Kings and all who are in high positions

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” – 1 Timothy 2.1-4 (ESV)

I’m not quite sure whence this idea originated. As I was trying to get to sleep last night, I think. Nehemiah concludes his prayer in chapter 1 by praying:

“Give success to your servant today, and grant him mercy in the sight of this man.” – Nehemiah 1.11

He then discloses the identity of “this man”: “Now I was cupbearer to the king.”

It seems to me that very similar things are going on in both places. Both start from the premise that the good of the church is in the hands of the civil magistrate, and so prayer is to be made for the civil magistrate so that the church may get on with its business. So Nehemiah prays for mercy in the sight of king Artaxerxes, that Jerusalem may be rebuilt, and this means salvation for the world, because Jerusalem is God’s city where the nations find blessing. Likewise, Paul urges Christians to pray for kings and all who are in authority, so the church can get on with its life, including evangelism, so people are saved.

Calvin writes of Paul in 1 Timothy 2:

“In these words, he recommends the condition of the Church to their protection and guardianship” – Institutes iv.xx.5

He goes on to write of the duties of magistrates:

“This office is specially assigned them by God, and indeed it is right that they exert themseles in asserting and defending the honour of him whose vicegerents they are, and by whose favour they rule.” – Institutes iv.xx.9

And he gave…evangelistes?

“I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” – 1 Timothy 2.12-13

The Bible affirms the equality of men and women in Christ. “There is neither male nor female for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3.28). Male and female together are man-in-God’s-image (Genesis 1.27).

But I take it that this verse from 1 Timothy, a letter written to direct the church in Ephesus in Paul’s absence about ‘how one ought to behave in the household of God’ (1 Timothy 3.15), is speaking of the context of public gatherings and means that women are not to occupy the office of presbyter or teach in exclusively male or mixed company. This is a gender difference (not inequality) rooted in creation and reflective of the co-equal yet different persons in the Trinity. Having a woman presbyter, or allowing a woman to preach at a Sunday gathering, is disobedient and thus sinful.

But what of other occasions? Consider an evangelistic meeting, perhaps in the middle of the week. It is not supposed to be the family gathering in which we confess our sins, hear God’s forgiveness, pray to him, praise him, and are ministered to by him in his word (read, preached, and sung) and at his table. Nevertheless, it is a meeting hosted by the household of God, at which the household of God including Christian men will be present, to which unbelievers are invited. I would suggest that this still applies. A woman ought not to be the speaker at a mixed evangelistic meeting.

Let’s take it a little bit further. What about para-church organisations? There are lots of them around now, supporting the work of the church. Leaving aside the issue of work with children (in which I take it that it is fine for women to teach, although I can’t immediately think of specific passages which say this), ought women to be able to teach in situations like that, for example, at a mission talk? After all, the organisation isn’t a local expression of the household of God gathered around the Lord’s Table, with a father (a pastor) to care for it, but rather comprised of Christians from lots of different churches working together. Nevertheless, the Christians are still members of the wider household of God. Para-church organisations, if you like, are endeavours in which a number of households of the same family contribute members for the sake of the gospel. At these meetings, if they are mixed, there will be Christian men present. I would again suggest that Paul’s injunction to Timothy still applies. It is not permissible for a woman to teach a man in the household of God. Furthermore, there is no example in Scripture of a woman preaching the gospel in public at an assembled gathering.

While allowing women to speak in church, or in other Christian meetings may win us favour with the world, which seems to think that gender equality means that men and women have to be allowed to do the same things, and make unbelievers more willing to hear the gospel (a noble motive) it is nevertheless disobedient to God and thus sinful. It goes against the way God has made us. Symbolically I think it gives a distorted view of the relations between the persons of the Trinity. We cannot expect God to bless such endeavours.

I also suggest that having female speakers would be wrong for another reason. It would be divisive because there are those who are convinced that this is wrong. It would cause some to stumble, and if we grieve one another in this way, then we are not walking in love. We are to pursue that which makes up for peace and mutual edification (Romans 14).

What do other people think? Is this a valid application of the text? If not, why not? And what should the believer’s response be if a woman were to be chosen to speak at an evangelistic event? Obviously there should be rejoicing if the gospel is preached, but can one be part of such an event, or even a group of Christians that organises events like it?

Baptismal Regeneration

Does baptism convey regeneration?

The Book of Common Prayer seems to suggest it. In The Ministration of Publick Baptism of Infants, after the baptism and signing with the cross, the minister says:

“Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church…”

After the Lord’s Prayer, the minister goes on to say:

“We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Infant with thy holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy Church.”

Did the Reformers know what they were doing, or is something that has been left over? Does baptism regenerate?

To answer the question, we need to ask, “In what sense?” Is the child regenerate in the sense that they are no longer dead in sins and transgressions but have been renewed in their inner man, such that they are able to live by the Spirit and persevere in faith to the end? Well, no. Or rather, how can we know? Infants can of course possess faith (see Psalms 22 and 71). The problem is, we do not have a pair of glasses that can look into someone’s soul. Can we look at people’s lives? Yes, but unless someone has fallen into gross sin of which they are unrepentant and so is excommunicated and treated as an unbeliever, it is hard to really tell whether or not they are a believer and so are bearing the fruit of the Spirit. From a distance, a tree moving in the wind can either be the result of the wind blowing through its branches, or an invisible man at the bottom shaking it.

In another sense, baptised infants are regenerate. They are sacramentally regenerate. In God’s sovereignty, they have in baptism been given a new birth: they have a new identity, having been named with the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. They are members of a new family. They belong to the people among whom the Spirit works in word and sacrament. They belong to the people which has been sprinkled with clean water and given a new heart and spirit, from which the heart of stone has been substituted for a heart of flesh (cf Ezekiel 36) as symbolised in baptism. A new relationship with God has begun. They are officially regenerate. These are all real privileges. The prayer is that the grace of God in baptism would be met with faith, that what is true of the child in status would be true in their hearts. This will of course only be finally seen on the last day as their faith is shown to be genuine by their perseverance (Hebrews 10.39). In the meantime, the baptised child, like all God’s people, must be called to trust and obey. And until such time as they reject the faith (which we hope they won’t) since we’re not in a position to say what’s going on in their hearts, we, with the Prayer Book, describe baptised children as they are sacramentally and officially: regenerate.

Joel Garver discusses baptismal efficacy and regeneration HERE, HERE and HERE.

See also HERE for an ongoing discussion on the Federal Vision.

St. Mary’s and St. Martha’s

Which of the two churches below looks orthodox and evangelical, and which looks liberal? Which looks as though it would be more likely to give you a diet of pure spiritual milk?

(Disclaimer: I am not having a go at any church in particular.)

It’s something worth thinking through at this time of year, when lots of young Christians move all around the country as they go off to university in search of a church, and when people might feel that they ought to look into Christianity as they make a new start.

St. Mary’s

At St. Mary’s they always have at least two Bible readings. The people reading always finish by saying, “This is the word of the Lord,” and everyone replies, “Thanks be to God.” The Bible is a great big book on an impressive lectern. They sing Psalms and other songs from Scripture in their services, and they actually sing the text of Scripture. The church prays together, often saying short prayers based on Biblical texts. They also sing other hymns. Every week, the whole church stands up and affirms their faith in God the Holy Trinity, the deity of Christ, his death for our salvation, his return to judge &c. by saying either the Apostles’ or the Nicene Creed. The person who preaches wears a special garment and he speaks from high up in a pulpit. The Lord’s death is clearly proclaimed each week as the church eats bread and drinks wine in remembrance of Christ.

St. Martha’s

At St. Martha’s someone just reads out a passage from the Bible (a small book which has been taped together and has pages falling out). It’s read from a flimsy looking conference lectern. No one says that it’s God’s word, and no one thanks him for it. They sing lots of modern songs to try and appeal to the world, but not much Scripture. You might get the odd Scriptural song but it has usually been changed to bring it up to date. Someone leads intercessions briefly from the front. The church rarely declares its belief in God, or the divinity of Christ, or that he will come to judge us. The preacher – you can usually only tell who he is when he starts speaking, because he just looks like someone who has walked in off the street – speaks from a little stage behind that same conference lectern. The Lord’s Death might be proclaimed once a month in bread and wine if you’re lucky.

Where would you most like to go?

Antidisestablishmentarianism

“And the king granted me what I asked, for the good hand of my God was upon me.” - Nehemiah 2.8

Nehemiah concludes his prayer of chapter 1 by asking God to grant him mercy in the sight of Artaxerxes. Nehemiah is a man with a gift of what we might call ’sanctified common sense’. He has identified that imperial support is necessary if Jerusalem is to be rebuilt. It was, after all, Artaxerxes who decreed that the rebuilding should stop (Ezra 4.7-24). And so, when the opportunity arises, he asks, tactfully, to be sent back to Jerusalem to rebuild it. The king agrees and Nehemiah (who has clearly thought all this through) asks for letters to be given in order that the governors of the provinces will let him through, and that materials are provided for the building of the city, the temple and his own house. Artaxerxes complies, because the good hand of God was upon him.

God is sovereign over the world’s rulers. It seems to me that in God’s providence, the church in this country enjoys imperial support akin to what we see in Nehemiah 2, in the establishment of the Church of England.

Establishment, by the way, doesn’t entail compromise with the world. The status of the sovereign as Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a recognition of the fact that all authorities that exist are instituted by God for the preservation of justice in society, and all people are to be subject to the governing authorities (Romans 13.1-4). It does not concede to the sovereign authority over what is taught in the churches. So in Article XXXVII of the Church of England (‘Of the Civil Magistrates’) we read:

Where we attribute to the King’s Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments… but that only prerogative, wich we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committted to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

Establishment, like the support of Artaxerxes, gives the church protection. It provides official sanction for its activities in the face of opposition. See, for example, how the rebuilding of the wall in Nehemiah 3 continues, despite the opposition of Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite servant and Geshem the Arab, whereas in Ezra 4, without such sanction from the king, the work on the temple ceased. Establishment enables Christians to live godly lives for the sake of the gospel (which is after all what we’re supposed to pray for – 1 Timothy 2.1-4). Establishment protects the church from those who would corrupt it. Consider this extract from the Coronation Oath:

Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen. All this I promise to do.

We should see establishment as a gift from the good hand of our God. It would seem to be utter folly to get rid of it if the church is to be built and thus people saved. Rather, we should thank God for his gracious gift, and pray with Nehemiah, that God would continue to grant us mercy in the sight of our sovereign in this way.

Sermon Illustrations

David Field posts on Sermon Illustrations HERE.

He doesn’t appear to be a terribly great fan of the use of developed anecdotes (they probably waste valuable time and words), and I do sympathise – if you’re preaching somewhere where you don’t have the luxury to go on for forty minutes or so, then you naturally want to make the most of the time opening up the text and applying it. Using illustrations from elsewhere in the Bible like the Puritans did also seems preferable to me as it helps increase general Biblical literacy and instil a Biblical worldview.

However, people’s attention does wander and they need what I have heard called “a mental fag-break”. Sadly illustrations from elsewhere in Scripture tend not to grab people’s attention as illustrations from the world around them do. David Field points us to two resources which should provide ample help. He suggests fifteen minutes is sufficient to find two to four topical illustrations that should help grab attention. I find it quite difficult to illustrate my sermon points so this advice is welcome.

1. Look through the BBC headlines for the previous week

2. Look through the “Quirkies” at ananova.com

Do not get drunk with wine

As I type, I am drinking a glass of a rather nice Rioja which was on offer in the Co-op. I do this from time to time; I buy a bottle of wine which would otherwise have been quite expensive (my Biology teacher at school advised me never to buy a bottle of wine under £5.00 – his lessons were always at least as much about Good Living as Biology), some of it goes into my bolognese, and I drink the rest over the ensuing days (actually, I often end up drinking only some of the rest, as the remainder usually turns into something approximating vinegar in the time it takes me to get through the bottle). This has led me to think about the question of when Christians should say to themselves, “I’ve had enough to drink now. I’m going to stop.” (I leave aside questions of situations in which it may or may not be appropriate to drink, issues of leading Christian brothers and sisters into sin, and issues of evangelism, which I have dealt with previously, although my thinking in how they apply has evolved since then…)

Now, the Bible has much that is good to say about wine. As something created by God, it is good and to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth (1 Timothy 4.3-4). Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding at Cana (John 2) and he himself ate and drank, even being labelled a glutton and a drunkard (Matthew 11.19). The meal he instituted to be celebrated in remembrance of himself was a meal of bread and wine. One of the blessings of the new creation will be an abundance of fine wine (e.g. Amos 9.13). Paul’s medical advice to Timothy “to use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” holds true today: a glass of red wine a day is protective against cardiovascular disease. Wine is good.

Equally, though, drunkeness is condemned in the Bible. We are not to “get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery.” Rather, we are to “be filled with the Spirit.” (Ephesians 5.18). It belongs to the life of the world, not the life of the church: “The time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry,” writes Peter (1 Peter 4.3). It is perhaps something that is overlooked, but habitual drunkenness disqualifies men from the presbyterate, and from other offices of service in the church: “An overseer must be… not a drunkard… Deacons likewise must be… not addicted to much wine.” (1 Timothy 3.2-3, 8). There are all sorts of reasons why drunkenness is wrong. Aside from the fact that God has said it (which should be reason enough), the drunken person is under the control of something other than God, his intoxication makes him more vulnerable to other temptations and more likely to commit other sins, and his behaviour is more likely to make him harm others and himself. In Proverbs 20.1, we learn that “wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler,” and in Proverbs 23.29-35, we have an extended poetic description of the trouble that wine can cause:

Who has woe? Who has sorrow?
Who has strife? Who has complaining?
Who has wounds without cause?
Who has redness of eyes?
Those who tarry long over wine;
those who go to try mixed wine.
Do not look at wine when it is red,
when it sparkles in the cup
and goes down smoothly.
In the end it bites like a serpent
and stings like an adder.
Your eyes will see strange things,
and your heart utter perverse things.
You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea,
like one who lies on the top of a mast.
“They struck me,” you will say, “but I was not hurt;
they beat me, but I did not feel it.
When shall I awake?
I must have another drink.”

It has also been pointed out to me in the past that drunkenness is completely inappropriate for the Christian, saved from God’s wrath by Christ’s death in their place on the cross, because, through the patterns of behaviour it induces, drunkenness is a picture of God’s judgment on the impenitent and unbelieving. So Jeremiah writes:

Thus the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: “Take from my hand this cup of the wine of wrath, and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. They shall drink and stagger and be crazed because of the sword that I am sending among them.” …

Then you shall say to them, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Drink, be drunk and vomit, fall and rise no more, because of the sword that I am sending among you.”

- Jeremiah 25.15-16, 27

The Psalmists say a similar thing (Psalm 60.3, 75.8), Isaiah says it (Isaiah 51.17), Habakkuk says it (Habakkuk 2.16) and the angels in heaven say it (Revelation 14.10).

And so the question of where we set our limits is an important one for Christian discipleship and witness. (I do not need to point out that the absolute answer (in terms of units drunk) will, of course, vary from person to person.) Alcohol is a drug and whatever you drink will have an effect on your physiology. It is this that enables wine to fulfil the task for which God created it:

You cause the grass to grow for the livestock
and plants for man to cultivate
that he may bring forth food from the earth
and wine to gladden the heart of man. – Psalm 104.14-15

But at what point does wine’s effect on us cease to be that for which God intended it, and become sinful? In other words, how do we define drunkeness, Biblically? We might go some way to answering that question by thinking of those aspects of behaviour which the Bible portrays negatively in association with alcohol intake. This list is not earth-shattering:

• a lack of awareness of what is going on around us
• inappropriate comments, inappropriate language
• aggressive language and behaviour
• vomiting
• staggering and falling down
• behaving in a way that brings shame upon oneself
• mental instability

(How we can tell with some of these in certain people is of course another issue!)

Does anyone have any other ideas?

Structure of Nehemiah 1.1-2.8

I’ve come to the conclusion that Nehemiah 1.1-2.8 is a suitable preaching unit. The passage has a common geography. Its events take place in Susa. It is only in 2.9 that Nehemiah leaves Susa for Jerusalem. The passage divides neatly into two sections, which will give me my two points. The first section, if you like, takes place before the king of heaven. The second takes place before the king of Persia.

1.1-1.11	2.1-2.8
The necessity of prayer	The sovereignty of God
Month of Chislev in the 20th year (1.1)	Month of Nisan in the 20th year (2.1)
Nehemiah hears that Jerusalem is broken down and its gates destroyed by fire, so he is sad (1.3-4)	Nehemiah explains that he is sad because the city is lies in ruins and its gates are destroyed by fire (2.1-3)
Nehemiah makes requests of God (1.5-11)	Nehemiah makes requests of Artaxerxes (2.5-8)
Nehemiah prays to God that he would be successful and that God would grant him mercy in the sight of the king (1.11)	The king grants what Nehemiah asks because God’s good hand is upon him

Psalms for Days 11-20

Day 11

Morning: Psalms 56-58
Evening: Psalms 59-61

Day 12

Morning: Psalms 62-64
Evening: Psalms 65-67

Day 13

Morning: Psalm 68
Evening: Psalm 69-70

Day 14

Morning: Psalms 71-72
Evening: Psalms 73-74

Day 15

Morning: Psalms 75-77
Evening: Psalm 78

Day 16

Morning: Psalms 79-81
Evening: Psalms 82-85

Day 17

Morning: Psalms 86-88
Evening: Psalm 89

Day 18

Morning: Psalm 90-92
Evening: Psalms 93-94

Day 19

Morning: Psalms 95-97
Evening: Psalms 98-101

Day 20

Morning: Psalm 102-103
Evening: Psalm 104

The Eschatology of Nehemiah’s Prayer

“Remember the word that you commanded your servant Moses, saying, ‘If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the peoples, but if you return to me and keep my commandments and so them, though your dispersed are under the farthest skies, I will gather them from there and bring them to the place that I have chosen, to make my name dwell there.’” – Nehemiah 1.8-9

Nehemiah prays with his Bible open. The promises of God in Deuteronomy 4. 25-31 and Deuteronomy 30.1-5 echo strongly in Nehemiah’s petition. You can preach that! How should we pray? We should allow Scripture to shape our prayers. Take your quiet time reading and turn it into prayer. I have heard lots of sermons on texts like this preached in that way. It is all true and good and wholesome.

But it’s not the point of the passage (sorry, someone from the Proclamation Trust hijacked my keyboard for a moment there) and it misses the Biblical-theological themes which are at the heart of that for which Nehemiah is praying. He is claiming God’s covenant promise for the latter days (when translated into Greek, we get the word whose root also gives us the word “eschatology”) that he would gather his people who turn to him in repentance and faith, and that they would know unprecedented prosperity and security. That promise begins to be fulfilled from the time of Cyrus, when some Jews return to the land. But the promise hasn’t been completely fulfilled, as v. 3 clearly illustrates: “And they said to me, “The remnant there in the province who had survived the exile is in great trouble and shame. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates destroyed by fire.” And so Nehemiah prays to God that he would hear the prayer of his servants who have returned to him (he trusts in God’s steadfast love (v. 5), confesses his sins and the sins of the people (vv. 6-7) and there are other servants who delight to fear his name (v. 11)) and would do what he promised when he said that he would gather his people.

But to see that promise filled full, we have to look to the Lord Jesus Christ. “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him.” – 2 Corinthians 1.20. It is through his death on the cross that the gathering of God’s people following their exile is possible because it is there that he faces the curse of the covenant in the place of his people so that they might receive the blessing. And so when he has ascended into heaven after his death and resurrection, he pours out that which he received from the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jews ‘from every nation under heaven’, Acts 2.5 (cf. ‘dispersed under the farthest skies, Nehemiah 1. 9) hear the disciples proclaiming the mighty works of God in many different human languages. Peter proclaims the gospel and thousands repent and are baptised ‘into the name’. The scattered people of God are gathered together in the place where he has chosen to make his name dwell, namely the church founded on Jesus Christ. “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them.” – Matthew 18.20. This is Jerusalem.

Of course, the dispersion of God’s people in judgment is a picture of all people, not just the Jewish nation. We’re all by nature objects of God’s wrath. We are all far off (Ephesians 2.1, 13). But if we turn to Christ in repentance and faith, we are gathered into his city. That promise to gather continues to be fulfilled now as that process carries on.

But like Nehemiah, we haven’t seen that promise completely fulfilled. In many ways, Jerusalem “is in great trouble and shame, its wall is broken down and its gates are destroyed by fire”. England had a great Christian heritage. But not now. Churches have left the gospel and are emptying. In many places where the gospel is preached faithfully, the pews are empty. Christians are an object of scorn. The intellectual powers poison people’s minds against Christian faith. In many ways it’s hard to sing Psalm 48 – “As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the LORD of hosts, in the city of our God, which God will establish forever.” Instead Psalm 79 fits more comfortably on our lips: “O God, the nations have come into your inheritance; they have defiled your holy temple; they have laid Jerusalem in ruins.”

Richard Pratt, in his book on preaching Old Testament Narrative He Gave Us Stories, writes that Ezra-Nehemiah is designed to defend the legitimacy of the Ezra-Nehemiah programme for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple and the need to continue, as we read of the Divine authorisation of Nehemiah’s mission, the human opposition he faces, the continuing struggle for restoration and the need to repopulate and fortify Judah. In the Christian theocracy, we are the remnant of the people of God and this book highlights for us the importance of devotion to building the kingdom of God, and I take it therefore that Nehemiah’s behaviour – his mourning over the state of Jerusalem, his fasting – and his prayer are meant to direct us in our task, just as it would have directed its first readers.

We, too then, having seen the inauguration of the fulfilment of God’s promise in Nehemiah 1.8-9, as God’s redeemed servants and people in Christ through the cross which is the power of God (cf. Nehemiah 1 1.10) are to pray for God to gather people into his city, to pray for gospel to go out and for people to turn to Christ in repentance and faith. That is how God’s city will begin to be rebuilt. It is God’s work. He will build Jerusalem.

And one day his work will be complete. Christ will return and the holy city, new Jerusalem, of which the local church is a real anticipation in history, will come down out of heaven from God and, unlike the situation in Nehemiah 1.4, “he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.” – Revelation 21.4.

(I think I could probably preach a good ol’ Puritan sermon on these two verses. One could probably do a whole series on Nehemiah 1. As it is though, I’m probably going to go all the way from Nehemiah 1.1 to 2.8.)

Areas For Evangelical Liturgical Renewal

One Australian brother has called me a “young fogey”. Another Australian brother has said that this is all right.

So, at the risk of being labelled the voice of discontent or a troubler of Israel, here are seven areas for Evangelical liturgical renewal (I am sure they are not original):

1. Public Reading of Scripture. We should not restrict the public reading of Scripture to reading out the passage just before the sermon. We should at least have one Old Testament and one New Testament reading, tracing the history of God’s salvation in Christ from promise to fulfilment. And when we do, we should be proclaiming that it is the word of the Lord and thanking God for it.

2. The Lord’s Supper. We cannot tolerate the practice of letting a month or more go past without sharing the Lord’s Supper. We need to recover the practice of the early church, who devoted themselves to the breaking of bread, whose regular practice when they met together was to break bread (Acts 2.42-46). I suggest that this means weekly communion. The church in Corinth, who seemed to meet together weekly (1 Corinthians 16.2) ate the Lord’s Supper when they came together (or rather, failed to). The church in Troas, too, gathered together on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20.7). Moreover, why would we want to forego gathering round the Lord’s Table when we meet together each week? Here the faithful feast on Christ (1 Corinthians 10.6). Here our unity is established (1 Corinthians 10.7). Here we are assured of God’s love towards us in Christ. Here we receive a foretaste of the world to come. Here the gospel is proclaimed to all present. Perhaps if we thought of the Lord’s Supper as more than a visual aid, it would help. It should be celebrated in an atmosphere of holy celebration, not of the dentist’s waiting room. Baptised covenant children should be welcome at the table as holy people, just as children ate the Passover meal and because Paul says that excluding those who have nothing from the Lord’s Table is not on (1 Corinthians 11.22). They too need to feast on the benefits spread before them in the Supper. While I’m on the subject, the bread should be real bread, broken in the sight of the congregation.

3. Corporate Prayer. There needs to be more corporate and responsorial praying in our meetings. Through this, we can be taught to pray (this is particularly helpful for the children and new converts in our midst, but of course necessary for us all) and, if the same words are said week after week, we are liberated from trying to remember the words and instead can focus on their meaning. Having such patterns of prayer so deeply ingrained will also hold us in good stead when mental faculties start to wane. Corporate and responsorial prayer is a better expression of the family in prayer to their Father than one person standing at the front and reading off some prayers to which the rest add their, “Amen,” and is a clearer proclamation of the Reformational and Biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. It follows the pattern in heaven, which is expressed really and visibly, if not perfectly, in the local congregation. (I guess that also means we should have incense to symbolise our prayers, because they do that in heaven too – Revelation 5.8 and 8.4 – and it smells nice…) Posture is also important in prayer, our whole body being engaged in responding to God our King and Maker, cf Psalm 95.6. To this end, we need more space between the rows of seating, and hassocks for every seat.

4. Recitation of the Creeds. We should be saying the creeds together (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian, on different occasions) in our meetings each week. Through this, we affirm together our faith in God the Holy Trinity each week in words written by learned and godly Christian men and reflected upon over many generations, and we remember that we are part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

5. Singing the Psalms. We need not just to be reading the Psalms in our meetings, but singing them, and singing the Psalms, not just paraphrases of them. God has given us words with which to come to him and we need to allow our praise and prayer and fallen emotions to be shaped by his word.

6. Traditional and Contemporary Music. We need to escape this notion that if the church is going to grow, then we need to abandon more traditional music (and forms of public worship) in favour of chasing the fashions of the world. We mustn’t forget that not only can traditional music put some people off, but contemporary music can be a barrier to people joining churches, too, even from my generation. We should have both. I’m not convinced by the model of having different styles of music at different services (e.g. jazz and classical) – churches aren’t putting on events which people attend according to their taste. It is uncatholic in that jazz-loving Christians and classical music-loving Christians (for example) are separated and the gathering isn’t representative of the whole body of Christ in that area. Older people (and young fogeys) have to bear with what edifies their younger brothers and sisters and younger Christians have to bear with what edifies their older (and fogeyish) brothers and sisters. That is the better way of love (1 Corinthians 13.4-7). Again, the singing of older songs declares that we are part of the catholic church. The body of Christ didn’t come into existence in the 1980s. And Christians need to be taught to stop choosing churches on the basis of the style of music and good feelings that they have. I suggest the faithful ministry of the word and sacrament would be a better criterion.

7. Ministerial Robes. As heirs in one sense to priests and Levites, who had the responsibility of teaching God’s word to his people and who wore a robe as a mark of holding this public office, those who have been ordained to the office of presbyter in Christ’s church should wear a robe as a mark of their public office. It identifies the pastor-teachers in a church to all who are there (and can therefore serve a missional function) and sets apart the preaching of the word. When the preacher is in the pulpit, he is not just a member of the congregation, he is not a solicitor or a car salesman, he is discharging the office for which he has been set apart of preaching the word of God. Obviously some vestments are to be avoided, like the garb of a sacrificing Roman priest.

Do feel free to add more. Perhaps we could print the list off and nail it to a few doors. I wonder which ones, though…?

Fasting

I am starting to think about preparing to preach a sermon on Nehemiah 1 (one of the factors that prompted the writing of some alternative lyrics to Jerusalem) and one of course has to be careful how one applies the Old Testament to Christian believers today. In Nehemiah 1.4, we read:

“As soon as I heard these words I sat down and wept and mourned for days, and I continued fasting and praying before the God of heaven.”

A glance at a couple of books of systematic theology didn’t turn up much on fasting. I can’t say I’ve heard terribly much about fasting in sermons. One of the blessings of (consecutive) expository preaching is that it does bring up issues that we might be inclined to gloss over.

The first thing that probably needs to be said is: fasting is appropriate behaviour under certain circumstances for Christians. So Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount gives instruction on fasting (Matthew 6.16-18). He also envisages his disciples fasting when he has gone (Matthew 9.15). Fasting was the practice of the early church: Paul and Barnabas committed the Christians in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch to the Lord with prayer and fasting (Acts 14.23).

The second thing that needs to be said is that fasting is a symbolic act appropriate in situations of considerable seriousness in association with concentrated prayer. So again, when Paul and Barnabas visit Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, they encourage the disciples to continue in the faith, even in the face of many tribulations and having appointed elders to oversee those churches, thy commit the believers to the Lord with prayer and fasting (Acts. 14.21-23). One situation particularly associated with fasting is that of mourning when the church faces adversity. Hence Nehemiah fasts and prays as he weeps and mourns when he hears that the remnant of the Jews are in great trouble and shame and the walls of Jerusalem are broken down and its gates destroyed by fire (Nehemiah 1.3-4). When Zion faces disastrous judgment for sin, God calls his people to return to him with fasting, weeping and mourning (Joel 2.12). When Jesus is asked why his disciples don’t fast, he replies that it is not fitting for the guests to mourn when the bridgeroom is present, but when the bridegroom has gone, then they will fast (and, by implication, mourn). A parallel could perhaps be drawn between fasting and Paul’s teaching on abstinence from sex by a husband and wife, may deprive one another of their ‘conjugal rights’ by agreement for a limited time, that they may devote themselves to prayer (1 Corinthians 7.5).

The third thing that ought to be said is that the practice of fasting by Christians has the support of the Reformed tradition. So the Westminster Confession of Faith says that “solemn fastings” are “in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner” (Chapter XXI, Article 5). The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England makes provision in its calendar for days of fasting or abstinence. I remember listening a recording of a talk given by Richard Pratt, a Professor at Reformed Theological Seminary in America at the Proclamation Trust in which he called on the Anglican clergy present to fast because of the state of the Church of England.

I’m sure I have barely scratched the surface of what the Bible teaches on this subject, but it’s a start at least, and gives a pointer to how we might apply Nehemiah 1.4 to the church today.

A peculiar people

My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is: The Right Reverend Daniel in the Middle of Withering Glance Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title

(HT: Jonathan at http://www.glosbaptist.blogspot.com/)

New Jerusalem

If ever there were a hymn that needed rewriting, it would be Jerusalem.

Tune: Jerusalem (Parry)

STRANGERS AND EXILES ON THE EARTH
We seek a country yet above,
Awaiting our eternal rest,
We hope in God’s unfailing love,
Assembled with unnumbered saints,
Enrolled in heaven through Jesus’ blood,
By faith Jerusalem is our home,
The city of the living God.

2. Our God is making all things new:
Heaven and earth will flee away,
The holy city shall descend,
Christ’s bride clothed for her wedding day,
Into her gates will nations flow,
Death, sorrow, pain shall be no more,
In this the New Jerusalem,
We’ll serve forever and adore!

(c) Daniel Newman 2007

Psalms for Days 1-10

I decided this would be more efficient than having thirty posts. This order, following the Book of Common Prayer, will take you through the Psalms in a month.

Day 1

Morning: Psalms 1-5
Evening: Psalms 6-8

Day 2

Morning: Psalms 9-11
Evening: Psalms 12-14

Day 3

Morning: Psalms 15-17
Evening: Psalm 18

Day 4

Morning: Psalms 19-21
Evening: Psalms 22-23

Day 5

Morning: Psalms 24-26
Evening: Psalms 27-29

Day 6

Morning: Psalms 30-31
Evening: Psalms 32-34

Day 7

Morning: Psalms 35-36
Evening: Psalm 37
Day 8

Morning: Psalms 38-40
Evening: Psalms 41-43

Day 9

Morning: Psalms 44-46
Evening: Psalms 47-49

Day 10

Morning: Psalms 50-52
Evening: Psalms 53-55

The unworthiness of the ministers hinders not the effect of the Sacrament

Good Anglicans will recognize Article XXVI, but the issue goes back to the earliest days of the church.

In 251 there was schism over the election of the next Bishop of Rome. Novatian held that those guilty of murder, adultery and apostasy could not have the remission of their sins pronounced by the church, whereas Cornelius held that the bishop could remit even grave sins. Cornelius won, and Novatian’s supporters slipped away, Novatian having failed to obtain recognition elsewhere.  His followers applied to readmission to communion with Rome and the rest of the catholic church.

What of those who were baptised as part of Novatian’s community? Cyprian of Carthage believed that baptism given outside the sphere of the Spirit-filled community was no baptism – schismatics could not be recognized at all. How can the one lacking the Spirit confer the Spirit’s gifts? At Rome, the new bishop Stephen (254-6) taught instead that by tradition, baptism in water in the name of the Trinity was valid wherever given. Those baptised outside the Church should not be rebaptised but reconciled like penitents within the church. According to him, the sacrament is not the church’s, but Christ’s, and depends not upon the correctness of the minister, but of the form.

This issue was perhaps blown out of all proportion and Stephen denounced Cyprian as Antichrist!

(They also disagreed over the authority of Rome. Stephen as bishop of Rome appealed to the text, “You are Peter…” in order to affirm his position as Peter’s successor and thus supremely authoritative. For Cyprian, in contrast, all bishops are equal as all the apostles were equal, and each answerable to God alone.)

Their controversy was only settled by the death of both parties.

The Mark of the Beast

“It causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.” – Revelation 13.16-17

Although written in the context of first century Romans persecutions, the pressure placed upon Christians to submit to anti-God authorities and identify themselves in some way with them echoes down the ages. Hostility to the church was rising in the middle of the third century, having experienced toleration and even favour under the reign of Alexander Severus and Philip the Arab (244-9). In 250, Emperor Decius (249-51) ordered a systematic persecution, requiring that everyone should possess a certificate (libellus) that he had sacrificed to the gods before special commissioners. They were a deliberate attempt to catch people, and were the gravest attack experienced by the church to that point. There was an immense number of apostates, notably among property-owners.

The injunctions that emperors made in order to control Christians were varied, and opinion over the degree of co-operation that was allowed was divided. The line demarcating faithful obedience to the Lord and compromise was not at all clear. At the turn of the fourth century, the Roman empire was divided between two Augusti who each had an assistant Caesar, Diocletian and Galerius east of the Adriatic and Maximian and Constantius in the West. At a sacrifice attended by Diocletian and Galerius, the augurs were unable to discern the signs customarily found on the livers of the sacricial animals, apparently because some Christians crossed themselves. Diocletian consulated the oracle of Apollo at Miletus, who replied that false oracles were being caused by the Christians. So on February 23rd 303, the Christian cathedral opposite the imperial palace at Nicomedia was dismantled and an edict issued the following day declaring that all churches were to be destroyed, all Bibles and liturgical books surrendered, sacred vessels confiscated, and all meetings for worship forbidden. A second edict ordered the arrest of the clergy, but the prisons weren’t big enough and so an amnesty was granted, as long as the clergy offered sacrifice to the Roman gods. In 304, all citizens of the Empire were required to sacrifice on pain of death, but this in practice was limited to the East.

In the East, sacrifice was regarded as apostasy, not the surrender of sacred books and church plate. In the West, opinion was divided and passions ran high. Mensrius, bishop of Carthage, cooperated with the authorities in holding no public worship. He gave up no sacred books, but satisfied the police with heretical volumes. Marcellinus of Rome, too, surrendered the sacred books. In Numidia, the surrender of the Scriptures, or indeed of any of the books which the police were ready to accept as such (apparently one bishop handed in medical treatises!) was regarded as apostasy. To think otherwise implied that those who had died rather than surrender had acted excessively. In Egypt, the division was over submitting to the edict forbidding meetings for worship. Bishop Peter of Alexander fled, but when the metropolitan of Thebaid, Melitius of Lycopolis, arrived at Alexandria, the absence of public worship and pastoral care was a scandal to him, and he ordained two men to look after the Alexandrian church.

If such a thing happened today, where would you draw the line?

Irenaeus of Lyons

 Irenaeus of Lyons

Influenced by Justin, Irenaeus too wrote against the Gnostics, particularly Marcion and Valentinus. His case rested on the unity of the Old and New Testaments which was apparent in the fulfilment of ancient prophecy and in the parallels between Adam and Christ in the writings of Paul. For Irenaeus, the plan for the new covenant was a recapitulation of the original creation. Adam was made in the image and likeness of God. As a result of that fall the likeness has been lost. In Christ, the Word assumed humanity and by faith in him, mankind may recover the lost likeness of God. Salvation was a restoration of the condition in paradise before the Fall.

For Irenaeus, error came in because mankind is growing to maturity. It was natural as immature children should make mistakes, and have their pride quenched. Salvation history is progressive education, culminating in the incarnation and the spread of the gospel throughout the whole world.

Also for Irenaeus, the need for a canon was important. In his writings, he quotes from all the New Testament books apart from 3 John, James and 2 Peter (although this is not to say he didn’t view them as canonical). Irenaeus gave reasoned statements for accepting some books and not others. Irenaeus answered the Valentinians, who claimed to be able to supplement the writings of the apostles with secret, unwritten traditions and additional gospels, by appealing to the churches of apostolic foundations. If the apostles had really taught what the Valentinians believed, he argued, they would have passed that knowledge on to the authorised teachers they set up in the churches, who in turn would have passed it on to those who oversaw the churches in the present day. This is the idea of apostolicity, and the foundation for a doctrine of apostolic succession. He looks in particular to Rome, although other churches (e.g. Ephesus or Corinth) would have proven his point. Moreover, the authentic faith will be identical throughout the world and the other churches will agree with what is taught at Rome. The church is a bastion of orthodoxy against the sects beaten this way and that by the winds of novelty, guaranteed by its ability to trace its succession of authoritative teachers back to the apostles, and by the consensus of believers throughout the world.

Imprecatory Psalms

I was thinking about this the other day. There is a school of thought which goes along the lines that when the Psalmists pray for God to judge his people’s enemies, that isn’t to be a model for Christians. I’m thinking of the sort of thing you get in Psalm 79 (a brilliant exposition of which I heard at an OICCU meeting a couple of years ago now – was it ever recorded?):

“Pour out your anger on the nations that do not know you, and on the kingdoms that do not call upon your name!” (v. 6)

“Return sevenfold into the lap of our neighbours the taunts with which they have taunted you, O Lord.” (v. 12)

It is either justified under the cloak of progressive revelation (God put up with the hardness of heart of his people and that kind of morality in the Old Testament but now since the coming of Jesus that has changed – this smacks slightly of Marcion, undermines the unity of the people of God throughout the Bible, and writes off the Old Testament as a place we can go to learn how to behave as Christians) or with the suggestion that, although the Psalter is inspired by God, it is not to be the pattern for our prayer, but expresses the sinful emotions of fallen man, which are being held up to us by God like a mirror (I think C.S. Lewis said something of this nature in his book on the Psalms).

I don’t buy this. For a start, I find it hard to reconcile such a view of the Psalms with Paul’s injunction in Ephesians 5.19, which holds “addressing one another in psalms” with “singing and making melody to the Lord,” and in Colossians 3.16, which tells us we should be “singing psalms… with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”

Moreover, this is New Testament morality. Hear Paul’s wish for those who preach a different gospel to the apostolic gospel:

“If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” – Galatians 1.9

And this is the cry of the martryed souls in heaven:

“They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”" – Revelation 6.10

Were these glorified spirits in heaven told off for their sinful behaviour? No. “They were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer.” – Revelation 6.11

Praying the imprecatory Psalms is doing precisely what Paul commands in Romans 12.19: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God.” Furthermore, there is a whole Biblical-theological aspect to it. It is praying for the fulfilment of the promise God made to Abraham way back in Genesis 12.3: “Him who dishonours you I will curse.”

Obviously we also have to remember the Lord’s injunction to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5.44) as well. There is, therefore, a tension in our experience. The slogan, “Hate the sin but love the sinner” isn’t quite right. We have to simultaneously hate the sinner and love the sinner. We love sinners as those who are created in God’s image and are our neighbours. We are to have compassion on them because they are like sheep without a shepherd. We are to pray for their salvation. But we also hate sinners as those who are enemies of God and his people. And the imprecatory Psalms give us words with which to come to God in our sorrow and grief and longing for justice, a longing which is located ultimately – and this is key – in a concern for the glory of God’s name. We should not be afraid to take them upon our lips in prayer and song.