solapanel.org

One of the most helpful things I learned from my history teachers at school was this: read the primary documents!

One online university library helpfully defines primary documents (or sources) as:

... original materials. They are from the time period involved and have not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation. Primary sources are original materials on which other research is based.

Don't rely on later reports of what was originally said—don't rely only on what people—even ‘experts’—have said afterwards (in the secondary documents)—read the primary documents. Secondary sources may often report accurately and interpret fairly, but not always. Distortion can occur. Context can be lost. Subtleties glossed over. And so on.

I'm sure many readers will have heard someone asserting confidently that Jesus never talked about horrible things like hell and judgement, and telling people to be nice and to love one another. Often the best reply we can give to this is to ask, “Have you actually read the primary documents? Have you bothered to read the records of what Jesus said—records that date closest to the time he walked the earth? Or are you just relying on what you heard from someone else secondhand?”

One very dear relative told me he'd been led by the brothers of his school's religious order to think of the Bible as a mix of good morals alongside fables. Yet he'd never actually read a Gospel for himself. (To be fair, he had tried to read the Bible from the start, but quickly got bogged down in the early Old Testament, and gave up.) He finally read the Gospel of Luke right through for himself in his 50s. With some astonishment, he told me he now realized that, according to Luke's own introduction, Luke was trying to record history accurately!

Conversely, one of the best ways to deflate the popularity of the other ‘lost’ Gospels that are attracting such attention these days (like the recently published gnostic Gospel of Judas) is to encourage people to read them. Many who don't bother with the discipline of reading the primary documents will gladly spout alternative version of Jesus and Judas as authoritative. Yet even the casual reader who bothers to read this latter document will see how bizarre much of it is, and how out of keeping it is with the canonical (and earlier) Gospels and their more historical feel.

Reading the primary sources is also important if you plan to criticize someone. How many times has a young preacher shot himself in the foot by stating confidently that Roman Catholics say we are saved by works, only for someone to point out that he hasn't represented their teaching accurately. A cursory reading of the official Roman Catholic Catechism strongly affirms the place of grace alongside the subsidiary merit of our good works. The young preacher's criticism may be accurate in substance (Roman Catholic teaching fatally compromises salvation by God's grace alone, through faith alone, without works—Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:1-8 etc.). But the force of his comments are blunted because he has not represented the view he critiques with precision. This problem may have been alleviated if he had examined and quoted a primary source for the teaching he wished to critique.

With this principle of reading the primary documents in mind, I want to commend Matthias Media's Classics of the Reformation. The reason I'm thinking about this is that many our our church's Bible study groups are using the study series Ideas that Changed the World from our friends at Christians in the Media. This four-week DVD teaching series (with small group discussion material) explores the four great solas of the Protestant Reformation—grace, faith, Bible and christ alone—that are so dear to this blog. Each topic also gives a brief pen portrait of one of the heroes of the Reformation: Luther, Calvin, Tyndale and Cranmer. Many members of our church have especially enjoyed this window into our Reformation heritage. But they've also said it's been all too brief; they want a bit more!

Here's where Classics of the Reformation steps in. This book (very lightly edited by Kirsten Birkett for reading by moderns) contains primary documents from the period: Martin Luther's famous pamphlet on ‘The Freedom of the Christian’, John Calvin's exposition of Christian prayer, William Tyndale's introduction to the Scriptures, and Thomas Cranmer's inspirational sermons on faith, salvation and good works.

If you've never read any primary documents from the Reformation, I'd recommend this as a good place to start.

6 Comments »

A great controversy has broken out over a photography exhibition featuring a series of naked and semi-naked adolescents—some in sexually suggestive poses—photographed by artist Bill Henson. As Wikipedia summarizes:

On the 22 May 2008, the opening night of Bill Henson's 2007-2008 exhibition at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery, depicting nude children, was canceled after Hetty Johnston, a child protection campaigner, lodged a complaint about the exhibition with the New South Wales police.

The furore from commentators of the left and right has been intense. Elizabeth Farrelly, repeating a common argument, says:

It's like that joke. A man on the psychiatrist's couch sees, in ink blot after ink blot, nothing but sexual imagery. A butterfly shape looks like testicles, a hilly mountain-scape like a rollicking bedroom scene, and so on. But when the shrink delivers his verdict—you, sir, are a sex fiend—the man is indignant. “What?” he huffs. “But you're the one drawing the dirty pictures!”

This underpins the Henson case. Who's drawing the dirty pictures here?

To which right-wing satirist Tim Blair retorts, “Nobody. Henson is taking photographs of naked 13-year-olds.”

Indeed. Christians who have in the past been the brunt of taunts about prudishness and wowserism will be somewhat surprised, if pleased, to discover that a boundary line in public opinion has suddenly been reached. There really is a limit to what society will tolerate in the name of art. It's a pity that the issue has to be so extreme, but it's surely better than no limit existing at all.

This debate will continue to play out, and rightly so. Christian teaching about the power of sex to damage when misused is (sadly) going to be confirmed again and again. But for those interested in seeing the utter vacuity of secular thinking about morality, this will be worth paying attention to.

Here's just one example. People defending immorality have often used the argument that peoples' personal sexual preferences and behaviour are their own business; we have no business prying into individuals' private bedroom behaviour. Now, astonishingly, some of the defenders of these near-pedophilic pictures are arguing that they are legitimate because they are not private. So Elizabeth Farrelly, in the opinion piece linked above, mocks her opponents with these words:

As though a latent pedophile might enact his fantasies only after popping into a Paddington art show for inspiration ... We know that pedophilia thrives less on public erotica, offensive as such advertising is, than on secrecy masked as decency. We know it exploits children's innocence, not their sexuality, and that it flourishes in the very vestries, boudoirs and private offices of the respectable.

So there we are. Danger now lies with privacy. If we happen to discover that the obscene images are out in public view, we can relax!

Keep a watch on this issue; there will (unfortunately) be plenty of material here for the Christian apologist to use in talking about the nature of sin and our blindness to it.

PS. Soon-to-be-sola-panellist Paul Grimmond sent in this short, sharp comment:

What is art?

Last night I had a nightmare. They'd caught a priest with photos of naked 12-year-old girls on his hard drive. Cate Blanchett was saying how terrible it was that the church had abused its position of trust. Then I woke up. How relieved I was to find that it was all just a dream. And I thanked God that we have ‘art’ to ‘enrich’ our lives.

17 Comments »

Today we interview Sola Panellist Gavin Perkins.

Gavin, how did you come to Christ?

From my point of view, although I attended Sunday school as a kid, by the middle of high school I had managed to wangle my way out of that. At the age of about 14, a group of my surfing friends were slowly infiltrated by people who not only went to church but actually seemed to believe that Jesus was alive and that he mattered. Slowly that group of friends—including me—came to believe the same thing.

From God's point of view, my Christian grandparents had been praying for me since before I was born.

How do you occupy your time?

Apart from being the husband of Amy and the father of three pre-school children, with all the rest of my time I am part of the ministry team at Christ Church St Ives Anglican in Sydney. I have two main roles on the staff: I planted and now pastor St Ives Family Church, a family congregation that meets in a local primary school hall, and I also oversee the recruitment and training of ministry apprentices at Christ Church.

What about your other interests?

I love playing and watching sport. I played rugby until my mid-20s, but have now switched to the more leisurely pursuit of bowling gentle off-spinners on the cricket field. I grew up near the beach and spent way too much time in the water. However, for honesty's sake, my wife now insists that I call myself a surfer in the past tense.

What are you reading now?

• David Wells, The Courage to be Protestant
• James Gilmore & David Pine, Authenticity
• DA Carson, Christ and Culture
• Brian Rosner (ed.), The Consolations of Theology
• Khaled Hosseini, The Kite Runner

What are five books that really helped you grow as a Christian?

• Broughton Knox, The Everlasting God—now found in The Selected Works of Broughton Knox (Volume 1)
• JI Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God
• R Kent Hughes, Disciplines of a Godly Man
• Arnold Dallimore, George Whitefield (SG: Note that I've linked to Crossway's paperback abridged version of this huge two volume biography)
• Henri Blocher, Evil and the Cross

What are three books you'd recommend as must-reads right now?

• DA Carson, Christ and Culture
• Tim Challies, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment
• Paul Barnett, Paul: Missionary of Jesus

What would your friends say are your hobby horses?

• The conviction that the ‘emerging church’ is simply a rebadged liberalism propagated by people with cool hair cuts.
• The conviction that if the men are discipled, then the battle is won.

What is something that makes you angry?

• The cruelty of heresy
• Christian men who fail to take responsibility

Who is someone that inspires you?

Charles H Spurgeon: “he being dead yet speaketh”.

What is your ideal day off?

Sleep in past 7.30. Have a great home-made shot of espresso. Go out with my family for brunch at somewhere like Mona Vale, Bronte or Balmoral, and get a plate of Eggs Benedict where the yolks are just perfectly runny. Sit on the sand and make sandcastles with my girls. Get the kids to help make pizza from scratch. Have nowhere in particular to be that night. Watch a movie at home with Amy, followed by cheering on Chelsea FC as they beat Manchester United 1-0 in the English Premier League. Go to bed with a smile on my face.

Give us your top five surf spots in New South Wales

1. Fairy Bower (Manly)
2. Black Rock (Jarvis Bay)
3. Copacabana Point (Central Coast)
4. Bluey's Beach (south of Forster)
5. Angourie (near Yamba on the North Coast)

Thanks Gavin!

SG: P.S. A note on links for the books mentioned in these interviews: I make the links in the following order of preference:

1. to Matthias Media's webstore, if it's published by them
2. to Moore College's bookshop Moorebooks for Christian books (if they have stock) (however readers outside Australia should generally look closer to home)
3. to Amazon (USA) for other books
4. very occasionally, to an Australian bookshop, if a title is not available via Amazon.

1 Comment »

How does social action relate to the Last Day and the new creation?

Following on from Part 1 (on the relationship between evangelism and social action), here are six more propositions to chew on:

1. Theologically speaking, social action is part of sanctification.

   I hinted at this in the first post of this series, but it is worth re-stating at this point. The good and loving action we take on other's behalf—whether helping our neighbour clear his drains, or helping an entire village to have any drains at all—is a fruit of the Spirit in our lives. It is part of that lifelong process of being transformed into the image of the Son, who loved others and laid down his life for them. One of the mistakes people make in this regard (it seems to me) is they attempt to relate social action to a larger, looser category called ‘mission’. I don't see this move (or this category for that matter) in the New Testament.

2. Godly social action will be recognized on the last day, along with all our godly deeds.

   Our good deeds are the fine linen we will wear on the great day of judgement. They will not earn our salvation or justification (of course!), but they are evidence of our saving faith in Christ. They will thus be a reason for commendation from our heavenly Father, even if others have not seen them (1 Cor 4:5).

3. We should engage in social action because the world is going to be destroyed.

   The approaching day of God is often seen in the New Testament as a strong motivation for godliness and holiness: Paul urges his Colossian readers, for example, to set their minds on heaven and the coming day of Christ as this is the motivation to put off the old and put on the new (Col 3:1-17). If social action is a species of good works, then it too is related to eschatology in this way.

   2 Peter 3 gives it a particular twist: the inevitable coming of the new heavens and earth, the home of righteousness, should motivate us now to godliness and holiness, even though we expect—no because we expect—a cataclysmic reconfiguring of this creation on judgement day. I am aware that there is some debate over 2 Peter 3 as to the proportion of ‘continuity’ and ‘discontinuity’ between old creation and new. Personally, I think the emphasis of the passage is very much on the discontinuity. However, it makes no difference for our purposes how much of the created order will or will not be destroyed. Read Peter's argument carefully:

   Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. (2 Pet 3:11-14)

   He does not say, “Some of the creation will be preserved into the new creation, and so it's worth improving people's social circumstances and building more just infrastructures, because these will endure in some way into the new creation”. But also notice, he does not say, “It's all going to burn anyway, so what's the use of trying to help anyone or do anything?” No, his argument is “Because of the destruction that is coming, what sort of people should you be?”

   This is the culmination of a theme which runs right through Peter's second epistle—that, in view of the coming day of judgement in which we finally enter into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, we should be all the more diligent to make our calling and election sure, making every effort to supplement our faith with excellence, and excellence with knowledge, and so on, through to the crowning virtue of love (1:5-7).

   So the coming judgement of all things, in which the heavens and earth are “stored up for fire” (2 Pet 3:7) should by no means put a dampener on our efforts to love other people. On the contrary, says Peter. In view of its coming, we should redouble our efforts to live godly, holy lives of love.

4. Godliness is other-person-centred.

   The word ‘godliness’ sometimes has a private, inward-looking smell about it in our Christian culture, as if it consists entirely of personal Bible reading and prayer. But this is inadequate. To be like God is to give yourself for others, as Christ did. It means serving the interests of others rather than ourselves. There are a multitude of ways we can do this, small and large. (More on this in Part 3.)

5. The ultimate eschatological motive for social action (like all godly, loving action) is to glorify the God who has redeemed us.

   Here's one way in which loving social action is like evangelism. In both cases, what is required from us is not success or results, but God-glorifying action. We don't evangelize in order to save people; we evangelize to bring God glory, who does the saving. We're not in it for the results, although we rejoice when we see the results. We're in it as faithful stewards, imitating our Lord and Saviour who came to seek and to save the lost—which is why we'll keep evangelizing till kingdom come, regardless of the results. Ditto loving people and trying to help them, in all sorts of ways. We're not in it to change the world, although we rejoice when we see results. But we recognize that world changing will happen in God's time, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. We're in it to give God glory on the day he visits us (1 Pet 2:12).

6. In the meantime, this old creation remains frustrated and futile.

   The New Testament repeats the realism of Ecclesiastes (via Romans 8, for example). The world remains a fallen and frustrating field of moral action, under the power of the evil one. We are not building the new Jerusalem now, nor even laying bricks that will endure into it. We are citizens now of the new heavenly Jerusalem, but it comes down from heaven; it is not made with human hands.

   We should therefore be cautious about grand schemes. We should take action on behalf of others as we have opportunity, neither being discouraged by the inevitable disappointments and shortcomings, nor dazzled by the optimism of those who do not share our biblical perspective.

Part 3.

6 Comments »

There is a famous Australian television commercial which features a man in a nightclub. The punchline of the ad is “I'm so cool, I dance on the inside”. In the weeks and months following, this saying was adopted for all kinds of situations—for example, “I'm so cool, I hug on the inside”.

Why do I mention this? Well, I was listening to a sermon the other day. I was in row #4. As is my habit, when the preacher said something true, I nodded. And since the preacher was hotter than a blacksmith's bellows, there was a lot of nodding to be done.

After the sermon, I had a conversation with one of my mates. He said, “Hi, Benny! Great sermon, eh? I saw you nodding away up front. I was nodding too ...” And before he'd finished the sentence, I cut in and sort of spoke over him, saying, “Yeah, you gotta nod don't you?” He finished his sentence the same time I did: “ ... on the inside”.

It was a little awkward.

It got me thinking about the nonverbal communication we send our teachers, leaders and preachers when we sit before them. Have you ever wondered what your pastor sees as he preaches to you, the congregation? Let me tell you what he sees.

He sees a whole stack of different screen savers. A screen saver is a person's default facial expression. Let me tell you about some of the common Aussie screen savers (I'd be interested to see whether they're common in other countries):

• The ‘Shar Pei’ screen saver: Have you seen this breed of dog? They have a plethora of huge wrinkles all over their faces. They look like they're permanently angry—permanently grumpy. This is a very common screen saver.
• The ‘invisible fairy search’ screen saver: These people look everywhere except at the speaker. They're like Captain Hook looking for Tinker Bell in the old Disney classic Peter Pan. They gaze intently at each of the rafters—at the seat next to them—up the back (turning 180 degrees to do so), and sometimes they partially stand up and look under themselves. What are they looking for?
• The White Rabbit screen saver: Like the character from Alice in Wonderland, people with this screen saver are always looking at their watch. It is very disconcerting three minutes into the sermon. Sometimes they hold up their wrist and tap their watch. They put it to their ear and shake it as though it has stopped ticking. They then mouth the words “Is my watch right?” to the person next to them, all the time blissfully unaware that the speaker can lip-read just as well as their wife who is sitting next to them.
• The stunned mullet screen saver: This person resembles a mullet floating on the surface after dynamite fishing. The preacher looking out on the stunned mullet could be excused for the following kind of self-talk: “Is Barry in Pew #8 alive? Is he breathing? How can you go for 17.5 minutes without blinking and stay completely still? Something has got to be wrong. Should I stop and let his family know he's died? If I do and I'm wrong, he'll be embarrassed. If I don't, I'll be remembered as the heartless pastor who killed his people with his own preaching. Help, Lord! Ahhhhhhhhhh!”
• The dipping duck screen saver: People with this screen saver are upright at 15% consciousness but then drop their heads at the final moment of unconsciousness, only to startle themselves, wake and start the whole process again.
• The Eutychus screen saver: Let me remind you of Acts 20:9: “And a young man named Eutychus, sitting at the window, sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer”. Eutychus screen saver people are the ‘dipping ducks’ with the second blessing: sleep does not elude them; they fall into it deeply. Sometimes they snore! That's the Husqvarna chainsaw screen saver, but we'll talk about that another time.

I haven't done any surveys, but I reckon about 5% of Christians give their teachers positive, nonverbal communication during talks, sermons and so on. I reckon it's 5%, despite age, life-stage, city, demographic and Christian maturity. The exception is the church camp/weekend away: if a speaker has the right tone at the beginning of the weekend, then, by talk #3 or #4 on Sunday, people are relaxed and communicative.

You might be thinking, “That's not right. I'd have a laugh if my pastor ever cracked a joke!” Would you really? Let's say 10% of the congregation laugh at Pastor Pete's joke. That's 1 in 10. Would you crack jokes again with a strike rate like that?

Let's encourage our leaders by offering some good, positive, nonverbal communication the next time we hear them share God's word with us. They work hard, so let's encourage them. Galatians 6:6 says, “One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches”. This verse isn't just talking about money; I suspect it's talking about encouragement as well. Luke 6:31 says, “And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them”. What screen savers would you like to see if you were teaching God's word to a group of God's people? I suspect you'd be really encouraged by the odd nod, the smile, the laugh out loud, the inquisitive look, the tear, the giggle, and so on.

As our brother Jesus very helpfully points out, the issue here is an issue of love: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31; cf. Jas 2:8). It is loving to encourage. So let's be loving. Why don't we all nod on the outside from now on? Let's not nod off in every sense of the word.

16 Comments »