Adrian's principles for God bloggers

I am glad to see that Adrian Warnock is sufficiently recovered to post again, including giving a helpful reminder of an older posting on principles for God bloggers. I certainly aim to follow these principles in my own blogging, here and in comments elsewhere. If anyone thinks I am not following them or saying wrong things in other ways, please correct me gently, preferably by e-mail, peter AT qaya DOT org, or if you feel the need to in a comment here. Jesus said:

15 “If a brother or sister sins, go and point out the fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. …”

Matthew 18:15-17 (TNIV©)

Quiet here, busy elsewhere!

I have been too busy posting and commenting elsewhere, as well as with real life, to post much on this blog this week. And from tomorrow until Saturday night I am away at a Christian conference, Revival Days which I mentioned in a previous posting. So things may be quiet here until next week – although I would welcome comments, and would not be surprised to receive some on my controversial posting about whether Hindus and Jews can be saved.

The discussion of “Did God kill Jesus?” continues on Adrian Warnock’s blog, and there are now more than 100 comments on one posting, including several from myself, and follow-up postings from Adrian. Some people have picked up on my suggestion in the long comment thread that another commenter was not “a theological heavyweight“. I think some people thought I was comparing her with myself, whereas I intended to compare her with teachers like John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones who had been quoted earlier in the discussion. Later in the comment thread I apologised for the misunderstanding.

Meanwhile on the Better Bibles Blog I have been posting on an interesting technical issue with the Greek New Testament text.

Next week maybe you will hear how my conference went, or however God leads me to post.

Did God kill Jesus?

Without really intending to, I have got involved in a controversy, which has been raging most recently on Adrian Warnock’s blog, over whether it is right to say that God killed Jesus. See my posting here last Saturday for the beginning of the story. Adrian took things further with his posting Making an Impact Outside the Blogdom of God; it seems that he is proud of making such a negative impact on the non-Christian Duck. That post has generated a long series of comments, including from the well known American Christian leader Ligon Duncan. And Adrian has himself brought in an even bigger gun, John Piper, supposedly in his defence.

The problem is that no one is actually supporting the idea that God killed Jesus. Duncan, Piper and others insist that God sent Jesus, and that it was God’s plan for Jesus to die, and that by Jesus’ death God dealt with the problem of sin. And I agree with all of this, although some of the details are debatable. But none of them, no one except Adrian, can bring themselves to say that God killed Jesus. This is not surprising, for the Bible doesn’t say so, and it is not just the non-Christian Duck who realises that for God to kill his own Son would not have demonstrated his justice (Romans 3:26) but would have been a monstrous injustice.

Some people have suggested that verses such as Isaiah 53:10 and Romans 8:32 imply that God killed Jesus. The latter says no more than John 3:16: the word translated “delivered” or “gave up” does not imply death, for it is also used in Acts 14:26, 15:40, where it is sometimes translated “committed” or “commended”. Isaiah 53:10 is very difficult and unclear in Hebrew; “crush” is metaphorical, and there is no proper justification for the ESV rendering “he has put him to grief”. The closest anyone can come is Isaiah 53:4: “Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.” (TNIV). Adrian still considers that Jesus was punished by God, but in this verse there is a clear contrast, signalled by “yet”, between this misunderstanding and the true position given in the first part of the verse.

So, Adrian is left alone trying to defend what was probably originally a rhetorical flourish by CJ Mahaney, one which probably he would not really intend to be taken as a proper theological position.

The Toronto Blessing: some further thoughts

After my posting on Tuesday about my experiences similar to the Toronto Blessing, I read in more detail Adrian Warnock’s account of the original blessing, which is especially interesting because Adrian is a qualified psychiatrist as well as a charismatic Christian. His medical training is clearly reflected in his account.

Adrian noted the prominent involvement in the original blessing of Sandy Millar and Nicky Gumbel of Holy Trinity Brompton. This may well explain both the emphasis on the Holy Spirit in the Alpha course, which Nicky Gumbel pioneered and still leads, and its extraordinary effectiveness worldwide – including in a small but significant way in my own church. In 1994 Adrian commented that during the Toronto Blessing

There have not been large number of conversions, and most people are not calling this a revival.

But if this Blessing is counted as even partially a basis on which the Alpha course was built, it must now be understood as having led to a large number of people turning to Christ through that course. It was not perhaps a “traditional” revival, but its results must be seen as comparable to large scale revival.

Adrian considered whether the Toronto Blessing ought to be considered a genuine work of God. He put forward the following test for this which he took from Jonathan Edwards – presumably the 18th century preacher and not the athlete of the same name who is also a prominent Christian:

It was in the study of 1 John 4 that he found his signs to indicate the genuiness of a work of God: An increase in esteem for Jesus as the Son of God, a greater following of God’s ways, an increased hunger for and understanding of God’s word (thus listening to the Apostles), and an increased love for God and man.

It is by the fruit of this movement that we will know its genuineness. (Mt 7:15-20). The result of all this ought to be a greater desire for holiness and to see souls saved.

On this basis both the original Toronto Blessing and the similar manifestations which I experienced should be accepted as at least to a large extent genuine. I would recommend to anyone that they take any opportunity to experience this for themselves, but also that they follow Adrian’s advice:

attend with a desire to experience God for yourself if all this is genuine. Do not seek phenomena, seek God.

The Toronto Blessing: the outpouring continues

Adrian Warnock quoted (with permission) the following which I originally wrote privately to him:

I have also experienced the Toronto Blessing, although in my case only this year!

I realise that to put it this way may seem surprising to some. After all, the Toronto Blessing, at least as understood here in the UK, was something rather specific and special (not to mention controversial) which happened in 1994, first in Toronto and then elsewhere including here. Adrian’s own account of these events is one of many. And perhaps it would be better to reserve the specific name for those events, which I missed out on at the time partly because I was working outside the country. So, more precisely, I might say that what I experienced this year was the activity of the Holy Spirit accompanied by the same kinds of phenomena which were associated with the Toronto Blessing. These manifestations were not in fact new in 1994. And they have continued in many places since then, including at Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship (TACF) after which the Blessing was named, because it started there, under the ministry of John and Carol Arnott.

For me there was also a more specific link with the original Toronto Blessing. A few years ago some people from my church visited TACF and were touched by the continuing activity of the Holy Spirit there. In 2004 I think two of them attended a conference in the UK organised by Catch the Fire Ministries, which is an offshoot of TACF. At this they got to know Lori Lawlor, who is the Arnotts’ daughter. Soon afterwards she was asked to lead a weekend conference at my church, assisted by a team from the church in Birmingham, Haven Renewal Centre, of which she is one of the two pastors (both ladies, sorry if that’s a problem for anyone!). Since then I have been one of a group which has twice visited Haven for their Revival Days conferences, in November 2005 and February 2006, and we are going for a third time this month.

Given the family link to TACF, it was hardly a suprise to find that at Haven the Holy Spirit is expected to work in similar ways to the original Toronto Blessing. It seems to me that the Holy Spirit only works in the ways in which he (or she or it ?? – maybe there will be another posting on this sometime) is given permission to work. So in churches where noisy phenomena are not expected or not welcome, they don’t usually happen. But when no barriers are erected the Holy Spirit works in all kinds of unexpected ways. He touches in a deep way the lives of people who are sometimes deeply hurt. And so it is not surprising that there are some strong reactions, even sometimes things which one might not expect to be the work of the Holy Spirit; but maybe it would be better to say that these things are coming from an imperfect human spirit as it is touched by God’s Spirit of holiness.

So, yes, I saw and heard people acting in strange ways. I don’t know that all of it was the genuine work of the Holy Spirit, but I am sure that some of it was – because it was happening to people who I know and trust, and eventually to myself. At the November conference I felt the Holy Spirit working in my life and helping to heal some deep issues, but was not much involved with any unusual manifestations. In February more deep issues were dealt with, and I also experienced properly for the first time some of the manifestations in my own life. No, I didn’t roll about laughing in the Spirit for hours (but I did laugh a bit), and I didn’t roar like a lion (although someone else did). But the Holy Spirit did make my whole body shake for several minutes, and this has happened more than once – and amazingly I was able to stay on my feet! And the fruit of this has been positive in a way which has lasted at least for a few months, with a definite upturn in my personal relationship with God.

I don’t know what God is going to do with me and the rest of our group at the next Revival Days conference, but I am confident that it will be something very good!

Adrian and I remember together

For some time I have wondered whether the well-known Christian blogger Adrian Warnock is the same Adrian as I knew as a teenager here in Chelmsford. Only a couple of days ago I was able to confirm this. This is because I recognised in Adrian’s story, part four, the same mini-revival which I was also caught up in in 1984-85. I wrote to Adrian about this, and he has now posted (with my permission) part of what I wrote to him about those days. I intend to say more here about the Toronto Blessing which I mentioned in the quoted passage.

I don’t think Adrian’s teachers at “King Edward VI Grammer School” (which is one of the top state schools in the country) would be proud of his spelling of the name of the school!