The Blog of Hobbes

This morning I read this outstanding quotation by Carl Trueman on the Reformation Quest blog, highlighting the “confusion between gospel as message and the believer’s response in experience”. I’ve not read Trueman’s book. But, based on this quotation, it sounds extremely helpful and insightful. It’s a reasonably long quote, but it’s worth the effort.

This is a tricky one, for the simple reason that evangelical Christianity, at least in its best form, is committed to the idea of the centrality both of doctrine (something which can be given expression using a public vocabulary) and of the experience of God’s grace in the life of the individual.  The two things are formally separable and this, of course, means that the public distinctives of evangelicalism can be learned by those who lack the second, while the second can be claimed with no real grasp of the first.  This has led, in some quarters, to a fear not simply that the truth might be preached through the mouths of those who are actually unbelievers but also that there can be a fundamental opposition between the two, the head and the heart, and that the latter, the heart, should therefore be given precedence.  Now, I want to be careful here, in that I do not want to be misinterpreted as saying that conversion is not a prerequisite for ministry.  It most certainly is; but I do want to say that the content and efficacy of the gospel does not depend in any way whatsoever upon the moral qualities or salvific status of the individual who brings the message.  The early church debated precisely this issue in relation to the efficacy of ministry of those who had fallen away during times of persecution and then returned to their old jobs when the persecution died down.  It was decided then - and rightly so - that the Word of God was the Word of God, and not dependent upon the person bringing it to the church.  To take any other position is surely disastrous, as none of us can know for certain what the state of anyone else’s heart is; it is only because the gospel concerns the promise of God revealed in Christ that we can have confidence in the efficacy of the message preached.  To put it more bluntly: it is better to have the gospel competently preached by one who proves to be an unrepentant adulterer than to have it preached incompetently by one who has been born again, precisely because it is the Word which is efficacious not the heart of the preacher.

This has ramifications for various aspects of church life, not least in the realm of attitude towards learning.  How many times have you heard the comment, ‘Old Mrs Jones has walked with the Lord for fifty years and knows more of God than any professor with a PhD.’  On one level, the comment might well be true - walking with the Lord in faith will get you into heaven in a way that mere possession of a PhD certainly will not.  Nevertheless, when we grasp that the gospel is first of all a message, a proclamation of what God has done in Jesus Christ, and that experience comes as a response to that message, it is quite clear that a professor with a PhD may well have certain insights into that gospel message which Mrs Jones, for all her practical godliness, does not.  Much of the anti-intellectualism which pours from pulpits in churches, from Reformed to charismatic, is the result of precisely this confusion between gospel as message and the believer’s response in experience - a confusion which has just enough appearance of truth to be superficially plausible while resting on a fundamentally skewed understanding of what the gospel actually is.  Only when the church comes to acknowledge in both belief and practice that the gospel is a message, not a feeling or an experience, will such fuzzy thinking (and much else) finally be put to rest.

This is perhaps putting it somewhat crudely, but it makes the point that the gospel is a message with content and not simply a case of one person communicating an experience to a group of others.  That is, after all, the essence of old-fashioned liberalism - Christianity is the feeling, not the doctrine, and theology is simply reflection upon religious psychology not upon the revelation of God.

Carl Trueman (The Wages Of Spin - Chapter III Theology And The Church: Divorce Or Marriage?  pages 70-72)

Not posted for a while, mainly due to the birth of our second baby, Eliisa. It’s remarkable how an extra kid fills all available free time. Not that I’m complaining - she’s absolutely adorable.

Anyway, over the past couple of months I have been preoccupied with the gospel and issues relating to it. There cannot be more important questions than i) what is the gospel? and ii) how can I be saved? (If there are more important questions, then let me know what they are!)

More than anything else, every church must spend a serious amount of study time in order to establish a correct soteriology. If not, then every other dimension of the christian life will be distorted, sooner or later. The gospel must be given a pivotal and preeminent role among all other doctrines. The center of gravity of biblical theology, and the church, is the gospel.

However, many believers appear to be ignorant of the gospel, as biblically defined, yet are apparently fine, good-standing and active church members. But, where there is ignorance of the gospel, salvation is likely to be absent. To be frank: this terrifies me. A church that spends its time doing what churches do but without a clear, correct understanding and proclamation of the gospel is a deeply deceptive and dangerous church. Yet, how easily are many pleased and satisfied with merely “doing church”!

It comes down to this: Can you give a clear, correct account of the gospel and a testimony of your interest in it? If not, how can you be saved, no matter how deep your involvement in church life is?

Or have I missed something?

Jesus must be my saviour, delight, strength, propitiation, joy, hope, treasure, light, redeemer, guide, among many other things. If Jesus is not these things to me, then my life will display a perversion of Christianity. The Christian life is necessarily and radically Christ-centered.

Every church must avoid the danger of putting eccesiastical practices and forms at the center of the Christian life, with Christ at the side, merely providing the impetus and direction for the practice of church life. I delight in sound, biblical teaching and preaching. But, I must never delight in preaching about Christ more than in Christ himself. Does fellowship with the saints bring joy? Of course! Yet, beware if the joy of fellowship eclipses your joy in your saviour.

The church must never be church-centered. If she is to be the radiant bride Christ intends, she must be obsessively groom-centered.

That the leaders took the lead in Israel,
that the people offered themselves willingly,
bless the Lord!

Judges 5:2 (ESV)

O, how our churches could be more like this: Leaders who possess the courage and wisdom to lead, not in any direction, but in the direction specified by Scripture; and congregations who recognize godly leadership when they see it, and joyfully submit.

If your church matches this description, then bless the Lord!

Machen, speaking about choosing a pastor:

Such and such a man, it is said, is a brilliant preacher. But what is the content of his preaching? Is his preaching full of the gospel of Christ? The answer is often evasive. The preacher in question, it is said, is of good standing in the Church, and he has never denied the doctrines of grace. Therefore, it is urged, he should be called to the pastorate. But shall we be satisfied with such negative assurances? Shall we be satisfied with the preachers who merely “do not deny” the Cross of Christ? God grant that such satisfaction may be broken down! The people are perishing under the ministrations of those who “do not deny” the Cross of Christ. Surely something more than that is needed. God send us ministers who, instead of merely avoiding denial of the Cross shall be on fire with the Cross, whose whole life shall be one burning sacrifice of gratitude to the blessed Saviour who loved them and gave Himself for them!

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Eerdmans, 1923), p176.

One of the lessons I have learned while seeking a new church is the importance of examining the theological foundations that underlie its life and practice. Towards this end, it is essential that we consider the “statement of faith” that should contain explicit statements either affirming or denying certain theological propositions, and which all members should affirm and protect.

Without a commitment to such a statement, the church will be exposed to all sorts of theological nonsense, and will have no basis for disciplining those who hold to false and heretical beliefs. And, as Machen says, merely “not denying” a key doctrine provides no assurance that that truth plays any role in the life and practice of the church. Therefore, such assurances are worthless.

I would be very concerned if I were forced to guess or infer the theological foundations of a particular church due to a lack of doctrinal clarity and commitment.

I just submitted the following devotional article for our church newsletter:

The House of God

Many years ago, Jacob embarked on a journey to find for himself a wife from among his own people. After a long day of travelling Jacob was forced to rest for the night in an unknown, unremarkable place somewhere between Beersheba and Haran. But, next morning, Jacob declares, “How awesome is this place!” Why? During the night he was gripped by a dream. He saw angels ascending and descending on a ladder that reached into heaven. God stood at the top, declaring great promises over Jacob (see Genesis 28:10-17).

The environment in which Jacob stayed remained the same throughout this experience - an uncomfortable place, with just a stone for a pillow. But, the dream opened his eyes to the glorious presence of God. He confessed, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it”, and realised that that place was “the house of God” and “the gate of heaven”.

Many years later, Jesus referred to Jacob’s dream and applied him to himself (John 1:51). He told Nathaniel, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” What is Jesus saying about himself? This is what I think he means: Wherever the presence of Jesus goes, that place is an awesome place! Some may not know it, or see it, or believe it, but the Lord is in that place.

This has great relevance for us as a church. Wherever the church meets—where two or three (or three hundred) gather in the name of Jesus—the presence of Jesus is there also (Mat. 18:20). Christians are people who meet in ordinary, unremarkable places but know that Jesus is present with them. So, they declare “how awesome is this place!” Through the work of the Holy Spirit, the church is “the house of God” and “the gate of heaven.”

The church is a gathering of people who know by faith that “the LORD is in this place”. But, do we really know it?