http://www.llysygroes.com/index.htmlChristian comment and newsenghd200@gmail.com© Graham Hind 20082008-11-13T08:58:20+02:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:45:43 +0200ghd200@gmail.comThinking Thoughts2008-11-13T08:58:20+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/b53c2eda6764288a31205cc90d4e067b-15.html#unique-entry-id-15http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/b53c2eda6764288a31205cc90d4e067b-15.html#unique-entry-id-15I knew, of course, that I had not posted anything here for a while, but I was surprised to see that it was three months! To some extent that is a reflection of the turmoil I went through during the latter part of the visit to the UK and the continuance of that into the early days of the return to Zambia. Looking back now I see the goodness of the Lord in all that happened, but it did not feel that way at the time! The weakness is in me, inevitably, and certainly not in the ways and righteousness of the Lord in his dealings with me. You may be thinking I should be ashamed of myself, and you would be right - and I am. But not terminally ashamed. I recognise my weakness for what it is, the sinful nature that wars against the work of God in me but that cannot win the war. With Paul I cry out “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:24-25 ESV). That is not an excuse for sin! It is a cry from the heart of someone who endured the battle that life is, who knew the pain of getting it wrong, and who knew the relief that comes from confession, repentance and resting on the Lord Jesus Christ. But it is also the cry of victory, not of Paul’s triumph, but of the triumph of the Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary, affirmed in the resurrection.
For my self I had all but despaired when the Lord very graciously and mercifully spoke to me through the word preached and read. At first I could hardly believe that the Lord was revealing himself to me, but so clear and insistent was the word that I could not miss it. Again, that was the grace of God. Calvin speaks of the Lord’s Supper as being the Lord coming to our level, addressing us like a parent speaking to little children to make his way plain. I can say that the Lord graciously stooped to speak to me and I am still amazed. I want to stress that I am not speaking of some ‘prophetic word’ or ‘little voice in my mind’ but simply the mercy of God through the ordinary ways and means of the church.
One result of all this has been a renewed delight in the Scripture. I have read through the Bible systematically this year as for many years (following a plan to read the Old Testament once and the New Testament and Psalms twice over the year). Right now I am in Psalm 119, a psalm I love but have found fresh joy in. In reading it this time the way David (I join with Spurgeon and Matthew Henry and many others in believing it is from David’s pen) delights in God’s Word has thrilled and delighted me in turn. It has always been my practice to recommend Matthew Henry’s commentary and I still use it myself. I have been reading his comments each day on the section of the Psalm I am reading. They are rich and devotional and lead my thoughts in the ways of the Lord.
I would not for a moment recommend my failures to you, but I do want to recommend what treasure I have. Why not read a section of Psalm 119 every day? The Psalm is structured in sections of eight verses, and will take just twenty-two days to read in this way. Pray, read the Psalm, then read Matthew Henry. And may the Lord give you joy in it as he has to me.
]]>ghd200@gmail.comThinking ThoughtsThe UKWales2008-08-18T12:35:10+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/d4c6b02752e97d89988cef74e5e495ba-14.html#unique-entry-id-14http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/d4c6b02752e97d89988cef74e5e495ba-14.html#unique-entry-id-14
It was a ‘three-pointer’ sermon and the title of the second point is the title of this post. In Judges 11 Jepthah - an outcast from his own family because his mother was a prostitute and the natural sons did not want him to share the inheritance - is recalled to lead Israel against the Ammonites. Having agreed to do so and having made his promises before the Lord Jepthah makes contact with the Ammonite king:

Then Jephthah sent messengers to the king of the Ammonites and said, “What do you have against me, that you have come to me to fight against my land?” And the king of the Ammonites answered the messengers of Jephthah, “Because Israel on coming up from Egypt took away my land, from the Arnon to the Jabbok and to the Jordan; now therefore restore it peaceably.” [Judges 11:12-13 ESV].

As the preacher pointed out, the Ammonite version of history was not true. It was an attempt to rewrite the history of the people of God, to make a false claim for land that had never been theirs. Rewriting the story of the church is a favourite occupation of the world, which would like to not only rewrite the story but also, if it could, write the Lord and his people completely out of the story for all time. Jepthah rightly challenged the Ammonites with the truth and at the same time made it plain he was willing to stand in battle for the truth. The Ammonites had had three hundred years to make their claims; previous greater kings had made no such attempt to dislodge Israel. Jepthah determined that the truth could not be allowed to vanish, whatever the cost.

Walking my parents dog this morning up on to the Berwyn mountains above Llandrillo I reflected on what had been preached in the light of the history of Wales. In this area the twenty-first century seems to slip away. The hills seem as they must always have, there are sheep, very few homes, mainly just farms which have perhaps worked the same land for many years. There is a quietness about the land: one cannot hear the roar of any motorway or noise of industry. It is a beautiful land, even during a wet August. Many people love this land, and the Welsh are justifiably proud of it and jealous of the influences which might shape it. This is an area where the Welsh language retains its influence and where there is a strong movement to retain Welsh culture. All of that would have my support, but the truth must not vanish.

‘What truth?’ would be a good question in our post-modern age. Truth is what you make it, history can be rewritten. The Ammonites would have had a fine time with ‘truth’ in our time! The modern Ammonites have surveyed Wales, and the story they have written is one that contains a great deal of truth. It is a story of a western Celtic stronghold on an island where for the most part other influences came in and drove out the Celtic language and traditions. Wales is different, it is not England and it should never have been treated as a kind of appendage to England. But the modern Ammonites do not want to stop there. In their rewriting of the story, there is an enemy that comes in and undermines the real Celtic culture, takes away the ancient beliefs and imposes a kind of captivity, which the modern Ammonites now see is losing (or has lost) its grip. Time, they say, for the real Wales to return, the Wales of the bards and the druids and the ways that are in harmony with the earth and the land. The enemy is the Christian faith, a faith imposed on the real Wales for far too long.

Ammonites certainly don’t change, even though the period of the Judges and Jepthah was some three thousand, three hundred years ago. The Ammonites of Jepthah’s day and the Ammonites of the twenty-first century would recognise one another, at least by their shared tendency to rewrite history so that the people of God have no real part. Sadly for the Ammonites, there is such a thing as objective truth. Objectively, Wales was one of the earliest parts of the British Isles to come under Christian influence. Almost certainly the limited Roman contact brought with it some news of the message of the Lord Jesus Christ, but certainly other Celts, most likely from Ireland, made sure that Wales heard the gospel. In common with the rest of Britain a foreign faith was eventually imposed, a corruption of truth called Romanism. Still, truth never really died out and the Reformation reached Wales as surely as it reached the rest of Britain.

There was more, much more, and something the Ammonites certainly do not want to be reminded of. The light of the Reformation was not so strong in Wales, and imposed episcopal Christianity from England did not bring great benefit. For a long time the people of Wales found little in the churches, the Bible was a dark book and the ministers who themselves knew little of the Lord Jesus Christ offered no help. God had not forgotten Wales, however. Great men of Wales were raised up. George Whitefield from England came and offered his help. The light began to shine from the pages of the Book. The work of the Holy Spirit became known in the land, and the faithful men God raised up preached a saving message that saw thousands swept into the kingdom of God. They did not lose their Welshness; indeed many hymns were written in the language. It has been said that from the early part of the eighteenth century through to the end of the nineteenth century there was scarcely a day when there was not a revival somewhere in the land. On Sunday’s the people flocked to hear the message not just once or even twice, but often three times. There were communion seasons, when thousands would gather to hear four or five preachers. Daniel Rowland once watched the crowds coming over the hill sides to Llangeitho, and said that ‘here they come, bringing heaven with them.’ In those days the hills were quiet as they are now, and yet alive with something that we have lost. But it was real, it affected tens of thousands, it was a great work of God and it was a special time for Wales. The Ammonites lie when they forget it, deny it or distort it. The people of God, like Jephthah, must be valiant for truth even when that truth is in the past.

And what the Ammonites never imagine, never think of, is also true: the Lord who came before in this way can come again. And one day, he will come again in glory. On that day, the Ammonites will bow before the Lord of truth and they wil know that never again can they rewrite the story.]]>ghd200@gmail.comThe UK2008-08-09T00:00:04+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/6bfc095cd0b2f24a98e30fa3d41d97c3-13.html#unique-entry-id-13http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/6bfc095cd0b2f24a98e30fa3d41d97c3-13.html#unique-entry-id-13
The time ahead is going to be busy. There are already some important appointments to be met over the coming days. There is the pleasure of seeing friends, albeit all too briefly. There are things to do for Amano - I have orders to place for computer equipment and also the need to make sure all the delivery schedules are able to be met.

Then there are special cases, including John and Joyce Blanchard who are suffering so much but standing in the Lord, and my own parents who are greatly loved but not yet the Lord’s.

Your prayers will be appreciated.]]>ghd200@gmail.comThinking Thoughts2008-08-08T23:11:10+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/3025a972041c5a800a556a72898e65a0-12.html#unique-entry-id-12http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/3025a972041c5a800a556a72898e65a0-12.html#unique-entry-id-12
In all my affairs may I distinguish between duty and anxiety,
and may my character and not my circumstances chiefly engage me.

It is part of my personal weakness that anxiety often drives me, but I thought that the final part, that my character and not my circumstances should be at the centre was truly an important reminder. Circumstances can be (and are right now) very pressing! Lord, that my chief concern amidst the storm of circumstance and the pressure of dealing with it all, my be my character as your servant.

I have been made aware that the last post, 'Sunday: so what?,' might be somewhat controversial. I think I probably knew that, although it would be true that I have not been giving enough thought to how much the view of the Lord's Day has changed among conservative Christians. In any case, even sober reflection has not changed my mind! This morning I came to the end of Sinclair Ferguson's excellent book, 'In Christ Alone.' The close of the book includes a chapter called 'Sabbath Rest' in which Professor Ferguson gives a lovely and heart-warming exposition of the Hebrews 4 passage about the Sabbath. It is not an angle I would have thought of without reading it, but it is well worth reading by anyone who is concerned to understand why the Lord's Day matters. That it does matter is, I think, beyond question. It may be that it is far more important than any of us realise. I have certainly thought it 'a matter of opinion' in the past and as it is certainly not a salvation issue it has not been often central in my thinking. But I am increasingly of the opinion that the current willingness to abandon the sanctity of the Lord's Day says more about us than we would want. May the Lord Jesus Christ give me the grace not to allow this question to become more important than it is, but at the same time to have the zeal of Isaiah for the truth. I recommend a slow and prayerful reading of Isaiah 58, but here are the last two verses:


““If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.””
(Isaiah 58:13-14 ESV)]]>ghd200@gmail.comThinking Thoughts2008-08-04T07:45:07+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/21b68c42be115003e741eca1b14dae20-11.html#unique-entry-id-11http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/21b68c42be115003e741eca1b14dae20-11.html#unique-entry-id-11
There is a great deal of difference between working out our understanding of Scripture - our theology - in the study or the armchair, and in practice. One can imagine all kinds of scenarios and think through some of the issues related to them, but the acid test comes when we are faced with the practicalities: something is happening or not happening, holiness is not being seen amongst the people of God, the issues are pressing.

The question of Sunday, whether or not it is the Sabbath and how we should observe it, and what bearing this has on the question of worship, is one of those questions that has come to life for some of us. It has moved out of the study and in to the forefront in one sense, and yet it has done so when for many Christians the battle is over and the matter has settled. How has this come about?

Historically speaking it is a mystery, in the sense that the opinion of the mainstream Christian church for centuries has been that Sunday is in some sense the Christian Sabbath, that it is a day set aside for holiness, quite apart from the other days of the week. The great teachers of the past and the times of the greatness of the church concur on the issue: God has appointed a day on which he requires that his people spend their time in holiness and in worship. It is not that there is no difference in some respects between the various teachers on this matter. If we take Calvin, for example, we find that he is prepared to consider the question of whether Sunday need be the day on which we meet. In the ‘Institutes’ he says:

I do not cling so to the number seven as to bring the Church under bondage to it, nor do I condemn churches for holding their meetings on other solemn days, provided they guard against superstition. This they will do if they employ those days merely for the observance of discipline and regular order. [2.8.34]

Calvin might on the strength of this and similar comments be thought by some of as at an extreme in the matter, but we would be very unwise to rush to the conclusion that Calvin supported a modern view of the day set aside for the things of God:

Strange and monstrous are the longings of our pride. There is nothing which the Lord enjoins more strictly than the religious observance of his Sabbath, in other words resting from our works; but in nothing do we show greater reluctance than to renounce our own works, and give due place to the works of God. [2.3.9]

Religious meetings are enjoined us by the word of God; their necessity, experience itself sufficiently demonstrates. But unless these meetings are stated, and have fixed days allotted to them, how can they be held? We must, as the apostle expresses it, do all things decently and in orders (1Cor. 14:40). So impossible, however, would it be to preserve decency and order without this politic arrangements that the dissolution of it would instantly lead to the disturbance and ruin of the Church. But if the reason for which the Lord appointed a sabbath to the Jews is equally applicable to us, no man can assert that it is a matter with which we have nothing to do. [2.8.32]

The matter is clearer still in the thinking of Jonathan Edwards. His famous ‘resolutions’ include this:

38. Resolved, Never to utter any thing that is sportive, or matter of laughter, on a Lord’s day. Sabbath evening, Dec. 23, 1722.

There are many places where Edwards continues to work out that resolution in his teaching and practical living, that speak in a similar manner. Indeed, Edwards says in commenting on Isaiah 56:1-8:

Now here it is foretold, that in the days when “God’s salvation shall be come, and his righteousness revealed,” by the coming of the Messiah, this wall of separation should be broken down, this ceremonial law removed out of the way; (but still taking care to note, that the law of the Sabbath shall be continued, as not being one of those ceremonial observances which shall be abolished) . . . .

At this point we can move straight to the modern Sabbath controversy, because Edwards has touched on an issue that is immediately relevant. Recent thinking on this issue has moved us to the point where speaking of ‘the Sabbath’ and its requirements for the Christian is the most obvious of all faults. Even among the Reformed churches many would regard this as legalism, wrong thinking by its very nature. Here is a statement from a Reformed web site, made on 28th July 2008:

We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses’ law that prefigured Christ.

Note that this is a head on collision with the view that Edwards expresses. What Edwards says (and prior to him the Puritans in Scotland, England, America and Holland also said) is that the Sabbath commandment is not ceremonial; the modern statement is simply the exact opposite of that. It appears on the surface to be a ‘matter of opinion,’ but in reality it is much more. Here we are considering the very broad and important issue of how Christians, the people of the new covenant, relate to the laws given under the old covenant. The consistent teaching prior to our times is one that recognises a division in the law between ceremonial, moral and civil aspects of the Mosaic law. The one place where the line was held to be very clear was in the matter of the ten commandments; these were held to be entirely moral and furthermore to be the direct expression of both the character and will of God, since he himself wrote them and Moses was merely the deliverer. The ceremonial law (largely the sacrificial system and the matters of the priesthood and details of temple worship) was always seen as prophetic in that it pointed to the Lord Jesus Christ and therefore passing away. It is not too much to say that no-one (who claimed orthodox belief) dared say as much of the ten commandments. Now, that barrier has not only been broken down, it is absolutely destroyed in the minds of those who take the modern position. Edwards’ view of the Sabbath is not simply a minority view in our time, rather it is opposed as unacceptable on a number of counts.

It is not only by simple contradiction in saying that the fourth commandment was ceremonial that the modern case is made. Obviously with so many people saying so much on the issue it is difficult to produce one statement to which all would assent, but the following points are commonly made:

All days should be held to be holy by the Christian.

Worship is not a one day activity but something that should characterise all the Christian does.

The Sabbath was ceremonial and pointed to Christ, and with his coming it is therefore abolished.

Any day would be a suitable day for Christians to meet, Sunday happens to be traditionally convenient for many but has no special requirement of itself.

The New Testament does not reiterate the Sabbath commandment: this proves that the Sabbath is not for Christians.

One interesting issue that immediately arises is that the first two points are almost unarguable. Who is going to stand up and say that all days should not be held to be holy in that our lives are to be lived coram deo, before the face of God? Who will deny what the New Testament clearly teaches, that everything is to be received with thankfulness and every work done with the same remembrance that we are always in the Lord’s presence? The Scripture proofs seem to be almost superfluous and the battle over before it has begun!

Well, not quite. Supporters of the modern view are very quick to claim Calvin as on their side (the Reformed web site I quoted above does so) and it is certainly true that the great Reformer seems to be saying something similar in that he can be shown not to be Sabbatarian and to be quite flexible on the issue of what day is appropriate for the church to meet. He does not refer to ‘the Sabbath’ anything like as freely as Edwards does and he certainly does explore the possibility that other days could be used for services of the church. Note, however, the two quotations above from Calvin and in particular these points:

There is nothing which the Lord enjoins more strictly than the religious observance of his Sabbath, in other words resting from our works . . . .if the reason for which the Lord appointed a sabbath to the Jews is equally applicable to us, no man can assert that it is a matter with which we have nothing to do.

Let me clarify what we are seeing here. To repeat, Calvin certainly is not a ‘Sabbatarian’ and it would be interesting to hear a debate between him and Edwards, but at the same time Calvin is very far from the current popular understanding of the Sabbath. He takes the ‘day of rest’ principle, in terms of resting from our own works, extremely seriously, and he is also very concerned that the Sabbath should not be simply abandoned but rather that its meaning and the intention of the Lord in giving it should be transferred to our time. Because Calvin is a wise pastor, he knows our tendency to ‘be given an inch and take a mile,’ so his teaching on this issue as with so many other things is peppered with warnings against allowing what we think of as Christian liberty to become mere licence.

This is where Calvin is most certainly not in line with the modern teaching. One must sadly say that the result of the modern teaching shows where it originates. It would be wonderful if we had produced a generation - or at least a large body - of Christians who lived every day as if it were before the Lord; of whom it might be said that their day by day lives were so much in worship that one could not really determine in quality the difference between their working and family lives, and the day on which they met to worship. Indeed, it would be marvellous if there were any such signs anywhere of the beginning of such an age, but the truth is that we are not only not quite there but we are further away from it than ever our forefathers were in their supposed Sabbatarian ignorance. The ‘de-emphasising’ of Sunday has simply led us to a day on which we grant that it is good to meet together for worship as the people of God (although we have accordingly devalued even that, since we believe the ‘important issue’ is our daily lives of worship), but we also feel quite free to do whatever pleases us. Elders of churches feel no shame in spending a substantial portion of Sunday watching sport on television or doing whatever else they feel fits in with their ‘day of rest;’ not surprisingly, the majority of the people of God draw no line more strictly than their leaders. Even on the mission field attendance at one short morning service is enough and the rest of the day is free for whatever one feels one wants to do. It is, after all, ‘a day off.’

It is not ‘reading in’ to Calvin to realise that such a situation would have been wholly unacceptable to him and to say that he would have been horrified both by those who claim to be his heirs in terms of theology and perhaps even more so by those who claim Calvin himself as their authority. In any case Calvin is not the standard by which this issue is to be considered and he would not have wanted to be. It is to Scripture we must go, and Scripture must settle the matter. Consider a further statement form the Reformed web site mentioned above:

The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:7-13), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.

Now if it were true that the Sabbath was a ‘sign of the Mosaic Covenant’ it would certainly be an important issue, and the old/new distinction introduced here also has weight. Scripture is referenced quite liberally, in these two sentences at least. Nobody (as far as this writer is aware) is wanting to sign up with the Judaizers who Paul opposes so vehemently in Galatians! The framers of this Reformed statement know that and so they go on to say:

In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath).

The matter looks settled, until one examines the statement more clearly. Notice first that Paul does not refer to the Sabbath as such in Galatians 4:10-11. It could be implied, of course, although we cannot be sure. Even the NET translation notes say of this text In light of the polemic in this letter against the Judaizers (those who tried to force observance of the Mosaic law on Gentile converts to Christianity) this may well be a reference to the observance of Jewish Sabbaths, feasts, and other religious days. The reference by the NET translators to Jewish Sabbaths is of importance; the Judaizers might have tried to re-impose the Mosaic Sabbath with all its attendant laws and traditions and if they did Paul would be opposed to that. But that is speculation, not fact as the statement suggests. Secondly, all the Scripture proofs cited to show that the Sabbath was a sign to Israel do not include the original statement of the ten commandments in Exodus 20. Why not? Well, the Sabbath commandment is cited in two ways in Scripture. The first reflects the institution of the Sabbath, which takes place at Creation when the Lord is said to rest on the seventh day. Exodus 20 does just that; in verse 8 the Sabbath commandment begins and runs through the requirement and prohibitions of the day to conclude in verse 11 where the reason for the commandment is made plain:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. [Exodus 20:8 ESV]

This is one reason why the Sabbath commandment is not questioned by our forefathers in the faith; its roots are clearly stated to lie in the act of creation and therefore in God himself. In Mark 2:27 this is further developed by the Lord Jesus Christ who reveals that the institution of the Sabbath is an act of grace: it is made for man, as part of the blessing of creation, and the Lord Jesus Christ (who, as the New Testament makes clear, is the active Creator) is Lord of it. It is true enough that the passage in Exodus 31 says of it the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever (v16). But verse 17 goes on to say It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. Unless the claim is that Christians are not a result of creation it seems to me the argument of the statement is somewhat weak. It is quite legitimate to recognise some things in the old covenant as limited to the old covenant people of God alone; it can hardly be right to do that when the Scripture uses something as universal as the truth of God’s special creation of the earth. There must be a more than local principal where the Lord uses such a universal canvas. The Ezekiel passage referenced seems to me equally weak in establishing that the Sabbath is uniquely for Israel. It says Moreover, I gave them my Sabbaths, as a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them. What is unique to Israel here? Is the intention to consider sanctification as something Christians have no interest in? Surely not! It would seem to be more in keeping with the intention of the framers of this statement if they had cited the Sabbath commandment from Deuteronomy 5:12ff where the reason for the Sabbath reflects the alternative to linking it to creation, representing the second way in which the Sabbath is cited:

You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. [Deuteronomy 5:17 ESV]

The problem is that the link to salvation history is no less strong than that of creation in terms of the demands it makes on our thinking on the relevance for Christians. Is the history of salvation not the record of the same grace of God by which we ourselves are saved? At least one might argue that the delivery from Egypt was in the limited historical sense peculiar to the people of Israel, even if the origin of the Sabbath commandment and its major citations are not!

One reason I am not linking to the web site I am quoting here is that I do not want to be thought to be attacking a specific writer or group of Christians. My use of the site here is because what they are saying is very much in the mainstream of current Christian thinking on the Sabbath question and it is useful to interact with what someone has actually said, rather than what I might imagine they could say. Nevertheless, I have to go so far as to say that the kind of argument used is both misleading in itself and in its use of Scripture. Here is a further statement from the same source, same context:

There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.

This is at least misleading in two ways. First, it is true there is no codified statement of the law of God at all prior to Moses. Note, however, that Cain is still guilty of murder, that Lamech in Genesis 4:23 is guilty of murder and is the first to take two wives, and that in spite of the absence of a codified law of which we are aware the people of Noah’s day are viewed as deserving ultimate punishment. We must be very careful in what we suggest in relation to this period because, if we are not careful, we shall find ourselves speaking ill of the Lord. Is it even remotely possible that the great judgements recorded of the Flood, the judgement at Babel, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, all fell on a people who had no revelation of the will of God? What then did Noah preach for 120 years? How did that holy man preach righteousness if there were no known standard by which to differentiate righteousness and unrighteousness? The truth is that Scripture prior to Exodus 20 is full of references that tell us that some aspects of the law as we know it were known and understood as the commands of God. Secondly, Moses refers to the Sabbath in Exodus 16 in connection with the gathering of the manna. Since it is the Lord who gives the ten commandments in Exodus 20 Moses must have prior knowledge from somewhere that the Sabbath is a fact. One can only assume that it was known to some extent at least along with other laws. Or if not, how then was the Sabbath made for man, if for centuries it was unknown?

It is a similar case with this statement:

Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle.

This is misleading because while the Scripture does pronounce judgement against the Gentile nations it never does so on the basis that they have not kept the laws of God that are specific to his people. By saying that the Gentiles are not commanded to keep the Sabbath the framers of the statement seek to rest their case that it cannot be an eternal moral principle, but it has never been the case that ‘the nations’ are expected to keep the laws of God. Scripture is quite specific that the conscience of man, coupled with an observation of the created order, is the limit of what men have without special revelation. The Sabbath cannot of itself be within the scope of conscience, although it can be argued that a realisation of God through conscience demands some regular worship. Be that as it may, the reasoning behind Christian conversion is that the person converted is ‘born again’ into the people of God, becoming part of a holy nation that makes very specific demands. This is the same principle that exists in the Old Testament, where people who were not born into Israel could nevertheless become part of Israel by being part of the people of God. The famous examples would be people like Rahab and Ruth who become part of the genealogy of the Lord Jesus Christ. These begin life as Gentiles but by their faith in the Lord become subject to the law of the God of Israel. More pointedly, the Lord speaks through Isaiah to say that the Sabbath is required of those who come to faith in the Lord:

And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant. [Isaiah 56:6 ESV]

It does not seem to me to be too difficult to read the negative into this, that those Gentiles who do not join themselves to the LORD etc., are condemned. The statement at this point overreaches itself and descends to being untrue.

There is one more statement from the same source that I will deal with:

The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. On the other hand, each of the other nine commandments are reiterated in the New Testament.

The other nine commandments are nowhere referenced as one coherent block of text, of course, which is what would be needed for the New Testament to make a statement that could be clearly seen to exclude the Sabbath; without that this verges on being an argument from silence, but we shall consider the specific issue. Again, there are two points that should be considered here. The first is that omission from the New Testament as a clear statement is no proof that the Sabbath has no relevance to Christians. The division between the Old Testament and the New is artificial in the sense that all of Scripture is shown (in the New Testament, and most emphatically by the Lord Jesus Christ himself) to be the Word of God. The point I am making is that the division between the old covenant and the new is not as simple as a couple of blank pages between Malachi and Matthew. One might take the issue of tithing, which is only mentioned in the New Testament in passing, albeit positively (Matthew 23:23 for example; note these you ought to have done refers to the tithe. Still, as the Lord is speaking there before the cross one could argue that this is still the old covenant). Tithing is not without controversy; there are those who say that Christians are not under obligation to tithe and that they are simply required to give as they are able. As far as I know, however, no-one is arguing that Christians should give less than a tenth as a principle. (It remains a fact that churches that teach tithe as a principle have consistently higher offerings than those that do not; presumably those who reject tithing are still wrestling with how generous they should be!). In my view the argument against tithing is self-defeating precisely because the only logical step is to say that one does not agree with the tithe because Christians should give more. Granted, but then why not retain the biblical example of the tithe as an illustration of what Christians should, as the minimum, do? In the same way, trying to localise the Sabbath in the old covenant has the same effect. Is the suggestion that Christians, with all the revelation of the grace and love of God clarified in Jesus Christ, can do without a day set aside solely for God? One of my concerns with the decriers of the Sabbath is that they and their followers seem to live lives that do consistently reflect less honour and glory given to God than the old covenant Sabbath. Secondly, the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ specifically claims for himself the title ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ ought to make Christians sit up and take notice. It is not good exegesis simply to say that the Lord spoke this way simply to abolish it. As we have seen, the Sabbath memorialises creation and therefore has its roots in the grace of God determined before the foundation of the world. What are we wanting to see abolished here?

All of this leads to the question, what are we then to make of the Sabbath? Whatever one makes of the totality of Calvin’s comments on the Sabbath, he is undoubtedly right in commenting that:

There is nothing which the Lord enjoins more strictly than the religious observance of his Sabbath, in other words resting from our works . . . .if the reason for which the Lord appointed a sabbath to the Jews is equally applicable to us, no man can assert that it is a matter with which we have nothing to do.

Calvin’s argument for Sunday could be reduced to the fact that it is the traditional and convenient day for the church to meet: that is what many of his modern readers would most identify with, and it is accurate but not a complete picture of what he says. We must concede however, that though he says strongly that without it the church would be in danger and insists upon a high degree of observation of the day accompanied by reverent and godly intent, he is not Sabbatarian in the sense that Jonathan Edwards is. Edwards refers consistently to ‘the Sabbath’ and takes it as normal that there is to be a degree of holiness attached to it that separates it from any other day. There is no evidence at all that Edwards contemplates any day other than Sunday. When he refers to the day other than by the term ‘Sabbath’ it is as the Lord’s Day; in his thinking it is as fixed as the seventh-day Sabbath was for the people of the old covenant. How shall we take a course that honours these two giants of the church? We can take first the points on which Calvin and Edwards would agree:

There should be a day set aside for the church to meet.

That day should be marked for believers by a willingness to attend the services that are set.

Outside the time spent gathered as the church, believers should keep the remaining time for godly pursuits: reading the Word of God or other spiritual material, meditation on the things of God, prayer etc.

It will require a conscious and determined effort on the part of the Christian to do all this.

It is to the glory of God and the blessing of his people that it should be so.

Perhaps that is enough. It may be that to go any further is to limit true Christian freedom, that Calvin is right in his caution on this matter. What is certain is that any less is not faithful to Scripture, nor is less than this faithful to the historic witness of the people of God, including Calvin. It should give us pause that all our talk of finding and promoting new covenant freedom is leading to manifestly low standards of godliness and holiness that our forefathers would not have tolerated. There is no stage in church history where the faithful people of God have taken it that the day the church sets aside for gathered worship should consist of just an hour or two of that worship, with the rest of the day given over to what pleases the individual. There is no stage in the history of the church, apart from our own, in which even legitimate worldly entertainment is an acceptable focus for the people of God on the Lord’s Day. The time should not be now, and may the time never be.

Finally, we might reflect that the position that Edwards took is the view of many godly men throughout the history of the church. There have almost always been debates on this issue and I am not suggesting that Edwards is right in all he says, but simply that he is representative of a large and important class of godly people throughout the history of the church. He does make his case well in Sermon 13 in Volume Two of his works, ‘The Perpetuity and change of the Sabbath.’ But perhaps John Owen would be a better representative: in Volume 18 of his works (in the section devoted to the book of Hebrews) he devotes almost two hundred and fifty pages to an examination of the Sabbath question, concluding in the end that the Sabbath is part of the moral law, that the observation of the seventh day as the Sabbath is alone tied to the old covenant, and that God has sovereignly and graciously located the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath. He argues that a ‘Pharasaical’ observation of the day is never warranted, but that the nature of it as a gift of God’s grace and the fact of it being a memorial of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ demand from us a holiness in the observance of it. It would be well if some of the modern detractors from this position would labour for a while in dealing with Owen’s investigation and perhaps then produce some statements of their position that do justice to Scripture and to the history of the church.]]>ghd200@gmail.comThinking Thoughts2008-07-23T14:25:30+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/b006419460045e19221882a1638cd41e-10.html#unique-entry-id-10http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/b006419460045e19221882a1638cd41e-10.html#unique-entry-id-10
Still, having said that, both at home in the UK and here in Zambia there are good men who know their doctrine who are not moving the hearts and minds of the people of God, unless one considers movement in the direction of sleep or disappointment to be desirable. Zambia is a several thousand miles from the UK geographically and in a different condition in several important respects (and in some of those respects, in a better condition!). But in the Reformed world at least there are several similarities that link Zambia and the UK; Reformed theology takes several variant forms and these transfer easily to Africa. The Reformed movement is growing in strength and influence among evangelicals. Reformed worship is certainly more conservative than most other evangelical streams.

The Baptist movement in Zambia is strong and largely evangelical, and Reformed Baptists are doing well here. There are very successful Reformed ministries in place in Lusaka and other large centres. It may be easier to hear Reformed ministry in a medium-sized Zambian town than it is in the UK. In terms of Bible translations, the NIV dominates in Zambia in a way it never has in the UK among the Reformed, but that is because it is easier to obtain than anything else and its English is accessible. Among pastors the ESV is increasingly known and appreciated - the Reformed Baptist pastor in Chingola preaches from it although his congregation mostly has the NIV. The KJV has little access in spite of the TBS sending out copies: its archaic English really is another language for most Zambians. The TBS will no doubt continue to publish how many copies of the KJV it sends to Zambia and other countries. What the statistics don't say is how many of those copies gather dust. All the TBS needs to do is publish something along the lines of the NKJV, using the translation principles they think are right, and they would be doing a much greater work.

But what about the preaching? In both Reformed and evangelical churches in Zambia, there is good preaching to be heard in the sense of exposition of the text and in the sense of application of the text to the hearers lives. What is noticeably lacking is a Christ-centred message. Gospel sermons are 'reserved' for evangelistic campaigns and special crusades. The Christ-centredness of the Reformers and their successors has somehow not transferred to Zambia. Congregations are getting a great deal of 'the patriarchs did this and so should you' (or not, depending on the patriarch and the incident!), a lot of careful exposition of the text in a direct sense, and not a lot of the glory and sweetness and saving grace of the One who ought to be at the heart of all preaching.

Sadly, that is the case in many UK churches. Having friends in different parts of the UK is a great advantage when you want to get a sense of how people perceive the ministry they are getting, and the simple fact is that we have a good number of 'sound,' doctrinally correct preachers who are not having the impact they should. There are dull and hard-hearted hearers, of course, but one does not have to go too far or even think too hard to realise that something is wrong. In this sense, Zambia and the UK are nearer than one might think.

Finding a solution is not easy, especially when quite a few people want to deny there is a problem! One thing we need is more people willing to pray for preachers in a serious way. It is well enough to identify the problem, and quite another to decide that the answer is to dispose of the present preacher and simply get another. The diagnosis may be right, but the cure is wrong. There needs to be a work of the Holy Spirit in the minds and hearts of both congregation and minister, and the whole issue needs to be handled with grace and a desire to honour the name of the Lord. Ministers can repent and congregations can learn to discern properly what they are listening to.

In the grace of God our age is not without men who can guide us in all of this. Professor Edward Donnelly in Ulster, Sinclair Ferguson, John Piper, Art Azurdia (at the Aberystwyth Conference this year, I think), Charles Mahaney and many others spring to mind. Strangely enough, the older writers are a great help too if only we will read them with open eyes.

Suppose you could ask Jonathan Edwards what the purpose of preaching is. What do you think he would answer? Try this from his 'Religious Affections:'
. . . . to promote those two affections in them [the congregation], which are spoken of in the text, love and joy: “Christ gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; that the body of Christ might be edified in love,”. Eph. iv. 11, 12, 16. The apostle, in instructing and counselling Timothy, concerning the work of the ministry, informs him, that the great end of that word which a minister is to preach, is love or charity. And God has appointed preaching as a means to promote in the saints joy: therefore ministers are called helpers of their joy.

'Helpers of their joy!' I wonder how often I have failed that as a test of the ministry I have delivered, or rather, I don't wonder. I know I have very often failed. But Edwards is himself a helper - he suggests the remedy. In 'Religious Affections' Edwards makes a careful case that true religion must move the heart as well as the mind. His concern is that some of the men of his day saw excess in the response people made to passionate preaching in times of true revival. He does not seek to excuse the preaching as being all correct, and he certainly is not defending excess. Where his concern finds focus is in the response to excess, which in his day was to reject any heart-moving and passionate ministry and to put in its place 'solid' doctrine presented in a way that addressed the mind but not the heart:


. . . of late, instead of esteeming and admiring all religious affections, without distinction, it is much more prevalent to reject and discard all without distinction. Herein appears the subtilty of Satan. While he saw that affections were much in vogue, knowing the greater part were not versed in such things, and had not had much experience of great religious affections, enabling them to judge well, and to distinguish between true and false; then he knew he could best play his game, by sowing tares amongst the wheat, and mingling false affections with the works of God’s Spirit. He knew this to be a likely way to delude and eternally ruin many souls, and greatly to wound religion in the saints, and entangle them in a dreadful wilderness, and by and by to bring all religion into disrepute.

Edwards doesn't mince his words, however, when he turns to the opposite error of discarding the affections:

We may hence learn how great their error is, who are for discarding all religious affections, as having nothing solid or substantial in them. There seems to be too much of a disposition this way prevailing at this time. . . . .
He who has no religious affection, is in a state of spiritual death, and is wholly destitute of the powerful, quickening, saving influences of the Spirit of God upon his heart. As there is no true religion where there is nothing else but affection, so there is no true religion where there is no religious affection.

Edwards case is mainly directed to ministers, and he is radically against 'sound and solid' preaching where the solidity is similar to that of suet pudding. He wants Christ-centred preaching, he wants the preacher's heart as well as his mind fully engaged and he wants the preaching to be such that it aims for the hearers hearts and minds, by the grace of God.

Edwards is not an easy read for many, but it seems to me it would be worth making the effort. Reformed teaching is without doubt the clearest expression of the intention of the word of God available in our day. An urgent need is that that teaching be always consciously Christ-centred, and it is the preachers duty to ensure that it is so. Only the preaching of the Lord Jesus Christ will really move hearts. Without hearts moved by what is being taught, a people addressed by preachers who are clear that a heart-moving ministry that brings love and joy to its hearers is vital, the Reformed teaching of our day in both Zambia and the UK will nevertheless be barren in a real and lasting sense. The message is far too valuable for us to even think of that being allowed to happen. More than that, the souls we have been given now and the people that we might reach ought to be precious to us in a very sense. Whatever pains a preaching ministry may involve, it is as nothing compared to the suffering of the Lord Jesus Christ to win the souls to whom the preaching should be directed.]]>ghd200@gmail.comRepost2008-06-30T14:20:47+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/c9fc866fb230f4813514874608444b25-9.html#unique-entry-id-9http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/c9fc866fb230f4813514874608444b25-9.html#unique-entry-id-9Tim Challies site from here:

The Heaviest Obligation

A.W. Tozer has been in the news lately (or in the blogosphere at any rate) following the release of A Passion for God, a biography of the man written by Lyle Dorsett. Dorsett dealt honestly with some shortcomings in Tozer’s character and I, like many readers, was surprised (and perhaps even shocked) by some of what I learned. Yet even as I’ve thought about these things, I’ve found that my high respect for Tozer remains. Much of what he taught continues to resound in my mind. Here is just one example of this.
Tozer premises The Knowledge of the Holy, probably his best-loved book, on the now-famous statement that “what comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” While he does not provide a Scripture reference to back this claim (I don’t recall a verse that states, “God spake thus: what thou believest about me is the most important thing about thee…”) I believe he is correct in this assertion. After all, “the history of mankind will probably show that no people has ever risen above its religion, and man’s spiritual history will positively demonstrate that no religion has ever been greater than its idea of God.” If no religion has ever been greater than its idea of God, the same is true of individuals. We can never rise above our idea of God.

Why is this important? As Tozer says, “We tend by a secret law of the soul to move toward our mental image of God…Always the most revealing thing about the Church is her idea of God, just as her most significant message is what she says about Him or leaves unsaid, for her silence is often more eloquent than her speech. She can never escape the self-disclosure of her witness concerning God.” And he is right, for once we have decided who God is, we chase after that image of God. It is, then, critically important that we learn about who God is through the Scripture, for this is His self-disclosure. Otherwise, we move towards a fabricated and false image of God. We put aside the real thing and chase after a mere shadow.

And here are words that gripped me and have long given me food for thought: “Were we able to extract from any man a complete answer to the question, ‘What comes into your mind when you think about God?’ we might predict with certainty the spiritual future of that man. Were we able to know exactly what our most influential religious leaders think of God today, we might be able with some precision to foretell where the church will stand tomorrow.” This is a sobering thought, for when we survey the leaders of the church today we will find a vast variety of views on God, many of which are clearly unbiblical. We have “Christian” leaders who deny the Trinity and others who deny the atonement. We have leaders who, it seems, must never have stopped to seriously consider just what they think of God. There are many followers who have likewise never stopped to consider who God is, what He has done, and what He demands of us. And as we can see where the church will be led in the future, we can look at the leaders of families, men like myself, and understand where we will take our families. When I survey my heart and ask what comes to mind when I think about God, I will know where my family will stand tomorrow.

“It is my opinion,” writes Tozer, “that the Christian conception of God current in these middle years of the twentieth century is so decadent as to be utterly beneath the dignity of the Most High God and actually to constitute for professed believers something amounting to a moral calamity.” If this was true of the middle of the last century, how much more true is it in the early years of the current century? And yet, “All the problems of heaven and earth, though they were to confront us together and at once, would be nothing compared with the overwhelming problem of God: That He is; what He is like; and what we as moral beings must do about Him.” But still many Christians do not think deeply about God, about what He is like, or about what we must do about Him. “I believe there is scarcely an error in doctrine or a failure in applying Christian ethics that cannot be traced finally to imperfect and ignoble thoughts about God.”

This is a serious matter. “Before the Christian church goes into eclipse anywhere there must first be a corrupting of her simple basic theology. She simply gets a wrong answer to the question, ‘What is God like?’ and goes on from there. Though she may continue to cling to a sound nominal creed, her practical working creed has become false. The masses of her adherents come to believe that God is different from what He actually is; and that is heresy of the most insidious and deadly kind.”

And here is Tozer’s charge: “The heaviest obligation lying upon the Christian Church today is to purify and elevate her concept of God until it is once more worth of Him—and of her. In all her prayers and labors this should have first place. We do the greatest service to the next generation of Christians by passing on to them undimmed and undiminished that noble concept of God which we received from our Hebrew and Christian fathers of generations past. This will prove of greater value to them than anything that art or science can devise.”

Having read these words and having pondered them, I see, more clearly than ever, the importance of placing myself and my family under the leadership of spiritual leaders who have a high and biblical view of God. If nothing is more telling and more important than what comes into my mind when I think about God, it must also be critically important that I learn from men who think deeply about God and who humble themselves under His word. And I see the importance of being the kind of spiritual leader who has a conception of God that is worthy of God. This task of learning who God is through his self-revelation in Scripture, and honoring Him as He really is, is the greatest service I can do to my family and to its future generations.]]>ghd200@gmail.comThinking ThoughtsRepost2008-07-04T14:17:30+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/49a4102539d21bba2c91d1ff94e9a29d-8.html#unique-entry-id-8http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/49a4102539d21bba2c91d1ff94e9a29d-8.html#unique-entry-id-8Desiring God website which is one you should visit if you do not already. It is one of the most moving accounts I have read in a long time. I am not ashamed that it brought tears to my eyes, I am ashamed that it needed this to make me realise how greatly the Lord has blessed me.


Real Freedom in Jesus
(Author: John Knight)
The 4th of July is a different sort of ‘Independence Day' for me. On July 4, 1995 my multiply-disabled son entered the world and my life came crashing down around me—and would soon include a deep and intense bitterness toward God.
I never denied that God existed or is powerful; I concluded he was mean and capricious. But it also began God's work of creating an affection for him and for the sufficiency of Jesus Christ. I am often astonished, when thinking back, that I am now able to praise God for his goodness in giving my son his autism and blindness.
None of this happened easily or by accident. I can point to five specific things that God brought to bear on my life:

1. Faithful pastoral leadership.

I can still remember Pastor Tom Steller, now leading The Bethlehem Institute, walking up my front steps with a note from Pastor John. And I remember sitting with and emailing Pastor David Michael.
These men, with great courage and biblical conviction, entered into dangerous territory. My attorney, a man trained in conflict, said that my intensity and bitterness frightened him. But my pastors never wavered from bringing a message of hope and absolute certainty in the sovereignty and goodness of God, even when I pushed them away.

2. Faithful people of Bethlehem Baptist Church.

Shortly after my son was born we dropped everything at church—our small group, volunteering, Sunday school class and attendance. One couple refused to let us go and loved us with a gracious, firm, consistent tenderness that made me want to understand how they could love someone like me, my wife or my son so completely.

3. A faithful father.

My own father was the first person in the world to understand and communicate my son's value and inherent worth as a creation of a good and loving God to me. Through 13 years, he has stood with me through much pain and sorrow—and joy.

4. A faithful wife.

My wife and I have not walked the same path; hers has been much harder than mine for many reasons. But by the grace of God we are together and I thank God every day for this woman whose spine is made of steel and who loves me and our four children.

5. The sovereignty of God as revealed in his word.

I remember a particularly heartbroken, bitter email I sent to Pastor John. He had every right to discipline me, but instead wrapped the words of the bible around my heart. God used those words from the bible, among many others, to create longings I didn't have, to start a dead heart beating, and to reveal, when I was incapable of seeing, the beauty, sufficiency, and majesty of Jesus Christ and his cross.

God has done it all, and it was his word that proved decisive.
Living with a boy, now a teenager no less, who will always be dependent on someone for all his needs is hard. I have a daily, often hourly, fight for joy in my salvation. Yet, through my oldest son's daily care, through my youngest son's premature birth, and now through my wife's ongoing battle with metastatic cancer, God is not just sustaining me, but revealing more of his goodness because he is sovereign over all these things, for his glory and my good.
So, on this Independence Day I am grateful to Jesus for my real freedom in him and for giving me my boy to help me see it: So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed (John 8:36).

Happy birthday, Paul.]]>ghd200@gmail.comAfrican Life2008-07-28T14:15:49+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/fed95599e1f21ffe24cb74dd2d5defb5-7.html#unique-entry-id-7http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/fed95599e1f21ffe24cb74dd2d5defb5-7.html#unique-entry-id-7
No-one could reasonably expect that everyone would benefit, of course. Some people are not going to take part in this kind of economic growth, because it is hard to get a foot on even the first rung of the economic ladder. With unemployment over 90% that is especially true in Zambia. In the towns the poorer areas are visibly much poorer. From a Christian viewpoint, the churches in different areas reflect the economic difference. Chingola's Central Baptist Church, which has  an excellent ministry in English only, is not a great building by any Western standard, but the pastor is quite well looked after (as he should be!) and on Sunday morning the grounds soon fill up with parked vehicles. The sermon is delivered in first-class English that uses a range of vocabulary that would stretch some British congregations. The Scripture exposition is high quality: the pastor has preached in the West and could easily hold down a pastorate anywhere in the world. Accountants, electricians, mine workers of various kinds make up most of the well-dressed congregation. These are people with standards and ambitions that would be recognised anywhere in Europe or North America, although they retain a wonderfully Zambian manner as well. A number of them will have earnings that easily exceed our budget as supported missionaries.

Not very far from central Chingola, there is a district of town called Chiwempala. People here are poor. The Chiwempala Baptist Union Church is well-filled, but there are just a couple of vehicles for all the congregation. This is a vernacular church - the local language is used because the far lower education standards mean that the 'official' language of English is not always well understood. People are not so well-clothed and certainly not so well fed as their central Chingola brothers. The offering is small by any standard not because the people are not faithful but because there is so little money. The pastor gets paid something, but has to be supported by gifts of food as well because the congregation cannot fully financially support him. The exposition of Scripture has to be tuned to African ears and understanding that is more traditional and less knowing of the ways of the developed world. There are not many Bibles, nowhere near enough hymn books. The people here face problems and temptations that are quite different from those that afflict the people of Central Baptist Church. There temptations are common to the human race, of course, but the battle is at a different level in this environment.

There is a third level in Zambia, the rural poor. Even just a few kilometres outside the towns there are mud and thatch huts with no electricity, piped water or waste disposal, children in ragged clothes and a wholly different view of life. These people retain traditional thinking. Unemployment is virtually 100% and living is subsistence level. Witchcraft and animism are dominant and affect even those who become Christians. Indeed, being a serious Christian in this environment is very hard. The tendency is to retain at least some traditional beliefs along with Christianity. English is very little used - in some areas not at all - and to quite a few people practically unknown. One Zambian in conversation referred to this way of life as 'out-country;' as one travels away from the towns and industrial areas, life becomes more and more traditional and less and less touched by the twenty-first century. Communications can be very poor. One might drive to Lusaka in five hours along decent roads. Going 'out-country' might take two days for a similar distance. The educational and medical facilities here are few. Zambians who have managed to get clear of this way of life are not likely want to go back. In one such area, Nabwalya, the first Zambian pastor has only recently gone to serve alongside missionaries. Zambian pastors who have studied at Bible college and attained good education consistently refuse to go to such areas because of the poverty and because most view the witchcraft as a serious and dangerous menace, to be avoided rather than fought. It is useless to compare all this with Europe or North America. Even the contrast with Lusaka is almost too painful.

The need for missionaries in Zambia is something that can be debated, at least when one considers the prosperous areas. African Christianity is alive and well, although grievously affected by the pedlars of the distorted gospel of the health and wealth movement. The exploitation of Africans by the charismatic/pentecostalist movement is also distressing. Africans are easily persuaded by systems that do not even bother to refer to the Bible for authentication, although in that respect they differ little from the adherents of Hillsong and similar movements in the West. You may be offended by the comparison, but it is true enough! Still, there are good churches in Zambia. The Baptist Union is committed to a real evangelical position that puts its namesake in the UK to shame. The number of people claiming to be adherents of the Christian faith in Zambia is over 75%. The President, Levy Mwanawassa, really is a committed believer.

Still, the problems are many. The kind of thinking that questions the need for missionaries in a place like Zambia, coupled with a decline in the support for missions across the Western world, is threatening to turn the real needs in Africa into a spiritual crisis. The myth that revival is sweeping thousands into the kingdom daily is being spread by churches that quite frankly would not know true biblical revival if it bit them in their collective leg! Zambia, like many other countries, needs its missionaries, and that means that giving by Western churches, both financially and in terms of people, has to continue. The spread of the gospel to the poor and needy depends on it. It is realistic to expect the better-off Zambians to do something to support the work, but there is no possibility of their being able to meet the needs unaided.

Maybe there needs to be rethinking on two levels in the West. The first is the most obvious: one message recently told of a church in a very small town in England planning a £2 million rebuild. Now, granted that the church in the UK needs decent facilities, but can that sort of expenditure be justified in the light of the poverty of so many who still need to hear the gospel?

The second level is closely related: does the Apostles Creed mean anything when it says "I believe in . . . . the catholic church, the communion of saints?" That is not intended to be a facetious question, but a reminder that the very essence of the Christian faith is that the Lord is gathering his church from every nation and tribe on earth into one people. Being British, or American or Zambian, is not the issue. When I take the Lord Jesus Christ by faith as my Saviour I no longer look to London, Washington or Lusaka as the place for me. I join Abraham in looking for a city whose builder and maker is God. My earthly loyalties are going to be very short-lived, and I am already called to consider my brothers and sisters in the light of eternity.

From its beginning in the New Testament, the people of the Christian faith knew they were called to consider others of the same faith and meet their needs, across regional and national borders. Paul unashamedly presented the needs of the church in Judah to the gentiles across the Roman world, collected what was given for them and put his own life at risk to deliver the gift. James puts the challenge in terms we can easily understand when he uses the illustration of a rich, well-dressed man visiting the church, at the same time as a poor man, badly dresses. He says that if we treat the rich man well while the poor man is kept down, we have become judges with evil thoughts who dishonour the poor (James 1:27 - 2:6). Africa's poor are not going to come in to most Western churches anytime soon, but it should not mean 'out of sight, out of mind.' They need the gospel, and the exploitation practised by the charismaniacs will not reach most of them. Africa's poor Christians may never be seen by most Westerners until we meet in glory, but they are our needy brothers now. Please pray, and please give.]]>ghd200@gmail.comAfrican Life2008-07-08T14:14:33+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/de218014f72cb7e6eb6a41b958a8371c-6.html#unique-entry-id-6http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/de218014f72cb7e6eb6a41b958a8371c-6.html#unique-entry-id-6Recently I read in the morning some words from the Puritan prayers in the ‘Valley of Vision,’ where in a prayer speaking of Calvary were these words:

Christ was all anguish that I might be all joy,
cast off that I might be brought in, 
trodden down as and enemy that I might be welcomed as a friend, 
surrendered to hell’s worst that I might attain heaven’s best, 
stripped that I might be clothed . . . . 
[he] wept that all tears might be wiped from my eyes . . . 
bore a thorny crown that I might have a glory-diadem . . . 
closed his eyes in death that I might gaze on unclouded brightness. 

Sometimes, to my shame, even here there are sufficient distractions that I easily allow what I read in the morning to slip away. But this day happened to be a holiday. In the evening, when I might have spent some time in entertainment, the fact that the power had already been off for five hours and would not return before I went to bed four hours later kept me to my book by the light of the oil lamp (godly George Herbert’s writings on the country pastor, just as relevant in twent-first century Zambia as in early seventeenth century England) and my thoughts, which kept returning to that morning prayer.
Well then, it is true that less can be more! Much as I miss Wales, friends and family, and many things, I would not have swapped that day for anything. And the next day, the prayer I read seemed to underline what I needed to learn:

May Thy dear Son preserve me from this present evil world, 
so that its smiles never allure, 
nor its frowns terrify, 
nor its vices defile, 
nor its errors delude me. 
May I feel that I am a stranger and pilgrim on earth, 
declaring plainly that I seek a country, 
my title to it becoming daily more clear, 
my meetness for it more perfect, 
my foretastes of it more abundant; 
and whatsoever I do may it be done in the Saviour’s name.]]>ghd200@gmail.comAfrican Life2008-06-10T14:09:04+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/0aa0855550a4b8e5f04ce8839ec48d83-5.html#unique-entry-id-5http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/0aa0855550a4b8e5f04ce8839ec48d83-5.html#unique-entry-id-5This is written on the day we arrived at Amano, Tuesday, 10th June, at about 1330. I can truly say that I have never experienced such a closeness to the Lord, so that the days of the journey seem already to blur into one miracle of grace and mercy.
We set out on Saturday (7th June) as planned, leaving Johannesburg at about 0715. The roads were easy at that time, of course, and we were soon entering Mokopane, the place where we were robbed previously. Both Tina and I felt nervous going back, and at about 1000 it was already quite busy. We prayed as we came to the town that all the traffic lights would be green - there are about four sets we had to pass through - and they were.
It was a beautiful day and we really enjoyed the drive, seeing Eland and Impala (types of deer) and warthogs with young. At the South African/Botswana border we passed through very easily, crossing the Limpopo going for the first time to see what Botswana was like. The people there are very relaxed and very kind, and we had a good journey to a hotel in Francistown called 'Diggers Inn' named after a local gold mine founded and run by English people. 'Diggers' was very clean and comfortable, but in African style we were given seven TV controllers to try before the receptionist decided to give up - the problem, she said, was batteries which she didn't have. The promised WiFi internet was also not available because the receptionist didn't know how to issue the password! But that's Africa! We had travelled about 800km (500 miles) without incident, although I was somewhat tired.
The next day we made a good start from Francistown and headed for Kazungula, where a ferry crosses the 400m (a little more than 400 yards) wide Zambezi to take passenger into Zambia.
The road in one particular area of Botswana was very rough, badly potholed, but little did we know this was only a taster of what was to come!
Kazungula was a problem for us in some ways. The journey there was about 500km (312 miles), made a bit longer in time by the potholed sections. We got to the ferry about 1500. We had no idea when the best time to cross would be, and we were prepared to overnight in nearby Kisane if it was not practical to cross that afternoon, although we had some reservations about that as Kisane is very much the tourist town for Botswana's Okavango delta and Chobe river and the prices for accommodation are accordingly high.

But on the other hand we had been warned that crossing the Kazungula ferry could take several hours of queueing, plus we had no idea of the cost. So we decided to drive to the ferry, which meant passing through Botswana customs and immigration, to see what the situation was like. We passed maybe eighty or ninety lorries waiting for the ferry, and joined what seemed a fairly short car queue. The ferry is a double pontoon ferry, and within five minutes we were on board, and ten or twelve minutes later in Zambia! Quite clearly the Lord wanted us to go on!
Zambian immigration and customs are both expensive and tough, as well as long-winded. We had more than an hour of mainly waiting for the papers, but we were admitted quite easily. There was no difficulty, and immigration even accepted South African Rand in payment for our visas - normally US dollars or UK pounds are required but all we had of those had gone in the robbery.
Our next problem was that Zambia had very strictly enforced laws about cars having two warning triangles and also two white reflectors on the front of the car and two red at the rear; these are just pieces of reflective tape but the police routinely fine if you don't have them fitted and don't have the triangles.
That was all very well but there were of course no shops selling these things at Kazungula. Zambian police form regularly manned roadblocks at the entrance to towns and sometimes 'in the middle of nowhere' and we were told we would certainly be stopped at least once and fined the standard 50,000 Kwacha (about £6.25; US$12) on the way to Livingstone.
We drove the 70km (about 45 miles) to Livingstone having asked the Lord to help us, and we were stopped twice. In both cases the officers greeted us, asked where we were coming from, welcomed us to Zambia and waved us on without further question!
So we came to Livingstone, asking the Lord to guide us to somewhere that was clean but not expensive. We really had no idea where to go and having visited Livingstone before knew it could be very expensive. In the town we saw the Ngolide Lodge - it somehow looked right and we called in to see if a room was available. It was, at a typical South African overnight B&B price, and the Lord had given us a clean, comfortable room with air conditioning and all else we could need for about £50 (US$100). We slept really well, had a very pleasant breakfast, and then I took off into town to get the warning triangles, reflective tape and change Rand into Kwacha before the drive up to Lusaka.
We had been warned by an Australian businessman that the road from Livingstone to Lusaka was very poor, much worse than anything we had seen in Botswana. He had driven it in his Mercedes and lost two tyres in the process. A taxi driver told me that while it used to take five hours to Lusaka, now it was seven because of this 65km (40 miles) stretch of road - he said most people took the plane because it was so bad.
Still, I don't think anything prepared us for what we were going to encounter. The road, after all, is the T1, Zambia's primary route and the only way from the major tourist area of Livingstone/Victoria Falls to the capital. It's hard to describe the state of the road as we found it. There were short stretches of perhaps 100m (about 100 yards) where there was tarmac with just a crater-like pothole or two. 

But otherwise there was pothole after pothole, sometimes covering half or two thirds of the road, quite often the whole surface had gone and there was just unsurfaced craters. 'Craters' is not an exaggeration: these monsters were 18 inches or more deep. In most places there was a sandy 'soft shoulder' to the road but because trucks and cars used that rather than the road in places that too was cratered. A few occasions we had no road surface and no way to access the 'soft shoulder' either because the drop off the road was too much for our vehicle or because the 'soft shoulder' was also so battered we could not take it.
We took more than two hours to negotiate that section, but we sustained no damage to tyres or mechanically. How did we do it? We didn't - the Lord took us through, and I am not in the least exaggerating. We constantly prayed and thanked the Lord, and there were a good many times when we had to go through craters because there was no choice. You do that in an ordinary car knowing there will be a sickening crunch at some point, probably as the back end goes through as we were fully laden, but never once did that happen. There were time I knew we could not have negotiated a pothole, but it was as if the car 'somehow' was held above the hole. At times like that you know the Lord is with you.
So we got through that, and continued to head for Lusaka, having no idea where to stay. There were more occasional potholes in surprising places, in the sense that we would be on what seemed to be good road in good repair for several or even tens of kilometres, but then a large pothole would be there. On one occasion we were making good speed and just after climbing a hill and about to go into a left hand bend I just knew I must slow down, that round that bend was something we needed to avoid. And surely again it was the Lord, because as the bend came to straight there was another very large pothole, even though for the last 20 minutes or so we had had good road and been able to go along at 120kph (75mph, the legal limit on most Zambian main routes).
We were constantly, utterly and completely dependent on the Lord, and we knew his presence and he never failed us or left us alone for a minute. That is true of the whole journey, and I do not think I have ever experienced anything quite like it before.
After the drive up from Livingstone we arrived in Lusaka about 1700, in the full flow of evening traffic of course! We had no idea where to go to stay, but felt a peace that the Lord had the right place and we need not worry. The 'Great North Road,' on which we needed to continue the next day, took us through the business district and there were some hotels, but none seemed right. We went slowly forward and in about half-an-hour found ourselves in the twilight on the north side of the city, so we drove on through the suburbs and out into the countryside. It was dark and Zambian signs are rarely lit, so we did begin to wonder if we had gone wrong. But about 30km (19 miles) into the countryside we did see a sign for Protea Hotels and Safari Lodge. For those who don't know, Protea are a South African chain with a hotel in most decent-sized towns, so we pulled in and drove along a dirt road for about 6km - wondering whether we had misunderstood the sign! But eventually we reached the place, and where I had expected a Protea Hotel and a Safari Lodge we found it was the Protea Hotel Safari Lodge. (Yes, the sign by the road did say 'and' but this is Africa!).

The manager on duty was quite happy to offer a room, but at a rate way beyond our budget. So we explained our circumstances and turned to go, but he said that he would give us a night at weekend rate and even did us a 'deal' on food that night. It's a lovely place and it would be great to go back for a special break some time, but the Lord was so gracious to give us such luxury. We slept well, and the next day left for Amano. We stopped in Kitwe for a SIM card for the phone and to fill the tank, and were with Phil and Valerie Grove for a rather late lunch at 1330.
We had help with our unpacking and are already beginning to settle in. This has been long enough - more next time, the Lord willing.
In the meantime, thank you so much for your prayers and kindness in every way. Oh, and by the way, some of you may recall that 'Amano' is a local word for 'wisdom.' In saying 'Amano at last,' I think the only actual wisdom I have arrived at is that the more we mistrust ourselves and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, the better things are!]]>ghd200@gmail.comThinking Thoughts2008-06-22T14:02:19+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/7222b6c1ab2f5bb279f1ec3772622a5d-4.html#unique-entry-id-4http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/7222b6c1ab2f5bb279f1ec3772622a5d-4.html#unique-entry-id-4One of the 'delights' of Islamic fundamentalists is to accumulate martyrs, which they do at a great rate by bravely blowing themselves up against serious military targets such as funerals, weddings, busy markets crowded with women and children etc., most of whom are fellow Muslims but of the 'wrong flavour.'
Among the many annoying things of the Western media is its willingness to refer to 'martyrs' and usually to relate the Islamic 'struggle' to the largely imaginary 'Palestinian problem.' Calling these wretches 'martyrs' associates them with Christian martyrs in the public mind, and leads inevitably to the common conclusion that 'religion is really responsible for the troubles of this world.' We don't talk much about martyrs in the Christian Church these days, perhaps at least partly because of this situation. It's a great shame, when the truth is that literally millions of people, probably more in the twentieth century than in any previous century, have bravely laid down their lives for the sake of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Many of them are unknown to us, ordinary people in many places and at many times, who were willing to die rather than deny the Lord who saved them and counted the heavenly treasure far higher than what life in this world could offer. On reflection, maybe that's why we don't mention them much in the West; perhaps we are so unwilling to part with earthly treasure that we are embarrassed by those who think more of the words of the Lord Jesus Christ and act accordingly.
Be all that as it may, in his 'Institutes' Calvin is reflecting on the 'natural' proofs for the truth of Holy Scripture. In 1.8.13 he says:
. . . . with what confidence does it become us to subscribe to a doctrine attested and confirmed by the blood of so many saints? They, when once they had embraced it, hesitated not, but boldly and intrepidly, and even with great alacrity, to meet death in its defence. Being transmitted to us with such an earnest, who of us shall not receive it with firm and unshaken conviction? It is therefore no small proof of the authority of Scripture, that it was sealed with the blood of so many witnesses, especially when it is considered that in bearing testimony to the faith, they met death not with fanatical enthusiasm, (as erring spirits are sometimes wont to do), but with a firm and constant, yet sober godly zeal.
You will have spotted the bit that interested me - Calvin speaks of those who meet death with fanatical enthusiasm which is a very good way of describing the Islamic militants. But he draws the contrast with the true Christian martyrs who died with a firm and constant, yet sober godly zeal. As I said above, the vast majority of the martyrs are unknown to us (but certainly known to the Lord who took them to be with himself in eternal joy). But those that are known, the great examples of history such as Polycarp, Latimer, Ridley, the young men of the Amazon in the nineteen-fifties, the godly Christians of Sudan who have endured so much, have died with a dignity that befits the conclusion that the 'blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.'
'Martyr' is originally derived from a Greek word which means 'witness' or 'testimony.' I was going to say that perhaps it should be reserved for its Christian meaning, but on reflection, while Christians do witness to the Lord Jesus Christ in giving their lives, Muslims also witness by it. Not all Muslims are terrorists, of course. There are peaceful Muslims, just as there are Muslims who favour a secular society. But the real question is, what is the nature of Islam itself? The Islamic fundamentalists do no favours to their peaceful brethren, but fundamentalists they are. What they are thinking and practising is what the Koran actually teaches, just as Christian fundamentalists get to the core of the what the Scripture says. It is a plain fact that is often forgotten in the almost universal despising of ‘religious fundamentalism’ that the many Christian fundamentalists have not produced a single terrorist. That’s because if you take the Bible literally you cannot get around the fact that it urges obedience to state authorities and above all a peaceful approach to others founded on love, even when they are enemies.
The Koran is corrupt, Satanic and far from peaceful in its intent. The Islamic fundamentalists witness is to the insatiable evil that their hollow system really is.]]>ghd200@gmail.comThinking Thoughts2008-06-17T13:59:28+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/5b517d6baa2d3848e0d8f0a524a6594e-3.html#unique-entry-id-3http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/5b517d6baa2d3848e0d8f0a524a6594e-3.html#unique-entry-id-3
I suspect that in my earlier years I would defend any corner that was a minority, just for the sake of it. Maturer reflection has allowed me to savour the riches of a more rounded and covenantal view of theology that has taken me to the point where I am quite willing to admit that I would baptise the baby of truly committed believing parents who held to a proper covenant view of that act.

That does not mean I do not regard myself as baptistic any longer, or that I would not baptise an adult believer. It means exactly what I said; the rough edges having been knocked off my thinking, I think more of my brothers in Christ who have so courteously disagreed with me for so long, and I think enough of them to have seriously considered their position and find myself unable to wholly reject what they are saying. Of course, I am very wary of the abuse of the paedo-baptist position, but then so is a paedo-baptist like Ian Hamilton, who has in the past put up with TV cameras and all the negative media publicity that goes with them rather than sacrifice his profoundly Christ-centred, serious and well thought-out theology of the place of children in the covenant.

The issue of baptism is not the only one on which I have found myself moved to modify my views. There are other things that I now realise are not so central as I had fondly imagined. And all this was confirmed all the more after I began to write this piece. I read another chapter of Sinclair Ferguson's excellent book, 'In Christ Alone.' If you have the book, take a look at the chapter titled 'Discernment: Thinking God's Thoughts.' If you don't have the book, buy it! Then this morning I read another prayer from 'The Valley of Vision,' part of which said:

May my cry be always, Only Jesus! only Jesus!
In him is freedom from condemnation,
fullness in his righteousness,
eternal vitality in his given life,
indissoluble union in fellowship with him;
In him I have all that I can hold . . . . 

That is where I want to be, in my thinking and in my practice; Christ crucified and Christ glorified, to be able to say 'in him I have all that I can hold,' to consider that the lesser issues are really not worthy of pursuing if they detract from him and put me at odds with my brothers in the Lord.

I have not attained all this, of course. I am sharing my aspirations and my weak, trembling steps along a road I pray you will tread far more readily than I have. Nor is this an excuse for a kind of theological woolliness, although I know some will inevitably think so! I am going to make this post longer still by copying a piece by Ray Ortlund that I completely agree with. Please note that - completely agree with! That means the opening of the first paragraph as well, where Mr Ortlund affirms his own Reformed position. If the first two sentences were a signable document, I would sign. Beef it up by adding one of the historical Reformed confessions, and I would still sign! Please read on, it's well worth it.

(The title is a clickable link back to Ray Ortlund's blog) 

Truly reformed

I believe in the sovereignty of God, the Five Points of Calvinism, the Solas of the Reformation, I believe that grace precedes faith in regeneration. Theologically, I am Reformed. Sociologically, I am simply a Christian – or at least I want to be. The tricky thing about our hearts is that they can turn even a good thing into an engine of oppression. It happens when our theological distinctives make us aloof from other Christians. That’s when, functionally, we relocate ourselves outside the gospel and inside Galatianism. 

The Judaizers in Galatia did not see their distinctive – the rite of circumcision – as problematic. They could claim biblical authority for it in Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant. But their distinctive functioned as an addition to the all-sufficiency of Jesus himself. Today the flash point is not circumcision. It can be Reformed theology. But no matter how well argued our position is biblically, if it functions in our hearts as an addition to Jesus, it ends up as a form of legalistic divisiveness.

Paul answered the theological aspects of the Galatian error with solid theology. But the “whiff test” that something was wrong in those Galatian churches was more subtle than theology alone. The problem was also sociological. “They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them” (Galatians 4:17). In other words, “The legalists want to ‘disciple’ you. But really, they’re manipulating you. By emphasizing their distinctive, they want you to feel excluded so that you will conform to them.” It’s like chapter two of Tom Sawyer. Remember how Tom got the other boys to whitewash the fence for him? Mark Twain explained: “In order to make a man or boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain.” Paul saw it happening in Galatia. But the gospel makes full inclusion in the church easy to attain. It re-sets everyone’s status in terms of God’s grace alone. God’s grace in Christ crucified, and nothing more. He alone makes us kosher. He himself. 

The Judaizers would probably have answered at this point, “We love Jesus too. But how can you be a first-rate believer, really set apart to God, without circumcision, so plainly commanded right here in the Bible? This isn’t an add-on. It’s the full-meal deal. God says so.”

Their misuse of the Bible showed up in social dysfunction. “It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised. . . . They desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh” (Galatians 6:12-13). In other words, “When Christians, whatever the label or badge or shibboleth, start pressuring you to come into line with their distinctive, you know something’s wrong. They want to enhance their own significance by your conformity to them: ‘See? We’re better. We’re superior. People are moving our way. They are becoming like us. We’re the buzz.’” What is this, but deep emotional emptiness medicating itself by relational manipulation? This is not about Christ. This is about Self. Even Peter fell into this hypocrisy (Galatians 2:11-14). But no matter who is involved, this is not the ministry of the gospel. Even if a biblical argument can be made for a certain position, and we all want to be biblical, the proof of what’s really happening is not in the theological argumentation but in the sociological integration.

Paul had thought it through. He made a decision that the bedrock of his emotional okayness would forever lie here: “Far be it from me to boast [establish my personal significance] except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Galatians 6:14-15). In other words, “Here is all I need for my deepest sense of myself: Jesus Christ crucified. His cross has deconstructed me and remade me, and I am happy. Everything else is at best secondary, possibly irrelevant, even counterproductive. Let Jesus alone stand forth in my theology, in my emotional well-being and in my relationships with other Christians!” This settledness in Paul’s heart made him a life-giving man for other people. He was a free man, setting others free (Galatians 5:1). This is the acid test of a truly Reformed ministry – that other believers need not be Reformed in order to be respected and included in our hearts.

Whatever divides us emotionally from other Bible-believing, Christ-honoring Christians is a “plus” we’re adding to the gospel. It is the Galatian impulse of self-exaltation. It can even become a club with which we bash other Christians, at least in our thoughts, to punish, to exclude and to force into line with us. 

What unifies the church is the gospel. What defines the gospel is the Bible. What interprets the Bible correctly is a hermeneutic centered on Jesus Christ crucified, the all-sufficient Savior of sinners, who gives himself away on terms of radical grace to all alike. What proves that that gospel hermeneutic has captured our hearts is that we are not looking down on other believers but lifting them up, not seeing ourselves as better but grateful for their contribution to the cause, not standing aloof but embracing them freely, not wishing they would become like us but serving them in love (Galatians 5:13).

My Reformed friend, can you move among other Christian groups and really enjoy them? Do you admire them? Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them? If your Reformed theology has morphed functionally into Galatian sociology, the remedy is not to abandon your Reformed theology. The remedy is to take your Reformed theology to a deeper level. Let it reduce you to Jesus only. Let it humble you. Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are Reformed will be all the wonderful Christians we discover around us who are not Reformed. Amazing people. Heroic people. Blood-bought people. People with whom we are eternally one – in Christ alone.]]>ghd200@gmail.comReview2008-05-25T13:57:17+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/0500c2d2e332525f4adcea00e679032c-2.html#unique-entry-id-2http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/0500c2d2e332525f4adcea00e679032c-2.html#unique-entry-id-2Having said that, I'd have to admit that Dr Wells can be heavy going if you are not used to serious reading - these books are very serious and heavily foot-noted. His latest title, however, is much more accessible and that is the way he has intended it. It is right up-to-date, having been published this year, and it is well worth reading. It will open your eyes to what is happening in the church in the West; even though Dr Wells generally refers to America you can read it as any Christian with experience of the modern church anywhere and gain a great deal. Here's a quote that had a great impact on me:

We have enough Bibles . . . We have churches galore; religious organizations; educational institutions; religious presses that never stop pouring forth books, Sunday School materials and religious curricula; and unparalleled financial resources. What don't we have? All too often we don't have what the Old Testament people didn't have. A due and weighty sense of the greatness and holiness of God, a sense that will reach into our lives, wrench them around, lift our vision, fill our hearts, make us courageous for what is right, and over time leave behind its beautiful residue of Christlike character.
. . . . . . . .
Let us not mince words. If we could see more clearly God in the full blaze of his burning purity, we would not be on easy terms with all the sins that now infect our souls and breed easy compromises with the spirit of the postmodern age. This is what leads to the casual ways in which we live our lives with their blatantly wrong priorities. If we could see this more clearly, the church would be filled with much more repentance and, in consequence, much more joy, and much more authenticity.
David F Wells, pages 132-133, 'The Courage to be Protestant; truth-lovers, marketers and emergents in the postmodern world.' Grand Rapids, Michigan; William B Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008 ISBN 978-0-8028-4007-3

I'll not mince words either! If you are concerned about the church in the 21st century, serious enough in that concern to want to understand what is happening and willing to read, then buy this book. You will not regret it.]]>ghd200@gmail.comAfrican Life2008-05-20T13:54:43+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/c6680985ee29a4eebf4b7b0659bbbb2e-1.html#unique-entry-id-1http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/c6680985ee29a4eebf4b7b0659bbbb2e-1.html#unique-entry-id-1
Johannesburg is a city of startling contrasts. It is in (and comprises most of) South Africa's most prosperous province, Gauteng. It has malls to rival anything Europe can offer and the obvious wealth that creates such places. But some areas such as the world-famous Soweto and also Alexandria (where much of the present violence has occurred) are very much a part of the same city. Alexandria has scenes that would not be out of place in much poorer parts of Africa and the everyday life of some people is lived in astounding poverty.

Zoo Lake, Johannesburg

There is a great deal of debate about how such problems can be solved and a high level of concern that they will damage South Africa's promotion as the 'rainbow nation' that is open to all colours and creeds. Many are openly asking where the country is going and making radical suggestions; just today a black man told me that he believed South Africa would be better back under white government. But he went on to say that the people of South Africa needed to consider their position before God and repent and seek him. He is right, of course. Political and economic answers to South Africa's problems may be both helpful and necessary, but at the heart of the difficulties is a nation turning more and more to a secular world-view, promoting 'human rights' of every kind while awash with false religion. The pedlars of false gospel are everywhere, pushing the charismatic extremes and the prosperity lies that delude and inevitably disappoint. Most politicians, especially the president-elect, are a thousand miles away from Christian faith or even an attempt to live by some sort of Judeo-Christian ideal. South Africa needs true revival, an assertion of biblical truth that emphasises the reality of God and the need to live in the light of his Word.

So are we in danger here? Right now there is no sign of the violence spreading outside the areas to which it has so far been confined. Johannesburg is a violent city by any standards, but as in any big city it is possible to live in peace while some areas are in turmoil. The picture of the boats was taken on a Sunday afternoon stroll around zoo lake; in the park round about the lake hundreds of people, black and white, enjoyed the day and were at peace. With such violence so near you may ask how that can be. Johannesburg is in some ways a microcosm of our world; people are getting married, buying and selling, enjoying the pleasures of life, fighting, hating, killing. All this is no real surprise because in a sense we are all doing exactly the same. The Lord Jesus Christ spoke of the days before his second coming by comparing them to the days of Noah before the flood (Luke 17:26-27). Perhaps like us you are blessed to be in a peaceful (or relatively peaceful) place right now. But make no mistake, the day of the return of the Lord Jesus Christ is coming and on that day you will not be asked whether you had decided on the solutions to the world's problems but where you stand in relation to him. Are you ready for that day?]]>ghd200@gmail.comThinking Thoughts2008-05-18T13:49:30+02:00http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/450fe6cc638918aaa5fb9e96ffeb5395-0.html#unique-entry-id-0http://www.llysygroes.com/page1/files/450fe6cc638918aaa5fb9e96ffeb5395-0.html#unique-entry-id-0
My thoughts were turned that way by reading the Douglas Moo commentary on James which I got at a bargain price. It wasn't actually the price that drew me - I didn't know it was 'on offer' until I got to the till - but the fact that I am quite interested in James and Douglas Moo is a name I know and respect in the evangelical world. I have his commentary on Romans and other books in which he has a part in editing or authoring the material.

All the more disappointing then, to be faced with a thorny problem while reading the James commentary. There are a number of issues in interpreting biblical text and I am not an expert in any of them, but I do have my doubts about the way Scripture is treated sometimes. I can outline my view of Scripture this way:

1. Scripture is entirely and completely the Word of God, in the original (Hebrew and Greek) perfect in every way and still in translation infallible and inerrant.

2. I recognise the human authorship of the books of Scripture and that those authors have left their mark in terms of style and other non-essential matters. Nevertheless I believe the Holy Spirit to be the original author of Scripture because all Scripture is God-breathed.

3. This original divine authorship of Scripture means that the Bible is not like other books. Through it God himself speaks, judging, correcting and encouraging his people.

It is this last point I particularly want to comment on here. It is essential that we do not ever treat Scripture as merely a human book, because in that way we will find ourselves degrading the truths it is meant to convey and at the worst we will put ourselves in the position of allowing ourselves to judge Scripture rather than submitting ourselves to it, as we should.
Scripture really is unique. This is evident in Peter's comment (2 Peter 1:21) where he says:
For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Quite plainly in the most natural sense Peter is referring to the Old Testament, but in that 'prophecy' in the context carries the meaning of conveying the Word of God it equally plainly applies to the New Testament as well. Peter has more to say:
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. 
(1 Peter 1:10-12)
The meaning here seems plain enough: the human authors of Scripture sometimes found their curiosity aroused by what they themselves had written. Or put another way, 'carried along by the Holy Spirit' they wrote things that were not wholly clear to them in meaning. They knew that, and although they sought to know more fully, the Holy Spirit revealed that what they had written was for a future time which Peter identifies as the age in which we live - the Gospel age, between the first and second coming of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.
If there is a lesson from these texts it must be that the idea that is regularly promoted even by evangelical authors, that the first and most important question in studying a passage in the Old Testament is its meaning to the author and original authors, cannot be true. I do not mean to suggest that historical context has no importance, indeed far from it. Knowing where we can the approximate dates of an author and gaining some idea of the political, economic and religious milieu in which the text was written is of great advantage and importance. But to imagine that what the author or original hearers understood of a text is of primary importance or even in some cases any major importance is to deny the truth of the two texts we have quoted. To give just a couple of examples, both from Isaiah, I have only a general idea who the prophet's original hearers or readers were, and certainly not too much clue about what they understood of what we call Isaiah 6 or Isaiah 53. But I do know this: that the real significance of the first part of Isaiah 6 is revealed in John 12, where we told that it was the glory of the pre-incarnate Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, that Isaiah saw; the significance of the last part of the chapter is revealed in a number of gospel passages where the Lord tells us that Isaiah spoke of the generation he was addressing (and by natural extension all who hear the gospel and reject it). I know too that the real meaning of Isaiah 53 only becomes apparent in the light of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Back to Moo, who is wrestling with the text of James in a day when it is a very controversial text for some who want to find passages in the New Testament that will suggest that Paul is somehow a 'rogue apostle' promoting a gospel that differs from that of the Lord Jesus Christ and other apostles. Dealing with these issues and producing a coherent commentary on the text of James is no easy matter and I do not think that I could do better than Douglas Moo. But what does disturb me is the heavy reliance in this commentary on the early date for James (pretty certainly true) as a reason why James and Paul do not seem to agree: James is writing to a largely Jewish readership at an early stage in the history of the church and therefore the development of apostolic theology permits James to express things in a way he might not have done in the light of the later developments by Paul. (That is my summary of what Douglas Moo says at a number of points.)

Of course it all sounds reasonable enough, unless you bring to mind that the 'prime cause' author is not James but the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit knows perfectly well what he will inspire Paul to write, and everyone else. James leaves his mark on the text in many ways, but if Peter's comments mean anything we can be sure that the 'carrying along by the Holy Spirit' will mean that James will write beyond his own understanding where that is necessary. I say where that is necessary because James, as an apostolic author, writes under the promise that the Holy Spirit will reveal all truth to him and bring to mind the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and more. James is not doing his best in the circumstances. Instead, the Holy Spirit having illumined his mind and now carrying him along as he writes, he produces pure and accurate truth for the Gospel age. The truth is not limited to him or by him. He knows far more than you or I or Douglas Moo (or even NT Wright, for that matter!) and his work is not some 'early stage' production that we can now see the fault lines in. Here is apostolic truth that speaks into in our lives, judges us as a living word sharper than any two-edged sword, and gets right to the heart of our sinful problems. Here is the pure Word on which the church of God is founded. Here God speaks, as he does through all Scripture but with special clarity in the New Testament where the Gospel is revealed, expounded and explained.

I think Douglas Moo would agree with most of what I have said. But sadly, I think evangelical scholars sometimes now too easily adopt the methods and presuppositions of the liberal scholars, and thus undermine a high view of Scripture which is essential to a true and living faith.

(Quotations in this post are from the English Standard Version of the Bible.)]]>