wordandspirit

The introduction to this book claims that there exists a “Great Disparity” in Christianity, between the hope of “new life”, and the actual experience of many Christians. Despite many shining examples through church history, the fact remains that many believers do not live noticeably differently from the world around them. He asks then, is this a problem with the gospel itself – does it really have power to transform? Or is it a problem with ourselves?

If it doesn’t work at all, or only in fits and starts, that is because we do not give ourselves to it in a way that allows our lives to be taken over by it.

Dallas Willard argues that the urgent need of the church is to recover the practice of “discipleship”.

A disciple is a learner, a student, an apprentice – a practitioner, even if only a beginner. … Disciples of Jesus are people who do not just profess certain views as their own but apply their growing understanding of life in the Kingdom of the Heavens to every aspect of their life on earth.

So the book is devoted to exploring how we become disciples. After all, the in the Great Commission, Jesus tells us “as disciples to make disciples.” It is our failure to do this that is the “Great Omission”.

The book itself was not written as a book. It is a series of essays, lectures, book reviews and interviews all around the subject of discipleship. For the most part, this approach works surprisingly well, although it does mean a certain amount of repeated material, and perhaps a little loss of focus towards the end. While most of the chapters are accessible, a few of the lectures are a bit more academic, and more philosophical in nature. However, Willard is very quotable – I found myself underlining large parts of this book, and I will share some of these sections in this review.

The first chapter establishes the idea that “discipleship is not optional”. He states that:

Most problems in contemporary churches can be explained by the fact that members have never decided to follow Christ.

The problem is not easily fixed by telling people that Jesus is “supposed to be Lord” of their lives, as though it were an optional extra. He points the finger at explanations of the gospel that merely focus on “salvation” and missing any concept of “obedience”. The Great Commission has been modified from “make disciples” to “make converts and church members”.

A disciple is someone who has counted the cost, and desires above all else to be like Christ. They therefore “systematically and progressively rearrange their affairs to that end”. But if there is a cost to discipleship, there is also a cost to non-discipleship:

In short, non-discipleship costs you exactly that abundance of life Jesus said he came to bring.

The second chapter deals with the question of “why bother with discipleship”. After all if you can have your sins forgiven so you get to go to heaven when you die, surely that is good enough. He strongly opposes this viewpoint.

There is absolutely nothing in what Jesus himself of his early followers taught that suggests you can decide just to enjoy forgiveness at Jesus’ expense and have nothing more to do with him.

He agrees with Tozer’s assessment that the idea of accepting Jesus as Saviour but postponing obedience to him as Lord is in fact heretical.

This “heresy” has created the impression that it is quite reasonable to be a “vampire Christian”. One in effect says to Jesus, “I’d like a little of your blood, please. But I don’t care to be your student, or have your character. In fact won’t you just excuse me while I get on with my life, and I’ll see you in heaven.”

Failure to become disciples will result in us remaining “locked in defeat as far as our moral intentions are concerned”.

Only avid discipleship to Christ through the Spirit brings the inward transformation of thought, feeling and character that “cleans the inside of the cup” (Matt 23:25) and “makes the tree good” (Matt 12:33)

Willard anticipates some possible objections to this teaching. The first being that calling to serious discipleship could be construed as Pharasaism.

[The Pharisees] located goodness in behavior and tried to secure themselves by careful management at the behavioral level. However, that simply cannot be done. Behavior is driven by the hidden or secret dimension of human personality, from the depths of the soul and body and what is present there will escape. Hence the Pharisee always fails at some point to do what is right, and then must redefine, re-describe, or explain it away – or simply hide it.

In contrast, the fruit of the spirit, as described by Jesus, Paul, and other biblical writers, does not consist in actions, but in attitudes or settled personality traits that make up the substance, of the “hidden” self, the “inner man”.

The second objection is that the call to discipleship is thought by some to be in antithesis to grace – an attempt to pay back God for our salvation which we did not earn. He repeatedly replies to this objection with the assertion that

Grace is opposed to earning, not to effort. Earning is an attitude. Effort is an action.

We must stop using the fact that we cannot earn grace (whether for justification or for sanctification) as an excuse for not energetically trying to receive grace. Having been found by God, we then become seekers of ever-fuller life in him.

In other words, calling Christians to put all their effort into following Jesus is not in any way anti-grace, but is in fact quite biblical.

So having established the importance of discipleship, he then goes on to explain the practical ways one goes about becoming a disciple. He uses the term “spiritual formation” to describe the process of the transformation of our spirits to become more Christlike. The methods he proposes may surprise some. He does not focus on typical devotional activities such as Bible reading, prayer and church attendance. Nor does he suggest things such as exercising spiritual gifts, evangelising or social action. Rather, he sees spiritual disciplines such as solitude, silence, fasting and meditation as being key to spiritual formation. Other disciplines he encourages are private hymn singing and Bible memorisation.

This is perhaps again a point on which many evangelicals will get nervous. While the “spiritual disciplines” are not outright rejected, they certainly are not thought to be primary as means of spiritual growth. The second part of the book sets about explaining in greater detail how these spiritual disciplines are able to transform our character.

Spiritual disciplines are activities in our power that we engage in to enable us to do what we cannot do by direct effort.

Spiritual formation is the process whereby the inmost being of the individual takes on the quality or character of Jesus himself.

Spiritual formation does not aim at controlling action. … God is looking for those who worship him in spirit and in truth. We cannot fake before God. … To focus on action alone is to fall into pharasiasm of the worst kind and to kill the soul.

He takes some time to criticise the concept that God will just transform us with a lightning strike of the Spirit without the need for a process. This is common in some evangelical circles where the prayer is that God will send revival on us to change us in an instant without any need for effort on our own part.

What we must understand is that spiritual formation is a process that involves the transformation of the whole person, and that the whole person must be active with Christ in the work of spiritual formation. Spiritual transformation into Christ-likeness is not going to happen unless we act.

As I often point out to folks, today we are not only saved by grace, we are paralysed by it.

Again he urges us not to reduce the gospel to merely dealing with sin. “A gospel of justification alone does not generate disciples”. We are to trust in Jesus for everything, not just forgiveness of sins. “The gospel is new life through faith in Jesus Christ.”

For Willard, the most important part of spiritual formation is learning obedience. For this reason, we must regain an appreciation of Jesus as teacher. He bemoans the fact that few if any churches have any strategy for systematically teaching believers all the teachings of Jesus. He stresses the vital importance of Scripture memorisation. Being transformed in our characters so that we can obey him involves deliberate planning on our part.

We enter into each of Jesus’ teachings by choosing different behaviours that are relevant, finding the space – making the arrangements – in our lives to put them into action and re-visioning the situation in the new behavioural space that includes God.

The later parts of the book spend some time explaining the value he sees in disciplines such as solitude and silence, both of which he considers to be very important. The final section of the book is given to short reviews of books that may prove helpful. Many of these are written by or about Christian “mystics” and perhaps would be treated with a level of suspiciousness by many evangelicals. But Willard argues that there is much to be learned from them, particularly in regards to focusing our hearts and minds on God as we spend time in solitude with him.

This is certainly a provocative and challenging book and one I would thoroughly recommend. The call to discipleship is conspicuous by its absence in many churches, which can focus solely on doctrinal correctness, or evangelism, or social action without ever really addressing the transformation of the character. He does a good job of addressing some of the concerns that may be raised by his emphasis on discipleship, although I suspect that not all readers will share his enthusiasm for the spiritual disciplines. But in any case, this book deserves a wide readership and I pray that it will be instrumental in putting discipleship and spiritual formation back on the agenda in many churches.

I’ve already reviewed a number of commentaries in this volume of the Revised Expositor’s Bible Commentary (see Hebrews, Revelation, John’s Letters). The same complements on the nice layout apply here.

J Darryl Charles has provided the commentary on 1 & 2 Peter and Jude. The big danger with this commentary series is that it can fall through the gaps between an expositional and an academic commentary. It is aimed at “expositors”, but does not always provide enough space to really engage with the exegetical and theological issues that can be raised. Its strength therefore is in helping the reader to appreciate the meaning and flow of the argument, and briefly filling in background historical details or scriptural cross-references that will elucidate the text. There are brief pointers for application, but this series is not an exposition in the style of the Bible Speaks Today series. For those preparing a sermon or essay on the passage being commented on, I expect they would actually want to consult more detailed commentaries, but this commentary will still have value as a reference book for those wanting to quickly get an overview of a section of these epistles.

In the introduction to the 1 Peter commentary, Charles argues that it is reasonable to believe Peter authored this epistle. He acknowledges some differences in style to 2 Peter, but he gives a list of 41 similarities between the two epistles, which weaken the case for separate authors. In the commentary on 1 Peter, he highlights Peter’s concern for ethical living, which is rooted in eschatology. He notes that the epistle is filled with imperatives, and though it has suffering as a theme, its goal is not to provide a “theology of suffering” but rather to present a Christian ethic which responds to suffering by following the example of Christ.

The commentaries on 2 Peter and Jude have a fairly lengthy introduction which argues for Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, and lists the parallels with Jude. Despite the similarities, the purposes are different: Peter is more concerned with ethics than combating heresy. If Peter is combating anything, it is more likely sexual libertarianism than gnosticism. He presents the Lord’s coming as a day of moral reckoning and calls us to live virtuously. Charles believes that Peter even warns against the possibility of “loss of call” for the Christian. In the introduction to Jude, Charles considers the arguments against an early dating to be merely speculative. Jude uses examples of those who were privileged but who became dispossessed as warnings against apostasy.

For those who cannot afford to buy individual commentaries on each book of the New Testament, the Revised Expositor’s Bible Commentary represents a good compromise – offering essentially six commentaries for the price of one. While none of the individual commentaries would be described as “must haves”, they will prove useful to those who do not have the time or money available to consult the larger commentaries.

I have been studying the book of 1 Peter over recent months, and the cell group I lead is also working through it this term. I tend to keep notes as I work my way through a book, turning each section of a few verses into a mini exposition, which helps me to think through the theological issues it raises and apply it practically. After I have done this, I will then consult one or two commentaries, to check whether I have missed or misunderstood anything. I keep a collection of quotes and interesting observations on each passage as well, which help if I preach or lead a Bible study on that passage.

I’ve been using Google Docs & Spreadsheets recently, which allows me to very easily publish what I’ve done so far. The nice thing about Google Docs is that if I update these documents, they are automatically updated online, which is good, because I will probably update them in the future when I am working on passages from 1 Peter again. It also means I can update them from any computer with internet access.

1 Peter has been a great book to study. It has its share of complicated bits, but I’ve been helped through by the Baker Exegetical Commentary by Karen Jobes and the Revised Expositors Commentary by J Darryl Charles. I’ve also consulted my New American Commentary by Tom Schreiner from time to time as well.

So here is the index to my study notes on 1 Peter, which are now complete for the whole book.

• 1 Peter 1:1-2
• 1 Peter 1:3-5
• 1 Peter 1:6-9
• 1 Peter 1:10-12
• 1 Peter 1:13-16
• 1 Peter 1:17-21
• 1 Peter 1:22-25
• 1 Peter 2:1-3
• 1 Peter 2:4-5
• 1 Peter 2:6-8
• 1 Peter 2:9-10
• 1 Peter 2:11-12
• 1 Peter 2:13-15
• 1 Peter 2:16-20
• 1 Peter 2:21-25
• 1 Peter 3:1-7
• 1 Peter 3:8-12
• 1 Peter 3:13-17
• 1 Peter 3:18-22
• 1 Peter 4:1-6
• 1 Peter 4:7-11
• 1 Peter 4:12-19
• 1 Peter 5:1-4
• 1 Peter 5:5-7
• 1 Peter 5:8-11
• 1 Peter 5:12-14

In this commentary on 1 Peter, Karen Jobes makes some important contributions to the academic study of this epistle, while at the same time providing an excellent resource for pastors and Bible students who want to wrestle with the meaning and application of the text. The introduction is comprehensive and defends traditional authorship of the letter (bolstered by a thorough appendix on the quality of the Greek which indicate an author whose first language was not Greek) and and early date (based largely on the observation that the letter does not address state-sponsored persecution). She also puts forward her thesis that the Christians to whom Peter writes had been recolonised by the Roman empire – literally exiled and living as resident aliens. She shows throughout the commentary how this makes many of Peter’s points particularly apt, but acknowledges that the main thrust of the argument does not depend on whether his readers are literal exiles or not.

The commentary itself is very thorough, and manages to deal with issues of Greek grammar and syntax without losing focus on the message of the book. Jobes seems to have a very good understanding of the types of questions that preachers will be asking of the text, and while this is not an exposition of 1 Peter, it is full of theological and pastoral observations. As with all volumes in the Baker Exegetical Commentary series, the layout is excellent, including the full text of the passage being commented on, and with regular summaries of argument. Technical notes are kept out of the way at the end of each section rather than as footnotes, and Greek is both transliterated and translated.

Peter quotes from and alludes to the Old Testament regularly in this letter, and whenever he does, Jobes highlights not just the passage quoted but similarities in the flow of argument and thought (especially with Psalm 34).

There is a substantial section devoted to dealing with the difficult passage at the end of chapter 3. She rejects the view that Christ preached through Noah to Noah’s generation, and also the descent into hell view, in favour of the modern consensus that views 1 Enoch as the background to the passage – the risen and ascended Christ has proclaimed victory over fallen angelic beings and powers. She differentiates between Paul’s use of ‘flesh’ (Greek sarx), which connotes our sinful human nature, to Peter’s which is merely referring to bodily life on earth (as opposed to the eternal spiritual state Jesus was in after his resurrection). This means that her interpretation of a number of verses does not fit well with the English translations, which use the word “body” as a translation (for example, in her view baptism in 3:25 is said not to morally transform the believer, rather than not physically wash the believer that most modern translations imply).

It is also of interest to see how a female commentator in a conservative evangelical commentary series approaches the injunctions of 3:1-6 concerning a wife’s submission to her husband. She (rightly in my view) interprets this section along with the preceding section addressed to slaves as being motivated by Peter’s concern for the vulnerable situation that wives and slaves find themselves in if they convert to Christianity. Slaves and wives found themselves right at the bottom of the social ladder of their day, and so Peter writes pastorally, and should therefore not be criticised for failing to undermine these social structures. She defends Peter against modern critics by claiming that he dignifies slaves and wives by affirming their rights to their own religious beliefs.

She notes that Peter leaves the details of how submission is to be worked out to the wives and husbands themselves (for example, would an unbelieving husband allow his wife to worship with the Christian community). She also contrasts Peter’s teaching on wives and husbands with Paul’s, which is targetted at believing couples. While she indicates a moderately complementarian leaning by affirming that the NT does envisage some form of “submission” from wives to husbands, she stresses the freedom that is given to the married couple to work this out between themselves, without specifying the exact details of how this works out in practice. The implication is that in a Christian marriage, this “submission” should have a very different dynamic to that found in other marriages of Peter’s day. She quotes approvingly an unamed evangelical who states that while the NT teaches a wife to submit, it does not ever give the husband the right to demand it.

I found this an excellent commentary to consult as I studied my way through 1 Peter recently. It provides answers not just for exegetical questions, but pointers for application, and discussion of theological implications. Her thesis concerning the recipients of the letter and her appendix assessing whether the quality of the Greek rules out Petrine authorship will probably be of more use to academics than Bible teachers, but these are kept separate from the main commentary so they do not get in the way for those not requiring such information.

A major theme of 1 Peter is how the Christian responds to suffering for their faith. The nature of the persecution Peter’s readers were facing included:

• Mocking (4:4)
• Slander (3:16)
• Injustice (2:19)
• Threats (2:14)
• Insults (4:14)
• Verbal Abuse (2:9, 23)

Slaves (2:18) and wives (3:1) who had converted to Christianity were particularly vulnerable due to their low social status. Peter calls all the believers to look to the example of Jesus who responded not by anger or cursing but with blessing (2:9). They also called to rejoice in the midst of their suffering (1:8, 4:13), for a number of reasons:

• They identify with Christ who suffered (1:11,2:21,4:13)
• Their gracious response serves as a powerful witness (3:1,16)
• Their faith is purified (1:7, 4:12)
• They will be vindicated, just as Jesus was (1:7)
• They will develop endurance (2:20)
• They experience victory in their battle against sin (4:1)
• They inherit a blessing and experience God’s presence with them (4:14)

Strikingly, Peter is willing to describe suffering for Christ as being “in God’s will” (4:19). Many Christians find the concept of suffering being God’s will for us very hard to accept, and inevitably the question will come as to what type of suffering Christians can embrace as God’s will for them. Is it only persecution for the gospel, or can other types of suffering, such as illness be embraced in the same way?

Jeremy Pierce reports in his excellent roundup of 1 Peter commentaries that Peter Davids “distinguishes between suffering from persecution and suffering from illness, taking [persecution] to be the only kind of suffering that Christians are being told to endure, since it’s the explicit context of the letter, but we should pray for God to remove illness of any sort.” Jeremy takes issue with this because it does not take into account 2 Cor 12:7-10 (Paul’s thorn in the flesh, resulting in him declaring “That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties.”) and Acts 12:5 (“So Peter was kept in prison, but the church was earnestly praying to God for him.”). Not having Davids’ commentary I’m not sure exactly what he claims or exactly what Jeremy’s pronlem with it is. Praying for removal of suffering is not mutually exclusive to enduring through suffering, and the two will often be found together in the life of a believer.

To answer this question we must distinguish between a number of types of suffering that a Christian may experience. First is suffering for the sake of the gospel, which is the specific issue addressed in 1 Peter. Peter’s point is not that we may not pray for God to remove the suffering (after all, even Jesus prayed that the cup should be taken from him), but that we should not compromise on truth or righteous living in order to escape suffering (just as Jesus went on to pray that God’s will be done rather than his own). This type of suffering can be rejoiced in, because we know God’s blessing will come upon us for faithfulness.

There is also a type of suffering experienced as a consequence of our own sinful actions, whether being injured in some way, or perhaps being punished by the authorities. If a Christian commits a crime, or breaks the rules of their workplace, they cannot expect to be blessed in some way for this. Peter actually speaks to this kind of suffering a few times in his letter (3:20,4:15). We should not try to present ourselves as heroes of the faith if we are punished for something we did wrong. A church should not claim to be suffering for righteousness if it fails to comply with tax regulations, and a missionary should not claim to be persecuted if they are ejected from a country for failing to apply for a new visa.

A third type of suffering would be that described as the discipline of God, spoken of a number of times in the Bible (Ps 94:12, Prov 3:12, 1 Cor 11:32, Heb 12:4-11, Rev 3:19). This type of suffering is not so much to be rejoiced in as to be discerned as being God’s correction on our lives. We will reap the benefit of a transformed character. Praying for God to remove this type of suffering may be legitimate, but not if we simultaneously refuse to learn the lesson he is teaching us through it.

A fourth type of suffering is tragedy and loss. Examples include bereavement, being the victim of a crime or losing one’s job. This type of suffering is often about dealing with loss, and in many cases what is lost cannot be restored again. Again we would hardly call for rejoicing in this type of suffering, but it provides a test of our faith. We can either draw closer to God and lean on him for the resources to come to terms with what has happened and trust him for the future, or we can question and blame God, and distance ourselves from him. So this type of suffering can be an occasion to come closer to God.

The final type of suffering to consider is sickness. This is the controversial one, as Christians differ as to whether sickness can ever be in God’s will for the believer. Certainly there is an element of mystery as to why not all who pray for healing receive it, when others do. But just as we would never counsel someone to avoid the doctor if they were ill, so that they could benefit from the opportunity to grow in character that comes through suffering, neither should we discourage people from earnestly praying for healing. (In fact, the latest newfrontiers magazine is devoted to stirring faith for healing, something that the Western evangelical church is distinctly lacking in. Sadly not online yet, but check here for the April-June 2007 issue).

Sickness provides the same “test” of faith that other forms of suffering bring, and so it can be the occasion for our maturing in character and growing in the knowledge of God. But that does not mean that we should welcome sickness as a pathway to holiness. There are other means provided for us for our spiritual growth. So while a person who is ill can take comfort from the fact that God can use their unfortunate condition to bring about good in their life, this is not an excuse for passively accepting it. God can also bring glory to his name through healing you, and work through you to extend his kingdom as he gives you the health to serve him.

So I will summarise with the words of James 1:1,2: “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.” This is the Christian response to all forms of suffering (including persecution and sickness). We know that we have a God who works all things together for our good, so we have confidence that in our suffering, he is transforming us to be more like Jesus. But at the same time we will not feel unable to petition God to remove our suffering, or to take practical steps to avoid it, as long as doing so does not involve moral compromise.

I have been reading Dallas Willard’s book the Great Omission recently (book review to follow shortly), which is largely about spiritual formation. Although I don’t think he classes himself a charismatic, a brief comment on the gifts of the Spirit in one of his chapters got me thinking about the relationship between spiritual gifts and spiritual disciplines.

Spiritual formation – the process of our character being transformed to be more like Jesus – is brought into effect by spiritual disciplines and spiritual gifts.

Spiritual disciplines are those things we do to promote growth to Christian maturity in our own lives. This include such things as Scripture memorisation and meditation, private prayer and worship, and Dallas Willard would add things such as fasting, solitude, silence, frugality (exercises which are not often emphasised in charismatic circles for various reasons – often because they are thought too ascetic or legalistic).

Spiritual gifts are those things we do to promote growth to Christian maturity in the lives of others. As Paul makes abundantly clear in 1 Cor 12-14, the gifts are primarily for edification (building others up). Their purpose is not to show how spiritual we are, or even to give us self-esteem because we are being “used”, but to promote growth in one another.

So we could say that spiritual gifts and spiritual disciplines are two means to the same end. But they are not alternatives, as though the charismatics can choose the gifts path to holiness and the “emerging church” types can choose the disciplines path. We cannot become more like Jesus in isolation from his body (the church), but neither can we expect to grow in Christlikeness if we ignore our personal devotional lives and rely solely on input from others in meetings. The two must go hand in hand or we will remain spiritually immature.

In this short book, Hudson Taylor works his way through the Song of Songs, treating it as an allegory of the union between Christ and the believer. Of course there are many expositors who approach the book from a very different angle, seeing it as primarily about human love. Personally, I think there is profit in both approaches, as well as dangers of trying to force the details of the book to fit a system (whether it be “Christ and the church” or “courtship and marriage”). Taylor asserts that the book is unintelligible without its New Testament key, and that it teaches us of the benefits of abiding in Christ.

He breaks the song down into six main sections, each with a spiritual lesson. The first is about the remedy for the “unsatisfied life” in which he urges us to give ourselves fully to Christ. We are called to “please” the Lord, which means more than simply not grieving him by our sin, but actively seeking to bring him pleasure.

The real secret of an unsatisfied life lies too often in an unsurrendered will

Sections 2 and 4 deal with the causes of broken communion with the Lord – worldliness and spiritual sloth or pride, while sections 3 and 5 are about the joy of restored communion. Taylor warns that we cannot enjoy both the world and Christ, and that it is only in the place of entire consecration in which the fulness of Christ’s love and power can be experienced. The book closes with a section on “final oneness”.

Taylor’s heart for mission shines through in a number of places, as he sees soulwinning as the natural outworking of closeness to the Lord.

If you are interested in studying the Song of Songs as an allegory, this book would be a good place to begin. It is short enough to be read in a few hours and the call to be closer to the Lord is one that will be extremely profitable to meditate on. It will probably not answer all your questions about the book and its “correct” interpretation, but it will introduce you to an understanding of the Song that has been shared by many throughout church history.

This fascinating short book contains three lectures given by C S Lewis on the subject of education. Parts of it I found quite dated and hard to follow, and yet it seems to me that the overall message is very contemporary. Lewis’ concern is that modern education is in danger of explaining humanity away, and in an attempt to gain power by “conquering” nature, we are in effect abolishing ourselves.

One tendency he focuses on is that of “debunking” what we see as values or virtues, by explaining them merely as feelings or human constructs. Those that do this seek to free us from traditional values, and give us the “freedom” to define ourselves as we wish. This is strikingly modern, as secular atheists have become increasingly vocal about the obsolescence of religion in the light of scientific advance, and yet seem unable or unwilling to offer a coherent framework of values of their own. Lewis freely admitted that he would be accused of attacking science, an accusation which he strenuously denies.

He argues that throughout history, people of many religions and backgrounds have followed and understood the Tao – the universally understood system of morality (or more accurately, the idea that there is objective value), and he provides an appendix giving examples from various ancient writings. What the modernisers are seeking to do, is to make man the master of what he wants to be, by explaining everything simply in terms of nature.

The importance of this book is that it reminds us of the need to coherently argue for a Christian belief in the existance of objective values, truths and morals, and to refuse to allow “Science” to elevate itself to such a position that it can be used to “debunk” such things. While not all readers will agree with Lewis on every point, I think he provides some very good arguments. I would be interested to know who the contemporary Christian writers taking up this argument are (suggestions in the comments please!).

Those of us who classify ourselves as both “reformed” and “charismatics” have probably had more debates than we care to imagine on the subject of how those two can go together. Both camps tend to be highly suspicious of one another. But if there is anyone who is undeniably committed to both positions, it is Sam Storms. In this book, he makes the case for how these two both can and should go hand in hand.

His approach is interesting. For one thing he neither makes a detailed Scriptural case for Calvinism nor a detailed rebuttal of cessationism. He rather writes to allay the concerns of two very different groups of people:

• First, Calvinists who feel that embracing the charismatic gifts of the Spirit will necessarily involve doctrinal compromise
• Second, charismatics who fear that embracing reformed doctrine will necessarily result in quenching the Spirit

He starts by telling his own story of how he was a reformed cessationist very suspicious of charismatics. Interestingly, Don Carson’s book “Showing the Spirit” was instrumental in his changing opinion towards the charismatic gifts. He speaks of how he identified with many of the cessationists concerns about the flamboyance and lack of sophistication on the part of charismatic leaders. But as he tells the story of how he came into contact with supernatural spiritual gifts, he stresses the dual role of the Holy Spirit in enlightening the intellect and igniting the emotions.

The second section of the book is devoted to reflections on how we can be people of “Word and Spirit”. Interestingly he interacts with Ian Stackhouse’s recent book, “The Gospel Driven Church“, with which he agrees with Stackhouse’s criticism of shallow revivalism, but has some strong points of disagreement too (e.g. over the Toronto blessing).

He devotes some space to arguing that the contemporary use of the gift of prophecy does not detract from the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. He also gives some helpful practical advice on using the gift in a proper and biblical way. There is also a section based on Jonathan Edward’s teaching on the importance of “affections”. Storms uses this to argue that genuine Christianity is one in which the affections are fully engaged. He also takes some time

One of the important theological topics he covers, albeit briefly, is the understanding of Jesus’ ministry as paradigmatic. Many reformed Christians are eager to distance themselves from any suggestion that we could emulate the power with which Jesus operated. But Storms insists that we are empowered by the same Holy Spirit that Jesus was, and therefore charismatics are justified in their desire to follow his example even in areas such as healing.

Overall I think this is a very helpful book for the target audience. He will probably not persuade any dyed in the wool cessationists, but those who count themselves as “open but cautious” will find much to challenge them here. There are also many timely reminders for charismatics of the need to ground and base all that we do in the word of God. And perhaps most importantly, it again reminds us of the need to be truly hungry for more of God the Holy Spirit in our lives.

Here’s a recording of a song I wrote and started to record last year, but the recording process stalled. I have spent my spare time in the last week or two finishing it off. I used an interesting new recording program, REAPER this time, instead of SONAR which I normally use.

The lyrics are taken from a Celtic prayer that Scot McKnight posted on his blog. It is called “Expressions of Faith” and is about trusting God for the future based on his faithfulness in the past. I’ve made it into 3 two-part verses, and added my own chorus to give it a bit more of a song structure.

You can listen to it here

Lyrics

Lord you have always given
Bread for the coming day
And though I am poor
Today I believe

Lord you have always given
Strength for the coming day
And though I am weak
Today I believe

All Sufficient One
I believe in you
I put my trust in you
Never failing God
My life is in your hands
I need nothing more than you

Lord you have always given
Peace for the coming day
And when I’m tempted to fear
In You I believe

Lord you have always kept me
Safe through each passing day
And when I’m facing more trials
In You I believe

Lord you have always marked out
My path for the coming day
Yet when the way seems hidden
Still I believe

Lord you have always spoken
Just when the time was right
Yet even in the silence
Still I believe

Recording Details

As I said, I used REAPER, which has some great audio features, although lags behind SONAR in terms of MIDI functionality.

Vocals – I am singing on this one, and Steph sang the backing vocals. It is actually the first time Steph has sung on one of my recordings, and she did a great job (you should have heard my attempts at harmony!). It was also nice that I finally have written a song that she likes enough to want to sing! Even my children sing along to this one.
Acoustic Guitar – This is my Yamaha APX-4A recorded direct from pickup. I am not pleased with the sound I got out of it. I was having some computer problems at the time of recording which meant that my focus was on successfully recording anything without pops and clicks.
Electric Guitar – The electric guitars made use of the built-in effects in my new Line6 USB audio interface.
Bass Guitar – this is my Yamaha bass compressed with Kjaerhus GUP-1
Piano – this was my home-made Yamaha P200 soundfont. If I had been using SONAR I would have recorded quite a few more takes of the piano MIDI as my playing was fairly ropey.
Organ – Organized trio VSTi again – this is becoming a regular feature on my tracks
Drums & Percussion – I used EZDrummer and the EZX Percussion expansion for the drum sounds, and played the drums in myself on the keyboards before fixing them up and adding fills in REAPER’s piano roll view.
Mixdown – I used a Sonitus multiband compressor to even out the EQ a bit and then Kjaerhus classic master limiter to get me up to full scale (and a very small amount of limiting in the loud bits)