Raised with Christ: Review part 8 and conclusion

Posted on by
Reply

This is the concluding part 8 of my review of Adrian Warnock’s book Raised with Christ, which I started here – part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7.

Adrian concludes his book with two chapters about how the resurrection gives Christians hope for the future.

In chapter 18 he looks at the future hope for individual believers. He notes how this helps us to endure difficulties in this life. But he rejects how

many Christians associate “going to heaven to be with Jesus when we die” with a disembodied “spiritual” resurrection. (p.243)

He also rejects the idea of “soul sleep”, noting that “Our spirits are already with Christ in heaven” (p.244, citing Ephesians 2:6) and suggesting that after the death of the body

We remain distinct, aware beings, but in heaven we still await our eternal destiny of a physical resurrection. When we die we only become aware of what is already true of us. (p.245)

The very same bodies that are placed in our tombs will one day rise again. … We will, however, be changed from being weak, frail, and mortal into being glorious and eternal. (p.246)

In passing Adrian quotes Spurgeon agreeing with me that resurrection bodies have blood (p.243).

In his concluding chapter 19 Adrian moves on to the broader hope of the “The Resurrection of All Things”. He looks at the renewal of creation without death. associated with “the actual revealing of the resurrected children of God” (p.250). Thus he answers the question of where our resurrection bodies will live, which (in agreement with N.T. Wright’s view) will not be in heaven as popularly understood:

in the new creation heaven will be a place on earth as the heavenly Jerusalem descends. We will live on earth with renewed bodies … (p.252)

Adrian then looks at the judgment to come at the return of Christ. He ignores controversial issues of chronology as he describes three possible outcomes: condemnation, leading to real pain, but not for Christians; being saved “as through fire”; and rewards for those who have been faithful.

The last section of the chapter is a look at the kingdom of God, which is eternal, but already present now, as

God himself is living inside us! We experience the power and presence of a Jesus who is living, active, and doing things today. …  The kingdom really is now and not yet! (p.259)

We have already been raised with Christ, and yet we are waiting for the final day when our bodies will be resurrected with Christ. (p.261)

Adrian may have in mind some of his more conservative and “cessationist” Reformed friends when he writes:

It is sobering that Paul warned us that in the last days there would be people “having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power” (2 Timothy 3:5). I trust that none of us deny the power of Jesus’ resurrection to work in our lives and change us. But I hope that as we have been studying this subject, we are now more desperate than ever to see his transforming power at work, changing everything in our lives and in those around us. (p.261)

Adrian fittingly closes the book by quoting Ephesians 1:17-21 as a prayer for his readers.

I nearly wrote that I was pleasantly surprised by “Raised with Christ”. I was certainly pleased by it. But I wasn’t really surprised to find that Adrian could put aside the sometimes polemical tone he uses on his “blog” and write something as well argued and positive as this book. As I would expect it is not at a high academic level, and this occasionally comes through in minor weaknesses in the argument. But this ensures that the book is accessible to ordinary people with a reasonable education.

The only significant reservations I have are really because, as an Arminian charismatic suspicious of much “Reformed” evangelicalism, I do not fit into Adrian’s target audience. That is why I found somewhat grating the way in which he keeps quoting Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, and Piper, as well as older Puritans. But I know that for Adrian’s intended audience of Reformed readers, “cessationist” as well as charismatic, these are the traditionally accepted authorities, and so it is important for Adrian’s case to show that these preachers and writers support it.

I would thoroughly recommend this book to anyone whose background is “Reformed” or conservative evangelical and whose faith seems to be somewhat doctrine-centred and dry. In fact I can think of people I might like to give it to. I would think that anyone like that who read this book would find it acceptable – and if they then took its message to heart their faith would be transformed. I hope and pray that God uses the book in this way to revitalise many Christian lives.

I made it into the Bibliobloggers Top 50!

Posted on by
4

Yes! I made it into the Bibliobloggers Top 50 for February! I jumped to #35, with an Alexa rank of 1001510. This is up from #102 in January, as I reported here, with an Alexa rank of 2591564.

What made the difference? Well, no doubt some linking to popular blogs helped my cause, and being linked to by some of them probably helped even more. But more to the point is that for the first time in several months I have actually been blogging regularly, nearly every day in February (except Sundays when I usually take a deliberate break) with a total of 37 posts in the month.

In fact the number of visitors to this blog has increased in every one of the last nine weeks, from a low of 472 in Christmas week to 1518 in the last week of February. This is back to the levels of last October, before my wedding got in the way of my blogging. Of the 1518, 527 were visits to my blog home page. These figures exclude those who read my posts through RSS etc feeds, or on Facebook where they appear as notes.

Of course another reason for my increased rankings is that I deliberately chose some controversial subjects. In the first week of February I took on atheists (149 views in 27 days) and Roman Catholics (40 views in 26 days). In the second week I took on Calvinists about faith as a gift (81 views in 21 days) and made my first foray against Reform (106 views in 20 days). I started the third week by moving my attack on Reform up a notch by accusing them of hypocrisy (190 views in 14 days), followed by a first update on Michael Reid (54 views in 13 days) and a report of Benny Hinn’s divorce (56 views in 10 days). Then in the fourth week I scooped the blogosphere with the news that Michael Reid had lost his unfair dismissal claim (52 views in 7 days), and started a discussion on “husband of one wife” (71 views in 7 days) which is still continuing.

Meanwhile since 10th February I have been continuing my review series on Adrian Warnock’s book Raised with Christ (233 views between the 7 parts so far, probably just one more part to come).

The last few days of the month were quieter, partly because I was busy with other things. But it is also interesting that there is much less interest when I try to be conciliatory rather than controversial, as in this post (15 views in 5 days). Perhaps this is one reason why I tend to write rather controversially – although I try to do so not with hostility but with Christian love.

Will this increased activity and higher ratings continue in March? I have started the new month with another controversial post. But I don’t know if I have the energy to keep this up, or the continuing flow of new ideas – although most of my posts are quick reactions to what I read elsewhere. Also my real non-virtual life may be getting busier, which could put a brake on things.

So in March I may even make it into Alexa’s top million blogs, which I was just 1510 places outside in February. At least I think that’s what their numbers mean. Or maybe this blog will just start to gradually fade away again.

Can I honestly say that I don’t care about these ratings? I would like to – but then it is nice to be popular and to feel that people are taking seriously, or at least reading, what I write.

"Husband of one wife" was not used of women, it seems

Posted on by
31

There has been recent controversy, starting with Don Johnson’s comment here at Gentle Wisdom, also in this comment and following ones in a long thread at Parchment and Pen, concerning what the Australian author Bruce Fleming wrote about the biblical phrase generally translated “husband of one wife”. This phrase is found in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 as a qualification for overseers and for elders respectively. Its use in these verses is commonly cited as an argument that women cannot be church leaders, as of course they cannot be husbands.

Unfortunately the details of what Fleming wrote do not support everything they have been claimed to support. There is no evidence that the phrase translated “husband of one wife” was used of women as well of men.

Nevertheless, and independently of Fleming’s argument, this phrase should not be understood as not allowing women to lead churches. Some years ago I argued this, in my series The Scholarly and Fundamentalist Approaches to the Bible, and last week I noted that Bill Mounce confirms it. In the course of my earlier argument I referred to what Bruce Fleming had written about this phrase. In particular I looked at what he wrote about the view of the late French Bible scholar Lucien Deiss. But I did not rely on this passage for my argument because I could not confirm what Fleming had written.

Here I quote again, for easy reference, the passage from Fleming:

The second qualification in the list deals with the overseer’s married life. Careful research has shown that this qualification means that whether one is a husband or a wife it is important to be a “faithful spouse.” It requires that an overseer, if married, be faithful and be “a one-spouse kind of person.”According to Lucien Deiss (notes to the French Bible, the TOB, Edition Intégrale, p. 646, note a), this Greek phrase was used in Asia Minor, on both Jewish and pagan gravestone inscriptions, to designate a woman or a man, who was faithful to his or her spouse in a way characterized by “a particularly fervent conjugal love.”

When I read Deiss’ comment about how this phrase was used on ancient grave inscriptions in Turkey, where Paul and Timothy ministered, I confirmed it with him myself, reaching him by telephone in Vaucresson, France.

Some might find this insight into 1 Timothy 3:2 surprising because modern versions of the Bible translate this Greek phrase as – “husband of one wife” – making this qualification appear to be restricted to men only! Instead, rightly understood, this qualification is about faithfulness in marriage by a Christian spouse. It is not saying that oversight is “for men only.”

In his comment here last week Don Johnson again quoted the very same passage. I replied regretting that what Deiss wrote, and said to Fleming on the telephone, had not been confirmed. I doubt if it is a coincidence that the next day TL brought up the same subject at Parchment and Pen. I presume it is the same TL who has now commented on this matter here at Gentle Wisdom, suggesting that we “get the original statement that Lucein Deiss wrote”.

At first I thought that this would be a problem. The French Bible version TOB, Edition Intégrale, is available at amazon.fr (thanks to the blogger at Blog by-the-sea for this link), but I didn’t want to pay €57.00 for this 3000 page book.

But then I discovered an online edition of this Bible (link from here, a long list of Bibles and related resources in French). These are page images, and so include all the original matter with the original pagination – although there does seem to be some inconsistency between the page numbers on the images and that in the table of contents. But there have been many editions of this work, perhaps with slightly different pagination. The online version is the 10th edition (2004); amazon.fr is offering the 11th edition (2008).

I turned first to the cited page 646 (of over 3000 in this book). This turns out to be from the text of 2 Samuel, and not surprisingly there is nothing relevant in the text or footnotes here. This page number must be an error in Fleming’s book – or perhaps it refers to a New Testament only edition of TOB.

Then I found the footnote on 1 Timothy 3:2, on the words mari d’une seule femme (“husband of only one wife”). It seems that this is what Fleming was quoting. Here is the full footnote text in French:

Selon les commentateurs, l’apôtre viserait l’inconduite (mais cela n’allait-il pas de soi qu’il faille s’en abstenir ?), ou bien il interdirait le remariage après veuvage, ou encore il s’en prendrait au fait de répudier sa femme pour en épouser une autre (cf. Mc 10,1-11 par.). Mais on peut aussi entendre les expressions mari d’une seule femme ou femme d’un seul mari (cf. 1 Tm 5,9), expressions que l’on rencontre dans les inscriptions juives et païennes, dans le sens d’un amour conjugal particulièrement fervant. (p.2915 of the 2004 edition)

I understand the gist of this, but not enough to offer a definitive translation. The first sentence summarises the various views of commentators. The second sentence means something like:

But one can also understand the expressions husband of only one wife or wife of only one husband (cf. 1 Timothy 5:9), expressions which one encounters in Jewish and pagan inscriptions, in the sense of a particularly fervent conjugal love.

On the same expression in Titus 1:6 and the reversed expression in 1 Timothy 5:9 there are footnotes referring back to this one on 1 Timothy 3:2.

This footnote is clearly where Fleming found the words “a particularly fervent conjugal love.” But it does not quite say what Fleming seems to have taken it to say, or at least what some other interpreters have taken Fleming to say.

Deiss (if he indeed wrote this footnote) was referring not only to the expression in 1 Timothy 3:2 mias gunaikos aner (this is in fact the nominative case of the expression, as in Titus 1:6; in 1 Timothy the accusative of this is found), literally “man of one woman”, but also to the reversed expression in 5:9, henos andros gune, “woman of one man”. What Deiss wrote is entirely consistent with what scholars of Greek would expect, that the former expression is used of a man who showed “a particularly fervent conjugal love” and the latter of a woman who showed this. It is I believe well documented that these expressions are used in inscriptions, of men and women respectively. If Deiss had intended to say anything different and unexpected, he would surely have made that clear.

What some interpreters have understood Fleming to be claiming is that the former expression, mias gunaikos aner “man of one woman”, was used on inscriptions of women as well as of men, and so should be understood as a gender generic expression. If this is what Deiss meant, and confirmed to Fleming by telephone, he certainly didn’t make it clear in his footnote. And neither Deiss nor Fleming seems to have offered any evidence that mias gunaikos aner was ever used of a woman. To be fair to Fleming, the quoted passage, which I have never seen in a wider context, does not make an explicit claim to this effect, although it does seem to indicate it.

Perhaps the most charitable explanation I can come to here is that there was a misunderstanding between Deiss and Fleming because of the language barrier between them. So I would think that, unless Fleming can come up with some specific evidence, we must conclude that the phrase translated “husband of one wife” was not used of women and was probably not understood as gender generic.

But this by no means proves that church leaders must be male. To quote again Bill Mounce from my post last week,

the lists show us the type of person who can be in leadership.

They do not offer detailed rules. And so “husband of one wife” should not be understood as specifying that no overseer or elder may be unmarried, or divorced and remarried, or polygamous, or lacking “a particularly fervent conjugal love”, or female. Rather, the decision on who to appoint should be based on the general principles laid down by the apostle as interpreted in the specific cultural context. In first century Ephesus and Crete women church leaders may have been inappropriate. That doesn’t mean that the same applies in 21st century Europe and North America.

Raised with Christ: Review part 7

Posted on by
Reply

This is now part 7 of my review of Adrian Warnock’s book Raised with Christ, which I started here – part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6.

Chapters 15 and 16, which have been written as one long chapter, are central to the book in that they take it beyond theoretical teaching to show the effect that the resurrection should have on the lives of Christians. Here Adrian teaches that we, his readers, should have a relationship with the risen Jesus, including assurance that God loves us and an experience of the Holy Spirit.

Adrian illustrates this in terms which his intended readership can appreciate, with examples and quotations from older Puritans and from recent Reformed writers. He shows how these people rejected dead orthodoxy and experienced a real relationship with Jesus. He rejoices that

In recent years in many churches there has been a coming together of a love of the Bible and a desire to know God personally. (p.205)

In all this Adrian navigates skilfully through the various controversies connected with the charismatic movement. He avoids one issue:

Unfortunately, over the last few decades the controversy about whether or not the gifts of the Spirit are for today has largely obscured the more fundamental question – are Christians today able to experience a truly personal relationship with Jesus? (p.196, emphasis in the original)

But later on Adrian tackles head on the issue over terms like “baptism with the Holy Spirit”, “sealing with the Spirit” and “receiving the Spirit”, arguing against many conservative evangelicals that all of these refer to an experience which may follow conversion. With the help of quotations from John Piper and Martyn Lloyd-Jones, he thoroughly demolishes the arguments that Christians fully receive the Holy Spirit at conversion and that his primary role is to bring people to faith. Rather, he argues, receiving the Holy Spirit is a conscious experience, and may come after someone starts to believe. He writes that

Jesus died in order that we might taste heaven even here on earth. That is the role of the Spirit when we are aware of him at work in our lives. He is a gift, or foretaste, given to believers until the day comes when we are finally reunited fully with Christ. (p.219)

(Oddly, no mention here that Jesus rose again.) Christians who have received the Spirit

have been given a tangible awareness of God’s love and empowering presence as a reality in their lives. (p.221)

This seems to be what Adrian means by having a relationship with the risen Jesus. He is not denying that

Becoming a Christian is actually a secret act of the Spirit in regenerating us and joining us to Christ and imparting faith to us. … However, … it would be wrong for us to insist that we have experienced the Spirit in all his fullness automatically. (p.223)

He then points out the danger for all believers of thinking that they “got it all” in the past, whether at conversion or at some subsequent experience, with the result that

we miss out on the repeated times of blessing and refreshing that God wants to pour out on us. (pp.223-224)

So, he says, we should ask the Holy Spirit to come on us and fill us.

In the course of his argument Adrian manages to make the same mistake that I pointed out here in a preacher at my own church. He writes:

… faith in God (which from Ephesians 2 we know is itself a work of the Spirit) … (p.215)

No, Adrian, Ephesians 2 does not teach this. That is clear from the Greek, but even your favourite ESV doesn’t actually say quite this. Read what I wrote. Now you may be able to get this teaching from elsewhere in the Bible, perhaps even from Galatians 5:6 which I have been discussing (see the long comment thread), but not from Ephesians 2. This of course illustrates the danger of offering authoritative written teaching without a proper theological education.

In chapter 17 Adrian points out that

We did not accept Jesus to selfishly enjoy all the benefits of salvation. We have a job to do. (p.227)

That job is “Our Mission from the Risen Jesus”. Part of this is described as “to be full of God”:

Many of us seem to show by our conversations that we are more excited about the latest iPhone than we are about Jesus. … As we become excited about Jesus and begin sharing him with others, we will receive still more joy and satisfaction from him. (pp.227-228)

While much of what Adrian writes about mission is standard evangelical material, he does bring in the resurrection:

When called to do so, we can undertake brave projects that are so large, we will need miraculous assistance to complete them. What shall we do that would be impossible if Jesus was not alive? … Because the tomb is empty and Jesus is on the throne, we will also be victorious irrespective of what is happening in today’s world. (p.229)

Adrian then starts to “explore the changes that Jesus’ resurrection can make to our local churches” (p.233): joy in our meetings; love seen by outsiders; works of mercy; and we will no longer be ashamed of the gospel. He closes the chapter with a reminder that it is the risen Jesus who sent us out, who “provides the power we need to equip us for service” (p.235), and has promised to be with us for ever.

Concluded in Part 8.

When it does matter how we say "Jesus"

Posted on by
Reply

A couple of days ago I asked, Does it matter how we pronounce Jesus’ or God’s name? My answer was a qualified “No”, and that

when speaking English, we would do best to stick with “Jesus”.

But I realised as soon as I had written this that there were good reasons for making exceptions to this rule, in English and in other languages which already have a well-known pronunciation of the name. And those exceptions are basically when that well-known pronunciation is somehow unacceptable or scandalous to the particular audience it is being used to address.

This is presumably a large part of the reason why Messianic Jews, when speaking English, tend to avoid the name “Jesus”, and use instead the Hebrew form “Yeshua” or some variant. People who have been brought up as Jews have been conditioned to have a negative reaction to the name “Jesus”, so often used by their persecutors. So it is not surprising, and very sensible, that believers in Jesus from this background prefer to use a different form of the name, which is less of a stumbling block for them, and for the unbelieving Jews they seek to witness to. I have no objection to this practice – as long as there is a recognition that they are believers in the same Jesus as all true Christians, just using a different name.

In practice Messianic Jews, and others influenced by them, tend to use Hebrew forms not only of the name of Jesus but also of other biblical characters. Thus Jacob in the Old Testament and James in the New both become “Ya’akov” or similar. There are several versions of the Bible in English which use Hebrew names in this way: Stern’s Complete Jewish Bible which I know slightly; the Hebrew Names Version of the World English Bible, which in  fact doesn’t use Hebrew names for Old Testament characters, only for a few New Testament ones including “Yeshua”; and others which I found mentioned at a Wikipedia page.

This principle which applies to Jews and Jewish background believers applies also to adherents and former adherents of other religions – and especially to Muslims and Muslim background believers, an issue mentioned on this blog in this recent comment, and in this post and this one from over a year ago.

Muslims have a high regard for Jesus Christ, considering him to be a prophet second only to Muhammad. But most of them know him under the name “Isa (al-)Masih”, an Arabic form clearly derived from the Hebrew and Greek for “Jesus the Messiah”. However, other forms of the name “Jesus” are known and used by Christian minorities in some Muslim majority countries, for example, Yasu among Christian Arabs, a similar form among Urdu-speaking Pakistani Christians, and the Russian Iisus in Central Asia. Also of course in other countries, in Europe, North America etc, Muslim minorities using the form “Isa” live among nominally Christian peoples using the local form of “Jesus”. These Christian forms of the name are not recognised or accepted by Muslims as referring to their Isa, but instead are understood as referring to one of the idols (i.e. statues or icons) which traditional Christians are understood to worship.

It is therefore for very good reasons that Muslim background Christian believers often prefer to use the Islamic form “Isa”, rather than the form of “Jesus” used by traditional Christians in their language. This is especially helpful for them in their conversations with Muslims – including in protecting them from persecution for becoming “idolaters”.

In several languages used in Muslim majority countries special editions of the Bible have been prepared, or are in progress, which are designed to be acceptable to Muslims. For example, The Eastern Russian Scriptures Translation, published in 2003, was

designed for Central Asians and other nationalities of the former Soviet Union who read best in Russian and belong to ethnic groups traditionally considered Islamic.

Among the distinctives of this translation was

the careful attention given to the … forms of the names of central figures.

Not surprisingly one of the many resulting changes is to use Isa rather than Iisus for Jesus.

I don’t know if there is a similar Bible in English designed for a Muslim audience. But I suspect that Christian witness to many of the millions of English-speaking Muslims around the world would be considerably enhanced if the name “Isa” were used instead of “Jesus”.

What kind of political animal are you?

Posted on by
Reply

I thank the Church Times blog for a link to SUSA, which is a new initiative “led by Bible Society with support from 24-7 Prayer” with the vision

To encourage and equip Christians in the UK to become more extensively and effectively engaged in politics and government.

On the SUSA front page you can take a light-hearted quiz “What kind of political animal are you?”, with questions which allow readers to

create your virtual cabinet and find out how your faith and politics match up!

I took the test, with questions which really made me think, for example about how far it is the government’s job to uphold moral standards. I ended up with a personal “cabinet” consisting of Tony Blair, Che Guevara and Bono! Presumably my views are supposed to line up with theirs. I also received a report complete with cute cartoons of my cabinet members, as well as with a personalised list of recommended resources – you may be able to see it here.

But, better than reading my report, take the test for yourself – and let me know in the comments who is in your cabinet.

Does it matter how we pronounce Jesus' or God's name?

Posted on by
Reply

A Facebook friend writes:

some people in our church have recently been insisting on pronouncing Jesus’ name in the Hebrew tongue, something like Yesu. They believe this is important …

He doesn’t agree, but he asks for my thoughts on the matter. What follows is an edited and expanded version of my Facebook reply to him. I have widened the issue to cover also pronunciation of God’s name, the Tetragrammaton.

I don’t see any biblical warrant for Christians worrying about exactly how to pronounce Jesus’ name or God’s name. When we are told to pray etc in God’s name or in Jesus’ name, that doesn’t mean that we have to pronounce the actual sounds of either name as a kind of magic spell. So while the pronunciations of the name vary from language to language (the Greek form of “Jesus” is very different from the Hebrew form), and the precise Hebrew pronunciation of the divine name (the tetragrammaton) is unknown, that really doesn’t matter.

What praying etc in God’s name or in Jesus’ name does mean is that we are claiming the authority that we have from God through Jesus. It is like when an ambassador or a government official does something in the name of the Queen or of their President. That is nothing to do with pronouncing the Queen’s or the President’s name. What it means is that the ambassador or official is acting under the authority vested in them by the Queen or President. Similarly we are ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20) and so we can act and make pronouncements “in his name”, meaning by the authority vested in us by him.

Note that this authority is held by all Christians, not only by pastors, teachers or even apostles. It is not authority over other people. But it is authority to declare the word of God and to make the appeal to others “be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20). Similarly when we pray in Jesus’ name we have this authority, and so when we ask for anything in his name and for his glory he will do it for us (John 14:13-14).

God will understand the intentions of our heart whatever name we call him. But what does matter is that what we say is understood by the humans we are speaking to. So while it is not a big deal to use “Yeshua” or something else instead of “Jesus”, it is likely to confuse the people we talk to, who even in the secularised western world have some idea of who Jesus is. So in our language, especially to outsiders and all the more when appealing to them “be reconciled to God”, we need to speak so that we will be understood. That probably means that, when speaking English, we would do best to stick with “Jesus”.

More details on Michael Reid losing unfair dismissal claim

Posted on by
Reply

More details have now emerged about how Bishop Michael Reid lost his claim for unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal, as I reported in brief on Monday. The new details are in an article just published online by the local newspaper the Brentwood Gazette. This is also the top article at the Gazette’s online front page, and is likely to be on the front page of tomorrow’s print edition.

The main new information in the Gazette article is what the tribunal chairman said:

Tribunal chairman Michael Haynes said as he threw out the claim: “His admitted adultery was entirely contrary to the ethos of the church.

“He was the leader of the respondents, a Bishop in their church and it is not unreasonable to expect such a person, and the figurehead of the organisation, to comply with the same high standards of conduct which he proposes for others.

“He has shown throughout the correspondence, and at the various hearings before us, no repentance for what he has done, which appears to be an entire contravention of what he purports to believe in.”

The chairman continued: “Such a breach of confidence by the most senior person is a most serious matter and a reasonable employer in those circumstances would consider that dismissal was an appropriate option.”

It is heartening to see this tribunal upholding the principle, under attack from the current UK government, that an employee of a church, at least one in a senior position, can be expected to conform to the “high standards of conduct” taught by that church.

The church’s lawyer said:

“My client took no pleasure in the situation but ended up having to take part in this litigation because Michael Reid refused to comply with a more conciliatory approach to dealing with these matters.”

Reid may now be regretting his refusal, because that “more conciliatory approach” included an offer of £500,000 in settlement of their claims, according to this 2008 article in the same newspaper. Now he and his wife will not see a penny of compensation.

It also seems that they will have to leave their luxury house, which is owned by the church and next to its main building. That will be a relief to the church, which will be able to get on with its own life without having Reid watching their every move from next door. The Reids could have bought a nice new home for the £500,000 they were offered, but now they will be homeless – although I doubt if they will be penniless.

At least they have not yet received “the wages of sin” (Romans 6:23). I wonder if they will ultimately show enough repentance and humility to accept “the free gift of God … eternal life”.

Positive discussions among evangelicals about women leaders

Posted on by
Reply

In recent weeks on this blog, and elsewhere, for example at the Ugley Vicar, the picture may have been given that evangelicals, and others, in the Church of England are at all-out war with one another over the prospect of women being accepted as bishops. It is of course regrettable when Christians fight among themselves in public – although for some of us the continuing marginalisation of women in the church is an even greater scandal.

So I was pleased this morning to find a report of some positive discussions on this issue (PDF) (also available here, as HTML). The meeting described here, held in January, was one of a series between representatives of Reform (including Carrie Sandom who I mentioned here before) and of AWESOME (Anglican Women Evangelicals: Supporting our Ordained Ministry), a network of ordained Anglican women. At the meeting there were also some high-powered theological advisers.

The report states:

Our focus was mainly but not exclusively on issues of biblical theology, exegesis and hermeneutics rather than current political issues relating to women bishops.

Nevertheless it is an important contribution towards the current debate as it seeks to ensure that this issue does not drive a wedge into evangelical unity within the C of E:

We believe it is important that evangelicals in the Church of England with different understandings of Scripture’s teaching and divergent views on women presbyters and bishops should treat each other as evangelicals and Anglicans. The experience of AWESOME and other bodies within evangelicalism shows that differences here need not prevent us working together in the cause of the gospel as brothers and sisters in Christ who are committed evangelicals and Anglicans.

In order to accomplish this we believe more sustained discussions must continue between evangelicals, especially on the practical and pastoral implications of our differences in the life of both the local and the national church. We need to be clearer as to the patterns of evangelical love towards those with whom we disagree and how our views can be held while recognising others as evangelicals seeking faithfully to obey Scripture.

Indeed. But this whole process is threatened by inflammatory actions and blog posts from Reform members – and perhaps by inflammatory reactions like mine from those on the other side!

I found the report through the website of the Church of England Evangelical Council. I see that they are holding elections for their council members, and that nominations close this week. I understand that at least one of the candidates seeking re-election is a prominent and somewhat strident opponent of women leadership in the church. This may be a chance to nominate candidates who take a more conciliatory line. As a member of the Chelmsford Diocesan Evangelical Association I am eligible to nominate or second a candidate – but I will not accept nomination myself.

Raised with Christ: Review part 6

Posted on by
Reply

Sorry for some delay to the continuation of this series. I have been busy blogging on other matters, both here and at Better Bibles Blog.

As I write part 6 of this review of Adrian Warnock’s book Raised with Christ, which I started here – part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, I note Adrian’s report that the book has now been launched in the UK, although not all Christian bookshops yet have it in stock.

In chapter 11 of the book Adrian writes that in response to the resurrection we Christians should let ourselves be transformed to live holy lives, not to earn salvation but in response to it.

By gazing on the resurrected Jesus we will be transformed and will find that Jesus himself is at work within us, changing our appetites and desires. (p.148)

Our biggest problem is that we do not see Jesus as he is. (p.149)

Adrian argues that how we should see him is not still as the one suffering on the cross but as the resurrected one. He continues by looking at the two picture of the risen Christ in Revelation chapters 1 and 19. As we see him as he is, the appropriate reaction is “reverence, awe and wonder” (p.156), but not terror, because we belong to him.

In chapter 12 Adrian moves on from the individual to the corporate, and discusses revival, times when “the church seems to be resurrected from a state of near-deadness” (p.160). He writes that “Today we do not speak much about revival” (p.160). That may be true in his circles, but in some of the circles I move in there is never-ending talk about revivals – history of past ones, rumours of present ones, and hopes of future ones. So it is interesting to see Adrian’s take on this matter. For him

Revival is nothing more than a wide-scale outworking of Jesus’ resurrection power. … “a powerful intensification by Jesus of the Holy Spirit’s normal activity.” … the Spirit of revival is always available to us. Thus, when a revival comes, we should recognize it as a greater manifestation of normal Christianity. (p.161, quoting Stuart Piggin with Adrian’s emphasis)

If we experience personal revival and it begins to spread, then, history suggests, church growth will result. (p.162)

In other words, revival is not something exceptional which we should just long for, but is what should come about if we as Christians are individually revived and live in the light of that. Adrian illustrates his point from stories of revival in Acts and in church history. He also points out that

Today, from a global perspective, we are seeing the largest revival the world has ever seen. (p.166)

He remembers how as a teenager he was involved in a mini-revival which I was also on the edge of, and which I talked about in one of my first posts here. He avoids commenting on controversial recent “revivals” in North America, with effects around the world, such as the Toronto Blessing and the Lakeland outpouring. But he does agree with the expectation of many of those who talk about revival today:

There is biblical warrant to optimistically expect a global end time revival before Jesus returns. (p.167)

This leads Adrian into chapter 13, “Reviving Prayer”, which he calls “potentially the most important chapter in this whole book.” (p.169) He recognises how revival always follows special seasons of prayer – but Christians are expected to do God’s work as well as pray.

However, I was a little concerned at Adrian’s suggestion that some particular kind of prayer will produce revival, and that the prayers of Elijah, as commended in James 5:16-18, are the best model for that. Certainly there is a lot to be learned from what Adrian has to say about Elijah at prayer, but I’m not sure why he links this to revival. Also he fails to recognise that 1 Kings 17:1 is a record that Elijah “prayed fervently that it might not rain”, that this kind of declaration in God’s name is a part of prayer. Perhaps, applying to revival what I concluded here, if our prayers were a little less “Please, God, send revival, if it is your will” and a bit more “As the Lord lives there will be revival” (at least if we have heard from God that this is his intention), we might see a bit more of the revival.

In chapter 14, “God’s Reviving Word”, Adrian finishes the part of his book about revival with a look at how God speaks today, primarily through preaching and by speaking personally through his written word. Adrian’s emphasis on how God’s word is alive is a welcome contrast to the picture which sometimes comes out of the Reformed camp, of the Bible as a collection of lifeless propositional truths to be analysed and synthesised into a sound theology. Adrian illustrates his understanding with a selection of verses from Psalm 119. He concludes with:

We must learn to feast on God’s Word and to drink in his presence through prayer. If we want to be connected to the power made available to us through Jesus’ resurrection, God’s Word and prayer are the most effective tools we can use to access that power. (p.194)

Continued in part 7.