Phil Johnson speaks against Celebrity Christianity

I am not normally a staunch proponent of John Macarthur or the Shepherds Conference (see previous posts on "Strange Fire") but I am so grateful to Todd from Dubai for this.  He is right - it's excellent, and something I am becoming increasingly convinced of as a great error and problem in evangelical Christianity at the moment.  I say that as one who spent years almost worshipping "heroes" in the faith.  The whole sermon is well worth a listen to!


May add some key quotes shortly.

Life after "Strange Fire"

I've made no secret of my struggle to maintain interest or passion in theological/spiritual matters this past year or two.  I still believe in God (not so sure about the church thanks to past experience).  But this is a work in progress - certainly not an unfinished story.  A few issues sparked my interest - for example, John Macarthur's "Strange Fire" conference of a few months ago.

A brief history with Macarthur:  As I was growing up in Dunstable and discovering an experiential relationship with God, my church and senior pastor were going in polar opposite directions.  And Macarthur's "Charismatic Chaos" was the instruction manual flogged around Dunstable for that.  I have always fervently believed my pastor Stanley Jebb's motto that; "the unexamined opinion is hardly worth holding".  So I read "Charismatic Chaos" and found it thoroughly interesting.  It didn't persuade me in the slightest of anything - apart from human beings are human beings and make mistakes.  Oh - it also persuaded me that John Macarthur was a throughly negative, unpleasant individual who was having a nasty effect on the pastor and my church - and it was something and someone I didn't want to be like in the slightest!

So the mention of "John Macarthur" usually makes me roll my eyes.  That's why when C J Mahaney started preaching for Macarthur - some reformed/charismatics were thrilled and thought it meant Macarthur was "softening" in his anti-charismatic views and maybe the bald-headed one was impressing him with his sense.  Rubbish.  All "Strange Fire" proved was that in fact Mahaney is taking the same path my pastor in Dunstable took, and is taking all possible steps to reject charismatic life in his church (apart from apostolic authority - in all but name).  A quick glance at Mahaney's "church programme" proves that - no room for the Holy Spirit there!

So I was interested today to find a You-Tube video of Macarthur speaking about the follow-up from the "Strange Fire" conference.  He has taken a lot of stick (quite rightly) for his harsh and intolerant suggestions that charismatics are not Christians.  This is his answer - and essentially he sticks by his views.  Another book is promised to answer his critics (around 26 minutes).  But what particularly interested me was Macarthur's taking on of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Piper in particular (38:12) - namely that pastors and preachers have NO business seeking an anointing or unction from on high to preach!

Astounding.

Here it is;

The "Dangers" of Charismatic Worship!

I've still been thinking and lurking-reading the continuing "Strange Fire" and John Macarthur controversy.  I do look forward to reading the book when it becomes available in this country at some point.  But the issue Macarthur has with "charismatic" worship does deserve careful thought.  Do the songs we sing and love potentially deceive and lead us astray?  Or in fact do they bring us close to the Throne of Grace and a living encounter with the Risen Son of God?

There are two scenarios I can think of in my church experience.  The more reformed/functional cessationist settings were my home church in Dunstable when Stanley Jebb had taken it out of the charismatic movement and essentially banned all choruses.  We sang hymns and raising of hands was not approved (and tongues were most certainly forbidden!).  The other reformed/functional cessationist situation was when I lived in Bristol and attended the SGM church for 2 years - and most of their SGM songs were "cross-centered".

The other scenario of course has been the charismatic churches I have attended, and the glorious conferences that seek to teach the whole gospel - Cross through to ascension and glorification and outpoured Holy Spirit.  Now cessationists would shudder I am sure at the examples I present - but if you can ignore the raised arms and upturned faces to heaven - hear the words!



I love particularly;

"You have overcome the grave, Your glory fills the highest place - what can seperate me now?  You tore the veil, You made a way when You said that it is done!!".



And this amazing one; "Worthy is the Lamb! Seated on the Throne!  I crown You now with many crowns - You reign victorious!  High and lifted up - Jesus Son of God! The Darling of Heaven crucified - worthy is the Lamb".

How much more Gospel-filled can you get?!  Because the fact is - the Son of God isn't hanging on a cross broken and dying.  So what is the point of "kneeling at the old rugged cross"?  Of course we will be forever grateful for His sacrifice, but like Pilgrim in John Bunyan's classic - that is where our burdens roll away!  We are then free to stand and march on towards the Celestial City knowing that one day we will see Him face to face!

I would just add a final video which I think strikes powerfully at the heart of this "charismatic/cessationist" controversy.  It is by Noel Tredinnick - the Music Director at All Souls Church Langham Place (neither person nor church could be called charismatic in any way!).  But Tredinnick was speaking about worship in particular - the wonderful "Prom Praise" concerts held yearly at the Royal Albert Hall in London.  And he said this (the video is below);

"Now worship is two-way.  Our hearts are being lifted through the music to Christ.  We are adoring Him - we are singing our praise to the living Saviour.  That is one way - the arrow is going up.  But at the same time there is that moment, where God comes down if you like.  The veil of His robe fills the temple - His Presence.  There is a sense of His holiness where God is coming down into our midst - and that is a very exciting moment to behold".


I would suggest that is the issue.  Cessationists want to (as it seems) put God in heaven and leave Him there.  And to suggest that He is not only willing but eager to come down and reside among His people seems to shock and horrify them.  That's nothing new - it was apparent throughout revivals through the centuries.  There have ALWAYS been the rigid prayer meetings continuing to meet weekly to pray for revival, even though outside and around them God is saving souls by the thousands.  It is that eagerness to see God come - I think - which perhaps leads some charismatics to embrace experience that is of the flesh.

But that is no excuse to change one's theology and limit God to what He can and cannot do - as Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones said quite rightly - the greatest sin of the evangelical church and all that is wrong with "Strange Fire".  As this post was touching on worship - it seems appropriate to end with another version of "The Power of the Cross" sung by Chris Bowater at the (also charismatic) Bible Week - "Grapevine".

A Word of Balance!

I am concious that John Macarthur and his "Strange Fire" conference has provoked me back into blogging thoughts but that I may have become guilty of becoming a "charismatic Macarthur" - i.e. I hate his absolute, judgemental and unloving language (and always have done since the days I read "Charismatic Chaos" in Dunstable).

I was determined therefore thanks to yet another sleepless night to expose myself to Macarthur's broader ministry and thoughts - of which I know not a great deal.  I found this video during a conference where Phil Johnson interviews Macarthur on a few points:



Points of agreement:

1.  The New International Version (in relation to Macarthur being invited to write an NIV Study Bible)

PJ:  It is (NIV) not your favourite translation?

Macarthur:  It is NOT my favourite translation.  The question is ... does anyone reading the NIV actually care what it (the text) means?!

I wince at (again) Macarthur's broad suggestion that all NIV readers are ... less than theological (although I confess to laughing).  I too dislike the NIV and prefer (and always have) the KJV or the NASB!

2.  Mark Driscoll and his comments/book on marriage and sex.

I've never made any secret of being less than a fan of Mark Driscoll.  I have no doubt his unique ministry is spreading the gospel and reaching the lost in his way.  I just hate his macho-school-bullish-rude attitude and behaviour.  His recent publicity stunt at appearing at the "Strange Fire" conference less than impressed me either.  I thought it hilarious that security (he claimed) confiscated his books, but was again shocked he distorted the truth seemingly.  But also his views on the Song of Solomon and marriage - disturb me.

PJ:  You didn't make any recent comment about Mark Driscoll's recent book "Real Marriage" - do you want to?

Macarthur:  Commercialism.  There is such a beautiful dignity to the way the Scripture speaks of marriage, such a precious veiled way in which even the intimacies of marriage are alluded to in Scripture.  That maintains it's intimacy and personal nature and beauty without painting it in commonly used pornographic laungage.  I think these are things that shouldn't be said, don't need to be said and pander to interests in the part of people.  The last thing you would ever want for the people who gather before you to hear the Word of God is to have their minds filled with your sort of uncouth, unclean speech and images that go with it.

There I COMPLETELY agree!  That is the way I was brought up under Dr Stanley Jebb.  That's the way I was raised to view marriage as beautifully portrayed by my parents.

Another fascinating Q and A session I found from the Shepherds Conference focuses around John Macarthur, Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan's preference for using a pen to prepare a sermon rather than a computer!  As a geek - I stand convicted (not that I prepare sermons!).

"This Movement (Charismatic) has Diminished Music" - John Macarthur

One of the aspects of the "Strange Fire" conference that slightly staggered me and infuriated me was the utter lack of logic and consistency reported by men who proudly call themselves "men of the Word" - and indeed near the end of Macarthur's final session seems to proudly liken himself to Timothy "guarding divine revelation".  What do I mean by that?  Macarthur made many blunt and straightforward statements that many of his "spin doctor" fans sought to water down.  To be fair to Macarthur (and I respect him for it, as much as I find his sheer arrogance dislikable) - he didn't seek to do so.

And he stated rather proudly he doesn't care about offending people.  So I feel little shame in joining the right and proper robust responses against him.

He stated charismatics are, in his eyes, unsaved - and he stuck by it.  But even he seemed to flounder a little when confronting issues such as the fact that equally credible and respected theologians such as John Piper or Wayne Grudem would not agree with his hyper-cessationist, anti-charismatic views.  Adrian Warnock reported from the Q and A session in the conference that he seemed to bluster;

"With John Piper, that is a complete anomaly. That is just so off everything else about him ... Even Wayne Grudem. I look at this as an anomaly [in his theology]. I don’t know and don’t need to know where this impulse comes from".

The thrust of Macarthur's argument too about worship seems highly inconsistent.  His spin-doctor fans on Twitter seem to claim "of course he is not throwing the entire baby out with the bathwater" - apparently Macarthur likes Stuart Townend's "The Power of the Cross".  Whether he does or doesn't, or maybe doesn't realise Townend comes from Newfrontiers flagship church "Church of Christ the King" in Brighton - he is clear on his views of charismatic worship offering to the church universal.  Challies reports;

"MacArthur disagrees with this opinion. He is convinced that the contemporary style of music in the charismatic movement is the entry point of false doctrine into our churches. A church rooted in historical doctrine and hymns will be reluctant to embrace this music. This movement has diminished music by taking it out of the area of the mind and reduces it to feelings of the flesh".

There are thousands of songs from charismatic songwriters I could quote but as "the Power of the Cross" was cited - let's focus on that;



I love this song because it particularly highlights and preaches the power of the complete gospel.  And if Macarthur maybe would claim that this song from Townend is an "anomoly" like he sees Piper and Grudem's more charismatic pneumatology - I would rather counter that I think (I don't know - I haven't heard a testimony of how he wrote it) but actually Stuart Townend's charismatic experience and encounters with God indeed aided and inspired him to see the glorious gospel in it's entirety!

A key example of this is - to me - the baptism of the Holy Spirit (and for clarity's sake - I remain Lloyd-Jonesian in my understanding of this).  Macarthur presumably would class this among other "demonic" doctrines.  But I loved the way that Terry Virgo at Stoneleigh Bible Week 2000 drew the vital paralell between the ascension of Jesus the risen Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.  For those with no time to hear the clip - here's what Terry said;

"Every person filled with the Holy Spirit is a proof and demonstration that Jesus Christ is not a corpse in some hidden cave in the Middle East.  Every Christian filled with the Holy Spirit is proof that He ascended on high ... only resurrected, ascended Messiah's can give the Holy Spirit.  Dead corpses aren't very good at it.  It is a demonstration He is alive!  It is His coronation gift!".



I would counter Macarthur's vitriol that the charismatic movement has spread in such entirety because it is "offering the world what it wants" - rather I think the charismatic movement is reminded the church what real life in the New Covenant is.  Of course I would not claim, as some charismatics do, that reformed evangelicals are "dry, dead and dusty" (although some are).  Neither would I claim that ALL charismatic churches are "alive, exciting and in right relationship with the risen Christ".

I actually believe that many charismatic movements and streams have become dry, flabby and complacent.  Back in the 1970s and 80s there was much talk of "building a house for God".  House churches thrived and there was a passion to relive New Covenant life.  There are many charismatic (so-called) churches I visit and one can almost predict what "gift" will be manifested.  And this complacency has no-doubt fuelled Macarthur and other anti-charismatic views.

Suddenly (thanks to people like Mark Driscoll - well-intended as he is) the focus has become "mission" - and the endless buzz word is "mission".  If your church is not "missional" then you should be ashamed of yourself - we are led to believe.  Many charismatic churches have seemed to have forgotten that true life in the Spirit and an enjoyment of the Presence of God naturally leads to a passion for the lost.

As John Piper said;

"Mission exists because worship doesn't".

Oh that many of us could remember the words of Terry Virgo at Stoneleigh Bible Week 1998 - we are a "dwelling place for God in the Spirit".  Oh for churches springing up (or being revived truly) across the UK.  Less of the silly counterfeit and more of reality!!

An Endless Optimistic/Oft Disappointed Charismatic is Grateful for Strange Fire!

I've been reflecting on and following some of the Twitter feed discussing John Macarthur's "Strange Fire" conference and I am actually becoming increasingly grateful both personally and as a church observer for what it has done.  I think initially I was furious and thought "Here we go again" - re-living his influence on my beloved home church in Dunstable and the anti-charismatic spirit it brought.

But what it has done has made me reflect and remember why I AM an unashamed charismatic and STILL believe and hope and look for the encounters and interventions of God by His Spirit that the Word of God promises.  I do bitterly regret the last few years of being "prone to wander" from God and His church but my hope and longing for Him has remained unchanged.  I am aware that many of John Macarthur's spirit would immediately discount anything I have to say - "Well he's a backslider - and therefore probably unsaved anyway!".  But the benefit to being on the outside of accepted church circles is that you can say what you like and not fear the consequences of being "excommunicated"! (I'm not sure if the double jeopardy legal principle applies to excommunication - I hope so).

A Small Testimony:
As I said in my previous post on "Strange Fire" I have been charismatic in theology and experience since I was baptised in the Holy Spirit back in 1999.  But if I am honest I would say that while my theology and belief hasn't changed (if anything increased in longing) my experience hasn't been that much measured up to what many charismatics claim, believe or experience today.  My beliefs and theology were built upon by much reading of many books after the senior pastor Dr Stanley Jebb changed his theology and thus the church's.

It wasn't long into my reading that a biographical sermon of John Piper's on Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones led me primarily to his glorious book "Joy Unspeakable" and then more broadly into the whole published works of the Doctor and his remarkable ministry (still take pride of place in my library!).  I should add I still find it remarkable that my pastor Dr Jebb actually sat under Dr Lloyd-Jones for some time as part of his fatherly ministry to younger pastors - and I didn't seize on the link or pick up interest in Dr Lloyd-Jones over 18 years of being under Dr Jebb's ministry.

I heard balanced reformed/charismatics like Dr Ern Baxter (who rapidly became my number one hero!) and taught that a "tension" MUST be held between Word and Spirit.  I think this explains my initial excitement when I first encountered C J Mahaney and PDI (now SGM) as well as of course my ongoing love and appreciation for Terry Virgo and Newfrontiers ("Fundamentally we are a Word and Spirit movement" - Terry Virgo, Brighton 2009).  To go to Stoneleigh Bible Week in 1999 and 2000 and finally in 2001 was a taste of heaven itself almost!  Heavenly worship and singing, the spiritual gifts in evidence and awesome preaching - a demonstration if you will of Ern Baxter's fervent belief that it WAS possible to experience God in all His fullness as the Word of God lays out!

Seeking More:
Throughout my life I have sought to look for and hunger for more, and have had the opportunity to go to many conferences or hear great or renowned men and women of God.  For example I went with my dear friend Pete Day to the Word, Spirit and Power Conference at Westminster Chapel in London in 2001.  We heard and saw Dr R T Kendall (a man I already hugely respected) but also Paul Cain - a famous (now infamous) prophet who had links back to the Kansas City Prophet movement.  I had heard his prophecies were acutely accurate and so I was fascinated, open and hungry to see him.

Was I impressed?  If I'm honest - not particularly.  I couldn't say in integrity any of his prophecies were as I had heard.  Did that make me discount the gift of prophecy?  No.  Of course now it is well known that Paul Cain has fallen into sin - and for many that discounts him and his gift.  Does it mean any of his prophecies were not true?  No.  It just means that Paul Cain was and is a human being and "prone to wander".

Through that conference we heard that Rodney Howard-Browne (of Toronto Blessing fame) was coming to speak at Westminster Chapel at R T Kendall's invitation.  So me and my dad went down.  Our church "missed" the Toronto Blessing due to Stanley Jebb's views on it - and I was eager to see if there was anything in it!

Was I impressed?  Again not particularly.  I wasn't "slain in the Spirit".  At one point Rodney got us all to join hands and sing some sort of "silly" song and people at the end of our pew did fall - hence I "almost" did!  It didn't bother or impress me, but neither did it make me discount the present moving of the Holy Spirit and the fact that some have been touched powerfully by God through Rodney's ministry.

Probably the most powerful visit I did make was a few years back, when I travelled alone to Hong Kong and to the very FIRST (and as yet only!) "Glory and Grace Conference" hosted by the incredible Rob Rufus and City Church International.  I did encounter God powerfully, became over-awed by the true glory of the gospel and the power of the Cross and His resurrection and what that meant for me personally (far more in that one week than I had attending a Sovereign Grace ministries "cross-obsessed" church for 2 years!)

Strange Fire?:
These initial experiences made me hunger to know more of God, alongside reading the Bible about promises such as from 1 Corinthians 14:24 and 25;

"But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you".

To me this is one of the clearest Scriptural indicators of the potential power of the prophetic gift.  I admit I have not seen unbelievers convicted by much of modern prophecy today.  But just because I have not seen or experienced it, does NOT take away from the Word of God!  And one of my greatest frustrations with the cessationist viewpoint outlined by what seems like the WHOLE of the "Strange Fire" conference is exactly this;

Demonstration of excess and spurious means the genuine is not present or real.

RUBBISH!  How can these men who so-called claim they honour and value the Word of God really discount entire portions of Scripture just by the presence of excess?  I look forward to hearing the DVD strreams of "Strange Fire" but I am supremely unimpressed by Tim Challies summaries of the complete lack of exposition - particularly by alleged-"excellent" Bible teacher John Macarthur himself.

It seems appropriate to end this reflection by re-quoting Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones;

"The greatest sin of the evangelical church is to put God into a box and tell Him what He can and cannot do".

That is the only "Strange Fire" I see - but I remain grateful to Macarthur et al for re-stirring a passion within me to seek God through His Holy Spirit.  I have sorely missed Him these past two years!


Reformed and Charismatic from Terry Virgo on Vimeo.

John MacArthur asks "Have we forgotten the Holy Spirit?"

I was very challenged by a recent tweet of John Macarthur - where he asked; "Have we forgotten the Holy Spirit"? He went on to make the point that a decade or more ago all we ever heard about was talk of the Holy Spirit - even though much was debate and discussion. And now? Now he suggested that once again the Holy Spirit has sadly become the "forgotten member of the Trinity".

I was profoundly challenged by this. As we grew up in Dunstable and observed the church steadily making it's way from it's reformed/charismatic balance to staunchly cessationist - John Macarthur and his book; "Charismatic Chaos" was a book often quoted (and one I profoundly resented). It's only recently I have come to appreciate MacArthur's wider ministry! But my impression growing up was that Macarthur was most definitely not a man "pro" the Holy Spirit in action! So for him to say this - what's going on? I think he is right in many ways:

1. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The traditional charismatic debates such as the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit have all but quietened. Many reformed/charismatics have striven to "not speak about this" for the sake of unity. Interestingly enough even men who strongly defend the Biblical position of the baptism of the Spirit as a distinct, definite experience such as Terry Virgo are not permitted back into the "evangelical camp"! Movements such as Newfrontiers that traditionally accept this position seem to rarely teach on it (apart from the occasional seminar at a conference) because it is seen perhaps as an established truth. I would guess that Alpha courses would be the place where this is still taught.

2. Charismatic Gifts: Most evangelicals tend to hold the "open but cautious" position that they accept the gifts of the Holy Spirit have not ceased - as cessationists such as Macarthur strongly teach. But such evangelicals would not actively seek and pursue such gifts for use and enjoyment in the church setting. For example I recently attended Grace Church in Bristol - part of the SGM group of churches. Their leader C J Mahaney has progressively taken a similar route to my former pastor Stanley Jebb - quietening on teaching on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, emphasizing indwelling sin and the Cross more than the Presence of the Holy Spirit and most recently the removal of the term "apostolic". I was a member of Grace Church in Bristol for 2 years and rarely saw use of the charismatic gifts (occasionally prophecy and never tongues or the word of knowledge). However I was really encouraged to hear the senior pastor preach strongly and encourage seeing these gifts still!

Again what seems to me as an observer is that both positions have polarized somewhat. The cessationists are consistent and never see what they don't believe or expect. The "continuationists" (or the "open but cautious") group would teach now and then that the gifts are expected but without active hope and faith may not see regular manifestations of the Spirit (other than the occasional "spontaneous" Scripture reading!). And the charismatic groups may not teach regularly because it has become the "norm".

3. Revival: - when people such as Mark Heath and I were growing up in Dunstable, it was regular practice to pray passionately for revival. My greatest teacher in prayer was our pastor Dr Stanley Jebb - he was an awesome example of intercession. I will never forget him exhorting us to pray "as though oxygen was limited". Even though the Charismatic Movement was perhaps declining in freshness - there was enough expectation of the Presence of the Spirit to go on longing for more. Then when the Toronto Blessing arrived in the 1990's, Brownsville and later Lakeland and now the Bay of the Holy Spirit Revival - all these "times of refreshing" have led to a refreshing of hope for a greater outpouring of the Spirit.

Or have they? Terry Virgo spoke often of how prayer and expectation for revival was key in his growing up. Has hope declined somewhat? Are we not so sure that God is preparing to move? Hence our prayer and intercession has also waned?

So what are we to make of John Macarthur's challenge? Good it may be that debates/disagreements have quietened down. Good it may be that men such as Rob Rufus, John Piper and Mark Driscoll are bringing discussion of the gospel back to the fore - but surely any true gospel should automatically see an increased manifest Presence of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit really is "forgotten" as Macarthur suggests - then that gospel surely is missing a vital Person.

Stanley Jebb was speaking at the "Life in the Spirit" conference in 1987 on "Reformed Doctrine and Charismatic Experience". It was an outstanding talk and in my opinion a template that could have saved many churches from charismatic excess and error and, if applied, could have saved other more cautious churches from throwing out charismatic life. But in particular he said this;

"It is my conviction that sound biblical doctrine plus the life and power of the Holy Spirit could be well nigh unstoppable. In a sense reformed doctrine is the fuel - and the Holy Spirit is the fire and we need to have the doctrine and see it set on fire by the power of the Holy Spirit".

We need so much more. I always think the Word of God lays down the standard of Spirit-life we should be seeing in churches. For example; can any church claim they see this?

An unbeliever entering a church and hearing all prophesying - is convicted and repents, worshipping God? - (1 Corinthians 14:24-25).

A prophet interrupting another prophet because he has a word to bring, the first sitting down and deferring to him? - (1 Corinthians 14:30).

At the end of a church prayer meeting, the whole place was shaken (physically) and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit? - (Acts 4:31).

My love of Pastor's Studies

I don't know why but I just love looking round pastor's studies and seeing the walls lined with books. I guess it grew up from being used to Dr Stanley Jebb's study in Dunstable. His study was a massive "L" shaped room and was lined floor to ceiling with books. Sadly his successor had quite a few less and it was sad seeing empty bookshelves.

I think it's because books say a lot about those who's libraries they belong in. There have recently been a few videos on You-Tube looking around the studies of some well-known men. I thought I'd post a tour round half my library before these men of God - because mine's a lot smaller! (Half to three quarters of mine is housed in London at Lansdowne Evangelical Free Church). The noise is very poor but I focus on my favourite Holy Spirit books, preserved videos from Stoneleigh Bible Week and my Puritan collections;

Terry and Simon Virgo have been doing some interviews in Terry's study which I have loved. You also get a good glimpse at some of the wonderful books Terry has and reads.

5f. Free to worship from Terry Virgo on Vimeo.

Together for the Gospel posted two videos in C J Mahaney's study and in Mark Dever's study. Sadly C J tends to spend rather a lot of time fooling about with a glove and basketball but you do see the set of C H Spurgeon books which is a favourite in my library too.

Mark Dever's library is wonderfully massive and reminds me of Stanley Jebb's. I spied Richard Baxter's works which I have.

And again it was wonderful to see around John Macarthur's amazing study (although didn't see enough of it!);

Books are all very well and good - but if they do not serve in increasing a passion for a real encounter with the Presence of God then they are simply tools to increase intellectual snobbery.

Iron Sharpening Iron!!

I've been wrestling with some "project" to get into recently - I should explain that I don't like being bored. This is why in the past I've embarked on transcribing sermons or lectures I love like Ern Baxter or Terry Virgo or Rob Rufus. I've loved transcribing some of the panel discussions from the Bethlehem Conference for Pastors. Ern always used to say that for every book he read he agreed with, he would read two or three or more that he disagreed with - to spark his thought processes and get him thinking.

I decided to take a leaf out of his book but with transcribing. I've heard vaguely about the "Resolved" conference run by John MacArthur's church in the USA - but have never listened to any sessions. This past conference held a panel discussion and I decided that could be my perfect opportunity. The participants are all men that - well I wouldn't say I am a fan of.

1. John MacArthur - I don't like his anti-charismatic venom or his eschatology or his ecclesiology particularly.

2. Al Mohler - I respect his intellect and massively envy his library (!) but don't like his pneumatology greatly.

3. C J Mahaney - well, most will know what I think of this bloke thus far.

But I resolved (pun intended) to listen and to learn and to disagree - if necessary but above all to think. So far - I'm 40 minutes into the discussion and am finding it really interesting. I love the committed vision for the Gospel. Each of the speakers have a passion to get the gathered 18 to 30's there to see the true wonder and glory of the Gospel - and that is encouraging. Okay - so I am not quite so keen on a few comments - but by and large I am so grateful for this resource and conference - and so glad that I opened my far-too closed mind to hear this resource.

Here is the link for any who want to listen or watch it - and hopefully the transcript will be done shortly!

Keynote Panel Questions and Answers from Resolved on Vimeo.

John MacArthur on How to Minister to Legalists

I was interested to read the following answer given by John Macarthur at the Shepherds Conference in the USA. I'm not sure I agree with it - but John Macarthur usually demands some consideration to his statements. The question was this;

"How would you approach a congregation trapped in years of legalistic tradition?"

The answer;

1. Love them by not needlessly offending them.

a - Advice. “I would not attack legalism. I would not preach on Christian liberty. I would not assault their consciences either by flaunting liberty on a personal level.”

b - Scriptural principle. “I think there is a very important principle that comes at the end of 1 Corinthians 10 . . . . Do you offend the non-believer, or do you offend your weaker brother? The answer in that text is you offend the non-believer, and the message that the non-believer gets is that you love one another. . . . You defer always to the weaker brother.”

c - Definition of legalism. “In many cases when you’re talking about legalism, you’re not talking really about works-salvation. You’re talking, I assume, about an approach to the Christian life that is needlessly restrictive and narrow and artificially constructed around certain behaviors that aren’t even biblical issues.”


d - Application. “What you need to do is to understand that’s where they are, and you want to demonstrate love to them because that’s how people know that Christ has changed your life, because you are demonstrably sacrificial and loving to those people who maybe think differently than you do.”

2. Understand that convictions—whether right or wrong—inform the conscience.

a - “You also have to understand that the conscience is a mechanism given by God to everyone. It is a device. It is a mechanism by which we are excused or accused, right (Romans 2)? It is informed by our convictions. Conscience is informed by conviction.”

b - Illustration. “I suppose no one has a more highly informed and aggressive conscience than a Muslim terrorist, right? They do what they do with passion to the point of their own suicide, believing that they’re gonna end up with seventy-two virgins on pillows in the next life. Their conscience frees them to do what they do because it is informed by a set of convictions that have been drummed into them.”

3. Slowly re-educate their conscience by exalting Jesus.

a - Challenge. “When it comes into the Christian realm, you have a dilemma between re-informing them [and] at the same time that you don’t train them to ignore their conscience or after they’re re-informed, they’re gonna be used to doing what their conscience tells them. That’s why Paul is so clear on that at the end of Romans. . . . You can’t train people to ignore conscience. You have to take the long-term approach to re-inform the conscience.”

b - First step. “I would suggest that the first way to do that is to move people off the rules they live by on to the person of Jesus Christ, and just preach the glories of Christ. Get in a Gospel and stay there until those people have been liberated from rules to love for Christ, until they have been literally swept away in awe and wonder over their affections for Jesus Christ. Rather than try to instruct them on the biblical disciplines, which again is just another set of rules, let them be lost in wonder, love, and praise over the person of Christ, and you watch those things begin to disappear.”

So what do we think? Not radical enough? Or hitting a godly and fair balance?

Answer to Counterfeit? Intimacy!!

I was going to write quite an empassioned post about something that's been on my heart for some time. And that will come - maybe tomorrow.

But I have come back from the most amazing lunch with Ursula - a fellow blogger I met for the first time today. Whooooo ... what to say about Ursula?! We hit it off straight away - as soon as we hugged I felt the fire vibrating through this anointed servant of God. It certainly didn't feel like a first meeting in person! I felt completely at one in spirit and felt like she's going to be someone I'm seeing a lot of! We didn't stop talking from start to finish and I loved the fact that she did most of the talking. That was mainly at my design - I was there to learn and hear all about "Grace and Glory 2009" and more importantly about her encounters with God.

As I was driving home listening to the new City Church International worship album that Ursula had kindly brought for me (I LOVE souvenirs from Hong Kong!!) a lot of thoughts were flying round in my head. The first was a longing for encounters and experiences with God like she had. The second was a weary tiredness with "fear of the counterfeit" and getting it "right" that has been drummed into me since childhood. What has such fear produced? I mean really? Has such an obsession with right theology produced increased conversions or increased signs, wonders and miracles?

I was reminded of something that Rob Rufus said at "Glory and Grace" in 2007 when I was there;

"Paul said in Galatians, 'I am shocked that you are so quickly leaving the true gospel and going after another gospel that is no gospel at all' ... it is a false gospel and a legalistic gospel ... I want to say, Rob Rufus wants to say, I am astonished at the fear and paranoia amongst Christians about being deceived by false signs and wonders. I want to say - you either need to get saved (because you can't be saved if you are that frightened) or as a Christian realise that every counterfeit is easy to discern.

It takes you away from Jesus but true signs and wonders take you closer to Jesus. How can you NOT discern the difference?! How can you be so dumb and still breathe? I know Him! I know His secret ways! I know His smell! I know His voice and tone! Nothing could counterfeit Glenda to me - unless I didn't know her very well! Nothing can counterfeit the Holy Spirit to me! I have known Him for 30 years and you can be one day old in the Lord and a one day convert and you can meet the Holy Spirit - any other spirit will dishonour Jesus and point to man! It will exalt man and flesh!

This fear - "Oh in the last days we are going to be deceived!". No - those who don't know their God will be deceived but Daniel says those that know their God will do mighty signs and wonders! I am convinced there are Christians that don't know God - they are strangers to God! They have got head knowledge and full of theology about God but have never met Him! They don't know Him! When He turns up in a meeting and is moving by His power - they stand there looking around saying "What is this?". This is THAT which was the prophet Joel spoke about; "I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh! Your sons and daughters will prophesy!".

These are not days to be wondering "Is this God or not?". You should know within seconds. When banktellers are trained how to recognise the counterfeit notes, they don't spend ages handling counterfeit to recognise counterfeit currency. They give them hours of training just passing the genuine through their fingers. They become so familiar with the genuine that the moment a counterfeit passes through - they recognise it immediately! Don't worry about the counterfeit - get so close to the genuine Holy Spirit and then you will know immediately a demon spirit or a new age spirit!".

You may have felt that I was banging my drum about the Song of Solomon unnecessarily. I've written quite a few posts about it now I just realised!

It all started with "If It's New it Probably Isn't True" - A Response to C J Mahaney's View on the Song of Solomon". It had never even entered my head that people could and would believe that a book of the sacred Word of God could be simply a glorified sex manual for married couples. I didn't appreciate C J Mahaney mocking that view very much!

When last month a series of posts on the Song of Songs was prompted by a chat with my Dad.

What Song of Solomon Has to Teach Us!! - It's no good just being negative about the view you don't like.

When John MacArthur Gets It Right!! - MacArthur takes toilet-mouth Mark Driscoll to task (even though they have the same views on Song of Songs).

When Rob Rufus Gets It Right!! - Rob Rufus addressed Song of Songs and made his views clear in a prayer at "Grace and Glory".

Dr Peter Masters is Right!! - Another uber-conservative, Reformed scholar and cessationist teaches accurately and powerfully on what the Song of Solomon has to say to us.

So why? What's the connection?

Well if the Song of Solomon is an accurate representation of the passionate, intimate love that God has for us and the response that can evoke in us then here is the clue to not having to fear deception and the counterfeit. Learn about the true intimacy we can find in Jesus Christ and we will never mistake Him for a demon! Ever! I don't think the answer is to be found in endless theology textbook after textbook anymore. I used to. But I suddenly saw the Bible warns clearly against this too;

"Holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these".

Avoid them! So as an expression of such intimacy I want to post Ursula's wonderful encounter and journey into heaven and her meeting with Jesus Himself (during the Sydney Glory and Grace Conference). In the past I might have probably tutted and headed for the theology textbooks to check out if it was "right". Now I hunger after such encounters. I long to know His manifest love!;

"I was in the middle of this huge field and Jesus was standing next to me. We went for a walk – and I was just telling Him how much I love Him – we only got about 5 steps – and He turned and hugged me. My arms were around His neck and His arms were around my middle and He was holding me tight. He swung me around and around and I could only bury my neck in His neck and revel in this love He had for me.

Eventually, Jesus put me down and still with our arms around each other we walked on. But we only got about 3 steps and suddenly it was like He couldn’t contain Himself and I was in His arms again swinging. He was laughing and crying and there was just so much love for me and I was totally undone by it. My heart felt like it was expanding till it was going to burst. The more we swung the deeper His love was, the deeper we fell in love and I was just whispering “I love you, I love you, I love you…I just want to fall in love more and more with you…” I was just totally overwhelmed by His incredible, totally indescribable love for me".

Do you know what I realised? The Song of Solomon teaches us that while marriage is indeed wonderful, we don't have to wait for it to encounter this wonderful intimate love. It doesn't begin at marriage! Sure Ursula is right;

"When both of our eyes are on His eyes, on Him, when He is our first love, the intensity of the love for Him actually multiplies because the two of us become one…and our love for Him together is stronger than just one of our loves…and that in the spiritual realm, that doesn’t just double, but multiplies over and over and over".

But Paul said it is BETTER that some remain single for a reason! And why would it be better if single celibate people missed out on this joyful intimate love? The answer is that we can experience this here and now with Jesus Christ - the risen and exalted Lord Himself. Here! Now! And that is the best defence against the counterfeit.

Dr Peter Masters is Right!!

Well this is now the third part in an inpromtu series sparked off by Mark Driscoll and his rather colourful words on the Song of Solomon. The first was Dr John MacArthur's reaction to Driscoll here and the second was Rob Rufus's wonderful inspired words on the Song of Songs at "Glory and Grace" in 2007. I guess that part of the motivation behind why I feel so intensely about this could be explained in my post; "Speak Tenderly to My Bride". It's my conviction that something had gone drastically wrong when a preacher is laying down rules and regulations on what Christian wives "should do" in the privacy of their bedroom - with the end result of guilt and condemnation if they even feel they do not want to do what their husband is demanding.

So yesterday on the back of a recurrent dream I have been having I travelled down to London and went to the outstanding Evangelical Library. I was hoping to spend time in the periodicals and journals that they have but they are currently in storage. Instead I spent my time in the commentaries on the Song of Solomon. And I found a quote by Watchman Nee that made me think. Underneath the mocking of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Solomon - I believe there is actually a problem with believing that God can feel so intimately about them. Why? Because they believe that they still have sin within them somewhere that the blood of Jesus Christ didn't quite cover and thus deserve something of the wrath and judgement of God.

In short this issue of how you understand the Song of Solomon is not just some secondary issue that can be ignored. Understanding that book rightly has implications on worship, on intimacy with God and the gospel itself. Because we will never be able to access the full glory, weight and wonder of God's love and passion for us conveyed through the Song of Solomon (among other Scriptures) until we understand the Gospel of grace properly.

Here's the quote from Watchman Nee;

"The book's (Song of Solomon) innermost heart speaks of spiritual communion. It is a book for the heart ... The book addresses itself to those who are already regenerated by the Spirit of God and who are awakened to longings for a fuller experience of Christ. There is not the slightest mention of things pertaining to salvation. The emphasis is not on matters relating to the sinner but rather on those concerning the advancement of the believer. It does not address itself to those outside of Christ but to the Lord's own people.

Consequently there are no instructions given as to how one may be saved but it tells of the longings of a believer for deeper experiences of the Lord. It does not speak of faith but of love. Love floats like a banner over the whole Song ... ".

And that's when I got my shock. Searching more through the shelves of the Evangelical Library I found a commentary on the Song of Solomon by Dr Peter Masters - the senior minister of the Metropolitan Tabernacle. I am ashamed to say that Dr Masters is another individual I classed along with John MacArthur in the "rabidly anti-charismatic, anti-everything" camp. And that's true - he is. But I sat myself down and read his commentary. It was excellent. Here's the basis of his argument which I hope will be helpful;

1. The Title Points to Christ.

Firstly the original Hebrew is "Song of Songs" meaning the best of all possible songs, or the supreme and most beautiful song ever composed, an extravagant title for the love of ordinary human beings. Such a title best refers to the love of the Son of God for His people and their responding love to Him.

2. Solomon is Not a Model for Marriage.

Secondly Solomon, the inspired author, would hardly be the ideal channel for lessons on love and marriage in view of his having acquired a thousand wives and concubines who turned away his heart from God.

The life of the teacher must surely commend his message. If Solomon wrote about his own first courtship and marriage, how could this be described as the best song and put forward a model when it quickly became a betrayed relationship? A repentent sinner however is an acceptable person to write about the mercy of Christ to His church and Solomon became such a person after His restoration to God (reflected in Ecclesiastes).

3. There is No Wedding.

A third reason why we must see the Song as an allegory of the love between Christ and His church rather than a manual on married life is that there is no wedding in it.

It is a fact that the bride and groom are viewed throughout the book as not yet fully married, this being one of the compelling dramatic features. Modern writers tend to marry the couple off at an early stage so they view them as husband and wife, complete with physical intimacy and marital tiffs but this is read into the song. The reality is that the bride and groom had engaged in the first stage of an ancient Jewish betrothal so that they were wholly committed to each other but they did not yet live together.

Throughout the Song the bride and groom are seen waiting for the day of the wedding ceremony with it's great marriage supper and they are still looking forward to it with great desire at the end. This is powerfully prophetic providing an exceptionally close union between believers and their Lord as they wait for His coming at the end of the age and the great bridal supper of the Lamb.

C H Spurgeon said; "As a believer draws near to Heaven, this is the book he takes with him".

If we miss this the Song has ... nothing to say to our spiritual lives.

4. Love Terms Cannot Be Real.

A fourth reason for the superiority of the grand old view is that many expressions of admiration used in the Song are simply not credible for human love, such as when the groom tells the bride she resembles Pharoh's horses or that she has a neck like the squat, rough Tower of David, plus other equally jarring descriptions.

If however the poem is an allegory of the love between Christ and the church, these sentiments come to life, describing the privilidges and characteristics of saved people. The love poem is only the "vehicle" for the message. The descriptions were never meant to be wholly realistic or to be taken literally. As the old saying goes - an allegory says one thing but means another. We must see the deeper meaning.

5. Great Prophecies are Here.

A fifth reason for taking the groom to be Christ and the bride to be the Church, is the amount of prophecy which becomes obvious through this interpretation. It is no coincidence that many passages picture well the incarnation of Christ, His saving work, His resurrection, the establishment of the church age, the calling of the Gentiles and the future heavenly kingdom.

One modern evangelical Bible dictionary says rather surprisingly that "there is little in the book that is explicitly religious". This is only true if one takes the fairly modern view that this is a literal love story. However if we take the older view that this book is a guide to spiritual love then we see Christ and His work prophesied throughout it's eight chapters.

6. Allegory is Solomon's Speciality.

A sixth reason for believing that Christ and His church is the subject of this poem is that the Bible tells us that a parable style was the principal feature of Solomon's writings. He issued 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs (1 Kings 4:32) many of the proverbs being in the book of Proverbs. A proverb is (in the Hebrew) a rule or a comparison, ranging from a short, pithy comparison to a full-size paralell or allegory. While we are told that Solomon specialized "comparisons" (teaching truth by means of a fictional story) and also in songs,

We are not told that a major part of his work was a marriage guidance manual.

When John MacArthur Gets It Right!!

One of the joys of being a constant student and son of God is that the Holy Spirit is constantly tweaking and adjusting prejudices in my life and I always know when it is Him. Because He does so, so utterly gently and tenderly. After leaving Bristol (as many know) I struggled a lot with unforgiveness and bitterness towards Sovereign Grace Ministries and the church in particular for their harsh legalism. And if I dared to share what I was struggling with, I was told (mainly by SGM-ers) that I should "just get over it". I am indebted still to Pete Day for dealing with this excellently in a blog post.

But probably in the last 18 months or so I've discovered that the Holy Spirit has taken away that bitterness and that anger without me even noticing or making any attempts to "just get over it". That's true sanctification surely! That as Ryan Rufus said in his sermon on Sunday - God wants us to focus on Him and His heart and then He will adjust the externals that He wants changing. Rest! Anyway that's a bit of an example as to how constant gentle change goes on in our lives so gently by the Spirit within us.

I've never had much time for John MacArthur since reading his "Charismatic Chaos" back in the days when our home church was marching steadily towards a functional and theological cessationist position. I hated his aggressive attitude and judgemental intolerance of charismatics (ironic that the Holy Spirit's gently pointed out in my life recently how aggressive and judgementally intolerant I have become of those I didn't like for being such!!). However I was very impressed with some articles that MacArthur published earlier this month dealing with the Song of Solomon - and in particular Mark Driscoll's approach to them.

Here's a brief summary of what MacArthur wrote;

1. "The Rape of Solomon's Song".

"Apparently the shortest route to relevance in church ministry right now is for the pastor to talk about sex in garishly explicit terms during the Sunday morning service ... These are schemes that make daily sex obligatory for married couples over a specified time—usually between seven and forty days".

This was exactly the question I asked my family at dinner last night. "Relevance". I was shocked to hear that Driscoll's worship pastor used a swear word from the CCK platform when he was there for the Worship School recently. Now I am no prude! I'm a nurse and am well aware of swear words. Like Rob Rufus said once - I too can swear like a poet if I am so inclined. But I was asking my family if we need to use such words in church to be "relevant"?

MacArthur isn't saying we should stay in the Dark Ages of Victorianism and avoid sex in church;

"So there's simply no way to preach the whole counsel of God without mentioning sex. But the language Scripture employs when dealing with the physical relationship between husband and wife is always careful—often plain, sometimes poetic, usually delicate, frequently muted by euphemisms, and never fully explicit".

He then went on to get more specific with the way that the Song of Solomon is used in this "relevant" approach to sex;

"But it has become popular in certain circles to employ extremely graphic descriptions of physical intimacy as a way of expounding on the euphemisms in Solomon's poem. As this trend develops, each new speaker seems to find something more shocking in the metaphors than any of his predecessors ever imagined ... We're assured moreover that the shocking hidden meanings of these texts aren't merely descriptive; they are prescriptive. The secret gnosis of Solomon's Song portray obligatory acts wives must do if this is what satisfies their husbands, regardless of the wife's own desire or conscience.

I was recently given a recording of one of these messages, where the speaker said, "Ladies, let me assure you of this: if you think you're being dirty, he's pretty happy." Such pronouncements are usually made amid raucous laughter, but evidently we are expected to take them seriously. When the laughter died away, that speaker added, “Jesus Christ commands you to do this.” That approach is not exegesis; it is exploitation. It is contrary to the literary style of the book itself. It is spiritually tantamount to an act of rape. It tears the beautiful poetic dress off Song of Solomon, strips that portion of Scripture of its dignity, and holds it up to be laughed at and leered at in a carnal way".

That was exactly my concern and my heart when I wrote my blog yesterday. Something is wrong when women who were created and given to be protected by man are being treated like this surely?

Anyway MacArthur ends the first part by mentioning that he feels Mark Driscoll is the main proponent of this view and treatment of the Song of Solomon. That may be true - I don't know. But in my opinion it was C J Mahaney who first brought this to the discussion table.

2. "The Rape of Solomon's Song - Part 2".

Again I couldn't agree more with his opening lines;

"It's frankly hard to think of a more appalling misuse of Scripture than turning the Song of Solomon into soft porn. When people can no longer read that portion of Scripture without pornographic imagery entering their minds, the beauty of the book has been corrupted, its description of righteous love perverted, and its role in sanctifying and elevating the marriage relationship deflected. That preachers would do this in public worship services is unconscionable".

MacArthur quotes Tremper Longman saying;

"Tremper Longman III says this about preachers and commentators who interpret the Song's poetic imagery in overtly explicit ways: "[Their] free association with the images of the Song is so prevalent that we learn far more about the interpreters than we do about the text".

He then goes on with some more specific comments about Driscoll which can be read but aren't the object of this post. This isn't meant to be a dig at Driscoll. I don't like the guy but I know he is touching thousands with his style and that's great! My querying is more about this issue of do we have to become like the world and speak like the world to attract the world? Or should there be something rather different about us?

3. "The Rape of Solomon's Song - Part 3".

MacArthur makes some comment on the interpretation of Song of Solomon that I'm not quite sure about. He says;

"I emphatically agree with those who say the Song of Solomon is not mere allegory. It is best understood when we take it at face value, like any other text of Scripture. Many interpreters whom I otherwise hold in high esteem (including Spurgeon and most of the Puritans) have unfortunately done more to confuse than clarify the Song's message by treating it in a purely allegorical fashion that eliminates its primary meaning. Solomon's Song is, as I've said from the outset, a love poem between Solomon and his bride, celebrating their mutual love for one another, including the delights of the marriage bed. To interpret this—or any other portion of Scripture—in a purely allegorical fashion is to treat the interpreter's own imagination as more authoritative than the plain meaning of the text".

I agree that it's not helpful to take everything in an allegorical fashion. But my gut feeling is that we must see marriage as it's God-given intention - that of a picture of Christ and His Bride! The supremacy of the relationship between God and us surely sets the tone for everything else. After all - why else would there be no "giving and receiving of marriage" in heaven? If marriage was that supreme then surely it would go on into eternity? Why does God get so upset in the Word of God when His picture of marriage is abused through sexual sin? Because it reflects on Christ and the Bride. Why did Moses get forbidden from entering the Promised Land? Simply for abusing a picture of Christ on the Cross.

MacArthur quoted Driscoll saying this about the allegorical approach to Song of Solomon;

"Some have allegorized this book, and in so doing, they have destroyed it. They have destroyed it. They will say that it is an allegory between Jesus and his bride the church. Which if true, is weird. Because Jesus is having sex with me and puts his hand up my shirt. And that feels weird. I love Jesus, but not in that way."

MacArthur goes on;

"Driscoll has said almost the exact same thing in at least three other sermons. For example: “Jesus keeps making out with me and touching me in inappropriate places.” “Now I’m gay, or highly troubled, or both.” “As a guy, I do not feel comfortable with Jesus, like you know, kissing me and touching me and taking me to bed. Okay? I feel sort of very homo-erotic about that kind of view of Song of Solomon.”

Some of Driscoll's supporters have tried to stand up for him saying that he's toned down in his recent "Peasant Princess" series that some of my family have liked so much. MacArthur thinks not - quoting Driscoll;

"Now what happens is some say "Well, we do believe in the book [of Song of Solomon], and we will teach it, but we're gonna teach it allegorically." And there's a literal and an allegorical interpretation. They'll say, "Well the allegorical interpretation, it's not between a husband and a wife, Song of Solomon, love and romance and intimacy; what it is, it's about us and Jesus." Really? I hope not. [Laughter from crowd] If I get to heaven and this goes down, I don't know what I'm gonna do. I mean it's gonna be a bad day. Right? I mean seriously. You dudes know what I'm talking about. You're like, "No, I'm not doing that. You know I'm not doing that. I love Him [Jesus] but not like that." [Laughter from crowd]"

Er ... no. This "dude" doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. But I won't go on otherwise I'll be writing stuff that I will later regret. MacArthur (while not taking the allegorical approach to Song of Solomon) writes something that I really found helpful and interesting;

"Thus even a non-allegorical interpretation of Song of Solomon, (simply taking the love-song between Solomon and the Shulamite at face value) ultimately points us to Christ and his love for the church. The text ought to be handled by the preacher accordingly, not as an excuse to bathe in the gutter of our culture's easygoing obsession with crude sex-talk and graphic sexual imagery".

I think if Mahaney and Driscoll had pointed to Christ and His love for the church then I wouldn't have had half the problem I do with the "literal" approach.

4. "The Rape of Solomon's Song - Part 4".

In his final article MacArthur begins by responding to questions that arose from the many comments left as a result of these articles on his blog. Just prior to that MacArthur quoted Tim Challies who's reaction to this view of Song of Solomon was;

"I have a real problem with anyone interpreting Song of Solomon like that . . . . To be honest, words fail me when I even try to explain myself—when I try to explain how I just cannot even conceive of Song of Solomon like that. The poetic nature of the Song is entirely eroded when we assign such meaning to it: such specific meaning. And I think as well of what it may do to a couple to be able to say “Look, this specific sex act is mandated in Scripture. So let’s do it.” That may be said to a spouse who has no desire to do that act or who even finds it distasteful. And yet with our interpretation of Song of Solomon, which we really have no way of proving (at least beyond a reasonable doubt) we are potentially bludgeoning an unwilling partner into doing something. I just … again, words really fail me here".

One interesting question I noted was this (followed by MacArthur's answer);

"2. Song of Solomon is a very explicit erotic book. How can you possibly argue that this book of the Bible, which is God's Holy Word, is anything but "fully explicit"? Isn't it a denial of the obvious to claim that the Song of Solomon is not a pretty graphic description of sex?

explicit -- ek ● SPLIS ● it -- Distinctly expressing all that is meant; leaving nothing merely implied or suggested; unambiguous

Since there is not one explicit mention of a reproductive body part or sexual act in Song of Solomon, no credible commentator on the Song would ever make such a claim about that book. Furthermore (and this is the key point of the whole discussion) Song of Solomon is not "erotic" literature in any sense—i.e., it is not intended to arouse readers sexually. Clearly it should never be preached in a way that has that effect. That is so obvious a point that only an exploiter of the book would ignore it for prurient interests".

One important question was raised;

"4. Could it be that your scruples about graphic descriptions of sexual acts are cultural and generational? Perhaps the culture in which you minister isn't as uninhibited as the subcultures other preachers are trying to reach".

This surely is a fair point. MacArthur is a lot older than Driscoll. However I think Mahaney isn't that much younger than MacArthur and he seems to be very much in agreement with Driscoll. But even though I'm 31 - and I don't have scruples about discussing sex - I still have the same problem in graphic descriptions of sexual acts from the pulpit. How on EARTH is that fulfilling the Ephesians 4 mandate that these gifts of the ascended Christ are meant to be doing? To bring the body of Christ to maturity? To giggle in repulsion at the idea of the glorified and risen Christ trying to "put His hand up my shirt" sounds like it belongs in the gym changing room at school. Not the church. And certainly not from the platform.

Anyway. I promised myself I wouldn't get into a rant. Here's MacArthur's answer to that question;

"Sex is not something new in the postmodern era. Every culture and every generation has dealt with the same obsessions and perversions as today—though not always with the same unbridled self-indulgence our culture encourages. Every Christian has always faced the same lusts and temptations that assault us: "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man" (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Those who think pornography and unrestrained debauchery weren't commonplace in the pre-Internet era ought to visit the ruins of Pompeii and see what life was like in the culture of Rome during the apostle Paul's generation. Paul ministered in cultures that were far less “inhibited” than ours. Yet when he found it necessary to deal with sexual topics—whether giving positive instruction about the marriage relationship or a negative exhortation about sexual sins—he never spoke in sexually graphic terms".

In many ways our generation is more prudish than some of the generations that MacArthur mentioned. MacArthur makes a very important point;

"The truth is that God’s Word never gives specific instruction about the details of a married couple’s personal preferences in their sex life. Sermons that pretend to find such instruction, like the sexual preoccupation demonstrated in these assaults on the Song of Solomon, are more damaging than helpful—because they elevate the imagination of the preacher to a higher position of prominence and authority than the true revelation of God".

This is something I've worried about time and again. The two churches that formed the bulk of my Christian experience were both led by very dominant (some might say domineering) church pastors. Even if they didn't intend it - there was a culture in both churches where church members would take the word of the pastor as the Word of God. And that wasn't just the preached word. That was throw-off comments and opinions that said pastors had.

We discussed Driscoll's views on the Song of Solomon last night (mainly me and my mum) and this question actually came up in conversation;

"6. Was Driscoll’s sermon really as bad as you say? Aren’t you overreacting to what is ultimately just a difference in style?".

MacArthur gives a link to the two sermons Driscoll preached in Scotland - and I duly read them. Why is such an issue made of this? Well here's why according to MacArthur;

"That’s why I am making such an issue of this. Because the New Testament makes an issue of it. It is not simply a difference of opinion, generation, preference, style, or methodology. It is an issue that arises from clear New Testament mandates related to the character of an elder. If anything, I don’t think I have reacted strongly enough".

Finally someone asked MacArthur why he is dealing with this matter publicly and why he hasn't approached Driscoll privately (he has and was ignored). The questioner knew that both John Piper and C J Mahaney are having some degree of input into Driscoll's life. Here's what MacArthur said;

"I am pointing out something that should not be the least bit controversial: pastors are not free to talk like that. In response, a flood of angry young men, including several pastors and seminary students—not one of whom has ever attempted a private conversation with me about this topic—have felt free to post insults and public rebukes in a public forum, declaring emphatically (with no obvious awareness of the irony) that they don’t believe such things should be handled in public forums".

He quotes Scripture to back this up;

"When 1 Timothy 5:20 says, “Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all,” it is talking about elders in particular. Those in public ministry must be rebuked publicly when their sin is repeated, and public, and confirmed by multiple witnesses".

On Driscoll's tongue, MacArthur said;

"Mark did indeed express regret a few years ago over the reputation his tongue has earned him. Yet no substantive change is observable. Just a few weeks ago, in an angry diatribe leveled at men in his congregation, Driscoll once again threw in a totally unnecessary expletive. A few weeks before that, he made a public mockery of Ecclesiastes 9:10 (something he has done repeatedly), by making a joke of it on national television. So here are two more inappropriate Driscoll videos being passed around by young people and college students for whom I bear some pastoral responsibility. In their immaturity, they typically think it’s wonderfully cool and transparent for a pastor to talk like that. And they feel free to curse and joke in a similar manner in more casual settings".

That's something I've noticed. I know a church in Wales that has adopted the "Driscoll-style" in church life (and the pastors certainly aren't immature) and I've heard the MP3's and the same cursing and joking seems to crop up there too.

And finally on Mahaney and Piper's involvement;

"Finally, it seriously overstates the involvement of John Piper and C. J. Mahaney to say they are “discipling” Mark Driscoll. In the first place, the idea that a grown man already in public ministry and constantly in the national spotlight needs space to be “mentored” before it’s fair to subject his public actions to biblical scrutiny seems to put the whole process backward. These problems have been talked about in both public and private contexts for at least three or four years. At some point the plea that this is a maturity issue and Mark Driscoll just needs time to mature wears thin.

In the meantime, the media is having a field day writing stories that suggest trashy talk is one of the hallmarks of the “New Calvinism;” and countless students whom I love and am personally acquainted with are being led into similar carnal behavior by imitating Mark Driscoll’s speech and lifestyle. Enough is enough. Yes, I did inform John Piper and C. J. Mahaney of my concerns about this material several weeks ago. I itemized all of these issues in much more thorough detail than I have written about them here, and I expressly told them I was preparing this series of articles for the blog. To those asking why pastors Piper and Mahaney (and others in positions of key leadership) haven't publicly expressed similar concerns of their own, that is not a question for me. I hope you will write and ask them".

I'm glad that someone of MacArthur's statesmanship wrote these articles. Not because I am rejoicing that someone else is taking a pop at Driscoll - because I said before that wasn't my concern. He is who he is. And God can work all things together for good. But because the whole issue of Song of Solomon is being dealt with properly and in a concerned manner for the glory of God and for His Name and for His fame.

The world isn't very impressed when the church starts speaking in a smutty manner. They can do it far better than the church ever can. The world isn't very impressed when the church starts speaking explicitly about sex - not when explicit sex is available anywhere and everywhere. In my experience non-Christians expect the church to be different. And when they are not - even non-Christians know something is wrong.

Why I LOVE Conversations!!

I do recognise that for many Ephesians 4 Ministries it is preaching that is the primary gifting and is the reason why I spend so much time transcribing what these men preach and say. However I do have a great interest in seeing these very same ministries sitting down in a more informal context and discussing matters. I remember actually it was a Panel Discussion between John Piper, James Montgomery Boice, C J Mahaney and David Bryant at the Bethlehem Conference in 1999 that was the very FIRST thing I ever transcribed!

So I was interested to find this video clip of John Piper and John MacArthur being interviewed by Justin Taylor;



I must admit - watching this video clip and bearing in mind my previous comments about John MacArthur - I have been considering something that I'd appreciate thoughts and comments on. I still believe John MacArthur is being dishonest to Scripture by saying things about the work of the Holy Spirit. If that's right and true then he is quenching the Holy Spirit by stating so unequivocally that to pursue the gifts of the Spirit is purposeless and presumptious, then will MacArthur still have anointing on his preaching? God is surely so gracious and as long as MacArthur earnestly seeks Him, then I think that he would. But ... it's a case of missing out on the dynamic power of the Kingdom - and not using all that God has so lavishly provided.

All that aside - I am still not going to bypass a chance to hear these two men in conversation. I'm just trying to think through how we can convince Rob Rufus to sit down and have a public discussion and engage many issues that fascinate us all!

Criticising Moves of God? Think Carefully ...

I noted previously that City Church International held a series of "Miracle Healing Meetings" in Hong Kong. The Sunday morning was a particularly incredible time of heavy anointing and of the manifest Presence of God. I've drawn attention to Rob's prophetic song - and I do URGE everyone to listen to it. The message was vintage Rob - and he was addressing Pharisees and legalists. He wasn't happy. But I do believe it is a message whose time has come (and will shortly be transcribed and published on the Rob Rufus blog). The Pentecostal/Charismatics traditionally have been criticised by the Reformed section of the church for not being "Word-based" enough. The emphasis and demand for orthodoxy has been overpowering.

Yet I have been reading John MacArthur's New Testament commentary on 1 Corinthians and I remain puzzled as to why no one applies the same stringent "tests" to a so-called academic who is held in great esteem by people such as C J Mahaney. For example those who "eagerly desire spiritual gifts" (as being obedient to 1 Corinthians 14:1) are told by MacArthur;

"The Corinthians were to stop seeking gifts because to do so is both persumptious and purposeless".

Further on MacArthur seems to contradict himself by on the one hand declaring;

"God does not bypass men's minds either to reveal or to teach His Word. There were no ecstatic, bizarre, trancelike experiences related to divine action or the prophet, such as occured and occurs with demonic revelation".

Did he not read the book of Acts where Peter fell into a trance just before going to Cornelius's house? We can therefore safely assume that ANY trances or ecstatic experiences that occur within the church today would be classed by MacArthur as demonic (and I guess that answers his views on the Lakeland Outpouring). Yet bizarrely enough MacArthur does seem to believe that there is a demonic counterfeit to spiritual gifts;

"People do not counterfeit what is not valuable. Satan counterfeits the Spirit's gifts because he knows they are so valuable in God's plan".

I don't understand how MacArthur can be so inconsistent in his exposition of pure Scripture and yet be very quick to point a finger of judgement at the flaws of men such as Todd Bentley or Rodney Howard-Browne or Bob Jones. Rob Rufus doesn't either. He said this:

"Isn't it amazing that as God begins to focus on what He is doing in Florida and He is breaking out across the world and the church has cried out for decades for a mighty move of God's Presence and healing - that when God brings it, some of the church is not happy with who He is using and they are not happy with the package or with tattoos on the man and go and dig out all the snot and all the stuff about Bob Jones's past. People are sending emails about what I must go and look up about Bob Jones and the sin he did in his past.

I am NOT interested! What I want to know is - is that God there? If God chooses to use Todd Bentley at the age of 32 then I say as a 53 year old - thank You Lord for Todd Bentley! Thank You for a new generation carrying the message of healing!

How can you listen to Bob Jones - do you know what he did 10-something years ago? How can you read the Psalms? That guy who wrote the Psalms is a weirdo - I tell you. Watch out reading the Psalms - you know you are reading the writings of a man that God was inspiring to write - that man saw a beautiful chick on a rooftop that he manipulated and connived as the king of Israel to get her? And he had illegitimate sex with her! Oh! Then she fell pregnant! Oh! Big problem now! What is she going to do when her husband finds out? Who happens to be one of the king's best friends?! So he betrayed his close friend and called him back from the battle and makes his friend drunk. Oh! Made his friend drunk!? So his friend would be so drunk and would go in and have sex with his wife and then he would think he made her pregnant!

You are reading the Psalms of a guy who wrote them and yet did this?! The husband said; "I'm not going in to be with my wife because my friends are out on the battlefield and I am not going to have that privilidge while they are out there". So he goes back to the battlefield and David arranges for Uriah to be murdered. Sure great was his repentance and David realised how serious what he had done and he repented from the depths of his heart and never did anything like that again in his life and when he died, God said; "This is a man after My own heart - who served My purposes in My generation".

We have got Pharisees in the church world and we have got Sadducees and I tell you - this is a true saying. If you are bleeding don't swim with the sharks. If you are bleeding and you are swimming with the sharks, do not let them know you are bleeding. I wouldn't want to fall into serious sin in much of the modern church because they will rip into you and rip your reputation apart. They will display your dirty washing across the internet and over email. They will disqualify you forever standing in ministry again. I felt the Holy Spirit say that He is getting quite angry with this. He said that these people who are always criticising the ones that I am using - He said, I am going to start scrutinising their lives and bringing out their dirty washing because when you operate in self-righteousness and pride then you forfeit the protection of grace because God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.

All these criticising, judgemental people have got stuff in their own cuboards that they are covering up. It is coming out in the open. The Holy Spirit is going to bring that stuff out. So I bless what God is doing in Florida - I bless Todd Bentley and I bless Bob Jones! I bless the prophets of God - I bless the work of God - I bless the fact that 25 people have been raised from the dead!".