on getting ready for Romans

It's getting serious now. I am planning to begin my series on Romans on Sept 23. In the study the last two weeks I have been working my way through the salutation. The major themes of the epistle are given to us in crystalline form here. As I think through these topics, the overflowing richness and majesty of this, Paul's premier epistle, is beginning to emerge.

I am only working on the first seven verses just now. I can see many messages here. I have ten Sundays until December, when I always break for my month of 'preaching Christmas'. I am not sure if I will get past these seven verses by December...

Donald Grey Barnhouse preached seven messages on these verses. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones preached thirteen (his are printed on 180 pages of his Vol.1 of Romans). I am thinking that it is possible that I will hit the middle between these two. Ten messages until December, and Paul will just be saying 'hello' to us.

Of course, I could double up, do AM and PM on Romans, maybe that way we can get through the first 17 verses by Christmas... but once we get into the nitty gritty of the 'all have sinned' section, I don't think we can handle doubling up. We'll need to turn our mind elsewhere for the afternoon services then.

I am anticipating this series with great delight. After our marathon rush Thru the Bible the last two years (a blessed study!), I am ready to return to my favorite mode: glacial exposition.

Here is a little word from Lloyd-Jones, from the first page of his first message:

I should like this evening to welcome any friends who do not belong to this particular church who may be with us, and who propose to continue with us in these studies of the Epistle to the Romans. For their sake, very largely, perhaps I had better indicated how this service is normally conducted. First and foremost I would emphasize that it is a service. It is an occasion for worship. I am one of those who do not recognize any consideration of the Word of God which is not accompanied by worship. ... The Apostle was concerned to help these Christians in Rome, to build them up and to establish them in their most holy faith, and, God willing, and as I am enabled to do so, I shall certainly be trying to do the same thing. It is an occasion, then, for worship, and not really just a lecture.

Lloyd-Jones preached his Romans on Friday evenings at Westminster Chapel in London, beginning on Oct 7, 1955, ending in 1968 in the midst of chapter 14, his last message as pastor of Westminster Chapel.

Our aim, with this series, is to build us up as worshippers of God.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on darkness and light and grace

Today I happened to read the last two chapters of Judges and the book of Ruth. The whole period of Judges is a dark period in the history of Israel, the last few chapters of Judges being darkest of all. The book closes with this disheartening sentence:

Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Thank the Lord for the next page! The book of Ruth is such a delight! It ends with this line:

NAU Ruth 4:22 and to Obed was born Jesse, and to Jesse, David.

Meditate on the differences between the two verses. One is the sour language of man 'under the sun' [see Ecclesiastes]. The other is the hopeful look forward, to the light. One emphasizes man's desperate and failing attempts to please himself apart from God (in God's kingdom, no less). The other emphasizes God's plan, quietly, mysteriously, deliberately unfolding according to God's sovereign will.

Now concerning the book of Ruth, I am struck again by the simple beauty of this little book. There are so many preaching points in the book that I never tire of reading it or going back to it. Two things struck me as I think about it this time.

1) The redeemer of Naomi. Have you ever noticed this before? The term 'kinsmen-redeemer' is very familiar in connection with the book. Who do you usually think of as the 'redeemer' in Ruth? Boaz, right? Look at Ruth 4:

NAU Ruth 4:14 Then the women said to Naomi, "Blessed is the LORD who has not left you without a redeemer today, and may his name become famous in Israel. 15 "May he also be to you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old age; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better to you than seven sons, has given birth to him." 16 Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her lap, and became his nurse. 17 The neighbor women gave him a name, saying, "A son has been born to Naomi!" So they named him Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

I suppose this struck me forcefully because I was reading the NAU today. The KJV translates this 'kinsman', but the word is indeed the word ga'al, i.e., the kinsman redeemer. Who is that for Naomi? Obed. He is the real redeemer of the lost fortunes of Naomi, for he stands in the place of her dead husband and sons, a seed for her raised up by Boaz and Ruth. I think this is truly remarkable, and of course the whole subject of the kinsmen-redeemer is worthy of a good deal of study.

2) The seed of the woman. It strikes me again, forcefully, how much this theme is played up again and again in the Scripture, and especially in the lineage of the Messiah. Of course there is Eve, our first mother, and the one whose deception led to the fall. But she is promised a seed. Now here is Ruth, of whom is Obed. And there is also another, Boaz, who is the son of Rahab (see Mt 1). Other notable women in the line are Tamar, of whom was Perez, and Bathsheba, of whom was Solomon. Interestingly of these, each one is 'defective' in some way. Eve, deceived; Ruth, a Moabitess; Rahab, a Canaanite harlot; Tamar, well... crude but effective, the concubine of Judah; and of course we know the sins of Bathsheba.

When you consider this aspect of what God was doing in preparing the seed of the woman, we have to bow in shame and humility before God and say again, "Grace, greater than all my sin!"

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on 'when confronted with reality, spin'

This just in from the National Post:

BABY PAYS IF LEAVE TOO BRIEF: STUDY: "Women who rush back to work after giving birth may do so at their baby's peril, suggests a new Canadian study that fuels the emotional debate over career versus parenthood.

The less time a new mother stays off the job, the more likely her child's motor and social development will be impaired, University of British Columbia researchers concluded. The analysis of federal survey data underlines the importance of government-funded maternity leaves, but does not mean mothers should avoid work outside the home, says Dr. Rebecca Sherlock, the neonatology specialist at the BC Children's and Women's Health Centre who spearheaded the research.

[The results] could be used from a public health or policy perspective to say 'We need to fund women to stay at home longer with their kids,' ' she said. 'I hope that what wouldn't be drawn from my conclusions is that all women should just drop their jobs and stay home ... When I found what I found, I thought, 'Oh, God, I hope this isn't used by some ultra-conservative politician.' '"

No of course not... and you aren't letting conservative preachers read the paper, too, are you?

What a shocker. If mom spends more time with the kids, they develop better. Who knew?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

CTV.ca | Multiple bodies found in Victoria, B.C. home

CTV.ca | Multiple bodies found in Victoria, B.C. home: "Multiple bodies found in Victoria, B.C. home"

Not good. Just heard it on the news... Nobody we know, I don't think, but certainly shocking for sleepy Victoria.

on Sunday, 9.2.07

While readying myself to launch a new series in the book of Romans, I am taking a few weeks preaching some material from a book by Wayne Mack, A Homework Manual for Biblical Living, vol. 2. The outline is called "God's way of Bringing Up Children". I am essentially stealing the outline, filling it out and personalizing it, and broadening the application to making disciples of any age, including raising children.

The first message in this mini-series was entitled "Pass It On", taking its theme from the word 'paideia' in Eph 6.4 and its text as Dt 6. In this message I focussed on the "How?" of making disciples by answering: by personal integrity in instruction. Dt 6 calls on the nation Israel to love the Lord with all their hearts, and then to instruct their children. Thus the application for discipleship is first of all to be a disciple yourself. Make God the center of your life. While doing so, instruct diligently [while walking, sitting, lying down and rising, i.e., as a natural outflow of every aspect of your life], with a wary eye cast on your surroundings and your attitude lest you stumble in your own discipleship, and to instruct patiently, as your sons come to you with many questions. To sum up this 'how' of discipleship, it means to instruct by personal spiritual integrity, by diligent public expression, and by purposeful preparation. [Come to think of it, that last sentence would have made a good outline. If you check my outline linked above, you will see that I was aiming for that outline, but didn't quite express it that way.]

In our afternoon service, we celebrated our monthly communion service. I preached the second message in a new communion series (begun last month) from Leviticus. I didn't post a link to last month's message: An Acceptable Sacrifice, so there it is. This month, our message came from the same chapter, with the title: An Offering Made by Fire. I emphasized four ideas from the burnt offering with this message: Finding acceptance of offering and offeror [peace with God under God's terms]; Propitiating God's wrath with an offering of a 'sweet savour' [found in the complete destruction of the offering]; Atoning for the sins of the worshipper by the payment of a ransom; and Substituting the victim for the person of the worshipper, making fellowship with God possible.

There are many instructive ideas for our fellowship with God to be found in the Law. It is well worth study and contemplation. It can be very sobering, as we consider the full implications of bloody sacrifice.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on 'oh well, it's all right then'

Human-animal embryo study wins approval | Science | The Guardian: "Plans to allow British scientists to create human-animal embryos are expected to be approved tomorrow by the government's fertility regulator. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority published its long-awaited public consultation on the controversial research yesterday, revealing that a majority of people were 'at ease' with scientists creating the hybrid embryos."

Since a majority is 'at ease' ... we need seek no higher standard, eh?

on one man's move to Southern from Ontario

I follow a blog by Michael A. G. Haykin. He is extremely Calvinistic, but seems to have a very good understanding of history. As such he is interesting to read.

Today he posts on the reasons for his move from the Toronto Baptist Seminary (where he has been Principal for the last four years) to Southern Seminary in Louisville. TBS is the school founded by T. T. Shields, housed in the Jarvis Street Baptist Church in Toronto. TBS would certainly have been in the fundamentalist orbit in the past, I don't think one would consider it such today.

Dr. Haykin in his post offers these words as an assessment of the situation of orthodox Christianity in Canada, and I don't think he has in view the positions of fundamentalists, but rather of the more conservative Baptists in Canada.

Historia Ecclesiastica: "Thinking of a move, as I have noted above, has not been easy. I love Ontario and I know, after twenty-five years of teaching in this province, the great need we have for solid theological education. In a word, the churches need a school that is deeply committed to orthodoxy, yet fully in touch with the culture. Not an easy thing to be.

"All too often, it is one or the other: conversant with the culture and out of step with Scriptural realities, or rooted in biblical orthodoxy but fighting old battles that most people no longer remember. As Luther is reported to have once said: if we are fighting and skirmishing where the enemy is not attacking, we are failing to truly fight the war.

"And more than ever I believe we need to be committed to networking and the need to labour alongside those who stand for the same core truths that we love. The absolute independency that some in this province prize is, in my opinion, the high road to impotency. To be sure, if we need to stand alone when others are caving in to theological error and the passing fads of theologia, then stand alone we must. Dare to be a Daniel, as we have long sung. But all too often this translates into a pettiness and a refusal to work with others unless they see utterly everything our way. Without sacrificing theological integrity we need to find essentially like-minded brothers and sisters and labour side by side."

These sentiments seem to me to be something of what Bob Bixby calls 'the emerging middle'. There is this anxious desire for something of a less contentious, but still orthodox theological position. It is the viewpoint of the 'young fundamentalist'.

The tension between being 'deeply committed to orthodoxy, yet fully in touch with the culture' is the evangelical proposition. This IS the issue between fundamentalism and evangelicalism in the 1950s and continues to be the issue today. The evangelical answer to the question is to stand on the 'in touch with culture' side of the divide and the fundamentalist answer is to stand on the 'a pox on culture' side of the divide.

Dr. Haykin rightly observes the dangers of both answers. On the one hand is to be so culturally 'hip' that truth, Christ, and Scripture are left by the wayside, with nods of appreciation and protestations of loyalty. On the other hand is the danger of a descent into another world, where petty personal issues become the crusades of the day.

There are Christians on both sides of the question who don't fall into the traps their answers risk. I don't think anyone would seriously question the doctrinal orthodoxy of the current crop of conservative evangelicals the young fundamentalists love so much. That would mean men like Mohler, Dever, MacArthur et al. At the same time, there are men who answer the dividing question with fundamentalist answers. Their orthodoxy is unquestioned, of course, and there is some concession by the young fundamentalist that these, at least, have not strayed into the realm total cultural irrelevancy or descended (too deeply) into petty divisions. In this category we would find names like Bauder and Doran, perhaps.

Those who advocate for the 'emerging middle' seem to think that parties on both sides of this divide are changing and a new reality is emerging. I don't see that happening at all. The divide remains. Those answering the question as evangelicals are committed to the evangelical answer to the question.

A change, nevertheless, is occurring. The change is among those wearing the fundamentalist label. Many among them (many of them young, hence the term) are changing their answer to the dividing question. The evangelicals remain evangelicals still. There is still a tendency to make some kinds of concessions to outsiders (more liberal Christians or even the world) in order to remain 'in touch' with culture.

You can find examples of these concessions in many evangelical commentaries. They make nuanced statements on some areas of orthodoxy to show that they 'get it' and are not so dogmatic as to insist, for example, that John wrote the gospel of John, or that it is possible that Moses' mother was a woman of exceedingly advanced age before she had children. In discussing the 'saints' of this age, they are willing to concede that the works of unbelievers should be 'admired on their own merits', all the while criticising their false doctrine. [See this blog by Rick Phillips on Mother Teresa for an example.]

The emerging middle is not a middle. It is a change by those formerly associated with fundamentalism towards evangelicalism. In time, it will be simply that. Fundamentalism will be abandoned, evangelicalism embraced. Those heading in that direction expect fundamentalism to be shattered by these changes, I suspect.

For myself, I really am not all that interested in being 'in touch with culture'. The culture of this world has nothing to offer in terms of spiritual value. I think we should understand culture in order to understand people, but we should be preaching against the corrosive influence of culture that deadens the soul to spiritual things and we should be calling people out of the culture of this age into a true discipleship of Jesus Christ.

May God grant us the wisdom to do just that.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3