Memories of Prayer Meetings: A Challenge to the Present

Brief backstory. It was conference week (back in August) here in Aberystwyth and a man (a friend of Geoff Thomas) comes into the shop and buys loads of books. I wasn’t serving but I get a text that a friend of Geoff’s is in the shop and that I should look him up on the internet, which I do, and discover he has written a biography of Leonard Ravenhill (I think the only biography). When I first became a Christian, I had some tapes of Leonard Ravenhill preaching and had his book ‘Why Revival Tarries?’ It had quite an effect on me at the time. Along with reading everything I could by Tozer – who I think was friends with Ravenhill. So my interest was immediately quickened.

I text back, ‘I see he has written a biography of Leonard Ravenhill’. This was passed on to the customer who was Mack Tomlinson. Upon finding out I was interested in Leonard Ravenhill he says he has a copy of his book in the car and will pass it on to me via Geoff – which he did. I did have the opportunity to thank him before they went off on their travels in the UK and then back to the US.

So now I am slowly working my way through the biography (it’s over 600 pages) by Mack Tomlinson. The distinguishing feature of Ravenhill’s life was a life of prayer, the necessity of prayer, and of the importance of having people pray for him and his ministry in the Holy Spirit. All the talk of prayer is deeply challenging and made me think back to various points in contrast to what I see today. They were deeply committed to the work of prayer. I’m challenged by the book, and I’m challenged even by my own past. Are our prayer meetings committed to prayer (we have to work at it), but are instead much more concerned about talking and fellowship – nothing wrong with either of course, but it’s not primarily why we meet for prayer. Is it?

I remember back in the 1980’s, when Peter Jeffery was the pastor of the church in Rugby, two very special meeting times of prayer. One was on a Saturday morning at 8:00 am. About 6 or 7 used to meet for prayer. As a young Christian I was so privileged to be at these meetings for a few years. I would’ve been about 25 or so, but the others were all elderly, or older, saints. And they were men & women of prayer. Here are their names: Peter Jeffery (Pastor), Roger Lewis (Elder), Will (Elder) & Audrey Sale, Ruth Little, Ailsa Meya, Ron Applegate. These are the ones I remember. Too many prayer meetings these days are mostly talking meetings with a few minutes of prayer tacked on the end. How we love to talk! We can of course justify it. The format was that Peter would read a few (and it was just a few) appropriate verses from the Bible and then straight to prayer. No exposition, no long explanations, or exhortations. The folk were there with one purpose: to pray. To seek God and to pray for His blessing. And that’s what they did.

The second was a time of prayer (about 25 minutes) before the evening service on a Sunday. It was the same format as the Saturday morning. Though I’m not sure if there was even a reading. Certainly, no chit chat. It was serious business. Straight to prayer. ‘Will (Mr Sale), will you start us off in prayer?’ said Peter. And away we went. The meeting was held in the library. Not a large room but I suppose about 10 people could sit. There was a time when more came and would stand as there was no room to sit. More came, so we then moved to the kitchen as there was a sitting area with more room. And still people would come and stand. I don’t see this happening today. The Lord was blessing.

Here are two quotes from Mack’s book that made me look back and think of those two prayer meetings.

‘…. Please remember this next Sunday morning at the early prayer hour. We have a group of young people, who in any weather, cycle eighteen miles to pray. May God bless our efforts. – Pastor Leonard Ravenhill’
In Light of Eternity: The Life of Leonard Ravenhill, Mack Tomlinson, Second Ed 2018, Granted Ministries Press, p. 78.

They cycled 18 miles! To pray! Would any of us even get in a car and drive 18 miles to pray. I very much doubt it. Would we go if it was round the corner!

I must admit to being very attracted to the idea of meeting on a Sunday morning at 7:30 or 8:00 to pray for an hour. And then to do it consistently week in week out! There’s the rub. I’m talking about the local church. About the local church being committed to pray. We can talk a good game – we all do that. Will we do it? Not just once a year for a week of prayer (so called) but every week!

‘In the July-August issue of The Flame, the notes and news section reported Leonard’s brief ministry there:

‘The Barnsley Assembly has recently said farewell to its beloved pastor, Crossley Griffiths, who has gone to London for intensive theological studies. Brother Leonard Ravenhill has been appointed to the pastorate and has already experienced special blessing in both indoor and open-air services. The 7:30 a.m. prayer meeting on Sunday is flourishing, with well over thirty attending and the evening congregations are growing. The sight of precious souls is cheering both to pastor and members.’ In Light of Eternity, P. 80.

I just find these things so challenging – to me personally, and as churches. I’m honestly not sure what it is we are looking for in our prayer meetings. We have our list of topics and people to pray for but there’s something missing. There’s little or no sense of awe at God or of His being, even though we say we’re in His presence. We so easily say all the right things. I don’t believe this is uncommon in our churches. I know there are exceptions, because I’ve been in those exceptions. But then, maybe it’s just me, and really, everything is just fine, and our churches are doing great.

But if it isn’t just fine? What’s the answer? The only answer is to press on, look up, and wait for the sun of righteousness to appear with healing in his wings (Malachi 4:2).

In the words of the Hymn Writer:

Come, Holy Spirit, heavenly dove,
with all your quickening powers;
kindle a flame of sacred love
in these cold hearts of ours.

In vain we tune our formal songs,
in vain we try to rise,
hosannas languish on our tongues,
and our devotion dies.

And shall we ever live
at this poor dying rate?
Our love so faint, so cold to You,
and yours to us so great?

Come, Holy Spirit, heavenly dove,
with all your quickening powers;
come shed abroad the Saviour’s love,
and that shall kindle ours.

Isaac Watts, 1674-1748

See the three posts on the Experience Meetings: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. When The Lord visited His cold and lifeless people.

 

 

 

The Rise & Triumph of the Modern Self – A Reflective Response

This has taken me far far longer than I intended it to take, and far longer than it should have taken. It’s not a short book (407 pages) and it isn’t a particularly easy book to read. It isn’t a lightweight book. It isn’t a cheap book. I’ve been told Dr Trueman is working on a briefer more accessible edition. I think that’s good, and bad. Good because more people might read it than otherwise, but bad because so much will need to be left out in order to fit the brief. An idea might be to produce a Study Guide – perhaps on its own. That, I think, would be helpful, perhaps to use in a church setting or reading group. Anyway, I’ve read the book. Having read it, I really could do with reading it again.

After saying that, It’s not my purpose here to review the book, others have done that already. But what I want to do is share some thoughts I had as I was reading it. As I say then, this post is more response than review. I do need to say that this is an absolutely brilliant book. If I get to meet him I ought to thank him for writing it. It is well written. I like his style. It’s divided up well with plenty of headings. It has an index, and footnotes. so what’s not to like. It’s a significant book. It’s a book that should be read by Christians, and especially ministers, seeking to understand not just where we are, but how we arrived at such a juncture.

What struck me most powerfully is the momentous task we face. This was my thinking very early on  as I read, some of which are picked up in the last section of the book – more of that later. The realisation that the ‘cultural moment‘ isn’t a moment at all but is in fact two or three hundred years of movement away from God and his authority. In the West that is anyway. Yes, there have been revivals, and I do not want to minimise them at all, but the trend continues downward. And the trend is not just down, but is picking up speed as well.

I don’t know how true this is (perhaps someone can tell me) but I was told by a friend (no longer with us) that Dr Lloyd-Jones told him that the length of time it takes to get ill, is the length of time it takes to (fully) recover. If that is true of individuals, could it also be true of churches, and of the ills of society? and maybe of Nations too – unless there is a Revolution (or a Reformation) when everything can change. So bearing that in mind will give you some idea of what we are facing. The Catholic church and Islam do not think in moments, but in centuries. Perhaps us Protestants need to have a more realistic perspective of time.

Another analogy I thought of is the Oil Tanker. Once the decision is made to turn round, or to stop, it can take a very long time to for anything happen. Although with that analogy we may be completely unaware the command to stop, or to turn, has already been given. This may be the case. The command has been given, but to us everything goes on as before. Rather, it seems as if everything is going on as before. From our perspective then it’s still moving and it seems as though nothing has changed. But in reality everything may have already changed. We just aren’t aware of it yet. The command to turn may have been given. That’s an encouraging thought. Obviously, the Command I’m talking of here is that given by God.

Encouraging as that thought may be, and it is, the reality is that revival may not come (for us) and God may not intervene in any obvious way at all. When we read of the past it’s sobering to realise the culture still has a very long way down to go, and despite us thinking how bad it is, and it is, it has not yet reached the bottom. When will that be? No one can say. No one can say what is at the bottom either. Carl does make a comment in a footnote, about the culture destroying itself. You would’ve thought we would be crying out to God for help. I don’t see too much of this happening.

How are we then to respond?

In writing to our MP’s, for example, we will have to realise making logical arguments isn’t going to cut it. Here in Wales (and the UK in general) the Assembly are absolutely committed to pursuing policies that push a Transgender ideology. Biology makes no difference now. Even in the church making rational arguments sometimes makes no headway against someone saying ‘how it makes me feel.’ If that’s where we are in the church how can we expect arguments with godless governments to be any more effective! Perhaps, and I’m being quite serious, when we write to our MP’s we need to sprinkle our letters or emails with several references to how it makes us feel. Not a very good idea but surely when we see truth trampled in the street it makes us feel something. Doesn’t it? To illustrate where we are at I’ve typed up a few quotes from Carls book. These are mainly in the last section:

‘Yet transgenderism is only the latest and most extreme form of this move; it stands in obvious continuity with antimetaphysical thought of the nineteenth century, most notably Friedrich Nietzsche. Transgenderism is a symptom, not a cause. It is not the reason why gender categories are now so confused; it is rather a function of a world in which the collapse of metaphysics and of stable discourse has created such chaos that not even the most basic of binaries, that between male and female, can any longer lay claim to meaningful objective status. And the roots of this pathology lie deep within the intellectual traditions of the West.
The contemporary debates surrounding LGBTQ+ also offer evidence of Alasdair Macintyres contention that ethical debate today is not about reasoning from commonly accepted premises but rather about the expression of emotional preferences.’ Page 376.

The agreed rational basis for debate has gone. All that is left is emotional preference.’ P. 377.

‘But as i noted in the introduction, this book is neither a lament nor a polemic. It is rather an attempt to explain how the revolution of the self came to take the form it has in the West and why that is so culturally significant.’ Page. 382.

‘It should also enable us to have a better understanding of why the sexual revolution has apparently moved so fast and, if anything, appears to be gaining speed, as transgenderism seems to be making such headway in the culture and as one after another sexual taboo collapses in the face of what often looks like an unstoppable tidal wave of sexual revolution. The reason for this speed is that the underlying causes of these phenomena are deeply embedded within our culture and have been slowly but surely transforming how we think of ourselves and our world for many, many generations.’ Page, 386.

The book sets where we are in context, and I think sets before us an overwhelming and impossible task. That was my response as I read it. Even after reading this book, we still believe ‘the arm of flesh’ will deliver us. My friends, it will not. The ‘arm of flesh’ will not undo 300 years of movement away from God. And ‘the arm of flesh’ will not undo where we are now. That’s one reason why we need to be reading and hearing about what God has done in the past.  I’m reminded of something Leonard Ravenhill said: ‘The answer isn’t in the White House (or Downing Street), it’s in God’s house.’ It doesn’t mean we stop reading books like this, or stop writing to our MP’s, or engaging where we are able (The Lord does use means), but it does mean we have to face up to the current situation – or the cultural moment that we find ourselves in. When chatting to someone recently I was reminded of Isaiah 42:13:

‘I will work, and none shall prevent it.’

I will work, and who shall let it? as when he wrought the work of creation, there was no opposition to it, or hinderance of him; and in providence all things are done as he pleases; so all his purposes and decrees, which are his works within him, are exactly accomplished according to his pleasure, and none can resist his will. The work of redemption is finished just according to the draught of it in his eternal mind; and when he works upon the heart of a sinner at conversion, whatever obstructions and difficulties are in the way, these are removed, and the work is begun, and carried on, and performed, until the day of Christ. The work of the Lord in his churches, and the setting up of his kingdom in the world, in a more visible and glorious manner, shall be done, and none will be able to hinder it: (John Gill)

Let us not forget, or be tempted to forget that God is at work even when we cannot see it. The Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation!

 

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.

The Gulag, Live not by lies, and Wokeness.

Very difficult to think of a title for this post. But I’m continuing to listen to this abridgement of Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn’s ‘The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation.’ Narrated by, I believe, his son which lends to it a certain poignancy.

Listening to this is relevant to the book I’m reading by Rod Dreher, ‘Live not by lies.’ The title of Dreher’s book is from the writing of Solzhenitsyn. Reading about Communism in Dreher’s book isn’t quite the same as listening to the writing of someone that lived through its horror. The quote below from Solzhenitsyn puts some realism into our current situation and is really helpful as I read Rod’s book. The section is where Solzhenitsyn is describing what happened to Russians that were taken prisoner. I already knew this but to hear it narrated is quite different. Simply by coming into contact with The West was enough to get you imprisoned on your return home (In chapter 6 of The Gulag ‘That Spring’). Or even shot. It didn’t matter if you had defended Russia or were decorated. It was all stripped away in the name of the ideology. You were an enemy of the State. All that was necessary was that you confess your crimes.

Dreher describes the Totalitarianism we are experiencing as ‘Soft Totalitarianism’ but make no mistake it’s the same ideology. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a Captain in the Russian army. During his imprisonment he encountered other soldiers, like himself, decorated soldiers, but it didn’t make any difference. They were now an enemy of the State all the same.

So here’s the quote:

‘The West simply had to understand that Bolshevism is an enemy for all mankind. But The West did not understand at all! (from Ch 6)’

That quote, especially if you listen to it in context, is incredibly powerful. The young, it seems, and other Social Justice Warriors (SJW) want to play or experiment with Communism. They think it’s a good idea. But to repeat the quote from Solzhenitsyn ‘the West did not understand at all.’ Call it Wokeness or SJWism if you like. Whatever we call it let’s listen to Solzhenitsyn and realise ‘that Bolshevism (or soft totalitarianism) is an enemy for all mankind.’ It’s an enemy to us all. Including those trapped by it. The West still doesn’t understand.

What’s interesting for us is that we can see this at work today. For example, a person aligns themselves with the leftist Woke ideology. They like to display their credentials. Or businesses do the same. But they happen to comment, for instance, that because someone ‘identifies’ as a man or woman it doesn’t make it so because the biology says otherwise. They are still a man or a woman however they might ‘identify.’ We know these cases. That is enough. You are condemned. It’s like a Russian soldier coming into contact with The West. The retribution is merciless and swift. You are cancelled. Yes, the Soft Totalitarianism doesn’t put a bullet in your brain, or throw you in the Gulag, but its aim is to destroy you. It’s truly Satanic. It’s from the same source. (You can read about many of these cases in Douglas Murray book ‘The Madness of Crowds.’ Or consider J. K. Rowling (See here for the latest attacks) or Martina Navratilova.)

I’ll continue to listen to ‘The Gulag’ and to read ‘Live not by lies.’ Maybe a ‘review’ or some comments later. We really need to be equipped not only to spot it but to defend against it and where possible rescue those from its grip. Not everybody on ‘The Left’ is our enemy. When it comes to Free Speech we (Christians) can find ourselves standing with surprising allies. They are our friends. But ultimately without Christ they are still lost. They might not be in the grip of Wokeness, but they are still lost. They need the Saviour too.

The Morality of Spying, Lying, Deceiving – Interview with a former CIA Intelligence officer.

Last night I sat and watched this fascinating interview on Al Mohler’s ‘Thinking in Public’ channel with a former CIA operative whose wife was also a spy. It was promised to be fascinating. And it was. Here’s the full title of the interview:

Spycraft and Soulcraft on the Front Lines of History: A Conversation with Former CIA Chief of Counterintelligence James Olson

If you’ve ever contemplated the idea of the Nazis knocking on your door and asking if ‘there are any Jews in there?’ then you’ll be interested in this. Or if you’ve ever wondered what it takes to go about your life in relative peace and safety you might like it. Would you lie? I’d like to think I would. No question. Not even a debate for me. I’d rather not lie of course, but for me, it would be the moral thing to do in that situation. The spies of Jericho were quoted to make the case for lying in certain situations (Josh 2:1).

‘Spying has always been based on deception. I look for guidance from the greatest of all sources, the Bible. And we all know the story from the book of Joshua, about how when Joshua was conducting his campaign for the conquest of Canaan, he’s standing before Jericho, and he sends two spies into Jericho to gather intelligence on the defenses. And the spies are sheltered, protected, hidden by the prostitute Rahab. And thanks to Rahab they survive when the king’s men came looking for them, she lied about their whereabouts. They were able to return safely to the Israelite camp. And I think it was because of their intelligence to a large extent that the campaign was successful.’ (Quote is from the transcript)

Just this Sunday we had a sermon about Ehud. Ehud straps on a sword with the intent of killing Eglon. It was just assumed that he did the right thing but he entered with a concealed weapon and used subterfuge and lying to get an audience with the king in order to get him on his own and plunge the sword into his belly; literally spilling his guts before making his escape. He went there with one aim: kill the king. It wasn’t murder, he delivered justice. (Judges 3:19-23) So it isn’t just the spies of Jericho.

‘I often ask my students, “What are your moral absolutes?” And students say, “Well, I would never kill anyone.” I say, “Well, you’re a soldier, our country’s being attacked. You are a parent, your children are being threatened. Could you kill to protect your children or your right?” Yeah, there are exceptions. Would you ever steal? I know I can never steal anything, but how about to feed your family? How about to steal the secrets from an enemy? Would you ever lie? No, but we all tell white lies. And there are occasions, as you mentioned, where lies I believe are the only course of action to protect human life.’ (Quote is from the transcript)

The espionage world in which this man lived and operated, with his wife, and now training other operatives, is a world of lying, deceit, manipulation, subterfuge, torture, and execution (killing). What might surprise some is that he operated with a Christian moral worldview. The prospective spies he trains are expected to have a moral compass. He didn’t say this, but without some sort of objective morality they might just as well employ as many psychopaths as they can. I’m sure Russia aren’t the only ones to have psychopaths on the payroll.

You might find the whole interview intensely annoying and not agree with a single thing he says. And that’s fine. But remember this: while you sleep peacefully in your bed or go about your life each day there are men and women out ‘there’ literally putting their lives on the line for our safety and doing things so we can keep our moral superiority. I recall some years ago a story in the papers of a British Army colonel, I think, who had infiltrated the IRA. I remember thinking about what would happen to that man had he been caught.

‘And it’s really unfair after the fact, I think, for people sitting back in Washington to say, “You went too far, you should not have kidnapped that person. You should not have waterboarded that person.” Because it’s easy to say, and our people were doing this with the best of intentions. Waterboarding is nasty. I hate the fact that we had to do that. But it’s easy to take the moral high ground and say, “We’re not going to do that.” And of course the Obama administration decreed that we would not do it anymore. That’s fine, tell us, we won’t cross the line. But we have to realize that when we refrain from activities like that, and I would contend as my good friend and colleague Jose Rodriguez wrote in his book, Hard Measures, that waterboarding these three people did save lives.’
(Quote is from the transcript)

It’s a messy fallen world, and yes I know, governments aren’t always working for the interest of their own people. I’m putting a best case on this knowing, that other governments are probably operating with more dubious moral standards.

One other thing he said was that if they’d (The US) have had the intelligence at the time they could’ve prevented Pearl Harbour as the German ‘chatter’ about it was being listened to. One of the ‘What If’s of history.

A brilliant TV series, (I think), is ‘The Americans.’ It’s about Russian operatives in America living as Americans, complete with a family, but living double lives. And you get to see the CIA as well. Quite gruesome in places so if you’re squeamish or object strongly to bad language then best not to watch it. But it is quite brilliant. 6 seasons I think.

I’m fascinated by it all so I’d like to hear more on this. He’s written a couple of books so they might be worth checking out.

Note: Because the CIA was like it was in James Olson’s day, it doesn’t mean it’s the same today. Check out for example Andrew Klavan’s show.

Some might (will be) be outraged by this, but then we don’t have to make these decisions – someone else does. There was so much more and it all raises so many many questions, but here’s the video link.

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.)

Reaching the lost in high places – Acts 13:1

‘Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.’ Acts 13:1

By Bartlomiej Strobel - Museo Nacional del Prado, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20080818
Feast of Herod with the Beheading of St John the Baptist by Bartlomiej Strobel – Museo Nacional del Prado

Being a somewhat ordinary person and living in an ordinary station in life, those in high places, to me, inhabit another world. I see the Royal family, the world of the stars (so called), the high-end business world and so many other areas of life that are simply alien to me. I sometimes wonder how these people are reached with the Gospel. Despite all the trappings of privilege and success they are still people that are in need of salvation. It’s highly unlikely in the scheme of things that I would ever have the opportunity to speak with such. Nevertheless, Christians do move in those circles. And I’m thankful they are able to reach the parts people like myself cannot. But it isn’t just those in high places, it’s sometimes the type of people that are in those high places. So, for our encouragement let us consider a man (in the verse above) by the name of Manaen.

We aren’t quite sure of his relationship to King Herod but at the very least he moved in the same circles. The main sense is that of a friend, or even a foster brother. One commentator (Matthew Henry – full quote below) suggests they ‘nursed of the same milk’ or went to the same school. The ESV text (above) says he was a lifelong friend. Let’s suppose that is the case. Who is Herod the tetrarch? This is the Herod that had John the Baptist beheaded. I don’t think we are far off the mark if we call Herod a psychopath. Manaen is a lifelong friend of this Herod.

We aren’t explicitly told how Manaen heard the Gospel, or when he came to trust in Christ for salvation, but we do know that John the Baptist preached to Herod. Is it too much of a stretch to say Manaen heard the message from John? And yet two very different responses. Manaen became a prophet and leader in the church and Herod continues, as far as we know, in unbelief – perhaps signifying his eternal destiny.

Why did Herod invite John to his court? John was a novelty to him and a curiosity, but whatever the reason, John didn’t tone down the message to gain favour or be overawed in the presence of the great and the good. That doesn’t mean we have to ‘go at it’ and be aggressive – but it does mean we  have to be faithful and take the opportunities to speak as the Lord presents them to us. Easier said than done of course.

It may even be that Manaen heard the Lord Jesus speak. Either way, whether from John or Jesus, Manaen became a follower of the Lord Christ. I’m not convinced that just because Herod was a psychopath Manaen was a similar character – maybe he was. We simply aren’t told what sort of character he was before becoming a Christian, but we do know something of his life as a believer from our verse above. He became a  prophet and a teacher. Unlikely people do become followers of Jesus. Some even become ministers of the Gospel. Like the Apostle Paul (1 Tim 1:13).

The Lesson

It’s a simple lesson. The Lord has his people sometimes in the most unlikely places. The court of Herod was a place of debauchery and butchery. A place of adultery and licentiousness. And a place of immense privilege. Yet there was Manaen. The Lord doesn’t need us to reach people. But His way is most often to use Christians to speak to people from all manner of backgrounds. Maybe He’ll use us too.

We might think it is futile to pray for some as they seem so far from the Kingdom. But this isn’t the case. Many Christians pray for Boris, for example, even though they will probably never meet him. Or praying for that celebrity, or even a terrorist. God does answer the prayers of His people. No prayer is futile. No one is beyond the reach of God. Acts 13:1 then, is a very encouraging verse – so pray on.

 

Manaen, a person of some quality, as it should seem, for he was brought up with Herod the tetrarch, either nursed of the same milk, or bred at the same school, or pupil to the same tutor, or rather one that was his constant colleague and companion – that in every part of his education was his comrade and intimate, which gave him a fair prospect of preferment at court, and yet for Christ’s sake he quitted all the hopes of it; like Moses, who, when he had come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. Had he joined in with Herod, with whom he was brought up, he might have had Blastus’s place, and have been his chamberlain; but it is better to be fellow-sufferer with a saint than fellow-persecutor with a tetrarch.

 Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 2118). Peabody: Hendrickson.

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.