These notes reflect my own impressions of what Ed Stetzer had to say at the recent Dwell London event. He was doing a seminar for cross-cultural workers to help them understand the current evangelical movement.  There are many of my own comments entwined with what Ed actually had to say. So blame me, rather than him for anything you disagree with, and credit him and not me for anything useful! Anytime I use the word “I” in these notes, this definitely reflects my opinion, not Ed’s necessarily. And, since this was an hour long seminar, you can tell I only grabbed parts of what he said.

Stetzer showed a remarkable grasp of the modern evangelical movement, among which he moves remarkably freely as a friend of many from remarkably different streams. Ed speaks to a broader Christian constituency than anyone else I can think of. I should also mention also that in private conversation this past weekend, Ed stressed to me the importance of each of these groups continuing to feel passionately about their distinctives. Ed argued that if we all try and minimize the things that mark us out as different to other groups we will loose traction as movements. Ultimately the lowest common denominator approach to unity is a road to compromise and liberalism in my view. So I agree with Ed that our best approach to the many and varied movements in evangelicalism is to be united where we can, learn what we can, but still hold strongly onto our own values, always being clear that as Bible people, we are open to being persuaded away from our perspectives.

Ed began by explaining that there has been a collapse of the methodological consensus. Over the last few decades it is no longer the case that an Anglican church looks like an Anglican or Baptist like a Baptist. Now you have moderators. Eg “Pupurse driven,” “moderately reformed,” or “missional.” It is now the case that a Lutheran church that is Purpose Driven will be more similar to a Pentecostal Purpose Driven church than another Lutheran. Thus, a lot of affinity is atheological, rather it is about what ministry you receive.

Ed then spoke briefly about a number of movements that affect the Church today. The pentecostal movement began in early 1900s. Fastest growing movement in the history of Church if you include the charismatic movement also which is not as distinct from it as some imagine. Some of that growth is the movement within Christianity ie non Pentecostals becoming pentecostal. The charismatic is in some ways distinguished from the broader pentecostal group in that they believe in a separate experience of Spirit baptism but emphasizes all the gifts, and tongues is not quite as essential. The charismatic movement was born late 60s early 70s. Then 80s there was the “third wave“. This tends to be continuationist but most do not believe in a second experience of grace. The whole of global Christianity is now influenced by this broader continuationist charismatic/pentecostal movement. Pentecostals and charismatics won the worship war but lost the organizational one. So raising hands and clapping would be mainstream now but rejected before, whilst many would see the movement itself as past its sell by date, at least in America.  The milder expressions of charismatic worship would be mainstream in what would become contemporary churches.

Just to be absolutely clear, this next whole paragraph is an addition to what Stetzer said: As a charismatic, I myself would argue that we have much more to contribute than body language and music style.  I do not recognize worship as charismatic simply on that basis. So it is a shame if some people now think “we are all charismatics now.” The truth is, Spirit-filled worship can occur while hymns are sung and people are in a state of subdued awe, whilst loud modern music can be accompanied by an un-engaged congregation.  I would argue that the far more important emphasis we can help to restore to the wider church is the personal relationship with the risen Jesus, which is something I speak a lot about in my book.  I personally also strongly suggest that the charismatic movement is far from over, even in America.  The USA itself is ready primed for a fresh wave of church planting, especially by those who would are reformed and yet aggressively pursue spiritual encounter with God and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Grudem appears to have almost won the theological war with many now at least accepting the theoretical availability of the gifts.  But many of those theological converts to a continuationist position have not themselves seen true gifts operating within a biblical framework. It is time for many more models of a sane charismatic church to be founded.  On that note, it might be interesting to watch Chandler and Grudem on the gifts if you haven’t already.

Now there are different wings of the church currently. Traditional, non traditional or pragmatic, 3rd wave and Pentecostal/charismatic.  Of course one reality which no talk like this can really be expected to fully address is that many churches will try and take good aspects from each of these movements. In my own view this is why books that speak about models for the church are so popular. We are each eager to learn what we can from each other, convinced none of us have all the answers for how to do church in a modern world.

Ed spoke about what he called the pragmatic evangelical movement (using the terminology of Robert Webber in The Younger Evangelicals. Ed nicknamed it the Willowback movement- Rick Warren and Bill Hybels. Big global influence. Saddleback is probably the most influential church in the world. They tend to look like a Calvary Chapel or a Vineyard, are continuationist, informal, but mostly leaving behind the ecstatic expressions in a worship service. There is a drive to de-emphasise anything people would find strange. Many think pragmatic is a bad word. But it just means determining what works. In this sense, I believe that there is much that we can learn from these churches, even if we do not want to fully adopt all their methods.

Traditional evangelicals (also from Webber) would have conferences about for example creationism vs evolution. Must prove these things to be true. For example how should we defend the verse that the rabbit chews the cud when science says it is not quite the same way of cud chewing. Rick Warren is a very conservative evangelical on almost all issues but he says “what people really want to know is how God can change their life or marriage”. Many traditional evangelicals rushed into pragmatic evangelicalism as they were so fed up of dry dead theology.

A decade ago, Purpose Driven was the most influential Christian movement in the world. Very broad reaching. In the the USA, these movements are still influential, but not like they were ten years ago. I have not had much to do with Bill, but I find Rick’s tweets very helpful indeed, and strongly supported John Piper’s decision to invite him to speak. Willow Creek originally spoke about being seeker driven. Stage driven. Take into account the local expressions of music and drama. Willow Creek was also influential but less globally. The seeker paradigm of ministry has declined in influence, and Willow itself has changed their own paradigm. When they realized they needed to change their way to disciple, and announced that they were changing, many people went after them in a nasty way, especially online.

Younger evangelicals (again, Webber’s term) are building on or charting new directions. Younger evangelicals can be found among a number of different groups: 1. Hyper-contemporary . Desire for “in your face,” eg series on sex with aggressive titles that get complaints. Gets media attention and they like it. Eg one church laid out a Seven day sex challenge to their congregation to have sex every day for a week. Newspring Church, a rapidly growing church in South Carolina, had an ACDC song “You’re on a highway to hell” at their Easter service. The idea is that in the modern world it is harder to get peoples attention. So the desire is to cut through the noise and get people to notice. In an all consuming passion to reach the unchurched they often offend the Christians. In a way they are a continuation of the seeker movement but “louder.”

2. Emerging Church.  These should be considered as several different groups: Relevants A lot of this is just about being relevant. Appropriate to the culture. Same understanding of the gospel but engage in a different way.  Reconstructionists want to change the way we do church. They believe in the gospel. Believe in conversion. But believe that much of what had been done in church harms the gospel. So we see, House Church, Missional,  incarnational models. The reality is indeed that many churches do need to change.  Revisionists like Maclaren want to rethink the gospel want a bigger gospel, more societal. Some want to ditch the idea of gospel as a transaction altogether.

3 New reformed. These respond to society by wanting to go deeper. Time magazine thinks that this idea is one of the most influential ideas (including secular ones)  in modern America. Different varieties eg charismatic reformed. John Macarthur and Driscoll are very different for example. A lot of younger reformed evangelicals became reformed in response to more vague churches they grew up in.  There is much to rejoice about, but much to be anxious about also. There is a level of anger in some that is so concerning that they are nick-named the “TR” =truly reformed. Fortunately there are also the “WR” =winsomely reformed. Many in more traditional forms criticize. Actually the new reformed have something in common with the emerging in that they want to correct the common gospel, in this case they want a bloodier one with more emphasis on cross and resurrection. There is a growing evidence of dissatisfaction with evangelicalism. People feel that they are not seeing the results that they thought they would. There is much experimentation that is going on, and coming up with new expressions of church. Stetzer calls this Evangelical angst. People are seeking a model. Unsure about who they are. There is a drive to reclaim the centre, because the edges are fuzzy. We live in a time of Tumult. Many are dissatisfied with the results so far, unsure what the future holds. I argue in my book that one of the reasons for all this agnst is our neglect of Jesus’ resurrection:

“Could our neglect of the resurrection be both cause and effect of the alarming state we are in? Certainly the success of liberal theology in taking hold of many churches after the First World War led to an increase in the number of those who denied the resurrection of Jesus and was also associated with the beginning of the decline in church attendance recorded since then. As a direct result of this, Christians have become marginalized by society and feel uncertain about how to share their beliefs with others in a hostile world. The vigor of our faith has waned, and church attendance is believed by many to be in a terminal decline. The general level of biblical knowledge among Christians is appalling. In a world where more study material is available in books, software, and online than previous generations could ever have dreamed, the Bible has never been less understood by members of the church, and even by our preachers.

Presumably as a direct result for many who attend church today, there seems to be little observable difference from the world in terms of personal lifestyles, values, and beliefs. The old accusation that the Western church is a mile wide and an inch deep has never been more true. . .

There is still a silent majority in the general population who claim to believe in God. At the same time, there is widespread ignorance about the Christian message. . . Many are proposing solutions for the challenges that the Western church faces today.  Some lack confidence in the message of the gospel, arguing that we should speak less about our beliefs in the hope that the world will be less offended. Others go further and quietly deny core Christian values. Some look to marketing techniques, changes in worship style, or modern management strategies. An industry has arisen offering solutions to struggling pastors in the form of leadership books and programs. We should learn everything we can without compromising the Bible, but no single solution will cure the multiple ailments of the church. In spite of this general decline, there are many encouraging signs. This book is written in the hope that if we will faithfully proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus and work out the implications of that message in vibrant, grace-filled churches, the tide will turn.”

Read more in RAISED WITH CHRIST.

So far I have shared a transciption from my recent sermon of my general thoughts on the gifts, on the word of wisdom and word of knowledge, and on miracles, faith, and healing. Today we move to discerning of spirits, tongues and interpretation.

DISCERNING OF SPIRITS
This is a gift of recognizing the work of the enemy, but also recognizing the work of God. Sometimes I think we panic. Could it be the devil? Could it be God? Actually, God gives us this gift so that we can tell where the spirits come from. Of course, one of the key ways to tell is (as we see in 1 Corinthians 12), that no one can declare Jesus is Lord by a demon and mean it. It doesn’t happen. That’s one of the ways to tell.

But there’s also that sense that something is not quite right. Sometimes you will meet somebody and you have a God-given concern. Actually, it can work the other way, too. You’ll meet somebody and you’ll think, “I think you’re a Christian, aren’t you?” Have you ever had that experience? I’ve had that experience. That’s discernment of spirits. We need to be careful not to quench that experience as it is a vital gift from the Spirit.

TONGUES AND INTERPRETATION
Paul talks about different kinds of tongues. The Bible is quite clear about this. There are various places where tongues can happen. Tongues occur in a private setting, in an evangelistic setting (in Acts 2), and here in 1 Corinthians 12 in the context of a public church meeting, a time where there are visitors present—people who are not Christians. Paul has some things to say about how tongues should be used in a more public context.

It seems that tongues can sometimes be real languages that people understand, and that’s what happens in Acts 2. But here in 1 Corinthians, Paul talks about tongues and he expects that no one will be able to understand. He doesn’t say in 1 Corinthians 14 “when you speak in a tongue, maybe there will be Frenchman in the audience and he will understand what you’re saying.” He doesn’t say that. What he says is, “When you speak in a tongue, nobody will be able to understand”—unless what is listed as the ninth gift of the Holy Spirit happens, which is the interpretation of tongues. This is a supernatural gift of being able to understand what someone is saying in a tongue, and that’s very important, particularly when tongues are spoken out loud in a context like this, for you all to hear.

It’s a bit different when it’s just you speaking to God, maybe even sometimes when we’re together, because we sometimes all speak out to God individually, praying with one voice as they did in Acts 4:24. This verse when seen in the context of other “crowd speaking” verses in Acts does not mean that they all chanted a single prayer, but that they all prayed different prayers together and those words summarize the intent. You don’t really know what language the person next to you is using, especially in a church like this. We probably have French, Swahili, and goodness knows what, and maybe some tongues are going on as well. And that’s fine. But if someone was to come to the front here and start speaking in tongues for everyone to hear, none of us would understand, so then it needs to be interpreted.

We need to be careful about the gift of tongues. I do think it’s possible to over-emphasize it, but it’s also possible to under-emphasize it. Paul does say that he thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than all of them. And he also says in 1 Corinthians 14:5, “I want you all to speak in tongues.” There you go! Some people wonder about that. Should all Christians be able to speak in tongues? Well, obviously not every Christian speaks in a tongue, but should all Christians want to be able to speak in tongues? It seems that that’s okay. Paul says, “I want you all to be able to speak in tongues.” So it’s not wrong to ask God for that gift. But he does carry on and says something else—“but even more, to prophesy.” So Paul focuses in on that gift of prophecy which we will cover in the next section.

Last Monday I shared some of the things that Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones believed we should not do when weighing whether what appear to be gifts of the Spirit are genuinely from God. This week I am sharing his view on the positive ways of testing and examining these gifts. My paraphrase of his tests is as follows:

1. We should use our human reasoning and understanding.

It’s interesting to see his stress on wisdom, led, of course, by the Scriptures, but the use of our brains nonetheless. It’s a sad indictment on much of the charismatic church, where Christians have often been encouraged to hang their brains on a hook on the way into church. To MLJ, the use of this reason is enabled and enlightened by the Spirit. He says, “It happens like this: the Holy Spirit enlightens the understanding. He does not make us Christians apart from the understanding. What he does is to lift the understanding up to a higher level. There is nothing wrong with reason except that it is governed by a sinful disposition, and that is why it can never bring us into Christianity or into the kingdom. But the Spirit can lift up the mind and the reason. A man is never saved against his reason and his understanding—never! What happens is that his understanding and his reason are enabled to see the truth which he formerly rejected.”

2. We should test by comparing what is being said with the Bible.

MLJ made the excellent point that if the end result of any movement is to move away from what the Bible says, or even to study it less, that movement is clearly in error.

Here is a direct quote from him on this subject:

“. . . the answer is not to commit intellectual suicide, nor to stop thinking, nor deliberately to let yourself go and abandon the powers that God has given you. The answer is to trust yourself to the illumination and the guidance of the Spirit. . . .

It is to me one of the most wonderful aspects of this truth—how at one and the same time you can be gripped and lifted up by the Spirit and still be in control. But that is the glory of Christianity, that is what differentiates it from everything that is false and spurious. So I argue that the first thing we have to do is to use our reason and understanding, the very powers that God has given us. Indeed I want to put this as a positive assertion, that it is the very central glory of the Christian salvation that takes up the whole man. It takes up his mind, his heart, and his will.

. . . These, then, are the two main principles involved in testing the spirits. We must use our minds and our understanding, and must never ‘let ourselves go’. We must not abandon ourselves for in doing so we lose the ability to be critical, to evaluate, to prove, and to control. Above all, we must apply the Scriptures. We have the Spirit in us, our mind is enlightened, and we have the Scriptures. We must put these things together. Nothing is more dangerous than to put a wedge between the word and the Spirit, to emphasize either one at the expense of the other. It is the Spirit and the word, the Spirit upon the word, and the Spirit in us as we read the word.”

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Joy Unspeakable, (Eastbourne UK: Kingsway Communications, 1995) 199, 201, 205.

As a believer living in the West, I’m constantly reminded of the need to exercise discernment, especially when it comes to matters such as claims of spiritual gifts and the activity of the Holy Spirit. I thought today I would go to one of my favorite works by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Joy Unspeakable.

Directly before this quote, the Doctor points out that in all ages there are two main dangers confronting Christians when they need to evaluate claims regarding the reappearance or revival of gifts in the church. The first danger, he says, is to immediately reject such reports, which he is not afraid to call “quenching the Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 5:19). He goes so far as to call that the more common danger. The second risk is, of course, the opposite to this—uncritical acceptance of everything, which leads to extremism.

He is always very systematic in his thinking, so he goes on to list why we need to be careful to weigh and test everything we hear about. My paraphrased version of his reasons why we need to be discerning are as follows:

1. The Bible tells us to. (See, for example, 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22.)

2. Studying Church history throughout the ages should strongly warn us of the consequences of being naive and accepting everything that is reported to be a “work of God’s Spirit.”
3. Clear evidence we hear of demonic activity in the occult. He argues that it is even possible for evil spirits to “heal” people.
4. The amazing things that hypnotists can make their subjects do.
5. The clear weakness and suggestability of people as demonstrated to us through modern psychology and what is called “hysteria.”
6. The fact that there is a real devil whose goal is to destroy us, and as a result inspires and empowers his servants.

Matthew 24:24: For false christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.

He then stresses that he is concerned to warn those who are passionate about God, and open to him acting today in dramatic ways. He is clear in the context that he would count himself among that number. The Doctor was clearly not an extreme cessationist.

In this quote he explains what we should not rely on to enable us to make appropriate judgments. Next week we will examine the tests that the Doctor believes should be applied.

I am speaking particularly to those good, honest, spiritually-minded men and women of any age whatsoever who are longing for revival and reawakening . . . For it is your very anxiety to know the fullness and the baptism of the Spirit that constitutes your danger and exposes you to this possibility of not using your critical faculties as you should. . . .

Do not rely only upon your inward feelings . . . that is entirely subjective, and while I do not discount the subjective altogether, I say it is not enough. You must not rely solely upon some inner inward sense, because that is the very thing the devil wants you to do. That means you are not using your full critical faculties; deciding in a purely emotional and subjective manner.

. . . do not be swayed even by the fact that something reported to you makes you feel wonderful . . .You may say, ‘I have never known such love, I have never known such peace, I have never known such joy’ . . . Do not say ‘I feel this is right, everything in me says this is right . . .’ It is not enough. The devil is as subtle as that . . .

Lastly, do not base your judgment on the people who are . . . making their report to you . . . It is often some of the best, most honest and sincere people who can be most seriously led astray . . . The devil does not waste any of his time and energy with your smug formalist — he is safely asleep, already under the drug of the devil, though he is sitting in a Christian church.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Joy Unspeakable, (Eastbourne UK: Kingsway Communications, 1995) 193-195. Emphasis mine.

For more information on Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones see this summary post, my Lloyd-Jones page, or the MLJ Recording Trust.

UPDATE
This from a fresh notice placed today on Todd Bentley’s website “. . . we have discovered new information revealing that Todd Bentley has entered into an unhealthy relationship on an emotional level with a female member of his staff. In light of this new information and in consultation with his leaders and advisors, Todd Bentley has agreed to step down from his position on the Board of Directors and to refrain from all public ministry for a season to receive counsel in his personal life.”

ORIGINAL POST
Some of you may well have missed this. I came back from a holiday yesterday (posts have been published on autopilot with a bit of help from my editor) to discover Todd and Shonnah Bentley were reported a few days ago to have been under significant marital pressure to the point where they have now separated. Their own ministry’s board of directors issued a statement which reported that no sexual immorality is involved, but explained that Todd will not be a part of a forthcoming missions trip, while God TV announced that they have come to the end of their broadcasts from Lakeland.

Charisma magazine has a commentary on these events, and John Piper also has reacted to the news and discussed discernment. I am saddened by this news, and so, although it might be tempting to join those pointing fingers of accusation at Todd, or at those who arguably welcomed him rather too hastily into the limelight, I think this is, firstly, a time to pray, and secondly, a time to be extra careful of our own marriages. I have written a number of previous posts about the events in Lakeland, Florida.

UPDATE – Todd Bentley has now stepped down from ministry after separating from his wife.

Regular readers of my blog will know that I published some posts last week on the events in Lakeland, Florida. Terry Virgo has now made available online a talk on the subject that he gave on the events at the recent Newfrontiers Prayer and Fasting leaders meeting. You can download it or listen to it here.

UPDATE – Todd Bentley has now stepped down from ministry after separating from his wife.

Over the last few days we have been reflecting on events in Florida. This will be the final post. To read the complete series, please visit the following posts:

• Todd Bentley and the Lakeland, Florida ‘Revival Meetings’

• Worship at the Lakeland, Florida ‘Revival Meetings’
• What is Happening in Lakeland, Florida, by Jesse Phillips
• Terry Virgo Continues His Reflections on the Lakeland, Florida ‘Revival Meetings’
• Jesse Phillips Reflects on the Lakeland, Florida ‘Revival Meetings’
• More Reflections from Jesse Phillips on the Lakeland, Florida ‘Revival Meetings’

My dear friend, Jesse Phillips, concludes his report as follows:

“As I conclude, let me say that I have tried hard to withhold coming to many firm conclusions because I was only there one night. There are other things I have heard which have gone on in the past about which I am not going to comment. Instead, I have tried to limit my remarks only to those things that actually happened while I was there. I would have the following two main warnings, which seem pretty basic to me:

First, beware of the tendency to overstate what’s going on. One of the interesting things about this whole event is that it is the first time something of this scale has taken place in the blog era. News about Lakeland is getting out at an amazing rate. After just 45 days, it’s been fascinating to see how quickly the world has learned of it and started talking about it. In my former blogging career, I read a Challies article about how the blogosphere has contributed to a resurgence of interest in reformed doctrine, and I mused at how technology might impact the charismatic aspects of our doctrine as well, renewing an interest in revival.

I guess the caution would be that things look a little different on television than they do when you are there in person. I did watch one night on God TV, just to check it out, and then closed the computer, opened my Bible, and had a pretty significant encounter with the Lord, being filled with the Spirit and ministered to by God so that my faith was increased. No doubt God can use the Internet or a television broadcast to minister to us, speak to us, and fill us. Of course, when I was actually there, I did not have such a significant encounter with God. I guess the caution would be that some of the things that are being said—both good things and bad things—by people who have never actually been present at any of the meetings can tend to overstate what’s actually going on. For example, this has been compared to the Toronto Blessing. When I first heard about it, I wondered if it might be true that God was doing something like he did in Toronto again. But having been there, it really doesn’t seem very much like what happened in the mid-90’s at this point—not that it couldn’t grow into that. But it seems like comparing it to that time of refreshing is an exaggeration. It seems like a smaller group of people are getting more world-wide attention because of technology, although to the degree that it stirs people to pray and thirst for more of God, it can be a good thing.

Second, beware of the tendency to discount everything. Let me end by saying that we should avoid the tendency to write everything off. For example, when I heard about the girl being raised from the dead, my initial response was to say, “Yeah, right.” But I think the Lord kindly asked me why my inclination was immediately to doubt. I do believe that miracles are for today, so why should I find it so difficult to believe it when one actually occurs? Just because there are some oddities or theology that I find unbiblical doesn’t mean that God is not still working. There are many miracles being done. God is healing people. This is something that should be celebrated. This is the kind of thing that the New Testament prescribes as part of our experience; that God apportions various kinds of gifts, including healing and miracles. Therefore, just because we didn’t have an amazing encounter with God, or just because we don’t have a gift of healing, this should not cause us to doubt people who do encounter God at these meetings and give testimony to gifts of healings.

I pray that God uses what is going on and the attention it is receiving to cause the world to begin to pray for revival so that this little shower in Lakeland can grow into a storm.”

— Jesse Phillips
E-mail: me@jessephillips.net

Having shared my own thoughts, along with Jesse’s view of the worship, and some other events of the evening, as well as his subsequent reflections, we resume Jesse’s report today, beginning with more of his reflections on the meeting he attended.

“Fourth, there was not an emphasis on preaching from a doctrinal standpoint; rather, there seemed to be a great emphasis on faith, wholeness, healing, and inner light. Again, many things were said that are true. But I think what was missing was that the gospel was not preached very clearly. Even in its most basic forms—that Jesus died for my sins so that I don’t have to pay for them, even though I have offended a holy God—the gospel was not mentioned. Instead, something to this effect was said: “Jesus bore the crown of thorns to deliver us from our mental infirmities.” Although it’s true that we can be healed of mental illness through the powerful name of Jesus, the teaching left something to be desired. Many past revivals have centered around strong, anointed preaching. This one seems to have little or no strong preaching at all.

I also have a concern about what seemed to me to be a limited understanding of the nature of sin. The teaching in this meeting seemed to be that sin is primarily something that happens to us, and from which we need to be delivered, not something that first and foremost dwells in us. Some passages about healing through the blood of Christ which seem, in context, to refer at least to spiritual healing were applied in a way that made it seem that they referred exclusively to physical healing. There have also been some reports on YouTube and the God TV broadcast that Mr. Bentley has a personal angel called Emma. Again, I’m not speaking from experience, because nothing about angels ever came up the night I was there, but these reports would be concerning to me because I think they could potentially lead people astray.

During worship, I thought to myself, “With this level of anticipation and faith, imagine the impact a dynamic, theologically rich song like In Christ Alone would have!” My heart was aching to sing of the glorious reality of the blood and suffering of Christ, and then the absolute exultation of the line:

“Then bursting forth in glorious day,
Up from the grave He rose again!
And as He stands in victory,
Sin’s curse has lost its grip on me.”
Then, with an amazing realization of the power of the cross, to proclaim:

“No guilt in life, no fear in death—
This is the pow’r of Christ in me;
From life’s first cry to final breath,
Jesus commands my destiny.
No pow’r of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand;
Till He returns or calls me home—
Here in the pow’r of Christ I’ll stand.”

In Christ Alone
Words and Music by Stuart Townend and Keith Getty

Instead, we sang about being a generation who will stand and fight.

So often I can be so theologically sound and doctrinal, but lack a sense of urgency, anticipation, and faith. I am lazy and comfortable with where I’m at. Then, in an environment of real faith and excitement, I think of the power that a theologically sound and rich song and the gospel message would have in that context. I was disappointed because, while I think they do well in the faith category, I think more of an emphasis on the anointed preaching of the gospel and God-centered worship, not man-centered songs, would have a tremendous impact to stir religious affections and motivate a lot of the revival that’s being prayed for.

I know some people will think I am quenching the Spirit by desiring more of an accurate theology or a clearer description of who this God is that we’re excited about, but why should we have to choose between doctrine and expectation? Why can’t we have it all? Our excitement is baseless and will never last if it is not grounded in the gospel, and all of our theology, however fine-tuned, will never by itself produce revival. I guess what you’re hearing are the longings of a reformed-charismatic who desires the best of both worlds, yet so often sins by doubting such a thing is possible.”

Continued in part 5 . . .

So far, I have shared my thoughts, and my friend, Jesse, has reported on the worship and other events of the evening he attended. Today he begins to reflect on his thoughts, looking back on that experience.

“Those are the events that stand out in my mind as I look back over the evening. I was able to draw out my father-in-law a bit, who has been to Toronto and Kansas City during various times of outpouring, and develop some perspective about the Lakeland Revival. There were several things that stood out to me:

First, there was an inspiring atmosphere of expectancy. As I said earlier, there was an amazing sense of hunger and thirst for God to do something great. Everyone present anticipated seeing amazing evidence of the active presence of God. Martyn Lloyd-Jones says that a sense of contentment and complacency is a great cause of apathy and hindrance to revival, and there was certainly no contentment present, but hunger. That was convicting. I thought to myself, “How often do you just show up and treat each Sunday like just another Sunday?” In the days after Toronto, I’ve heard, there was such an expectancy for God to work in power, that one pastor said, “I’m never going to look at Sunday the same way again.” Each time we gather, God will honor an atmosphere of faith and anticipation. I say this very hesitantly, but even if there is some bad theology mixed in, I still think God honors our faith and child-like trust in him. So I would encourage anyone who would be tempted to write this whole thing off as demonic, or to call Todd Bentley the anti-Christ, that there does seem to be a strong genuine thirst for revival and faith that God is stirring one up.

My initial thought about the whole thing when I first learned of it was that, like a brief shower during a great drought, this rain that was falling was going to demonstrate just how dry and thirsty the ground really is. That prophetic leaning was confirmed as I was there last night. There are certainly some healings taking place, and I think these outpouring of healings are exciting people and causing them to thirst for more, to desire a genuine outbreak of the presence of God. I was amazed at how many people seemed to be genuinely hungry for God to work wonders.

Second, I did not feel an incredibly strong sense of God’s presence. I’ve been part of meetings where the presence of God seemed so thick you could almost cut it with a knife. On the ride home we were talking about Toronto and how it was like that. There was one time in Toronto when a man from China was asked to intercede in his native tongue. When he started praying, the presence of God was sensed so strongly through the power of the prayer that people who did not even understand the language began weeping. Then, when asked to give the translation, the prayer was interpreted as, “God, the blood of the martyrs cries out to you.” The environment in this meeting was not like that. Again, I’m not saying that God wasn’t present. I know that he was present, but my subjective experience was that while there was certainly much excitement about the healings that had taken place, and people were certainly being rallied up to pursue the fire of the Spirit and healing power, there wasn’t an overwhelming sense of “Wow, God himself has drawn near!” Someone asked me today, “Is there a real move of the Spirit there?” I answered, “I don’t know.” I expected to walk into the room and instantly be aware of God’s presence, and that something was ‘going on.’ That’s what can typically be the experience in seasons of outpouring. To me, the environment seemed more casual than that. It was very electric and excited, but lacking that general overwhelming sense of God’s immanence and holiness that just makes you stop in your tracks and worship.

Third, there were no prophecies. I’m not saying that there have to be prophecies in order for God to really work; I just thought it was interesting that there weren’t any prophecies shared. There was more of an emphasis on healing than hearing. With previous moves of the Spirit there has been a very strong prophetic tone, a great sense of what God was up to, and how each member present was to be a participant, and to be affected. Obviously, I was only there one night, but I must say I was hoping for more of a prophetic dimension. 1 Corinthians 14:1 makes it clear to me that one of the chief gifts of the Spirit to be desired is that of prophecy, when it comes to a large gathering. I’m not saying that there is no place for any other gifts—far from it—but I would have liked for there to have been more prophecy. I kept thinking to myself, “Lord, what are you saying through all of this? What are you doing in all of this?” I thought to myself, “I don’t just want to see God at work, I want to hear his voice also.” Galatians says that miracles come through “hearing with faith” (Galatians 3:5). I think that an added presence of prophecy and the preaching of God’s Word would have greatly complemented the miracles and greatly increased my anticipation as I heard with faith.

Continued in part 4 . . .

UPDATE – Todd Bentley has now stepped down from ministry after separating from his wife.

UPDATE - Terry Virgo has also made the audio of his short talk on Todd Bentley available.

I wanted to continue to post some reflections on the events occurring in Florida. Terry Virgo has now posted the second part of his comments, so I thought I’d share all the links we have so far, and then end the post with some quotes from Terry’s latest post. There are also several more posts from Jesse Phillips which you can read by following the link at the end of the second post listed here.

My own reflections:

• Todd Bentley and the Lakeland, Florida ‘Revival Meetings’

Jesse Phillips’ report:

• Worship at the Lakeland, Florida ‘Revival Meetings’

• What is Happening in Lakeland, Florida, by Jesse Phillips

Terry Virgo’s posts:

• Lakeland, Florida (Part 1)

• Lakeland, Florida (Part 2)

A quote from Terry’s second post follows. Terry begins by comparing current events with the ‘Toronto Blessing,’ about which I have written an extensive article previously. Terry says this:

“One of the features of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that affected so many in ‘94/’95 was the fact that it was something that could be ‘caught’ or ‘transferred.’ People who attended certain meetings became ‘carriers’ of a kind of ‘spiritual contagion’ which subsequently broke out elsewhere.

It would be true to say that this has been a mark of historic revivals. People visited the 1905 Welsh Revival, for instance, and on returning home, found that God’s presence had accompanied them in an extraordinary way . . .

Various phenomenal responses were noted when the Holy Spirit’s presence seemed to be strong. Some fell, some shook, and some laughed. Some seemed to happen in an involuntary kind of way; others perhaps were imitation. The pressure to conform on these occasions can become very great.

What influenced me most significantly was not the extraordinary physical manifestations, but the extraordinary lasting change that I observed in the lives of people I knew. Many displayed a new love and devotion to God and a new sensitivity to the Spirit’s presence. Some embraced a new commitment to Christ and his mission to win the world for his name. The physical manifestations gradually faded, but the transformed lives have remained . . .

How do we evaluate? We must get our doctrine clear.

We often imagine that God’s gifts are proofs of holiness or marks of maturity given only to the most advanced Christians to demonstrate God’s approval of their spiritual progress. But this isn’t the case. God’s gifts aren’t rewards! If that had been the case in Corinth, the church would have been completely devoid of gifts because, as D. A. Carson declares, the believers were ‘wretchedly, unacceptably, spiritually immature’ (The Cross and Christian Ministry, Baker 1993). But Paul said that they ‘didn’t lack any spiritual gift’ (1 Corinthians 1:7). In spite of their immaturity and carnality, God gives gifts freely on the basis of grace. Christ’s righteousness qualifies you to receive amazing gifts of the Holy Spirit . . .

We should pray for 32-year-old Todd Bentley, whose high profile through exposure to daily television broadcasts circling the world would frighten the most experienced preacher. Some of his references to angelic visitations are at least vulnerable to misunderstanding and, tragically, stories of shipwreck associated with previously high profile ministries who spoke frequently of angelic visitation are well documented.

In the midst of what has been historically regarded as authentic and powerful revival, Jonathan Edwards found himself exposed to extraordinary phenomena on all sides. He neither dismissed it all nor accepted it all, but offered his own critique, sometimes defending and sometimes challenging what took place.”

Read Terry’s complete post . . .

On Sunday Jesse began by speaking about his experience of the worship in the Lakeland, Florida meetings, about which I have also shared my perspective. Today he continues his report of events on the evening he attended:

“After worship, Stephen Strader, pastor of Ignited Church in Lakeland, whose father, Karl, had previously been the pastor of Carpenter’s Home Church, stood up and gave some testimonies, as well as some background on the revival for those of us attending for the first time. He explained how the revival was a melting pot of a bunch of different backgrounds. ‘It’s former rain and latter rain,’ he explained, adding that it consisted of folks from the Jesus Movement, charismatic folks, Pentecostal folks, and even some Quakers and Shakers—all together seeking the Lord. He said the message was a “whole gospel,” not one in which certain parts were cut out. What he seemed to be referring to were people who did not agree in the presence of modern-day healing and some of the other things that were emphasized throughout the night.

Strader stated that this series of meetings is now in its forty-fifth day. It started back on April 2nd when he invited Todd Bentley to come for a series of five meetings or so. Todd ‘made himself at home’ and decided to stay. People had come from at least ten or twelve different countries. There were testimonies of eight people who have been raised from the dead.

Of course, this struck me as amazing, and I waited to hear some explanation. There was a story told of a three-year-old girl named Jaden, who died. The family had begun to make funeral preparations. Lily, a schoolteacher who was part of these meetings, prayed with her class for God to work a miracle. Jaden was an organ donor, and died on Monday. On Tuesday a match was found for someone to accept her organ donation, and on Wednesday her body was in transit to the surgery room for the organs to be removed. On the way there, she coughed and sat up. After telling the story, Strader exclaimed, “Funeral cancelled!” Another story was told about a child who had flat-lined during dialysis. Her testimony was that she had an out-of-body experience, and was sent back down to the earth just before being pronounced dead and sat up praising God.

On the issue of excess and judging the legitimacy of the revival, Strader made the comment, ‘Todd [Bentley] and I know that not everything that’s happening here is of God. There’s a whole lot of flesh going on here as well.’ He then warned the group that if they saw anyone acting out in the flesh they would kick them out. Of course, he said, the surest sign of someone in the flesh was someone refusing to participate, writing off everything as demonic. He encouraged the group using the parable of the tares—that God alone can judge, and at the appropriate time he will separate the wheat from the tares.

I was somewhat disappointed to find out that Todd Bentley, the man who has been primarily leading the meetings, was not present. He was in California. In his place, Keith Miller from Stand Firm World Ministries, was addressing the group. He encouraged us to push to a new depth of faith and belief in God for great things. On one occasion he told an individual to stand up, named the cancer they were suffering, it proved to be an accurate word of knowledge, and then he prayed for that cancer to be healed right then and there. His message seemed to be a bit wild, a mix of different texts being read, interrupted by people coming up on stage, ‘throwing’ the Holy Spirit to hit people in the back, calling out various ailments and praying for a surge of power to heal. You can watch on God TV to get a feel for yourself of the flavor.”

Continued in part 3 . . .

Yesterday I spoke about my reaction to the little I know about what has been going on in meetings run by Todd Bentley in Lakeland, Florida. Today I begin a special report brought to us by my dear friend, Jesse Phillips, who is a Sovereign Grace pastor in the Florida area. He visited the meetings himself one evening. The following is his unabridged report.

*************************

The thing I was immediately impressed with as we showed up, and throughout the whole night, was the overwhelming sense of anticipation and faith. This is something that, quite frankly, some of us could use a bit more of, myself included. The people at these meetings expect God to do great things when they gather. Too often I expect God to do nothing. My faith was certainly challenged as I thought about my posture in the gathering of my church each week.

We arrived at the meeting a few minutes late, but managed to catch most of the worship. My father-in-law and I estimated that about 4,000 people were gathered in a large arena. The first song was a medium-paced tune that started, “We are the generation who will stand and fight.” It was a song about being a light in the darkness, carrying the light that is within us to shine as a testimony of the power of Jesus’ name. The second song was about Jesus being the way, the truth, and the light of the world. It started “Prepare the way of the Lord,” and the chorus was a repeat of Jesus’ name eight times or so. I didn’t know the song, although it was easy to learn because of its simplicity.

During worship we were repeatedly encouraged to stir up our passion for Christ, to feel the heart of Christ for his Church, to not do church for the sake of doing church, but for a relationship, to seek the face of God.

One interesting thing I noticed during the worship time was that there were several people throughout the arena who had flags. One of them had the crown of a king on it, another had a heart shape printed on the front. People were very expressively waving flags, an element of worship I can’t say I’ve ever seen before. There were also a couple of people who had loud horns that were blown at various times.

Overall worship was very expressive and repetitious. It was forty-five minutes to an hour and consisted of three songs. The last song was called “Revelation Song” and was the most engaging for me, partly because I recognized it, but also because of its content. Whereas the first song focused on us as a generation, this song focused on God and proclaimed “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God almighty.” Then, a particularly moving line, “Jesus, Your name is power, breath and living water. Such a marvelous mystery.”

Continued in part 2 . . .

UPDATE – Todd Bentley has now stepped down from ministry after separating from his wife.

UPDATE - I have now also published a number of other posts on Todd Bentley

I have had a number of people ask me about events which are gaining a lot of attention at the moment. In the UK, a series of ‘revival’ meetings being run in Lakeland, Florida by evangelist Todd Bentley are being shown daily on God TV.

Before I get into that, however, apparently British satellite TV now carries ten stations devoted to nothing but Christian teaching, and as far as I know, not one of them is consistently promoting a more Reformed message. “Desiring God TV” anyone? In fact, I don’t get to watch any of these channels since having paid the government for the right to own a TV, I object to having to pay a subscription to Mr. Murdoch as well.

What is interesting to me is that the medium of TV and the medium of the Internet appear almost by their nature to attract different kinds of ministries. If an alien from another planet (if such a thing exists!) was to spend a few hours searching for Christian blogs and sermon websites and would compare notes with another who had spent the same amount of time watching Christian TV, I suspect they would come to very different conclusions about the predominant philosophical and theological environment of western Christianity.

Anyway, back to Lakeland and Todd Bentley. As a result of my self-imposed TV channel poverty, I know little or nothing about the events in Florida. For the past few weeks I have been studiously avoiding commenting here on the blog about something I know very little about. I did read a piece over at Pyromaniacs, but felt that I did not want to reject these events which I have not studied.

I heard that someone said recently concerning these events, “I do not want to be an enemy of someone God calls a friend.” But neither do I want to endorse something wholeheartedly that, from what I have heard, has, at the very least, some significant stylistic differences to what I would be comfortable with.

Oddly enough, I had already written this article before reading Terry Virgo’s post on Todd Bentley and Lakeland, Florida from earlier yesterday in which he shared his own initial reflections, which begin in a very cautious tone. Terry was rightly concerned about a number of things he saw on the God Channel.

Terry ends his post by speaking of the experiences of another Newfrontiers pastor. “However, a friend of mine who actually attended the Lakeland meetings for several days felt ‘I hate this . . . I want to get out of here,’ but actually went on to be blessed and, as he watched more closely, felt that he saw remarkable compassion and mercy, particularly being expressed to large numbers of poorer people who were flocking to the meetings. Since his return to the UK, he has witnessed a number of healings, as indeed others have.”

I suppose my own conclusions for now on what little I know of these events would be as follows:

• We should not rush to either wholeheartedly reject or accept everything that is happening. I suppose I am taking something of a Gamaliel approach, at least for now.

• It strikes me that if it weren’t for TV, we might not even be hearing about these events yet. Time will demonstrate if this is just a localized event or truly something more significant.
• If we hear reports of God healing and people becoming Christians, it would be wise for us to rejoice, even if we may reserve the right to be discerning about the practices and beliefs of the teachers involved. Paul rejoiced whenever the gospel was preached, even if he knew that the motivations of the preacher were bad.
• We should resolve to think the best of others as much as we can, without foolishly swallowing everything we see as being all right.
• We should remember that, as I heard someone say recently, God does not distribute his anointing as a reward for good theology or good behavior. If God can use a donkey in the Bible, we should not be surprised if he uses somebody of whom we do not approve. Fortunately for us, God is much more gracious than we are!
• The faith and expectancy of others should challenge us to dare to believe that God can act today, and as John Piper recently put it, be “desperate for the supernatural.”

Over the next few days I will be sharing a report of a visit made to the Lakeland ‘revival meetings’ by a dear friend of mine, Jesse Phillips.

No. 2 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on October 26, 2007. This post was an expression of some of my own concerns and frustrations about the blogging world I have come to love so much. I said some things I had been wanting to say for a long time, and it was not a great surprise that the aftermath of this post would lead me to disable comments on my blog a month later. Tim’s book addresses discernment, which lies at the root of many of my issues with the Christian blogosphere and its direction.

A couple of updates to the original post appeared several days later and have been included here as part of the original post.

UPDATE—November 3, 2007
Phil has now written part two of his reply, and I have responded with a post entitled, “Of Tone, Discernment, and the Charismatic Question.”

UPDATE—October 29, 2007
Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs and I have been debating the issues raised by my criticism of him in the comments section of his original post. Just search for “Adrian” using the “find in page” function if you want to follow our specific debate. Phil has also written a new post, “If you can’t say something nice,” and we are debating in the comments on that post.

I will leave this post at the top of my blog for a couple more days as I want to give you all a chance to read it. If you are interested in some of my related thoughts on this subject, you could read the following posts:

• My Visit to the Billy Graham Center
• I Don’t Want Balance, I Want It All!
• My Comments Policy
• Blogging Principles for Christians

---

Those of you with an eagle-eye will have already noticed that I am publicizing Tim Challies’ forthcoming book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment. I doubt that many are surprised that I should want to encourage you to read his book, and I will show in this post why that is the case.

To begin with, however, I want to be very open and honest with you. When I first heard that Tim was writing a book I was actually a little concerned. This may surprise those regular readers who know how much I respect Tim and enjoy his blog. But I still had in my mind an old paradigm where those who are in some way “approved” as trained experts are the ones who should write books. Tim, like me, has no theological degrees. I also know that, just like me concerning this blog, he has been rather surprised by the way in which his readership has grown to an extent he never predicted (and, I should say, to a substantially larger figure than my own). So I was surprised that Tim put his neck on the line still further by taking on the challenge of writing a book.

Tim and I have both been riding a wave—the wave of blogging. In both the secular field and the Christian field, it seems that the most successful bloggers almost all seem to have something in common; they are not “officially trained” recognized global experts in their chosen fields. Perhaps this is because the real experts are too busy to write on a daily basis, or perhaps this is because of a new phenomena in our culture—one with which I’m not particularly thrilled, to be honest. In our 21st century culture there is a growing mistrust of any form of authority and of academics. It is actually rather sad to me that this now seems to be spilling over into the Church, and that it might seem, at first glance, to also include the Christian blogosphere.

One of the most influential early articles discussing the Christian blogging phenomenon was titled, “We Know More Than Our Pastors,” and it embodied this trend. It concerned me immensely. David Wayne summarized this piece and sounded some very valid concerns about it. For me, I wanted almost nothing to do with the concepts outlined therein.

Even as I have enjoyed the way that I have been able to be buffeted in this hurricane called blogging, I have also been somewhat concerned about some of the implications of this new marketplace of ideas. I suppose that, despite these reservations, I remain in the blogosphere because I am drawn to it as surely as a bee is to a flower in bloom, and as the Apostle Paul was to the debating spots of ancient Athens.

I am also here because somebody has to be. I am certainly not here because I imagine myself to be at the vanguard of some modern reformation that will sweep away the “old guard” in the way some bloggers (usually not Christian ones) speak about. I am here because, ironically enough, I see this new media as a way that we can proclaim the old, old message. I am here because, in some small way, I can act as a signpost to direct passing traffic to wiser heads than mine. The more readers I find visiting here, the more I feel the need to both quote and link to others. Whatever the size of your blog readership, that filtering process is the single best gift you can give both to your readers and to the writers of even the biggest blogs. I am pleased that the headlines from several bloggers who deserve to be read more than I do appear in the “Warnie Winners” box in my sidebar.

The blogging community can be thought of as a road system, a library, an ecosystem, or perhaps most aptly of all, a jungle. With no single classification system or map, what is needed are good wise guides. There are precious few of them online.

Read more . . . Blogging, Discernment, and a Book by Tim Challies

Although I am on a blog holiday at the moment, it gives me great pleasure to welcome my friend and newly published author, Tim Challies, to the blog for the next portion of his blog tour. Today he will answer a question submitted by another blogger.

As I discuss spiritual discernment with other people, one of the questions that always seems to arise is this one:

“Isn’t spiritual discernment a gift of the Holy Spirit?”
The answer to this one is, “Yes, but . . .” Let me explain.

“In 1 Corinthians 12:10 Paul writes about the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and in that list is “the ability to distinguish between spirits.” The Bible provides no further elaboration on this gift and does not tell us all that it entails. Whether this gift is the gift of discernment as we understand it today or whether it is a little bit different we can’t know. What we can know with some certainty is that there is a spiritual gift of discernment in operation today. There is a wide variety of gifts (certainly far more than the Bible lists) and discernment must be one of them. This gift will allow those who have it to identify and expose the spirit of Satan. While all believers are exhorted that they must “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1), those with the gift of discernment have been given special ability and responsibility. They are equipped by the Spirit to expose the lies of Satan in the teaching of men. They are able to see to the heart of the issues and to see Satan’s shadow behind what does not accord with the Word of God. These people are given special skill and special responsibility in doing the work of discernment. These people are to be a blessing to the Church.

So while this gift does exist, it is important to realize that this does not let everyone else off the hook. I like to draw a comparison to the gift of evangelism. There are some people for whom evangelism comes so naturally. Where some of us are terrified at the thought of sharing the gospel with a stranger, there are some for whom this is completely natural and they like nothing better than meeting strangers for this very purpose. I knew a man who, several days a week, would head to the local train station and stand on the platform for hours, sharing the gospel for five or ten minutes at a time. It was his passion and he woke up in the mornings excited to do this. I can scarcely imagine such a thing! But even though there are some who have been blessed with this gift, it does not mean that the rest of us have no responsibility for the spread of the gospel. All of us are called to take the gospel to the lost. And discernment is similar in that, though there are some who are specially gifted, we are all to practice it and are all to understand its importance to our faith.

So is there a gift of discernment? Yes, there is. But do not allow this to preclude you from understanding discernment and putting it into practice in your life. For most of us, discernment is a discipline, a way of thinking about life and a skill that we must sharpen with constant practice.

I just received the following announcement in my e-mail about a blogging tour that Tim Challies will be taking next week. I have previously highlighted Tim’s book here on my sidebar, and in my review of it, in which I said:

“Tim Challies takes us from the turbulent marketplace of ideas that is the modern western church back into the world of the Scriptures. Sadly, today many people fall into the trap of being naively blown from one wind of teaching to another. Others become so expert at straining out the gnats of what they believe to be error that they are unable to learn from anybody. Instead they believe themselves to be the guardians of “true” doctrine. Tim shows us from the Bible itself how to avoid both errors. Tim’s reliance on the Bible is refreshing in an age when doctrinal pillars of our faith are being challenged by prominent preachers, and there is a constant search for novelty in parts of the Church. This book, like no other I have seen, aims to give ordinary Christians like you and me the tools we need to learn how to discern truth from error. I wholeheartedly urge you to get yourself a copy and read it, and then buy one for a friend.”

RELEASE FROM CROSSWAY

Most Christians are a little fuzzy on the topic of discernment. We know that someone should apply discernment to the media, to teachings, and to important decisions. We’ve heard of discernment ministries, and we may have even used the phrase “the gift of discernment.” The general tenor of our conversations could lead us to conclude that discernment is best left to the professionals.

Perhaps this conversation needs to be re-opened. Leading evangelical blogger Tim Challies initiates the dialogue with his new book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment, which contends that discernment is the call of every believer. In conjunction with the book’s release, Challies is taking his message to the blogosphere. His two-week blog tour will start on Monday, January 7th and will run until Friday, January 18th. Watch for Challies on the following sites, and submit your comments to participate:

Jan 7: Evangelical Outpost

Jan 8: Tall Skinny Kiwi

Jan 9: A-Team

Jan 10: Adrian Warnock

Jan 11: Gender Blog

Jan 14: Jollyblogger

Jan 15: Between Two Worlds

Jan 16: Team Pyro

Jan 17: Internet Monk

Jan 18: Church Matters

Tim has written more about his tour and some foolish comment controversy some have been stirring up about his book. All I want to say for now is that a team of professionals built the Titanic. A single amatuer built the ark.

In my interview with Wayne Grudem he said something pertinent to this latest controversy over “professionalism” in the church:

“. . . it is always wise to have a governing structure where the highest governing offices in the church and the highest positions of influence are open to lay people as well as ordained people. The denominations where only clergy have the highest of authority seem to be the ones that are never able to be brought back once they drift into liberalism because the ordinary lay people who have common sense and are reading their Bibles every day don’t have any way to regain control of a denomination that has gone astray if it has that kind of structure.”

—Wayne Grudem

1. John Piper, N. T. Wright, and Gracious Discernment

2. John Piper Challenges N. T. Wright on Justification
3. Piper Explains the Classic View of Justification Versus N. T. Wright’s View
4. Piper and Wright: Does Justification by Faith Save Us?
5. John Piper: Is N. T. Wright Preaching Another Gospel?
6. Legalism Versus Grace in First Century Judaism
7. Hard and Soft Legalism
8. Legalism, Racism, and the First Century Jew
9. 2 Corinthians 5 and Romans 5—Two Critical Passages on Justification
10. The Christian and the Law
11. Piper Gets Passionate with the ETS on Justification
12. Tom Wright’s Response to John Piper
13. Does Piper Neglect the Resurrection?

I would like to conclude by sharing a great summary quote from Dr. Piper which is a fitting climax to what, at least to me, has been an interesting journey through an important book. I hope many of you will go out and buy this book, but remember, buy Pierced for Our Transgressions first! This book will stretch you, but to be stretched is sometimes a good idea!

So, what is the crux of the doctrine of justification, according to Piper?

“Our only hope for living the radical demands of the Christian life is that God is totally for us now and forever. Therefore, God has not ordained that living the Christian life should be the basis of our hope that God is for us. That basis is the death and righteousness of Christ, counted as ours through faith alone. On the cross Christ endured for us all the punishment required of us because of our sin. And in order that God, as our Father, might be completely for us and not against us forever, Christ has performed for us in his perfect obedience to God all that God required of us.

This punishment and this obedience are completed and past. They can never change. Our union with Christ and the enjoyment of these benefits is secure forever. Through faith alone, God establishes our union with Christ. This union will never fail, because in Christ, God is for us as an omnipotent Father who sustains our faith, and works all things together for our everlasting good. The one and only instrument through which God preserves our union with Christ is faith in Christ—the purely receiving act of the soul.” (p. 184)

Book photo courtesy of Tony S. Reinke, The Shepherd’s Scrapbook. Used by permission.

“They appear to be thinking only in terms of hard legalism, which is the notion that either your works bribe God or that they are self-produced by your own effort. But, as you flesh it out, hard legalism does not exhaust the definition of legalism.

There is also soft legalism, which is the belief that your God-empowered obedience justifies you before God, or that you ‘become saved’ by faith but ‘remain saved’ by God-produced works (which includes the idea that final justification is based on obedience). In fact, Sanders acknowledged that the first century Jews believed that they got into the covenant by grace but ‘stayed in’ by works. But he failed to realize that this is legalism. The new perspective—and those taking their initial cues from it—typically conflate legalism and Pelagianism, seeming to think that because they (or the first century Jews) are not Pelagians, they therefore cannot be legalists. It needs to be made crystal-clear that these are distinct issues. You can utterly reject Pelagianism and yet be a legalist. You can be a Calvinist legalist, an Augustinian legalist, a believing-in-grace-empowered-works legalist. . . . This is perhaps the central issue of the debate and is probably a big part of the reason that they are going wrong. The essence of legalism is the belief that our right standing with God is based on, comes by means of, or is sustained by our works—regardless of whether those works are self-produced (hard legalism) or whether they are completely produced by God’s grace in us (soft legalism). . . .” (Matt Perman, cited in John Piper, The Future of Justification (p. 152).

Reading that quote, I realized that with the emphasis of people like Wright on the need for us to demonstrate that we have changed in order for God to finally justify us in the end has an interesting effect. It is ironic indeed that in trying to claim Judaism was not legalistic, it is possible to argue that the new perspective has created a new form of what Matt calls ‘soft’ legalism.

In fact, if first century Judaism was not in any sense legalistic this would be most remarkable. Surely they would have been the only religious group in the history of the world who escaped its ugly stain. Anyone with much history within the evangelical movement should appreciate that, for all our talk about grace, we have all too often succumbed to the deceptive allure of legalism. This would most likely not be obvious in a review of our doctrinal statements and other written documents, but would be true nonetheless.

Book photo courtesy of Tony S. Reinke, The Shepherd’s Scrapbook. Used by permission.

Anyone who has read anything about the New Perspectives on Paul will realize that one of the key arguments is that we have misunderstood the Pharisees through the perspective of the Reformation. The first century Jews were never legalists, we are told. There are a number of problems with that position. The first is looking at Jesus’ own perspective on the Pharisees seen most prominently in Luke 18. The second is that while we should acknowledge that the original message of the OT was one of grace, even if the official documents of the first century do indeed point to grace, that does not mean that grace was what was practiced. John Piper explains this further:

“Legalism may also exist in practice, even if grace is trumpeted in theory. Religionists may easily proclaim the primacy of grace and actually live as if the determining factor was human effort. The history of the Christian church amply demonstrates that a theology of grace does not preclude legalism in practice. It would be surprising if Judaism did not suffer from the same problem. Legalism threatens even those who hold to a theology of grace since pride and self-boasting are deeply rooted in human nature. . . .”

“Theology . . . is not measured only by formal statements but also by what it stresses. Any theology that claims to stress God’s grace but rarely mentions it and that elaborates human responsibility in detail inevitably becomes legalistic in practice, if not theory.” (Schreiner, Law and Its Fulfillment, pp. 115–116, cited in John Piper, The Future of Justification, p. 147.)

We are continuing to look at John Piper’s elegant exposure of the heart of the differences between his position and that of N. T. Wright’s. For those without the time to read massive volumes written by the current Bishop of Durham, Piper has done a great service. His scrupulous attempts to be fair to Wright are most useful. I also love the way which, in responding to Wright’s teaching, Piper adequately uses the opportunity with which error presents us to clarify and restate truth. In explaining where Wright disagrees with classic reformed teaching, Piper restates that teaching in a helpful way and demonstrates the way in which Wright agrees with all, but one, aspect of this explanation.

In historic Reformed exegesis, (1) a person is in union with Christ by faith alone. In this union, (2) the believer is identified with Christ in his (a) wrath absorbing death, (b) his perfect obedience to the Father, and (c) his vindication-securing resurrection. All of these are reckoned—that is, imputed—to the believer in Christ. On this basis, (3) the “dead,” “righteous,” “raised” believer is accepted and assured of final vindication and eternal fellowship with God.

In Wright’s exegesis, the middle element in step 2 is missing (2b), because he does not believe that the New Testament teaches that Christ’s perfect obedience is imputed to us. Thus the pattern is: (1) A person is in union with Christ by faith alone (expressed in baptism). (2) The believer is identified with Christ in his wrath-absorbing death (there is no identification with or imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience) and his vindication-securing resurrection. Both of these are reckoned—that is, imputed—to the believer in Christ. On this basis, (3) the “dead” and “raised” believer is accepted and assured of final vindication and eternal fellowship with God. (pp. 124-125)

What is striking about this explanation is precisely where this puts Tom Wright. We have seen over the last few days that both Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians have agreed that there is some sort of righteousness transfer that goes on. Where Catholics argue that this is an impartation, Protestants claim it is an imputation. That difference in wording, which led to the Reformation itself, almost sounds like a minor nuance when Wright comes along and sweeps the whole concept of an alien righteousness away! To Wright neither group is right and are both, as he puts it, “ muddle-headed.”