wordandspirit

Apologies for the lack of posts on this blog in recent months. Since the birth of our fifth child (Anna-Rose) in March, I have had less time than usual for reading and blogging. However, I don’t want to completely abandon the blog, so I’m going to attempt to post a series of thoughts on Psalm 119, which I have been studying recently.

Psalm 119 is of course famous for being the longest chapter in the Bible, with 176 verses – 8 for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The other interesting thing about this Psalm is that the dominant theme is God’s law. The word and commands of God are the Psalmist’s delight and obsession, the focal point around which his whole life revolves.

This poses something of a dilema as we try to interpret this Psalm though. Isn’t the New Covenant about grace triumphing over law? At first glance this Psalm can seem like a celebration of legalism. For example, consider the first four verses:

¹ Blessed are those whose ways are blameless,
who walk according to the law of the LORD.
² Blessed are those who keep his statutes
and seek him with all their heart—
³ they do no wrong
but follow his ways.
⁴ You have laid down precepts
that are to be fully obeyed.

We’re told here that there is a blessing for those who are (a) blameless, (b) wholehearted in seeking God, (c) do nothing wrong, and (d) obey every one of God’s laws fully. I don’t know about you, but that rules me out of receiving this blessing. But that’s not quite the end of the story. Verse 5 and 6 is an honest prayer from the Psalmist who knows that he is not always uncompromisingly obedient:

⁵ Oh, that my ways were steadfast
in obeying your decrees!
⁶ Then I would not be put to shame
when I consider all your commands.

He responds to this by making a personal resolution. He promises to (a) worship, (b) learn God’s rules and (c) obey them:

⁷ I will praise you with an upright heart
as I learn your righteous laws.
⁸ I will obey your decrees;
do not utterly forsake me.

Now we might be tempted to summarise Psalm 119:1-8 like this: “There is blessing for those who obey God, but ‘shame’ for those who don’t; therefore I will try really hard to obey and hope God doesn’t abandon me.” But that would do an injustice to the Psalmist, for reasons I will hopefully get onto if this series doesn’t come to a premature end. Suffice for now to say that for the Psalmist, obedience is primarily an expression of love not a fulfilment of a duty or an insurance policy for judgment day.

But I wonder too if there might be something prophetic about the opening section of this Psalm. In verse 8, the Psalmist prays that God won’t “forsake” him. It draws my mind to Mark 15:34, where Jesus cries out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”. The irony is that Jesus was the only one that Ps 119:1-4 truly describes. He is the only one who was completely blameless, was devoted to seeking God, did nothing whatsoever wrong, and fully obeyed every one of God’s laws. But instead of receiving blessing for it, he was put to shame and forsaken at the cross. He lived the blameless life we could not. He was forsaken in order that we might be accepted.

Psalm 119:1-4 then, is not about an unobtainable blessing, but about a blessing that has already been made available to us through God’s grace. And it does not describe a life that we are obligated but unable to live, but rather one that we are free and empowered to live by the Spirit. It is not about earning God’s favour through your blameless life, but enjoying God’s favour earned by Jesus’ blameless life.

I had a browse through some of the search terms that people typed into Google to arrive at my site. Its mostly the same old stuff that has been generating most of my visits for the last 6 years (for some reason Google considers me to be an authority on the parable of the wise and foolish builders). But I always love it when people get here by typing in a question. It somehow makes me feel obligated to provide a reply. So here’s my brief answers to a few of your questions:

Are Newfrontiers a Cult?

There are a surprisingly large number of visitors who arrive at my blog asking this question (or a variation on the theme). Let me answer it for you. No, newfrontiers are not a cult.

In terms of belief, they hold to orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. They hold to no obscure or unique doctrines that are not also shared by many other Christians. In addition, they are not exclusivist, and often work in partnership with other groups of churches (particularly within the evangelical tradition). The leader, Terry Virgo, is not worshipped, nor does he exercise an authoritarian control over the churches – it may come as a surprise to some to note that not all newfrontiers church leaders share his doctrinal distinctives (for example plenty of the newfrontiers pastors in my area are not “reformed”).

Another concern people have over cults is that they are very difficult to leave, or that they attempt to exercise strict control over every aspect of people’s private lives. Neither of these are the case in newfrontiers churches. I am sure that regrettably there are from time to time instances of heavy-handed leadership, but no more so than in other groups of churches (or indeed any business or human organization).

Does the Spirit of God always agree with the Word of God?

Yes. Don’t believe a prophetic message that contradicts the Bible.

Is marriage a sexist view?

No.

Matt Hosier women preachers?

I’m not entirely sure what this question means, but I think the answer is no. To clarify, Matt Hosier is not a woman but he is a preacher. I’ll leave it to him to state his position on women preachers. He does like Twilight though. No wonder he made it onto the false teacher list.

What does shala ba ba mean in tongues?

I’m afraid I don’t have the interpretation. Possibly it means something like “I just really wanna…”

Where to buy sweetheart by driscoll?

Nice to see that someone fell for my April Fool! If you’re wondering what my top post of 2010 was, that was it, by a very large margin.

This post is just to raise a question about hermeneutics. How much weight should be put on the historic interpretation of a passage by the church, when you are trying to ascertain it’s meaning? In other words, does it matter if no one in the early church interpreted the passage the way you do? What if your interpretation first appeared at the 1600s, or in the early 1900s, or maybe even in this millennium?

For example, some argue that the “coming of the Son of Man” language in the eschatological discourses of the Synoptic gospels (e.g. Matt 16:27-28; Matt 24:27,30,37; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27) refers not to the “second coming” of Jesus, but rather to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. Obviously before coming to a conclusion we would want to perform all the usual and proper hermeneutical steps, checking that we have correctly translated the passage, considered its context, examined Old Testament allusions and parallel passages etc. But suppose you came to the conclusion that the preterist interpretation was the most plausible exegetically. Would it matter whether or not there was any record of the early church expounding these texts to say that these prophecies had been fulfilled in AD70?

The actual exegetical issue I am currently considering is a different one, but it illustrates the problem. How much of a red flag is it that your interpretation is a novel one? Let me know what you think in the comments.

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. Jas 1:27

It has become fashionable in recent years for evangelicals to say bad things about “religion”, about how Jesus came to save us from “religion” and that “religion sucks”. Whilst I understand the sentiment, I have always felt slightly uneasy with this way of speaking precisely because of this verse. James is not against religion per se, but he does recognise that there is good religion and bad religion.

There is a particularly neat balance to James’s brief description of pure religion. It is described positively (what we must do) and negatively (what we must avoid).

First, pure religion is expressed in social action on behalf of the needy. It is interesting that instead of suggesting financial donations to orphans and widows (which I am sure James would heartily have approved of), he suggests we get personally involved and visit them (other versions have “look after”, or “care for”, with the implication being that more than simply talking to them is in mind – see Jas 2:15-16). In other words, we are to take the initiative in personally helping the most needy and vulnerable in our society.

Second, pure religion is expressed in personal holiness. Whilst the first requirement he sets out rules out the option of retreating from the world, nevertheless James is aware that it is possible for a believer to become “stained”, through picking up the ungodly habits and attitudes of the world.

When I was researching the “emerging church” several years back, I noticed that one difference between emerging and more traditional evangelicals was how they conceived of holiness. Emergents saw it primarily in terms of social action. A holy person is one who cares for the poor, and they tend to be less concerned about that person’s swearing, smoking or sexual activity. By contrast conservative evangelicals tend to view holiness much more in terms of sin avoidance. Thus you can be considered “holy” by avoiding a long list of sins, but without ever lifting a finger to serve the needy.

James’ balanced definition of pure religion is therefore one worth pondering right across the spectrum of evangelicalism. If “religion” has a bad name, it is at least in part, our fault. The problem is not that the church has too much religion, but that it does not have true religion.

(Apologies that my attempt to do a series of posts on James kind of ran out of steam, but I had plenty planned so I’ll try to persevere, albeit more slowly than I had hoped)

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. (James 1:26)

In this verse, James describes someone who considers themself to be “religious” (this is not a negative term in James’s vocabulary, despite the way it is used today), and yet doesn’t keep control of their tongue. Such people are “self-deceived”, believing themselves to be “good” or “righteous” people, when in fact they are nothing of the sort.

But James doesn’t limit the category of self-deception to those who cannot control their tongues. It applies to anyone who hears the word but doesn’t put it into practice:

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. (James 1:22)

Does this mean that every Christian is self-deceived? After all, none of us succeeds in putting everything we read in God’s word in to practice. I think James has something more subtle in mind. Self-deception occurs when we think that the right response to God’s word is simply to agree with it, but excuse ourselves from actually acting on it. I know I can be guilty of this when I hear a particularly “challenging” sermon and say afterwards how wonderful I thought it was, but fail to make any real change.

By definition, the self-deceived person is not aware that they are self-deceived. So how can I know whether this warning applies to me? Is my religion “worthless”?

Actually, I don’t think there is a great danger of being “self-deceived”, so long as we aren’t afraid of a bit of healthy introspection. “Introspection” has got bad press in recent years, with some even going so far as saying that it runs contrary to the gospel, since we should look to Christ, not at ourselves.

Although Christ is indeed the ground of our justification, nevertheless Paul is quite happy to encourage us to “examine” and “test” ourselves (2 Cor 13:5). We need times where we attempt to look at our lives in a brutally honest and objective light, and ask what evidence we see of the Spirit of God at work in us. James is adamant (along with all the NT writers) that there will always be fruit that accompanies genuine conversion (James 2:14).

If we are not willing to take a proper look in the mirror (to use James’ analogy) and see what we are really like, then the chances are, we will fail to recognise just how much we need more of the Spirit of God in order that we may be transformed more into the image of Christ, and bear genuine fruit.

Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. Ps 139:23-24 NIV

But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. James 1:25

Laws forbid us from doing certain things, or command us to do things. By their very nature, therefore, they restrict our freedom to do whatever we like. So when James uses the phrase, “the law of liberty”, we might be tempted to think it is an oxymoron, a bit like saying “the chains of freedom”.

To understand this phrase, we first need to ask what “law” James is referring to. We might assume that he refers to the law of Moses, to the 10 commandments and the other rules and regulations of the Old Covenant. But commentators are broadly agreed that this is not in fact the case. Douglas Moo puts it like this:

James’s “law” does not refer to the law of Moses as such, but to the law of Moses as interpreted and supplemented by Christ.

In other words, James is referring to what we might call the “New Covenant law”, or the “law of Christ”. Elsewhere James calls it the “royal law” (James 2:8) and here in James 1:25 he calls it the “perfect law”. It is the law “written on our hearts” that Jeremiah prophesied (Jer 31:33). So the “law” essentially refers to God’s will for the way we are to live. It is as the Spirit fills us that we are given the three things we need to live according to this law:

1. The knowledge of what God’s will for our lives is
2. The desire to live in a way that is pleasing to God
3. The power to overcome sin and temptation and to do God’s will

But that still doesn’t full answer the original question. How is living this way “freedom”? The answer surely is that true freedom comes when we do what we were made to do. “Freedom” to sin isn’t freedom at all – in fact, Jesus makes plain that sin leads to the very opposite of freedom – slavery (John 8:34). The question for us is are we willing to believe this? The most liberating way of life that is possible is one that gladly submits to the gracious constraints of God’s law. What seems like a straightjacket to the carnal-minded person, is glorious freedom for the God-obsessed.

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. James 1:17-18

In James 1:17, James refers to God as “the Father of lights”. I never really understood why he used this unusual name for God here. But thanks to some insights from a few commentaries, it makes a bit more sense to me now.

“Father of lights” refers us back to creation, when God said “let there be light” (Gen 1:3) on the first day. Then on the fourth day God said “let there be lights” (Gen 1:14) such as the sun, moon and stars.

Instead of calling God “Creator”, which makes us think of the awesome power required to create a vast universe, James uses the name “Father of Lights” to point us to the perfection of God’s creation. This name underscores that everything God makes, everything he does, and everything he gives us is “good and perfect”.

Which I think helps make sense of another difficult phrase in verse 18, which speaks of us as the “firstfruits of his creatures”. James is picturing believers as the first parts of the new creation. And just as the first creation was good and perfect, so his new creation also is good and perfect. This is of course one of the great paradoxes of the Christian life – as a human being I am flawed and fallen, but as a new creation, I am “good and perfect”.

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. James 1:5-8 (ESV)

This passage talks about someone who needs wisdom. Perhaps they have a big decision to make. So they pray and ask God to give them wisdom. Now, I have always assumed the warning of verses 6-8 to mean that the person praying for wisdom is being punished for thinking “maybe God won’t answer my prayer, maybe he won’t give me wisdom”.

This interpretation could put you in a catch 22 situation if you are an introspective sort of person. Until you read this verse, you were confident you would get your request granted, but now you are not so sure, which more or less guarantees that it will be denied!

But I wonder if something else is going on. Most commentators agree that the concept of being “single-minded” as opposed to “double-minded” is a running theme throughout the book of James. The single-minded person is living wholeheartedly for God, whilst the double-minded person is vacillating between living for God and for the “world”.

So perhaps the double-minded man’s internal struggle is not so much “will he or won’t he give me wisdom?” but “do I or do I not want to what God wants”. He is saying to God, “tell me what I should do, but if I don’t like the advice, I reserve the right to do my own thing instead.”

The challenge for us then is not “does God really want to give me wisdom”, but “do I really want to know his will”? Or am I happier making my own plans and decisions?

I’m just finishing a study on the book of James, and have decided to do a short series of posts exploring some of the verses that particularly struck me along the way. First up is James 1:2

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds

There is a school of thought, amongst those who emphasise supernatural healing, that although Christians should rejoice when they face persecution, they should not do so in the face of other trials, such as sickness. From those trials we should simply pray for escape.

This verse in James, however, points in a different direction. It is not that James disagrees with praying for escape from trials. Later in the letter he explicitly gives instructions on receiving prayer for healing (James 5:14-16).

But the “various trials” he is referring to in this letter are not primarily persecution. As you go through the letter, you see that the biggest trials facing the believers at that time were that many were extremely poor, and were being exploited and oppressed by the rich.

When James gets round to selecting examples of those who set a good example of patience in the face of suffering, he picks out the “prophets” (James 5:10), who did indeed suffer persecution, but also he selects Job (James 5:11).

The interesting thing about Job is that his suffering was not persecution. He suffered illness, bereavement, and financial loss. Yet in a strange way, he too was suffering for righteousness’ sake. Though he had no way of knowing it, it was his righteousness that was the cause of Satan’s attack (Job 2:3-4).

Modern day examples of Job’s suffering might be godly pastors like Matt Chandler and PJ Smyth, who are facing serious illness, or Dave Matthias, who has been blogging recently about the grief of losing an unborn child. When James asks them to “count it all joy” he is not saying something like “always look on the bright side of life”. The point is not “cheer up, because although this terrible thing happened to you, you will grow in character as a result”. Growth in character (James 1:3-4) is only a side benefit; there is a deeper reason for joy.

The ultimate reason we can have joy as we face “various trials” is that we are a people of hope. Joy in the face of suffering is only possible if we see the bigger picture, believing God’s promises regarding our future. Trials do cause us grief, but we can also face them with joy if we are a people of hope, as James explains in James 1:12

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.

My friend Mark Mould and I have been plotting the next Saturday Morning Theology course to run at our church. This time we want to cover what is known as “pneumatology”, or the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (the last two were on ecclesiology and soteriology).

We’re putting together a reading list of good books that we have read on doctrine of the Holy Spirit, along with some others that we want to read as part of our preparation. It is not a list of books we completely agree with, as we want to take in a variety of perspectives. I would be interested in any further recommendations you have. I’ve linked to the ones I have reviewed on this blog.

• Jesus Baptises in One Holy Spirit – David Pawson
• Joy Unspeakable – D M Lloyd-Jones
• God Inside Out – Simon Ponsonby
• Forgotten God – Francis Chan
• More – Simon Ponsonby
• Keep in Step with the Spirit – J I Packer
• Showing the Spirit – Don Carson
• Word and Spirit Together – David Pawson
• Convergence – Sam Storms
• On Revival – Jonathan Edwards
• Receiving the Holy Spirit and His Gifts – Terry Virgo & Phil Rogers
• God’s Empowering Presence – Gordon Fee
• Surprised by the Voice of God – Jack Deere
• I believe in the Holy Spirit – Michael Green
• The Spirit and the Church – John Owen
• The Holy Spirit – John Owen
• The Gift of Prophecy – Wayne Grudem
• Fire and Blood – Mark Stibbe
• Gift and Giver – Craig Keener
• The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament – Christopher Wright
• Baptism and Fulness – John Stott
• The Beginners Guide to Spiritual Gifts – Sam Storms
• The Holy Spirit & Spiritual Gifts – Max Turner
• Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit – Dan Wallace
• Post-Charismatic – Rob McAlpine
• The Charismatic Theology of St Luke – Roger Stronstad
• 2000 years of Charismatic Christianity – Eddie Hyatt
• The Presence and the Power – Gerald Hawthorne
• Flame of Love – Clark Pinnock
• The Holy Spirit in History – Stanley Burgess (3 books)
• Reflected Glory – Tom Smail
• The Message of the Holy Spirit – Keith Warrington

My talks include one on the Baptism in the Spirit (maybe I will revisit some ideas I blogged about a while back), one on Word and Spirit (which I have tonnes of notes on, and might turn into a blog series at some point), one on Jesus and the Spirit (I’m hoping Hawthorne’s book will be particularly helpful for this one), and one on the Spirit in church history from the Puritans through to the present day (I’m particularly looking for book suggestions for what the Puritans said on the Spirit, and I also want to read a bit on the theology of the holiness movement).