Ed Shaw, “The Plausibility Problem: The Church and Same-sex Attraction”, Nottingham: IVP, 2015.
This book comes with a foreword by Vaughan Roberts and fourteen other commendations at the front. The breadth of Christian leaders which celebrate this publication, includes Dan Strange of Oak Hill; Terry Virgo, the founder of New Frontiers (Virgo claims to be an apostle!); four female “church leaders”; and the Bishop of Winchester.
Ed Shaw is an Anglican minister currently working with a new church plant called Emmanuel City Centre in Bristol. He is very open in this book, in that he explains that he is same-sex attracted to “beautiful men” (p 31). He seeks to handle this sensitive subject pastorally and from an evangelical perspective. The opening chapter is called “The Plausibility Problem” which paints two fictional scenarios of two separate same-sex attracted (SSA) individuals called Peter and Jane. Both of them end up embracing a liberal Christian position and living in same-sex relationships. Shaw explores how we can prevent professing SSA Christians from leaving the evangelical church.
He contends that just citing proof-texts on homosexuality to such situations is an insufficient response and that this is an approach that lacks credibility today. He asserts that the evangelical church need a more robust approach and he seeks to offer a way forward, part of this is to suggest celibacy as a vibrant Christian lifestyle, one that can plausibly be without crippling frustration.
He approaches this “plausibility problem” by offering nine chapters, to handle what he perceives as “missteps” by the church in caring for SSA professing Christians. The author works hard to create “space” in the contemporary evangelical church for SSA Christians, and indeed chapter 8 on “Celibacy” was one of the best chapters. However, this book offers insufficient biblical exegesis and careful thought beyond the author’s own experience. This is a highly sensitive subject, one which needs handling with biblical thoroughness.
It is a tenuous foundation when we mainly present broad-based solutions for what is a complex and sinful world and this is what this book does in many ways. The author left me with unanswered questions, such as: Why is the book light on answering key questions exegetically?; Why does Shaw cite female ministers and Roman Catholic writers to support his arguments? (pp 24-25, 74, 88, 92, 114); Why are the words lust and sin avoided in describing SSA temptations?; Is it legitimate for a Christian minister to hold office, be open as a SSA man, and still meet the biblical qualifications of eldership?
The primary value of this book for the evangelical church is perhaps a stimulus and much-needed catalyst for the church in the coming years, to think through their care of SSA people. That is to find a spiritually healthy way that is intentional, diligent and biblical. However, considering the breadth of endorsements and authors cited in this book, we also need to revisit the question: “what is an evangelical?”.
Monday, 31 August 2015
Monday, 24 August 2015
The importance of physical rest and holidays as a Christian
Mark 6:31 "And he said unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while: for there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat" (KJV).
Someone once said to me years ago about this Bible verse with respect for the necessity of physical and mental rest: "If you do not come apart, you will come apart". Some people are workaholics and thankfully I am not one of them. I was a workaholic once, when I worked for a very pressured, yet successful corporation and I resolved when I became a Christian to never to become a workaholic again. Taking rest is essential for Christians, families, husbands, wives, and children. What I am talking about primarily in this blog post is appropriate holidays.
My primary aim in writing this blog a number of years ago was to "sow seeds" to move people in a more biblical and Reformed direction. This continues to be my primary aim. However, what has become ever more clear me to me in the succeeding years is that due to sin, it is hard for all of us to live balanced lives. For example excess "zeal without knowledge" (Romans 10:2) can lead any of us to holding imbalanced doctrines. Though we may hold to Calvinistic or confessional truth, this does not mean that we hold all truths with biblical balance or that we practice all truth with balance. We can easily and unknowingly be out of harmony with Scripture.
Taking holidays is part of the sabbath rest principle that is found in Scripture is therefore a good, wholesome and biblical practice. This kind of holiday I am mentioning is beyond the norm of the weekly Sabbath rest, especially for ministers because our Lord's Days can be very busy and simply having a day off during the week does not compensate for a proper holiday. Quite often for myself over the years, it takes me 5-6 days to fully unwind mentally when on holiday. If Jesus called his disciples to "come apart" may we ensure that we do not walk in disobedience by acting in a way beyond our master by failing to take appropriate rest. Someone also warned me years ago about the importance of "listening to your body".
Enjoy your holidays, take your Bible with you and some good wholesome Christian books as well, while enjoying nature, swimming and whatever else!
Someone once said to me years ago about this Bible verse with respect for the necessity of physical and mental rest: "If you do not come apart, you will come apart". Some people are workaholics and thankfully I am not one of them. I was a workaholic once, when I worked for a very pressured, yet successful corporation and I resolved when I became a Christian to never to become a workaholic again. Taking rest is essential for Christians, families, husbands, wives, and children. What I am talking about primarily in this blog post is appropriate holidays.
My primary aim in writing this blog a number of years ago was to "sow seeds" to move people in a more biblical and Reformed direction. This continues to be my primary aim. However, what has become ever more clear me to me in the succeeding years is that due to sin, it is hard for all of us to live balanced lives. For example excess "zeal without knowledge" (Romans 10:2) can lead any of us to holding imbalanced doctrines. Though we may hold to Calvinistic or confessional truth, this does not mean that we hold all truths with biblical balance or that we practice all truth with balance. We can easily and unknowingly be out of harmony with Scripture.
Taking holidays is part of the sabbath rest principle that is found in Scripture is therefore a good, wholesome and biblical practice. This kind of holiday I am mentioning is beyond the norm of the weekly Sabbath rest, especially for ministers because our Lord's Days can be very busy and simply having a day off during the week does not compensate for a proper holiday. Quite often for myself over the years, it takes me 5-6 days to fully unwind mentally when on holiday. If Jesus called his disciples to "come apart" may we ensure that we do not walk in disobedience by acting in a way beyond our master by failing to take appropriate rest. Someone also warned me years ago about the importance of "listening to your body".
Enjoy your holidays, take your Bible with you and some good wholesome Christian books as well, while enjoying nature, swimming and whatever else!
Monday, 17 August 2015
Book Review: The NIV Proclamation Bible (Hodder & Stoughton, 2013).
The dust jacket of this newly updated NIV Bible asserts that this is “the clearest and most accurate modern English Bible translation”. The NIV was first published in 1978, updated in 1984, and again in 2011; therefore one may ask, “why are further significant revisions needed?”. It is assumed by the NIV translation team that there has been a shift in the English language, which apparently required (in 2011) a gender inclusive translation to reflect “common” English (p ix). Where necessary, it refers to “they/them/their” instead of “he”. However, in taking time to read this translation for review and while comparing it with the original biblical languages, I have asked myself this question many times: “Is the English language changing or are the theological views of the translators changing?”.
This project has now been taken up by Hodder & Stoughton, with the help of an editor Lee Gatiss (the director of the Anglican Church Society) and consultant editors. In addition, a cast of well known church leaders have written Bible notes to support this translation. There are three aspects to the NIV Proclamation Bible for serious and careful consideration. First is the accuracy of the translation itself; second are the summaries of the message of each Bible book (with notes on other major Bible themes) by a prominent pastor or scholar (men and women interestingly!); and third the extent of the wholehearted endorsements from within the English speaking evangelical world.
There is the need for further treatment of this subject, however this review understandably, can only “paint with broad brush strokes”. In reference to the gender inclusive nature of this translation, the most prominent shift is from the word “brothers” in the NT Epistles to “brothers and sisters” instead (1 Cor 1:10, 11, 26; 2:1; 3:1 as a sample). For consistency, this theme is “rolled out” across the NT, including the introduction of Galatians where Paul writes “and all the brothers and sisters with me” (1:1); thus implying Paul’s travelling team included men and women, which it did not. Similarly, while in prison with his male co-workers in writing to the Philippians, the NIV mistakenly reads at the end of the Epistle “the brothers and sisters who are with me send greetings” (Phil 4:21).
There is a subtle shift in theological intent in this translation. Let me cite a stark example. In 1 Timothy 2:12 we read: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man”. This nuanced thought now suggests doctrinally, that a woman must not “assume authority over a man”, but that it can be given her by men. Thereby opening the door for gender equality in ministry, the public reading of Scripture and church governance. I contend that such changes to the Scripture open the way for a doctrinal drift, rather than reflecting an English language shift.
An area of further concern was when I read 1 Timothy 3 and the qualifications for elders and deacons. With a “stroke of the pen”, the editors undermine the office of deacon by asserting in the footnotes that the “word deacon refers here to Christians designated to serve with overseers/elders” such as Romans 16:1, Philippians 1:1. The bold step is made to translate Romans 16:1 “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae”. The way is deliberately opened for a multiplicity of ways for women to exercise ministry and governance, while failing to uphold the biblical difference between the office of deacon and diaconal work.
While the summaries of each Bible book are quite helpful, the quality of contributions is uneven. There is a standard format required by the editors and this includes three commentary suggestions for each Bible book. The late John Stott appears as one of the most frequently cited, but questions arise when Mark Meynell recommends N. T. Wright on “Philemon” (p 1319). Is N. T. Wright really a safe and reliable evangelical teaching guide for the church?
I cannot write this review without noting that a number of women have been asked to write contributions to the Bible book introductions. The editors and endorsers of this NIV Proclamation Bible are clearly signalling their aim, one which is to give women the responsibility to teach “brothers and sisters” doctrine in the church. This drift is now upon us in the evangelical world.
Finally, the breadth of high profile evangelical endorsements means that this translation will quickly gain acceptance and be used by preachers, as well as become a popular pew Bible, most especially, but not exclusively in evangelical Anglican circles (and by The Proclamation Trust). The four primary endorsements (p ii) are from Timothy Keller of New York, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen, Wheaton College pastor Joshua W. Moody and Carrie Sandom, associate minister for women and pastoral care at St John’s Tonbridge Wells.
In conclusion, there is a great need for ministers to be equipped in the biblical languages to be able to scrutinise assertions that will be made in the years ahead, because this translation signals a subtle but seismic evangelical shift. The question to be contended is: “Is it a shift in a biblical direction or not?”. This reviewer is disappointed at the wide-scale “wind of change” towards an egalitarian model for church ministry and governance, one which does not have biblical, historic or theological warrant in my opinion. For churches seeking to use a new translation, I suggest that they look elsewhere, than to adopt this Bible.
This project has now been taken up by Hodder & Stoughton, with the help of an editor Lee Gatiss (the director of the Anglican Church Society) and consultant editors. In addition, a cast of well known church leaders have written Bible notes to support this translation. There are three aspects to the NIV Proclamation Bible for serious and careful consideration. First is the accuracy of the translation itself; second are the summaries of the message of each Bible book (with notes on other major Bible themes) by a prominent pastor or scholar (men and women interestingly!); and third the extent of the wholehearted endorsements from within the English speaking evangelical world.
There is the need for further treatment of this subject, however this review understandably, can only “paint with broad brush strokes”. In reference to the gender inclusive nature of this translation, the most prominent shift is from the word “brothers” in the NT Epistles to “brothers and sisters” instead (1 Cor 1:10, 11, 26; 2:1; 3:1 as a sample). For consistency, this theme is “rolled out” across the NT, including the introduction of Galatians where Paul writes “and all the brothers and sisters with me” (1:1); thus implying Paul’s travelling team included men and women, which it did not. Similarly, while in prison with his male co-workers in writing to the Philippians, the NIV mistakenly reads at the end of the Epistle “the brothers and sisters who are with me send greetings” (Phil 4:21).
There is a subtle shift in theological intent in this translation. Let me cite a stark example. In 1 Timothy 2:12 we read: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man”. This nuanced thought now suggests doctrinally, that a woman must not “assume authority over a man”, but that it can be given her by men. Thereby opening the door for gender equality in ministry, the public reading of Scripture and church governance. I contend that such changes to the Scripture open the way for a doctrinal drift, rather than reflecting an English language shift.
An area of further concern was when I read 1 Timothy 3 and the qualifications for elders and deacons. With a “stroke of the pen”, the editors undermine the office of deacon by asserting in the footnotes that the “word deacon refers here to Christians designated to serve with overseers/elders” such as Romans 16:1, Philippians 1:1. The bold step is made to translate Romans 16:1 “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae”. The way is deliberately opened for a multiplicity of ways for women to exercise ministry and governance, while failing to uphold the biblical difference between the office of deacon and diaconal work.
While the summaries of each Bible book are quite helpful, the quality of contributions is uneven. There is a standard format required by the editors and this includes three commentary suggestions for each Bible book. The late John Stott appears as one of the most frequently cited, but questions arise when Mark Meynell recommends N. T. Wright on “Philemon” (p 1319). Is N. T. Wright really a safe and reliable evangelical teaching guide for the church?
I cannot write this review without noting that a number of women have been asked to write contributions to the Bible book introductions. The editors and endorsers of this NIV Proclamation Bible are clearly signalling their aim, one which is to give women the responsibility to teach “brothers and sisters” doctrine in the church. This drift is now upon us in the evangelical world.
Finally, the breadth of high profile evangelical endorsements means that this translation will quickly gain acceptance and be used by preachers, as well as become a popular pew Bible, most especially, but not exclusively in evangelical Anglican circles (and by The Proclamation Trust). The four primary endorsements (p ii) are from Timothy Keller of New York, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen, Wheaton College pastor Joshua W. Moody and Carrie Sandom, associate minister for women and pastoral care at St John’s Tonbridge Wells.
In conclusion, there is a great need for ministers to be equipped in the biblical languages to be able to scrutinise assertions that will be made in the years ahead, because this translation signals a subtle but seismic evangelical shift. The question to be contended is: “Is it a shift in a biblical direction or not?”. This reviewer is disappointed at the wide-scale “wind of change” towards an egalitarian model for church ministry and governance, one which does not have biblical, historic or theological warrant in my opinion. For churches seeking to use a new translation, I suggest that they look elsewhere, than to adopt this Bible.
Saturday, 15 August 2015
Promoting the book called "Engaging with Keller"
This book was published in 2013 but it is far from out of date. It carries endorsements from R. Scott Clark and Ian Hamilton. Tim Keller has been invited to two conferences in England this year and he continues to exert a significant influence upon evangelical thinking in the English speaking world.
Though I am one of the contributors in this book (my essay is called "Losing the Dance: is the 'divine dance' a good explanation of the Trinity?"), I am unashamed in commending this book to as wide an audience as possible. Kellerite contextual approaches to the church, theology, preaching and worship abound. The church must be guarded against unbalanced doctrine. This does not mean that all that Tim Keller does is wrong, however there are significant flaws in his theological system.
Our supreme guide in the church is Holy Scripture and the right interpretation. Listen to Acts 8:30-31 'So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him'.
There are two key questions in this passage.
1). Do you understand what you are reading?
2). How can I unless someone guides me?
Our source of authority is Holy Scripture but we need reliable teachers to guide us. The book "Engaging with Keller" strengthens the church to engage with doctrine. For the first essay by Iain D. Campbell called "Keller on 'Rebranding' the doctrine of Sin", the book pays for itself.
Buy it and pass it on to others.
Though I am one of the contributors in this book (my essay is called "Losing the Dance: is the 'divine dance' a good explanation of the Trinity?"), I am unashamed in commending this book to as wide an audience as possible. Kellerite contextual approaches to the church, theology, preaching and worship abound. The church must be guarded against unbalanced doctrine. This does not mean that all that Tim Keller does is wrong, however there are significant flaws in his theological system.
Our supreme guide in the church is Holy Scripture and the right interpretation. Listen to Acts 8:30-31 'So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him'.
There are two key questions in this passage.
1). Do you understand what you are reading?
2). How can I unless someone guides me?
Our source of authority is Holy Scripture but we need reliable teachers to guide us. The book "Engaging with Keller" strengthens the church to engage with doctrine. For the first essay by Iain D. Campbell called "Keller on 'Rebranding' the doctrine of Sin", the book pays for itself.
Buy it and pass it on to others.
Tuesday, 21 July 2015
Maintaining and Developing a Sense of "Awe" at the Glorious Gospel
I considered calling this blog post "the Amazing Grace of the Glorious Gospel", but I went with the above title, though both would communicate something of what I hope to explain. In all of our pursuit for the soundness of doctrine, and we must pursue this, we must ensure also that we do not lose sight of a sense of "awe" at our God, the gospel and his work of grace in our lives.
Romans 3:24 "And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus".
Hebrews 12:28 "Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire".
Firstly, we must not lose sight of our sense of awe and gratitude for God in saving us, justifying us (declaring us no longer guilty in God's sight based on the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ) and in redeeming us. There is a great danger for all of us, that we can fall into a measure of self-righteousness and pride the longer we go on in the Christian life. As we grow in sanctification, may we not forget what we once were. We so easily forget what we once were as Christians, many of us often forget that we were once muddled in our thinking and our way of life, but the Lord perseveres with us and he changes our lives.
Paul had to remind the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God".
Therefore, may we be reminded what we once were: "And such were some of you"; to guard against pride and to be renewed in our amazement and "awe" of God's purposes for us through the gospel.
Secondly, Hebrews teaches us that there is an "acceptable worship", which means that it is possible to approach the Lord in the church with unacceptable forms/elements of worship. This would deserve a whole article in itself, however Chapter 21 of the Westminster Confession of Faith explains the right elements of worship. Hebrews 12:28 asserts that true and biblical worship should be marked with "reverence and awe". While it is common to talk about a lack of reverence in public worship in some Christian circles, it is almost never heard that there was a lack of "awe".
Our churches may be Reformed in their approach to God using the biblical elements of worship, there may be a sense of reverence and yet there could well be lacking a sense of "awe". It would seem probable, in the light of Hebrews 12:28, that "reverence and awe" need to be considered together. They are naturally different Greek words and "reverence" emphasises something of the fear of God while "awe" emphasises fear, but also wonder in the knowledge of the Lord's attributes. We may stand at the bottom of the Alps and say that the "mountains were awesome". Have we lost a sense of awe in our public worship in the West? Surely a fresh emphasis on the Three Persons of the Trinity will help us in our worship, but this is not all that is needed.
In all of our pursuit for spiritual growth, for doctrinal knowledge, in reading theological books, in our personal devotions, may we pray for both reverence and awe of our God, in equal measure. May we wait and see how our Lord will answer such a prayer. Surely a sense of "awe" is much needed for the church in the West in our time.
Romans 3:24 "And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus".
Hebrews 12:28 "Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire".
Firstly, we must not lose sight of our sense of awe and gratitude for God in saving us, justifying us (declaring us no longer guilty in God's sight based on the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ) and in redeeming us. There is a great danger for all of us, that we can fall into a measure of self-righteousness and pride the longer we go on in the Christian life. As we grow in sanctification, may we not forget what we once were. We so easily forget what we once were as Christians, many of us often forget that we were once muddled in our thinking and our way of life, but the Lord perseveres with us and he changes our lives.
Paul had to remind the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God".
Therefore, may we be reminded what we once were: "And such were some of you"; to guard against pride and to be renewed in our amazement and "awe" of God's purposes for us through the gospel.
Secondly, Hebrews teaches us that there is an "acceptable worship", which means that it is possible to approach the Lord in the church with unacceptable forms/elements of worship. This would deserve a whole article in itself, however Chapter 21 of the Westminster Confession of Faith explains the right elements of worship. Hebrews 12:28 asserts that true and biblical worship should be marked with "reverence and awe". While it is common to talk about a lack of reverence in public worship in some Christian circles, it is almost never heard that there was a lack of "awe".
Our churches may be Reformed in their approach to God using the biblical elements of worship, there may be a sense of reverence and yet there could well be lacking a sense of "awe". It would seem probable, in the light of Hebrews 12:28, that "reverence and awe" need to be considered together. They are naturally different Greek words and "reverence" emphasises something of the fear of God while "awe" emphasises fear, but also wonder in the knowledge of the Lord's attributes. We may stand at the bottom of the Alps and say that the "mountains were awesome". Have we lost a sense of awe in our public worship in the West? Surely a fresh emphasis on the Three Persons of the Trinity will help us in our worship, but this is not all that is needed.
In all of our pursuit for spiritual growth, for doctrinal knowledge, in reading theological books, in our personal devotions, may we pray for both reverence and awe of our God, in equal measure. May we wait and see how our Lord will answer such a prayer. Surely a sense of "awe" is much needed for the church in the West in our time.
Tuesday, 14 July 2015
Recovering the Westminster Confession of Faith
The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) was one of the primary documents produced by the Westminster Assembly. The WCF was first published in 1646 in English, but since then it has travelled around the world and it has been translated and used by Church denominations in many languages. Why? Well, as Psalm 100:6 reminds us that "God's truth (also translated faithfulness) endures to all generations". Truth is eternal and so are biblical doctrines, such as justification, when they are grounded in Scripture as their expression. There is a rich enduring quality of the truth in the WCF.
The WCF was designed to codify and put in writing a summary of the Apostles's Doctrine for the church to subscribe to and adhere to. The Westminster Assembly cleared matters concerning the church's doctrine, but also in matters of worship and church government.
What are some of the significant reasons for recovering the Westminster Confession of Faith?
1. Its expression of biblical doctrines is outstanding. We could say, it is "without peer" as John Murray believed. Its contact within a church enriches us, so that we can express much better, biblical truth.
2. It provides a standard by which preachers and church office holders are to be trained, examined and ordained. If we do not have the WCF, then what will we use instead? It was not uncommon at the time of Charles Haddon Spurgeon for church's to replace a commitment to a Reformed Confession with a 8-10 point Statement of Faith. A doctrinal minimalism which asserts simple truths in matters such as the Trinity, Scripture, the church, baptism and so forth. However, a Statement of Faith is wholly insufficient for the church in my view. You cannot call yourself a Reformed Church if you only hold a Statement of Faith. You cannot call yourself a Reformed church if the ministers and elders are not bound to uphold a Reformed Confession. The church needs to be protected and a robust and enthusiastic commitment to the WCF goes a long way for this to happen.
3. The WCF is an open document, therefore, if a church subscribe to it, they can hold preachers and office bearers accountable. This is important to "walk in the light" before people. One person said during membership classes at Sheffield Presbyterian Church, that they had been in a church for 6 years before they really found out what the pastor really believed. He had obviously kept his "cards close to his chest". When we subscribe fully to the Westminster Confession, everything is out in the open.
4. The WCF provides a platform for church unity and stable church government. If all the elders confess the WCF, it builds harmony and unity, not division.
5. It provides security for church members. They know what is the basis of the church, something that is often not made clear to church members.
Would you like to know more about congregations committed to the Westminster Confession of Faith? If so, do contact us through the church website (www.sheffieldpres.org.uk). However, this is not my main point for writing this blog post. My main aim is exactly and unashamedly what this blog title says. My aim is for a recovery of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Ps For further reading: G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith (P & R).
R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession, (P & R).
The WCF was designed to codify and put in writing a summary of the Apostles's Doctrine for the church to subscribe to and adhere to. The Westminster Assembly cleared matters concerning the church's doctrine, but also in matters of worship and church government.
What are some of the significant reasons for recovering the Westminster Confession of Faith?
1. Its expression of biblical doctrines is outstanding. We could say, it is "without peer" as John Murray believed. Its contact within a church enriches us, so that we can express much better, biblical truth.
2. It provides a standard by which preachers and church office holders are to be trained, examined and ordained. If we do not have the WCF, then what will we use instead? It was not uncommon at the time of Charles Haddon Spurgeon for church's to replace a commitment to a Reformed Confession with a 8-10 point Statement of Faith. A doctrinal minimalism which asserts simple truths in matters such as the Trinity, Scripture, the church, baptism and so forth. However, a Statement of Faith is wholly insufficient for the church in my view. You cannot call yourself a Reformed Church if you only hold a Statement of Faith. You cannot call yourself a Reformed church if the ministers and elders are not bound to uphold a Reformed Confession. The church needs to be protected and a robust and enthusiastic commitment to the WCF goes a long way for this to happen.
3. The WCF is an open document, therefore, if a church subscribe to it, they can hold preachers and office bearers accountable. This is important to "walk in the light" before people. One person said during membership classes at Sheffield Presbyterian Church, that they had been in a church for 6 years before they really found out what the pastor really believed. He had obviously kept his "cards close to his chest". When we subscribe fully to the Westminster Confession, everything is out in the open.
4. The WCF provides a platform for church unity and stable church government. If all the elders confess the WCF, it builds harmony and unity, not division.
5. It provides security for church members. They know what is the basis of the church, something that is often not made clear to church members.
Would you like to know more about congregations committed to the Westminster Confession of Faith? If so, do contact us through the church website (www.sheffieldpres.org.uk). However, this is not my main point for writing this blog post. My main aim is exactly and unashamedly what this blog title says. My aim is for a recovery of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Ps For further reading: G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith (P & R).
R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession, (P & R).
Tuesday, 7 July 2015
Why should "preaching" always be called "preaching" in and for the church?
Over the years, since I have been converted, I have observed that many sections of the professing Christian church have sought to rename and rebrand the act of "preaching". It is as if everything needs to be revisited every generation to attempt to improve the "state of play", but is the Bible the source of these changes? Words are important, just ask any government, lawyer or marketing company. Words frame action. For example, sometimes preaching is rebranded as "sharing" or a more popular notion is that of giving "talks". But, do these phrases produce a different mode and style of communication for the church?
If we look briefly at the five commissions given by the head of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ in the four Gospels and Acts, we will discover what are the commands he has given for his church.
1. To teach (Matthew 28:19)
2. Proclaim (Mark 16:15)
3. Proclaim (Luke 24:47)
4. Feed my sheep (21:17)
5. You shall be my witnesses (Acts 1:8)
Therefore, the primary actions in making known the truth of the gospel and to feed God's sheep is through teaching, which is explanation with clarity, and preaching which is declarative. Preaching conveys the idea of authority, it is a message from God to be heralded, to be proclaimed and then to be received by the hearers. There is a judgment from God upon those who persist in refusing the call of the preached gospel, which is to repent and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15). For those who refuse to repent, they will die in their sins and endure eternal punishment from God Almighty.
My question is: Why would we want to exchange the language of the Lord Jesus, that of "preaching and teaching" for very different words. Jesus did not say to his church "go into all the world and "give talks" or go and "lead discussion groups" or go and "share my love". He could of, but he did not.
Perhaps the issue is bound up with authority and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ and his written Scriptures. I do not believe that anything can substitute the act of preaching of the gospel, for the benefit of the church and of the world. Nothing else truly satisfies the inner-desires of sheep than the preaching of sound doctrine. We thank God for the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, but they must always be accompanied with preaching and teaching. Do you go to a church that is committed to preaching? If not, are you really being fed spiritually? May we pray to the Lord of the harvest that he would send forth labourers who would "preach in season and out of season" (Matthew 9:38 and 2 Timothy 4:2).
If we look briefly at the five commissions given by the head of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ in the four Gospels and Acts, we will discover what are the commands he has given for his church.
1. To teach (Matthew 28:19)
2. Proclaim (Mark 16:15)
3. Proclaim (Luke 24:47)
4. Feed my sheep (21:17)
5. You shall be my witnesses (Acts 1:8)
Therefore, the primary actions in making known the truth of the gospel and to feed God's sheep is through teaching, which is explanation with clarity, and preaching which is declarative. Preaching conveys the idea of authority, it is a message from God to be heralded, to be proclaimed and then to be received by the hearers. There is a judgment from God upon those who persist in refusing the call of the preached gospel, which is to repent and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15). For those who refuse to repent, they will die in their sins and endure eternal punishment from God Almighty.
My question is: Why would we want to exchange the language of the Lord Jesus, that of "preaching and teaching" for very different words. Jesus did not say to his church "go into all the world and "give talks" or go and "lead discussion groups" or go and "share my love". He could of, but he did not.
Perhaps the issue is bound up with authority and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ and his written Scriptures. I do not believe that anything can substitute the act of preaching of the gospel, for the benefit of the church and of the world. Nothing else truly satisfies the inner-desires of sheep than the preaching of sound doctrine. We thank God for the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, but they must always be accompanied with preaching and teaching. Do you go to a church that is committed to preaching? If not, are you really being fed spiritually? May we pray to the Lord of the harvest that he would send forth labourers who would "preach in season and out of season" (Matthew 9:38 and 2 Timothy 4:2).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)