13 April 2009

Huck Finn Goes to Church

posted by Phil Johnson

t one point in Huckleberry Finn, Huck's raft is smashed by a riverboat (or so he thinks), and he swims ashore. He ends up being taken in by a family named Grangerford. He lives with them for an extended time in a small community that is dominated by a 30-year-old feud between the Grangerfords and Shepherdsons. No one remembers what the fight is about or who started it, but both clans are fully committed to perpetuating the feud. As far as Grangerfords are concerned, Shepherdsons are good only for one thing: killin'. And vice versa. Age and gender are no matter.

Except on Sunday. See, the Grangerfords and Shepherdsons attend the same church and allow just enough of a truce each week to enable them to "worship" together.

It seems it's a Calvinistic gathering, too. Huck describes his visit to the church:
Next Sunday we all went to church, about three mile, everybody a-horseback. The men took their guns along, so did Buck, and kept them between their knees or stood them handy against the wall. The Shepherdsons done the same. It was pretty ornery preaching—all about brotherly love, and such-like tiresomeness; but everybody said it was a good sermon, and they all talked it over going home, and had such a powerful lot to say about faith and good works and free grace and preforeordestination, and I don't know what all, that it did seem to me to be one of the roughest Sundays I had run across yet.
"Free grace and preforeordestination." The preacher reads our blog, apparently.

Phil's signature

11 April 2009

The Resurrection: Christ's Final Answer to Unbelief

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. For Easter weekend, we're featuring a complete sermon, "Belief in the Resurrection." This message was first preached in a midweek service on Thursday evening, 15 September 1870.




"He is risen."—Mark 16:6.

UR Lord always told his disciples that he would rise. They were astonished to hear that he would die at all: they could not think it possible that he could die by the terrible death which he often hinted at. Had they understood and really believed that he would rise again, they might not have been so surprised at his death, but often as he spoke of it, their minds seemed to have been like their eyes on some occasions, holden that they should not see, and if they perceived his meaning, it ran so contrary to all their ideas of a kingdom for a Messiah, that they could not somehow grasp it as a reality.

Now one of the first things that strikes the reader of the chapter before us shall furnish us with our first head of contemplation tonight:—

I.THE ALMOST UNIVERSAL POWER OF UNBELIEF IN THE CHURCH.

This is a good instance to illustrate a general fact, for our Savior had to their ears in plain terms told them he would rise again. Yet on the third day not one that we know of expected him to rise. When they were informed that he had risen, by eye-witnesses, by persons whom they had been accustomed to treat as deserving of all credence, persons with whom they had been long acquainted, they, everyone of them, were incredulous: they could not believe it, though it were testified to them again and again. As you read this chapter through, you meet with first one instance and then another of this general incredulity about a thing on which all ought to have been sound believers. You find, first, the women—very tender, very loving, always accustomed to minister to Christ's necessities in the days of his flesh: now their very love leads them to an unbelieving act.

If he be risen, and he said he would rise,what need of grave-cloths, what need of precious ointments, and spikenard, and spice, in which to embalm him? 'Twas love that said "Embalm him," but 'twas unbelieving love that made them think the thing was necessary to be done. All through those tender hearts, wherein so much of heavenly ardor for Christ was found, there was also found this leaven of mischief.

But the men, the strong sex, will not they also, their hearts being full of love, and having walked with Christ, having strong judgments many of them, having noticed and weighed what he said, will not they believe? No! Peter and John, though they come to the sepulcher come there with heavy hearts, evidently with no expectation such as would have been excited by the belief that Christ had risen. The whole brotherhood of the disciples appear to have gone altogether over to an unbelief of the thought that Jesus Christ would rise.

But there were some favored ones—there were the eleven. These were the elect out of the elect, the spiritual lifeguard, the very bodyguard of the Savior. Surely, if faith be extinct everywhere else, we shall find it in them. They were in the garden at his passion, some of them were on Tabor at his transfiguration, three of them, at any rate, were in the chamber where he raised the dead. They had seen his miracles, they had themselves distributed the bread which by a miraculous power he had multiplied for the feeding of the multitude. They had seen him walk the sea—one of them had himself trodden on the liquid wave, and found it marble beneath his feet when Christ had bidden him come. They had marked the tempest hushed, they had seen devils expelled, many marvellous displays of divine power had they all of them beheld. These choice ones, especially those three mighty, those chosen three, would believe! Yet they also were tinctured with this same evil; they had not such a faith in their Master as they should have had.

And now this was but, I think, a portrait of what has been ever since the great mischief in the Church of God. This sin of sins—unbelief—is still at this very hour too common among the people of God. Suppose I talk to the mass of God's people, the quiet, humble people, who go about their business and serve God in their households. Shall I find them all full of faith, giving glory to God? No, I am not long with some of them but I hear their doubts as to whether they are his or not. I hear some of them singing:—

"Do I love the Lord or no;
Am I his, or am I not?"

True, I see many of them happy and joyful, contented and trustful, but not always so, even they. Sometimes even these seem to give way to fears and suspicions, and they half think that he has forgotten to be gracious—will be mindful of them no more. Truly is it written, "If the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith upon the earth?" He may look for it, and look for it long, for amongst his own believing people. Yet is faith all too rare a thing—hard to be discovered. It is true it is in its essence always in the Church, but yet so feeble that oftentimes the fire is rather that which trembles in the smoking flax, and almost expires, than the spark that seeks the sun, the Father, the flame from which at first it came.

Now suppose I turn away from the mass of Christians, and select for myself those that take office in Christ's Church, appointed by him, gifted, and given, as the result of the ascension, to the Church as the Church's treasure. My brethren, what shall I say about deacons, elders, and such like in the Church of God? How find I you? Do I not discover oftentimes in church officers a slackness of enterprise, a fear lest this should be too great a thing or that too venturesome? Have I not heard—though certainly I may say I have not experienced have I not heard that sometimes those that should lead the Church have held her back, and those that should be first and foremost to sustain the Christian ministry in every holy effort, have they not been sometimes a very drag upon the wheels to hinder it? And if it be so in their official acting, I fear it is not much better in their own private capacity before God. Alas! O Israel, thy captains are weak; thy mighty men tremble.

But suppose I select those God has especially favored and made the winners of souls. Do I find these at all times confident in the God whose gospel they proclaim? Are they always calmly reliant, upon that eternal power which has ordained them to their work? We must, each man, speak for himself; but I fear the most of us might take up a wailing for ourselves, and confess that we also too often must say, "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."

The prayer of the apostles is a suitable prayer for ministers, "Lord increase our faith" For, if our faith be not increased, we cannot expect that the faith of the multitude will be. Christ's ministers ought to be to Christ's army a sort of spiritual Uhlans, that ride on ahead to investigate the country, to take hold of it before the main body comes up. They should be the men to lead the forlorn hope; they should be first in the trench whenever a citadel is to be taken by storm. Their hearts should never fail them; they should be men of large conceptions and bold designs: men to fall back upon the Infinite, and rely upon the unseen. Are we always such, or such to such a degree as we ought to be? No, I fear that the chapter church history which is being now written is, in the sight of God, much blotted by the unbelief of all his people. Faith there is—I bless God for it—and in some cases very eminent faith; but taking us all round, alas! we must make up a sorrowful confession of our shortcomings in the matter of our faith in the living God.

Now, turning to the chapter again, we shall get our second point of consideration:—

II. THE GREAT CURE WHICH OUR LORD PRESCRIBED FOR THE MATTER OF UNBELIEF.

As far as this chapter goes, it lies in the fact that he is risen He is risen from the dead. You will observe everywhere here, where we meet with the unbelief of man, we meet with the fact of the resurrection of Christ brought in like light to subdue the darkness.

Here are the women in difficulties: it is the resurrection of Christ that removes the difficulty. Who shall roll us away the stone? The stone is rolled away because Christ is risen. The angel has taken away the stone door of the prison house because it was time that the captive should go free.

Now here the Lord seems to tell us that the best and grandest cure of all our fear about difficulty lies in this, "The Lord is risen." You serve a living Savior. What is the difficulty? Is it a providential one? the is the Master of providence, for "the government shall be upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Mighty God." That difficulty, then, which would obstruct you in your pathway to heaven, if you trust in him, must vanish because Jesus lives. If the Captain of the host were dead, it would be an ill thing for us to be serving a dead Captain, but since he lives, girt with omnipotence, difficulties must vanish before him.

Does it happen that the difficulty which troubles us is one concerning our Service to our Lord? Have we a hard heart to deal with in the child whose conversion we seek, in our class, in the Sabbath School, or have we prejudices that stop our way in the congregation that we address week by week, and that he hope to convert to Jesus by his Spirit? Are we called to plough an unthankful soil that breaks the ploughshare, Is there something just now before us that looks like a gate of brass and a wall of iron? Here is the one comfort concerning it all: The Lord liveth. "He is not here; he is risen." He is not dead; his power lies not paralysed in the tomb; he lives and goes before you, leading the van of all the noble, of those who died for his crown and glory. On with you, then, in the name of God! Be this your might that Jesus lives. Henceforth, let difficulties be only rejoiced in as things to be over come, as opportunities for glorifying him by the exercise of your faith in him, which will be followed by the revelation of his power. So, then, that vanishes.

If unbelief raises difficulties, "The Lord is risen" is the cure for them all.

Suppose our unbelief takes the shape of fright. It does sometimes. It did in the case of these good women—they were affrighted, we are told in the fifth verse. We are told again in the eighth verse that they fled from the sepulchre, for they trembled. Now we may be frightened at a great many things. Some persons are so timid that they are frightened at nothing: their own shadow will frighten them.

But there may be real matters that should cause us to tremble if we had not something better to fall back upon than ourselves. Now a Christian in a fright is like a man out of his wits. He is pretty sure to do something that will make his danger greater. Self-possession, calm composure, a quiet mind, these have often saved lives, have frequently prevented the destruction of a cause that was just then in peril. If thou canst be calm amidst bewildering circumstances, confident of victory in the end, that will half win the battle itself. If thou canst rest in the Lord. or, to use the words of Moses, "stand still and see the salvation of God," thou wilt surely come out unscathed the evil.

Now the best cure for fright is the fact that Jesus is risen. Why, how am I to be afraid when he who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords is my shepherd, and will surely interpose for my protection? If my Lord were dead, then were I unsafe, but while Jesus lives I am secure.

"Because I live, ye shall live also." Oh! what a grand sentence is that! "I give unto My sheep eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand." Who art thou, then, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die, and of the son of man that is but as the moth? Rest thou in thy living Savior "Fear not; I am with thee—I am with thee—be not dismayed, for I am thy God." "I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness. When thou passest through the rivers, I will be with thee; the floods shall not overflow thee. When thou goest through the fire, thou shalt not he burned, neither shall the flange kindle upon thee." "I am God, I change not; therefore, ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

Come back, then, if you are tempest-tossed, terrified, trembling, and affrighted, and, because Jesus lives, be quiet, and in patience possess your souls.

I notice in the chapter that the next form of unbelief is amazement. These good women, in addition to being afraid, were amazed—could not make it out. It was too great a mystery. How could it be? It troubled them—it troubled them.

Now in all times of our amazement about great gospel truths, we shall find always the best way to get out of the amazement is to hold fast by faith to the veracity and truthfulness of God, and to hold fast to what we can understand—to a fact that has been proved better than other facts of history have been proved, the fact that the Lord Jesus is risen from the dead.

It is generally when you are in trouble about some great doctrine a bad thing to argue about that doctrine while you are troubled about it. Think more of what you do believe, of what you are sure of, than just now of that matter which staggers you. You will find that, if you receive the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and rest in that as being a guarantee of your resurrection, you have the key of many other precious truths; and as one doctrine draws on another as the links of a chain, you will find your amazement at some of the most stupendous mysteries of the faith will be cured by your grasping the first simplicity and fundamental doctrine of the faith of the gospel, that the Lord Jesus, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, and dead, and buried, and the third day rose again in very flesh and blood. and ever liveth, sitting on the right hand of God, reigning in exceeding power.

You will not be amazed nor affrighted; you will not be made to tremble, or be bewildered, if you keep close to this—"He lives! He lives! This I know, and on this I rest."

Further, it seems that these good women were much prevented in doing their duty by their unbelief. They were told to go and speak to the disciples, but, at any rate for a time, they did not do so, for it is written, "Neither said they anything to any man, for they were afraid." Those tongues that by-and-bye in calmer moments would bear such a sure testimony were, through their fears which sprang of their unbelief, quite dumb. They could not speak.

Oh! and this is a complaint that is very common in the Church. I know some that could preach, but do not, and it is unbelief that silences them. And you today, perhaps, were in society where you ought to have spoken a loving and an earnest word, and you did not, and it was a wrong timidity that kept you quiet. And you have been many times in your life cast into positions where usefulness would have been very easy, but at the same time you found it hard, because you forgot that Jesus lives—you forgot that he lives to watch his people, lives to render them assistance when they are in the path of service.

Oh! if we knew he lived—aye! knew that he was here—knew that he was close to us, and that his heart never forgot us, and his eye was never closed upon us—we should be swift in the ways of duty, and a stammering tongue would begin to speak; and the now unhallowed silence which spoils the Church? and robs her of many a triumph, would be broken by our willing testimony. and by our cheerful song. The best cure? for the dumb devil that sometimes, possesses us is a belief in the living and pleading Savior.

Further on, as your eye glances down the chapter, you will see unbelief connecting itself with wounded affection. When Mary Magdalene came to the disciples, she found them weeping, weeping for sorrow, men and women of God? a very mournful company, all weeping, weeping for a dead Savior—the dearest friend they had ever had, who first had given them spiritual conceptions and lifted them out off their former grovelling state. He was gone: he was dead, and they could not but weep. But they left off weeping, or would have done if they had known or believed that. He was risen.

It was the last thing they should have done, to be weeping. He rising, and they weeping! All the harps of heaven ringing out melodious praise, and those most concerned in the glorious fact still weeping! Every angel in heaven bending from the sacred battlements to look down upon a risen Savior with admiring gaze, and yet his own dear people who had known and loved him, sitting down and weeping amidst the universal festival! It was very strange.

Now oftentimes the same mischief happens to us. We lose a friend. Who among us has not? We lose a husband, a wife, a child. Very dear are these associations; and when the ties are snapped our heart bleeds, and sometimes we weep, and weep, and weep again until there is a want of submission to the Savior's will, there is a want of resignation to his divine purpose and decree. Now if we recollected that he lives we should also remember that they also that sleep in Jesus shall God bring with him: for if Jesus rose from the dead, so must all his people.

We sorrow not as those without hope; we commit our precious dust to the earth, but it is only far a while. We lay it low, but we thank God it can go no lower. Corruption shall not consume, but refine this flesh until, when the trumpet sounds, the very body that we wept over shall rise again in sacred lustre, fashioned in the image of Christ's own glorious body. Death is robbed of all its sting when we remember this—the soul in the company of the living Savior; the body, like Esther, bathing itself in spices to make it ready for the embrace of the all-glorious Lord; the old, worn-out vesture laid aside awhile, until God refits it, and makes it fit to be worn in the high festivals of heaven.

Oh! if Jesus lives, we wipe away the tear, and we carry not our dead to their graves with sound of weeping and with the noise of lamentation, but with the sound of holy psalm and shoutings of victory; we lower the conquering champion into his rest in sure and certain hope that he shall rive to participate in his great Captain's everlasting, victory. "Christ is risen" is the cure for wounded affection, when the wound rankles through unbelief.

Further, remark that this blessed doctrine, that Christ is risen cures us of the difficulties we have as to intercourse with heavenly things. It is earlier in the chapter, though I mention it last. The angel appeared unto the women—two angels appeared to certain other women, according to Luke, and instead of speaking to the angels, they ran away. They were afraid and amazed. "Fear not ye," said tile angels, "for we know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here, for he is risen."

Now I think if you and I were in a state of full faith in the risen Savior, if we met an angel, we should not be amazed. If we saw an angel—if once again the spirits could put on the semblance of bodies and soon appear to the organs of our vision I think if we revere full of faith, we should avail ourselves of the opportunity to learn some thing about them, and about the heaven they dwell in, and, most of all, about their Lord.

Oh! methinks I would like an hour with some bright spirit to question him about some of those mysteries that, as yet, eye hath not seen. If it were lawful for him to utter what, perhaps, he might not tell—if it were lawful for him to tell of some of the glories within the veil, and some of the mysteries of those streets of gold, and those walls of twelve foundations calf precious stones, our inquisitiveness might take a holy turn. Act any rate, if we might not ask questions, we would hold fellowship; we would be glad to see these spirits that are so near akin to us, for even now—even we—we are not strangers to them. They bear us up in their hands lest we clash our foot against a stone, and we are come to the general assembly and Church of the firstborn—we are come to the host of angels, and to those whose names are written in heaven: we are come to that innumerable company, even now, by faith, and if we could get a glimpse of them, we should not be afraid.

Now it is a fact that Christ is risen that makes an open door between us and the spiritual world. A man in flesh and blood is gone into the skies: a man who ate a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honeycomb—a man that said, "Handle me and see that it is I myself ": a man of whom it is written, "He showed them his hands and his side": a man who said to one of his acquaintance, "Reach hither thy finger behold my hand, and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side"—such a man is gone into the excellent glory, and he has opened a living way by which our intercourse with angels, and with the angels' Master, is complete.

Oh! herein there is subject for spiritual minds greatly to rejoice at, and the difficulties which unbelief would put in our way are swept away by the full conviction that the Lord is risen—is risen indeed.

But I must not dwell longer on that. The great power of unbelief receives its antidote in the blessed and well-ascertained fact that Jesus is risen. Now let us see still further:—

III.SOME OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF OUR LORD'S RISING.

We observe in the chapter that one of the first consequences of his rising was a more general, a more intense, a more universal activity in the Church. He said to them, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." We see again, "He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God, and they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them." From which I gather that, if we did more fully perceive that Christ is risen, we should be all of us more active.

It is very hard to get up enthusiasm for an idea—certainly in England it is—it may not be in some more mercurial clime among a more sensitive and responsive people—but here we do not generally get into a state of enthusiasm for an idea. But what men are there that are not moved to enthusiasm for a person? A man, a person, will always command more fully the activity of human hearts than will a mere doctrine or dogma.

Bring before me in history the leading principles, and you will generally find that the principles did little or nothing until they wore embodied in a man, and when some bold man represented the principles, then the principles opened the man's way to human hearts. It is so in the Church. I suppose some people are enthusiastic about creeds and about dogmas. I don't know, but I know this: that the most enthusiastic people in all the Church are those that know him, and love him, and live with him, and serve him. The enthusiasm of heaven seems to be about them. They cast their crowns at his feet, and they sing "Hallelujah" when they behold God and the Lamb. There is an adoration of persons, and their souls are moved by the presence of blessed and divine persons, and so in the Church should it be. We have a living Savior, a living Captain. He is not out of the fight: he still looks down upon us: he still is fighting with us in the grand old cause.

Oh! who of us will be a laggard when the Captain's eye is upon him? Jesus is looking on—Jesus, the author and the finisher of our faith, is looking on the course. Let us run with patience, because we look at, and are looked upon by, him. May this principle of Christian patience move every person here to do something, and continue to do something for the honor and glory of his Master.

But, in addition to this cause, we find that the presence of Christ gave to the church at that time miracles. The risen Savior endowed them with unknown tongues, and they spoke, though they were uninstructed men, so that men understand them from every clime: they began to work wonders.

Our faith leads us not to these, nor will it. This is wisely denied us. At the same time, though we work not miracles in the outer world, all true preaching is miracle working. Commonly to declare a doctrine, commonly to speak a thing well—all this may be no preaching as God would call it—eloquence, oratory, refinement, the putting of words well together—this is common to all mankind. After their measure, all may speak—after some sort. This is not God's work; but true preaching, soul-saving preaching, the Spirit's voice speaking through man—this is miracle working.

You know, my brethren, there are some who cannot preach—they say they cannot preach the gospel. I mean this: they will preach sermons to God's living people, to God's quickened ones, and then they say, "As for you that are dead in sin, I have nothing, to say to you." That is their notion. They are very candid. God never set them to preach the gospel, and they own they cannot do it. Well, a pity that they should try; but another man whom God sends knows, as the other did, that the hearer who is unconverted is dead in trespasses and sins. He knows that ordinarily to speak to such people would be a very idle thing. He knows he dare not attempt it in his own strength, and that to say to the dead, to the spiritual dead, "Live," is in itself the extreme of folly. But he, feels that God is with him, that God has sent him, and looking, like Ezekiel of old, upon the congregation of sinners, as in the valley full of dry bones, he does not say, "I have nothing to say to you; you are dead"; but bursting out in his Master's name, he says, 'Ye dry bones, hear the Word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord, ye dry bones, 'Live.'" God sent the man, and while he prophesies thus upon the bones, they come together, bone to his bone, and live.

The two apostles at the beautiful gate of the temple did not say to the lame man. "You are lame; we trust in God's time you will get cured of your lament—we have nothing to say to you"; but they said, "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk." They bid the man do what he could not do, but as they bade him do it, the strength came to him to do it. And while we say to the sinner, "Believe and live," God sends the power of the gospel command, and they do repent, do believe, do live, do fly for refuge to the hope set before them in the gospel; and to this day each Christian is a miracle worker in his own sphere, in the sphere of spiritual things. He opens blind eyes by God's power, and unstops deaf ears by Jesus' might. He, too, raises the dead; he, too, casts out devils, still in the higher realm, the realm of mind, the realm of spirit; and our ascended Lord has given us this—this power—we receive it entirely from him because all power is given unto him in heaven and in earth. Therefore, go we and teach all nations, and that teaching works results.

I must not detain you longer, except to notice that, in consequence of our Lord's resurrection, there is divine power, the highest degree of power concentrated in the person of Jesus Christ. He was ever God, and now as God—man Mediator all power is concentrated in him. And this power is not laid up there to be idle—not as so much stored up ammunition never to be expended, for if you notice the last verse, "The Lord working with them."

Is it not a delightful thought that Jesus is not a sufferer, but he is a worker still?" The Lord working with them. "Redeeming work is done; saving work is going on. "The Lord is working with them." We do not see it, but he is working. Often that power which is least seen is most mighty, and certainly in the Church that which is not perceptible by the senses is the strongest power.

Believer, if the conversion of the world rested with the Church, if the outgathering of the elect depended upon us, it never would be done; but God makes us work for this end, and so he works first in us, and then he works with us. How this ought to encourage us to work! This little arm, what can it do? But that eternal arm, what can it not do? This tongue, how feebly can it speak; but the voice of him who spake as never man spake, how persuasively can it speak? Our spirits, narrow and limited, what can they effect? But his unbounded Spirit, what cannot he perform?

Oh! let everyone here who has been serving his Master bid farewell to everything like a discouraging or desponding thought. The great army of God is not defeated; it never can be, in the long run it must conquer. And even those parts of the divine strategy of our great Commander. which looked like retreat, are only portions of his perpetual victory. He is fighting on, and will win the battle, even to the end. It is a great consolation to the believer to know that Jesus lives, and lives in triumph.

I do remember, and I cannot help repeating what I have told you before—I do remember, when in an hour of the most overwheming sorrow through which a mind could pass, this one thing restored and comforted me. After that dreadful catastrophe in the Surrey Gardens, when my mind gave way, and my sorrow was extreme—when I had almost lost my reason for some three weeks, and was desponding and brokenhearted, I was alone, walking in solitude, mourning, and weeping as I did day and night and on a sudden there came into my mind, as though it dropped from heaven, this text, "Him hath God highly exalted and given him a name which is above every name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow"; you know the rest. The thought that crossed my mind was this, I am one of his soldiers, and I am lying in a ditch to die. It does not matter: the King has won the victory—Christ has won the victory—Christ is to the fore. If I die like a dog, I care not. The crown is on his head. He is safely exalted."

In a moment I was happy; my trouble was gone; I found myself perfectly restored; I fell on my knees in a solitary place, praising God who, in infinite mercy, had made that text to be a balm to my spirit. Now there may be someone here who feels much as I did—disconsolate, cast down If you really love Jesus, there is not a nobler balm for your care than this: he reigns, he is glorious; the government is not taken from his shoulders. Our King is no captive; our Emperor has not yielded up his sword: our Prince Imperial is not banished: our Empire never fails, the city of Jerusalem is not besieged: there shall be no straitness of bread in her streets. "God is in the midst of her: she shall not be moved; God shall help her, and that right early."

Let the heathen rage: let the people and nations be moved: let the whole earth rock and reel, and the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea, God is our refuge and strength, our very present help in time of trouble. God reigneth, and the kingdom of Jesus is settled by an unchangeable decree. Therefore. lift up your heads, ye saints, for your redemption draweth nigh, and even now clap ye your joyful hands, and go ye back again to the conflict of life until your Master galls you home like true heroes, that henceforth shall know no fear, and shall never turn your backs in the day of battle.

God grant it may be so for his name's sake. Amen.

C. H. Spurgeon


10 April 2009

A holy day — not a pretty day

by Dan Phillips

Justin Taylor links to a shocking video. It depicts Jews preparing, then slitting the throat of a sacrificial animal, and gathering its blood.

You watch it, hearing their ritual in rapid Hebrew, not understanding. But you have this feeling of dread, a horror for what you know is coming. Odds are that you had never quite seen the like, as I hadn't. But you feel it coming, you watch perhaps with a hand to your mouth, wanting to look away, but stopping yourself. The struggling victim, no clue what is coming; bound, prepared, shaved, given some liquid (sh'teh! sh'teh! — "Drink! Drink!" a speaker urges in Hebrew).

Then the blade slashes, the blood spurts and is gathered, and surprisingly quickly, the victim's struggles subside.

This was God's ancient pedagogy. From the very start, He taught us all that sin called for shed blood. He showed this to Adam and Eve in the Garden (Genesis 3:21). Somehow Abel knew it (Genesis 4:4). Shed blood meant death (Genesis 9:6), and shed blood was the means that Yahweh instituted, for covering and paying for sin (Leviticus 17:11, 14).

This was God's pedagogy for the nation of Israel. The sight that so shocks us in the video is a sight every Israelite was exposed to from childhood, by divine design. Had they heard Yahweh, had they listened and learned, they would have known: sin-blood-life. Sin can only be atoned for by innocent life, life is in the blood, blood brings life and forgiveness. Violent death of an innocent victim, a substitute on whose head the offerer presses his hand, transferring, marking it as his substitute.

Yet all those animals never really finish the job. God forgives the believing worshipers... but then they have to bring another victim. And another. And another (Hebrews 10:1-4, 11).

Then God tells Israel that these animals would one day be summed up, fulfilled, in one grand Substitute, a Man who would die for His people and bring final and lasting peace and atonement (Isaiah 52:13—53:12).

That Man comes. Many reject Him, many do not. He dies. God removes the Temple. No more sacrifices according to the prescription of the Law are even possible. As if embarrassed (but not humbled), the nation fabricates substituted traditions, works, programs, rituals. The reality has come, but they keep trying to pencil in shadows.

It is like a child that ignored its entire childhood instruction. Blood is necessary for atonement; it would be offered, it has been offered. But the lesson was not heard.

Don't feel smug, Gentile reader, Christian reader. From our own numbers, from professed "evangelicals," there are plenty who just as badly — more badly — miss the point.

Imagine that, instead of watching a video of an animal's death, you somehow saw this day, nearly 2000 years ago. Imagine that, instead of that animal, you were watching Jesus Christ at last night's supper, at prayer in the garden, arrested, subjected to mock-justice, condemned. Imagine you were watching him being beaten and whipped, and led away.

Imagine the sick, nauseated, worsening clench in your gut as you saw Him stagger off, carrying the cross. You want to tear your eyes away. You want to make it stop. You want to scream "Stop! STOP! This is wrong!"

Yet He goes. He hangs. He bleeds. He dies. He is buried.

Why such an ugly, horrid death? Why, if penal, substitutionary, blood atonement were not indispensable for our salvation? Do we dare shake our heads at Jews who don't "get" the millennia of instruction?

Best not to mock, while such folly is tolerated in our numbers.

Alas! and did my Savior bleed
And did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?

Refrain

At the cross, at the cross where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart rolled away,
It was there by faith I received my sight,
And now I am happy all the day!

Thy body slain, sweet Jesus, Thine—
And bathed in its own blood—
While the firm mark of wrath divine,
His Soul in anguish stood.

Was it for crimes that I had done
He groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity! grace unknown!
And love beyond degree!

Well might the sun in darkness hide
And shut his glories in,
When Christ, the mighty Maker died,
For man the creature’s sin.

Thus might I hide my blushing face
While His dear cross appears,
Dissolve my heart in thankfulness,
And melt my eyes to tears.

But drops of grief can ne’er repay
The debt of love I owe:
Here, Lord, I give my self away
’Tis all that I can do.

Isaac Watts, 1707

(There is a companion-piece up at my blog)

Dan Phillips's signature

09 April 2009

Turning a Blind Eye to Evil Is Evil, Too

. . . in which I (kind of) disagree with Tim Challies
by Phil Johnson

"They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his evil" (Jeremiah 23:14).




    was writing something to agree with and embellish a comment left by Gilbert under Frank's post yesterday, but it got long, and I decided to make this a full post. I've got to say this, and I don't want it buried at the end of a 120+ comment-thread.

First, some background: The venerable Tim Challies set our little corner of the blogosphere abuzz earlier this week with a post on the dangers of "watchblogs." There's quite a lot to applaud in what Tim said, but I don't think he said everything about the subject that needed to be said. As a result, I thought his post was (quite uncharacteristically for Challies, of all people) lacking in balance.

One of the unintended side effects of Tim's post has been a widespread and sometimes lively discussion about whether PyroManiacs qualifies as a "watchblog" or not. In the midst of one of these conversations, Gilbert (a long-time reader and commenter here, and a skilled meteorologist to boot) came very close to identifying what I see as the key difference between healthy discernment and the obsessive/compulsive peevishness some of our fellow critics seem to think is the mark of real orthodoxy. Gilbert said:

Gilbert: "Without putting words into [Phil Johnson's] mouth, he'd rather spend his time building up believers and himself in the Word rather than calling people out for damnable heresies that are causing people to drift away from the true faith and send[ing] them to hell."

Quite right. But let me add this: It needs to be said that "calling people out for damnable heresies that are causing people to drift away from the true faith" is a shepherd's duty, not an option—and it can be quite edifying if done well.

That said, anyone can sample my preaching ministry; I invite you all to do so. What you'll discover is that when I am speaking to the flock (as opposed to lecturing in a men's meeting or exhorting pastors in a Shepherds' Conference seminar, or writing on my blog) I employ humor and criticism very sparingly. That's because when I preach, my immediate concern is to explain the meaning of specific texts of Scripture and exhort people to apply the truth to their lives in obedience to God.

This blog serves a totally different purpose. It always has. I make no apology for that, especially here in the gutless, effeminate, faint-hearted, hopelessly "diverse," hazy-and-hesitant subculture contemporary evangelicalism prides itself on being.

It has frankly never troubled me one bit that people who hate our theological stance dismiss us as "watchbloggers" (or worse). If someone can't see how PyroManiacs differs in tone and style from the trash-talking parodies maintained by certain bloggers whose sympathies lie at the opposite end of the theological spectrum from us, that says more about their brand of discernment than it says about ours.

Look: I agree with the gist of Tim Challies' concern. (At least I think I do. The more Tim has clarified himself, the less certain I am that we agree as much as I assumed at first. Still—)

I do think it's evil and irreverent to regard apostasy as nothing more than something to mock and be entertained by. Those who fall into that attitude inevitably mirror and amplify the very impieties they say they deplore. They tend to become petty, overly-critical, thin-skinned, and surly-sounding gossip-mongers. Ditto with the sophomoric anti-watchblogs that relentlessly parody such full-time critics, raising the stakes on the irreverence game to ever-new heights. These two opposing forces feed one another's worst tendencies, and I have no desire to participate with or encourage either side in their native forums. The comment-threads on both sides always turn into adolescent insult-contests, and it can be downright ugly. It's an embarrassment. It's also an easy trap for anyone still swaddled in unglorified flesh to fall into.



. . . which includes all of us. Me too.

So here's where Tim Challies' post was most right on target: there's far too much of that in the blogosphere.

I also agree wholeheartedly with Frank Turk's point: certain amateur and self-anointed "discernment" specialists are a serious blight on the church and an impediment to the cause of truth. (Especially those who have no accountability to or involvement in a real church with a serious pastor and legitimate elders.) People like that give discernment itself a black eye.

I also agree with Doug Wilson: Sarcasm can be as dangerous as a fillet knife, especially when wielded by someone with myopic vision.

However, (and I'm going to be emphatic about this:) I do not agree with those who claim there's nothing whatsoever funny about heresy, apostasy, and man-centered religion. Such things are certainly not more funny than they are abominable and tragic, but they nevertheless look hilariously comedic at times. And at such times it is perfectly appropriate to laugh hard and derisively at them—even to mock them—as Elijah did, and as Jesus did, and as even He who sitteth in the heavens doth (Psalm 2:4).

Tim Challies is absolutely right to point out that a steady diet of that sort of "entertainment" isn't good for anyone. Let's affirm that emphatically, too. But if someone takes Tim's point and uses it to argue that it's always sinful to make fun of the profane antics of Baal-worshipers—if someone thinks it's just flat-out wrong to be amused by, say, The Sacred Sandwich, or "The Cave of Adullam" department in Credenda Agenda—I have to demur.

I think what Tim Challies is saying is that it's unhealthy to fix one's attention on error full time rather than spending most of our time dwelling on things that edify. If that's all he is saying, I say (as heartily as possible) AMEN! (Philippians 4:8). But if someone wants to seize that point in order to suggest that it's always better to be an encourager than a critic, my reply is: That very attitude is largely responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place.

Is there not a sense in which it is legitimate to be "entertained" when we read about Elijah's mockery of the Baal-priests? I admit that I'm entertained by it—every time I read it. Hey: I'm also entertained by Tim Challies' book reviews—and Todd Friel's occasional satires based on Tim Challies' book reviews.

I've read Tim's blog for years, and I really don't think he means to suggest that it's always inherently sinful to be entertained by the refutation of error. At least I hope that's not what he means, because I think if he gave up that (very helpful, edifying, and entertaining) aspect of his blog, we'd all be the poorer for it.

I'll go further:

I think regular doses of the kind of wry humor we find at Purgatorio can be good for us in the same way an albuterol inhaler helps an asthmatic. I likewise think Chris Rosebrough's amazing "Museum of Idolatry" serves a valid function (more like a stiff dose of potent smelling salts than a mist of albuterol)—making it very hard for chronically apathetic evangelicals to ignore or minimize the creeping heathenism that is festering in their midst. My occasional laughter at the ridiculousness of the abominations Chris collects doesn't diminish my horror at the speed with which those things have come to dominate the evangelical movement (just during my short lifespan).

I understand Challies' central concern. There is a vocal segment of the fundamentalist/evangelical community for whom an obsession with sensational exposés and nattering negativity has proved seriously unhealthy. It has given them a sour attitude, a perpetually angry tone, and a really bad reputation. I don't enjoy reading what they write, either, and I don't hang around their blogs.

But the mentality that dominates the evangelical culture today—and the far greater problem, in my judgment—is exactly the opposite. The overwhelming majority of today's evangelical sophisticates would clearly prefer it if no one ever criticized evangelical Golden Calves. Rampant error doesn't unsettle them in the least. They are quite happy to live with it and even actively make peace with it.

But let someone dare to voice an objection to a troubling doctrine in the latest best-seller making the rounds on campus—even a denial of the Trinity or some other soul-destroying soteriological or Christological novelty—and the very people who profess to hate criticism (and who work so hard to seem agreeable in their dealings with with the unorthodox) will heap the nastiest kinds of vituperation on the soul of the one who has dared to criticize unorthodoxy and thereby threaten the "unity" evangelicals think their timid silence has won them.

This is a huge problem. It's the main reason these abominations are multiplying so quickly and growing steadily more sinister.

Occasionally over the years, Tim Challies has been on the receiving end of these angry reprisals from the sweetness-and-civility police, so I'm confident he's not unaware of how the system works. Moreover, I certainly don't blame him for wanting to tone down the amateurs and provocateurs who reflect so poorly on that segment of the blogosphere in which Tim is (without a doubt) the best-known voice. I just hope he's not saying he wants to relinquish the role of critic altogether, because Tim is a classy, careful, balanced, biblically-minded critic, and we desperately need courageous and discerning voices like his.

Even if not everybody is always happy with the message.

Phil's signature

08 April 2009

Because Someone Asked . . .

posted by Phil Johnson

or your further reading pleasure, The Greatest Single Comment Ever Left on Our Blog:




What can I do now that my church is foundering?
by Frank Turk

To all readers who want to now give us their testimony regarding how their church had suddenly lost its first love (In the Revelation sense of that phrase):

At some point, many of you have to realize that your church "started getting into" things when you were not willing (and in some cases, able) to stand at the plow with fellow workmen and help them reason through the "first things" in order to make and keep the local church a place which is clean, safe and warm (spiritually speaking).

These lines of questions invariably end the way D____'s does here: what can I do now that my church is foundering? Listen: the answer is not "nothing", but it is also not "begin the Spanish inquisition". The truth is that doing "nothing" is really what got you and your church into this mess. Being unable or unwilling to shoulder your spiritual burden in the local church is what has caused at least part of it to fall down.

There is no question: in Scripture, the serious burden of the spiritual health of the church is placed on the elders/pastors. But they are not described in the Bible as the only ones working, and the rest of us are exhorted repeatedly to care for them, pray for them, and be subject to them.

If you, today, are not in some active way part of your church's life (not a passive way; not merely attending and talking in Sunday school), then when your church "starts getting into" all manner of things, you can't suddenly want to be doing more than "nothing" and seem credible.

| ... the whole purpose driven, Rob Bell, say
| a prayer and *poof* your saved, and
| then I found that my co-workers and
| friends were into Granger, and
| Willow Creek, and NewSpring.

I think it's interesting that you discovered this rather suddenly. This is a common attribute in stories like yours, D____, and it's one which puzzles me.

Did they discover these things suddenly? I suspect they didn't. That means that somehow they had been on, at least, a very different spiritual path than you had been for at least some amount of time. How does that happen, do you think? I honestly say this in love: when did they check in with you, and you with them, and for what purpose?

It seems obvious to me that Christians are called to be saints together—which means we are checking in with each other often. That way none of us "start getting into" stuff our fellow church-mates don't understand.

| There were so many times I listened to an
| invitation from the pulpit that
| grieved me so much, that I went out
| and started a blog to try and reach
| some of those people with some
| warnings about some of these things,
| and I received some good
| information from some watchdog
| sites.

I am very confident that blogging to people you sit next to in church is, frankly, the least you can do. If you can't have lunch with them (or the equivalent, because I realize that not everyone has lunch liberty), I am not sure what makes you think they will read your blog.

Or, for that matter, why your blog would influence them positively.

| While my friends won't traffic
| those sites, they might traffic my
| blog and be warned where the elders
| of their home church are just sitting
| there. Do I have a responsibility to
| speak up?

If by "speak up" you mean "join the life of my church and be inside it rather than looking helplessly in from the perimeter", yes: you have that responsibility.

If by "speak up" you mean "start a blog to say things to people I go to church with whom I cannot strike up a conversation", no: that's not responsibility. That's activity.

| I am not an elder, so
| should I stop trying to expose Rob
| Bell to my youth pastor?

Your youth pastor's problem is not that he is not "exposed" to Rob Bell: it is that he cannot grasp the problems which Rob Bell creates in his videos and books.

There's a Rob Bell Nooma where he's sitting in a diner just rapping on about stuff—wealth, money, stuff. And his point at the end is about giving. But the point he makes runs perpendicular to Scripture: rather than underscore the fact that God loves a cheerful giver, Bell tells the viewer, (words to this effect) "If you can't give cheerfully, God doesn't want your money."

Now, when we compare that to what St. Paul Really Said®:
The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work.

And to what Jesus said:
Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

We find out quickly that Pastor Bell has taken a pretty significant liberty with the actual teaching of the Bible and has substituted a popularized version which, frankly, misses the point.

And what needs to happen is that your Youth Pastor has to love the sufficiency of Scripture more than he loves an entertaining video. But here's the shocker: a blog isn't going to do that for him when the people around him aren't doing that for him.

I'm going to give you a secret to my success in influence my church, and do with it what you want: people who know me, and live with me, and talk to me find out quickly that I love God and the Bible in more than just a theoretical and theological way. The Bible makes sense to them when they see how I live. The question of "how real is Jesus" is solved for them when they meet my family and have lunch with me. So when they show me a Nooma video, having never read my blog, and I say to them, "I'm not sure this fellow got the Bible right—can we check?" The context of that statement for them is that my life is actually getting the Bible right already.

I don't have any kind of perfect life. If you could measure sanctification with scientific devices, to measure mine you would need something which measures angstroms and not cups or pounds. But I have sacrificed the time to demonstrate this to people because I love them and care for them. Have you done the same for these people for whom you are grieved, and troubled, and deeply, deeply concerned?

If you have not, when they "start getting into" all manner of things, you are then at a double disadvantage, and while it is not too late to be part of the solution, the first order of business simply can't be to watchblog them: it has to be to prove you are, and Paul says, above reproach, the husband of one wife whose children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination, above reproach, not arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. Then when it turns out you are also holding firm to the trustworthy word as taught, somebody will bother to listen to you.

lso, (because someone else asked for this) here's a handy reading guide to my chronicle of the lordship controversy, posted a couple of years ago:


How I Got Drawn into the Lordship Debate
The Complete, Canonical List
by Phil Johnson
  1. A Word of Personal Testimony

  2. A New Song in My Mouth

  3. Should sinners be urged to worship, love, and obey Christ as Lord?

  4. A Brief Interlude about History and Terminology

  5. My Short, Eye-Opening Stint as a Youth Pastor

  6. Meeting John MacArthur

  7. How Zondervan Acquired The Gospel According to Jesus

  8. The Aftermath
See Also:

Phil's signature


Establish Elders [3]

by Frank Turk



This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you - if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
I am sure I have about 3,000 words on what I am about to say next, but I'm going to say only this and leave the rest to the meta:

Notice that Paul here instructs Titus to appoint elders in every town and not watchbloggers. That is: the focal point and center of discernment ought to be in the local church. If your counter-concern is that local churches today lack discernment (and this may be a valid concern), I suggest that the place to fix that is in the place God ordained and not everywhere else but that place.

There is plenty of nuance lacking in this post. We can work all of it out in the meta.






07 April 2009

"Jesus was a Good Teacher" dodge (NEXT! #9)

by Dan Phillips

Challenge: I believe Jesus was a moral example and a great sage and teacher.

Response: ...who sagaciously taught that He was God incarnate, the only sufficient sacrifice for man's sins, and the only mediator between God and man; who made worship of Him as God a moral imperative; and taught that anyone who doesn't believe in Him, and believe all those things about Him, is going to Hell? Hey, yeah! Me too!

(Proverbs 21:22)

Dan Phillips's signature

04 April 2009

Frustrating, Funny, Fascinating, and Frightening

Monday's Post, Coming to You Early
(Because I am in Omaha and don't want to
get up early Monday morning to post. Plus,
it'll take you some time to digest this.)

by Phil Johnson

ere's eighty-eight minutes of video that is at various times stupefying, thrilling, maddening, amusing, and intriguing. And that's just the opening statements. The key players on this video (in roughly the same order as those adjectives) are Tony Jones, Kevin DeYoung, Scot McKnight, and Brett-and-Alex Harris (Josh's younger twin brothers, barely out of their teens and highly likeable). They're all discussing and debating the Emergent/ing Church Movement. This is a panel discussion that took place two weeks ago at the Christian Book Expo in Dallas:


HT: Joe Coker

My own first impressions:
  • Kevin DeYoung, as always, was right on. I love his patience, courage, clarity, and firmness. Pay attention to him; he is an important voice. At the end, he coined an expression I'll definitely use: "Postmodern squishitude."

  • Scot Mcknight was unusually irritating. Especially his churlish chiding of DeYoung for (of all things) being "uncharitable" in his opening statement—and then McKnight's stubborn refusal to get past that issue and talk about substantial matters. He comes off as cranky and irascible—not anything like his blogging persona. (More like mine, frankly.) He must've been having a really bad day.

  • Tony Jones (he of the "chastened epistemology") cracked me up with his bold (and visibly irritable) insistence that "I absolutely know Augustine." It turns out he "absolutely" knows the Reformers, too, and Pilgrims Progress. (He wrote annotations for an edition of Bunyan's allegory, you see.) He made this stunning declaration about his absolute knowledge of church history immediately after saying that until "a couple of years ago" he never even heard of anyone who believed that Scripture has a "plain meaning." Somehow, Jones gained his uncanny knowledge of Bunyan and the Reformers while remaining blissfully unaware that they all believed in the perspicuity of Scripture. Hmmm. Worse yet, Jones is basically denying that Scripture is capable of being known as thoroughly as he knows Augustine and the Reformers. Arrrrgh. (Epistemological humility turns out to be a really hard position to maintain when people keep pointing out that your arguments are full of holes.)

  • It was likewise a high irony that Jones (who says he despises critiques based on caricatures) utterly misrepresented DeYoung's and other "young Reformed guys'" worldview, insisting that they naïvely think Christianity can and should be culturally neutral. Of course, the "Reformed guys" (especially the young ones) don't really believe such a thing. On the one hand, we don't believe Christian doctrine is so flexible that it can change like a chameleon to blend safely into any worldly culture. We also deny that it's necessary for Christianity to become something totally different for every culture and every generation. But we do believe Christianity should face every worldly culture honestly and confront them all, including our own. In other words, the gospel is about as far from "cultural neutrality" as possible.

  • There is an unaccountable break at about 35 minutes into this video that destroys the flow and context of the discussion for a moment, but when the video comes back, Scot McKnight is working himself into a second diatribe against Kevin DeYoung for being "uncharitable" in his opening statement. Mark Galli (moderator) tries bravely to get the train back on track, pointing out that "uncharitable" involves a judgment of motives. He asked if Scot merely meant Kevin has been "inaccurate." Surely he didn't mean Kevin is deliberately sinning in his critique of Emergent/ing. Scot fulminates and sputters for a few seconds more, and then Tony Jones tag-teams him and pummels Kevin some more, saying (in so many words) there's no question about it: Kevin is behaving wickedly, and it's really ticking Tony off.

  • I think it's funny to hear what criticisms of the Emergent/ing movement get under Jones's and McKnight's skin. McKnight seems to think all analyses of the movement should simply ignore the loudest, best-known heretics (or better yet, the critics should shut up altogether and let Scot do the analysis). Jones is clearly irked by how the critics of Emergent/ing criticize things like candles and couches—and yet in that very same context Jones himself reduces the significance of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Menno Simons to the fact that they were "doing things that were 'cultural.'" (He even "makes" the "quotation marks" with his "fingers"). Jones doesn't seem to grasp the legitimate doctrinal concerns that are at the heart of the major criticisms of the Emergent/ing controversy. I suspect Scot McKnight does understand that serious biblical and theological issues are at stake, but it makes him angry when that's what someone wants to talk about.

  • Perhaps the most uncomfortable moment (in a discussion fairly filled with awkward poignancies) was Tony Jones's analysis of why the Mark Driscoll branch of the early Emerging Movement has renounced the rest of the movement. ("It's not just for doctrinal reasons.") One of the Harris twins (you've gotta like them, right?) later gently chided Tony, saying that remark was "unhelpful."

  • I loved it when the Wesleyan liberal woman asking a question from the floor unwittingly sided with Kevin DeYoung, admonishing Scot and Tony that they need to understand and acknowledge and embrace Brian McLaren's prominence in the movement. (The lady also took a poke at Tony Jones for not including John Wesley in his list o' Reformers & Radicals.)

  • For the umpteenth time Scot McKnight inveighed against Kevin DeYoung ("I told you these things on the phone!") and decried the unfairness of critics who keep bringing up Brian McLaren. Kevin responded by reading a paragraph from his book that answered that charge. Kevin then pleaded for the conversation to turn to something substantial. What are the distinctives of Emergent/ing and how can we assess this movement through the lens of Scripture? (I heard you, Kevin. No one who was actually there in the room seemed to get it, though.)

  • I would like to have eavesdropped on Scot McKnight's thoughts when a questioner from the audience asked Jones about his epistemology. Jones had already said that his discovery of postmodernism at Fuller Seminary was the turning point that thrust him into Emergent/ing-style thought. McKnight usually bristles when critics suggest that postmodern epistemology lies at the root the Emergent/ing movement's agenda. But in answer to this question from the floor, Jones went so far as to say that the quest for certainty engenders "power and violence." ("That could be Christian, or it could be . . . Hitler!"—Jones's very words.)
Well, anyway, listen for yourselves. We haven't had a post dealing with the Emergent/ing mess in a long time, mainly because I think the whole movement is in the early stages of a total meltdown anyway, and I don't want to beat a dying horse. But this video suggests that the critics and dropouts and defectors from the movement have taken a toll, and the "Conversation" is about to turn angry. Phil's signature

Active Obedience

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 the sermon "Justification and Glory," preached on Sunday morning, April 30, 1865, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.




e find the apostle Paul putting Christ's obedience in contrast to the disobedience of Adam: "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many he made righteous." Now this is not Christ's death merely, but Christ's active obedience, which is here meant, and it is by this that we are made righteous. Beloved, you need not sing with stammering tongues that blessed verse of our hymn,

"Jesus, thy perfect righteousness,
My beauty is, my glorious dress."

For despite all the outcry of modern times against that doctrine, it is written in heaven and is a sure and precious truth to he received by all the faithful, that we are justified by faith through the righteousness of Christ Jesus imputed to us. See what Christ has done in his living and in his dying, his acts becoming our acts and his righteousness being imputed to us, so that we are rewarded as if we were righteous, while he was punished as though he had been guilty.

This justification then comes to sinners as an act of pure grace, the foundation of it being Christ's righteousness. The practical way of its application is by faith. The sinner believeth God, and believeth that Christ is sent of God, and takes Christ Jesus to he his only confidence and trust, and in that act he becomes a justified soul.

C. H. Spurgeon


03 April 2009

Non Sola Scriptura: the Blackaby view of God's will — 2

by Dan Phillips

[Conclusion of yesterday's post]

Now to the most potentially disastrous aspect of this teaching, in pastoral terms: living it out.

Non-moral choices. In their eagerness to downplay the Scriptures' sufficiency, the Blackabys point out that God told many people to do things that were not reasonable nor morally necessary, such as where Abram or Isaac chose to live, or whether Peter or Andrew continued in their employment (p. 46). Remember this: God might lead us to do things that "make us uncomfortable" (p. 44), are not logical, and are "unorthodox" (p. 46; they do not mean doctrinally unorthodox), and may involve "surrender[ing] ... goals and comforts in order to become involved in God's activity" (p. 46).

The terrible threat. In what areas does God tell us what to do? Choice of school, career, church, ministry... even choice of mate. Oh? Does that mean that there is "only one right person"? Yep (p. 79). What if I miss that one right person? God may give us (second-best — or third? seventeenth? four hundred thirtieth?) "marriage and a fulfilled life," but "Failing to walk with God always carries a cost..." (p. 80, emphases added).

Whoa! Pause. Seriously, stop everything and think that one over.

Imagine you are a poor soul, married to a poor soul afflicted with the Blackaby view. Your spouse believes that he missed the "one [that was] best suited" for him (p. 79). He missed "the life partner He has chosen for you" (p. 79), "God's best" (ibid.), "that someone who would have been God's special gift to" him (p. 80). Every time he looks at you, he might be thinking, "second-best." Every time he says he loves you, he might be thinking, "but not like I'd have loved that special someone."

No lie. I am not making this up. I don't have to. I actually knew a girl, decades ago, who lived in fear of just this situation.

Her friend's mother "felt" she was "called" to be a missionary. Ah, but she met and married a man who wasn't so "called." And now this woman would spend the rest of her life knowing that she had missed God's calling, had missed God's will for her life! She had settled for second-best. She had married second-best.

Did you get that? That was the woman's attitude, and she communicated that to her daughter! About her father! (And wouldn't that mean that the daughter was second-best, too? Not "the child who should have been"?)

So the daughter knew, and now her friend knew! Word was really getting around, about this poor sap. Can you count the things Biblically wrong in this picture so far? Even beyond that the whole concept is the precise opposite of what Scripture says on the subject (1 Corinthians 7:39)?

So now her friend lived in fear that she might meet and love the wrong man — or, more to the point, any man other than the one right man — and spend the rest of her life knowing she was out of God's best will for her life.

See? "Train-wreck."


"Ludicrous"? So how far does this go? What does this "will" include? The Blackabys must get that question a lot, and it clearly stings them. Their reaction is as rhetorically strong as it is logically vacant.
One of the most ludicrous questions people ask is: "Should I seek God's will about everything? Must I pray and ask Him what brand of toothpaste I should buy and which breakfast cereal I should eat?" ...Clearly some mundane aspects of our lives are not life-and-death matters; nor will they influence eternity. They simply require wisdom in our decisions (p. 47)
But why is it "ludicrous"? How do we know they "are not life-and-death matters" that will not influence eternity? After all, remember that the Blackabys belabored the point that God had specific directions for "mundane," non-moral matters such as where to live, where to eat dinner, where to sit to eat dinner, whether to stay in a given business. How do we know what God considers "mundane," given that the Blackabys demand that He direct every detail of our lives, just as Jesus did with the apostles?

No eternal consequences? How do we know there are not eternal consequences? The Blackabys ridicule the (broadly and deeply Biblical) "extreme view that everything we do, right down to the smallest detail of our lives, is prescribed by God" (p. 61). Their phrasing is characteristically sloppy here, but they seem to be denying the pan-Biblical truth of providence.

Well then, if God does not actually have a handle on "the smallest detail" of my life, and if He has all sorts of things He wants me, Dan Phillips, to figure out that He wants me to do — without the Bible, by struggling to hear and discern His voice and apply all the complex Blackaby-invented signs and tests — then how can I know where it stops?

Toothpaste and eternity. I'm absolutely serious. Think about it. The Blackabys scoff at toothpaste-selection. Well, how do I know?

If I pick this tube of toothpaste right in front of me, I will get to the check out line a few seconds earlier than if I bend down and reach back to pick the one near the floor, where the front packages are missing. Suppose that means that I will pick checkstand 12, whereas otherwise I would have picked checkstand 8. Suppose God wanted — in the Blackaby-God's weak, whispery, ambiguous way — for me to pick checkstand 8, because He was hoping I would then hear His next little mumbly nudge telling me to witness to that checker, because He had been preparing her heart to hear the Gospel from me.


But alas! I pick the closer toothpaste. I go to checkstand 12. I am now out of God's perfect will. Uh-oh. What happens when I am out of God's perfect, individual will? The Blackabys told me: "The consequences" can be "disastrous" (p. 48)! And so...
  • ...the checker doesn't hear the Gospel from me, and goes to Hell instead of Heaven.
  • ...I walk out into the parking lot 12 seconds early, am killed by a white van! Aigh! Bam! Dead!
  • I never write that commentary on Proverbs that would have changed hermeneutical history, or that book on Calvinistic Dispensationalism that would have brought all Biblical Christians together in the truth, or preach to tens of thousands of others God was preparing to hear the Gospel just from me!
  • ...and they all go to Hell, too!
Now maybe you chuckle, or maybe you're angry. But there are NO OBJECTIVE OR BIBLICAL CONTROLS in the Blackabys' construct to rule any of this out!

That's not a big deal?

Obey/disobey. This is not an exaggeration. The Blackabys constantly speak of divining this whispery, vaporous leading of God in terms of obedience and disobedience (pp. 45, 61, etc.) And well they should! If it is God's will, then I must obey, mustn't I? After all, God is speaking! Does it get more authoritative than that? Can anyone think of a time when God says, "Do A," when it is morally indifferent to obey or disobey? Disobeying God is the very definition of sin (James 4:17).

Yet I am not sure the Blackabys have even thought this through, even though they're famous for advocating this view. They insist that this will of God, this voice, that they want people to pursue may well not involve choices "between right and wrong" (pp. 42, 43). Huh? If God tells me to do A, doesn't that make it a choice between right and wrong? If He says, in that whispery, unsure murmur I'm to pant after, "Dan, do A," and I do B — haven't I done wrong? Even if God is "saying," "Dan, buy a white car," and I stubbornly insist on buying a car with a real color — am I not doing wrong? Am I not sinning?

And this brings us to a question I really would like to ask the Blackabys.
Supposing I was (somehow) born untainted by Adam's sin.
Supposing I never sinned in my entire life. And then...
Supposing God was "telling" me (Blackaby-style) to become a truck-driver, and I became a cook...
...would Jesus have had to die to keep me from going to Hell for being a cook instead of a truck-driver?
Or for picking the wrong seminary? Marrying the wrong person? Buying the wrong toothpaste? Going to the wrong showing of "Fireproof"?

Here is where I would find out how serious they were about their notions. If God directs me to do something, and I do not do that, then I have sinned, and I deserve Hell for it.

It's just not funny anymore, is it?

No telling who picks up a book. Perhaps most readers will assume the Blackabys' work will fall into the hands of basically stable, sober-minded people. They won't go nuts with the Blackabys' theories. In other words, they won't really take them seriously.

But why not? Suppose, instead, a less-stable, less well-taught, more obsessive person comes on their work. He shifts into overdrive at the thought of discerning this uncomfortable, inconveniencing, fantastic guidance from God. Now everything and anything is fraught with numinous overtones! Every "nudge" (their word) or circumstance or random word or event (all possible means of God's guidance, according to the Blackabys; cf. pp. 56-59) might be the voice of God, speaking to him! Miss it, and face terrible consequences!

So this poor wretch flees the job he's trained for, yanks his family across the country, moves them into a cardboard box to pick over scraps while he starts harassing strangers in Christ's name, because of a voice he thinks he's hearing... and where could it end? Do not dismiss this: remember, God might lead us to do things that "make us uncomfortable" (p. 44), are not logical, and are "unorthodox" (p. 46), and may involve "surrender[ing] ... goals and comforts" (p. 46).


If there's a one-for-one carry-on from the Bible, maybe this unstable soul will "feel moved" to have his family live on grasshoppers and honey, like John the Immerser. Or maybe he'll "feel led" to walk around naked, like Isaiah; or cook his food over dung, like Ezekiel. Or maybe he'll tell a ship's captain to throw him overboard, to end a storm, like Jonah.

There are no real, objective, Biblical controls against such behavior in this reckless article.

This is one of the most pastorally-irresponsible articles I've read, from orthodox Christian writers.



Conclusion: worse? Yes. In conclusion, I think this view of God's will is worse bondage than Pharisaism in this regard.

At least in Pharisaism, you knew where you stood. If you threw up a rock on the Sabbath and caught it with the same hand, you’d violated the Sabbath. It may be a silly rule, but it’s discrete, it's distinct, it's there.

With this view, you never know! You might have sinned merely by picking up the rock! Or maybe you picked up the wrong rock! Or maybe you picked it up with the wrong hand! You never know! Since the Blackabys stress that this "will" isn't necessarily about right and wrong, it could be about anything... and so everything becomes a matter of right and wrong!

There is no basis for knowing, no objective control, as long as it is not directly against Scripture.

Summary. After pro forma niceties about Scripture, the Blackabys assure Christians that what they really need for a dynamic, personal, God-pleasing relationship is not to be found there. They would send them on a lifelong rabbit chase for which Scripture can offer no guidance, because it envisions no such pursuit.

Among the products are irrational, unstable, irresponsible and/or chaotic lives. Unbelievers (and believers) who are wronged, hurt, or simply appalled at reckless behavior by the "I-just-felt-led" set will not glorify God for it. Just "play the God-card," and you're off the hook.

What glorifies God is not a bunch of people acting like fools in His name. I have this notion that God knows best what will really glorify Him. Hear Him:
See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 6 Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ 7 For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? 8 And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?
(Deuteronomy 4:5-8)
A better way. Thank God Scripture points us in no such direction! Thank God that Scripture is wholly sufficient for teaching, correcting and directing us, so that we may be fully equipped to serve God (2 Timothy 3:15-17)! God does talk to us. He talks to us through His living, truly-sufficient Word (Psalm 119:24; Proverbs 6:20-23; Hebrews 3:7-11; 4:12).

And thank God that He does in fact exhaustively control everything that comes to pass, so that His children can never put themselves out of the sphere of His love and blessing and good will (Psalm 115:3; Proverbs 16:1, 4, 9, 33; Romans 8:28-39; Ephesians 1:11).

PS — I did ask God to guide me in writing this review. If you agree with the Blackaby position... how do you know He didn't?


addendum after yesterday's post, a reader offered a word of testimony, which I've shared here.

Dan Phillips's signature