• C. S. Lewis’ famous article “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”. This does not so much deal with the death penalty as the theory punishment, as the title suggests.
• Andrew Cameron wrote an interesting article, “Nguyen Tuong Van and Punishment by Death”,on the death penalty a few years ago, around the time an Australian was executed in Singapore for drug trafficking.

(Footnote: The reprint of Lewis’ article which I’ve linked to above is from a Mormon counselling journal. For those who might be confused by that it’s worth pointing out that is no endorsement of Mormonism in general. Mormonism is a horrible distortion of the gospel and, in fact, no gospel at all. For more info on that topic check out: “The FAQs: Are Mormons Christian?”).

“What Sermon Prep Really Looks Like”

Ephesians 3:14-21

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith —that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

I have so much to learn from this prayer of Paul. This is a great model of praying for others to be strengthened by the Holy Spirit to know Jesus Christ and to abide in him, glorifying the Father.

Permalink

| Leave a comment  »

One of the masters of looking at Old Testament laws is C. J. H. Wright. He’s written quite a number of books on the topic. A very readable one is his Living as the People of God. In more recent times though he has combined a number of his books into one magnum opus called Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. It’s a massive book, but it’s actually pretty accessible and immensely useful for thinking about the Old Testament laws for today.

In his book Wright gives four steps for moving from the Old Testament legal codes to today (see Ethics for the People of God, pp. 321-24). I have tweaked Wright’s steps a little and framed them as questions. The questions are:

1. How did the particular law fit within their world? How did it fit with other laws? How did it fit within the way their families operated? Their families tended to have a lot more authority structures built into them than ours do, to the extent that families sometimes decided matters that in our day might be decided by courts. Israel, too, was a nation-state, ruled by God through a king and prophets and priests, how did the law sit within that context? They lived an agrarian life – they grew crops, they milked cows. They lived also in the time of the sacrificial and ritual system of the Old Testament, how did the law relate to that? In other words, their world was a different world to our world. How did the particular law sit within their world?
2. What was the objective or objectives of the law? What was its purpose? What was it trying to achieve?
3. How can we try and meet the same objectives in our society and our world?

To these three questions I’m tempted to add a fourth: how does the work of Jesus transform this law, if at all? In some ways that question is bound up with question 1 – how was their world different to our world? So for instance, their world had sacrifices, but Jesus’ death was the final sacrifice once and for all. They were a nation-state, but now Christians live in a whole host of nations submitting to the authorities but ultimately submitting first and foremost to Jesus who is the king of the world and who stands above all rulers and authorities. In a sense then this fourth question is a little redundant. But the reason I’d want to add it in is simply to make it explicit that we need to think hard about how the work of Jesus has changed the application of the Old Testament laws to today.

In many ways, it is the first and third steps which are the hardest. The first step requires knowing the Bible well and understanding what the Israelite society was like and how the various laws fitted within their society. The third step requires understanding our own society well; and often involves studiously avoiding extremes, carrying across the various nuances of the biblical laws to today.

Most important to remember is the fact that applying the law to today must be set within the context of the good news about Jesus. He is our righteousness. He is the one who fulfils the law. Our relationship with God is entirely defined by knowing and trusting Jesus. Within that relationship of trust and commitment to Jesus obedience to the underlying principles of the Old Testament (and the New) becomes an expression of love and thankfulness to God energised by the work of Jesus in us through the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps another way to say it is that our salvation is not secured by our obedience to the law; rather our salvation is secured by Jesus obedience and death. But that salvation encompasses not only our forgiveness but also our transformation to be like Jesus, to be transformed increasingly in this life with the ultimate fulfilment of that being in our resurrection from the dead at the last day.

There were three talks:

• Why me? God knows… (Ross Nicholson)
• Maintaining Ministry Vitality (Al Stewart)
• Fuelling Other Leaders (Al Stewart)

All three talks are well worth listening to.

There is a beautiful phrase in 1 Timothy 1:11 buried beneath the too-familiar surface of Bible buzzwords. Before we dig it up, it sounds like this: “The gospel of the glory of the blessed God.” But after you dig it up, it sounds like this: “The good news of the glory of the happy God.”

…And this is the gospel: “The gospel of the glory of the happy God.” It is good news that God is gloriously happy. No one would want to spend eternity with an unhappy God. If God is unhappy then the goal of the gospel is not a happy goal, and that means it would be no gospel at all. But, in fact, Jesus invites us to spend eternity with a happy God when he says, “Enter into the joy of your master” (Matthew 25:23). Jesus lived and died that his joy—God’s joy—might be in us and our joy might be full (John 15:11; 17:13). Therefore the gospel is “the gospel of the glory of the happy God.”

 

From sample, Pleasures of God, by John Piper

Does this sit well with you? Do you find that ‘God pursuing his own happiness’ is a challenging concept? You are not alone. It gnaws into our sense of justice; because we know it is destructive for us to live like that and we fall into the trap of forgetting that God is much more than the creatures we are – that he is perfect in every way. Piper challenges a myopic understanding of God, this is what I love about him.

Permalink

| Leave a comment  »

It would be a questionable boon to be aroused, and yet not to escape from the danger. Remember, awakening is not salvation. A man may know that he is lost, and yet he may never be saved. He may be made thoughtful, and yet he may die in his sins. If you find out that you are a bankrupt, the consideration of your debts will not pay them. A man may examine his wounds all the year around, and they will be none the nearer being healed because he feels their smart, and notes their number. It is one trick of the devil to tempt a man to be satisfied with a sense of sin; and another trick of the same deceiver to insinuate that the sinner may not be content to trust Christ, unless he can bring a certain measure of despair to add to the Savior’s finished work. Our awakenings are not to help the Savior, but to help us to the Savior. …A sense of need of salvation by grace is a very healthful sign; but one needs wisdom to use it aright, and not to make an idol of it.

Spurgeon, Around the Wicket Gate

Permalink

| Leave a comment  »

“I venture to think that the papers contained in this volume will be found helpful by all who take interest in the subject of Scriptural holiness. I am much mistaken if they do not throw broad light on the real nature of holiness, and the temptations and difficulties which all must expect who follow it. Above all, I hope they will help to bring forward the grand truth that union with Christ is the root of holiness, and will show young believers what immense encouragement Jesus Christ holds out to all who strive to be holy.

Concerning the present position of the whole subject of holiness among English Christians, I have little to add to the introductory essay which appeared in the original edition, and now follows this preface. The older I grow the more I am convinced that real practical holiness does not receive the attention it deserves, and that there is a most painfully low standard of living among many high professors of religion in the land. But, at the same time, I am increasingly convinced that the zealous efforts of some well-meaning persons to promote a higher standard of spiritual life are often not “according to knowledge,” and are really calculated to do more harm than good. Let me explain what I mean.

Do those who attend these meetings become more holy, meek, unselfish, kind, good tempered, self-denying, and Christ-like at home? Do they become more content with their position in life, and more free from restless craving after something different from that which God has given them? Do fathers, mothers, husbands, and other relatives and friends, find them more pleasant and easy to live with? Can they enjoy a quiet Sunday and quiet means of grace without noise, heat, and excitement? Above all, do they grow in charity, and especially in charity towards those who do not agree with them in every jot and tittle of their religion? It is easy to get crowds together for what are called “Higher life” and “Consecration” meetings. Any one knows that, who has watched human nature, and read descriptions of American camp-meetings, and studied the curious phenomena of the “Religious affections.” Sensational and exciting addresses by strange preachers or by women, loud singing, hot rooms, crowded tents, the constant sight of strong semi-religious feeling in the faces of all around you for several days, late hours, long protracted meetings, public profession of experience,—all this kind of thing is very interesting at the time, and seems to do good. But is the good real, deeply-rooted, solid, lasting? That is the point. And I should like to ask a few questions about it.

These are serious and searching questions, and deserve serious consideration. I hope I am as anxious to promote real practical holiness in the land as any one. I admire and willingly acknowledge the zeal and earnestness of many with whom I cannot co-operate who are trying to promote it. But I cannot withhold a growing suspicion that the great “mass-meetings” of the present day, for the ostensible object of promoting spiritual life, do not tend to promote private home religion, private Bible-reading, private prayer, private usefulness, and private walking with God. If they are of any real value, they ought to make people better husbands, and wives, and fathers, and mothers, and sons, and daughters, and brothers, and sisters, and masters, and mistresses, and servants. But I should like to have clear proofs that they do. I only know it is far easier to be a Christian among singing, praying, sympathizing Christians in a public room, than to be a consistent Christian in a quiet, retired, out-of-the-way, uncongenial home. The first position is one in which there is a deal of nature to help us: the second is one which can not be well filled without grace. But, alas, many talk now-a-days about “Consecration,” who seem to be ignorant of the “first principles of the oracles of God” about “Conversion.”

I close this preface with the sorrowful feeling that probably some who read it will not agree with me. To the young especially I can see that the great gatherings of the so-called “spiritual life” movement are sure to be attractive. They naturally like zeal, and stir, and enthusiasm, and they say, “Where is the harm?” Be it so: we must agree to differ. When I was as young as they are, perhaps I should have thought as they do. When they are as old as I am, they will very likely agree with me.

To each and all of my readers, I say in conclusion, let us exercise charity in our judgments of one another. Towards those who think holiness is to be promoted by the modern, so-called “spiritual life” movement, I feel nothing but charity. If they do good, I am thankful. Towards myself and those who agree with me, I ask them to feel charity in return. The last day will show who is right and who is wrong. In the meantime, I am quite certain that to exhibit bitterness and coldness toward those who cannot conscientiously work with us, is to prove ourselves very ignorant of real holiness.”

J. C. Ryle, Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties and Roots (London: William Hunt and Company, 1889), v–viii.

For more info, check out the useful summary by Joe Carter, or the original article.