. . . and Him Crucified

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson



The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Voices from the Excellent Glory," a sermon preached on Sunday morning, 9 January 1870, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.



f you desire to see the glory of Christ, as attested of the Father, you must dwell much on his death.

Do not talk to me about the life of Christ in all its purity. I know it and rejoice in it; but I tell you that the death of Christ, in all his misery, is the grandest point or view.

The example of Jesus should be exalted by all means, but his atonement is grander far; and you, sirs, who take the man Christ, and offer your pretty, complimentary phrases about him, but then turn round and deny his expiating sacrifice, I tell you your tawdry offerings are unacceptable to him; to be complimented by your lips is almost to be censured, for if you do not believe on him as an atoning sacrifice, you do not understand his life.

---

Weekend Extra #2: Politics & Christians

by Frank Turk

I enjoyed a lot of the day with the family, so I am not making all the headway I wanted in clearing out my pile of reviews to make.

My second post this weekend in cleaning up my desktop is a brief critique of Francis Beckwith's recent book, Politics for Christians. The subtitle is "Statecraft as Soulcraft", and an informed reader would think of a couple of things when seeing that phrase: the first is the book of the same name by George F. Will, and it's first only because it's the more-contemporary work considering this subject; the second is an slogan one can find in a lot of places in which Aristotle is said to have said, "statecraft is soulcraft." And if Aristotle said it, we shouldn't dig too deeply into it.

Dr. Beckwith has written an interesting and informative book about the philosophy of politics -- from an expressly- Aristotelian viewpoint. It's a book with I would say that any American who wants to think about a philosophically-neutral approach to politics shoal in fact read and consider deeply. I have to admit something: I think that if there's going to be a common and civil rejuvenation of American politics, it has to take an approach which Dr. Beckwith provides here. His approach is a sort of ad fontes approach to western and democratic republican politics, and let's face it: it's a strictly-informed view of the history of political thought for the sake of working our differences in the American system.

In that, I credit Dr. Beckwith with real patriotism, and real concern for the civil well-being of our country. I credit him with being someone with a conservative political bent who wants to offer civil peace to those he disagrees with in the hope that he can convince them of his point of view. It's an honorable thing to want our country to find ways to disagree about means but agree on the method of resolving the differences.



The problems with this book, however, start with the title: Politics for Christians. There is no way to frame what Dr. Beckwith has done here as explicitly "Christian" in any way -- and he is at least honest about why this is so as he explains his methodology:

Moreover, Christian who uncritically look to Scripture for guidance in politics run the risk of treating the church at one point in history (usually the first century) as the norm for the church's political involvement for all history. Although, as I argue in chapter two, the Bible does indeed offer principles for human conduct that may be applied universally and across time to a variety of political regimes, one must exercise care in extracting those principles from a church that was in its infancy and who's members were without any real cultural or political influence. [34]

What's interesting about this "chapter two" deferral of the uses of the Bible in developing a specifically-Christian political approach is when we get to chapter two, Dr. Beckwith says this:

Christian have largely embraced liberal democracy for four reasons:[1] it affords them liberty to worship, [2] it protects the people's power to hold government accountable, [3] it allows citizens it participate by voting, … and [4] it seems consistent with and supported by a Christian understanding of the human person as well as the natural law and natural rights traditions that sprung from that understanding. [59]

Reason 4 -- the only theological reason -- is then deferred to chapter five, the shortest chapter in the book. And one hopes, since that is also the last chapter of the book, Dr. Beckwith will make his theological plea. When we get there, Dr. Beckwith says,

In chapter two we examined the idea of liberal democracy and the Christian's obligation as a citizen. We saw that a Christian may embrace this form of government without compromising his faith commitment.[145]

That's a confession of sorts by Dr. Beckwith. It turns out that by page 145 of his 165 page book, he hasn't really made a Christian case for politics: he's made a rational case why liberal democracy is not incompatible with Christian faith -- and that's fair enough. But let's turn the page and see where he's going:

But these rights [of citizens] imply a deeper understanding about the nature of human beings and the goods that are required for their flourishing. For example, if a human being possess by nature a right to life, this means that other members of the community are morally obligated not to violate that right to life.But this seems to imply something about human beings and their nature that is moral in quality, a sacredness that requires us to treat each other with a certain dignity and respect. Thus, natural rights imply a natural moral law.

If this was another chapter on philosophical reasoning, so be it -- but this is Beckwith's attempt at Christian moral reasoning. And it is almost utterly bereft of his much- deferred use of the Bible to inform part of our thoughts on this matter. Another symptom of this problem is Beckwith's missing Scriptural index -- but it's missing for a very good reason: there's no Bible cited by this book to speak of.

So in reading this book, I was impressed by Dr. Beckwith's grasp of the philosophical history of liberal democracy. But for him to call it specifically "Christian" is at best self-congratulatory -- and for IVP to publish this as the first volume in its "Christian Worldview Integration" series is optimistic at best.

One last thing: it aggravates me when glib quotes are assigned to historically-significant people in order to make a point, and Dr. Beckwith does this with Aristotle. You cannot find Aristotle saying anywhere that "Statecraft is Soulcraft." I have the complete Aristotle on my iPod, and it's simply not there. But what one does find there instead is interesting. Here's what Aristotle actually said in Book 7, Part VIII of his Politics:

Let us then enumerate the functions of a state, and we shall easily elicit what we want: First, there must be food; secondly, arts, for life requires many instruments; thirdly, there must be arms, for the members of a community have need of them, and in their own hands, too, in order to maintain authority both against disobedient subjects and against external assailants; fourthly, there must be a certain amount of revenue, both for internal needs, and for the purposes of war; fifthly, or rather first, there must be a care of religion which is commonly called worship; sixthly, and most necessary of all there must be a power of deciding what is for the public interest, and what is just in men's dealings with one another. These are the services which every state may be said to need. For a state is not a mere aggregate of persons, but a union of them sufficing for the purposes of life; and if any of these things be wanting, it is as we maintain impossible that the community can be absolutely self-sufficing. A state then should be framed with a view to the fulfillment of these functions. There must be husbandmen to procure food, and artisans, and a warlike and a wealthy class, and priests, and judges to decide what is necessary and expedient.

Isn't it odd that when Aristotle explicitly talks about the state, listing the specific functions of the state, he doesn't mention "soulcraft" or any of its cognates at all?

So why give is the rote but false statement on page 36 of this book, I wonder? It seems obvious to me: the objective of Dr. Beckwith is to conform Christian thinking to something the world can live with.

Dr. Beckwith's book is fine for showing us a sociological and philosophical understanding of how citizens might live in a liberal democracy. But to call this description of things "Christian" is much more than he actually achieves. If you want a primer in a secular view of politics, this book is top-shelf; if you want to consider an explicitly-Christian worldview to think about politics, it is not enough that someone who calls himself a Christian espouse the things between the covers. Read this book to see the current state of secular reasoning toward civil political discourse, but don't take it as face-value as the "Christian" solution.

---

Weekend Extra #1: Music Review

by Frank Turk

One of the massive advantages of being a blogger on a widely-read blog like this is the free stuff one can get if one is even remotely conscious, but the down-side of that is also living up to the expectation that you will actually review and promote for of that stuff. That's a pretty massive down-side, btw, because it's easy to get way behind in reviewing -- an really to find that the last batch of stuff you got is full of titles you're probably going to pan or find unfortunate.

So on this long weekend in the US, I'm going to start with a project that I was much encouraged by so I can build up a head of steam and get the pile of obligations off my night stand. Note to Publishers and Artists: I really am pleased to be able to do this, I just find myself pinched for time. I don't blog for a living but I blog for fun, and this is fun when I'm not swamped.

So about three years ago, when I was deceived into believing that I had time for a weekly podcast, I began to hard slog to find some appropriate intro and outro theme, and I stumbled on a song called "My Lord, I did not choose you" by a young fellow named Matthew Smith. It earned itself a permanent place on my iPod in spite of the still-birth of my podcasting career because of the minimalist beauty of the production. Matthew's voice is not operatic, and it's not jazzy, and it's not "authentic" like Bob Dylan or Van Morrsion; his arrangement of that song is not thrilling or even very innovative. But after downloading it the first time -- and I paid for that one on iTunes, and I advise you to do the same -- it was haunting. It was a great contemporary reworking of a hymn from the 19th century without sounding hokey or fake.

Back in May I think I got an e-mail from Challies canvassing fellow bloggers to download and then review the newest album by Matthew Smith, and Tim (for a moment forgetting he is an internet android with no emotions) almost actually raved about the release.

Now, you can imagine my quandary -- you've been there. Your friend who is a nerd comes to you raving about this new album, and you want to be polite because he's your friend, but you know he can't really tell the difference between King Crimson and King's X and B. B. King. But I knew Matthew Smith from my own iPod, and was grateful to get the free download for review.

Listen: we all love Sovereign Grace Music and Third Day and old Caemon's Call, but we should live a little -- otherwise we're going to wind up just like the last generation of conservative Christians who are still going to Gospel Camp revivals and can't figure out why they can't get anyone under the age of 60 to come and join them.

What's great about this album is summed up in where it fails: Matthew remixed one song on the CD (You are the Light), and he ruined it with overproduction. In trying to make his music into something it is not -- and I would argue making himself into something he does not want to be, whether he knows it or not -- Matthew Smith reveals the real spiritual depth in his natural method and approach. He's not a genre innovator. He's not looking to make songs that you want to dance to in spite of the lyrics. He's in the hard work of writing songs in a contemporary idiom which are also keeping a faithful eye on timeless truth and the beautiful message of the good news of Jesus Christ.

This may sound like I'm trying to be ambiguous about these songs, but I'm not -- the problems with most contemporary worship songs is that they work hard to be in the company of secular taste and forgets that it ought to be worried that secular tastes are both fleeting and, at their root, sinful. Matthew Smith instead works hard to speak to a contemporary audience with a minimalistic approach to the music and a maximal approach to the words he is singing/preaching. His voice is the voice of anyone who wants to praise a God who has done everything for him -- and in this approach, he has written and arranged songs that everyone can actually sing.

I have been edified by all the tracks in this release, but my favorites are the original mix of "You are the Light", the light, alt-folk ballad "I Have Seen the Lord", and the prayer-ballad "Greater than our Hearts" -- but if you pick differently, I'll total agree with you.



So here are my recommendations for you:

1. Go ahead to Matthew's web site here and preview the album.
2. Agree with me, and then buy the tunes -- but here's the deal: because Matthew is a great guy, you can use this discount code to get a discount on your purchase:

evangel (25% off the Deluxe Edition CD + Download)
evangelvinyl (10% off the Limited Edition Vinyl + Download)

[Yea, yea, I know -- I was supposed to do this review over at Evangel, but I up and left them, so I'm doing it here. This is better for Matthew anyway as we get more readers.]

3. Tell your fiends about the new Album you just got for next to nothing.
4. get edified.

More later this weekend. My conscience feels better already.

---

One of these things is not like the others

by Dan Phillips

So, taking up where I left off, here's an exercise in thinking like a disciple. Read the root question carefully.

To which one of these questions can you not even begin to give a clear, plain, simple, definitive, directly-Biblical answer?

1. What is God like?
2. How did all things begin?
3. How do we know God?
4. What is man's spiritual state?
5. Is Jesus truly man?
6. Is Jesus truly God?
7. What must I do to be saved?
8. Does Jesus keep those He saves?
9. Is it righteous to have sex with anyone other than one's spouse?
10. Can I kill someone if he makes me mad?
11. How do I tell which feelings are God's way of nudging me to do something, or God "talking" to me, and which are just my flesh, my imagination, or something else?
12. Is the Bible God's Word?
13. Does the Bible tell us everything we need to know, in order to know and serve God?
14. What is a pastor's main job?
15. Should I take things that belong to other people without their permission?
16. If I'm saved by grace, may I just go on sinning?
17. Did Jesus really die?
18. What did Jesus' death accomplish?
19. Did Jesus really rise bodily from the dead?
20. Will Jesus really return bodily one day?
21. Will Christians be raised bodily?
22. Should I study the Bible?

Is the answer significant?

(Hint: starts with a "y.")

---

When the Dog runs the House

by Frank Turk



Yeah, I ran out of week before I could give you the full treatment on the Keller paper from Biologos – and forgive me because I’m actually in Amsterdam for work committing random acts of evangelism (no fruit yet, but you could pray about that).

So rather than leave the blog blank, or publish a “best of” as a poor substitute for the Keller paper, I wanted to talk about something which is very central to thinking about the BioLogos issue: the old duckling of “Science”.

See: one of the features of the Keller paper is that it questions putting “Science” and “Faith” at odds – and I think it’s right to question whether that’s a fair way to position the discussion. I mean seriously: this is a blog about the orthodox Christian faith on the internet which uses all kinds of science – not incredulous pleas to magic or pneumenological phenomena – to deliver commentary, preaching, and fun to your very door. It’s somewhat stupid to say that we take science for granted or are somehow “ag’in it”.

But there I am, if you follow the “BioLogos” tag on the blog, berating “Scientists” for their claims that you don’t have to read Genesis the same way you read the newspaper in order to be a Christian. Am I not anti-Science for that?

In a word? No.

I take Lipitor. I use Naproxen Sodium. I use disposable razors. I drive a car. My kids go to the Doctor when they swallow nickels – not the shaman, and not the evangelistic faith healing service held every other Thursday at the Pentecostal church. When I’m in Amsterdam, I Skype my family – which is better than a phone call. I use zip-loc bags to keep food fresh. I wear glasses. I wear shoes with rubber soles. I mean: the only thing Science doesn’t do for me is blog. I still write my own blogs – until such a day when they can program a bot to do it, and then I’ll probably comment on his blog because it’ll be quite a slow-motion car wreck.

And the other thing that Science can’t do for me is save me from my own wickedness. Listen: I had dinner this week with a guy who told me that until Science could prove to him that Jesus walked out of the tomb, he would remain agnostic (at best) about the subject – and he was the one who brought it up! And Science, frankly, is not working on that project – because let’s face it: Science doesn’t care about that project.

See: Science is worried about replicating what happened at the sub-atomic level at the moment of the start of time and space – without regard to the fact that the experiments they are running under the cover of time and space. Science is worried about how many planets are like the one we are on in the hope of proving we are not unique in the universe – in spite of never once finding any traces of creatures like us in the known universe. Science cannot decide whether or not a baby which does not receive normal gestation while in the process of sex differentiation is a patient needing treatment, a citizen with rights, or a blob of tissue which ought to be scraped out.

So Science has managed to give us some really cool stuff, but when it comes to knowing something about us for the sake of telling us about who we are, and why we are here, and whether or not we are valuable? It falls a little flat.

I see Science like a really amazing dog: he can do a lot of stuff when he’s trained the right way, but if you give him the run of the house, he’ll be teaching you all kinds of stuff that, let’s be honest, you otherwise wouldn’t be caught dead doing. I had some great examples of that which I thought would make a great title for this post, but I'll spare your the vulgarities.

Science is not made to run the place: it’s made to serve, and to be a tool as we do what God intended – which is to rule over the Earth, and have dominion. It is not fitting for a fool to live in luxury, much less for a slave to rule over princes. Under three things the earth tremble -- under four it cannot bear up: a slave when he becomes king, and a fool when he is filled with food; an unloved woman when she gets a husband, and a maidservant when she displaces her mistress.

Ponder that, and I hope to do right by you and Pastor Keller next week.

---

Book review — 40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible, by Robert L. Plummer

by Dan Phillips

40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible, by Robert L. Plummer

(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2010; 347 pages)

I dug right into my review copy of Plummer's 40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible, frankly, because I myself wanted to see how he handled the questions. Plummer sets himself a terrific array, including:

• Who determines the meaning of a text?
• Can a text have more than one meaning?
• What is the role of the Holy Spirit in determining meaning?
• What is the overarching message of the Bible?
• Is the Bible really all about Jesus?
• Do all the commands of the Bible apply today?
• Why can’t people agree on what the Bible means?
• How do we interpret historical narrative?
• How do we interpret prophecy? (Part 1—General Guidelines)
• How do we interpret prophecy? (Part 2—Typology)
• How do we interpret apocalyptic literature?
• How do we interpret proverbs?
• How do we interpret poetry?
• How do we interpret parables? (Part 1—History of Interpretation)
• How do we interpret parables? (Part 2—Principles of Interpretation)

But it is one thing to set a laudable goal. The question is: did Plummer succeed?

Generally, how did Plummer do? Amazingly well. It's really a terrific book, and I'm glad to commend it to you.

The chapters are mostly 6-8 pages long, with 12 pages the longest ("Who Determined What Books Would Be Included in the Bible?"), and 6 the shortest (several). Therefore Plummer has to dive right into his subjects, without dilly-dallying. Yet he nicely bull's-eyes a balance between the solidly academic and the engagingly conversational. While obviously resting his instruction on solid, conservative scholarship, Plummer nonetheless brightens up the chapters with humor, personal illustrations and observations. He makes it look easy, but anyone who's tried can attest that it isn't.

Overview: I was delighted to find such an up-to-date, yet thoroughly faithful, Christ-centered survey. Plummer says his aim is to help the reader understand the Bible, addressing himself to "any curious Christian," though specifically hoping that the text would serve for introductory Bible courses in college or seminary (11). He succeeded admirably. I would unhesitatingly put this in the hands of any new Bible reader, or recommend it for Bible study electives in church or in institutions. I will note a reservation or two, but they'd not give me a moment's pause. I don't know any work of its kind nearly as useful.

The book is divided into four main parts, of which the second and third have two and three subdivisions, respectively. The first part contains seven questions dealing with issues of the text of Scripture itself, the books of the canon, and translation. The second part is more general, containing six questions relating to interpretation, and seven relating to meaning.

The third part is more specific in scope, containing three subdivisions. The first of these encompasses both testaments, responding to seven questions about various literary genres and specifics. The second aims four questions at the OT genres of proverbs, poetry, and psalms. In the third, NT genres of parables and epistles are treated in four questions. The fourth part contains five questions about more recent issues such as Biblical criticism, "speech act theory," and others.

Specific pluses. As I mentioned, Plummer's style is very readable, while conveying a lot of content. I appreciate how unapologetically Christ-centered he is, and how unapologetically faithful he is to the text. Nor is Plummer apologetic about being conservative. He alludes to a 15th-century (not 13th-century) Exodus several times (i.e. 20-21), refers to conservative writers like Stott and Archer (20), and mentions the possibility that Job antedates the Pentateuch (20).

Plummer's also an emphatic inerrantist, explaining and defending the position very helpfully and well in a full chapter (37-46).

Plummer gives a solid, brief overview of the history of Biblical interpretation in chapter 9, starting with the New Testament itself and going on to the present (85-94). In the following two chapters' survey of general principles of Bible interpretation, we find a happy marriage of the spiritual (pray, trace the text to Jesus, meditate, approach the text in faith and obedience) and the intellectual (note the genre, be aware of historical/cultural issues, attend to context). This is blessedly characteristic of Plummer's book as a whole.

In chapter 13, Plummer lays out helpful resources for Bible interpretation, including study Bibles, concordances, and rules for word studies, commentaries, and even software programs and web sites.

I was particularly interested in how Plummer would respond to a couple of questions. One was, "Can a Text Have More Than One Meaning?" (chapter 15, 135-141). He quotes Robert Stein defining meaning as "The paradigm or principle that the author consciously willed to convey by the shareable symbols [i.e.writing] he or she used" (135). Plummer distinguishes meaning from implication (submeanings legitimately falling within paradigm or principle), significance (reader's response of acceptance or rejection), and subject matter (focus of the text; 135-136). He illustrates this from Proverbs 11:1 (136-137).

Plummer's treatment of the sage's aphorism is, in my opinion, more successful than his subsequent handling of Isaiah 7:14, which he asserts flatly refers to a child who would be born to the prophetess (137). Plummer suggests that Matthew (in 1:23) is not asserting a second meaning, but either an implication (so Robert Stein) or a typological fulfillment. Plummer creatively brings out his understanding by means of an imagined dialog between himself and Isaiah (138-139) which succeeds in terms of communication, but falls far short of persuasion. He also leaves the door open for multiple fulfillment here and in Isaiah 9:6 (139-140).

On the other hand, I really appreciated Plummer's chapter on the role of the Holy Spirit in determining meaning (143-150). Believer and unbeliever alike may see the same data in the text, but the Holy Spirit works in the heart of the believer to lead him properly to value and to love the truths he sees therein. I love Plummer's analogy opening up the Spirit's illumination: two boats manned by treasure hunters, representing believers and unbelievers. Both see something gold and shimmery at the murky bottom. The unbeliever says "I see light reflecting off of the sand," and stays in the boat. The believer with the Spirit working in his heart says "I see something that shines like gold, and I want it," and dives in. (This summary doesn't do Plummer's explication justice; get the book and read 144-149!)

I also appreciated the clear-eyed way Plummer takes the concept of Christ being the center of the Bible and moves it from the level of slogan to a practical reality (Questions 17 and 18, 151-166).

Disagreement, odd facets,  or just-wondering. I'm a little puzzled as to why Plummer sums up Job through Song of Solomon as "Wisdom books" rather than "Poetry" (25, 62); I think not many would agree with that categorization. I also wondered why, in the fine chapter on ancient manuscripts, he didn't include another really fine book from Kregel.

Plummer has a chapter titled "Which Is the Best English Bible Translation?" (69-75), which does not remotely come close to answering the question. Oh, he talks about the history of English translations, and philosophies of translation (which features an odd double typo: "On one side is the functionally equivalent translation, sometimes called dynamically [sic] equivalency.. [sic]" [71]). Then he's done! The titular question is never answered. Not even, "The best formal equivalent version is ___, and the best dynamic version is ___."

Plummer takes a gratuitous (and wrongheaded) potshot at dispensationalism, saying that "Traditional dispensationalists...sometimes insist on literal interpretation of figurative language, though they have no defensible basis for doing so" (82). Really? Who, specifically? When, for instance? Plummer does not say. Without examples, documentation, and explanation, it just reads like a cheap shot at a safe caricature. Straw flies, the scarecrow topples, a false coup is counted.

Plummer's approach to prophecy is similarly valuable, yet it falls short here and there as well. He begins with an inadequate definition of prophet ("someone who is sent by God with a prophecy--that is, a message from him" [197]), proceeds to water down the gift too much for the New Covenant era, defining prophecy again as "Spirit-inspired utterance" (198). But then Plummer rightly urges attending to introductory matters and context (199). For this blog, I'll leave off other criticisms, except to note my disappointment at Plummer's concession to the Grudem error ("the ongoing gift of Christian prophecy is different from the inscripturated prophecies we have in the Bible"; 202). Yeah, except no.

Sum. More detailed interaction would be beyond the scope of a blog review, so let's sum it up. Do I have disagreements? Sure. Would I recommend the book? Without hesitation. The book is a great help and a great contribution, and I see it having a great use in Sunday School and other church discipleship settings.

---

Insolence Upbraided

by Phil Johnson



hile looking up something totally unrelated, I came across an intriguing bit of correspondence published in Jill Morgan's biography of her father-in-law, A Man of the Word: Life of G. Campbell Morgan. It's a fine example of how to respond to supercilious criticism.

But I'll let Jill Morgan tell the story:

An incident occurred in connection with meetings held in a town in England, which shows a side of Campbell Morgan few people ever knew, and those who did, it is likely, never forgot. Soon after concluding a series of meetings at which the offering had been particularly generous (which was not always the case!) Dr. Morgan received the following letter:

Dear Sir, Having recently heard of the cheque you were paid by our treasurer, I wish to point out that to receive over thirteen pounds a day for expounding the Scriptures is a great stumbling block to the ordinary Christian, and still more so to 'the man in the street'. One frequently hears that preaching is only a profession like any other, its main object being to get money, and your big fees make me feel that there is a good deal of truth in it. Your reputation as one of the greatest Biblical scholars is in my opinion quite justified, and I thank God you use your great gifts to His honour and glory, but your love of money is positively appalling. If, as I have been told, you have heavy expenses, my reply is, no Christian is justified in living extravagantly, and no one else that I know of asks or expects such huge fees. If I thought that studying the Scriptures produced such fruit as that!—but of course, such a thing is absurd, for its effect should be just the opposite, on a lowly, Christ-like life. It is the inconsistent lives of Christians that produce such harm. . . . Yours sincerely, __________________

To which Dr. Morgan replied:

Sir, I am in receipt of your amazing effusion of Sept.——. It is characterized by impertinence based on ignorance. In the course of it you use the expressions, 'big fees', and 'huge fees'. For your enlightenment I may say that I make absolutely no charge for my work, neither does Mr. Marsh, who has made all my arrangements. The amounts which are paid to me are decided by those whom I serve, and it is of the essence of bad manners for anyone outside the interested party to interfere in such arrangements. When you speak of "living extravagantly" you are once more revealing your crass ignorance, and I have no intention of giving you any information as to my methods of life. The only kindness you can do me is to let me know how much you contributed toward the gift of love which was handed to me at X—, and allow me the pleasure of sending you a cheque for the same. Faithfully yours, G. CAMPBELL MORGAN.

No one can afford to be careless regarding what he puts into writing, and Dr. Morgan's statement of the method he followed in the matter of remuneration he received for his services was always meticulously carried out. What he never put into writing, and what was never known to the rank and file was the extraordinary generosity with which he used the 'huge fees' when they came his way. Less than a week after dictating this letter, he was making arrangements to help a friend which involved a long journey and a new start in life, and for this privilege he was footing the bill, not as a loan but as a gift. This side of his character was, it is needless to say, entirely unknown to his explosive correspondent.

Morgan's reply to a rude and haughty correspondent is the model of both candor and restraint. I wish I could write like that.

---

False Alarms

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson



The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The Following Excerpt is from "Discipline in Christ's Army," a sermon preached on Sunday evening, 13 July 1879.

t is a very great sin on the part of Christian soldiers, to make false alarms to discourage and dispirit their fellow-soldiers. There are some professors who seem to delight to tell us of a new discovery in science which is supposed to destroy our faith. Science makes a wonderful discovery, and straightaway we are expected to doubt what is plainly revealed in the Word of God.

Considering that the so-called "science" is continually changing, and that it seems to be the rule for scientific men to contradict all who have gone before them, and that, if you take up a book upon almost any science, you will find that it largely consists of repudiations of all former theories, I think we can afford to wait until the scientific men have made up their minds as to what science really is.

At all events, we have no cause to be distressed concerning science, so let no Christian man's heart fail him, and let him not raise any alarm in the camp of Christ.

---

Lloyd-Jones Saw It Coming

posted by Phil Johnson



ere's an audio clip well worth listening to—especially in light of our recent posts about BioLogos and the growing pressure to abandon the biblical account of creation in favor of an evolutionary narrative:

"The Narrow Way" (1st 10 minutes)

The sermon is from a series delivered by the Doctor in Pensacola in 1969. The whole series is downloadable for free, courtesy of The Martyn-Lloyd-Jones Recordings Trust (a ministry worthy of your prayers and financial support).

In the above excerpt, Lloyd-Jones is decrying the church's inordinate fear of being called "narrow." This anxiety is exacerbated in our generation, he says, because modernity has tainted our worldview. We are too easily intimidated by the feigned authority of so-called men of knowledge. The result, Lloyd-Jones says, is an unwarranted capitulation to the authority of science (falsely so called). Here's a partial transcript to whet your appetite:

The Christian church in her utter folly during this present century has been recognizing a new authority. And the new authority of course is the man of knowledge, the man of culture, and particularly the man of scientific knowledge. And the church has been at great pains to do everything she can to please this new authority.

This man of learning must never be offended. And in order to please him and duplicate him, the church has been ready to take things out of the Bible. She rejects and throws out the whole of the first three chapters of Genesis, much of the other history, throws out all the miracles . . . She'll throw out anything in order to make her message pleasing and acceptable to this new authority—the man of knowledge, the man of learning, the man of science.

—D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

---