Leadership Skills According to the Iron Lady

I originally intended to come back from the cinema 2 days ago and write a post reflecting on leadership skills in the church based on the awesome film; "Iron Lady". However my apartment was broken into and we had some very valuable things robbed including my iPad - so that distracted me somewhat! Then I woke up yesterday ready for a long day at work and was in the wrong place to read Mark Driscoll's rather unfortunate assessment of preaching and teaching in the United Kingdom.

I was thinking about his comments at work and wondering if I was overly harsh - but I think not. Many excuse Driscoll on "his age" or "social situation" - but I do think that leadership demands an element of responsibility. Unless Driscoll is extraordinarily naive or foolish - he will be aware of his fan-base across the world, so therefore must be aware (thanks to social networking) of the impact that a throw-away comment such as he allegedly made, would have.

My philosophy is still simple. As the many brilliant consultant surgeons and physicians in healthcare quite rightly take a large salary for their responsibility of the patients under their care - so "mega-church pastors" who take large salaries as well as book royalties (such as Driscoll, C J Mahaney or even John Piper) must also take responsibility for the impact of their words. In a sense - their words can damage even more than the doctors I encounter because the words of church leaders can damage spiritually as well as physically.

But onto "the Iron Lady".

I have always been a fan of Margaret Thatcher since I was young (as the photo taken by my friend Mark Heath demonstrates! Check out the postcard of Thatcher in my office in the bottom right hand corner) - so I was eager to see how this film depicted her. I greatly enjoyed the film but found it sobering too. Whatever one may feel about Thatcher's methods - you cannot deny her commitment and determination to see what she believed right brought about. Two scenes particularly brought me out in goosebumps;

1. The moment when Thatcher had to decide whether or not to take aggressive action against the Argentine battleship that was circling the Falkland Islands at the beginning of the war. Whether or not this was the way it happened - the film has it visually grippingly depicted! Thatcher is surrounded on one side by her military commanders who have told her what can be accomplished if she wishes. On the other - her civil servant advisers who continually advise "caution" and "negotiation". The viewer can see Thatcher's manicured nail tapping on the table and you hear the monumental lines; "Sink it". What is further gripping is that you see her tears and agony at the impact of her action - the British lives lost as a result.

2. The other was the moment when Michael Hestletine's betrayal (in Thatcher's view) became real to her, and she realised she would have to leave power. She said in the film; "But I am Prime Minister!". It made me realise that any leader - whether in church, or in state - are still human beings with real emotions, vulnerabilities and can be hurt. It was this moment that brought tears to my eyes for what I imagine C J Mahaney must be going through at this time. I have made no secret of my dislike of his methods and decisions - but I realised in the cinema, what utter hurt Mahaney must feel in his mind - at the way that certain leaders have "turned on him". Thatcher used to lead the United Kingdom. Mahaney used to lead SGM. Both human.

However:

The one concerning thing I noticed was the very similar tactics used by both Thatcher and her politicians, and much of "celebrity" church leadership I see today. I'm not quite sure of the difference anymore - other than one leader leads a country, another leads a church (or group of churches). Forgive me for sounding dated - but I think what is missing from much of church leadership that is in the public eye is "the anointing". I still remain very committed to Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones' description of the "sacred unction" that is needed (and missing) from so much of preaching.

Don't get me wrong - I love social networking, Twitter, the opportunities that the internet brings to spread the word of the gospel far and wide. But I still am not persuaded that these "modern inventions" (as the Doctor would call them!) are necessary to bring about a revival of spiritual power that we so desperately need. I think it's great the way that Mark Driscoll in Seattle, Nathan Smith and Pete Bowley in Bristol (in my opinion one of the best churches in the UK using social networking - alongside CCK in Brighton) and others particularly have really jumped on board and are using Twitter and the internet to spread the word that church is available and where they are! But I do hope that Mark Driscoll (I know the Bristol leaders wouldn't) become dependent on his flashy back screen while he preaches to think that is essential to bring in the crowds.

This is why Terry Virgo's ministry (alongside others such as Rob Rufus) means so much to me. You can still sense the anointing on him when he preaches - and surely this is the example to seek to emulate. Not investing tithes in mediation fees or new technology for your church.

A quote from Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones to close;

“When the Holy Spirit comes in revival there is a great anointing, and it shows itself in many ways. You read of men who had believed the truth, and who were preaching faithfully and regularly, but who were ineffective and lacking in power. Suddenly they are filled with power. They speak with boldness and with power and with great authority. That is the anointing of the Spirit . . .

But this anointing is not confined to revival. I use that simply as an illustration. Thank God it is given at other times. Any man who has ever preached should be able to testify to this. There are times when, entirely outside his own control, he is given a special authority, special power, an unction which is unusual. And there are good reasons for its bestowal. There are circumstances which he himself is not always aware of, which he only discovers afterwards. Somebody may have come to the congregation who needed a particular message or word, and the preacher, without knowledge on his part, is guided to say something which is just appropriate to that particular state and condition. There is, therefore, this special enduement of power which is called ‘the anointing’. It is something that one should seek and covet, it is something for which one should be constantly praying . . .".

(HT: Adrian Warnock - emphases mine - David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Christian Soldier: An Exposition of Ephesians 6:10 to 20, Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh; Carlisle, PA, 1977, p.115)

Toilet Mouth Driscoll is at it Again

Most know I have made no pretence of my dislike for Mark Driscoll. His efforts to appear "manly" (putting down women, swearing in pulpits, wearing a Mickey Mouse T-shirt) really do less than impress me. However - I have tried to see the good in his ministry. Terry Virgo - a man I hugely respect - has had some interaction with him and I've tried to appreciate that.

But Driscoll just won't shut up and go away. Not only has he know produced a "soft-core porn" sounding book on marriage and intimacy - which I fully admit I haven't read (and don't intend to - Tim Challies fair review was enough) but apparently he has also written off most of the United Kingdom evangelical preachers!

Here;

“Let’s just say this: right now, name for me the one young, good Bible teacher that is known across Great Britain. You don’t have one – that’s the problem. There are a bunch of cowards who aren't telling the truth.”

It doesn't bother me personally. I'm not "young" or a "Bible teacher". But I wonder how the many fans that Driscoll has over here in the United Kingdom will feel about being assessed as "cowards who aren't telling the truth". I wonder about Joel Virgo at CCK who I think is a fan, or Adrian Warnock or the many other Newfrontiers preachers who got excited about Driscoll's visit to the Newfrontiers Brighton conference recently? I wonder about the SGM young excellent preachers in both Bristol and Newport who would surely fit closely theologically with him as Calvinist and Reformed? Or as Krish Kandiah (who reviewed Driscoll's comments) also notes;

"It doesn’t sound like Driscoll is rejoicing the ministry of Mike Pilavaci, Andy Croft, Jo Saxton and the impact these preachers are having on tens of thousands of young people each summer at Soul Survivor. Doesn’t sound like he’s particularly appreciative of Rico Tice coming from the other end of the theological spectrum whose course is being used by hundreds of churches. We can’t call Nicky Gumbel young anymore but I haven’t heard a lot of love coming from Mars Hill for Alpha either. Apparently he hasn’t got anything good to say about Karl Martin in Edinburgh nor Pete Greig at HTB or Ness Wilson in Loughborough".

Oh Driscoll has begun to try and retract his words already apparently (as he does quite frequently when he mouths off and then realises he has put his big size 10's in it). I was more interested in the fact that he and his wife have a degree in communications rather than his "words of context" - that accuse the Christianity Today reporter of seeking to "inflame" his more controversial aspects to his ministry.

This hasn't really helped my attempts to see the good in Mark Driscoll's ministry. I don't think we even bother wondering whether John Piper and C J Mahaney (who has far too many of his own troubles to be reigning in Driscoll) help "father" and "pastor" him anymore. I am sad to say that all I see is an arrogant chauvinist who is working the media well (through his degree in communications) to stay famous, sell books and create newspaper headlines. Maybe he's a potential candidate for next year's "Celebrity Big Brother".

However I will try not to huff off - offended for my country - but end with a fair review assessment;

"There is lots to commend about Pastor Mark’s ministry – there is an evangelistic fervour, a cultural connectedness to their praise and worship that i have not seen anywhere else and passion for church planting which I can rejoice in. But please Mr Driscoll its time not just to “Man up” but “Grace up” your brothers and sisters in the UK need less judgmentalism and more encouragement".

Preach the Word!

I've just come back from a fantastic day spent in the historical city of Oxford. Scott and I both had the day off and decided to do something "different". Oxford is only an hour's drive away and somewhere I've visited once or twice (once in 2001 to hear John Piper speak at St Aldates and St Ebbes churches) but never to appreciate some of it's historical features.

One amazing place I was fascinated to visit was the famous Bodleian Library. It is the main research library in Oxford, one of the oldest libraries in Europe and second in size only to the British Library (some 11 million items!). I could have spent hours there. Why do libraries thrill me so? I think it is the historical marvel that words written down up to centuries ago can still be enjoyed, read and benefited from now.

Video tapes and audiotapes may erode and the spoken words of the sermon lost (one reason why I transcribe so much). But books manage to survive!

I've spent the last couple of days reading a novel I enjoy greatly - the series of books by Christopher Paolini about the character Eragon and his dragon Sapphira. At one point Eragon (the hero of the story) is severely hampered in his battle against evil because he doesn't have a sword. He tries out many inferior swords but ends up seeking the perfect sword made by elves which he calls "Fire". That always challenges me and reminds me of many Christians and Christian churches. Ephesians speaks of the "Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God". Spirit and Word are seen as an offensive weapon in our fight!

There is much to challenge our generation. I've just been absolutely thrilled to find hidden in the archives of the Martyn Lloyd-Jones Recording Trust - two sessions that Dr Lloyd-Jones held after he had finished speaking his famous "Preaching and Preachers" lectures in the USA. No one knew that after these lectures he held two Question and Answer sessions with the students -and the recordings were SAVED! (I will of course be transcribing them).

But Dr Lloyd-Jones is in glory. Terry Virgo and Stanley Jebb are in their sixties and seventies. Rob Rufus and Greg Haslam are in their fifties. Ern Baxter is in glory. Where are the young men and women of OUR generation ready to rise up and obey the Great Commission set by the risen Lord Jesus;

"Go into the world and preach the good news to all creation!".

Will our generation put down the words God speaks through preaching that can be set down in books for generations and centuries to come (if Jesus Christ doesn't return)? I have got a few things that I feel God is challenging me with that I may share in time - exciting days!

Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones in the Flesh!!

I was extremely excited to receive this video link on You-Tube from my dad yesterday. Both he and I have a great love for the Doctor's ministry and particularly his ability to combine Word and Spirit - orthodoxy on fire. Up until now my experience of him has been limited to hearing him speak on CD or tape - so it is incredibly moving to see him speak.

When Rob Rufus Gets It Right!!

There have been some really awesome comments on my previous post; "When John MacArthur Gets It Right!" - which I'm so grateful for. I think we all appreciated my non-Christian friend's input and frankness! All Christian husbands need to never, ever forget that sexual intimacy means that wives should be enjoying it too! But I carried the conversation on at home with my mum and dad when I met them for coffee yesterday. It's something I really love and appreciate about Mum and Dad - they are willing to listen to whatever's on my heart. The benefit of discussing this Driscoll/Song of Solomon thing is that I've come to appreciate how important Christian married couples long for some Biblical teaching and input on their intimate lives.

But I think Sheila makes a vital point too - we don't need schoolboy toilet (or bathroom) humour or language to get that point across. And while I am sure Mark Driscoll is an incredibly unique person - his behaviour doesn't necessarily have to be prescriptive to try and emulate the kind of success God is giving him at the moment. My heart still is for Christian women - sisters in Christ. And so I was thrilled driving back from Bristol to be reminded of something Rob Rufus said in a prayer at "Glory and Grace" when I was there in 2007.

Here's what he said - and it's absolutely on-topic. One might have thought he knew of the debate!

"The Bible in Song of Solomon and many other places talks about us being the Bride and being loved and ravished by heavenly romance with a Bridegroom that is so in love with us! Your love is better than wine. Come away with Me, My beloved!

Forgive us for taking the culture of the world as men - Lord! So afraid of intimacy. So afraid of closeness. So afraid of emotion. We thank You for the example of David - Lord. A real man, a masculine man, a warrior, a mighty warrior! A man who killed many people in battle, a great warrior in the army of Israel! A king! Yet a sensative, tender poet. A romantic. A lover! A tender-hearted man!

Oh give us men like that in the world today! Warriors who will stand up and fight yet know tenderness and intimacy! Jesus the Son of God who stood against the most evil force on the planet - religious demons behind Pharisees - and He stood against them alone and would not buckle under their intimidation or pressure. What a man! Yet He could stand before Lazarus's tomb and weep and shed tears and say "Let the little children come to Me for such is the Kingdom of heaven".

Jesus who could look at a woman caught in adultery and say "Woman where are your accusers? Neither do I accuse you". Such tenderness in this Man! Jesus of Nazareth! Fully God and fully Man! Weeping with compassion! Showing such kindness! But even on the Cross and dying for our sins, He looks down at John and said; "John behold your mother" - pointing at Mary. Thinking about His MOTHER! While He is on the Cross He is still wanting to make sure His earthly mother is looked after by His disciple John - the man He loved!

What kind of Man is this?! So full of masculinity and male authority yet so tender and intimate. He let John the apostle put his head on His chest at the Last Supper and was not embarressed by the contact of a physical man touching His chest in public - so innocent and pure. What happened to the church? This Bridegroom does not need our love but He desires it with a passion!".

I think that last point for me answers one of Driscoll's most distressing comments where he mocks those who see certain allegories in the Song of Solomon and says;

"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]"

Whether it was meant as a joke or not (and an extremely bad one if it was) - the fact remains that Jesus Christ the Man had absolutely no problem in loving one of His disciples and welcoming His disciple's love and longing for closeness in absolute innocence and purity. I must confess one of the thoughts that has most often gone through my head when I first lay eyes on the Risen and Exalted Lord Jesus Christ for the first time is a longing that I will be able to run into His arms and do the same thing. Let's recover that innocence and purity. As Rob Rufus said;

"What's happened to the Church?".

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.

Terry Virgo on Ern Baxter at Brighton 2004

I mentioned a couple of posts ago that looking into the past is a tremendous encouragement when it's hard sometimes to see clearly into the future. Looking into the past is a reminder of how God moved before and builds faith for how He will move again and indeed how He is moving - even unseen. It occured to me that it's been a while since I've sorted through my video sermon collection. I'm so glad that I spent hundreds of pounds buying videos at the Stoneleigh Bible Weeks and the Brighton Newfrontiers conferences because there is something special about seeing these key moments in the flesh! (What I would give to see Ern Baxter at the Dales Bible Weeks in the 1970's .... )

Here is a clip from the Brighton conference in 2004. I wasn't able to go to the whole week due to work commitments so Pete had to attend alone. However we were able to get down for the final day - Terry Virgo's closing session and then the evening session; "Does the Future Have a Church?". It was an incredible coincidence that I had just completed my first transcript of "Life on Wings Interviews with Dr Ern Baxter" and had sent it to both Terry and to Stanley Jebb.



There is nothing more thrilling than prophecy that is being fulfilled. That look into the past is an amazing reminder that God spoke powerfully to the Charismatic Movement in the 1970's and we are seeing it come to pass in these days. Jesus Christ said; "I WILL build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it!". Ern Baxter frequently used to remind us that statement of Jesus Christ's was not a defensive statement. Who has ever seen gates jump off their hinges and chase Christians down a street? No - this statement is an offensive statement. There is not one gate that can stand against the relentless advance of the Church - not even hell's gates themselves!

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!

Rob Rufus, Ern Baxter, C H Spurgeon and the Promised Land

I have a great love for the typology of the children of Israel travelling through the wilderness from Egypt to the Promised Land. One of my favourite sermon series of Ern Baxter's was called; "Where Are We Going?" at the Dales Bible Week 1976 and was based on this. I have already transcribed two sermons from the series - "The Land Located and Described" and the "Kadesh Crisis" (I intend to finish this series as soon as possible and have it bound to join the other books I have typed up!). Ern Baxter like C H Spurgeon taught biblically that the land DOES NOT and CANNOT mean heaven - despite the traditional evangelical interpretation by people such as Bluefish. After all - will there really be giants in heaven? C H Spurgeon says in his sermon - "Canaan on Earth";

"It has generally been considered, that the passage of the Jordan by the Israelites is typical of death, and that Canaan is a fitting representation of heaven. We believe that in some sense it is true, and we do fondly cherish the household words of those hymns which describe our passing through Jordan's billows, and landing safe on Canaan's side; but we do think that the allegory does not hold, and that Jordan is not a fair exhibition of death, nor the land of Canaan a fair picture of the sweet land beyond the swelling flood which the Christian gains after death.

For mark you, after the children of Israel had entered into Canaan, they had to fight with their enemies. It was a land filled with foes. Every city they entered they had to take by storm, unless a miracle dismantled it. They were warriors, even in the land of Canaan, fighting for their own inheritance; and though each tribe had its lot marked out, yet they had to conquer the giant Anakim, and encounter terrible hosts of Canaanites. But when we cross the river of death we shall have no foes to fight, no enemies to encounter. Heaven is a place already prepared for us; out of it the evil ones have long ago been driven; there brethren shall await us with pleasing faces, kind hands shall clasp ours, and loving words shall alone be heard. The shout of war shall ne'er be raised by us in heaven; we shall throw our swords away, and the scabbards with them. No battles with warriors there, no plains besoaked with blood, no hills where robbers dwell, no inhabitants with chariots of iron.

It is "a land flowing with milk and honey;" and it dreams not of the foeman of Canaan of old. We think the church has lost the beauty of Scripture, in taking Jordan to mean death, and that a far fuller meaning is the true allegory to be connected with it. Egypt, as we have lately observed to you, was typical of the condition of the children of God while they are in bondage to the law of sin. There they are made to work unceasingly, without wages or profit, but continually subject to pains.

We said, again, that the coming up out of Egypt was the type of the deliverance which every one of God's people enjoys, when by faith he strikes the blood of Jesus on his lintel and his doorpost, and spiritually eats the paschal lamb; and we can also tell you now, that the passage through the wilderness is typical of that state of hoping, and fearing, and doubting, and wavering, and inconstancy, and distrust, which we usually experience between the period when we come out of Egypt, and attain unto the full assurance of faith.

Many of you, my dear hearers, are really come out of Egypt; but you are still wandering about in the wilderness. "We that have believed do enter into rest;" but you, though you have eaten of Jesus, have not so believed on him as to have entered into the Canaan of rest. You are the Lord's people, but you have not come into the Canaan of assured faith, confidence, and hope, where we wrestle no longer with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus—when it is no longer a matter of doubt with us whether we shall be saved, but we feel that we are saved".

Rob Rufus joins the list of my heroes who teach the same allegorical intepretation of the Land. We - the Church - are wandering around in the wilderness I believe! I have been listening to and transcribing Rob's sermon; "Do Our Diaries Reflect The Priorities Of Heaven?" - and Rob said this:

"Why did God hide some of His biggest and richest blessings among the biggest giants in the Promised Land? Because He did not want the casual pursuer of God, the coward, the self-pitying person, the self-centred person, the person of unbelief to have access to His greatest blessings.

So He hides His greatest blessings among the greatest challenges so that the people who are going to receive the blessings of God have to repent of all self-righteousness, all delusions of self-sufficiency, to throw themselves completely onto God and to come into the Presence of God every single day and make a choice that no matter demanding life is and no matter how many pressures come, I will make my calendar a priority that I am going to engage God on a daily basis.".

Amen! Let us head onwards towards the Promised Land!

Ern Baxter - a Personal Touch!!

I do try not to flood this blog with too many personal anecdotes and have certainly never published my full testimony. But I came across a clip on a sermon video of Ern Baxter's that I thought would be amusing to publish. Ern was always present in my life when I was growing up in my home church - New Covenant Church in Dunstable. His visits were always anticipated whenever he came to a church Bible Week or to visit our church itself. I am told that I humiliated my parents when they were honoured to have Ern and Ruth Baxter come for dinner once. Apparantly I was in bed ill and was told by my older sister to come down and say hello to Dr and Mrs Baxter. I sent the message back with her saying; "Let them come up to see me".

Fortunately Ern Baxter found this highly amusing and called me; "Lord Bangham the Aristocrat" - a nickname that stuck on his subsequent visits. Unfortunately during his final sermon of his visit in 1991, I was 10 years old and finding his sermon (which had already stretched over an hour) a little too long! So I was looking out the window of the church into the car park watching some youths playing. Alas - it did not go unnoticed from the pulpit!

Here's the clip of what happened:



It was only later after I was baptised in the Holy Spirit that I began to fully appreciate Ern Baxter's awesome gift of teaching and have never looked back since!

Terry Virgo at CCK, Brighton - 6th January 2008

So here is Terry Virgo's Sermon from last Sunday:

Elijah Part 3 - A Man of Personal Obedience - 1 Kings 1:1-17.

"We have been looking at this story, realising that Elijah lived at a season similar to our own in a "post-Christian era". The people's identity was wrapped up with God but they had turned their back on God and Elijah was living in his culture but in touch with God. Although he was already a man out of step with his culture by his stance and a man unthrown inwardly by the confusion taking place in the nation - he had to live out his life in the real situation that was there. It wasn't enough for him to be simply a man of prayer. He also had to live in the world and to have an obedience expressed in action. His walk with God wasn't simply a stance - a static thing - an attitude. It was a life lived out before others and before God in stark contrast to the generation in which he lived.

He was a prophet but he wasn't just a voice deploring the situation - complaining and criticising. He was called to live a different kind of lifestyle - not just morally correct but by faith in which God was calling him to do. He was no longer to be hidden away but would live before people in what God called him to do and be. He was in that sense like Abraham. Abraham was also not just a moral character saying what was right and wrong. It says about Abraham that he went out "not knowing where he was going to go". Elijah begins to obey God and was told to go and face the king but he didn't know what would happen next. He didn't know the full picture. He isn't just avoiding Baal worship but he is living a life in response to a personal invitation from God to live by faith. He is going to encounter the king not knowing what the exit strategy after meeting the king would be. He doesn't know how things would go after he delivered his message. It was a life that said; "Whatever God says - this I will do". That is the heart of what it is to be a Christian.

It isn't about relating to rules and regulations but a response to a personal invitation.

Jesus called men to leave their nets and follow Him. He said "Follow Me". Come to Me. It says they left their nets and followed Him - they had to completely trust Him and abandon what seemed like common sense. They said "Okay we will do that". He started to live a life expressing confidence in what God says. Thus they began to lay the foundations of a totally new community on the planet. We are told in Hebrews 11 that these heroes of faith who are set forth as models - we don't read so much about their morality - as their faith in God.

They weren't taken up so much with speaking against the culture but saying "Yes" to God.

It says of them that the world was not worthy of them. A wealthy man came to Jesus and said he had lived by commandments and rules and regulations but Jesus invited him to a completely different approach. The man was sorrowful and went away. He didn't make a good choice but he could say he has always tried to be moral. "I am happy to obey objective rules but to commit my life and leave everything in Your control!? I can't do that". That is what faith is all about. That is what Abraham - the father of all faith - started with. He left everything that made sense and he went out not knowing where he would go. Jesus said to guys; "Commit yourselves to Me".

That's the root of who we are! We are not just rule-keepers but followers of a personal invitation.

So ... 1. It's a life of obedience in action.

2. It's an obedience that left choices with God.

It was an obedience that left him very vulnerable. He didn't say "Well you guarantee my safety and I will go". Jesus trained His disciples exactly like that. He led them into dangerous situations and into vulnerable circumstances. When Jesus said "Follow Me" they may have said, "Well let me go and deal with this". Jesus said, "Let the dead bury their own dead". It sounds harsh! Is that a ruthlessness under His exterior?

Jesus out of His love knows there are times when whole-hearted commitment to priorities is the only way. A revelation of a loving Saviour who knows that things only get solved when you deal with them ruthlessly and put priorities first.

After he had confronted the king then what? Ravens would feed him and a brook bring him water. This comes out of personal trust in God!

Normally I wouldn't encourage prophecy when they are just two of you. Prophetic words should come in the context of a wider circle that can weigh and judge with all the safety factors that are in that.

The way forward wasn't knowing all the answers. He doesn't show you the complete programme all the time. "And ... ?". "Just go. I am calling you to an adventure of relationship. I am calling you to trust Me". Israel was meant to be a people that walked with God. That means not knowing the complete picture but it's a faith that leaves the choices with God.

We love the church - we love one another - but at root walking with God is a matter of personal commitment when He speaks.

Ultimately the church is made up of scores and thousands of millions of people who are saying; "Yes Lord - what do you want me to do?". It's not a value simply rooted in a system but in trust. It is the way God leads us step by step. Elijah was involved in what we may call reckless obedience and God wants us to be the same. (Luke 6:48) - to be religious isn't simply to take on the expected level of morality and how you tend to live as a Christian. Beloved - that isn't digging deep down into a foundation. That isn't "Whatever He says to you - do it". That makes us all living by another value system altogether.

One day Jesus said some will say "Lord - Lord!" and He must say "Depart from Me - I never knew you".

We need to take care then that we are hearing and doing the Word of God - not just hearing it.

Just to hear and not do is to not receive the blessing. It's the digging down and the saying; "Whatever You say to me". What is needed in our generation was not just a word deploring the sad state of the nation but a people who lived by another value system related to what God was saying - even when it looked foolish.

3. It was an obedience based on humility.

"Go hide yourself by the brook where the ravens will feed you". He had just addressed the king and declared it will not rain! What will happen next? A tour from Dan to Beersheba? I may make it rain! Turn up - I will be there! I am holding history in my hands! It's my moment! Instead of it being his moment, he had to go and "hide himself". That's not what I had in mind! Hide yourself. It's not an easy word to hear.

Hidden times can be very difficult times. Faith that leads to courageous breakthrough and obedience that marches down Goliath or says "Let the fire come" is exciting obedience. But obedience that says "Now go and hide yourself" isn't very appealing.

No. "Hide yourself". Go and be hidden away. It requires real humility. It's hard for us especially in a generation about knowing your rights and knowing who's in authority. Often Christian teaching can get on the back of "knowing your rights" and "being forceful". First of all - be hidden away.

Are you any good at hiding away? How is it for you when your voice is not heard? How do you feel when no one seeks your opinion? How is it for you when you don't even know what's happening? No one will ask what his assessment is. He won't influence anything - he will be hidden away. The ravens will bring him food but not much information! Am I being blogged? Nothing!

Losing our influence can come in seasons in our lives. You can go through a time when you are not making the choices or shining. It can come in all sorts of ways and it can be costly. Somehow we feel that we value ourselves by the choices we are making. Sometimes it is hard domestically - a son or daughter looked to you for guidance but now they are married! It is hard not to be needed! Your wisdom is not being drawn on! It doesn't need to be the platform of a guy who has got a nation! It can be domestic and small.

"Hide myself?". Yes that is the word. Jesus had just been announced by John the Baptist and a voice from heaven had come! Now go to the wilderness - go hide yourself. Even Jesus went that way. What about this anointing of the Spirit that came on me? It says in the Bible we are like arrows in His quiver and an arrow must go through much preparation! Then we get stuck in a tube! A quiver just looks like a black hole. Sometimes that is how it is. Surely God wants more for me than being hidden away? But there are seasons when we must be hidden away.

God gave me this gift and there must be a reason for use of it! You may be in a church and your gift isn't recognised and it's not always right to go to another church. Recognise a season of hiding and allow it to happen. It's not easy to cultivate humility alone - that's why we need one another. We need people to correct and lovingly point out things. Is it hard to bring a correction to you? When you get criticised, do you defend yourself angrily? Go and take a lower place - go and be hidden away. You are not needed at the moment. You have been dropped. How do you handle that?

Last of all; 4. It was an obedience that gets you "there".

"The ravens will feed you "there".

Some of us fail to experience the supernatural because we don't get "there".

Sometimes we are unwilling to break out of rationalisation and logic. Maybe fear and pride - maybe straight disobedience means we never get to see the supernatural. God told me! I just went to Brighton station! Some of us apply all kinds of logic so we never get "there". We don't get close enough to hear Him.

God could say this; "The ravens will turn up - will you?".

The Christian life can be a life of extraordinary excitement but "there" wasn't just a display of the supernatural but a place where revelation came next.

Obedience brings revelation of God's faithfulness.

Some say "I never hear God speak to me". Well what about general guidance?

God loves speaking to people who take Him seriously. God loves speaking to people who say yes to basic revelation!

"Blockage"?? How about simply reading your Bible and doing what God says and you may start hearing more intimately. Get used to hearing God on His basic revelation. God loves to speak to those who take Him seriously. Obedience begins to make things work for you in terms of relating to God. I find the whole computer world a bit strange and terminology can be odd. "Plugged in?!". Well have you "plugged into" hearing God yet?

Faith grows in the context of obedience and in that context your faith begins to put on muscle.

Some say "You must have great faith". No - its just a case of doing what I was told! He said "Do it" and so "I did it" and the ravens turned up! Now God is saying to us as a church; "Go for a big thing!". When you are there - He will feed you. As we keep obeying and following His leading, He will be faithful. What do you know about ravens? Nil! But God said "Go!". Go there - get there - and God commanded! It is as you obey you get the revelation of His miracle faithfulness.

You find that the brook dried up! And faith is really tested. True faith looks and doesnt think about the alternative plan. True faith thinks "How did I get here?". I got here by following God and God will see me through! The day the brook dried up, God said, "Now go!". He didn't speak into that the day before the brook dried up! The day it dried up, God spoke. That is refusing to be independent! After many days God said to Elijah, "Go and show yourself to Ahab". God had an ultimate plan - and that was "Show yourself". His intermediate plan was "Go and hide yourself". It was like that for David in Adullum's cave. It was like that for Joseph in prison. A season of low profile and a season of being apparantly irrelevant.

Later he will call down fire from heaven. His faith was such that he said "Pour water on it - soak it!". He got faith like that because he got used to doing what God said. He only applied for this job because God said. He let God make the choices for him. God was not giving me permission so I refuse to go to Plan B! That is the Christian walk! The Pharisees did rules and regulations! "In the law blameless" but I didn't know God at all!

You cannot explain us away apart from a supernatural God demonstrating His faithfulness.

"You never will prove the delights of His love, until all on the altar you lay ... What He says we will do - where He sends we will go. Never fear, only trust and obey".

Preaching that MUST produce Encounters

I recently posted a clip of Rob Rufus speaking to the Mobilise thousands at Brighton in July about the absolute necessity to DAILY encounter God. I am finding that everything I read, everything I hear and everything I look at seems to be pointing towards this need. I must be encountering God! Daily! Therefore I was encouraged to read this quote on Terry Virgo's latest blog post;

"Holy Spirit-inspired preaching brings about an encounter with God that demands a verdict and produces a changed life based on revelation, faith and love, not cold obedience to external rules".

Can we assume then that preaching that doesn't bring about an encounter with God, that doesn't demand a verdict or produce a changed life based on revelation, faith and love ISN'T then Holy-Spirit inspired preaching? I find that quite sobering because then much of the preaching I have heard in my life doesn't really fit that criteria and clearly then hasn't been Holy-Spirit inspired.

Terry goes on to address pastor/teachers and bring them wise fatherly counsel;

"Ultimately, we also are sheep. We need to stay very close to the great shepherd, enjoying His smile, drinking in His lavish grace and being diligent to embrace His disciplines and training and follow His guidance".

I'm not a pastor/teacher but I have heard enough from wise teachers such as Ern Baxter, Terry himself and Rob Rufus to know that personal encounters with God is a priority for any servant of God seeking to serve the people of God. Are you spending more time in prayer and intimacy with God over reading books (as helpful and important as that is)? Are home visits taking priority over times of solitary with God? Even Jesus Himself left the crowds and walked alone with His Father in the mountains.

Terry finished with a comment;

"No under-shepherd is an end in himself, or has intrinsic superior wisdom".

This reminded me of a key quote of C H Spurgeon's that led me to set up the "Pentecostal/Charismatic Post-it Notes Blog". Spurgeon said;

"The man who never reads will never be read. He who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains proves that he has no brains of his own ... You need to read".

It always intrigues me to look round at conferences and see some sitting with a bored expression on their faces and closed notebooks on their laps. Our God has not only poured out the most lavish expression of grace possible by ripping the veil and making intimacy with Himself possible, but He has provided ascension gifts - apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor/teachers to learn from and be provoked by their relationships with God. None of us have "intrinsic superior wisdom"! Let's always be prepared to be students our entire lives.

I must admit one of the main character traits that make me admire and love men like Ern, Terry and Rob Rufus so much isn't so much their preaching oratory skills (although I do love that) but more their obsessive passion and desire to hunger and seek after the face of God. It is their longing for His Presence that provokes me and stirs me more than anything else.

As Rob said;

"Once you hear God’s audible voice in your heart and experience His Presence you will want it again and again. Every day I stand in the Presence of God. There’s not a day that goes by when I don’t feel the Presence of God go through me and the glory and tangible Presence go through me like electrical currents. Once you experience it once you know the address of the glory. If I went ONE day without Him I would get so lonely! And I am looking for other addicts!".

Are you prepared to become an addict? Does your preaching fit the criteria of Terry's quote? Does the preaching you hear week by week make you long to encounter God and hungry all week to seek after Him? Does the preaching that you are exposed to week by week bring about a changed life not based on external cold rules but revelation of God's grace and faith in the fact that He loves us so much?

If not ... why not?

Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Prophecy ...

After posting a series of quotes as I did yesterday there are many lines I could have taken to disagree with John MacArthur and defend what I believe clearly to be the Scriptural position. I posted quotes on MacArthur's view on Apostles (they've died out), on Spiritual gifts generally (there are permament and temporary gifts - even though I have yet to find a Scripture that tells me which are which), on Healing (noone heals today and Jesus and the apostles only healed to prove something), on the Gift of Miracles (doesn't exist), the Gift of Prophecy (it is preaching), the Gift of Discernment (it exists and only a few are present to protect the majority of the church against error) and finally the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (it doesn't exist ... well it does but it is synonymous with conversion so kind of swallowed up within it).

There are many authors who could be quoted who will ably disagree with MacArthur including Dr Jack Deere - who devotes an appendix in his book "Surprised by the Power of the Spirit" - to dismantling the entire problem with John MacArthur's cessationism - namely his dispensational eschatology. But I made a statement yesterday wondering about the concept of how John MacArthur's commentaries would developed prior to the Charismatic Movement. I therefore got to reading an author whose reputation was as a Bible teacher and certainly would not have counted himself as part of or sympathetic to the Charismatic Movement.

Therefore Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones words on the Gift of Prophecy and what it is needs to be read. The bulk of the teaching was from his monumental series on the Book of Romans -- Chapter 12. Firstly Dr Lloyd-Jones put the Gift of Prophecy into the context of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. He said;

"I say again that my position is that I believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a seperate, distinct, unique experience. It may be accompanied by remarkable gifts; it may simply manifest the regular gifts in a heightened degree. It is not for us to say that none of these things can happen. Anything is possible in the sovereignity of the Spirit".

Dr Lloyd-Jones then went on to examine the Gift of Prophecy in particular. He (as was his common practice) dealt with what prophecy is not. Let us remind ourselves of how John MacArthur defines prophecy.

"A prophet of God, therefore, is simply one who speaks forth God's Word and prophecy is the proclaiming of that Word. The gift of prophecy is the Spirit-given and Spirit-empowered ability to proclaim the Word effectively".

One of the key problems I had with John MacArthur's view is that Joel 2 prophesies a general outpouring of prophecy. But Joel 2 says "Your sons and your daughters shall prophecy". Knowing MacArthur to be as avid a complementarian as Wayne Grudem, I wondered how he would deal with this prophecy. MacArthur assigns Joel 2 to occur within the Millenium. However Dr Lloyd-Jones was clearly aware of this view and mentioned that both Martin Luther and John Calvin had held it but as a reaction to the Anabaptists.

How then does Dr Lloyd-Jones define prophecy?

"What then is the gift of prophecy? Well I would define it as a direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What for? It's purpose is to give a word from God or the Word of God to the Church".

That could be mistaken as sounding quite similar to MacArthur's definition. But Dr Lloyd-Jones goes on;

"Prophecy is the inspired delivery of warning, exhortation, instruction, judging and making manifest the secrets of the heart. Someone who makes a prophecy has been given this gift of passing on, as it were, a word from God to the church and to individuals in the church".

Once again it could be said that this definition is the same as MacArthur's - prophecy is preaching! But Dr Lloyd-Jones clearly realised this and came to the point and compared prophecy WITH preaching and how they are different.

"But perhaps the best way of reaching a definition is to ask; what is the difference between prophecy on the one hand and preaching and teaching on the other?

Because there is a difference. And I would say that the difference is one word. Immediacy.

And this means that a word is given to people and comes to them. Now preaching and teaching are not like that. A preacher and teacher is a man who takes time to study, he takes time to think, to prepare; he arranges his material and gives it order and system. A preacher and teacher should not enter into the pulpit without any preparation and trust to the inspiration of the moment".

So that is Dr Lloyd-Jones's clear understanding of preaching and the very necessary preparation required for it. But prophecy on the other hand;

"Prophecy is something given to someone immediately and directly. Let me give you my proof for saying this. In 1 Corinthians 14:29 we read; "Let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge" ... You can picture the meeting. Here is a prophet speaking a prophecy but a word is revealed to someone sitting by him. That is it; that is prophecy. It is a direct revelation".

John MacArthur on the other hand of course has problems with the verse that Dr Lloyd-Jones has just quoted - 1 Corinthians 14:29. The only way that he can explain it away is to assign that verse to the Corinthian age and the apostolic era - which of course has now finished.

Furthermore Dr Lloyd-Jones was aware of the Scriptural permission for women to prophecy and wrote this;

"There is a distinction between prophecy and preaching and teaching that can be proved quite clearly from Acts 21:9 and 1 Corinthians 11:5 ... those two verses alone prove that women can prophesy but the Scriptures also tells us that it is not permitted to a woman to preach or teach. That is why it is important to be clear in our minds about the difference between prophesying on the one hand and preaching and teaching on the other. A message may come to a woman but that does not make her a preacher or a teacher".

The Word of God commands us to "prove all things". John MacArthur himself said; "No preacher or teacher of the gospel should resent having what he says judged against Scripture". It isn't a question of chosing one's favourite Bible teachers but a case of which insight into the Word of God makes most sense. As I said before these things need to be defended - not because it is simply our preferred church life at stake - but because it is Word of God at stake and what it says and what it has to command about how we live.

For myself - Dr Lloyd-Jones makes the most sense.