From the Editor.

OK. I’ve come to a decision. I’m stopping blogging. I’m hardly a regular blogger anyway, but I’ve been thinking more and more about it, and without trying to trample on anyone else’s conscience, especially you folks who read here regularly and have your own blogs, I have come to the decision that blogging is no longer useful as a means of Christian communication. When I say that, I do not include all blogs but merely my kind of blog – a theological kind of blog. Nor do I want to suggest that any of you should give up blogging, but this is where my conscience is and you can read what I think and make up your own mind. I’ll probably still read the odd blog, but so far as writing and commenting it’s pretty much over for me I think. Blogging had a great potential for information sharing, edification and fellowship, and it has been all those to me, but sadly I believe it is evolving into something that is becoming ever more dangerous for the welfare of the Church of Christ. When I speak of blogging I mean the worldwide concept and not necessarily individual blogs themselves. There are some stunningly good and useful blogs and I hope there will continue to be, but I am not convinced that the culture that blogging has become is good for the Church.

Here are my reasons:

1) I have come to hate, yes hate, the celebrity culture that exists at present within evangelicalism and sadly none the less so within Reformed/Calvinist Christianity. I am convinced that part of the reason it exists is because of blogging. Within seconds of Mr. Big posting something, it is spurted all over the internet as the “new wisdom”, received with authority because of name and not necessarily because of the substance. I have decided that I no longer want to be a part of it. We shake our head in sad amazement at the “D lister” celebrities who are famous for being…well famous. I fear blogging is the medium for making Christian celebrities famous sometimes merely because they have good designs and a snappy turn of phrase, they are famous for being famous. Influence used to come with time, with Christ-centred work, by gaining respect among the people of your church, then your circle of churches etc. now you get it by having good visuals, multimedia sites etc. etc.

2) I believe blogging is contributing to the erosion of biblical authority within local churches and within the Church Universal. Everyone thinks if they have an opinion that it is worth airing, even if completely cock-eyed, short-sighted, poorly thought out and with little biblical substance or support. I think it was James White who said that blogs were aggregators of ignorance. In a wide variety of locations this is sadly true.

3) Furthermore it has contributed to an increased democratisation of the Church, where pastors called and gifted by God are “verbally chastised” by folks who have neither the experience nor theological knowledge to really know what they are talking about and who have never been recognised or called by any local church, and indeed on occasion could never and would never be permitted into a pulpit. It is especially the manner of communication I am thinking of and the harm this is causing in church structures and organisation. Things are written on blogs and especially in comments threads that would never, ever, ever, be said face to face. There is serious disrespect in much blogging. To that extent blogging is contributing to the evident disrespectful society that we live in. That’s not pulling rank, pastors are accountable, but they are accountable to Christ and to their own people primarily, and this pastor has decided that that is more than enough. The forum for intelligent conversation, discussion and correction is within the local church, and when it goes outside that I believe it tends to weaken the Church. I am committed to the biblical authority structures of the local church and cannot with a good conscience continue to be part of something I fear is seriously damaging that structure.

4) At the same time as there is increasing democratisation, paradoxically there is an increasing intolerance to honest disagreement. I’m going to be straight. There are too many fanboys out there who just cannot have their hero spoken against in any way, no matter how coherent, biblically argued, and charitable their hero has been written about. It is as if there is some kind of electronic ecumenical movement. We are no longer allowed to disagree with someone (especially the celebrity), we must all instead have a electronic group hug. I’ll be straight again, this sounds like a ploy of the devil and because of that I believe it is my greatest issue with what blogging has become. You just cannot critique anyone or anything any more without being attacked as a bigot by somebody. I am convinced there are people out there, who scan for tags of their favourite “celebrity” and come to their defence no matter what the issue is.

As I say, this is where I am at. Many of you will know that I have expressed concerns before, but over the last couple of weeks these concerns have been exacerbated.

I think there is a possible way forward. That is to keep blogs private (or at the very least commenting restricted), perhaps where groups of friends discuss topics by invitation only. Sadly however that would mean that I would probably never have communicated with many of you who read this blog regularly. However I am convinced that “open commenting” is not helpful, edifying or for the good of the Church. I suppose we could all agree to fully moderate our commenting, but I fear we are merely bolting the gate after the horse has bolted so far are rescuing the medium goes. Truth be told, perhaps I’m doing that even by shutting shop now.

This leaves me with a problem. There are a number of my “regulars” who I would like to keep in contact with in some way. So if you want to do that and have not already been in email contact with me. Leave a comment on this post, that way I’ll get your address and drop you mine in return.

Goodbye blogging.

Prayer as investment

If we are honest most of us either constantly struggle with the discipline of prayer, or from time to time struggle with it. One of the reasons for this is that almost sub-consciously we think other things we do are more profitable than prayer. This is perhaps particularly a temptation for busy pastors. There is an adage that says that “necessity is the mother of invention”, that may be true but because of a certain self-deception necessity can often be the killer of a vibrant prayer life. The sermon must be done, the paper written, the book read, the research done, and these necessities, all profitable and useful in their own way can push prayer down and often off the to-do list. When we do so what we so often fail to see is that we are making a judgment call; these things are more worth our time, will be more profitable to us and to others than time spent in prayer.

My friend Tim loaned me a book this week The Puritans on Prayer (Soli Deo Gloria, 1995) which contains 3 books on prayer by John Preston, Nathaniel VIncent and Samuel Lee. The Saint’s Daily Excercise by Preston contains five sermons on 1 Thessalonians 5:12 “Pray continually” and in Sermon 2 he writes the following having exhorted us to focused and zealous prayer, and anticipating an objection or stumbling-block,

“You may object, “Aye, but it will cost us much time to do this.” Indeed one common cause among the rest, that keeps us from the thorough performance of this duty is this: Remember that the time spent in calling upon God does not hinder you, and that though it takes so much from the heap yet indeed it increases the heap. It is said of tithes and offerings, “Bring them in,” and do not think that, because you lessen the heap, that you are poorer men. No says the Lord, it will increase your store. “I will open the windows of heaven.” and you shall have so much the more of it. So it is true in this case.

In other things you see it well enough. You know, the baiting of the horse does not hinder the journey, nor does the oiling of the wheel. The sharpening of the scythe is no hinder to the work, even though there is a stop in the work to do it. As our common saying is “A whet is no let,” and the doing of this is no impediment.”

Christ-centred preaching

Continuing to buttress my long-standing belief that the most edifying and helpful blogs are not the big-hitting tittle-tattlers but the ones by ordinary men and woman, here’s a little post by Thad on Christ-centred preaching, though of course he spells it wrong! .

Choice quote regarding Paul (the Apostle),

“…..he understood that the full counsel of God could only be truly understood in light of the life, death, burial, and resurrection of the Son of God.”

Here’s the post.

More on Mark Driscoll

While not wishing to turn this blog into a “watch-blog” nor specifically into a anti-Mark Driscoll blog, I want to send you to a post by my friend Jeremy Walker which is a fine illustration of one of the points from my previous post; that point being that I believe Mark Driscoll is too theologically and historically naive to be in the posiition of massive international influence that he find himself in.

He (Mark Driscoll) has written a piece commenting on the “famous” recent Time piece, where he contrasts and compares “Old Calvinism” with [his] “New Calvinism”. As Jeremy points out all of his points are wrong. I’ll go further than Jeremy goes, and I hope he doesn’t mind me linking to his post with this comment.

I think Mark Driscoll’s points are simply naive nonsense which displays again the very point I have made. Apart from whatever good he does in his own church and city which I can’t and won’t deny, he ought not to be seen as a safe and secure representative of Calvinism, “Old’ or “New”, in my opinion he badly misunderstands and misrepresents what he terms “Old Calvinism” and quite frankly I’m not convinced he even understands “New Calvinism”.

Read the Jeremy’s post here.

Latest Build

Having been very serious about MD, let’s have something lighter – my latest model build – A 1/72 Grumman F4F-4 “Wildcat”, if any serious builders come in here, yes I know its not great, but it’s my first attempt with an airbrush, it’s harder than it looks! Kit by Academy.

Things I’m happy with:

Panel washing, though because of my painting I made it hard for myself, but the next one will be better.

Detail painting, I’ve got the hang of dry-brushing and small detail work.

Use of “Future” for pre-decaling, canopy and glossy coat – this is a wonder product…available in UK as Johnson Klear floor polish (ASDA was the only supermarket I could get it in).

Stretched sprue aerial…simple and effective

And finally, smoke streaks from gun ports on wings…pastel chalks.

Things not happy with – painting and particularly painting pattern, the upper grey should be much lower down the fuselage, but it was a rescue attempt!

Overall I’d say 6/10, but the Hughes MD500 I’m working on is much better!

Mark Driscoll – My Pennyworth

I’ve been very non-committal about Mark Driscoll. With good reason, for a start, 200 years ago I’d never have heard about him, probably, so why should I feel the need to make comment about him 200 years later just because I have heard of him? Secondly I haven’t commented because very few will care what I say about him anyway, and why should they? Thirdly, I think a lot of what he says is good, a lot of what he says is biblical. Let me be plain, I think I’d actually like him if I knew him, much, most perhaps of what he is doing is good and God-honouring. He seems to be a fair exegete of Scripture. With regard to his heart for people and his zeal for evangelism, he’s up there with the best. However I want to express some opinions about his ministry style. I’m not really going to deal with his borderline “racy” language, there’s been enough ink spilt of that already, if you don’t have a problem with it, I’ll not change your mind, and vice versa. I want to make some observations about his humour, his theology and his role as an example.

His Humour

Firstly, he is a funny guy, but I think he tries too hard to be funny, and at times, his humour is at the expense of those that perhaps he considers less liberated that himself. For instance in his otherwise excellent sermon at Desiring God he made humour of homeschooled kids with button down collars, as I remember it. Easy target, funny, but is it the Apostle Paul’s method to deal with those with a more tender conscience by ridiculing them or laughing at them? No Paul’s counsel was to bear with them, and try not to offend them, win them, not laugh at them.

1 Corinthians 8:9-13 “9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.”

So in my opinion humour can get you into trouble, and is best kept to the minimal in the pulpit, but especially if there is a possibility that your humour will offend a weaker brother.

His Theology

Secondly, I think he is theologically and historically naive at times. I have not listened to his series on Solomon, not because I wouldn’t want to, but because I haven’t time to, but I read the much vaunted quote a while back that everybody was raving about, the one where he describes the allegorical approach to the book of Solomon. Now everyone was raving and ranting about the references to homosexuality in that quotation, personally I agree with the criticisms, but what struck me most was the fact that he completely missed and indeed dismissed the theological point of Song of Solomon, as expressed by Christ himself.

Quote:

“Now what happens is some say “Well, we do believe in the book, and we will teach it, but we’re gonna teach it allegorically.” And there’s a literal and an allegorical interpretation. They’ll say, “Well the allegorical interpretation, it’s not between a husband and a wife, Song of Solomon, love and romance and intimacy; what it is, it’s about us and Jesus.” Really? I hope not. [Laughter from crowd] If I get to heaven and this goes down, I don’t know what I’m gonna do. I mean it’s gonna be a bad day. Right? I mean seriously. You dudes know what I’m talking about. You’re like, “No, I’m not doing that. You know I’m not doing that. I love Him [Jesus] but not like that.” ” source: (from Driscoll’s first sermon on the SoS series called, “The Peasant Princess”)

The problems with this statement are manifold: first of all the book is certainly about Christ, and to say otherwise is to completely miss something that Christ repeated over and over and over again in the Book of Luke with vivid clarity.

Luke 24:25 “25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!”

Luke 24:27 “27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.”

Luke 24:44 “44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.””

So was Song of Solomon not included?

Now given that, is not his humour misplaced? Given that, how is exemplifying how to interpret Scripture to his people? Given that, is he not in fact deceiving his audience in the meaning of Song of Solomon. No one is denying that there is a literal interpretation of Song of Solomon, but for him to suggest that this is not about Christ is false. Would he not have been better to seriously point out the dual meanings? To exhibit his struggle with application to the Church and so forth? The Puritans, who were no prudes, widely quoted for the book as an example of close communion with and love of Christ, read Owen’s Communion with Triune God. The fact that we cannot see anything but sex in the book says much about us. If there is anyone out there who has listened to more of the series, perhaps you could tell me if he does preach the Gospel from the book, if so I would gladly correct this criticism, though in and of itself his statement if wrong.

As well as that I doubt very much that the Song of Solomon has as its emphasis physical sex, but about the emotional love between man and wife, and again that cannot be said unless we also factor in Christ,

Ephesians 5:25, 26 “25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,”

Would Driscoll not be almost bound to joke about that passage as well? “Dudes I hope Christ doesn’t love me as I love my wife?” Perhaps unfair.

Thus his statement is theologically naive – he is not being faithful to Scripture’s own hermeneutic guidelines, and historically naive – the “allegorical” understanding, as he calls it, has a long history.

His Role as an Example

Thirdly I want to consider his role as an example. And this would actually be my biggest concern.

There are two passages that concern me, I speak of my own ministry.

Philippians 3:17-19 “17 Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. 18 For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame–who set their mind on earthly things.”

Here Paul exhorts the Philippians and all of us as both pastors and people to follow his example. Even more applicable he tells us watch others and compare them to him. He then describes the reason why, there are many who walk in ways which are not comparable in a positive way to him. How do they walk? They walk driven by their passions and with their mind set on earthly things.

Thus Paul tells us that the standard by which we are to measure dependability, faithfulness to God and so forth is not only to look to Christ, but to Paul, what Paul does and how Paul does it is a reliable standard for us to aspire to. In other words if you want to know what a pastor should look like look to Paul.

The second text that concerns my is this one,

1 Timothy 4:11-13 “11 These things command and teach. 12 Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity. 13 Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.”

Here Paul commands Timothy to be an example to the believers. In other words the expectation is that a pastor will be exemplary in the characteristics that he then continues to describe. The pastor will be exemplary; in word – what he says and how he says it, in conduct what he does and how he does it, in spirit, in the attitudes he says and does things with, in faith, what he believes must be the model (regulated by Scripture) of the people of God, and in purity – the morality of his mind, words and deeds.

Now if you’re a pastor that should get you thinking about yourself. Do that. I have.

Well now you’ve repented let’s get back to considering Mark Driscoll. Here’s my fear. My fear is that I just cannot with good conscience say that some of preaching and teaching, with endless humour and frequent bawdiness is following the exemplar set by the Apostle Paul. Notice I said some. There is much in his preaching and in his zeal that does follow the exemplar. No doubt I’m no perfect specimen myself, but with greater exposure comes greater responsibility. To the extent I follow Paul or fail to, I will to that extent influence one way or the other, for good or bad, a relatively small number. My prayer is my influence will be good. For Driscoll to the extent he follows Paul or fails to, will likewise influence for good or bad, but potentially there is a vast, enormous number that will be so influenced. And the question I ask myself, seriously, and not in fact judging the man at all is this, “Will the church in 10 years be stronger and more like Paul and Jesus Christ through Mark Driscoll’s influence or less?” I ask the question, I ask it of myself and I ask it of every pastor.

Secondly, taking that second text I have to ask myself if Mark Driscoll is that outstanding exemplar to believers in word, conduct, love, spirit, faith, and purity? I have to be fair and say that as I observe him and as I have thought about him, there may indeed be cause to say that yes he does serve as a good example in many areas, where we can learn from him we should; his spirit of seeking to communicate the Gospel is good, he seems to genuinely love those he seeks to reach, he is not afraid to work with difficult circumstances. However, I must admit that I would not like a church full of people who have followed Driscoll as their example. Do we want in 10 years time a church full of people who are always injecting humour, borderline obscenities, and jokes into their sermons and everyday speech? Do we want pastors who are prepared to put themselves on the pedestal of guru’s in the area of sex (or other such matters, politics etc.) and pontificate on the rights and wrongs of every detail there-of, as he does in his Q&A sessions? I think it is unwise for any pastor to put himself in this position, and furthermore it is an overstepping of his sphere of authority.

Conclusion

There is much to be praised in Mark Driscoll. But there is much to be praised in many pastors all around the world whom we have never heard of. There are things I can learn from Driscoll, but to be honest I can learn them elsewhere without the risk of having my conscience offended by borderline language. I am not convinced that he has the theological depth to be in the influential position he is presently in, with God’s help he perhaps will be in the future.

UPDATE: COMMENTING THREADING IS ENABLED, SO IF YOU WISH TO RESPOND TO A COMMENT, YOUR CAN REPLY TO THAT COMMENT RATHER THAN ADDING TO THE LIST AT THE BOTTOM.

Sinclair Ferguson Digest

The Sovereign Grace folks have a new “webzine” Next monthly magazine published monthly which looks to be worth putting into your RSS reader. Here’s a link to an author spotlight on Sinclair Ferguson with lots of links to sermons and book extracts. As usual with SGM the web page is sickeningly well designed and presented (that a compliment) (typed with jealousy).

D.A. Carson interviews

A couple of months ago 9 Marks posted the first of a two-part interview of D.A. Carson. Carson is a man I  increasingly respect and enjoy both reading and listening to, even when I disagree with him. The second part was posted this week where he talks with Mark Dever about his and others’ books.

Part 1

Part 2

A quote I liked (both in context and for use in many other contexts)

“….it is better to be inconsistently scriptural than to achieve consistency with an error.”

Frame, John M, No Other God, A Response to Open Theism (P&R Publishing, Philipsburg, New Jersey, 2oo1) 40.

Spirit of the Puritans 2009 Audio

The audio for the Spirit of the Puritans 2009 Conference is now posted at Sermonaudio. May especially commend (without removing anything from Geoff Thomas’ contribution to the conference, Prof. Edward Donnelly’s two stirring sermons.

Sermons may be found here.