starts off by noting that this has been something of a neglected doctrine, perhaps in part because it can be difficult to explain. However, though it may be a mystery, it is not an absurdity – God is not three in the same sense in which he is one.

The book is broken up into three sections (nice!). The first section deals with the Biblical foundations for the doctrine of the Trinity. He starts with the unity of God, and the Shema, before moving on to consider some Scriptures that speak of the plurality of God, in particular demonstrating the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Finally, he shows how the oneness and plurality of God come together at the cross, and help us make sense of the atonement.

The next section deals with historical developments, starting with the early church, and moving right through to modern times. This is where things can get a little technical, but Chester does an admirable job of making it as straightforward as possible. There is a good explanation of the different emphases of the eastern and western churches, and Calvin is presented as providing a synthesis of these approaches. In more recent times, Chester highlights the contributions of Barth, Rahner, Moltmann, and Zizioulas, amongst others.

The final section applies the doctrine of the Trinity to the areas of revelation, salvation, humanity and mission. He draws on Barth to show that revelation is trinitarian – the Spirit enables us to see in the Son the revelation of the Father. In an excellent chapter on salvation, he explains a variety of theories of the atonement (substitution, moral influence, dramatic), and affirms that all have their place in a multi-faceted view of the atonement. However, he argues that the penal substitution model is primary because it is truly Trinitarian – because it presents salvation not as a transaction between God and humanity, or between God and Satan, but a transaction within God himself.)

The chapter on the Trinity and humanity is also helpful. He draws on a societal model of the Trinity, to show that it is in the Trinity that we see the diversity in unity that should characterise human society. This vision of humanity stands in stark contrast to modern day individualism, and the pressures towards homogeneity. Our identity as human persons, is found not in our independence, but in our relationships, just as the members of the Godhead are persons in relationship.

The final chapter on mission draws out some of the differences between the Christian understanding of the Triune God, and the Muslim understanding of God. The Christian community is called to be a demonstration of the nature of the Triune God.

I feel I have benefited hugely from reading this book, as it has clarified my understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, and also helped me to see how it relates to so many aspects of Christian doctrine and practice.

Update: This book is now available in second edition from the Good Book Company.

Book Review – The Message of Jonah (Rosemary Nixon)

Posted on by
1


This is one of the most recent additions to the Bible Speaks Today series. It immediately stands out for its size. 220 pages for just four chapters of Jonah, which is significantly longer than Kidner’s contribution on the 52 chapters of Jeremiah. It averages out at just over four pages per verse.

There are effectively two introductions to the book. The first is a general introduction, and the second examines the literary genre of Jonah. Nixon starts by examining the history of interpretation of Jonah. She compares and contrasts the book with the other Old Testament prophets, and also contrasts Jonah himself with Jesus. Under literary genre she points out that chapter two is almost entirely poetic, and argues that we do not necessarily have to take the whole account as historical – it may be some sort of parable. Having said this, she appears to hold that Jonah was a real person, who really went and preached to Ninevah, and presumably really boarded a ship to Tarshish, so I was left a little unclear as to how exactly she combines a historical / parabolic interpretation.

One of the main reasons for the length of the commentary is that Nixon will regularly take a word or theme found in the text and explore where else it is used in Scripture. Thus there is actually commentary on much more than the text of Jonah in here. For example, there is a discussion on Cain in the land of Nod, as well as word studies on “swallowed”, “walk” and “message”.

Jonah’s problem was that cooperating with God in the salvation of his enemies was anathema to him. To go to Ninevah, the evil city, was for Jonah, to go to hell. Jonah is an image of resistance to God.

On chapter 2, Nixon points out a chiastic structure to the Psalm. Though Jonah had been ‘saved’ by the fish, in its belly he was hardly better than dead. Similarly, the people of Israel at this time had been ‘saved’ by forming an alliance with Assyria. Thus Jonah becomes a parable of Israel running from God towards their death. After being vomited up, Jonah has been delivered, but not transformed.

In chapter 3, Nixon sees another chiasm, and points out that God does not negotiate mutually agreeable callings with us. His call is ‘unreasonable’. In the fourth chapter, we slowly come to see Jonah’s real problem – he thought God was weak on sin and justice. He appears as a legalist reacting against the salvation by grace alone that God had offered to the Ninevites.

The commentary closes with an appendix considering the theme of repentance. The repentance of Ninevah was effectively a judgement on the lack of repentance in Israel. Nixon concludes by examining Paul’s anguish over the unbelief of Israel in Rom 9-11.

Despite being initially put off by what appeared to be a long-winded volume by BST standards, I thoroughly enjoyed working through this book. The slower pace allows a lot of interesting themes and angles to be pondered and explored. She even cites a few poems in between chapters. The end result is a commentary that not only sheds light on the book of Jonah but develops several key biblical themes, especially God’s indiscriminate grace. There were one or two places where I wondered whether she was hinting at a universalist position, but it was no more than a hint.

Overall I would say that if you have the time to read it, this will be a very profitable read, and will be especially useful for preachers looking for fresh ways to present one of the most well-known stories in the Bible.

Together on a Mission 2008

Posted on by
Reply

I had the privilege yesterday of attending the newfrontiers Together on a Mission 2008 conference as a day visitor. Sadly I couldn’t attend the whole week, but it was great to get a taste of what has been going on this week in Brighton.

First up was a talk on “The Messiah of God” by Andrew Wilson. This addressed the way in which Matthew makes use of the Old Testament, which can pose a problem for some evangelicals as his exegesis appears to be somewhat unconventional. Andrew’s approach was to highlight the theme of Jesus as the “true Israel” and demonstrate how Matthew deliberately draws our attentions to parallels between the story of Israel and that of Jesus. He seemed to be drawing in a number of places from N T Wright’s excellent “Jesus and the Victory of God” and also recommended Tim Keller’s sermons as exemplary demonstrations of how to preach Christ from the Old Testament. It was an excellent seminar, and it is encouraging to see someone so theologically astute emerging from within newfrontiers. Andrew has already published two excellent books (Incomparable, Deluded by Dawkins), and I was pleased to hear that another is imminent. You can listen to some of his sermons at the King’s Church Eastbourne website.

Second was a talk by P-J Smyth on The Army of God. I felt this was the best sermon I have heard from him. Adrian Warnock has written some detailed notes. For me the highlights were his emphasis on the importance of respecting people’s consciences and the end section where he used a cricketing analogy to show how a leader defends, steadily advances, and breaks new ground. He also made some interesting points about church structure. Just as some people didn’t quite fit into David’s “thirty” or “three” mighty men, so there may be people in our churches who don’t quite fit neatly into our leadership categories yet still need to be utilised in their gifting.

Third was Mark Driscoll, speaking about Movements. Again, Adrian Warnock has blogged his sermon notes. I had been looking forward to hearing Mark and he didn’t disappoint, although I don’t think anyone was quite expecting what we got. He addressed some pertinent issues of how newfrontiers must adapt if it is to survive beyond its first and second generation and avoid becoming an institution. He very gently put his finger on an area in which he felt we were at risk. Will we be able to survive the transition when Terry Virgo hands over to the next generation? I personally feel that Vineyard has struggled with its self-identity as a movement since John Wimber’s death, and it was interesting to hear Mark Driscoll cite them as an example of a movement that has lost its way (although his reasoning is different – no prizes for guessing where he lays the blame!) At the end of the sermon, Mark was given a standing ovation. There was a real sense that his message had come as a timely prophetic word to us. The gentle spirit in which it was brought also blew away a lot of people’s stereotyped impression that Mark is always a headstrong outspoken bull in a china shop kind of preacher.

Finally, in the evening it was prayer meeting night led by Dave Holden. Evan Rogers was there leading us in the now traditional South African singing and dancing. Apparently he is moving to Dubai, so we expect next year to be singing in Arabic and doing some middle eastern dancing. It was great to hear news of the church planting that is going on, as well as pray into Mark Driscoll’s challenge to our movement to plant faster! Terry Virgo preached a short message encouraging us to emulate the lavish generosity of Mary as she anointed Jesus’ feet in John 12. Then followed the offering, but sadly we had to head home before the celebration got fully underway.

I am delighted that newfrontiers are continuing their policy of allowing free sermon downloads this year. They have already got a good number of sermons from the conference up and ready to download. This is a great way of ensuring that those who could not make it to the conference get to benefit from some of the excellent teaching we have enjoyed.

Am I Sexist?

Posted on by
5

There has been a lot of news coverage recently of the debate within the Church of England concerning whether women should be bishops or not. Naturally much of the commentary expresses contempt for those whose ‘traditionalism’ causes them to oppose female bishops. This view is considered to be outrageously sexist, and some would even like laws to be changed to make this kind of ‘discrimination’ illegal.

Leave aside for the moment the fact that I am not even sure that there should be male bishops in the church, I have to admit that my reading of Scripture leads me to side with the "complementarian" position. This position does not seek to deny "equality" between the sexes. On the contrary, it positively affirms that men and women are…

  • equally bearers of the image of God
  • equal in value or worth
  • equal in dignity
  • equal in moral responsibility
  • equal in salvation (the same "way in" for all)
  • equal as recipients of the gift of the Spirit
  • (and I would add as a charismatic) equal as recipients of the gifts of the Spirit

However, complementarians also believe that there are differences between male and female, and that these differences are good. They come from God’s creative intention. Rather than competing with one another, men and women actually complement one another. One of the ways that complementarians see these differences outworking is in leadership of the local church, specifically the eldership. They believe the New Testament teaches that men are to be called as elders in the church, to serve by exercising authority and taking responsibility for the care and spiritual well-being of those in the congregation.

Now no matter how carefully you nuance this view, and explain that Christian leadership is about serving, not controlling or bossing people, it will still be dismissed as sexist. It would be awkward to say the least for me to explain this point of view to those I work with.

The irony of it is, that despite my ‘sexist’ views, I have found myself squirming in my seat at work recently listening to the discussions of my male colleagues. In their view on the world, a woman’s worth seems to be measured almost entirely on how ‘fit’ she is. Women are treated as though they exist simply for men’s viewing pleasure. In the ‘lad’ culture that prevails, it is apparently fine to come out with comments like "smack my bitch up" when talking about your girlfriend. Because of course, if you were to call them to order, they can simply claim that they didn’t mean you to take them seriously, and tell you to ‘lighten up’ a bit.

It has left me wondering how we have got into this state, where evangelical Christians are seen as the ones who are anti-women, while those whose attitudes seem most demeaning towards women are left unchallenged. I wonder whether I should speak up and call people to order for the way they speak about women. What would I say? Would I be perceived as a total hypocrite given my own ‘sexist’ views? Is this an issue on which actions would speak louder than words? I would be interested to hear anyone’s thoughts on this one.

Book Review – The Message of Galatians (John Stott)

Posted on by
4

This is one of the first volumes in the Bible Speaks Today series, and was originally published 40 years ago in 1968. Unlike later volumes in the series, there is no introduction. Stott dives right in and begins his exposition of the text. Naturally, he covers the issues like authorship, dating, recipients, and themes along the way, but not in so much detail as a typical commentary might.

Paul is writing, he argues, to the churches in South Galatia to defend his apostleship and his gospel, both of which have come under attack from false teachers. Stott often points out that Paul still has many modern day opponents who deny his authority and reject his gospel message.

Each chapter of Galatians is dealt with in three or four chapters in the commentary. Stott sees Galatians as more or less falling into three main parts which roughly correspond to two chapters each. The first (Gal 1,2) deals with a question of authority. Paul defends his authority based on his apostleship. Those who are familiar with Stott’s writings will know how keen he is to emphasise the uniqueness of the 12 apostles, and his denial of any kind of apostolic succession or modern day apostles, both of which he would view as challenging the apostolic authority of Scripture.

The second section (Gal 3,4) deals with a question of salvation. The gospel is presented as salvation through the death of Jesus Christ, and is received by faith alone. He sees the false teachers as proponents of salvation through keeping the law as a necessary ‘supplement’ to what Christ has done. He shows how the law of Moses ("thou shalt…") is contrasted to God’s promises to Abraham ("I will…"), and therefore the gospel is analogous to the promise, not the law. He regularly quotes Luther in this section.

The significance of the law is to show us our need of the gospel. Stott argues that this step cannot be bypassed – we must let the law show us our sin, before we can understand what the gospel is. Come to Moses first, and let Moses lead us to Christ.

The third section (Gal 5,6) deals with a question of holiness. Up until now, Paul’s message of Christian liberty may lead some to assume that anything goes in terms of behaviour. But liberty does not mean license. Stott argues that Christian freedom is primarily a freedom of conscience – we are not guilty before God. But freedom from law does not mean freedom from keeping the law – our sanctification involves us fulfilling the law, which Paul says is summed up in the command to love your neighbour (Gal 5:14). Similarly, we are called to fulfil the law of Christ (Gal 6:2).

Stott argues that the Christian has a conflict between what he is by nature (the flesh) and what he is by rebirth. In both Gal 5 and Rom 7 Paul presents walking by the Spirit as the solution to this conflict. We have nailed our flesh to the cross, but we need to keep it there until it dies. He describes holiness as a harvest. Paul speaks in Gal 6:8 about whether we sow to the flesh or to the Spirit. Holiness then is not automatic, but depends on where and how we sow.

Although the book has no introduction, a summary section at the end reiterates the main themes of the book and its key points for application. There is also a study guide at the end.

As with John Stott’s other contributions to the Bible Speaks Today series, this volume comes highly recommended. Due to its age, he does not address the question of the "New Perspective on Paul" (in particular, were the false teachers really teaching salvation by works?), and perhaps his approach to the issue of modern day apostles would be tempered by some of the clarifications that have been made by groups such as newfrontiers (that modern day apostles are not seen as having an authority equivalent to the 12, who were unique in that sense). I also felt that he could have explored more what it means to walk in the Spirit. Stott makes several comments throughout the book to state that the church are the inheritors of the Old Testament promises, and are in full continuity with the Old Testament believers, which is another key theme found in Galatians.

The strength of this commentary is an uncompromising proclamation of the message of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Having laid this foundation, Stott then goes on to show how exhortation to holiness is not in conflict with this message. It will prove a valuable resource for anyone wanting to study or teach through the book of Galatians.

Healing Criteria

Posted on by
3

Unashamed Workman posted some interesting thoughts on criteria for determining whether a healing is "authentic". He cites two lists of criteria. The first is from the noted skeptic James Randi:

James Randi’s Criteria

1. The disease must not be normally self-terminating.

2. The recovery must be complete.

3. The recovery must take place in the absence of any medical treatment that might normally be expected to affect the disease.

4. There must be adequate medical opinion that the disease was present before the application of whatever means were used to bring about the miracle.

5. There must be adequate medical opinion that the disease is not present after the application of whatever means were used to bring about the miracle.

These criteria are actually more related to the report of the healing than the healing itself. For example, a person may genuinely be healed by God without any medical professionals present to make points 4 and 5 possible. And God is of course completely free to heal someone without points 1 and 3 being met.

So while these points are not sufficient to determine whether an authentic healing has taken place, they are useful to consider when reporting a healing (in particular I mean reporting a healing outside of the circle of those people who know the person involved). Integrity is important, and to declare that a miraculous healing has taken place when several of the above criteria are not met can actually result in cynicism from those who hear rather than the desired effect of raising their faith.

Professor of Theology Richard Mayhue boldly declares that the Bible goes further and offers his own set of much stricter criteria:

Richard Mayhue’s Criteria

1. The healing must be instantaneous.

2. The healing must be of a disease that neither the medical community nor the human body can heal, such as AIDS – either instantly or absolutely.

3. The healing must be total.

4. The healing must be completely convincing, even to skeptics.

5. The healing must be done in public with no elaborate services involved.

6. The healing must be of an organic disease.

I have to say I have no idea where he gets most of these from. Point 1 is true as a general rule in the Bible, but there are exceptions. As for point 2, again I cannot see why God cannot heal a disease that does not meat this criteria. Point 3 I broadly agree with but noting the obvious caveat that all people healed in the Bible went on to die (and presumably were not immune from sickness the rest of their lives).

As for point 4, this simply is not possible. Has he underestimated the power of unbelief? We need look no further than the example of Jesus’ resurrection to see that some people will ignore the evidence if it does not suit what they want to believe. Point 5 is another tenuous one. Not all healings in the Bible were performed in public, and while there may not have been "elaborate services", a number of them involved unconventional methods. And point 6 is also perplexing. Is healing of a mental problem (e.g. depression, eating disorders) not "real" enough?

So I think Mayhue sets the bar too high to consider something an "authentic healing". And yet I do have some sympathy for his position, as it seems to me far too common for Christians to make exaggerated and even downright false claims about healing these days. Let us be full of faith in the God who heals, full of compassion for those who are sick, and full of integrity in the claims we make about healing.