the nature of spiritual authority

When I have finished writing this current book I have several more I want to write. They are some way off at this time so I thought I would use the blog to vent some steam while I am waiting.

Differences between gatherings of God's people are usually distinguishable by differences in theology and in polity. Theology is obvious but polity is church order. Here in the UK our bloodiest civil war was fought over the issues, not of theology, but of polity. King James the First of England (and VIth of Scotland) was thoroughly committed to Episcopalian polity ie bishops and a clear hierarchy of offices. The son of a Roman Catholic mother he had been raised as a Presbyterian and hated it. The preachers made it plain that there were two kingdoms in Scotland and that although James was king over the one, Jesus Christ was king over the other. They made it plain that King James would never be the head of the Church of Scotland. On the death of Elizabeth he became king of England and set about the task of creating one 'United Kingdom'. To make it work there would have to be one 'United Church'. But what kind? He had no doubt. It would be Episcopalian with himself at its head and with the power to veto its choice of bishops. He was a crafty old bird but his son Charles believed all the same things but had no subtlety in his determination to create one 'United Church'. His failed efforts in Scotland spilled over into England and pretty soon the Civil Wars began.

It is a serious business and saints of different persuasions have been prepared to suffer and die for their convictions. What's more they have been prepared for others to suffer and die who didn't or couldn't share their convictions. Is it just a matter of 'pay your money and take your choice' or is there a Biblical route to sanity in these things. What are the Biblical principles of spiritual authority and how should it be exercised?

There is the beginning of an answer which is expressed so plainly it could hardly be misunderstood. But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Mark 10:42-45 NKJV. That is an inverted pyramid in contrast to Gentile power structures which have hierarchies of leadership with the great ones at the apex. At this level it is a principle rather than a clear church polity but it is a principle which must be carried into church polity if church polity is going to be faithful to the spirit of its one Lord.

Of course it is not just a matter for the great ones of the earth who meet in their synods and councils. It begins in the local gathering of the saints and expresses itself in the way a man 'rules' his smaller household. Abigail expressed the desire to simply wash the feet of the servants of her lord. Abigail means Father's Delight and such a disposition surely is!

Care in the Community

Reading in 2 Corinthians this morning I was arrested by the statement of Paul concerning his motivation in initiating the disciplinary action that we first meet in 1 Corinthians. Briefly, someone in the church there had begun a relationship with his step-mother. Paul is horrified and even more so that the church at Corinth had taken no action in the matter. If our presumed scenario is correct, it seems that the church in Corinth quickly moved to implement Paul's counsel. It may be that there is a missing letter between our 1 Corinthians and our 2 Corinthians but that will not alter what follows.

Paul writes Therefore, although I wrote to you, I did not do it for the sake of him who had done the wrong, nor for the sake of him who suffered wrong, but that our care for you in the sight of God might appear to you. 2Cor 7:12 NKJV

The passage shows Paul's motivation in taking the initiative. It was not primarily as a punitive act against the immoral behaviour of one, nor an act to support the infringed rights of the other. In one sense it was not even a simple acting in responsibly towards a community for which he felt a responsibility. According to what we read here it was specifically to 'show that he cared', and he adds the words 'in the sight of God'. He was conscious of God's eye upon him as he took the first steps and as he makes this claim. Earlier he had testified that his earlier letter had been written through a haze of tears. (2Cor 2:4) It brought to mind an old Graham Kendrick line.."where are the love tears that earned the right to speak". Do we have any right to initiate public disciplinary action without the tears?

Any public discipline must surely begin here, not with any sense of vengeance or even the righting of wrongs but with a tearful endeavour to demonstrate genuine care for the community. There are times when public discipline is necessary and the New Testament has examples of some of these but whenever such public action is necessary it is vital to ensure that our motivation is a genuine demonstration of our care for the community and is not triggered by any crusading intention.

Vicarious Suffering?

The title would usually turn our thoughts to Christ himself. 'Vicarious' coming from the Latin actually means a substitute and that certainly turns our thoughts Christ-wards.

However, I wasn't thinking about Christ's vicarious suffering but ours. I was reading 2 Corinthians earlier this morning and was taken again with the boldness of Paul's statements. He begins by saying that we can pass on to others what we have learned of God in times of trial and suffering. He says that where 'the sufferings of Christ' abound in us, so does the comfort or encouragement. So far that is fine and we know that God wastes nothing so every trial 'traced upon our dial' as the old hymn says can be a source of blessing to ourselves and to others.

It is the next section that stops me in my tracks. He says 'Now if we are afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effective for enduring the same sufferings which we also suffer. Or if we are comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation.' 2Cor 1:6. If we take a short cut in that sentence you may see how I am thinking... "if we are afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation". Or even shorter, 'if we.. it is for you'.

That is not 'vicarious' in the same way that Christ's suffering was vicarious but there are definite points of contact. Paul was conscious, as we read elsewhere, that some of his suffering was for others; I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church, Col 1:24. This suffering was 'for the sake of His body', it was not 'instead' of, as Christ's vicarious suffering was, but it surely linked to the well being of others.

Now Paul was an apostle, and I am not, and one of the essential elements of apostleship is suffering but I got to wondering about just how much of our suffering is '...for you'? We can be so 'ego-centric' that we conclude that all our trials are 'for our own sake', perhaps sometimes they are not. Suppose the trial that God is taking you through is NOT for you but for me? Suppose the trial that God is taking me through is not for me, but is for you... where would that leads my thoughts.

The family of God, the body of Christ is a mysterious and invisible reality. If we are baptised by one Spirit into one body we are joined together in him and we are 'in this together'. Charles Spurgeon used to encourage his students to be 'often at the death bed' of the saints. He added it is a wonderful thing to 'see silver hairs adorned by golden graces'. It is not just true of death-beds. It is a source of powerful encouragement when I see the 'given grace' which enables fellow saints to patiently persevere.

So 'hang in there' my brother/sister. I need to see God's grace at work in you. The time may come when my remembrance of your suffering will be just the thing I need as part of God's grace to get me through mine.

The Imminent Collapse of the Evangelical Church

This topic is causing a lot of fluttering on the websites. It originated in an article in the Christian Science Monitor entitled; The coming evangelical collapse. It would be interesting to hear people's feelings about this. I am in broad agreement with the article as regards it being a possibility but as to whether or not it will happen I am not sure.

Perhaps the more challenging question is 'would it matter'? What do evangelical churches stand for today and would it be a loss if we lost them? One of the themes in the article and the writer's blog is what we might call the sheer 'wooliness' of so many evangelicals. The writer makes the point that the shift to social concern which has been the pattern for much of the last 20 or 30 years as been at the cost of a 'confessional orthodoxy'. In other words a more traditional denominationalism with clear belief systems. He predicts that disenchanted evangelicals will head towards Catholcism and the Orthodox chruch in an endeavour to find a solid theological ground. We have, so he says, got to the position where the main criteria is 'growing numbers' and the mega-churches are, by definition, the success story here, but where is it all heading?

Some 30 years ago I sat a white haired preacher down and asked him a question. I said, "When I see the way that evangelical theology is heading with its 'decision based' practices and its claim that this is 'receiving Christ' I wonder whether or not evangelicalism has gone too far to be retrieved, short of another reformation. What do you think?" He refused to be drawn, maybe he didn't understand the question! Maybe, as with this article, there is little to be said that really adds anything to the discussion.

I have been thinking about John Baptist and his mission to clear the way so that men could get a clear view of the coming king. If it takes the loss of 'the evangelical church' to clear the way, perhaps it would be price worth paying.

David Wilkerson's Predictions of New York catastrophe

I was first alerted to Dave Wilkerson's blog by a friend who asked 'what do you make of this?' I think an equally important question might be 'what do I do with this?' That is surely always the right response to a word which someone says has come from God.

I have to be honest and say to myself; 'do I believe this prediction?' and my honest answer is 'no'. So the next question is 'so you believe this will not happen?' and my answer to that also is 'no'. By 'believe' I mean active faith. Do I have active faith that this calamity will overtake New York? No I don't. Do I have active faith that this calamity will NOT overtake New York? No I don't.

Do I have opinions? Oh yes, by the truck load, but I try not to exercise faith in my 'opinions' and I certainly try not to exercise faith in other people's opinions.

So I am left with the question. "what does God expect me to do with this David Wilkerson blog?" I can pray and I do for David Wilkerson and John Piper and others who have a high profile and whose words are listened to by thousands of attentive hearers. They, and I in a lesser degree, carry a heavy burden...

My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. James 3:1 NKJV

A few of us are discussing this on the Biblebase Discussion Forum. Why not come and listen or even better... join in.

The New Covenant

I suppose the New Covenant has been my thrill and passion for a good few years now. It was salvation expressed in terms of the New Covenant which caused my own personal seismic shift back in the early 1970s. The source was the teaching of G W North, a man who inspired strong reactions for and against. Initially my reactions were very favourable. He had been invited as the speaker for the Devotional Day at the Birmingham Bible Institute where I and my wife were students. I don't think I really picked up the distinctives at that point but was greatly challenged by his preaching and presence. I then became a pastor in an independent full gospel church.

My next contact was with some young adherents who were holding house meetings in another part of the city where I was pastoring. They gave me some reel to reel tape recording and I was horrified! He seemed to be blurring all the edges between regeneration, baptism in Spirit and Second Blessing Holiness teaching. I took my stand on a fairly traditional three stage Pentecostal theology.

Then I reread one of his earlier books; The Generation of Jesus Christ and the scales began to fall from my eyes. But it was as I listened to the gospel expounded in the terms of Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 that the seismic shift took place. Rather than dividing it all into stages these two great prophets of the New Covenant expressed God's intention in a holistic pattern. It was all or nothing. The New Covenant is not available on the instalment plan although our experience of these things is often fragmented itself.

Suppose the Old, Sinai, Covenant were presented to Israel in a staged version... exit from Satan's power/exodus part one, some years later a meeting with God and a covenant, some years later entrance into a promised land... Ah, you say, but the promised land was many years later... Indeed it was but not by God's intention. This is our dilemma, almost inevitably we expound the gospel in terms of our own experience of the gospel. We become witnesses not to Christ but to our experience of Christ. The only cure for this inevitable degradation of the original message is to return to its first recording, not in the experiences of men but in the revelation of scripture.

Having taken that step it all fits together beautifully. If my experience does not match it I must seek God for a change in my experience and not use my experience to degrade the source revelation.

Why all this now? I have been engaged in a triple series of Introducing the New Covenant studies at three separate churches. I am sure I have benefited more than any of the listeners. I love this truth, and Charles Wesley once wrote...tis worth living for this. The consistency of God's plan, his execution of that plan through history and in its fulfilment in Christ has me on tip-toe again. What a blessing it is to live in such an era when the fulness of times has come and the gospel of abundant grace is available to all who will ask.

Please excuse my ramblings, I am just maxing out on the New Covenant and its wonderful Author.

Synergy and Prevenient Grace

This title might prove the proverbial 'red rag to a bull'. The word 'synergy' is used often in contrast to 'monergy' in discussions relating to the general Calvinist positions. Monergy means 'only one works' and for the Calvinist this is God. Synergy means 'co-working' and points to the 'less than Calvinist' notion that God requires human co-operation in the work of salvation. Let me say at the outset that as regards these things and the doctrine of 'prevenient grace' I am a five-point Wesleyan!

John Wesley taught four areas of grace; prevenient, convicting, justifying and sanctifying. It was his, and my, conviction that the whole process 'starts' with God. Prevenient grace is the grace that prepares us for the greater grace which is on its way. It is the old English use of the word 'prevent' which originally meant to 'precede'. There is, taught Wesely, incremental grace which enables the receiver to respond to God's offer of greater grace. To my way of thinking the teaching gives appropriate balance to the sovereign workings of God and human accountability.

How did we get onto this topic? Well, I am reading the chapters in Exodus which record the instructions for the building of the Tabernacle. The overall responsibility is given to Moses as the mediator of the Covenant. Moses must build the Tabernacle as Christ would later build His church.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: 3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, 4 To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, 5 And in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship. 6 And I, behold, I have given with him Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan: and in the hearts of all that are wise hearted I have put wisdom, that they may make all that I have commanded thee; Ex 31:1-6 KJVS

It was the last phrase that caught my attention, "I have put... that they may make all that I have commanded." Bezaleel and Aholiab were supernaturally endowed, not naturally talented. They were 'enabled' to do the will of God and then commanded to do it. That's as good an illustration of synergy and prevenient grace as I know. God empowered them to do his will, but their "responsibility" was to 'respond to his abilty and enabling'. As Paul wrote so many centuries later...

...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. Phil 2:12-13 NKJV

God holds us responsible for for working out what He has placed within... synergy. Both the desire and the dynamic are God's work, the doing is ours.