Boundaries!
An experienced pastor came to talk about outreach. The question came up, 'what about the church?' He had given sound advice about what to do and what not do when 'playing away' and contacting 'outsiders' but what about 'at home'? What sort of a church ought we to be at home? The answer was that we should preserve the distinctives and make sure the members know where the boundaries are. We don't want suspect professions of faith or people coming in with the wrong expectations. I understood what he was getting at - be honest and avoid compromising the gospel. For me at least, he was pressing the 'right buttons'.
However, the boundaries-word left me trifle uneasy. Having spent time in a highly controlled, well defined, church situation, where the boundaries were always clear and mobility from the inside out and the outside in correspondingly difficult, I wondered how this would marry up to the the notion of outreach. My recollection is that it required almost superhuman strength of will to cross in either direction. I also remembered something in the Bible about people who were unwilling either to enter the kingdom themselves or permit others to do so.
How the church continues to be the church while reaching out to the lost seems to be linked to the dialectic of being passionate for truth and passionate for the lost. Does either require the surrender of anything to the other? I don't think so, for if it did, we would not be able to rely on Christ's work for our salvation. Mercy and truth meet together in him.
Monday, 17 November 2008
Thursday, 30 October 2008
Rutherford - to those dissatisfied with what God gives
'I exhort you in the Lord to go on your journey to heaven, and to be content with such fare on the way as Christ and his followers have had before you; for they always had the wind on their faces, and the Lord has not changed the way to us, for our ease, but will have us following our sweet Guide.'
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
Thank you Geraint Tudur
I've been reading Geraint Tudur's scholarly biography of Howell Harris*, one of the founding fathers of Calvinistic Methodism out of which Welsh Presbyterianism grew. I have a natural interest in this subject because that is the way I came, historically speaking.
As things turned out the parent body was greater than the child for what the Presbyterian Church of Wales seemed to gain in terms of structure, organisation, training institutions, and indeed favour with men it lost in terms of spiritual life and doctrinal soundness. The Calvinistic Methodists were well organised but also highly motivated, serious-minded, experimental Calvinists, who in the 18th & 19th centuries, together with reborn Baptists, Independents and a few good Anglicans, helped turn Wales upside down.
Harris appeared fearless in propagating the gospel but Tudur, using Harris' diary, shows that his treasure was in a genuine earthen vessel. Harris' vulnerability, which in the end, served to ensure that the excellence of the power was from God and not men, was apparent in his view of revelation, his early Arminianism and his struggle with assurance.
In regard to the first, he showed an early and abiding- predilection for personal signs & messages from heaven and also, between 1735 & 1737, an apparent disdain for the Bible. The ability to invoke divine authority for indiosyncratic ideas and behavioral abberations speak more of a strong ego than a teachable spirit and is as prevalent now as then. Some aspects of 'enthusiasm' are distinctly unrreformed and unhelpful . In Harris' case they might well have contributed to the division between him and the other Welsh Methodists. The Bible came more to the fore as a he grew in faith, but he always looked back to those early days of unrehearsed, extemporaneous exhortation as the standard for later years.
In regard to doctrine, I should have known that he shared the institutional Arminianism of the Church of England, but somehow it hadn't registered. It must surely have aggravated his lack of assurance. Like many of us, he took a while to understand more clearly the sovereignty of God, the nature of grace and the experience of new birth. However, in the words of Richard Bennett, 'there was a great difference between his theology and his faith', (understood subjectively). Later he would take a charitable stand with Calvinism against Arminianism.
As regards asurance, like many with a strong ego, he sometimes hovered between certainty and despair, even while affirming his love for Christ. The struggle, it seems, was between a works-based salvation in which 'duty' assumed great importance and full reliance on unmerited grace.
I suppose the clay feet of men like Harris, mirror not only our own feeble attempts to follow the Lamb, but also those of true 'greats', the men and women of Scripture, who in dependence on divine grace, fought the good fight and finished the course!
* HOWELL HARRIS From Conversion to Separation 1735 - 1750
UNIVERSITY OF WALES PRESS, 2000
As things turned out the parent body was greater than the child for what the Presbyterian Church of Wales seemed to gain in terms of structure, organisation, training institutions, and indeed favour with men it lost in terms of spiritual life and doctrinal soundness. The Calvinistic Methodists were well organised but also highly motivated, serious-minded, experimental Calvinists, who in the 18th & 19th centuries, together with reborn Baptists, Independents and a few good Anglicans, helped turn Wales upside down.
Harris appeared fearless in propagating the gospel but Tudur, using Harris' diary, shows that his treasure was in a genuine earthen vessel. Harris' vulnerability, which in the end, served to ensure that the excellence of the power was from God and not men, was apparent in his view of revelation, his early Arminianism and his struggle with assurance.
In regard to the first, he showed an early and abiding- predilection for personal signs & messages from heaven and also, between 1735 & 1737, an apparent disdain for the Bible. The ability to invoke divine authority for indiosyncratic ideas and behavioral abberations speak more of a strong ego than a teachable spirit and is as prevalent now as then. Some aspects of 'enthusiasm' are distinctly unrreformed and unhelpful . In Harris' case they might well have contributed to the division between him and the other Welsh Methodists. The Bible came more to the fore as a he grew in faith, but he always looked back to those early days of unrehearsed, extemporaneous exhortation as the standard for later years.
In regard to doctrine, I should have known that he shared the institutional Arminianism of the Church of England, but somehow it hadn't registered. It must surely have aggravated his lack of assurance. Like many of us, he took a while to understand more clearly the sovereignty of God, the nature of grace and the experience of new birth. However, in the words of Richard Bennett, 'there was a great difference between his theology and his faith', (understood subjectively). Later he would take a charitable stand with Calvinism against Arminianism.
As regards asurance, like many with a strong ego, he sometimes hovered between certainty and despair, even while affirming his love for Christ. The struggle, it seems, was between a works-based salvation in which 'duty' assumed great importance and full reliance on unmerited grace.
I suppose the clay feet of men like Harris, mirror not only our own feeble attempts to follow the Lamb, but also those of true 'greats', the men and women of Scripture, who in dependence on divine grace, fought the good fight and finished the course!
* HOWELL HARRIS From Conversion to Separation 1735 - 1750
UNIVERSITY OF WALES PRESS, 2000
Sunday, 19 October 2008
Evangelical Reformed Church in Sweden
The silver birches were a welcoming lemon-yellow as we flew into Stokholm- Skavsta at the invitation of the ERCS. They wanted help with ordaining a pastor and a ruling elder and also to see if they could become part of the EPCEW presbytery in the UK.
The work of the ERCS is confined to a single congregation of about 40 people at Tranas, about 3 hours SW of Stockholm, and a small group of serious-minded believers in Stokholm.
The work got under way with the arrival in 2,000 of Rev. Gary Johnson, a PCA missionary, and Rev. David Bergmark, the present Swedish pastor, who trained at RTS, Jackson. they hire the local Methodist church for services and have a suite of offices on a local housing estate, from which they run operations.
The Swedish state is very secularized and the indigneous Lutheran church a shadow of its former self. The group at Tranas seem to be the only one of its kind in Sweden, where prejudice against the reformed position is strong. Yet these are people with perseverance and vision. They are looking to extend east toward Linkoping, where Gary had access to the Methodist church, and Stokholm, where a group meets regularly for Bible study.
As primitive as the situation is, this group has thought things through and so far succeeded in resisting the populist tendencies often found in emerging causes wanting a quick fix. I especially liked their serious ecclesiology and approach to worship, putting God first and themselves and seekers second. They also have a small translation and publishing enterprise, with one of their latest offerings Sproul's work on the Holiness of God.
Definitely worth praying for and supporting!
The work of the ERCS is confined to a single congregation of about 40 people at Tranas, about 3 hours SW of Stockholm, and a small group of serious-minded believers in Stokholm.
The work got under way with the arrival in 2,000 of Rev. Gary Johnson, a PCA missionary, and Rev. David Bergmark, the present Swedish pastor, who trained at RTS, Jackson. they hire the local Methodist church for services and have a suite of offices on a local housing estate, from which they run operations.
The Swedish state is very secularized and the indigneous Lutheran church a shadow of its former self. The group at Tranas seem to be the only one of its kind in Sweden, where prejudice against the reformed position is strong. Yet these are people with perseverance and vision. They are looking to extend east toward Linkoping, where Gary had access to the Methodist church, and Stokholm, where a group meets regularly for Bible study.
As primitive as the situation is, this group has thought things through and so far succeeded in resisting the populist tendencies often found in emerging causes wanting a quick fix. I especially liked their serious ecclesiology and approach to worship, putting God first and themselves and seekers second. They also have a small translation and publishing enterprise, with one of their latest offerings Sproul's work on the Holiness of God.
Definitely worth praying for and supporting!
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
God's Word 'then' and 'now'
I've been thinking about 'contextualization' and the merging of 'horizons of understanding'. Contextualization - relating us to the Bible and the Bible to us across history and culture. Merging of horizons of understanding - when my standpoint and perspective merges with the biblical author's and his with mine. Sounds like a spiritual mine-field but we will get through safely if Scripture inteprets me while I try to interpret it - then, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, I might begin to think his thoughts after him.
I don't like culture that much - some bits are all right - but basically it is what society is and scripture is not very complimentary about it. But interpreting Scripture requires me to take account of it - not just mine or ours, but the biblical author's. I want to bring God's word to my culture because that is how it can be saved from its fallen-ness. As somebody once said, since we cannot bring a presuppositionless mind to God's Word, a proper self-awareness, which enables us to set aside our baggage, helps in letting God speak for himself.
Yes, I want my horizon of understanding to merge with that of the biblical writer, and more than that, with the mind of the Holy Spirit, but all this stuff about horizons and contextualization is a bit daunting. Never mind, God's word is living and powerful & sharper than any two edged sword! That's the point, it is his word, not ours, with an authority neither bounded nor compromised by our experience. The danger with the contextualizing thing is not just provincialism or syncretism but the shifting of the focus from the author (God) to the reader. This, it seems, is the essence of every heresy and perversion - ancient, modern and post-modern.
I don't like culture that much - some bits are all right - but basically it is what society is and scripture is not very complimentary about it. But interpreting Scripture requires me to take account of it - not just mine or ours, but the biblical author's. I want to bring God's word to my culture because that is how it can be saved from its fallen-ness. As somebody once said, since we cannot bring a presuppositionless mind to God's Word, a proper self-awareness, which enables us to set aside our baggage, helps in letting God speak for himself.
Yes, I want my horizon of understanding to merge with that of the biblical writer, and more than that, with the mind of the Holy Spirit, but all this stuff about horizons and contextualization is a bit daunting. Never mind, God's word is living and powerful & sharper than any two edged sword! That's the point, it is his word, not ours, with an authority neither bounded nor compromised by our experience. The danger with the contextualizing thing is not just provincialism or syncretism but the shifting of the focus from the author (God) to the reader. This, it seems, is the essence of every heresy and perversion - ancient, modern and post-modern.
Sunday, 31 August 2008
Caught
Went fishing last week to Freshwater West in Pembrokeshire. Conditions were poor and I could not spin from the rocks as I had wanted. The strong wind off the sea, the leaden sky and thundering breakers combining with the rugged beauty of the coast reminded me that to the eye and ear of faith God has an effective form of non-verbal revelation.
I caught nothing - not even a cold - but was captivated. Cormorants swimming and diving in an impossible sea, a group of four Curlews wheeling above the weed-covered rocks and the teeming Oystercatchers more than made up for the fact that every time I drew my line in the bait was still there.
'The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof!'
I caught nothing - not even a cold - but was captivated. Cormorants swimming and diving in an impossible sea, a group of four Curlews wheeling above the weed-covered rocks and the teeming Oystercatchers more than made up for the fact that every time I drew my line in the bait was still there.
'The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof!'
Thursday, 7 February 2008
Revival?
Horror scenes make for compulsive viewing and the God Channel is no exception! The gross familiarity with the Deity of many of the 'performers', ego-trips and stereo-typical methods of delivery are as offensive as their idea of revival is false. Where does it come from? Does it have antecedents in the history of the church? As a Welshman I am intrigued by the relation of past revivals to the present state of the church.
Brian Edwards, in his book, Revival, bases his understanding of revival largely on the reformation instituted king Hezekiah of Judah. Reformation seems to be at the centre. The Welsh language has the same word for reformation and revival. So if reformation and revival are synonymous, was what happened, for example, in 1904 really a revival?
Evan Roberts was born in 1878 into a Christian home in the town of Loughor in the county of Glamorgan. In the spring of 1904, before commencing training for the Presbyterian ministry, he awoke early one morning in a kind of ‘out of body’ experience. This he understood to be communion with God. He had similar experiences over the next three months.
It has been said that the character of a revival is, to a degree, influenced by the experience of its leader(s). 1904 was no exception. In a spiritual agony, Roberts sought permission of the Holy Spirit to articulate a prayer. ‘As one and the other prayed’ he wrote, ‘I put the question to the Spirit, “Shall I pray now?” “Wait a while”, said he … and as each one finished I asked, “May I pray now?”’ It set the tone for what followed. The Western Mail of November 11, 1904 reported that ‘the ancient township of Loughor, near Llanelly, is in the throes of a truly remarkable “revival,” the influence of which is spreading to the surrounding districts.’
The controlling principle of the revival was the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, which sounds noble enough, but in reality it opened the door to a species of confusion and human experience, which militated against genuine reformation and revival. To be fair, Roberts had affirmed from an early stage that his mission was to the church first. There is little about what happened thereafter to contradict this, but the 'revival' did not result in a revived church, which only goes to show that what we say and what we do are not always the same.
What I mean is that the traditional denominations, already in irremediable decline, were not revived. Some have explained this by reference to the special circumstances surrounding 1904. Whereas the church prior to the revival of 1859 had remained faithful to traditional orthodoxy and practice, the churches of 1904 had, in significant measure, already become heterodox. This is fair comment. By the end of the nineteenth century rationalism and theological liberalism had begun to influence the seminaries and pulpits of Wales. Even theologically conservative ministers and teachers were not as conservative as before.
But the explanation of why the church was not revived in 1904 lies partly in the nature of the revival itself. From our present perspective we might regard Roberts as very old fashioned but ‘his’ revival embraced a number of distinctive, modern features. He was experiential rather than doctrinal, mystical rather than dogmatic and individual rather than collective and like Søren Kierkegaard, proceeded in the belief salvation depends on our existential choices.
The fact is that the prevailing existentialism & mysticism of 1904 could do nothing to release the church from the stranglehold of liberalism, despite the valiant efforts of courageous men like Nantlais Williams, himself a product of the revival. The net result is that while many were converted, the institutional church lost ground on a massive scale. Some of course, left the established denominations in the belief that ‘the Glory had departed’. They became the first generation of the newly formed Pentecostal churches, which embraced Roberts’ emphasis on the Holy Spirit and developed it even further.
But were the ‘older’ denominations really past reviving, say, any more than the church at the time of the Protestant Reformation? That, for me, is an important question because the one thing necessary to halt the forward march of heterodoxy is truth combined with commensurate experience, not experience by itself. It is a serious indictment, that a so-called revival is characterised by a culpable absence of the preaching and teaching of God’s Word. Reformation and Revival are synonymous. The former leads to the latter and the latter can’t exist without the former. As the psalmist says in Psalm 119: 25, ‘My soul clings to the dust; revive me according to your word.’
Brian Edwards, in his book, Revival, bases his understanding of revival largely on the reformation instituted king Hezekiah of Judah. Reformation seems to be at the centre. The Welsh language has the same word for reformation and revival. So if reformation and revival are synonymous, was what happened, for example, in 1904 really a revival?
Evan Roberts was born in 1878 into a Christian home in the town of Loughor in the county of Glamorgan. In the spring of 1904, before commencing training for the Presbyterian ministry, he awoke early one morning in a kind of ‘out of body’ experience. This he understood to be communion with God. He had similar experiences over the next three months.
It has been said that the character of a revival is, to a degree, influenced by the experience of its leader(s). 1904 was no exception. In a spiritual agony, Roberts sought permission of the Holy Spirit to articulate a prayer. ‘As one and the other prayed’ he wrote, ‘I put the question to the Spirit, “Shall I pray now?” “Wait a while”, said he … and as each one finished I asked, “May I pray now?”’ It set the tone for what followed. The Western Mail of November 11, 1904 reported that ‘the ancient township of Loughor, near Llanelly, is in the throes of a truly remarkable “revival,” the influence of which is spreading to the surrounding districts.’
The controlling principle of the revival was the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, which sounds noble enough, but in reality it opened the door to a species of confusion and human experience, which militated against genuine reformation and revival. To be fair, Roberts had affirmed from an early stage that his mission was to the church first. There is little about what happened thereafter to contradict this, but the 'revival' did not result in a revived church, which only goes to show that what we say and what we do are not always the same.
What I mean is that the traditional denominations, already in irremediable decline, were not revived. Some have explained this by reference to the special circumstances surrounding 1904. Whereas the church prior to the revival of 1859 had remained faithful to traditional orthodoxy and practice, the churches of 1904 had, in significant measure, already become heterodox. This is fair comment. By the end of the nineteenth century rationalism and theological liberalism had begun to influence the seminaries and pulpits of Wales. Even theologically conservative ministers and teachers were not as conservative as before.
But the explanation of why the church was not revived in 1904 lies partly in the nature of the revival itself. From our present perspective we might regard Roberts as very old fashioned but ‘his’ revival embraced a number of distinctive, modern features. He was experiential rather than doctrinal, mystical rather than dogmatic and individual rather than collective and like Søren Kierkegaard, proceeded in the belief salvation depends on our existential choices.
The fact is that the prevailing existentialism & mysticism of 1904 could do nothing to release the church from the stranglehold of liberalism, despite the valiant efforts of courageous men like Nantlais Williams, himself a product of the revival. The net result is that while many were converted, the institutional church lost ground on a massive scale. Some of course, left the established denominations in the belief that ‘the Glory had departed’. They became the first generation of the newly formed Pentecostal churches, which embraced Roberts’ emphasis on the Holy Spirit and developed it even further.
But were the ‘older’ denominations really past reviving, say, any more than the church at the time of the Protestant Reformation? That, for me, is an important question because the one thing necessary to halt the forward march of heterodoxy is truth combined with commensurate experience, not experience by itself. It is a serious indictment, that a so-called revival is characterised by a culpable absence of the preaching and teaching of God’s Word. Reformation and Revival are synonymous. The former leads to the latter and the latter can’t exist without the former. As the psalmist says in Psalm 119: 25, ‘My soul clings to the dust; revive me according to your word.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)