Boris points to Christ – sort of

The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson) gave his  Christmas Message (see below) on Christmas Eve after securing a last minute Brexit deal.

It was obvious that he was on a Brexit high and took the opportunity to give us a happy Brexit Christmas. I’m sure just as many will have been pleased to hear it as those that were displeased or simply horrified at the whole process. The Brexit deal is definitely not the feast.

Like Prime Ministers before him Boris was able to demonstrate that he’s actually clueless as to what the real Christmas message is about. Of course he knows some of the details which isn’t necessarily a bad thing as it shows Christianity is still, for now, embedded in our culture. One might even say Boris had totally lost the plot if he really knew it in the first place. Like many of us probably. Embedded as it may be, the real message is easily obscured where there is no real knowledge of God or the Saviour who has entered our world to save people from their sins. There are so many things that Christmas is not about and Boris’s message for many is about as close as they want to get. I mean, contact with Christ, who is Lord of all, can be life changing. Boris is a good example, perhaps, of people that want ‘something’ to do with Christmas but really don’t want to get too close. Like Herod, he didn’t want to get close at all and set about making sure he didn’t. That didn’t work out so well for Herod. Let’s face it, the PM (any PM) has to say something Christmassy even it’s mostly nonsense.

What is Christmas about then?

In a nutshell, we all have a problem. The problem we face is that we are born with a sinful rebellious nature that wants nothing to do with God. That puts us at odds with God and makes us by nature ‘children of wrath.’ This rebellion will be dealt with and put down once and for all when The Lord Jesus comes again to Judge the world – that’s all of us. You and Boris included.

But such is the love of God that he sends a Saviour. A rescuer from the Judgment of God has come.

What do I want for Boris? The same as I want for you. Salvation from sin. A Saviour, who is Christ the Lord. ‘You shall call his name Jesus’, Mary was told. Why? Because he (Jesus) will save his people from their sins.

How does Jesus do this?

The Christmas message, and in fact the whole Christian Gospel, is all about what God has done. In the first place, He is born into this world. He lives a life of perfect obedience and is offered as a sacrifice to turn aside the wrath of God. This he does on the Cross. Wonderfully He rises from the dead and ascends to the right hand of God where he waits till the day of judgment. In the meantime, right now, Jesus is building his Church. And he is right now calling people through The Gospel (good news) to ‘repent and believe.’

Boris rightly talked about ‘rebirth and renewal’ but the rebirth and renewal the Bible talks about comes through repentance and faith in the one God sent. That is the Lord Jesus Christ. The question for you then, and for all of us (Boris included) is will you repent and believe, calling upon God for forgiveness?

‘O Lord, …. In wrath remember mercy’

Hab 3:2 O LORD, I have heard the report of you, and your work, O LORD, do I fear. In the midst of the years revive it; in the midst of the years make it known; in wrath remember mercy.

‘March 21st (1832) was appointed by the government as a day of prayer and fasting on account of the cholera that was spreading through Britain. ‘On that day there were more people than ordinary, of all ranks and ages, in every place of worship through the whole country: a great fervency of prayer was manifested, and it is thought that the Lord has poured his Spirit on the churches, from the results; as many, many, are now crying out for mercy, especially among the young people of Sunday schools.’ At Denbigh, by following July, about 200 had joined different societies of Christians there, being roused, it is thought, by the visitation of the cholera.’ It is estimated that about 2,000 were added to the Calvinistic Methodists in Caernarfonshire alone as a result of the revival.’

Revivals in Wales 1762 – 1862, D. Geraint Jones. The Heath Christian Trust. (ISBN 0 907193 10 2) p. 36 & 37.

It makes you wonder what God has to do to make us look up and call upon Him. We shouldn’t expect anything other than what we see: today, the church is seen as completely worthless by the government.

’12 Years a Slave’ A few notes.

The other evening I watched ‘12 Years a Slave’ for the first time. It’s a film I have wanted to watch since it was released in 2013. But somehow never got round to watching it.

The film was released before BLM came on the scene but watching it now seemed in some ways a better time to see it. I note the Director is Steve McQueen. Not that Steve McQueen. It’s a fantastic film. A beautiful film. A believable film. But it’s a deeply harrowing and distressing film, as it ought to be.

The first thing I noticed was the year. The film starts and is set in 1841. There’s no back-story of how Solomon Northup achieved the high standing he obviously has. He’s treated well as a man of money and of influence. He is married with two children with a very nice house. He’s doing well.

They obviously wanted us to note it, but I noted the date because I thought the slave trade had already been abolished in Britain by 1808 (1807 in the US). By 1841 the British navy was engaged in preventing slavery. That is, they were boarding ships and literally freeing slaves. Or so I thought. On reading a Guardian article yesterday it turns out we (Britain) weren’t engaged in abolishing it after all but merely trying to put its abolition off. We must be careful we don’t re-write history to fit our own ideology (that cuts both ways of course). It wasn’t perfect, but it was a good start. The way some people write it’s as if we haven’t moved forward at all. I don’t have any books on the slave trade (maybe I should), but I did check my dates in America: A Narrative History, 4th Ed, Tindall & Shi, W. W. Norton, 1997, pp. 248, 394-95, 437-43. ‘In 1841 the British prime minister asserted the right to patrol off the coast of Africa and search vessels flying the American flag to see if they carried slaves (p. 394).’ (It’s worth watching this lecture by Simon Schama.)

The thing I noticed (Unless I missed it) was that Solomon (the main character) never or rarely engages in attacks of bitterness towards the white folks. He defends himself for sure, but all the time he seeks to have good relationships with the white folks. He doesn’t give up on that as we eventually get to see.

As I watch I make comparisons with The Holocaust. A couple of weeks ago I watched a film about Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his opposition to the Nazis. He made that comparison after visiting America where he ministered in a Black church. Bonhoeffer was executed just before the end of the war. At least the black man had some value.

I’m only going to comment on the white characters ((Someone else can comment on the black folk). They are a mixed bunch caught in that time in history. But it’s exactly what we find now. We’re a mixed bunch. It starts with a shop keeper. He respects Solomon’s money for sure and there seems to be a good relationship. Then there’s the two wicked deceivers that sell him for money. Then several appalling characters until the plantation owner played by Benedict Cumberbatch. He wants to do right but is trapped (imprisoned in the system?) and ends up continuing to condone slavery. Several evil men and women follow. Then we meet the man played by Brad Pitt. He ended up being Solomon’s deliverer. Notice Solomon builds a relationship with Pitt’s character. But also notice, he (Pitt) realises that he’s putting himself in danger for Solomon by going against the system he’s living with (sound familiar?). But he does it anyway. Notice it’s a white man that Solomon sends for. Why? Because he knows he will come for him – probably at great risk I might add. What relief as it soon follows that Solomon’s nightmare ends and he’s reunited with his family, including a son-in-law and grandson. It’s incredibly moving. We shouldn’t forget emancipation for thousands never came.

I find these films stir within me a deep sense of justice that rises up. I can get quite wound up. I want justice to be done and wrongs righted. Reading the notes at the end of the film Justice is not done. It’s a travesty. I know that. Some, most, injustices in this world will never be righted. There is a day coming though when justice will be seen to be done. A righteous judgement will take place when the Righteous Judge of all the earth will bring this corrupt sinful world to an end.

I know he was in a privileged position in the film but don’t you think we should all follow the example of Solomon in the film. We are not in 1841. Yes there is still improvements to be made. But things have moved forward a lot.

Zoom foreword to 2020. The conclusion I come to after watching the film is that the Black Lives Matter organisation could not care twopence for an improvement in relations between ethnicities. They are only interested in maintaining conflict and in reality (may) put any improvements made back 30 years or more. They just want to engage in blame (and have their own agenda by the way).

Those are a few of my thoughts after eventually watching the film.

 

‘Of One Blood’

‘And he made from one man (‘One blood’ in the AV) every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, (Acts 17:26).’

In this verse we see ‘racism’ or the idea of different races refuted in the Bible. The Apostle Paul here is clearly referring to the Creation of man (that is: Mankind. Humans) back at the beginning. From Adam the Lord also creates Eve (Mother of the living). So from this couple we all descend (Genesis 1 & 2). ‘One blood’ suggests we all bleed the same. The Bible also speaks of the life being in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). There are differences, but not different races, there is only one humanity. One blood.

‘One blood. That is, of one man’s blood; the Vulgate Latin version reads, “of one”; and the Arabic version of De Dieu reads, “of one man”; of Adam, the first parent of all mankind, and who had the blood of all men in his veins: .’

‘And it is a certain truth that follows upon this, that no man has any reason to vaunt over another, and boast of his blood and family; and as little reason have any to have any dependence upon their being the children of believers, or to distinguish themselves from others, and reject them as the children of unbelievers, when all belong to one family, and are of one man’s blood, whether Adam or Noah: of whom there ‘is only one humanity’ (all nations of men, AV)(John Gill, 23 November 1697 – 14 October 1771. Baptist Bible commentator)

The verse also tells us that not only has God decreed that we (that’s all of us) should live on all the face of the earth (Genesis 9:1) but also how long we should be here. Psalm 90:10 gives a rough estimate of ‘three score years and ten.’ (Or should that be three score years and Then!) It’s at this point the Bible teaching starts to get (more) uncomfortable. This is starting to sound like we aren’t in control. If you are starting to feel the pinch a little, it gets even more specific. He (God) has also ‘determined …. the boundaries of their (me & you) dwelling place.’ The fact is we had no control over where or when we were born. We had no control over our parents either. So even where we are born (or live) falls under the supervision of God.

There are at least three things then we should realise from this verse.

1. We all share a common ancestry. In that sense we are all brothers and sisters.

2. We are all allotted a time to live. There’s nothing fatalistic about this. There’s a plan in place.

3. When and where we were born, and where we live, is no accident.

Once we realise that we have no say where or when we are born and have no say in the day of our death and that it’s not us in control the following verse becomes clear. What is it?

That we should seek God (Acts 17:27).

Again, here’s John Gill:

‘That they should seek the Lord,…. Or “God”, as the Alexandrian copy and others, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read; their Creator, and kind Benefactor, and who has appointed their time of life, and their habitations for them; and this should engage them to seek to know him, who has done all this for them, and to fear and serve him, and to glorify his name:’

Frankly, I see little seeking after God. But then I cannot see the heart. There is a lot of activity. But is there a seeking after God. Are you seeking God? Or does this describe you:

‘no one understands; no one seeks for God (Rom 3:11).’

But then verse 27 gives an encouragement to seek after God. How come? They might ‘feel their way towards him and find him.’ This is what happened in ancient Nineveh. The prophet Jonah was sent to preach to the people there. He preached a message of coming judgement. The King said Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.” (Jonah 3:9).’ And that’s what happened. Here’s more from the book of Jonah:

‘When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it (Jonah 3:10).’

We live in days of upheaval and perhaps this is God’s judgement upon us. In all of what’s happening right now please take notice of what the writer of Ecclesiastes says ‘Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near…. (Ecc 12:1).’ What does it mean to remember? What does it mean to turn from an evil way?

When the Apostle preached to the people in Thessalonica he described their response like this:

‘For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, (1 Thes 1:9). The same word is used as we saw in Jonah. The people turned. God saw that they turned. They turned TO God FROM Idols. That is an about turn. Their lives were going one way, with one end. They turned and went the exact opposite way, with a different end.

What about you? With all the upheaval and uncertainty will you turn to God from your idols?

In all the upheaval then, in all the injustice and sadness in the world, and even in your own life, will you hear the call of The Lord Jesus Christ:

Mat 11:28  Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29  Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Mat 11:30  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

This is the Finger of God – J. C. Ryle

By J.C. Ryle, written during the Great Cattle Plague of England, 1865-1867.

Follow the Source link below to read the full text. Believe me, it’s worth reading!!

‘Can anyone give a better account of the cattle plague? If he can, let him speak out like a man, and tell us why it has come. To say that it originated in another land; that it is not a new but an old plague; that it has done great harm in days gone by — all this is evading the question. I ask to be told why it has come upon us now? How and in what way can the outbreak be accounted for at this particular period? What possible causes can be assigned for it that have not existed for hundreds of years? I believe these questions cannot be answered. I believe that the only cause that we must come to as last is, the finger of God!’

Source: This is the Finger of God

Bulkington Church History Lecture. ‘Henry Havelock: Every inch a soldier and every inch a Christian.’ A Recommendation.

Photo Credit to Andrew Shiva

So yesterday I decided to take a trip to the great metropolis of Bulkington where Jeremy Walker was giving a lecture (at Bulkington Congregational Church) on Henry Havelock. The full lecture title was (Follow link to listen) ‘Henry Havelock – Every inch a soldier and every inch a Christian.’ Here’s what I thought was a key quote (there were many more!) Havelock had ‘An unfashionable faith in an unsympathetic environment.’ And another, one viewed him as ‘Being ready to live or die.’ Jeremy gave an account of his military life. He wasn’t in a position to buy his way up the ranks so any promotions he did have were on his ability as a soldier. Promotions were for specific campaigns but these were short lived and he found himself dropping back down the ranks when his usefulness was over. Nevertheless he did make progress, but it was slow and over many years, unlike some of his contemporaries. Eventually, but after many years, his service was recognised. His Christian faith was a particular barrier to promotion. On top of that he was a Baptist. Interestingly, while in India he met Adoniram Judson – the Baptist missionary.

We were then treated to how his Christian faith fitted in with being a professional soldier. This was just great. But extremely challenging to each of us to be the very best we can be in whatever vocation God by His providence has placed us. He was respected by all even when they thoroughly disliked his Christian faith. His practice was to spend the first two hours of every day in private prayer and reading his Bible. If the column of troops had to leave at 6:00 he would rise at 4:00. If they had to move at 4:00 he would rise at 2:00. This was his daily practice as a Christian and he would not be moved. Unflinching commitment to his Saviour and to his craft as a soldier. Disciplined and professional to the very end.

That is just the briefest account of what was an excellent and challenging lecture. Jeremy delivered it with suitable humour in places and with the utmost respect for this man of God. We can all learn from Henry Havelock and his devotion to The Lord Jesus Christ and his service as a soldier, but I think servicemen or retired members of the armed forces will especially appreciate this lecture.

Christians are finding as Sir Henry found, we also have ‘An unfashionable faith in an unsympathetic environment.’ I enthusiastically commend the lecture to you.

We read this from Wikipedia: ‘Major General Sir Henry Havelock KCB was a British general who is particularly associated with India and his recapture of Cawnpore during the Indian Rebellion of 1857.’

That Hideous Strength – Part 2 – The Gender Agenda

via That Hideous Strength – Part 2 – The Gender Agenda

The Christian Worldview & BREXIT (Al Mohler – The Briefing)

Not everyone will agree with this (obviously), but for me, Al Mohler is absolutely spot on with this. Below is the Transcript from Friday’s The Briefing. And THIS LINK for the Audio.


Sovereignty, subsidiarity, and the future of Europe: What the Brexit deal tells us about the prospect of the EU

But next, we turn to another story with huge worldview implications, most of which are simply not acknowledged in the mainstream media coverage. We’re talking about the world’s messiest divorce in history. It’s actually not between a husband and a wife, it is between Britain and the European Union, the so-called Brexit. British voters voted quite unexpectedly in the views of the political elites early in 2016, to leave the European Union for Britain to declare its economic independence and to leave the union that had so characterized Europe in the post-war period.

This was a declaration that Britain intended to exercise and to assert its national sovereignty. But that, of course, led to a huge array of the most complicated questions ever confronted in modern politics. How in the world would a nation like the United Kingdom, which has been so integrated into the European Union exit? The word Brexit, as it became popularly known, was actually a clever political neologism. It was a word coined out of the blue, a combination of Britain and exit, thus Brexit.

…political elites first of all in Europe, but also in the United Kingdom were absolutely confident that the voters in the UK would never vote to leave the European Union. But that’s exactly what they did.

It is really important to notice that the political elites first of all in Europe, but also in the United Kingdom were absolutely confident that the voters in the UK would never vote to leave the European Union. But that’s exactly what they did. This then precipitated to the biggest political crisis in modern diplomatic history. How would the United Kingdom leave the European Union? That’s still an unanswered question. It was declared earlier this week that the British government under Prime Minister Theresa May had reached a Brexit agreement with the forces in Brussels that are responsible for the European Union. It had to be a negotiated exit. This is how complicated the situation is.

Britain had been integrated into the immigration laws, integrated into the border laws, integrated into the economic policies, integrated within the custom system of the European Union. In essence, the European Union that came out of the ashes of the Second World War was an attempt to limit the sovereignty of those European states that would join the union and create a new super national authority, the European Union.

Now, as Christians, we need to pause for a moment and recognize there is a huge problem here. That problem is a violation of the principle of what is called subsidiarity. It’s always good for Christians to be reminded of this principle. Subsidiarity is a basic principle of Christian theology, deeply embedded in the biblical worldview. It tells us that truth and reality and health subside at the most basic unit possible. If that sounds abstract, let me clarify. This means that the greatest unit of meaning is in the smallest unit of structure, which is to say that marriage is actually the centerpiece of civilization. Marriage is not healthy because the civilization is healthy. A civilization is healthy because marriage is healthy.

Marriage, the union of a man and a woman creating a family as that man and the woman have children, that creates the unit of greatest importance to the civilization. The functioning of healthy families is something that is so indispensable that no government at any level can alleviate what is missing if the family is broken. That’s a pathology that is radically demonstrated in American society, and in so many other societies today.

Subsidiarity also tells us that the most important government action is not at the highest level possible, most abstracted from the real lives of people, but rather at the closest level possible. That’s to say, a city government is more likely to be responsive to people, than a supranational authority The United States is more likely as a government to be responsive to its people, than would be the United Nations. This is a basic principle. It’s written into our constitutional order in the system of federalism that marks our constitution. It’s also important to recognize that the intellectual elites both in Europe and in the United States, increasingly have rejected subsidiarity. They have instead argued for a certain kind of internationalism.

In the views of so many, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries, bigger is always better. A global authorities better than a national authority, a national authority as far better than a state authority. That we need to note is not only the reversal of the constitutional logic of the United States, it is also the reversal of that basic Christian worldview principle of subsidiarity.

When British voters in early 2016 voted so unexpectedly for Britain to withdraw from the European Union, the arguments were extremely important, and they were generally very straightforward. European leaders argued that Britain could not leave, it must not leave. Because in so leaving it would leave the entire European project. Most major British political leaders in both major British political parties also opposed Brexit. So, this was a populist revolt that in so many ways, was matched by the populist revolt in the United States in the 2016 presidential election. Those two events Brexit in early 2016, the presidential election in the United States at the end of 2016, those really formed the year of the great uprisings in both Britain and the United States.

But Britain’s uprising, the Brexit vote, set into play a series of events that clearly is not over. But there’s a deadline, that deadline, March 29, 2019. That’s a hard exit for the United Kingdom, and that might appear to be the easiest solution except it’s not. It’s extremely complicated. Britain is so interwoven into the European Union, its policies, its economics, its politics, its policies going all the way down to regulations about produce and weights and measures. Furthermore, the very important issues of customs and trade, all of these are so deeply intertwined that it is not easy for just one partner to walk out of this relationship any more than it’s easy for one spouse to leave a marriage.

The metaphor of divorce in this case is almost entirely appropriate. It’s messy. Prime Minister Theresa May appeared to win the support of her cabinet in the middle of this week, only to have her cabinet undermined by two very prominent resignations in protest by those coming from a conservative side who argued that this is a compromise, a further compromise of British sovereignty because under the proposal of the British Prime Minister, Britain would continue to lack control over its own trade and customs, processes and policies. That is indeed a very important infringement of sovereignty.

So, what’s the principle for Christians? Why would Christians in the United States care about this? There’s a huge lesson, the lesson is this: once you surrender sovereignty, it is extremely difficult to get it back. Once you compromise subsidiarity, it is extremely costly to clarify it. There are many in the political elites in the United States who would prefer very clearly to have more federal authority than state authority, more state authority than local authority, and even more authority in international entities above the United States of America. That’s a very dangerous argument. We do live in a global community, but we’re really not a global community. We are a community of nations, but what’s really important is to recognize that the existence of the nation state is itself a protection for human dignity and human rights around the world.

The compromise of that national sovereignty is extremely dangerous. But as I said, for Christians, we understand there’s more than sovereignty at stake here, subsidiarity is at stake. The European Union did come out of the ruins, out of the ashes of World War II with the promise that the violence between states that so marked the 20th century will be overcome by integrating those nations in one big entity. There was actually explicitly the hope of something like a United States of Europe to match the United States of America. But the current European Union is complicated by the fact that the kind of union that had been envisioned, well, it turns out to have been far more idealized than can ever be realized to the perplexity are so many who want to believe that we live in a simple global community. The French continue to speak French and to act French, the Germans speak German and to have characteristics to German culture. That’s true across the board in Europe. And what you see right now in the United Kingdom is that the people of Britain decided we’re simply going to be Britain.

Now the question is: will that actually happen even as the decision of the voters in 2016 was abundantly clear, even if unexpected?

Al Mohler – The Briefing

‘The City of God’ – Augustine

I thought it might be a good idea to read Augustine’s ‘The City of God’. A good idea until it arrived! It is a massive great thick tome. I decided to get help ‘if’ and it’s a big ‘if’ I decide to read the thing. There were some old Westminster Conference papers going cheap and in 2005 a paper was given by Dr Michael A. G. Haykin on Augustine’s work with the title ‘”The most Glorious City of God”: Augustine of Hippo and The City of God.’ I don’t know if the paper is available online.

Reading Michael’s paper it was a surprise to find that Christians had attached themselves to The Roman Empire to such an extent they were at such a loss over its fall.

‘Many Christians were equally stunned and shocked by the horrors that had overtaken the city of Rome. Jerome, for instance, was absolutely overwhelmed by reports that he heard and for a while could do little else but weep.’ Later Jerome lamented “The whole world is sinking into ruin” (Haykin, Page 39, Westminster Papers, 2005).’ On page 40 we read ‘… many other Christians of his (Jerome) day, seems to have been utterly unable to conceive of a Romeless world.’

Not so Augustine. Eusebius, sometimes called the father of Church History, viewed history through the lens of The Roman Empire. So that in ‘Eusebius’ hands the Roman state has become a sacred realm. (page 42).’ This is the beauty of Augustine’s work, it doesn’t rely on particular Empires but is a Biblical view of history that works for all ages. It was great to discover this because it is exactly what I was hoping for. Many Empires have come and gone.

I was left asking if the European Union is an Empire? Is it? I believe it is. It has a President and a Parliament with Vassal States just like any other Empire. And it will come to an end just like the rest. I find it astonishing some are so Anti-Western Colonialism or Imperialism. Don’t they realise there were a great many Eastern Empires? Western Colonialism will go just like the rest. The British Empire has gone. The Ottoman Empire has gone. The Egyptian Empire has gone. The Persian Empire has gone and so forth.

It seems to me that (some) Christians are unable to conceive of a world where The UK is not part of The European Union. So, one reason for reading Augustine’s weighty tome is to come to a better understanding, not only of history, but the flow of history, and of the European Union as an Empire. And, as an Empire that will not last.

Dr Haykin sets the context and then very helpfully gives an overview of the book which I won’t detail here. When I do finally get round to reading the book it will be good to have an overview to hand. Maybe I’ll write some more at another time.

Dr Haykin’s last quote (Westminster, page 54) from Augustine is powerful and relevant. Augustine writes:

‘Look, my brothers and sisters, do you wish that unto you should belong that peace which God utters? Turn your heart unto him: not unto me, or unto any man. For whatever man would turn unto himself the hearts of men, he falls with them. … Our joy, our peace, our rest, the end of all troubles, is none but God: blessed are they that turn their hearts unto him.’

If your hope is in the State (The City of Man) you are going to be hugely disappointed and will ultimately fall with it like ancient Babylon. But if you are looking for another city, namely, The City of God, then you will also share in its final triumph when the King in all His Glory comes to take residence.

 

12 Rules for Life – An Antidote to Chaos by Jordan B. Peterson (Review Article by Dr John Ling)

Dr John Ling has written a ‘review’ article of ’12 Rules for life’ by Jordan Peterson (Follow this link and go to Articles). So this a few comments on John’s ‘review’. However, a review is understating it! John writes:

This article was not what I originally had in mind – I thought it would be a simple, snappy review.  Instead, it rather ran away with me to the tune of 19,000 words!  Also it has turned out to be a rather unconventional review-cum-synopsis-cum-précis with a multitude of quotations.

Whatever we call it, his review is worth reading. Why? Jordan Peterson is everywhere, mostly on YouTube ‘destroying’ someone. So we (Christians) ought to know something about his book. John’s review is so comprehensive I’m not sure I need to read the real thing now. Especially as it’s gone up to £11.99 I might have to wait for it to appear in The Works for a Fiver!

I should restate, that as far as we know, Dr Peterson is not a Christian – not yet anyway. Please pray for him. Please read the ‘review’. It’s a valuable contribution to The Peterson phenomenon.

One more quote from John:

It is reminiscent of the Enlightenment’s doomed attempt at Christian virtue without embracing Christian truth – a wanting the fruits without the roots.’  At base level, Peterson’s stance is one of moral rearmament – turn over a new leaf, pull yourself up by your bootstraps.  Maybe, just maybe, Peterson will come into a full-orbed understanding of true Christianity.  Wouldn’t that be wonderful?

For all that, given Common Grace, Peterson is saying many things we Christians can support (read the review). I certainly don’t reject him at all. If I do read the book – and I think I ought to – my ‘insights’ will probably be far less insightful but definitely briefer.

Thank you, John, for the article.