Reading Scripture

How are we to read the Bible or parts of it?  This is certainly a big question, and a basic one. The canonical scriptures are , it is often said, a library, and the books it is comprised of have  a varied, interesting  character. At one level sometimes hear of people who set out recipes drawn from the Bible, or develop an interest in its archaeology, or in its flora and fauna; some of its place in ancient history and culture, and especially perhaps, its setting in the culture of the middle east, Roman and Greek and so on, Babylonian and Phoenician and Egyptian, and so on.  How do all these fit into it?

Some, coming nearer, spend their talents and skills in efforts to prove or display its reliability, in an effort to provide an apology for its trustworthiness. Churches arrange evening in which they commend the Christian faith by explaining it, ‘Christianity Explained’. And coming even nearer, the Bible is read, or parts of it are, and sources of the ancient religious concepts  that are found within the covers of a Bible. Maybe some familiarities are found what the Bible contains and modern religious ideas, or perhaps its difference and uniqueness.

 All these enterprises, and others that we have not included in our list, are  to one degree or another, fascinating and learned as they are or can be. Part of the contribution to the religious quest of humanity.

 But all these ‘approaches’ to Scripture, and more we could add, neglects the basic fact that Scripture invites us to understand it as the word of God. Not only to understand it but to be engaged as that word. In fact  to engage and be engaged to its own estimate of itself. This is a way of saying that the Bible has a spiritual engagement of men and women, who have sprits that can engage with it, if our spirits are imbued by the work of God the Holy Spirit within them. And Scripture offers its content  to the deepest part of humankind. 

Early on in his Institutes, Calvin says

 

Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture, that Scripture carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive  it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe wither on our own judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human judgment, feel perfectly assured – as much so as if we beheld the divine image impressed on it – that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God.  We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which we rest our judgment, but we subject our intellect and judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate….we  find  a divine energy living and breathing in it -  an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly than could  be done by human will or knowledge…..(Institutes  Bk I.  ch.7. S.5.)

 

JohJohn. Owen -

 

The The Reason of Faith; or, an Answer unto that Inquiry, ‘Wherefore we Believe the Scripture  to be the Word of God?’ (1677) Works,  ed. Goold, IV

 

Hereby we re taught of God, so as, finding, the glory and majesty of God  in the word, our hearts do , by an ineffable power, assent under the truth without any hesitation. And this work of the Spirit carrieth its own evidence in itself, producing an assurance  above all human judgment, and such as stands in no need of no farther arguments or testimonies. This faith rests on and is resolved into, (p.43)

 

J.I. J.I. Packer-

 

The evangelical certainty of the trustworthiness and authority is of exactly the same word , and rests on exactly the same basis, as the Church’s certainty of the Trinity, or the incarnation, or any other catholic doctrine. God has declared it; Scripture embodies it; the Spirit exhibits it to believers; and they humbly receive it, as they are bound to do .(‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God p.124)

 

Two or three words sum this up – certainty, immediacy, and energy. For Calvin it is as if the reader takes in the air of Scripture, of prophets and apostles, and especially  of the incarnate Son of God, by the energy of the Holy Spirit, by which the truth of scripture is known with certainty. This engagement involves not only our intellects, our minds, but out affections, our spirits. 

‘No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father’ ‘(John 6.65) we have we seen his glory, glory as of as only of the Son from the Father, full of grace and truth’; (Jn. 1.14  see also 16--18);  ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father (Jn 6. 65): Lord ‘to whom shall we go? Thou have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy  One of God  (Jn. 6.66-9)’

 This passage in John is rich in detail.  The disciples have certainty, assurance, that Christ is the Word of God. They  did not have this because they have had information about Jesus’s circumstances, but as recognising that he their leader was the Holy One of God. They ‘have come to him’ (Jesus reminds them that one of them is a devil, Judas Iscariot. (6.70-1) And so their  coming to Jesus as the Messiah  was granted him by the Father, disclosed by the Father. Judas fell short because he was not given by this grace, even though he was one of the Twelve chosen by Jesus Judas, blind,  a devil.

 What is needed to be a Christian is to  be hearers of Jesus (in the case of this we have looked at in John 6). He is unique, the very Saviour of men and women the world over, and in every era in accordance with his Great Commission given to the eleven after the death and resurrection of Christ remove any doubts the may have.

 All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. `Go, therefore and make disciples  of all nations,  baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them  to observe al that  I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always , to the end of the age’ (Matt 28.19) 

Let us give John Owen the last word,

 The principal divine effect of the word of God is in the conversion of the souls of sinners unto God.  The greatness and glory  of  it…all those who are acquainted with it, as It is declared in ‘The Scripture, and have any experience of it and have any experience of it in their own hearts, do constantly give as an instance of the exceeding greatness of the power of  God(…..Now of this great and glorious effect of the word is only the instrumental cause, whereby the  divine power operates and is expressive of itself : for we are ‘born again’, born of God, not of corruptible seed  but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever 9I Pet .1.23), for of his own will doth God beget us  with the  word of truth’, (James 1.18))…..Therein, in an especial manner, is the divine authority of the word evidenced, by the divine power and efficacy  given unto it by the Holy Ghost. The work which  is effected by it,  in the regeneration, conversion, and sanctification of the souls of believers, doth evidence infallibly unto their  consciences, that it is not the word of man, but of God. (Owen, Works, IV.94-5)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Two Kingdoms?

 

 

Two Kingdoms?

 

Last time I said  this about toleration: 

‘Rubbing shoulders with such immoral people is inevitable it we are to live in the world, and it is desirable that we be in their company in order that they may hear of the gospel. This is an attitude of toleration to people who were not Christians . The NT church lived and worked among queers, some of which were converted to Christ (‘such were some of you’) .The Church may have to bear the charge of ‘bigotry’, but such talk is not to be fostered.’

In Europe, in particular, Christians and in some cases others with views of a religious kind are held and developed  with the tacit belief that their  religion  pervades the society in which they live. This in turn is because of the idea of the  establishment of Christianity as a arm of the state has become the default position. It wasn’t always such.  So, in the sixth century or so the Holy Roman Empire emerged. Before that, Augustine lived in the birth pains of this Empire. Though in the case of his attitude to the Donatists he employed armed force, the army of a particular region of the Empire. Soon the top men in the faith were a part of the elite who ruled the Empire.

In the West the Holy Roman Empire lasted until the sixteenth  century when that alliance between the Protestant Christian church formed a church – state alliance in England. And when besides the antics of Henry the VIII he became the 'Defender of the Faith'. At the time when the Protestant magisterial reformation occupied cities such as Strasbourg or Geneva, and  the church benefitted for the shielding of the arms and fortifications of the city forces, not only freeing the church from persecution,  under the umbrella of  the link with the state, used as a means of church discipline.

So, shamefully,  Calvin was able to have Servetus, a heretic as far as the Reformed were concerned,  put to death by the city authorities of Geneva. In Protestant England the King and his successors became ‘Defenders of the Faith’. In Reformed Scotland, where the Westminster Confession of Faith held sway from 1647, it was the law of the land, the part of the project of ‘Covenanted Uniformity’, ‘betwixt the Churches of Christ in the kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland’. This became a reality only in Scotland. The Scots are (in theory) still governed by Chapter 23 of the Westminster Confession.

The civil magistrate may not  assume to himself the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority,  and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of  God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God.

In England, Cromwellian England interfered by the death of Charles I in 1648/9, and when in 1660 again kings as defenders of the faith was governed by the re-establishment of the monarchy, in the person of Charles II, with the help of the Act of Uniformity in 1660, which still holds in theory. From the establishment of the Christian Religion came a different interpretation  of the place of the church and the wider society of the New Testament, and in others in Europe Rome ruled.

In terms of confessions, in time  the Westminster Confession was changed to conform with the American constitution, and in England Dissent spawned its own Confessions it  spawned, the Savoy Declaration of Independency in 1658. In the chapter of the civil magistrate included this: ‘It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto, in the management whereof, as they ought specially to maintain justice and peace, according to  the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so for that end they may lawfully now under the New Testament wage war upon just and necessary occasion. The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith had a similar wording for the civil magistrate.

This view of the Protestant church and state that made  the torture of foes of the  Christian church legal is by an extension of Romans 13 1-7, beginning ‘Let every person be subject to the governing authorities ‘ and ending in v.5 paying taxes’ And also I Timothy 2.2-3 and I Peter 2.13. Christians were to be good citizens. The Apostle’s status as a free Roman citizen  made it possible to gain his freedom from prison at Philippi.(Acts 16.25f) But chiefly, by the policy of the adoption by Christian churches as modelled on the Old Testament theocracy . And the recognition in the OT of the sheltering role of the government. But all this was to be superseded by Christ’s assertion that his kingdom was not of this world, Christ’s and the Apostles’ teaching of the spirituality of the kingdom of God, and the nature of the kingship of Jesus Christ.

In I Corinthians 5 Paul made  a difference between who are ‘insiders’, professing Christians and the crowd we outsiders which we have to mix with. The question here was , could Christians dine off food that had been dedicated to an idol. In the course of discussing Christian behaviour  in the world the Apostle Paul stated  that Christians are free to buy and eat it. He clarified earlier advice about the company the Christians should keep. And not go to law with another Christian.

The Enightenment, secularism, and Dissent followed, in Protestantism in Europe, and in the United States of America,  when its constitution was established and the copies of the Westminster Confession (to those who subscribed to it) made consistent with the American constitution.

In the light of this sketch, it supported toleration as it  was historically until Christianity was allowed became part as the apparatus of state.  This is a course that the woke don’t follow. In their activities there is no evidence of them taking account of the government, rather of secretive behaviour. More likely they use force, or deception, or through their use of political-style lobbying as a prelude to gaining a change in the law.   

God’s kingdom, (mentioned by Paul) which transcends all other organisations, the members of which worship Christ her king,  need  ‘room’ in order to flourish 'in the present evil age'(Gal.1.4), agencies in education, literature and society. The growth of such a kingdom, God’s kingdom, creates effects in society, as you would expect, but not of a worldly, political character.  Politics should not enter the life of Christ’s kingdom, which is not of this world. As our Saviour said 'render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God’s'. (Mark 12.17)

And Paul said,

For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.  We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God and take every thought  captive to obey Christ….(2 Cor. 10.4,5)

Note the repeated contrast of work ‘in the flesh’, which means here 'physical exertion ' in contrast to  ‘divine power’. Paul refers to two worlds here, a life of physicality, and a spiritual life. The work of the gospel is ‘not of the flesh but of divine power'.

Believers are in these two worlds, and we need to make this clear to our children and the rising generation, with wisdom and patience.

In the world, but not of it.

In the world, but not of it.

 You may be puzzled by references in the media to what is referred to as the ‘woke’ position in cultural matters (in a wide sense). Currently, this attitude aims in securing power over of one group in society over other groups. This might involve  the ‘cancellation’ of a book, or the arguing for ‘equity’ between individuals or groups, to secure similar outcomes for one group to another, or more choice of kinds of  gender. Each of these is described by their advocates as advances and achievements in building their ‘personal identity’. universities, colleges, retailers (such as Amazon), leisure centres and charities, are all positioning themselves to  further ‘woke’ values.  

 This post has two aims, first to note the direction of the trends of the various woke sensibilities, and then what the attitude of Christian believers ought to be.

First, a word about what is meant by ‘personal identity’ by such woke advocates. This is not bearing the social class that a person occupies, as in the ‘working class’, or the ‘ruling class’ or ‘the elite’. Woke activity is not part of the ding and dong between  Left and Right as they seek more votes, but as engaging in what George Orwell called ‘the capture of power’.  It is not a change in the strength of a social class nor is it a matter of metaphysics, an inquiry into what makes for the identity and the changes of an individual person. In the make up of the woke a person’s goals may be so strong that they come to be is intrinsic to the identity of that person, hence the phrase ’person identity’. 

Interestingly, Christians will be familiar with the woke use of ‘personal identity’. For becoming a Christian has to do with the acquiring of a new nature, with new goals and ambitions, and repudiating others.  Christianity begins with the new birth, the new creation, a transition between the ‘old man’, and the possession of the ‘new man’. This is not identity acquired  by by the pressure of either political or social power, nor even by legislation. Such a transition is solely due to the grace of God in the soul. ‘Adoption’ is another New Testament way of charactering this all-important transition. 

        'For all who are led by the Spirit are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of                slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom         we cry ‘Abba! Father! The Spirit himself bears witness to with our spirit that we are children       of God’. (Romans 8 15-16) 

Not slaves, but sons and daughters. This is not the everyday adoption of a young person, which involves a mere a civil transaction. Life as a spiritually adopted child is not immediately perfect. For  the new nature fights the old, remaining nature. The Christian has the promise of a new destiny, where and ‘when he appears we shall be like him because we shall see him as he is’ .  and that alone will suffice for such to have a completely new identity,  when he sees Christ as he is. (I Peter 3.2) Paul wrote

You can see that‘ woke’ behaviour and its character is rather different from Paul’s recipe for personal change as a Christian. For though the language is war-like, and the Apostle to the Gentiles has a deadly enemy,  Paul’s weapons are spiritual. He goes on in this passage, v.15f. ’our hope is that as your faith increases,  our area of influence among you may be greatly enlarged’.

 Christian standards and the woke

 In this matter of the pressure that ‘wokeism’  exerts we need to contrast it with  the standards of the New Testament.   For Christians, as when Paul taught that food that has been offered to idols may be eaten by believers with a good conscience. Why? 

    'I wrote to you in my letter  not to associate with sexually immoral people -  not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy or swindlers, or idolators, since then you would need to go out of the world.'(I Cor. 5.10)

As he went on to say,

    'Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit te kingdom of God. Do not be deceived, neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor men who practises homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy , nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will   inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you, But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the `Lord Jesus Christ and by the SpIrit of our God'. (1 Cor. 6.9-11)

Rubbing shoulders with such immoral people is inevitable it we are to live in the world, and it is desirable that we be in their company in order that they may hear of the gospel. This is an attitude of toleration to people who were not Christians . The NT church lived and worked among queers, some of which were converted to Christ (‘such were some of you’) .The Church may have to bear the charge of ‘bigotry’, but such talk is not to be fostered.

 In this matter of co-existing with the ‘woke’ is something that true Christians have to bear, a part of their pilgrimage. However Christian parents need to make the Kingdom and those of this world, for they must learn of the difference.

Christians support toleration in society. In I Corinthians 5 Paul discussed a difference who are ‘insiders’, professing Christians and the crowd we outsiders which we have to mix with. The question here was , could Christians dine off food that had been dedicated to an idol. In the course of discussing Christian behaviour  in the world the Apostle Paul stated  that Christians are free to buy and eat it. He clarified earlier advice about the company the Christians should keep. 

So much for toleration. In the account of Paul’s preaching at Athens in Acts 17, Luke’s narrative shows that his message was not forced on his hearers. When his preaching involved references to the resurrection of the dead, he was prepared to hear some who mocked, and he did not press  any hearers for an immediate response. (See Acts 17. 32-4) And with the Corinthians he wrote ‘we refuse to  practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s consciences in the sight of God’. (2 Cor. 4.2)  Another instance of his tolerance. ‘We  are afflicted  in every way but not crushed, perplexed but not  driven to despair; persecuted but not forsaken, struck down but not destroyed’ (2 Cor.4. 8,9) No intimidation.

The woke have no compunction in forcing,  on for example, on Amazon, in ‘cancelling’ (that is withdrawing) titles that express a Christian view. No discussion. Besides these, woke attempt to force the Police to provide single women to accompany as they walk home across London in the evening with the protection by as they choose to walk.  These cases, such as countering ‘racism’, or fostering gender changes, or the confiscation of books , or the right to be accompanied by police. Such behaviour  lessens  the historic practices of Christianity, marriage between a man and a woman, the 'nuclear'family. 

 For the woke, in contrast to the toleration of Christians,  they make changes in underhand ways. So the purpose of the creating floral displays following the dreadful murder of Sarah Everard is (at the time of  writing), unclear what the motivation is, but we may be sure that the (mainly) young ladies who gathered bearing flowers were not bent on organising a weekly prayer meeting. Their attention to the support of Sarah’s mourning family does not seem to have been a centrepiece of the activities. The question of why the crowd collected as it did is a bit of a mystery, but no doubt we shall discover later. 

Christians must be advocates of toleration in defending the practices they wish to support.As they have been historically until Christianity was allowed to the state.  This is a course that the woke don’t follow. In their activities there is no evidence of them taking account of the government, rather of secretive behaviour. More likely they use force, or through their use of political-style lobbying as a prelude to gaining a change in the law.   

God’s kingdom, (mentioned by Paul) which transcends all other organisations, the members of which worship Christ her king,  need  ‘room’ in order to flourish 'in the present evil age'(Gal.1.4), agencies in education, literature and society. The growth of such a kingdom, God’s kingdom, creates effects in society, as you would expect, but not of a worldly, political character.  Politics should not enter the life of Christ’s kingdom, which is not of this world. As our Saviour said ' render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God’s'. (Mark 12.17)