Tag: Church History

Defining Evangelicalism?

Defining Evangelicalism?
by
Michael J. Iliff
(Any errors below are all mine)

What follows was first written back in 2007 (ish) and I’ve reproduced it here with a few changes in the hope that it makes sense. Some of the references might be a bit dated and some of the links are (sadly) no longer available, but, the point is to show that recent articles (or blog posts) on trying to define Evangelicalism is nothing new.

Evangelical[1] is, or can be, difficult to define, particularly when it has been suggested[2] that the term be dropped.  The word, whilst retaining a much older meaning,[3] has become so broad – it is said – to be of little or of no real value, and as regards any historic definition, become almost meaningless.  Evangelicalism is seen to be in crisis – at least definitionally. Is there any basis to this?  When one considers just a few titles[4] there is the impression of crisis. The evangelical umbrella has continued to widen, with several theologians, or popular figures, such as Clark Pinnock,[5] and Steve Chalke,[6] still[7] broadly viewed as evangelicals. They continue to write for evangelical publications, even though they have moved away from historic[8] orthodox teaching.

In 1992 Michael Horton[9] wrote,

‘Labels are often confusing, especially when the jar’s content changes. Grape juice can become vinegar over the years in the cellar, but the label doesn’t change with the changes in the substance.  The same is true of the term “evangelical.”’[10]

Evangelicals are finding it increasingly difficult to define themselves. Horton writing, again in 1992 said,

‘A number of evangelical leaders met at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School near Chicago two years ago for the purpose of defining the term “evangelical”, but many left as confused concerning what that label comprehends as they were when they arrived. It is becoming increasingly difficult to say what an evangelical is and is not.’[11]

John R de Witt[12] lists seven particulars of Reformed evangelicalism, rather than the Quadrilateral David Bebbington[13] suggests describing Evangelicalism as a whole.  de Witt calls this The Reformed Faith, not Reformed Evangelicalism.  Nevertheless, those of the Reformed Faith are Evangelicals, but not all evangelicals are Reformed.  For Reformed Christians the word ‘evangelical’ is packed with historic and Biblical meaning rather than an academic description[14] of a particular religious movement beginning in the 18th Century.  The distinction is between the reality of the evangelical movement, and Evangelicalism as understood by the Reformed Churches.  De Witt’s seven points are:

    1. The doctrine of scripture.
    2. The sovereignty of God.
    3. The grace of God.
    4. The Christian life.
    5. The law and gospel.
    6. The kingdom of God.
    7. Preaching.

Evangelical Times ran a series[15] of articles with the title ‘What is a Reformed Church’.

The Reformed Evangelical position is well summarised by the five Solas of the Reformation.  These are, “Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Soli Christus, Soli Deo Gloria”[16]. I don’t believe Reformed Evangelicalism can be summed up and categorised in quite the way David Bebbington describes Evangelicalism as a whole.  In 1977 Evangelical Times printed an article[17] that tried to answer the very same question that is being asked today in 2022 – What is an Evangelical? It’s been an ongoing problem for Reformed Evangelicals.  Lloyd-Jones addressed this same problem of definition in 1971 at the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students – reprinted as late as 1992.  Under a subheading, ‘Succumbing to the Ecumenical Spirit’, we read the following,

‘…there is the … danger… of being so broad, so wide, and so loose that in the end we have no definitions at all.  As I see things today, this is perhaps the greater danger because we are living in what is called the ecumenical age.’[18]

In 1996 The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE) issued ‘The Cambridge Declaration’[19] calling Evangelical churches to repentance and a return to Reformation theology.  The Alliance, although primarily American,[20] through Evangelical Times published[21] the ‘Declaration’ in full, taking up a centre page spread.  Restating the “five Solas” it lamented the current condition within Evangelicalism. The opening statement of the ‘Declaration’[22] describes churches as dominated by the spirit of the age and changes to how evangelical is defined.

Whatever happened to the Reformation[23] urges readers ‘to turn to the theology of the Reformers’,[24] and is described as more ‘hard-hitting and to the point’[25] than other books and ‘as the title indicates, the problem with modern evangelicalism is its complete abandonment of all the Reformation stood for.  It has cut its ties with the Reformation and is like a ship adrift on stormy seas’.[26] With no clear alternative ‘Evangelical’ will continue to be used albeit with a defining hyphenation.

Moving forward to June 2005 in Evangelicals Now, evangelicalism appears to be no further forward.  Jonathan Stephen[27] writes,

‘…there is currently a huge crisis in evangelicalism …the term itself has become virtually meaningless. Virtually every conceivable religious deviation can now shelter under the umbrella of evangelicalism, if it so wishes’.[28]

However, it does appear that Dr Bebbington’s[29] four-point definition[30](Bebbington’s Quadrilateral) has become a commonly used umbrella term, even though many Reformed churches may find it a difficult and unsatisfactory category, as it falls short in addressing the distinctiveness of Reformed churches. Evangelical then, has a much longer history than what is presented to us in the Tele-evangelism found in America. You’ll get no argument from me about continued vigilance over usage and commentary on its abuse, but I see no reason why historic Evangelicals should abandon it. However, we, Evangelicals, should perhaps, be more careful how we use and abuse it ourselves and continue, or switch to, maybe, hyphenating it as ‘Reformed’ – Evangelical.

As a late addition: In 2006 Geoff Thomas gave two lectures in Rugby on Evangelicalism (Especially Part 2). Both well worth a listen. Evangelicalism: What’s in a Name – Part 1 & Part 2. ‘I’m not going to give it up because other people have abused it (Geoff Thomas Part 2).’ In fact you’d be much better off listening to these two lectures by Geoff! The links for these work.

[1] According to Strongs: G2097 εὐαγγελίζω – euaggelizō – yoo-ang-ghel-id’-zo

From G2095 and G32; to announce good news (“evangelize”) especially the gospel: – declare, bring (declare, show) glad (good) tidings, preach (the gospel).  Translated Preach/Preaching & Gospel/Good News

G2098 εὐαγγέλιον – euaggelion – yoo-ang-ghel’-ee-on

From the same as G2097; a good message, that is, the gospel: – gospel.  Translated Gospel.

For a more comprehensive definition see Thayer.  Available on e-sword.

[2] See Hart, D. G.  Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham.  2004.  Baker Academic.  Grand Rapids.  R. C. Sproul has been heard to say the same, but no reference is available at this moment.

[3] Iain Murray writes: ‘Evangelion (that we call the gospel) is a Greek word; and signifieth good, merry, glad and joyful tidings, that maketh him sing, dance and leap for joy.  So Tyndale wrote in 1525, and at the same period all who so thought became described as ‘gospellers’ or, less commonly, as ‘evangelicals’.  Over two hundred years later it was the latter term that was to pass into more permanent usage at the time of the ‘Evangelical Revival’.  That it did not do so earlier is largely due to the fact that all the churches of the Reformation were ‘of the gospel’ in their creeds and confessions.  By the eighteenth century, however, while the profession of the national churches in England and Scotland remained orthodox there were many pulpits from which no gospel was heard and when the evangel was recovered a term was necessary to distinguish its preachers from others: they were the ‘evangelicals’.  Murray, Iain H.  Evangelicalism Divided.  2000.  The Banner of Truth Trust.  Edinburgh. p. 1.

[4] A small selection of titles: Armstrong, John.  (Ed.)  The Coming Evangelical Crisis.  1996.  Moody Press.  Chicago; Armstrong, John.  (Ed.)  The Compromised Church.  1998.  Crossway Books.  Wheaton; Glover, Peter C.  The Virtual Church and How to Avoid it.  2004.  Xulon Press; Johnson, Gary L. W. & Fowler White, R.  (Eds.)  Whatever Happened to the Reformation?  2001.  P & R Publishing.  Philipsburg, New Jersey; MacArthur Jr, John F.  Ashamed of the Gospel: When the Church Becomes like the World.  1993.  Crossway Books.  Nottingham; Murray, Iain H.  Evangelicalism Divided.  2000.  The Banner of Truth Trust.  Edinburgh; Phillips, Richard.  Turning Back the Darkness.  2002.  Crossway Books.  Wheaton.

[5] Pinnock holds to and promotes the doctrine of Open Theism.  For a larger treatment of this topic see: Ware, Bruce.  in Johnson, Gary L. W. & Fowler White, R.  (Eds.)  Whatever Happened to the Reformation?  2001.  P & R Publishing.  Philipsburg, New Jersey. P. 95 – 131.

[6] This refers to the recent controversy over penal substitutionary atonement as expressed by Steve Chalke in his book The Lost Message of Jesus.  Reviews of this book are available by searching the ET & EN websites. Also see Evangelicals Now September 2005 for a review of ‘The EA Symposium – Conference on the Cross’ by Mathew Mason.  Mason writes, ‘it is also sad that EA appears willing to permit people who deny a core evangelical belief to continue as members’.  Available: http://www.e-n.org.uk/3129-Conference-on-the-cross.htm

[7] ‘The Evangelical Alliance has so far failed [at the time of my writing] to act with regard to Steve Chalke’.  EN Jonathan Stevens.  There is also no sign of this happening at the Alliance Website. Available: http://www.eauk.org/theology/headline_issues/atonement/atonement-statement.cfm

[8] See a previous footnote.  Three people in three different areas of theology will demonstrate this and why they compromise evangelical theology.  Briefly, the names of three people; John Stott on eternal punishment; Clark Pinnock on Divine Foreknowledge and Steve Chalke on the Atonement.  In addition to this, more recently, ‘The New Perspective on Paul’ (e.g. Bishop Tom Wright) has caused concern.

[9] The Rev. Dr. Michael S. Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Westminster Seminary California. He is the main host of The White Horse Inn radio broadcast and editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. He received his M.A. from Westminster Seminary California, his Ph.D. from Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and the University of Coventry, and also completed a Research Fellowship at Yale University Divinity School.  Dr. Horton is the author/editor of more than fifteen books.  Available: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/about.htm

[10] Horton, Michael S. ‘What is an Evangelical?’ Available: http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID560462|CIID1415584,00.html.

[11] Horton, Michael S.  ‘Evangelical Arminians: Option or Oxymoron?’  Available: http://www.modernreformation.org/mr92/mayjun/mr9203oxymoron.html (21/04/03).

[12] de Witt, John R.  What is the Reformed Faith?  1981.  The Banner of Truth Trust.  Edinburgh.

[13] Bebbington, D W.  Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A history from the 1730s to the 1980s.  Routledge.  London and New York.  2000.  The four are: Biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all spiritual truth is to be found in its pages); Crucicentrism, a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross; Conversionism, the belief that human beings need to be converted; and Activism, the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort.  Pp. 2 – 17.  Or, as on page 3, Bebbington puts it: ‘Together they form a quadrilateral (the underlining is my Emphasis) of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism’.

[14]  Hart, D. G.  Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham.  2004.  Baker Academic.  Grand Rapids.  Hart argues the popular usage of the word ‘evangelicalism’ is a modern academic construct.

[15] ET. November 1996 – February 1997.

[16] Or, scripture alone, faith alone, grace alone, through Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.  We may also add to this the TULIP acrostic.  Also see Appendix 2, The Cambridge Declaration for an elaboration of the Solas of the Reformation.

[17] Evangelical Times. July 1977. p. 15 & 4.  ‘Who are we?  What is an evangelical?  Tell us somebody please!’  This was a report on the NEAC conference of that year.  The report in ET began by saying ‘It comes up here, it comes up there, the issue comes up everywhere.  Some duck it, some face it.  Some dismiss it, some debate it.  It is the burning issue of: ‘what is an evangelical?’’

[18] Lloyd-Jones, D.M.  What is an Evangelical?  1992.  The Banner of Truth Trust.  Edinburgh.  P. 22.

[19] The ‘Cambridge Declaration’ is essentially a restatement of the five Solas of the Reformation.  The full text of this document is available at: http://www.alliancenet.org/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID581262|CIID,00.html

[20] Now also has UK members on the council.

[21] Evangelical Times, December, 1996, p 12 – 13.

[22] See Appendix 2 for the Declaration in full.

[23] Johnson, Gary L. W. & Fowler White, R.  (Eds.)  Whatever Happened to the Reformation?  2001.  P & R Publishing.  Philipsburg, New Jersey.

[24] From the Alliance bookstall: http://www.reformationalresources.org/merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=RR&Product_Code=B-JOHNS-1

[25] Hanko, Herman C.  PRT Journal.  Vol 35, No.2, April 2002.  Book Reviews.  Review of ‘Whatever Happened to the Reformation’  Available: http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr2002.html#WhateverHappened

[26] Hanko, Herman C.  PRT Journal.  Vol 35, No.2, April 2002.  Book Reviews.  Review of ‘Whatever Happened to the Reformation’  Available: http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr2002.html#WhateverHappened

[27] Jonathan Stephens was for many years the Pastor of Carey Baptist Church, Reading, and combined this with becoming President of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches.  He also became General Secretary of the BEC, changing to Affinity under his leadership.  He is presently Principal of the Evangelical College of Wales (Bryntirion).

[28] Stephens, Jonathan.  Evangelicals Now, June 2005, ‘The current crisis in evangelicalism’.  Available:  http://www.e-n.org.uk/2005-06/3026-The-current-crisis-in-evangelicalism.htm

[29] http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2007/08/calvin-am-toplady-and-bebbington-thesis.html

[30] David Bebbington continues to use his four-point definition in his latest book THE DOMINANCE OF EVANGELICALISM: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody.

Are we stirred? Are we Alive? Some thoughts on Revival

A few (further) extended thoughts on The Experience Meeting (EP Press 1973) & Revival. (Some of what follows appeared in previous Blog posts – Here, Here, and Here.)

Why bother with looking at this book, or even mentioning it, and Revival? I’ll answer the why by quoting Paul Cook from his book ‘Fire from Heaven‘:

‘The year is 1826. The location is Nottingham. The occasion, a crowded Methodist love-feast never to be forgotten by those present. Presiding was a Yorkshireman, John Smith, one of the greatest preachers ever to arise in Methodism, but whose ministry was cut short by an early death.

He led the people in earnest prayer and concluded by repeating the Lord’s Prayer. The effect was extraordinary. We read that the people

Responded with peculiar fervour to each petition as it was pronounced, till he came to the doxology, at each clause of which he raised his voice and ascribed to the Almighty ‘the kingdom and the power and the glory, for ever and ever’ in tone and with an unction which fell on the congregation with irresistible force.

The people were gripped with a sense of the glory of God.

A glow of heavenly feeling pervaded the whole assembly: many gave vent to their emotions by bursts of tears and some with irrepressible shouts of praise. Others laid hold of the words, repeating them again and again even after he had ceased; and whispers of ‘for ever and ever’ mingled with sobs passed from one to another… in fact, it was some time before the regular business of the meeting could be resumed.

We are not surprised to learn that there was an increase in the membership of the circuit that year of six hundred. God had visited his people.
Scripture encourages us to recollect such events, in order to strengthen our faith and increase our confidence in God. The Bible reminds us of the heroes of faith and urges us to keep them in mind, so that we might follow their example (Heb 1; 12:1). The history of God’s great acts is recorded in his word, and we are exhorted to ‘remember the days of old’ and learn from them. The Psalmists were constantly doing this to their great encouragement.’

(Fire from Heaven, Paul Cook. p. 13 & 14.)

Back to The Experience Meeting. Who is the author?

William Williams. We might think of him as primarily a Hymn Writer and poet. But he was also a Pastor and theologian, as well as a gifted organiser. And as we shall see he must have been someone with considerable spiritual discernment.

When was it written? It first appeared in 1777. Rules had been introduced (1742) for their meetings that ‘… bore the title Sail, Dibenion, a Rheolau’r Sociteties neu’r Cyfarfodydd Neilltuol a ddechreuasant ymgynull yn ddiweddar yng Nghymru (The Basis, Purposes, and Rules of the Societies or Private Meetings which have lately started coming together in Wales). Four hymns were appended, the one by Rowland used the familiar pilgrim imagery for the Christian life, and one by Harris was on ‘brotherly love and Christian Unity’. This work remained the standard code of practice for the societies until the appearance in 1777 of William Williams’ Drws y Society Profiad (The Experience Meeting).’ (Daniel Rowland, Eifion Evans, Banner, 1985. p. 181.).

Why was it written and what’s it about? The book looks back then to the events of the 1730’s & 40’s, and then forward as the ‘Experience Meetings’ or Societies that continued to be organised. It was written in response to a need that came about because of the Evangelical Awakening in the 18th Century.

From the previous account you can see that we are not in the same situation as an awakened fellowship. Philip Swann has written on ‘Experience Meetings’ in our day that is worth reading. In that article he helpfully contrasts then and now in this way:

‘Our current situation is less fervent and weaker than that in the evangelical awakening, but there is still spiritual life among us. It’s like a light connected to a dimmer switch; our light is on but turned down to a little glow, whereas William Williams and others were turned up to the max. Wherever we are on the scale, there is spiritual life, but it needs to be nurtured and encouraged.’

Source: Evangelical Magazine, July/August 2017, page 12.

These Experience Meetings were in a way, perhaps, what our home groups (if you have them) aspire to – to nurture and encourage. Most of the book is given over to leading them, the qualities of the leaders and many other things. Here’s Dr Lloyd-Jones from the introduction:

‘The task of conducting these ‘experience meetings’ obviously called for great wisdom, spiritual insight, tact, and discretion. They could easily degenerate into exhibitionism on the part of extroverts, and lead to scandal, as very private matters were related involving others. It was in order to obviate such troubles and disasters, and to instruct the leaders in this most important work, that the Rev. William Williams wrote this little book now translated into English for the first time.’ (From Dr Lloyd-Jones Introduction to The Experience Meeting, p.6)

They aren’t called chapters but dialogues. Much like catechising. So each chapter or dialogue is made up of sometimes quite lengthy questions and answers (It’s not a long book btw). The first dialogue then, if these are his headings, is ‘An imaginary history of the deadness of the land of sleep’ as Williams calls it. This corresponds, as we shall see, with the condition of the church(es) prior to an awakening. ‘The deadness of the land of sleep.’

Here are a couple of accounts prior to a Revival. The following is a bit long but worth it as it helps set the context:

‘There has been a great and just complaint for many years among the ministers and churches in Old England, and New (….), that the work of conversion goes on very slowly, that the Spirit of God in his saving influences is much withdrawn from the ministrations of his word, and there are few that receive the report of the gospel, with any eminent success upon their hearts. But as the gospel is the same divine instrument of grace still, as ever it was in the days of the apostles, so our ascended Saviour now and then takes a special occasion to manifest the divinity of this gospel by a plentiful effusion of his Spirit where it is preached: then sinners are turned into saints in numbers, and there is a new face of things spread over a town or a country. The wilderness and the solitary places are glad, the desert rejoices and blossoms as the rose; and surely concerning this instance we may add, that they have seen the glory of the Lord there, and the excellency of our God; they have seen the out-goings of God our King in his sanctuary.

Certainly it becomes us, who profess the religion of Christ, to take notice of such astonishing exercises of his power and mercy, and give him the glory which is due, when he begins to accomplish any of his promises concerning the latter days: and it gives us further encouragements to pray, and wait, and hope for the like display of his power in the midst of us. The hand of God is not shortened that it cannot save, but we have reason to fear that our iniquities, our coldness in religion, and the general carnality of our spirits, have raised a wall of separation between God and us: and we may add, the pride and perverse humour of infidelity, degeneracy, and apostacy from the Christian faith, which have of late years broken out among us, seem to have provoked the Spirit of Christ to absent himself much from our nation. “Return, O Lord, and visit thy churches, and revive thine own work in the midst of us.”’

From A Narrative of Surprising Conversions first published in 1736. Select Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol 1, p. 2 & 3, Banner of Truth, 1965.

Here’s another account from 1850:

‘During the intervening years, apart from the movements – chiefly local – in 1850, the churches had, by 1858, declined to an alarming state of deadness and barrenness. The means of grace had become more or less a formality, made unattractive to the world by the coldness of its orthodoxy; sinful practices were rampant and carried on openly without any sense of shame; the church was spiritually “asleep”, oblivious of its mission to the world, and satisfied with its lukewarmness. The prayer meetings were not burdened for the souls of the unconverted, and preaching was theoretical, oratorical and “popular” in the worst sense.

Thus E. Richardson writes in the Drysorfa for June, 1854: “We must confess that we have become too formal, lukewarm and unwilling in the work of the Lord generally in these days, but especially so in our prayer meetings”.’

Revival comes to Wales by Eifion Evans, p.23.

We could look at many more….

I’ve spent some time describing the condition of the church because I think we need to understand the situation. Although Williams describes his account in Dialogue 1 as ‘imaginary,’ what is described there, it seems to me, is based on his own experience and what he witnessed take place, as we have seen, in the previous Revival accounts. That is, the condition of the churches described prior to the visitation of the Spirit of God. Remember, he’s describing ‘The deadness of the land of sleep.’ Here is a part of that description from Dialogue 1:

EUSEBIUS continues….: ‘This is the way the Lord worked in that part of the world. One time, there were just a few of us, professing believers, gathered together, cold and unbelievably dead, in a meeting which we called a special service, so discouraged as to doubt whether we should ever meet again, some who were usually absent from every meeting, some in a deadly apathy, with nothing to say of God nor their own souls, some given over to the world and its cares, some backslidden completely from all means of grace and the ordinances of the gospel, some given over to the flesh and its lusts, as in the days of Noah – seeking a wife, seeking a husband marrying and giving in marriage – and I myself well nigh disheartened and thinking often of coming to live in warmer spiritual climes, and moving my tent from Ur of the Chaldees nearer to the borders of the Promised Land.

But, even though all things were as i have described them – the world, the flesh and Satan victorious – these special services were yet conducted in an incredibly lifeless manner. There was no encouragement for anyone to carry on the work, save only the promise of God, that wherever there were two or three coming together in His name, if their purpose were right, however lifeless their present state, He would come to them and bless them. This alone had made us come together to pray; but our prayers were not much more than groans.’

What we read there should encourage us to not give up meeting. Revival comes not at the behest of man but by Gods gracious intervention – and that, when we are at our lowest ebb. Perhaps that is one of our problems. Our churches are so well organised that if God were absent from our meetings, or our evangelism, would any of us really notice?

‘And she said, “The Philistines are upon you, Samson!” And he awoke from his sleep and said, “I will go out as at other times and shake myself free.” But he did not know that the LORD had left him.’ Judges 16:20

What’s so encouraging is that these believers were in such a low spiritual state. God visits us when He chooses to do so. Not because we’ve reached a point where we might be tempted to say ‘God will bless us now.’

EUSEBIUS continues…. ‘But at last, forced by cowardice, unbelief and the onslaughts of Satan, we resolved to give up our special meeting; and now we were about to offer a final prayer, fully intending never again to meet thus in fellowship. But it is when man reaches the lowest depths of unbelief that God imparts faith, and when man has failed, then God reveals Himself. So here, with us in such dire straits, on the brink of despair, with the door shut on every hope of success, God Himself entered into our midst, and the light of day from on high dawned upon us; for one of the brethren – yes, the most timid of us all, the one who was strongest in his belief that God would never visit us – while in prayer, was stirred in his spirit and laid hold powerfully on heaven, as one who would not let go.

His tongue spoke unusual words, his voice was raised, his spirit was aflame, he pleaded, he cried to God, he struggled, he wrestled in earnest, like Jacob, in the agony of his soul. The fire took hold on others – all were awakened, the coldest to the most heedless took hold and were warmed; the spirit of struggling and wrestling fell on all, we all went with him into the battle, with him we laid hold upon God, His attributes, His Word and His promises, resolving that we would never let go our hold until all our desire should be satisfied.’

The Experience Meeting: An Introduction to the Welsh Societies of the Evangelical Awakening, William Williams, Evangelical Press, 1973. Pages 8 & 9.

We have much to learn. I like the phrase ‘we all went with him into the battle.’ I don’t think that means everyone was praying at the same time or that everyone prayed. But that when one prayed, all prayed (Acts 4:24). Such was their united assault upon the throne of Grace. That’s the sort of unity we want in our prayer meetings.

It’s a fine line, perhaps, between not despising the day of small things (Zech 4:10) and the realisation that without God we are sunk. God is at work. He does not stop working. The Lord Jesus is building His church (Matt 16:18), and He will continue to build it until He returns. He gives us persevering grace. We are not fallen away because He keeps us in the way. For this we are thankful and raise our Ebenezer (1 Sam 7:12). But we pray: “Lord, give us that longing we know we need.” ‘O, that Thou wouldest rend the heavens and come down (Isaiah 64:1)’ and ‘that glory may dwell in our land (Ps 85:9).’

In 2008 I invited Paul Cook to come and lecture to us, giving him the title of ‘Have we lost interest in Revival’ because it seemed to me that that was the case. Paul was more than pleased to come. It’s available online although the last section for some reason didn’t get recorded. I believe this is where we mostly are now, nearly 15 years later. I don’t see too much to convince me otherwise. But I’m happy to be wrong.

‘They prayed and they worked’ is a quote that has rattled around in my mind for many years since I first read it in Revival comes to Wales. Here’s the quote in context.

‘”It is a big thing to have a feeling God would revive His work. Whoever possesses such a feeling will be compelled to do all he can to revive the Lord’s work. By reading the history of the Church we find that the great cause fluctuates up and down through the ages, but that, whenever the Lord drew near to save there was some considerable expectancy amongst the godly for His coming. As well as praying, we should be doing our utmost to revive the work. So did the godly of old: they prayed and they worked.”

It is said of David Morgan “that for ten years before 1858 a petition for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was never absent from his public prayers.”‘ p. 25.

We must be honest, that does not describe most of our prayer meetings. We are not in the 17th or 18th centuries but the lethargy, or ‘deadness‘, that was experienced back then is not unfamiliar to us.

In 1979 Peter Jeffery (and Bob Cotton) went as he had for many years to the Bala Ministers Conference. When he came back after the Sunday evening service, he called the church to prayer. I’d have to double-check the facts on this, but I believe he called the church (the people) into the schoolroom that adjoins the main church (I’m sure this was described to me this way). After that people began to be saved. One of those was me – and that without any contact with the church, or any church for that matter. Or with other Christians. And I wasn’t alone in that, there were others.

Here’s Peter in his own words:

‘Immediately on my return to Rugby (from the Bala conference), I called a special meeting and put all this to the church. I called the church to prayer for forgiveness and to intercede that the Lord would give us conversions again. I believed the church had become lifeless and that few were being converted because there were few unconverted people at the services. I urged the church to consider Isaiah 62:6-7 ‘You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest, and give him no rest …’ in response to this challenge, a letter was sent out to every member by the elders and deacons, and the prayer meetings were stirred to a spirit of prayer for the lost.’

(Chains of Grace, Peter Jeffery, DayOne, p. 45.)

People came. Why? God was at work. There’s no other explanation. It’s interesting to look back. I only realised this recently, but when we (Some of us from completely non church backgrounds) walked into Rugby Evangelical Free Church – AKA Railway Terrace – we didn’t walk into a dead orthodoxy or a lukewarm church. We walked into a church that was alive (in the sense of being refreshed). Even though it wasn’t like the ‘Evangelical Awakening(s)’ in intensity, the church, and especially the ministry, was experiencing ‘times of refreshing from the Lord. (Acts 3:20)’ As I found out it was far from perfect, and like every church (See the NT) it had its own problems, but it was alive. When I was baptised in February 1980 there were 12 of us being baptised, and later that year another 12 (or more – including Trevor and his Dad) were baptised and maybe other baptisms in between. In some ways, it’s what I think of as normal. The friends I have from then (Trevor Thomas & John Lee, Mike, Ruth, Adrian, and others), are still my closest and dearest friends. My own wife Sue was converted at this time, and baptised, as well as my own parents. I will never forget those days. And I don’t believe I’m supposed to forget them. As Trevor said recently, ‘They were special.’

As I say Bob Cotton and the church in Bury St Edmonds experienced a similar move of God. I remember Bob coming to Rugby to tell us about the blessing of God (not recorded because of personal details). He used to stay with my parents when he visited Rugby to preach.

I could have said a great deal more, perhaps another time, but I hope you have found this helpful, encouraging, and maybe even stirring. I know I need to be stirred.

I’m more convinced than ever that Revival (like the New Birth) is a sovereign, and undeserved visitation of God upon a people or even an individual. Oftentimes He comes when we least expect it, and more often than not when we are at our lowest ebb: as in Williams ‘imaginary’ account, when we are ready to give up. And yet, like David Morgan, we ought to be ‘praying and working.’ We need His help and enabling to do, and to persevere, in either. May the Lord visit us – for His Glory.

Thoughts on the Church in Afghanistan

Thoughts on the Church in Afghanistan

You may not necessarily agree with this, and if you have some knowledge of the church situation there, I’d appreciate your input.

I realise it’s very easy for me to make the following comments from my centrally heated home where I have plenty to eat and drink and live in a very peaceful part of the world. I also don’t have to wonder if the door will suddenly burst open and my children and wife will be taken away, or wonder if I’ll be taken outside and beheaded because I’m a Christian and have a Bible app on my phone. I do not fear for my life. I’m fully aware of all that. And I’m thankful for that too. I shouldn’t despise the providence that God has been pleased to bless me with.

Having said that, here’s my thinking on the situation of the church in Afghanistan. Few would deny the withdrawal has been handled with anything other than total incompetence. Even wickedness. But this too has been brought about by the Sovereign Lord. It isn’t a mistake. As a Christian I’m sure your thoughts turned immediately to the church in that truly awful situation. I do not in any way wish to, or mean to undermine, or trivialise the situation of our brothers and sisters there. Maybe you read some of the reports of Afghani pastors. Perhaps you read about their determination to stand for the Lord Jesus. One can only say, ‘Of whom the world is not worthy (Heb 11:38).’

This is where I might need some specialised help. The Lord Jesus has his people everywhere so we know there must have been Christians in Afghanistan before the US arrived 20 years ago. Probably very few and known only to a few on a need-to-know basis. But it seems to me that the church in Afghanistan, though still small, is a lot larger than it was. And is vocal and visible. I shared this with a friend (originally from Lebanon) the other day who thought it made sense. I asked him this ‘What makes the church grow more than anything else?’ His answer was ‘Persecution.’ Which is exactly right. Was it Tertullian that said, ‘The blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the church?’

If that is true, and church history confirms that it is often the case, then the arrival, or return, of the Taliban, far from destroying the church could in fact be the means by which it will grow and be strengthened. Jesus has said, ‘I will build my church (Matt 16:18).’ It’s His church!

What I’m saying is that for the past 20 years the church has not been dormant. They weren’t 20 wasted years. We’re being told they are wasted years because world governments have no interest whatsoever in the church. Their concern is entirely materialistic. It’s purely utilitarian. So if you are in the military, and a Christian, or even if you are not a Christian, your service there was not in vain.

With all the above in mind then, here are some things that I will be praying:

Pray the Lord of the church with keep them and watch over them.

Pray for the Church that they will remain faithful (even unto death (Rev 2:10).) – and if some of them don’t remain faithful, pray for their restoration.

Pray that even under those terrible circumstances the church, and especially the Pastors, will be bold for Christ.

Pray the church will receive good sound teaching that will build them up in their most holy faith: and for the availability of the Bible, in print, and electronic. And for good literature.

Pray for a real and powerful visitation of God by his Holy Spirit. Upon the church and upon the people.

Pray that God will also visit the Taliban and convert many of them. Pray that their zealous opposition to the Lord Jesus will be turned, like the apostle Paul. “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” Acts 9:21 & 22; Galatians 1: 23 & 24.

Pray that God will open the hearts of the Afghan people to the Gospel and for opportunities to hear the message of life.

We should also thank God that he has a people in Afghanistan at all.

It is a truly terrible situation. Of course it is. I do not minimise that for a moment. But these things, it seems to me, are the things of first importance. Obviously, much could be added to the above that are not unimportant (health, safety etc.).

There’s an irony in that the Taliban think they have come to destroy the church. But God may have brought them to help build it.

And let’s not forget, God will not leave those sins of the Taliban, or of wicked evil Western governments that abandoned them, to go unpunished. God will not be mocked, not by Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, the Taliban, or by anyone else.

I don’t have a direct line to the secret plans of the Lord God, but I pray this is so. I could be completely off on this. But why can’t God do it? Let’s pray He will.

Am I talking nonsense? I hope not.

Martin Luther’s Speech at the Imperial Diet in Worms (18 April 1521)

Martin Luther’s Speech at the Imperial Diet in Worms (18 April 1521)

1 Most Serene Emperor, Illustrious Princes, Gracious Lords:

2 I this day appear before you in all humility, according to your command, and I implore your majesty and your august highnesses, by the mercies of God, to listen with favor to the defense of a cause which I am well assured is just and right. I ask pardon, if by reason of my ignorance, I am wanting in the manners that befit a court; for I have not been brought up in king’s palaces, but in the seclusion of a cloister; and I claim no other merit than that of having spoken and written with the simplicity of mind which regards nothing but the glory of God and the pure instruction of the people of Christ.

3 Two questions were yesterday put to me by his imperial majesty; the first, whether I was the author of the books whose titles were read; the second, whether I wished to revoke or defend the doctrine I have taught. I answered the first directly, and I adhere to that answer: that these books are mine and published by me, except so far as they may have been altered or interpolated by the craft or officiousness of opponents. As for the second question, I am now about to reply to it; and I must first entreat your Majesty and your Highnesses to deign to consider that I have composed writings on very different subjects. In some I have discussed Faith and Good Works, in a spirit at once so pure, clear, and Christian, that even my adversaries themselves, far from finding anything to censure, confess that these writings are profitable, and deserve to be perused by devout persons. The pope’s bull, violent as it is, acknowledges this. What, then, should I be doing if I were now to retract these writings? Wretched man! I alone, of all men living, should be abandoning truths approved by the unanimous voice of friends and enemies, and should be opposing doctrines that the whole world glories in confessing!

4 I have composed, secondly, certain works against the papacy, wherein I have attacked such as by false doctrines, irregular lives, and scandalous examples, afflict the Christian world, and ruin the bodies and souls of men. And is not this confirmed by the grief of all who fear God? Is it not manifest that the laws and human doctrines of the popes entangle, vex, and distress the consciences of the faithful, while the crying and endless extortions of Rome engulf the property and wealth of Christendom, and more particularly of this illustrious nation? Yet it is a perpetual statute that the laws and doctrines of the pope be held erroneous and reprobate when they are contrary to the Gospel and the opinions of the church fathers.

5 If I were to revoke what I have written on that subject, what should I do but strengthen this tyranny, and open a wider door to so many and flagrant impieties? Bearing down all resistance with fresh fury, we should behold these proud men swell, foam, and rage more than ever! And not merely would the yoke which now weighs down Christians be made more grinding by my retractation it would thereby become, so to speak, lawful, for, by my retractation, it would receive confirmation from your most serene majesty, and all the States of the Empire. Great God! I should thus be like to an infamous cloak, used to hide and cover over every kind of malice and tyranny.

6 In the third and last place, I have written some books against private individuals, who had undertaken to defend the tyranny of Rome by destroying the faith. I freely confess that I may have attacked such persons with more violence than was consistent with my profession as an ecclesiastic: I do not think of myself as a saint; but neither can I retract these books. Because I should, by so doing, sanction the impieties of my opponents, and they would thence take occasion to crush God’s people with still more cruelty.

Summons for Luther to appear at the Diet of Worms, signed by Charles V. The text on the left was on the reverse side. Published in book authored by Bernhard Rogge.
Elisabeth, Kurfürstin von Brandenburg, nimmt heimlich das heilige Abendmahl in beiderlei Gestalt. Holzstich nach einem Gemälde von Adolph Treidler (1846–1905), erschienen in: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst 9 (1874) Summons for Luther to appear at the Diet of Worms, signed by Charles V. The text on the left was on the reverse side. Published in book authored by Bernhard Rogge.

7 Yet, as I am a mere man, and not God, I will defend myself after the example of Jesus Christ, who said: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness against me; but if well, why doest thou strike me?” (John xviii:23). How much more should I, who am but dust and ashes, and so prone to error, desire that every one should bring forward what he can against my doctrine. Therefore, most serene emperor, and you illustrious princes, and all, whether high or low, who hear me, I implore you by the mercies of God to prove to me by the writings of the prophets and apostles that I am in error. As soon as I shall be convinced, I will instantly retract all my errors, and will myself be the first to seize my writings, and commit them to the flames.8 What I have just said will, I think, clearly show that I have well considered and weighed, not only the dangers to which I am exposing myself, but also the parties and dissensions excited in the world by means of my doctrine, of which I was yesterday so gravely admonished. But far from being dismayed by them, I rejoice exceedingly to see the Gospel this day, as of old, a cause of disturbance and disagreement; for such is the character and destiny of God’s word. “I came not to send peace unto the earth, but a sword,” said Jesus Christ. “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foees shall be those of his own household.” (Matthew x:34-36)

9 God is wonderful and terrible in His counsels. Let us have a care, lest in our endeavors to arrest discords, we be bound to fight against the holy word of God and bring down upon our heads a frightful deluge of inextricable dangers, present disaster, and everlasting desolations. Let us have a care that the reign of the young and noble prince, the Emperor Charles, on whom, next to God, we build so many hopes, should not only commence, but continue and terminate its course, under the most favorable auspices.

10 I might cite examples drawn from the oracles of God. I might speak of Pharaohs, of kings of Babylon, or of Israel, who were never more contributing to their own ruin than when, by measures in appearances most prudent, they thought to establish their authority! God removeth the mountains and they know not (Job ix:5). In speaking thus, I do not suppose that such noble princes have need of my poor judgment; but I wish to acquit myself of a duty whose fulfillment my native Germany has a right to expect from her children. And so commending myself to your august majesty, and your most serene highnesses, I beseech you in all humility, not to permit the hatred of my enemies to rain upon me an indignation I have not deserved. I have done.

[Having delivered this speech in German, Luther was now asked to repeat it in Latin. After some hesitation, he did so. He was then reminded that he should answer a simple question: whether he would retract or not. Thus he continued:]

11 Since your most serene majesty and your high mightinesses require of me a simple, clear and direct answer, I will give one, and it is this: I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the council, because it is as clear as noonday that they have fallen into error and even into glaring inconsistency with themselves. If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it cannot be either safe or honest for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise; God help me! Amen.

(Source for the above.)

Extracts from ‘The Experience Meeting’ by William Williams (Pantycelyn) (3)

This is part three of sections from Chapter 1 of William Williams ‘The Experience Meeting.’ (Part 1 here & Part 2 here)  Note the condition of the church when the Spirit of God visited in revival blessing..

What follows is a description of what most of us have no personal knowledge of: when the fire falls upon His people. What’s so encouraging is that these believers were in such a low spiritual state. God visits us when He chooses to do so. Not because we’ve reached a point where we might be tempted to say ‘God will bless us now.’ The Christian faith is not a works based religion. It is Grace based, not merit based. Our merit before God is found in another. Namely in the Son of God – The Lord Jesus Christ. It does not give us licence to live how we choose, but at the same time our living is not meritorious. We do not earn Gods favour. How we should know the reality of the phrase ‘we are unprofitable servants (Luke 17:10).’

EUSEBIUS continues…. ‘But at last, forced by cowardice, unbelief and the onslaughts of Satan, we resolved to give up our special meeting; and now we were about to offer a final prayer, fully intending never again to meet thus in fellowship. But it is when man reaches the lowest depths of unbelief that God imparts faith, and when man has failed, then God reveals Himself. So here, with us in such dire straits, on the brink of despair, with the door shut on every hope of success, God Himself entered into our midst, and the light of day from on high dawned upon us; for one of the brethren – yes, the most timid of us all, the one who was strongest in his belief that God would never visit us – while in prayer, was stirred in his spirit and laid hold powerfully on heaven, as one who would not let go.

His tongue spoke unusual words, his voice was raised, his spirit was aflame, he pleaded, he cried to God, he struggled, he wrestled in earnest, like Jacob, in the agony of his soul. The fire took hold on others – all were awakened, the coldest to the most heedless took hold and were warmed; the spirit of struggling and wrestling fell on all, we all went with him into the battle, with him we laid hold upon God, His attributes, His Word and His promises, resolving that we would never let go our hold until all our desire should be satisfied.’

The Experience Meeting: An Introduction to the Welsh Societies of the Evangelical Awakening, William Williams, Evangelical Press, 1973. Pages 8 & 9.

I’ll leave it there and continue the narrative with another post – maybe two more. My desire is simply to encourage us all in the Lord (1 Thess 5:11 & Heb 10:25).

We all went with him into battle

I like the phrase ‘we all went with him into the battle.’ I don’t think that means everyone was praying at the same time or that everyone prayed. But that when one prayed, all prayed (Acts 4:24). Such was their united assault upon the throne of Grace. That’s the sort of unity we want in our prayer meetings.

It’s a fine line, perhaps, between not despising the day of small things (Zech 4:10) and the realisation that without God we are sunk. God is at work. He does not stop working. The Lord Jesus is building His church (Matt 16:18), and He will continue to build it until He returns. He gives us persevering grace. We are not fallen away because He keeps us in the way. For this we are thankful and raise our Ebenezer (1 Sam 7:12). But we pray: “Lord, give us that longing we know we need.” ‘O, that Thou wouldest rend the heavens and come down (Isaiah 64:1)’ and ‘that glory may dwell in our land (Ps 85:9).’

Extracts from ‘The Experience Meeting’ by William Williams (Pantycelyn) (2)

This is part two of sections from Chapter 1 of William Williams ‘The Experience Meeting.’ (Part 1 is here) (Part 3 here) I don’t intend to post anything, for now, on how the society meetings were organised during the flow of the revival, rather the condition of the church when the Spirit of God visited in revival blessing.

This next section is, I believe, one in which our churches can take great encouragement to not give up meeting. Revival comes not at the behest of man but by Gods gracious intervention – and that, when we are at our lowest ebb. Perhaps that is one of our problems. Our churches are so well organised that if God were absent from our meetings, or our evangelism, would any of us really notice?

‘And she said, “The Philistines are upon you, Samson!” And he awoke from his sleep and said, “I will go out as at other times and shake myself free.” But he did not know that the LORD had left him.’ Judges 16:20

The Bold text is my highlighting. I have also divided the text into two paragraphs so it’s slightly easier to read.. Continuing then where we left off with Eusebius on page 8:

EUSEBIUS continues….: ‘This is the way the Lord worked in that part of the world. One time, there were just a few of us, professing believers, gathered together, cold and unbelievably dead, in a meeting which we called a special service, so discouraged as to doubt whether we should ever meet again, some who were usually absent from every meeting, some in a deadly apathy, with nothing to say of God nor their own souls, some given over to the world and its cares, some backslidden completely from all means of grace and the ordinances of the gospel, some given over to the flesh and its lusts, as in the days of Noah – seeking a wife, seeking a husband marrying and giving in marriage – and I myself well nigh disheartened and thinking often of coming to live in warmer spiritual climes, and moving my tent from Ur of the Chaldees nearer to the borders of the Promised Land.

But, even though all things were as i have described them – the world, the flesh and Satan victorious – these special services were yet conducted in an incredibly lifeless manner. There was no encouragement for anyone to carry on the work, save only the promise of God, that wherever there were two or three coming together in His name, if their purpose were right, however lifeless their present state, He would come to them and bless them. This alone had made us come together to pray; but our prayers were not much more than groans.’

The Experience Meeting: An Introduction to the Welsh Societies of the Evangelical Awakening, William Williams, Evangelical Press, 1973. Page 8.

I like the way he says ‘This is the way the Lord worked in that part of the world.’ It may be the Lord will again work in that way – here in Wales and where you are too. But in this passage especially, we should note the condition they were in. ‘cold and unbelievably dead‘ and a ‘deadly apathy.’ How many of us have thought of moving our tents to where ‘things are happening?’ ‘To warmer spiritual climes‘ and ‘nearer to the borders of the Promised Land.‘ Is that us? Is that how we see ourselves? Or are we in need of nothing (Rev 3:17)?

Also notice there were people in the meeting ‘who were usually absent from every meeting.’ I’m sure Pastors try to encourage their people to attend – but often to no avail. The Lord can do in a moment what man can’t.

Despite this, we shouldn’t fail to recognise who we are. The world may despise the church of God, and we can be tempted to think that way sometimes too, but our hope is still in the living God.

‘Glorious things of thee are spoken,
Zion, city of our God!’

I’ve written more than I meant to but I do hope and pray these posts from the writing of William Williams will be an encouragement to the church.

 

Extracts from ‘The Experience Meeting’ by William Williams (Pantycelyn) (1)

I read this book years ago, and one particular section especially was impressed indelibly upon my mind. And I always tend, somehow, to make reference to it when talking about revival. Which I did do just recently. It’s about time then, that I typed that section up. It’s fairly lengthy for one post so I’ll break it up into three or four shorter posts. (Part 2 here & Part 3 here) Any highlights in bold or italics will be mine.

I don’t know if the book is still in print. Whether it is or not doesn’t really matter. What the book, or this section anyway, tells me is that no matter how lifeless we think our prayer meetings are, and let’s face it, they mostly are, the Lord is well able to visit us and revive us. We don’t need to gee them up and try to inject life into them. We simply need the Lord to visit us. That’s the only life we need. His life. The Spirit of God. Our hope is in God. Williams writes the book as a conversation or dialogue between two people, Theophilus and Eusebius. Here’s the first of the quotes:

THEOPHILUS: And now, what progress is the Lord’s work making in your country? I have heard that the gospel of Jesus has reached you, and has begotten many sons. Will you please tell me how grace began to work there? By what means? And with what power? And to what extent apart from the usual means? And which graces appeared first? What wiles has Satan devised to hinder the work? And what troubles or trials have you suffered to test and strengthen you and to purify you?

EUSEBIUS: You have asked me many questions, and I will do my best to answer them all, for I find nothing sweeter to recount, and nothing to quicken my soul more, than to remember the days of the Lord’s visitation to me and to others in the day of my betrothal to Him, the joyful day of my heart; to remember that time, to me, is ever as sweet as honey (This is the first paragraph of a long section).

The Experience Meeting: An Introduction to the Welsh Societies of the Evangelical Awakening, William Williams, Evangelical Press, 1973. Pages 7 & 8.

I can’t recall where I read it, but in one of Jonathan Edwards books he talked about how through remembering and talking about past visitations of God those same feelings can come back. I don’t think Edwards was speaking negatively here, but speaking experientially. Hence we read above: ‘to remember that time, to me, is ever as sweet as honey.’

 

On The Incarnation by Saint (why not) Athanasius – Brief Review

This has sat in my ‘Drafts’ folder for too long. This a brief review/recommendation (with quotes) of On the Incarnation by (Saint) Athanasius (Born: 296 AD, Died: May 2, 373 AD). Frankly, I didn’t know what to expect, but whatever it was I was expecting, this wasn’t it. The book is a total of 110 pages (starts at page 9) with the Preface, an essay by C. S. Lewis on reading older works. This is followed by an excellent, quite lengthy, introduction and explanation by the translator which needs to be read first.

‘On The Incarnation’ itself, is a bit over half the book at ‘only’ 61 pages. But what a half! The way it’s written appeals, I think, to the way my mind likes to work. That makes it a little easier for me to read. But it really isn’t a difficult read at all. In this edition footnotes are rare. There is no index (too short a book really) but there is a list of Suggested Further Reading (ps. 45-47).

Again (like Patrick), what we find here is a fully worked out and functioning Trinitarian theology. I don’t think we should tire of pointing this out given what Muslim friends might believe. Athanasius wrote this work some two hundred years before Mohammed was even born (571). Which means Mohammed did not check his sources and was simply wrong on The Trinity and especially on the deity of The Lord Jesus Christ.

Reading these older works is not a waste of time. We think we’re so sophisticated but forget, or are ignorant of the fact, that older writers have already addressed many of our problems.

Athanasius divides this work essentially into six sections. I don’t know what other editions look like, but in this edition, the work is in numbered sub-sections which is quite helpful. It isn’t endless pages of dense text. This book is Part 2 of his previous work Against the Gentiles, so it dives right in by saying ‘In what preceded we have sufficiently treated a few points from many…(p. 49.)’ The translator deals with Against the Gentiles in the introduction.

After a brief introduction (sub-section 1), we have the First Section: The Divine Dilemma regarding Life and Death (p. 50, sub-section 2). The next section is on page 60, sub-section 11: The Divine Dilemma regarding Knowledge and Ignorance.

Athanasius begins by showing that the world came into being by nothing other than that God willed it into existence without any pre-existing matter. He also shows how ‘human beings’ were also created by God. But then having sinned and fallen into a state of condemnation he shows how (us) ‘they became insatiable in sinning (p.54).’
On page 55 he then says ‘Therefore, since the rational creatures were being corrupted and such works were perishing, what should God, being good, do?’ Should God ‘Permit the corruption prevailing against them and death to seize them?’
It would have been weakness by God, rather than goodness if having created human beings only to leave them in their corruption. But God had already said to Adam if he were to eat of the forbidden tree they would die. God would be seen to be a liar had He not acted in judgment. So Athanasius writes ‘For it was absurd that God, the Father of truth, should appear a liar for our profit and preservation. (p.56)’ Is that the sort of God we want, a liar? I don’t think so. How could we then ever trust anything He says to us.

Here’s a few more from this sub-section. ‘What then had to happen in this case or what should God do? Demand repentance from human beings for their transgression? He puts it in the form of a dilemma for God. It’s put this way for our understanding. The Scripture never presents God as being in a dilemma. It’s a way of trying to understand the lengths that God will go to rescue human beings. ‘But repentance would neither have preserved the consistency of God, for he again would not have remained true if human beings were not held fast in death….’

What is to be done?

‘Or who was needed for such grace and recalling except the God Word who in the beginning made the universe from non-being? For his it was once more both to bring the corruptible to incorruptibility and to save the superlative consistency of the Father. (p.56).
The first few sections I absolutely loved reading. It made me wonder afresh at the sheer undeserved magnificent grace of God in sending a Saviour. We must also equally emphasise, with His Deity, that Jesus was truly a man, not some kind of illusion or phantom, but a real flesh and blood man. And so:

‘For He was not enclosed in the body, nor was he in the body but not elsewhere. Not while He moved that [body] was the universe left void of His activity and providence. But, what is most marvellous, being the Word, He was not contained by anyone, but rather Himself contained everything.’ p. 66.
Athanasius also writes:
‘When then the theologians (Athanasius specifically means the writers of Scripture) in this matter say that he ate and drank and was born, know that the body, as body, was born and was nourished on appropriate food, but that he, the God Word, present in the body yet arranging all things, made known through the works wrought in the body that he was not himself a human being but the God Word. But these things are said of him, since the body which ate and was born and suffered, was no one else’s but the Lord’s, and as he became human, it is proper for these things to be said of him as human, that he might be shown possessing a real not illusory body.’ p. 68

And further:

‘You must understand, therefore, that when writers on this sacred theme speak of Him as eating and drinking and being born, they mean that the body, as a body, was born and sustained with the food proper to its nature; while God the Word, Who was united with it, was at the same time ordering the universe and revealing Himself through His bodily acts as not man only but God. Those acts are rightly said to be His acts, because the body which did them did indeed belong to Him and none other; moreover, it was right that they should be thus attributed to Him as Man, in order to show that His body was a real one and not merely an appearance.’ p.68.
One of his arguments for the crucifixion, from a human perspective, is at the time of Christ, the worst, the most horrendous death devised by wicked men was crucifixion. I’m paraphrasing but Athanasius says it had to be that way so no one could say ‘well, that was a pretty easy death.’ It was a terrible death! From a prophetic scriptural perspective, this is what was prophesied.

This is a lengthy quote but I think important. (To save typing it up the quote is from another translation – lazy I know. It’s not that different). I hope it whets your appetite to read Athanasius yourself:

“Well then,” some people may say, “if the essential thing was that He should surrender His body to death in place of all, why did He not do so as Man privately, without going to the length of public crucifixion? Surely it would have been more suitable for Him to have laid aside His body with honour than to endure so shameful a death.” But look at this argument closely, and see how merely human it is, whereas what the Saviour did was truly divine and worthy of His Godhead for several reasons. The first is this. The death of men under ordinary circumstances is the result of their natural weakness. They are essentially impermanent, so after a time they fall ill and when worn out they die. But the Lord is not like that. He is not weak, He is the Power of God and Word of God and Very Life Itself. If He had died quietly in His bed like other men it would have looked as if He did so in accordance with His nature, and as though He was indeed no more than other men. But because He was Himself Word and Life and Power His body was made strong, and because the death had to be accomplished, He took the occasion of perfecting His sacrifice not from Himself, but from others. How could He fall sick, Who had healed others? Or how could that body weaken and fail by means of which others are made strong? Here, again, you may say, “Why did He not prevent death, as He did sickness?” Because it was precisely in order to be able to die that He had taken a body, and to prevent the death would have been to impede the resurrection. And as to the unsuitability of sickness for His body, as arguing weakness, you may say, “Did He then not hunger?” Yes, He hungered, because that was the property of His body, but He did not die of hunger, because He Whose body hungered was the Lord. Similarly, though He died to ransom all, He did not see corruption. His body rose in perfect soundness, for it was the body of none other than the Life Himself. p. 71 & 72 in my edition.

I’ll leave it at that. It really is the most amazing book!! I cannot recommend this important work enough. I need, I must, read it again. It’s available in many versions, several, I think on Kindle for a £1. I don’t have the expertise to know which is the best translation and I’m guessing there’s not THAT much difference anyway – I could be wrong. I’ll stick with this one. It was recommended to me by Nick Needham and that’s good enough for me. Thanks Nick.

History: A Students Guide by Nathan A. Finn – A Review, sort of.

History: A Student’s Guide by Nathan A Finn, Crossway, 2016. This is part a series called ‘Reclaiming the Christian Intellectual Tradition.’ I came across this book through a casual reference by Michael Haykin on Facebook. So, thank you Michael, I really enjoyed reading it.

I’m not going to be pursuing any career, let alone a career in history, so the book has no relevance to me in that regard. But if you are at the beginning of your further education or are considering a change where studying history is a requirement or especially if you are a Christian studying for a degree in history, then you should read it. Typically, it would probably be found in a university book store. I can’t really recommend the book for general reading because it probably isn’t meant to be used in that way. But if you are so inclined then do read it. Ministers / Pastors would probably find it helpful. Also, check out the other books in the series.

It’s not a long book (111 pages) but the text is on the small side and the footnotes (Hooray for footnotes!) are even smaller. It has ‘Questions for reflection (p.101), a Glossary (p.103-4), Resources for further study (p.105-6), a General Index (p.107-9), and a Scripture Index (p.111). He packs a lot in! I’m not sure, but I think all the ‘Resources’ are all of Christian ‘Historians.’

The book then is written for Christians and there are many aspects of the book that I found helpful and encouraging. Here are three things that I found helpful – maybe you would too.

Presentism. This absolutely plagues our world today. Here’s the Glossary entry, ‘Presentism: Any attempt to read present assumptions back into the past.’ We see this in shedloads today. It is like an epidemic. It is abhorrent. Every historian will know the quote from L. P. Hartley even if they haven’t read the book. Nathan quotes it on p.29 “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” He also points out this applies to the recent past as well, and not just to ancient history. In the strongest possible way I can, dumping present morals on the past is not only dangerous, it is also stupid.

Providentialism. This was quite an interesting discussion. This is the way Christian Historians (can) see the hand of God working in or through history. God is clearly working in history and the world is on a linear path to its end, and if it were not for God there would be no history at all. But reading the hand of God into a particular event, for good or ill, is notoriously difficult. God has chosen to make his revealed will known only through the Scriptures. Perhaps as an example of Providentialism, I read a book on Machiavelli where Savonarola is given a fair bit of space. Some Christians (BoT) read back into Savonarola a ‘Revival of Religion.’ I’m afraid I don’t. It’s a lovely thought but I really don’t see a ‘Revival’ there. Not in the same sense as we see in the Evangelical Awakenings of the 18th Century anyway. You may disagree – which is fine.
The point being, care is needed with any attempt at reading God working in the past. We also need to be charitable as not all Christian Historians will read providence in the same way. Later in the book Nathan does urge Christian Historians to make judgments in the present by using the past – but carefully.

Providentialism is a slightly different point to what is dealt with in Chapter 2 on ‘Historical Interpretation.’ Nathan lists five interpretive grids. One of these is the Marxist view. He Mentions Christopher Hill in the book. Here’s an amusing anecdote. I wasn’t there unfortunately, I couldn’t make it, but a friend was. Professor Hill visited a school in Rugby (my home town – born & bred) to lecture on an aspect of the English Civil War. One questioner asked something like, ‘Professor Hill, how would a Marxist interpret the Civil War?’ to which he replied ‘What do you think I’ve been doing for the last hour.’ There you go. It isn’t always obvious, and we should definitely not throw everything out because they (other historians) have a different worldview. Discernment is required.

Usefulness to the Church. He means here, not just The Church, but the local church. While at secondary school we had a history exam where I scored -1 (minus 1). And that wasn’t the lowest score either! History had absolutely no relevance to me at all. Plus, the History Teacher (Mr Baldwin) was a sadist – I exagerate. But he did like to lift boys up by their sideburns and give them a twist on the way up. It didn’t endear me to the subject. What changed? God intervened and a love of history was kindled almost straight away – with the help of Peter Jeffery, my first Pastor.

My experience over the years has shown that although some Christians have an interest in history – churches as a whole don’t. It’s a great shame. Your church might be blessed to have an historian as a member, though I’m sure many do not. But if your church does, or you are an historian, Nathan gives some suggestions how historians might be useful in the local church. Here’s three:

* A Sunday School Class on the History of Christianity.
* Start a history themed reading group.
* Ask about occasional Church History lectures.

Not the normal book I review. More could be said. Hope it has been helpful.

 

Is Jesus History? by John Dickson – Get a copy

Is Jesus History? By John Dickson. 2019. The Good Book Company. On 10 of Those for £6.79 (discounts for 5 or more copies)

It’s a standard paperback size of 150 pages. It’s not a big book then, and I enjoyed it from the very start. The text and style is easy to read and it isn’t overly technical. There are headings throughout each chapter with a summary (‘In a Nutshell’) and period readings at the end. The readings are mainly from the New Testament but not exclusively. The book has a few footnotes but these are kept to a bare minimum which in this case is a big help.

I loved the way he used his treasured coin (pp. 13ff) to teach us about how the past is (was) a real place and not a fictional world that has left a great deal of evidence that can be read, seen, and touched.

One objection I’ve heard is that if Jesus was so influential why are there not more records of him? These criticisms fail to understand how history works. So it was helpful when John tells us there is not ‘even one piece of personal correspondence from the emperor.’ P.16. There may be reasons God has not chosen to leave mountains of ‘evidence’ but whatever the reason it doesn’t violate any principles or historical method. Rather, it is totally in accord with the way the study of history, and especially ancient history works.

A great book for any Christian to read and an excellent book to give to your sceptical friends. It’s a good companion to Peter Williams book ‘Can we trust the Gospels.’ As Christians we often seem to be on the back-foot. At least it can feel like that. So this book is a great resource. I believe in evidence, but I’m not an evidentialist. But this book really will help, in a brief and easy to read way, I think, to give Christians confidence when talking to skeptics. Well worth reading and an excellent ‘Stocking filler.’ Buy a copy.