Adrian Warnock adrianwarnock.com


Latest Headlines From This Blog
Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Review of the Blog - April 2007: Atonement Wars


Show/Hide Post
Today I will continue my review of the last year's blogging which we began yesterday. April was a very interesting month for me on this blog. So much so that it deserves an entire post. It was a month which single-handedly seemed to dramatically raise my UK readership, and that rise persisted after the month ended. Since I have historically had so many US readers compared to British, sometimes this feels like an American blog to me. (OK, I'm sure it doesn't to my American readers!) But it seems to me that us Brits have yet to embrace blogs as passionately as our cousins across the pond.

After Easter I considered some readily available information about a significant controversy that had risen to the fore again and now threatened to split the Evangelical movement in two. There seemed to me to be an unfathomable reluctance in certain UK Christian media outlets to cover it. I wondered if some news desk decisions were being influenced by certain commercial relationships. In the end, after much deliberation and with the support of my spiritual mentors, I did the first real piece of journalism I had ever done and broke the story that the split between Word Alive and Spring Harvest was not as amicable as many had understood. Suddenly, UK Christians were turning to my blog to read the latest developments and varying opinions of key figures on both sides to whom I tried to give a platform.

Looking back, as messy as that time was, I really don't regret the decision to break that story. My sources were several and impeccable, and without looking for gossip, I had heard rumors for several months. Interestingly, I subsequently discovered that at least one person had hinted at the same story on their own blog before me. (Sadly I cannot now remember the link to that.) I didn't expect the level of public debate between the two sides that would occur, nor the phone calls I would receive from key players on both sides to explain their version of events to me. I felt like something of an agony uncle at times, and knew far more details about the situation than I would have wanted to publish or it would have been beneficial to publish. Splits are always painful. This was the first one that played out in front of the amassed Christian blogs.

I was glad of one thing—the secular media did not pick up the story, although in a sense it shows how irrelevant we have become to their perception of our culture. I really didn't expect to have such a role, and I very much doubt that there will be too many times in the future when I will find myself doing a similar thing.

You can trace the story as it emerged here on my blog in the following posts:
The interesting thing was that I was, in any case, in full flow in a series on the atonement. So, with the whole blogosphere lit up on this issue, the blog posts I had already written seemed so much more relevant. Here are the posts in question:
Somehow in the midst of all that, I also blogged about other subjects. Notably, the following posts reflected on other debates, and also how we can cooperate together despite certain differences:
I also blogged a fair bit about the resurrection, including the following: I also remember one of my rare forays into the world of politics in US Election—Dipping My Toe Into a Can of Worms, and an article I published elsewhere entitled Loving God—A Guide for Beginners.

Labels: , , , , ,



Friday, December 07, 2007

Mark Driscoll, Terry Virgo, and Shepherding God's People


Show/Hide Post
Pastor Mark DriscollRegular readers of my blog will remember that, together with my pastor, Tope Koleoso, we had the joy of being able to chat with Mark Driscoll when we went to Edinburgh to hear him preach live. We were deeply impressed with his graciousness and kindness to us. In this, he reminded me of a man who is one of my other living Christian heroes—Terry Virgo.

I know that many people were disappointed not to be able to make it to Scotland to hear Mark. So I am delighted to relay an announcement from Terry Virgo's blog today. Mark Driscoll has agreed to speak next July at the Newfrontiers Leaders Conference in Brighton, UK. Here is how Terry begins his post:
"The last time I checked, the Pope was still a Catholic, the death rate was still hovering at around 100%, and the chances of getting Mark Driscoll to speak at a conference in the UK in 2008 were averaging at zero.

It is therefore with great delight that I can announce that we have, with the aid of certain friends (for an inspired guess see Adrian Warnock’s blog), arranged for him to be our main visiting speaker at Together on a Mission in Brighton next year, 8-11 July 2008.

Terry VirgoIn recent months I have found myself listening to downloads of Mark Driscoll’s preaching, probably more than anybody else’s. I find him completely arresting, relevant, Biblical, funny, aggressive, and packing a real punch. I believe he will do us a lot of good.

I love his value system and I am impressed by what has been accomplished by God through his ministry based in Seattle, where a church of several thousand has been built in a few years, starting from almost nothing and largely not through church swapping, but conversion.

He is theologically reformed, Biblically orthodox, and culturally relevant, and particularly addresses the post-modern world with remarkable insight. I have just read his chapter in the Crossway publication, The Supremacy of Christ in a Post-Modern World. I found myself underlining sentence after sentence, and simply wrote ‘Wow!’ in the margin at the conclusion of the chapter. I am deeply grateful to God that he will be with us." Read more . . .
This is a fantastic piece of news. Terry and Mark are both pastors of pastors. Church planting is a major need of our world today. Leaders themselves need to be trained.

As an example of Terry's gifting in operation, he has recently finished a series of posts on the vital role of the pastor in the life of a church. He re-examines the biblical teaching. I will finish this post by giving you a taste of each post in the series, but do go and read them all; they are worthy of careful study.

Church Leaders

As a movement, Newfrontiers has tended to emphasise the role of apostles and prophets. The church was originally built on the foundation of apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20) so they gave the people of God their fundamental identity. I have argued that we were not built on a pastoral foundation.

My argument has often been expressed by noting that pastors are called to care for and feed the flock and meet the flock’s needs. An over-emphasis, therefore, on the pastoral role can result in pre-occupation with needs. We could become need-centred instead of apostolic and prophetic, thereby missing God’s intention and forgetting the bigger picture, building churches that gradually become foreign to the atmosphere of the New Testament.

I have been alarmed at the possible danger of a church becoming introverted, developing a culture where personal preference dominates and shepherds major on discerning and serving people’s so-called ‘felt needs’. However, in taking this stance, we may have failed to bring adequate positive Biblical teaching about the vital role of pastors and teachers. They are, of course, the most visible ministers in the local church. They have the most ‘hands on’ role among the flock. Read more . . .

Shepherds of the Flock

Jesus didn’t say, ‘I am the good apostle,’ or ‘the good prophet,’ or even ‘the good evangelist,’ but happily claimed to be the Good Shepherd. . .

Although the Lord was their ultimate shepherd, it is clear that God actually enlisted men to fulfil the shepherding role on His behalf. . .

As the apostles go, their intuitive strategy in obeying the command was to plant churches, establish flocks and appoint shepherds to care for them. Read more . . .

Other Sheep I Must Bring

When Billy Graham came to the UK in the 1950's and ‘60s, the call to return to God would have been generally comprehended by that generation. Today we live in a different era and though people can be born again through encountering the simplest message, we must not assume that initial conversion will result in inevitable Christian maturity, or even basic understanding of Christian living.

Deconstructing people’s world view
The role of the modern shepherd includes a call to deconstruct people’s previous world view. Nothing can be taken for granted. Lives need to be re-formed. Coming from a fragmented and aimless society devoid of any trace of Christian values, people need to be re-socialised and taught how to relate in godly ways.

Raised on self-indulgence, consumerism and rampant individualism, the new convert won’t automatically be transformed into a mature Christian who knows how to conduct himself in the household of God (1 Timothy 3:15).

God has promised to give His people shepherds after His own heart who will feed them with knowledge and understanding (Jeremiah 3:15). This feeding requires a radical approach. We are not called to build on a false foundation with teachings that imply merely personal fulfilment or the grasping of the individual’s full potential, or how to love oneself. The shelves of many a Christian bookshop are filled with titles which appeal to personal fulfilment as the goal of the Christian life. Coming from a culture where demanding your personal rights seems to be the bottom line, new Christians hardly need that diet. Read more . . .

Spirit-inspired Preaching

. . . Holy Spirit-inspired preaching brings about an encounter with God that demands a verdict and produces a changed life based on revelation, faith and love, not cold obedience to external rules.

God’s flock will intuitively hear His voice and respond as truth is fed to them by called and anointed pastor/teachers. Gradually a culture of God-centredness will emerge characterised by worship, faith, grace, mercy, respect, service and the awareness of being an alien people whose fundamental citizenship lies elsewhere (Philippians 3:20) . . .

The shepherd’s ability to feed and be a channel of God’s grace will result in the gathering of a flock. The sheep gather to the gifted anointing of shepherding and thus a flock forms.

The responsibility of the shepherds is not simply to expound truth but to develop relationships of love and trust, and in some cases to ‘parent’ a flock often made up of those who have never been parented before. Read more . . .


Labels: , , , , , ,



Wednesday, December 05, 2007

New Legal Structure for Churches That Employ Their Leader and/or Do Not Vote


Show/Hide Post
The UK EA has freely released some legal framework documents that may be of particular interest to you if your church is in Britain and is led by one of its employees and/or decisions are not taken by a vote of the full membership. Legal changes have led to the following announcement:
"The Evangelical Alliance and the Charity Commission have announced the completion of three model governing documents that provide guidance for independent churches. These documents are the culmination of four years of work.

The documents set out the proper checks and balances required to allow paid church leaders to take appropriate leadership responsibilities as church charity trustees, manage any potential conflicts of interest, and offer churches a legal structure to help govern their charity.

The work, initiated in 2003, was primarily designed to strengthen accountability and governance of new independent churches. The model governing documents have been drawn up by the Evangelical Alliance, African and Caribbean Evangelical Alliance, Anthony Collins (solicitors) and Stewardship, in partnership with the Charity Commission . . ."

Labels: , , ,



Saturday, November 17, 2007

Mark Driscoll Preaches on the Atonement in Edinburgh, Scotland


Show/Hide Post
UPDATE  Mark's comments in this message about God hating sinners has given rise to some debate elsewhere.  Alistair does some thinking aloud about the issue on his blog, and has a video clip from another sermon where Driscoll explains his point further.  The metrocalvinist listed reasons why he liked Mark Driscoll,. whilst unashamed workman agrees.

-------
Tonight's event took place in an ex-cinema, so I felt at home! It is the home of Destiny Church, Edinburgh. Destiny is a family of churches across Scotland, and they have some churches elsewhere in the world as well. The audience that gathered was a young one, and following an energetic time of worship, Mark Driscoll came to the platform to share with us. Here is a short video clip from the message. Following this, I will share my notes with you.



Mark spoke about the person of Jesus and his work on the cross. He said that he believed that it was important for preachers of the gospel from time to time to sit and hear the gospel.

He began in 1 Corinthians 2“... I resolved to know nothing when I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified ....” The only thing that must be preached is Jesus and him crucified. Apart from Jesus and his death, we have nothing to offer anyone.

It takes three generations to lose the gospel. One generation believes, the next assumes too much, and the third forgets it or denies it. We cannot assume anything. If we say Jesus, Bible, God, cross, sin—we must not assume that anyone has any idea what we are talking about!

Martin Luther said that in our preaching of the cross, we should “ ... beat it into their heads continually!”

Many traditions love one side of the jewel of Jesus' death. Mark believes we must appreciate eleven sides of the cross. We must also think of it in the context of Jesus' whole life—his incarnation, holy life, death, resurrection, and ascension. We need to emotionally encounter the significance of the crucifixion and all that it has accomplished for us. The Jews couldn't understand how God himself could be cursed by hanging on a tree.

It is perhaps the most amazing thing that has ever happened—that the cross should become the most popular symbol in human history. To call the day Jesus died “Good Friday” is also astonishing. We must understand the theological aspects of the cross.

ELEVEN ASPECTS OF THE ATONEMENT

  1. The Central Theme—Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)

    Mark Driscoll, Edinburgh, ScotlandWe cannot assume anything. A war is brewing over this issue. This is the issue we must be willing to fight over. If we lose this, we lose the gospel. Mark said that if you deny this, you have essentially lost the Christian faith. Isaiah 53:5“ ... FOR our transgressions.” Romans 5:8“Christ died FOR us.” 1 Corinthians 15:3“Christ died FOR our sins.” Sin results in death. In the Garden of Eden, our first parents sinned in our place. They substituted themselves for God—they made their own rules and lived as though they were God.

    As we substituted ourselves for God, God substituted himself for us to fix this. Sin is only atoned for in substitution — e.g. in the sacrifices of atonement.

    What does this mean practically? I MURDERED GOD! He died for MY sin! He paid MY penalty of death. As MY substitute he endured what I deserve in order to give me what I don't deserve. If you lose substitution, you lose all sense of gratitude.

  2. Jesus is Our Victor

    Jesus conquered Satan and demons. We don't like demons, so this is a good thing! Colossians 2:13-15“ ... disarmed the rulers and authorities ...” It looks as if Jesus is defeated on the cross. Isaiah 45:15“God hides.” He hid victory in defeat because God is humble. Those who are proud (like Satan) don't see it! We aligned ourselves with Satan. Being "spiritual" is not good if it's not the Holy Spirit. Satan is real. There is a real war. Revelation 12:10Demons accuse people: “You are a loser; you are not a real Christian ...” The devil condemns people and haunts them with past sin. He loves death and wants to kill. Jesus cancelled the rights that Satan and demons have towards the children of God. He has been defeated and disarmed. There is victory over Satan and demons for the people of God.

  3. Jesus is Our Redemption

    Don't teach this from the pagan slave market. Rather, speak about God redeeming his people from the slavery of Pharaoh—in slavery to sin. We can't stop. We are not free. We can't escape. But just like the people of Israel, we have been set free to worship God! We are liberated to live new lives. To have joy. To worship God together as his people.

  4. Jesus is the New Covenant Sacrifice

    1 Peter“... precious blood of Christ like that of a lamb.” Blood disgusts us. We must identify the horror of blood and death as sin. God is as disgusted with sin as we are with blood. God is horrified by sin. We should be as horrified by sin as we are by blood. God was the first person to shed blood in the Bible—to cover the sin of Adam. The Bible is a bloody book. The first thing Noah did after the flood was to sacrifice. Noah was not "a good guy." Noah found GRACE. He found unmerited grace, and then he became righteous. After the flood, it was as though Noah said, “God should have killed me, too”—that was why he had to offer a sacrifice. “I deserved to die.” He, of course, promptly went on to demonstrate why— by getting naked and drunk.

    Hebrews is clear on this. We don't need a temple or a priest or a lamb because we have Jesus. His blood was shed for our sins. When sinned against we often say, “I want blood!” Well, you already have it. The gospel is the good news that we should have died, but instead we are loved. So we must show love to others!

  5. Jesus is Our Justification

    No one will be justified by works of the law. God would not be good if he let everyone into heaven. If he did that, when we got there it would be like earth, full of hatred and sin and evil. God's heart is gracious mercy and forgiveness. But because of his justice, he has to deal with our sin. God's standard is perfection. No one can say they are perfect. Lust counts as adultery and anger counts as murder. People want righteousness, which is why hard firm religions attract people. When you go to the bathroom, that's about how impressed I am with your righteousness. Our righteousness is described by the Bible as human excrement and menstrual rags. God hates religion. He despises it. You must call sinners to repentance, and also call "righteous" people to repent of their religious righteousness. Righteousness is GIFT righteousness. It is the righteousness of God. “Jesus was the most despised thing in all creation on the cross” (Luther). Righteousness only comes from faith in Christ. When we stand before God it will be imputed righteousness—that is what will appear on our resume. I trust Jesus.

    It doesn't end with imputed righteousness. He gives us a new heart and a new nature. This gives us a desire to do right things. He gives us new power through the Holy Spirit to live life. He gives us a fulfilling life. We are regenerated. We change.

  6. Jesus is Our Propitiation

    Four times in the Greek New Testament. 1 John 4:10This is love—not that we have loved God. It's not because you are a good person that God loves you. You don't obey so God will love you; you obey because God already does love you!

    Mark Driscoll at Destiny, EdinburghPropitiation is how God demonstrates his love. God hates sinners. You have been told that God loves sinners, but hates sin. No, Gandhi said that! God often says he hates people. We are by nature sinners. “I hate the essence sum and total of what you are, but I really love you.” We have a sinful nature and commit sins. “God hates all who do evil.” God hates a lot of people. God's wrath is mentioned more than 600 times in the Bible. More verses talk about the wrath of God than those which state that he loves us. The gospel starts with “God hates you and it's going to go really really bad forever and ever!” Jesus suffered the wrath of God, and it is thereby taken away from sinners who are in Jesus. The question is not, "How can a loving God send anyone to hell?" The real question is, "Why does a holy God take anyone to heaven?" The passover demonstrates the wrath of God passing over the ones covered by the blood of Jesus. Jesus is our passover Lamb.

  7. Jesus is Our Expiation

    This is different from propitiation. Propitiation takes away our wrath. Expiation deals with our defilement. This is often overlooked. Sins have also been committed against us. In 1 John it says that Jesus' blood purifies us from all unrighteousness. Expiation deals with the feeling of being dirty, a feeling that is experienced by both sinners and those sinned against. “Dirty people do dirty things.” Our identity is sometimes about what people have done against us rather than what Jesus has done for us. Feeling defiled, feeling dirty, is a huge issue. The scapegoat was set free. Sin was laid on Jesus and it was taken away. The blood of Jesus CLEANSES us. We are clean. We are clothed in white by Jesus. We should see ourselves and others that way. We can be clean. We don't need to manage, shift blame, or excuse sin; rather we need to face it and deal with it.

  8. Jesus is Our Ransom

    There is only one mediator. Music, Bible translations, etc. don't mediate. If the music changes, we can still worship God. We owe a debt to God. Every sin or omission is a debt. We have a mountain of debt. We cannot possibly pay it to God. Doing good for awhile doesn't reduce our debt, it just doesn't increase the amount of our debt! A mediator pays the debt on our behalf.

  9. Jesus is Our Example

    Tope Koleoso, Mark Driscoll, Adrian Warnock1 Peter 2:21 and Philippians 2Christus exemplar.” Jesus has always been God. He came into human history as man. How did Jesus live his life? It wasn't a fake—like Superman and Clark Kent— i.e. God can't be tempted. Jesus DOES sympathize with our weaknesses because he was tempted. Jesus did not cease to be God. He set aside the use of his divine attributes. God knows everything, but Jesus had to learn. How did he do it? It was by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit filled Jesus. He was the Anointed One. All was done by the power of the Spirit. We can now also live Spirit-filled lives. Being spirit-filled means living the life of Jesus. We do what Jesus did. The Spirit led Jesus into temptation, into suffering. We suffer too (Philippians 1). We will be led into difficult times. We are perfected by our suffering, when we suffer like Jesus did, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Don't waste your pain or your suffering. Use it for a witness, use it for the gospel. Christians are like nails—the harder you hit us, the deeper we go.

  10. Jesus is Our Reconciliation

    Sin separates us from God and each other. The cross brings us together. “... be kind ... forgiving one another as God forgave you ...” We are sinned against and either become bitter or become like Jesus. That is the choice we have. We often have two standards. When we sin, we want mercy; when others sin, we want hell. Bitterness is often caused by the person we love the most sinning in a little way against us. There are only two problems in a marriage—the man and the woman. We can either learn to forgive or let sin destroy our relationships. We can only be true community and reconciled in the cross. We need the Prince of Peace to know true peace.

  11. Jesus is Our Revelation

    Who is God? Where do we begin? Start at the cross. Jesus reveals God to us. The centerpiece of Jesus' life is the cross. Look at the cross to see what God is like. Love and justice. Holiness and mercy. No other religion has a concept of God like that. Our God is not a god who asks for blood; instead, he offers his own. You can talk about the attributes of God all day; it is only in the cross that it all makes sense. The revelation of God comes together at the cross.
Mark closed with a few comments on 1 Corinthians 15:1-4the gospel must be reiterated to us, and we must remind our people of it. We must not assume it. If we do, they will deny it. It must be continually proclaimed and declared—not offered as a helpful suggestion! Jesus must be magnified. It must be RECEIVED. It is personal. We must be changed by it. We must go on believing it. It is central in every way. You can't teach marriage, parenting, work, or for that matter, anything, without the cross. It precedes everything else. The gospel gets passed on. Paul received it and passed it on. If anyone changes it, they are a demon. They are sent from Satan and they are going to hell. We don't change what we received!

It's all about Jesus!
  • It is penal—Christ died.
  • FOR our sins—it is substitutional.
  • It is eschatological—Jesus didn't remain dead, but was raised. Forever is a really long time!

Labels: , , , , ,



Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Rob Frost, Leading UK Evangelical Methodist Dies


Show/Hide Post
Rob FrostMy friend, Tony Miles, reports on the death of Rob Frost. More information is available at Share Jesus International, where reflections from his family are also available. I found this passage striking:

On the last evening of Easter People this year Rob preached, and as he left the platform he was sad that this would be the last Easter People . . . but he believed God said to him, ". . . you will not be here next year Rob." We thank God for this preparation, even though the knowledge has been difficult.

Labels: , ,



Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Applying Discernment - Far From Simple


Show/Hide Post
If there is one thing that the discernment debate between the Pyromaniacs and myself has confirmed these past few days, it is surely that discernment is far from easy!! It’s a good thing Tim Challies has written a book on it. I really like the following extract from his book, which I think totally sums up what I think has been happening over at the fire-lovers’ place. Of course, the whole point about wisdom and discernment is that it is very situational, so I am quite sure that some others see things very differently from me on that matter! Please note that I am not trying to claim that Tim would or should side with me in this debate; rather I am choosing to apply these words to the situation at hand as they seem relevant to me.


“It is easy, when attempting to be discerning, to neatly categorize people into two camps: safe and unsafe or good and bad. We then implicitly trust the people in the good camp and entirely reject anything said by those in the bad camp. To do so, though, is to ignore the common grace God gives whereby even those whose views are far different from our own can still be wise and can still speak the truth. While we need to read their words with care and discernment, we can and often should still read their words. We need to rest in the security of the Spirit’s guiding and protecting ministry in our hearts rather than in sheltering ourselves from views that do not always accord with our own.” (Tim Challies in The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment)
Tim then goes on to quote Dennis E. Johnson, Professor of Practical Theology and Academic Dean at Westminster Seminary California, in an article on Common Grace and Theological Scholarship as follows:


Dennis E. Johnson, Ph.DWe cannot simply compile a list of “safe” authors, stamp them with the Reformed equivalent of imprimatur or nihil obstat, and then confine our reading to them. We must do the hard work of exercising discernment—sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, argument by argument. Facts, insights, perspectives, and methods must all be tested in the light of the principles of Scripture. And we must keep alive our consciousness of dependence on Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Our safety is not in avoiding the ideas of the unbelieving world; our safety is in union with Christ, who transforms the mind of those who trust in him.

There is hard work to be done in sorting and sifting the teachings of other humans, especially when we realize that we cannot simply cubbyhole the unpleasant or challenging ideas away and ignore them. But this hard work, like other exercise, gives us the necessary muscle tone to serve and lead God’s people. “Solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil (Hebrews 5:14).

Labels: , ,



Friday, October 26, 2007

Blogging, Discernment, and a Book by Tim Challies


Show/Hide 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:



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.

David WayneOne 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.

Tim ChalliesOne such wise guide is surely Tim Challies. I know that he shares many of my concerns about the world of blogs, and has a similar attitude in wanting to support those in positions of authority in the Church rather than tearing them down. I know that he is submissive to others. I like that he respects those, like me, who might differ with him on secondary issues, but firmly join hands on the Gospel. I have also met a godly man called Paul Martin who pastors him wisely. The more I came to know Tim, the more my concerns about the concept of a non-expert writing a book began to evaporate. If the modern world needs non-experts to grapple with the words of the experts and make them more accessible to the rest of us, then those who have been given that gift should be encouraged to find an appropriate outlet, even if that looks a bit different from previous models.

Writing a book is very different from writing a blog, even though the number of words involved in a blog over the years may be just as numerous. With a blog, there is instant feedback, and a chance to easily go back and reword or retract an argument. With a book, not only is it more permanent, it is somehow expected to be more accurate, so the responsibility feels greater. James 3 is ever present in the mind of a preacher, and should be in the mind of a blogger as well. Speaking personally, I have applied it even more strongly to the concept of writing a book, which quite frankly has always terrified me rather than attracted me.

But for some people there comes a time when a book finds them and demands to be written. That is what has happened to the man I am glad to call my friend, Tim Challies. He is painfully aware of the cacophony of voices available online, and the need to discriminate between them. The average member of your congregation might well be either theologically illiterate or have imbibed a watered-down, overly simplistic doctrinal system which he has heard away from your church pulpit. Blogs, mp3s, books, magazines, TV programs, conferences, and radio all compete for the minds of modern Christians. The battle has never been stronger. How should we respond to this?

There are a number of different approaches that could be taken. We could just ignore what is going on around us, which would not be wise. We could, instead, become great experts in the different types of false teaching that are being purveyed. There are some bloggers who seem to have the goal of ferreting out everything that is less than perfect. These are often termed "watch blogs." The temptation is to take some kind of perverse gratification out of proving others wrong. As the years have gone on, by God's grace, that temptation has increasingly looked less appealing to me, although there was a time when I frequently delighted in giving in to it.

Phil JohnsonSometimes even bloggers with good intentions can fall into the trap of being over zealous in their discernment. I am sure I have fallen into that trap myself at times. But this past week, in reading a post by Phil Johnson, I thought I saw a classic example of someone who had over-reached himself in reacting to some things he had discerned. Now, don't get me wrong. I share many of Phil's concerns. I am indeed concerned about some aspects of Willow Creek's ministry philosophy. Personally, I am not sure how to interpret their recent "repentance," and certainly was VERY worried to see that they have invited Brian McLaren to speak at one of their conferences. BUT it bothers me that Phil seemed (at least to me) to be implying that Willow Creek has absolutely nothing to teach us. I am sure that if we fail to recognize something as being good and helpful and true, we fail in our discernment as much as if we blindly accepted everything in a naive way. I know it sounds cliched, but we really must be looking for the good in people, especially in those who have not denied important aspects of the Gospel. It is quite correct to say, "I like what this person says about the following subject, and have learned from them, although I disagree strongly with them on another subject." If, instead, we lump people and whole movements together into an amorphous lump of theological rejects, surely we risk alienating them and, ironically, driving some further away from the truth of the Gospel that I know Phil and I both love.

But if Phil was harsh on Willow Creek, he went on in the same post to be even harder on the charismatics. I mention this because this kind of over-zealous discernment is sadly quite common. Again, quite rightly, he was pointing out the sin in a specific charismatic minister. Also, quite rightly, he was pointing out that due to an absence of discernment this kind of error is all too common in the charismatic movement, and sadly is often covered up. So far so good. And, despite his claim that his charismatic friends would be angry at these comments, I agree! What I struggle with, however, is that he then makes plain that he believes that charismatic doctrine itself is to blame for these sins and the lack of discernment that allows them to continue unchallenged. Phil applies the red card of his disapproval to the entire movement that, despite all its acknowledged weaknesses, I am thrilled to have been part of for decades. Should we use discernment with such a broad brush stroke?

Jesse PhillipsMy dear friend, Jesse Phillips, took Phil to task admirably in the comments section and repeated this on his own blog. No one seemed able to answer his arguments that while it is true that some second-order implications which people draw from core charismatic doctrine do encourage gullibility and an absence of discernment, the core doctrines themselves do not need to do so. Phil, in reply, claimed that reformed charismatics were a new breed, and only caused by alien influences on the movement. This is not true. Men like Terry Virgo and C. J. Mahaney and the groups of churches they lead have been around for many decades now. Perhaps these groups are not as visible as they could be, but I know they are also not alone in being committed to a firm grasp on reality and the wisdom of the Bible.

To simply dismiss the entire charismatic movement in just one sentence does not seem a wise response to the fastest growing segment of Christianity. It is not, of course, wrong to disagree with charismatic theology (some of my best friends online are cessationists, like Tim himself, of course), but Phil does not seem to recognize any good that has come out of the movement. It would be like me refusing to acknowledge the fantastic work being produced by cessationists. Much as I disagree with some of the positions cessationists take, I am willing to go so far as to state I learn as much and perhaps even more helpful theology from their teachers as I do from fellow charismatic teachers. Doesn't discernment require that we identify helpful material even when it comes from those we disagree with on relatively minor points?

There is surely another way to respond to the marketplace of ideas to which we are exposed in today's church. The single best approach to discerning truth from error is to focus on understanding and proclaiming the truth more (while remaining aware of what is being taught around us). We need to learn to recognize the truth for ourselves by studying the Bible. But we must recognize that we ourselves are not immune to error. We need to ask God for humility wherein we submit ourselves to the views of others and are willing to be taught by them. Indeed, we should be willing to use our discernment as a sieve to strain out the good bits from a mixture of error in order to do so. None of us has a monopoly on truth, or for that matter, error. Some may grasp certain aspects of the truth with remarkable ease, while others of us may struggle to understand it for years. There is, in my view, often much truth in the very ministries of those who we eagerly criticize. We can learn from more people than we like to think we can—provided we have discernment. I am frequently provoked when I read the writings or listen to the teachings of others who come from different parts of the Church than I. This must be done with caution, of course, and requires that I have studied the Bible for myself first. The more we understand the biblical truth for ourselves the better skilled we will become at testing everything and holding onto the good. I love the way Tim says it in his book:
"We can best know what is wrong by first knowing what is right. Experts on counterfeit currency know this as well. They train others first to know the traits of genuine currency because such knowledge will make apparent what is fraudulent. Christians need to dedicate themselves to learning and knowing truth so that what is evil and abnormal will appear obvious. For this reason the Apostle writes, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8). He encourages us to think first and foremost about what is right and true and pure and lovely. In Romans 16:19b he says this as well, exhorting the Roman church “to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil.” Never does the Bible tell us to dwell primarily or repeatedly upon what is false.

The relationship of truth to error is such that we can best know error by knowing truth. The opposite is not true. People who invest undue effort in concentrating upon what is false will not necessarily be able to identify what is true. By dwelling upon the beautiful truths of Scripture we will subsequently learn discernment. A discerning person will know that he must focus his heart upon what is true and pure and lovely, having confidence that in doing this God will bless Him with the ability to expose darkness."
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.

I will close by quoting another passage from Tim's book that expresses well his aim in writing the book:
This book is written for the general reader who wishes to understand discernment, to understand what the Bible teaches us about discernment, and who wishes to equip himself in this discipline. It is not written primarily for people with theological training, though I trust they, too, can benefit from it. Rather, it is written for you and for me—average Christians living in a culture and in a church where it so often seems that anything goes. It is written for those who look at much of what is said and done in the name of Jesus and ask themselves, “How can this be right?” It is written for all those who believe that it is the duty of every Christian to think biblically about all areas of life so that they might act biblically in all areas of life . . .

I do not intend to do the work of discernment for you. There are many books, web sites, and ministries that claim to teach discernment but do so by simply listing all the things you must do and the things you must not do. This book approaches the subject differently and is the result of my studies in Scripture to find the tools of discernment that God provides to us in his Word. And so I will not present a list of ministries you should avoid or endorse, authors whose books you should burn or buy, and music you should not listen to or that you should immediately download to your MP3 player. Rather, I hope to teach biblical wisdom on how you and I can become more discerning. I will present to you the wisdom of the Bible as it teaches us how we can become men and women of discernment. I will present principles you can use as you walk this life distinguishing between what is truth and what is error, what is right and what is wrong.

Labels: , , ,



Saturday, September 01, 2007

Rediscovering Theopedia


Show/Hide Post
I have spent a bit of time over the last few days rediscovering Theopedia. It is not quite so frenetic and unstructured as Wikkipedia. This is probably due to its requirement that you acknowledge a statement of faith and be registered before editing items. They are keen for more contributors and if you have good quality material you have blogged and are willing to adapt, they are happy for it to be included in their articles with the appropriate acknowledgments. Would be great to have a few more bloggers over there. Here are the articles for which I have made some contributions so far (some more significantly than others):

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,



Tuesday, August 21, 2007

"Lig Duncan Baptized as a Believer," Reveals Justin Taylor


Show/Hide Post
In news that will shake the blogosphere, Justin Taylor has not only shown that he is with Sam Storms on these issues, he has exclusively revealed that Lig Duncan was not baptized as an infant! Anyone questioning his commitment to the Presbyterian cause would no doubt be told "It wasn't my fault my parents didn't baptize me!" which perhaps to a credobaptist is precisely the point! Anyway here is what Justin said:
Trusted sources tell Between Two Worlds that Ligon Duncan was not baptized as an infant, but was baptized as a believer! This certainly adds a wrinkle to the discussion, doesn't it? So shouldn't Dever accept Duncan both into membership and at the Lord's Table? Inquiring minds want to know!

I'm not sure why anyone would care what my position is, but I agree with old Piper, new Grudem, and unchanging Storms. I agree with Dever about membership and disagree with him regarding the Lord's Supper. And I think we'd all get along if we just followed the happy middlemen, Ted Christman and Vern Poythress!

Labels: , , , , , , ,



Thursday, July 19, 2007

I DON'T WANT BALANCE, I WANT IT ALL!


Show/Hide Post
The last four words of the above title are not new to me, but they are certainly resonating with me at the moment — "I Want It All!" Why should I have to choose, for example, between being enthusiastic about theology and being charismatic?

I know what some of you are thinking as you've been reading my posts on the Together On a Mission conference. You're wondering why it is that someone who is so enthusiastic about what was obviously a very charismatic conference can also be deeply committed to defending and understanding biblical doctrine. I know it's hard for some of you to believe, but it really is the same me who wrote all those posts on the atonement who also was so deeply touched by this latest conference. For those of you who have never met one, I am indeed that rare breed — a Reformed Charismatic.

Too often, however, the temptation for me is to downplay one side of that equation or the other in order to appear "balanced." When I am with the charismatics, my reformed doctrine often appears alien to them, although in the UK, Newfrontiers offers a major exception to that with over 200 churches that are broadly reformed and charismatic. When I'm with the reformed, I'm tempted to soften my charismatic viewpoint and not speak too much of the things I have seen and experienced. Why is it that on this issue, as on so many others, the Church seems to be split in half? Why can't we be both radically reformed and radically charismatic? Why do we see a conflict and therefore try to play down both in order to be "balanced?" I don't want to be balanced, I want it all!

On the one hand there are those who care about theology enough to study God's Word in detail, weigh scripture against scripture, study great theological minds, and preach intellectually stimulating messages that would stretch even a PhD in Theology — which, incidentally, I am certainly not! Why is it that for the majority of us, if we want such a feast for our minds, we must sacrifice certain other things? Why are some leaders in the Church committed to theology almost exclusively? Is even great theology so captivating that it is the only need of the Church? I don't believe it can be, or God would have given us a Bible that was a systematic theology and not the one we have, which is essentially a collection of lots of stories with a few doctrinal portions.

Also, why is it that those who are most committed to following the Bible in everything also seem most committed to relegating a book like Acts to mere descriptive stories to tell our children? It's not even just the book of Acts; there are swathes of the New Testament that in some theologies become almost entirely irrelevant to us. That was for then, we are told. When I read passages like those found in the book of Acts, I find myself yearning for something more than I am experiencing currently, yearning for a dynamic sense of the supernatural presence of God, longing for God himself to surprise and astonish me by his dynamic actions. Why is it that so often I am left with the impression that we are being encouraged to merely learn about God rather than get to know him? Would I be satisfied if I had read hundreds of e-mails from my wife, but had never actually met her or seen her do anything?

On the other hand, I could find many so-called men of faith who have stories to tell of miraculous healings or of prophecies that have had a life-changing impact. Listening to them, especially if I suspend my natural British cynicism and reserve, I hear tales of powerful encounters with God. Sadly, however, theological truths don't seem to be emphasized at all by most of those committed to experiencing the supernatural presence of God. It is often even implied that it is all right for people to make glaring errors in their teaching or show little interest in what the Bible actually says.

Why is it that so many men who seem on first appearances to have such intimacy with God, such access to his power, such supernatural giftings, and such powerful prophecies, also have much less interest in the words that the Person they often describe as their best friend, the Holy Spirit, wrote 2000 years ago? Why is it that when listening to some of these men, the greatest miracle is no longer what happens in someone's life when they are saved, but rather the latest supernatural healing or encounter with God? Why do we put up with so much flakiness and even blatant deception from figures claiming to have an anointing of the Spirit? How has it got to the point that even hearing the word "faith" seems to raise antibodies in me and make me feel uncomfortable? Why, though, do I feel in honest moments that some of those people with whose theology I most disagree seem to have something that I haven't got, and that I want? Is it so wrong to want to learn more about faith and experience the supernatural acts of God without becoming flaky or doctrinally suspect? Is it not possible for me to both want and get it all?

This desire to "want it all" and have it all in extreme form rather than just a little of everything so as to become "balanced" is not confined to the issue of the truth of God's Word and the experience of the supernatural. There are so many other stalls in the modern marketplace that is the global Church of Jesus. I can see them all before me selling their wares, each of them sure they have the answer to the ills of the Church. How do I choose which one to follow? Can't I have it all? Can't I learn from each of them? Must I choose only one? Where is the person who will overturn all these market stalls and say, “You need a bit of everything — no, change that — you need A LOT of everything — you need it all!”

Let's consider those in the Church who understand the reason we are here on earth. They understand that we are here to enjoy God and bring glory to him by evangelizing the world and producing more worshippers. These guys have such enthusiasm that it is inspiring. Many are also so creative. They split into different tribes, however, sitting as it were at different stalls in the marketplace. There are those who believe in old-style tent crusades, those who want to fill stadiums again, those who knock on doors, those who tell strangers they are sinners, those who befriend sinners in order to evangelize them, those who run seeker sensitive services, those who speak of being missional and incarnating the Gospel, those who run Alpha, and those who preach a certain kind of evangelical "gospel" message every Sunday morning that has to include penal substitution. The different brands may disagree about the methods, but yet they all thrill me with their determination and commitment to see more people becoming Christians. Isn't there room for us to use some methods from almost all of these brands of evangelism?

What troubles me most about so many of these devoted evangelists and missionaries is that so few of them are also deeply devoted to and thrilled with the Church. Why does there seem to be a dichotomy between being "out there" reaching the world and building the community of God such that we love each other so much the world knows we are Jesus' disciples? Also, why does the message of the evangelist sometimes ring hollow in my ears and fail to inspire me like it should? Is there something wrong with me? Dare I even admit that there have been times in the past when I have felt I don't want to hear another "simple Gospel presentation" ever again? Why do the sermons I read in Acts sound so different to the vast majority of evangelistic messages I have ever heard? For that matter, if the Gospel is a handful of reductionistic propositions that we must preach on every occasion, and those few ideas are all that matters, why does so much of the Bible even exist? Much as I believe in penal substitution, it is not to be found in every verse of the Bible. Why are some evangelicals frightened to preach the whole counsel of God? Is it wrong to want to preach the message of the whole Bible?

Why is it, for that matter, that so many of us feel we lack practical wisdom of how to live our lives? I know I have felt like this many times in my life. How can it be that I can work through the Gospel from A to Z, listen to theologically-sound sermons, read the Bible, pray even, and do all the "right" things they tell me to, but somehow not know how to live? Why is it that the breed of practical living teachers are so rare in the Church that many feel they have to learn by watching programs like Nanny 911 because no Christian leader ever taught them how to raise their children? Why are there so few places in the Church to send someone who is struggling with a breaking marriage or with mounting debt? Why, when we find someone in the Church who is valiantly teaching us practical living tips that we should have learned from our parents do they so often sound no different to someone in the world? Where is the teaching that is biblically rooted, yet shows me how to run my life in the 21st century? Isn't the Bible supposed to teach me how to have a good marriage, hold down a job, be a parent, have friends? It's easy to condemn those preaching "self help" in the name of Jesus, but where are those teaching me how God wants to help me live wisely?

Again, why is it that as churches we are not all stirred to activism to help the poor? Adopting a village in Africa, helping HIV victims, befriending single mothers, housing drug addicts — the list goes on and on. Christians who really care, frankly, put me to shame. Why do I so shamefully neglect this? I know that I do give some money that is channeled to such projects by my church, but why do I feel I should be doing much more? Surely we should be demonstrating God's kingdom on earth for the world to see. And yet, why do some of the people who give themselves to this kind of work which is meant to demonstrate God's kingdom seem more like social workers than Christ's ambassadors? Why do we seem to allow the Gospel to be squeezed out of our attempts to help the poor?

I can go on — what of the worshippers? There are many people who love God, feel his presence, and "waste time" with him. Why do I find it so hard to squeeze contemplation into my busy life? Why should worship become an option that excludes other options? Why is meditation considered to be something for Buddhists when the Bible invented it? What about prayer — shouldn't it be more than merely reciting a shopping list of requests to some heavenly slot machine? Shouldn't it be something other than worrying out loud?

And what about a sense of belonging? Of a Church that loves each other and builds a community in this loveless world? Why are there some small churches that really are a family, and yet find it hard to grow? How can large churches retain the feeling that people are there for me and know me? How can we avoid merely having hundreds of superficial acquaintances and yet still feeling totally alone? How can we learn how to do things well for God without becoming just a commercial entity led only by the world's management techniques?

I guess this all leads to a feeling that there is something wrong with the Church. I suspect many of us feel that way as Christians. But what is it that is wrong? Is it, as some would say, "Well, the danger is an overemphasis on feelings, so here we preach the truth of the Bible — that is what we need most." That sounds so good until you hear someone else say something like, "What the Church really needs to do is to learn to care more — we have to love each other and then learn to love the world — that's the problem with the Church," or someone else says, "Your problem is that you know the Bible, but you don't know God — you people just have a form of godliness, but deny its power."

I don't just want balance, however, and certainly not if it means we end up missing EVERYTHING. I thank God that there are those who are attempting to be balanced and have a bit of all of these things. Yet, I am concerned that in an anxiety to be balanced, we end up being mediocre at all of these things. I suppose as individuals we will always be better at some of them than others, but as a healthy local church can't we have it all?

Social action needn't be the enemy of building a nice community, nor should singing be a chore to get through until the preaching starts. Do we really have to wince every time someone begins to prophesy for fear of what our visitors may think? We shouldn't have to be anxious, when preaching, that our people are being bored or that we are offending visitors. These things are not enemies of each other.

Why shouldn't we have churches that are every bit as concerned about doctrinal accuracy and knowledge as John MacArthur, that love relational intimacy with Jesus as much as John Arnott, see miraculous healings that are every bit as dynamic as the ones the tele-evangelists claim to have seen, are as full of vision and purpose as Rick Warren, as skilled in leadership as Bill Hybels, as humble and committed to spiritual maturity as C. J. Mahaney, as relevant to practical life as the author of any self-help book you can think of, that impact social needs in the model of Shaftsbury, tackle political issues like Wilberforce, preach with both the passion for souls of Spurgeon and the passion for God's glory of John Piper, that hear from God as clearly as any modern prophet, are as aggressively missional as Mark Driscoll, have the apostolic drive of Terry Virgo, and yet somehow still feel as comforting as my wife's homemade apple crumble with custard?

Am I being greedy to say "I want it all, and I wish I could become an extremist for all of these things at once?"

Labels: , , , , , ,



Friday, July 13, 2007

TOAM07 - Session 9: Terry Virgo on the Sin of Achan


Show/Hide Post
Terry Virgo
Terry is based at Church of Christ the King, Brighton, UK, and leads the Newfrontiers team. A well-known Bible teacher, Terry speaks at conferences around the world. He has written several books, including No Well-Worn Paths, Does the Future Have a Church?, God’s Lavish Grace, and his latest, The Tide is Turning.
See also Andrew Fountain's notes from this talk, The Folly of Achan.
There are a few traditions within the family of Newfrontiers. One of them is that the father of the movement, Terry Virgo, always closes the conference. I always look forward to these messages. He manages to blend an amazing expositional gift with a strong prophetic edge. Last year's message on leadership was simply outstanding, and I hope that if you haven't already listened to that message you will do so. Terry is much loved by our family, and if you haven't yet made his acquaintance, Terry Virgo's blog and website, as well as my interview with him, are great places to find out more about him.

Terry seemed quite emotional on the video summary of the conference, which they showed us before he came to speak. He said this had been one of the most glorious weeks we had ever had together, and he was not wrong. I feel personally that this week has touched me at least as much as any previous conference I have attended. I always get excited to think of the amazing impact that a conference like this can have around the world.

The reason Terry was drawn to the book of Joshua was because of a sense he had that God was moving us into a new era. Joshua 7 is an astonishing chapter, and in many ways parallels the book of Acts. Acts and Joshua are in many ways similar books with the people going forward into a new break-out of a community.

The army is not a faceless army of robots — rather, it is people who have strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities. We don't want any of us to be missing as we press forward together. The story of Achan might seem a strange place to take a conference like this during the final session. But Terry explained that he had felt the strong leading of the Spirit to do so.

The previous chapter ended with elation and excitement. Joshua was now famous as an invincible leader with an invincible army. Joshua takes on board the perceptions of those who he had sent rather than wisely seeking God. Then there is a crushing defeat. God had said no one will be able to stand against them. Now suddenly, Joshua is vulnerable and swings like a pendulum to, “We are finished!” He felt there was no future for him. We can feel that. Fear grips us sometimes.

Joshua then begins to cry to God. He doesn't ask the generals how did you fight? He doesn't just look to the immediate. What is the big picture? Two different perspectives.
  1. What is happening to the Israelites?

    The invasion of the land was the fulfilment of the promises to Abraham, which in turn are a reflection of the plan of God for Adam. It is like a great recovery. Similar to Eden, there is a "don't touch."

  2. What is happening to the Canaanites?

    At the same time he is blessing Israel, God is also coming in to judge the land. God had said to Abraham that the evil of Canaan was not yet enough. At this time the sins had got to such a state that God was judging gross evil that had affected every aspect of life.
The story turns on the actions of one man. A double-minded man caused the whole problem. An independent assessment results in a secret agenda. One of the soldiers is not persuaded. He isn't single-purposed. He is finding what God finds unattractive to attract him. He saw. Be careful what you look at. You might say, “I couldn't help seeing.” The forbidden thing can seem delightful. Be careful of the lust of the eyes. We have a vulnerable spot. We can't help seeing, but there is a power that can come. Jesus said some brutal words — gouge out your eye. There is a danger in seeing.

David was a man after God's own heart. Everything about him was magnificent. But one day when he didn't go to battle he saw something. He is ruined. The path is to shame, disaster, and death. Achan wished he had never ever seen. If I hadn't gone there, I wouldn't have seen it. Why then do some of us choose to look? Why do some of us go to the place where you know you will see it? Why are some of us so stupid as to not just catch a glimpse, but we go back to look again? We live in an age where we can hardly help seeing, but don't go back there.

After he saw, he coveted. He allowed his imagination to captivate him. Obviously we tend to think of sexual sin in this area. But the Bible here is talking about riches. Those who want to get rich fall into temptation . . . which plunges men into destruction. (1 Timothy 6:9) It's not just having wealth, but the prestige, power, and independence that goes with it. Wealth means that you can tell the rest of the world to get lost. Lust conceives and gives birth to sin which gives birth to death.

So he saw, he coveted, then finally he took. He defied God's clear command. Like David, he took what he knew he should never have touched. Then, he finally hid. He wasn't fulfilled. Because it was forbidden, you can have it, but no one else is allowed to know. There is no abandonment and fulfilment of joy like we experienced last night during worship. Instead, they had to hide from the Lord.

Secret sin leads to relational problems. It ruins. Imagine what David must have felt looking in the eye of his general who he'd told to arrange the death of Uriah.

The wrath of God was coming. God looks at our planet today and says, “Enough of this!” In all the joy and light a