the evangelical crisis in interpreting Scripture

There is a new crisis in the evangelical handling of Scripture. Issues such as the role of women are significantly shaping the traditional evangelical doctrine of Scripture. This is the main thesis of Wayne Grudem's book “Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?”. Grudem argues that evangelical feminists are using a method of interpretation that leads inexorably to the normalization of homosexuality as well as feminism. Grudem believes that approval of homosexuality is the point of real apostasy, “the final step along the path to liberalism.”

Grudem focuses his attack on the redemptive or trajectory hermeneutic popularised by William Webb's book, “Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis” (IVP, 2001). The book evaluates the progress made throughout history in the area of interpreting Scripture in relation to slavery and proposes that the same progress should be made in other areas, such as the role of women. The hermeneutic asserts that the principles taught in the Old Testament are outdated in relation to the permission and regulation of slavery. It goes on to assert that the principles taught in the New Testament improve upon this by discouraging slavery. The trajectory did not stop there however but moved towards a point where the Church rejected slavery. The idea is that the Scriptures are only on a developing trajectory which was not cut short by the canon of Scripture. The Church must be dynamic and move with the culture rather than be bound to Scripture's "frozen" ethics. It is also called the "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" because of this movement. Traditional evangelical interpretation is called a "static hermeneutic".

Webb says, "In sum, the case studies developed in this book support a redemptive-movement hermeneutic. If the original readers of Scripture lived out its isolated words, by virtue of their cultural context, they lived out the redemptive spirit of the text for that generation. For us, however, it is a different story. For us the redemptive spirit does not always come automatically because the applicational context has changed. We must journey beyond any surface-level appropriation to application of the text that captures its meaning in cultural and canonical context-an application that honors its underlying spirit. Our task is not to lock into an ethic that has been frozen in time, but to pursue an ultimate ethic, one reflected in the redemptive spirit of Scripture. As a community born to the twenty-first century, we must not be limited to a mere enactment of the text's isolated words. It is our sacred calling to champion its spirit."

The idea is that Paul and other New Testament authors were moving in a trajectory toward full inclusion of women in Church leadership, but they didn’t quite reach that goal by the time the canon was complete. We have to continue that trajectory.

“This means that the teachings of the New Testament are no longer our final authority,” Grudem writes. “Our authority now becomes our own ideas of the direction the New Testament was heading but never quite reached.” This relativism has no logical stopping off point and so as Grudem indicates, the same method of interpretation that defends evangelical feminism can be applied to homosexuality, the approval of which, Grudem writes, “is the final step along the path to liberalism.” There is much to evidence such a view. The fact that Arcbishop Rowan Williams (not to mention those in the Church of Scotland) has argued for approval of homosexuality using the same interpretative principle demonstrates the point.

Grudem observes, “I have lived in the academic world for over thirty years, and I have a great deal of confidence in the ability of scholars to take a set of eighteen criteria like this [Webb’s system] and make a case for almost anything they desire, through skillful manipulation of the variable factors involved in the criteria. But whether or not these are the result of a proper use of Webb’s criteria, the point remains: the standard is no longer what the New Testament says, but rather the point toward which some scholar thinks the Bible was moving. And that is why I believe it is correct to say that Webb’s redemptive-movement hermeneutic nullifies in principle the moral authority of the entire New Testament.”

The decision on which details are relative and which are not is essentially subjective . It is rather like an inversion of the quest for the historical Jesus which pursued its quest into the biblical text discarding whatever didn't seem to the critic to be authentic and arrived at a historical Jesus who was strangely rather like the critic himself in his convictions. As one writer put it, it was like someone seeing their reflection at the bottom of a deep well. The trajectory hermeneutic pursues its goal away from Scripture but ends up with the same uncanny carbon copy of contemporary cultural beliefs and norms. In both cases Scripture is treated like a wax nose. It becomes used as per the Roman Catholic magisterium, simply to illustrate the Church's teaching rather than self-authenticating and finally authoritative.

The trajectory hermeneutic does not have a place for the sufficiency and final authority of Scripture. It also undermines its perspicuity. It is a way of writing off vast tracts of the Old Testament.

What Webb has shown us, however, is that the way in which evangelicals have employed cultural relativism 'conservatively' both in bible translation and interpretation is highly dangerous. For the last generation or two, there has been a gentleman's agreement amongst evangelical scholars that cultural relativism can be embraced without undermining traditional evangelical convictions. Evangelical feminism has flown in the face of that.

Evangelicals have happily applied cultural relativism as a way of interpreting parts of Scripture that seem inconvenient such as the precepts (grounded on Creation ordinance) in relation to hair length and requiring head covering in 1 Cor 11. “That’s just cultural”, you hear parroted. These developments should make us think twice before we utter these words.

the future of evangelicalism

Time magazine's photo essay on "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals" is distinguished by people that really aren't evangelical at all. If this defines evangelicalism, it is in serious trouble. Time's coverage of the 'new Calvinism' of Generation X may prompt some concerns too.  Someone has been blogging on their expectations of significant decline for evangelicalism over the next 10 years and "that within two generations of where we are now evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its current occupants". The blogger is eschatologically optimistic but not optimistic for evangelicalism.

He gives as his reasons:

• Evangelicals have lost the culture war and will be damagingly identified with this.
• "Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people the evangelical Christian faith in an orthodox form that can take root and survive the secular onslaught".
• "Evangelical churches have now passed into a three part chapter: 1) mega-churches that are consumer driven, 2) churches that are dying and 3) new churches that whose future is dependent on a large number of factors. I believe most of these new churches will fail, and the ones that do survive will not be able to continue evangelicalism at anything resembling its current influence."
• "Christian education has not produced a product that can hold the line in the rising tide of secularism."
• In a strongly secularist environment we can expect "evangelical ministries to take on a less and less distinctively Christian face in order to survive".
• "Much of this collapse will come in areas of the country where evangelicals imagine themselves strong. In actual fact, the historic loyalties of the Bible belt will soon be replaced by a de-church culture where religion has meaning as history, not as a vital reality. At the core of this collapse will be the inability to pass on, to our children, a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith".
• A major aspect of this collapse will happen because money will not be flowing towards evangelicalism in the same way as before.

What will be left as a result? 1) an evangelicalism greatly chastened in numbers, influence and resources and far from its doctrinal heritage including the gospel, 2) a remaining majority of Charismatic-Pentecostal Christians faced with the opportunity to reform or become unrecognizable, 3) an invigorated minority of evangelicals committed to theology and church renewal, 4) a marginalized emerging and mainline community and 5) an evangelicalized segment of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy 6) the death of fundamentalism 7) the death of large parachurch organisations. One blogger comments here .

 

This analysis must at some level owe a lot to Francis Schaeffer's book published in 1984, The Great Evangelical Disaster. The great evangelical disaster was "the failure of the evangelical world to stand for truth as truth. There is only one word for this -- namely accommodation: the evangelical church has accommodated to the world spirit of the age". It was a fairly to stand for Scripture (abandoning inerrancy) unequivocably and to stans against cultural decline. He wrote "we can expect the future to be a further disaster if the evangelical world does not take a stand for biblical truth and morality in the full spectrum of life". The following comment was incisive "It does seem to me that evangelical leaders, and every evangelical Christian, have a very special responsibility not to just go along with the "blue-jean syndrome" of not noticing that their attempts to be "with it" so often take the same forms as those who deny the existence or holiness of the living God. Accommodation leads to accommodation-which leads to accommodation..." It was a call to arms that was only partially heeded. Other subsequent writers such as David F Wells and Michael Horton have been more critical that evangelicalism is selling out completely on all of its historic principles.

How do you define evangelicalism? The historian David Bebbington gives it a largely doctrinal definition: crucicentrism [substitutionary atonement], conversionism, biblicism [the sole authority and inerrancy of the bible], and activism. This only fits in the loosest of senses that would blur any distinction with Barthian theology, for instance. 

D. G. Hart, in Deconstructing Evangelicalism argues that evangelicalism is "a minimalist account of the Christian faith" and "a concept that has obscured more of Christianity than it has revealed and should be abandoned as a separate religious identity". He also queries whether it can be properly defined and therefore really exists as a distinct movement. A very insightful series of articles 'Evangelical or Reformed' by Rev. H.M Cartwright in the Free Presbyterian Magazine covered this question, the first article is here (scroll down to p.213) with further articles in subsequent months .

 

We need those who have an understanding of the times. How do these observations fit within the total purpose of the history of redemption? Jonathan Edwards' book  which has that title shows how the millennium is the goal of redemptive history. It is the purpose towards which God in providence is directing history. 

He wrote "We have all reason to conclude from the Scriptures, that just before this work of God begins, it will be a very dark time with respect to the interests of religion in the world. It has been so before preceding glorious revivals of religion: when Christ came, it was an exceeding degenerate time among the Jews; and so it was a very dark time before the Reformation. And not only so, but it seems to be foretold in Scripture, that it shall be a time of but little religion, when Christ shall come to set up his kingdom in the world. Thus when Christ spake of his coming, to encourage his elect, who cry to him day and night, in Luke xviii. 8 he adds, "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Which seems to denote a great prevalency of infidelity just before Christ's coming to avenge his suffering church.—Though Christ's coming at the last judgment is not here to be excluded, yet there seems to be a special respect to his coming to deliver his church from their long-continued suffering, persecuted state, which is accomplished only at his coming at the destruction of Antichrist. Then will be accomplished the following passages, Rev. vi. 10. "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth." and Rev. xviii. 20. "Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles, and prophets, for God hath avenged you on her."

It is now a very dark time with respect to the interests of religion, wherein there is but a little faith, and a great prevailing of infidelity on the earth. There is now a remarkable fulfilment of that in 2 Pet. iii. 3. "Knowing this, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts." And so Jude 17, 18. "But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts." Whether the times shall be any darker still, or how much darker, before the beginning of this glorious work of God, we cannot tell."

Lachlan Mackenzie of Lochcarron in his essay on the delusions that shall probably prevail prior to the millennium also spoke of a darkness so great that "it is to be feared that the Protestant Churches will be greatly eclipsed". "Darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people".

But to encourage you to pray for the hastening of the days when the knowledge of the glory of the Lord shall cover the whole earth as the waters cover the sea, read Edwards on the millennium.

Are evangelicals becoming liberal?

A recent Time Magazine Article reports on the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life which last year surveyed 35,000 Americans, and found that 70% of respondents agreed with the statement "Many religions can lead to eternal life." Even more remarkable was the fact that 57% of Evangelical Christians were willing to accept that theirs might not be the only path to salvation, since most Christians historically have embraced the words of Jesus, in the Gospel of John, that "no one comes to the Father except through me." Even as mainline churches had become more tolerant, the exclusivity of Christianity's path to heaven has long been one of the Evangelicals' fundamental tenets.

This shows how far evangelicalism is from a sound bedrock of confessional truth drawn from Scripture. The Westminster Confession states:

…men, not professing the Christian religion, [cannot] be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested [Westminster Confession of Faith, 10.4]

Robert Reymond writes against religious inclusivism here.

J.G. Vos was a good observer of other religions in "A Christian Introduction to Religions of the World" - he is very perceptive on Islam. He also has a good article on the Good Elements in False Religions. But we must remember that the counterfeit requires to have some resemblance to the truth to be successful. Here is a good article on the exclusivity of Christianity.

Evangelical fears and compromises

Various commentators from within evangelicalism are coming to the conclusion that has been obvious for a rather long time, that evangelicalism's greatest fear is at the heart of all its compromises. This is the fear of not being relevant or to use a more realistic term, fashionable. David F. Wells in his latest book 'The Courage to be Protestant' writes: 'Frankly, there is no judgment more to be feared than this: you are now passé. That weighs more heavily even than words coming from the great white throne at the end of time. Imagine that! Passé.'

He also writes in a collection of essays 'Reforming or Conforming? Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church': 'Evangelicals today are fearful, but they are fearful of all the wrong things. They are deeply apprehensive about becoming obsolete, of being left behind, so to speak, of being passed by, and of not being relevant'.(p. 48) It fits very neatly with marketing theory and practice which, through a very thin veneer, is driving much of the trends within evangelicalism.

Os Guinness has written a book 'Prophetic Untimeliness: A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance', he says that this desire to be fashionable (culturally relevant) is exactly why Christians are now becoming marginalized. Being fashioable means creating trendy worship services, writing books about how Christ can be seen in current movies, or mirroring hot bands playing on MTV. He says in a recent interview 'Evangelicalism has never chased relevance more determinedly than it does now. And yet, we've never been more irrelevant'. This undermines the authority of Scripture, and a loss of identity and continuity with the Church historically.

Wells observes that the fear of being irrelevant and unfashionable has been 'transferred' from liberals.
'This, of course, was the fear that haunted the older generation of Protestant liberals, so many of whom began their lives in evangelical homes. They were overwhelmed by the need to be relevant to the culture...Their conversation partner was the Enlightenment.

This lesson, however, is entirely lost on most evangelicals today. The reason is partly that they are treading a different path and so they do not see the parallels. Theirs is not the accommodation to high culture, as was the liberals'.

That culture was suffused with intellectual pride and humanism, with rationalism and hostility to Christian faith. It is now dying. The Enlightenment, from which much of it arose, has all but collapsed, as has the Christianity that had made itself into an ally.

The parallels between these older liberals and today's evangelicals are not in the culture to which they are accommodating but in the process of accommodation. Behind each is the same mind-set. The difference is only in what is being accommodated. And the dangers are all concealed beneath the apparent innocence of the experiment.

The fact is, however, that evangelical Christianity today is as endangered by its postmodern dance partner as the earlier liberals were by their Enlightenment partner'. (p. 49)

My view on this as evidenced in the secularisation of the Bible through inferior translation in the 20th century is here.

Fundamentalism and Evangelicals

Fundamentalism and Evangelicals, Harriet A Harris, Oxford Theological Monographs, Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1998, pp.384, ISBN 0-19-826960-9

While liberals like Bishop Spong have tended to smear the 'Fundamentalist' label with convenient alacrity, evangelicals, such as John Stott, Derek Tidball and Alistair McGrath have, on the other hand, tended rather anxiously to define a straw-man fundamentalism. In view of these extremes it is useful to find a more judicious and careful examination of the relationship between fundamentalism and evangelicals. Harris rightly emphasises fundamentalism as a mentality or tendency rather than a coherent movement. She begins with a historical study of the roots of 1920's Fundamentalism that details the various strands of revivalism, holiness teaching and premillenariansism. The power base of this movement was largely located in conferences and Bible Institutes that had their ancestry in the Albury and Niagara prophetic conferences. The entire relevant history of the last century and a half on both sides of the Atlantic is sketched in well to include all the usual suspects.

The second chapter proceeds to James Barr's critique of fundamentalism. Harris maintains that Barr does not simply equate conservative evangelicalism with fundamentalism he rather prefers to view them as overlapping circles. Barr's analysis represents fundamentalism as a rather incoherent and undeveloped mentality with assorted doctrines but no clear theology. Philosophically, it adheres to an 18th century type of evidentialism while its pretensions to critical scholarship are belied by a determination to skew the evidence. Interestingly, however, Barr prophesies (in 1977) significant shifts for conservative evangelicals on a number of issues, he expected the charismatic/pentecostal movement to subvert their endemic rationalism.

Chapter 3 considers the philosophical roots that Barr refers to, namely Scottish Common-Sense philosophy, which was the dominant philosophy at Princeton Seminary during the nineteenth century. This tradition sought to oppose Humean scepticism with a robust Realism especially in relation to language. Harris gives sufficient space to a study of Thomas Reid's thought showing that although this foremost Common Sense Realist was a Moderate rather than Evangelical, evangelicals such as Robert Haldane, Louis Gaussen and Alexander Carson nevertheless borrowed arguments from him in order to defend the perspicuity of scripture. They asserted innerrancy with a vigorous inductive method that made their conclusion dependent upon 'evidences'. In America Common Sense principles undergirded the educational system from the time of Independence but it was largely James W Alexander and Charles Hodge who developed a 'scientific' theological method. Harris argues, however, that this reached an intense pitch in the thought of B.B. Warfield who often gave evidences a foundational rather than a supporting role. Warfield believed that textual criticism would vindicate and clarify the problem areas of Scripture. Scripture was therefore not so much self-authenticating as evidence-authenticated. Controversially, later evangelicals such as Daniel Fuller and Clark Pinnock have claimed to be following Warfield's principle of letting 'induction control from beginning to end' to its logical conclusion in developing a doctrine of limited inerrancy. In this sense even Creation Scientists are comparatively less fundamentalist (as Barr himself suggests) than those that revise their biblical interpretation to fit scientific opinion.

Chapter 5 enacts a dialogue between liberal and fundamentalist opinions of one another and between their respective views of Scripture. The tension of objectivist and subjectivist tendencies within the evangelical position are drawn forth rather well (although it should be recognised that this has always been a difficulty for liberals as well). Harris maintains that evangelical inductive apologetics bears little influence in individual testimonies and experiential factors are instead predominant.

Harris then devotes two chapters to Dutch Neo-Calvinism as represented in Abraham Kuyper's thought and influence. Kuyper's abiding influence is traced in following chapters. Cornelius Van Til's apologetic similarly discounted evidences and according to sources this was one of the main reasons for the 1937 schism at Westminster Seminary. Van Til follows Warfield a considerable distance on inerrancy and therefore, in Harris's opinion, limits the effectiveness of presuppostionalism as an alternative to rational empiricism. Harris finds Van Til's mix of British Idealist philosophy with Kuyperian ideas and Calvinist theology together with Warfieldian thinking rather strange. She also concludes that both presuppostionalism and evidentialism display circular reasoning departing from deductive premises.

In the last chapter evangelical engagement with phenomenological hermeneutics is considered.

In many ways Harris extends the critique applied by James Barr. One doesn't need to adopt Barr's theology to recognise the sharpness of some of his observations. In fact recent evangelicals such as David F. Wells have recognised the absence of theology in evangelicalism. What Barr emphasises is the opportunism or determined pragmatism of evangelicals which entails making use of the work of those not theologically or philosophically alligned for their own ends. One doesn't need to go back to Thomas Reid, the example of C.S. Lewis is appropriate enough. This magpie mentality believes in making evangelicalism 'electable', contemporary or relevant and it is this populist impulse which perhaps defines Protestant fundamentalism - anything is suitable so long as it works. This attitude goes back to 'The Fundamentals' themselves: Volume 2 concludes with 'Tributes to Christ and the Bible by Brainy Men not known as Active Christians'. In this sense Harris's volume is a useful assessment of the options and weaknesses facing evangelicals in the present time. It demonstrates the rootlessness experienced by evangelicalism in not adhering fully to Reformed theology.

Evangelicalism and the love of novelty

The love of novelty is being taken up with whatever is new, simply because it is new. We ought to recognise that it is part of our corrupted nature to have this obsession.
As the puritan Thomas Manton put it: 'There is an itch of novelty; naturally we adore things that are new; they flocked about Paul because they supposed him a setter forth of new gods, Acts 17. Seneca observeth right...'men admire a glaring meteor and comet more than they do the glorious sun'.

Obsession with whatever is new has been the spirit of the modernism of secularist society. Novelty is the preeminent virtue. The term 'modern' is not so much about history or time so much as quality - everything must be 'new', and simply because it is new it is immediately original and different and transcends all that was previous. Modernity tears itself from tradition and history and so is forever engaged in repeating itself. The cult of the modern produces a society of the spectacle because the craving for endless novelty is the same as the craving for the spectacular.

One of the greatest fallacies of our day is the appeal to novelty, what logicians call argumentum ad novitatem. People assume and argue that because something is new, it is therefore correct or better. The latest and newest implies the most correct and best. This is the basic assumption of most commercial advertising.

Samuel Rutherford shows how natural an assumption this is with us and how easily it can slip into religious matters. 'Novelty can go for conscience, our nature is quickly taken with novelty, even as a new friend, a new field, a new house, a new garden, a new garment, so a new Christ, a new faith, delights us' (Free Disputation against pretended Liberty of Conscience).

In an article, 'The Future of Evangelical Theology,' Thomas Oden laments the invasion of novelty into evangelicalism: 'The Babylonian captivity to novelty is the temptation of all modern reflection. It is invading evangelical leadership at an alarming rate in ways disturbing to evangelicals in the mainline who have suffered from its bewitchments for two centuries.'(Christianity Today, Feb. 9, 1998, p.46). The problem with novelty is that it is soon tired of as the novelty wears of and so there must be yet more novelties. As Calvin puts it in his commentary on Joel: 'When any thing new happens, it may be, that we are at first moved with some wonder; but our feeling soon vanishes with the novelty, and we disregard what at first caused great astonishment'. Within evangelicalism endless constantly changing variety has become the order of the day. As a result an ahistorical myopia prevails that is bent upon removing the ancient landmarks and everything that does not have the appearance of appeal of novelty in it. The Word of God wisely counsels: 'meddle not with them that are given to change' (Prov 24:21)

Yet as John Calvin argued so clearly: 'In the matter of religion, all novelty should not only be rejected but also detested': (Calvin's preface to La Bible, qui est toute la saincte escriture du vieil & du Nouveau Testament (Geneva, 1588), iir. The Lord Jesus Christ was conscious of the spirit of novelty in his own days amongst the hearers of John the Baptist (Matthew 11:7- 9).

Novelty in worship
Novelty in worship is one of the most obvious areas where the cult of the new influences evangelicalism. Many churches are at the mercy of the latest ideas of a local worship leader and the latest fads of the professional worship leader-cum-pop-musician. Choruses must ever be the latest - those from 15-20 years ago have become tired, word and stale. There is a certain delight and temporary emotional satisfaction from this no doubt. Such delight is not necessarily, however, a spiritual emotion or an indication of what it is acceptable to God. As the puritan Stephen Charnock argues, however, we cannot make 'every delight an argument of a spiritual service. All the requisites to worship must be taken in. A man may invent a worship, and delight in it, as Micah in the adoration of his idol, when he was glad he had got both an ephod and a Levite, Judges 17. As a man may have a contentment in sin, so he may have a contentment in worship ; not because it is a worship of God, but the worship of his own invention, agreeable to his own humour and design, as Isaiah 58:2, it is said, they delighted in approaching to God,' but it was for carnal ends. Novelty engenders complacency ; but it must be a worship wherein God will delight, and that must be a worship according to his own rule and infinite wisdom, and not our shallow fancies'.

Once innovations have been made they become dear to people through long familiar association and they are lothe to part with them because of this. It can then become an appeal to age, tradition and preference. We can think of the hymns that were introduced, first at the communion, then once a service at the end and which then finally pushed out metrical psalms altogether. Although there was no biblical warrant for composing such non-inspired materials of praise, the impulse to innovation and novelty soon established the practice.

Change in the sense of reformation will sometimes be required but only in the direction of reforming worship closer to the Word of God. This was the view of the Westminster Assembly when they would only put aside the liturgy of the Church of England upon many 'weighty considerations...not from any love to novelty' (Directory of Public Worship).

Novelty in preaching
It is possible for those who believe themselves to be conservative and reformed in their doctrine and practice to pursue novelty in preaching. There is a desire for the rhetorical display of using expressions that are new and catching but do not mean much at all and may even be misleading. JW Alexander pointed this out in his book 'The Preacher's Studies': 'The lust of novelty betrays some young preachers into a feverish thirst for new reading, in the course of which they scour the fields for every antithetic pungency, and every brilliant expression. For fear of commonplaces, they forbear to give utterance to those great, plain, simple, everlasting propositions, which after all are the main stones in the wall of truth. The preacher errs grievously, who shuns to announce obvious and familiar things, if only they be true and seasonable, and logically knit into the contexture. The most momentous sayings are simple ; or rather, as Daniel Webster once said, "All great things are simple"'.

The Apostles and their Lord were not afraid to use 'great plainness of speech'. It is possible to use academic theological words which people may not understand fully or at all but they may be taken with the novelty of it and the show of learning. Much of the controversy surrounding the Marrow of Modern Divinity in the early eighteenth century had to do with the use of apparently new or unusual terms on the part of those promoting it which made some think that it was new doctrine. As John Willison points out this was partly 'because in their sermons they disused and censured several old approven words and phrases as too legal, and affected some new modes of speaking'.

Men may be tempted to look for fresh and striking topics for sermons or bold, rhetorical and revolutionary interpretations of verses which go against received thinking and therefore make the preacher to stand out. As Richard Baxter searchingly indicates, the danger is that preachers will cause people to 'love novelty better than verity, and playing with words to please the fancy, rather than closing with Christ to save the soul'. It is possible to receive the word with a carnal joy that may be based upon the novelty of it but this seed cannot last and continue to grow.

There is nothing wrong, however, with repeating vital truths. It is eminently biblical. Paul tells the Philippians (Phil. 3:1)that to write the same things was not grievous to him, and it was safe for them. They needed to hear these things again. Peter writes similarly to say that he would not be negligent to put them always in remembrance of those things they knew (2 Pet. 1:12.)

Novelty in doctrine
The Church must constantly be watching against novelty in doctrine because this commonly means serious heresy. Again there is a need for ensuring that our doctrine is firmly founded on the Scriptures, yet the Church has witnessed many heresies down through the centuries and learned to guard against them. The desire for innovation in theology often comes from a root of pride. Calvin spoke bluntly of 'little men of superstitious minds, who are always devising some novelty as a means of gaining admiration for themselves'. Whatever the motive, however, it is pride that causes people to reject the illumination of the Holy Spirit in past generations of the Church and assume that only what they have discovered in their own originality is valid.

The Early Church Father John Chrysostom commented on the heretics such as Hymeneus and Philetus that Paul speaks of in 2 Timothy 2. 'He shows that novelty of doctrine is a disease, and worse than a disease. And here he implies that they are incorrigible, and that they erred not weakly but willfully'. Calvin preached on this chapter solemnly drawing similar conclusions:
'But it is true, our nature is such, that we take great pleasure in novelty, and in speculations which seem to be subtle. Therefore, let us beware, and think as we ought, that we may not profane God's holy Word. Let us seek that which. edifieth, and not abuse ourselves by receiving that which hath no substance in it. It is hard to withdraw men from such vanity, because they are inclined to participate in it. But St. Paul showeth that there is nothing more miserable than such vain curiosity: 'For they will increase unto more ungodliness.' As if he had said, my friends, you know not at first sight what hurt cometh by these deceivers; who go about to gain credit and estimation among you, and with pleasant toys endeavor to please you; but believe me, they are Satan's instruments and such as in no wise serve God but increase unto more wickedness; that is. if they are let alone, they will mar the Christian religion; they will not leave one jot safe and sound. Therefore, see that you flee them as plagues, although at first sight, the poison which they bring be not perceived.'

Evangelicalism is being assailed with a flood of novelty in doctrine at the present time. There is that from conservative evangelicals in the Federal Vision theology which distorts justification by faith alone. Some of the most alarming innovations however, come from a so-called post-conservative handling of Scripture. Post-conservative means that people no longer wish to be bound to the Scriptures as their supreme authority. A high view of Scripture and theological novelty are impossible companions. There are the Open-theists such as Clark Pinnock who gettison the orthodox doctrine of God.

Then there is the ecumenical and professedly post-evangelical, post-doctrinal and certainly postmodern Emerging Church movement. This movement has moved beyond the idea of giving the central and supreme place to Scripture. The latter is no doubt evangelicalism's love of novelty come to its fullest expression in every way. It has developed a rather Romish trend in worship by combining candles, incense, darkness, labyrinths and silence. Is it not significant that one of Brian Maclaren's books is titled 'A New Kind of Christianity'? Then there are those rejecting penal substitution - such as Steve Chalke.

The general vanguard movement within evangelicalism is sometimes expressed as being towards experience over doctrine and to be inclusivistic instead of exclusivistic. Doctrine is being shaped by the values of contemporary secular society and that which sounds acceptable within it. Chrysostom writes in his Commentary on Matthew about 'the unsettling power of novelty' and evangelicalism is certainly unsettled in the current climate. Where there is little grounding in the truth, individuals are in danger of being tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine especially by anything that has the appearance of novelty.

When the Reformation was underway the Reformers made it clear that they were countering the innovations of Rome with not only what the Scriptures taught but what the Early Church believed from which Rome had defected. As his prefatory address to the Institutes shows, Calvin roundly rejected the idea that the Reformers were introducing anything novel. He responds adamantly to those that would try to label the Reformation teaching as novel:
'First, in calling it new, they are exceedingly injurious to God, whose sacred word deserved not to be charged with novelty. To them, indeed, I very little doubt it is new, as Christ is new, and the Gospel new; but those who are acquainted with the old saying of Paul, that Christ Jesus 'died for our sins, and rose again for our justification,' (Rom. 4: 25,) will not detect any novelty in us. That it long lay buried and unknown is the guilty consequence of man's impiety; but now when, by the kindness of God, it is restored to us, it ought to resume its antiquity just as the returning citizen resumes his rights.'

Later theologians such as Francis Turretin also disclaimed novelty. 'I avoided [novelty] most diligently lest it should contain anything new, a stranger from the word of God and from the public forms received in our churches, and nothing is built up there that is not confirmed by the vote of our most proven theologians'.

One could also refer to novelty in practice which besides introducing innumerable gimmicks and paraphenalia that only serve to trivialise religion also rejects vital godliness and Christian experience as a thing of the past. John Kennedy saw this spirit very clearly in nineteenth-century Scotland: 'As the tide of declension is moving on, an impression is produced in the hearts of those who are adrift that all things which they are leaving behind them are but relics of darker times. Adherence to what is antiquated is all that is implied, they say, in the conservatism that cleaves to 'the old paths' and 'the good way' in which our father walked. It is characteristic of young men that they do not like to appear to be behind the age. They must be abreast of the intelligence of a century so enlightened as this is. They must cast away the old clothes of traditionalism, and must learn to sneer at the days and ways that are gone, that they may be like those who assume to be the leaders of thought – the advanced guard of the army of progress. They must neither think nor speak like the men of earlier, and, therefore, more benighted times!...But, my young friends, be not led away by this affectation of progress with its contempt for what is past. There never was a time when in science there was more utterly baseless speculation, and in which more structures of lies were reared within the religious sphere than now. There never was an age of more hasty thinking and of more hazy utterance than the present in all things affecting what is divine and spiritual. But God is unchanging. On that grand truth firmly plant your foot in faith. The law of God is unchanging. That truth is another strong foothold. On these be 'steadfast and unmovable' in the midst of all present unsettlement of thought and practice'. Although the desire for it may be insatiable among evangelicals, truly 'novelty is the last object which a wise inquirer will seek'. JW Alexander. What should we seek? We are not left without an answer.
'Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken.' (Jeremiah 6:16-17).

penal substitution and 'evangelical' confusion

N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham and theologian, seems very confused. First of all he rightly rejected out of hand the recent remarks by Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans (a notorious homosexual) which in the following critique. Jeffrey John simply repeats the old threadbare idea that penal substitution makes God out to be a torturer and murderer of His own son. “In other words, Jesus took the rap and we got forgiven as long as we said we believed in him,” he says. “This is repulsive as well as nonsensical. It makes God sound like a psychopath. If a human behaved like this we’d say that they were a monster.” He prefers to suggest that Christ was crucified so he could “share in the worst of grief and suffering that life can throw at us.”
Bishop N. T. Wright “accused Mr John of attacking the fundamental message of the Gospel.” “He is denying the way in which we understand Christ’s sacrifice. It is right to stress that he is a God of love but he is ignoring that this means he must also be angry at everything that distorts human life".

So far, so good but then the bishop goes on in the same article to protect Steve Chalke, the 'evangelical' who has been pushing exactly the same views in The Lost Message of Jesus and sharply censure those defending penal substitution. Of Chalke he says, “the reality that I and others refer to when we use the phrase ‘penal substitution’ is not in doubt”. A plain reading of Chalke's statements shows that he rejects penal substitution as such, however. His article explaining the book makes everything quite clear. "Those who criticise me for The Lost Message of Jesus hold a particular view of what happened on the cross (or ‘model of the atonement’) commonly known as ‘penal substitution’ – penal referring to punishment, substitution to Christ acting in our place. Initially based upon the writings of Anselm of Canterbury (1033- 1109), penal substitution was substantially formed by John Calvin’s legal mind in the reformation. The model as it is understood and taught today, however, rests largely on the work of the 19th century American scholar Charles Hodge." He also states: "In The Lost Message of Jesus I claim that penal substitution is tantamount to ‘child abuse – a vengeful Father punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed."

Wright, who wrote a commendation of Chalke's book on its cover, conveniently ignores this and instead takes to task a new book by some conservative Anglicans Mike Ovey, Steve Jeffrey and Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (IVP, 2007). According to Wright "it is deeply, profoundly, and disturbingly unbiblical" indeed "hopelessly sub-biblical". He makes his own position clearer: "I regard the 'Christus Victor' theme as the overarching one within which substitution makes its proper point." This is the model which Chalke prefers to penal substitution.

We are living in dangerous times.

relationship not a religion?

Among many evangelicals the word "religion" is quite literally an anathema. The slogan that real Christianity is a "Relationship not a Religion" is everywhere. For many it is the key content of evangelism, "What God wants is for you to respond to His invitation to join Him in a relationship", they say. For others it is a crucial principle of church growth theory. Potential church members are supposed to be looking for fulfillment, meaning, balance, relationships, mentors, a sense of community, and, first and foremost, "Relationship, not Religion."

As with all slogans there is an element of truth distorted by generalisation. Slogans were never meant to be definitions but simply an advertising technique. Of course it's possible to make religion an end in itself and to be very religious but miss salvation altogether. Those that go about to establish their own righteousness through religion but have not submitted to the righteousness of God which is by faith. The problem is not so much with religion itself but with the way in which people use it. If we are to despise everything God-given that man in his depravity can abuse we will be left with nothing.

The definition that "Religion is the human effort to reach God through rules and rituals" is a bit off the mark. What they have defined is salvation by works, some religions are based upon that but not all have to be. Of course we need to be apprehended of Christ in salvation and to come into union and communion with Him by faith. But there is also the vital matter of obedience as an evidence of that union and communion. "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (Jn 14:15). There is relationship and religion but they are not being opposed. "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him." (1 John 2:3-5). The claim to a relationship without any fruit of holiness and obedience is just as empty as religion that has no true bond with the Saviour.

The problem is that the Bible uses the word religion, and it uses it in a positive way. What about the pure and undefiled religion of James 1:27? Keeping oneself unspotted from the world - isn't there rules and regulations in that? Religion involves a distinctive set of beliefs as well as distinctive life and worship. It isn't just a claim to "know Jesus" without making it clear who the Lord Jesus Christ is, how He is to be worshipped and served. The word relationship can mean lots of things. There are many kinds of relationships. It seems to allow for the cherished idea of "unconditional love no matter what we do". Forgiveness is a precious doctrine and reality but so is sanctification.

The root problem is with popular evangelicalism rather than with religion itself. It has turned conversion into mental assent, worship into a carnal feel-good factor, and made obeying Christ as Lord into an optional extra. They have attracted people that come to church for the music and the friends, the relationships but yet they are not really converted. Is it any wonder that they are finding that there is very little reality in this at all?

The word religion comes from a Latin word which means "to be bound back". We ought to be bound back to God by covenant. We must have been drawn by His lovingkindness (Jer. 31:3), with the cords of a man (Hosea 11:4) and held by covenant grace. When we are baptised we are engaged to be His, there are covenant obligations sealed in that ordinance, that we should love and serve God all the days of our lives. The name of Christ is upon those that have been baptised, in the most solemn of vows. As the Puritan Christopher Nesse puts it: "The covenant of your God is upon you, the bond of the covenant should bind you fast (as the word 'religion' signifies) unto God and godliness. O break not those bands, nor cast away those cords from you, for then you are sure to be broken as a potter's vessel that cannot be patched up again...[as] he that breaks His covenant with the great God who will assuredly avenge the quarrel of His covenant. O keep yourselves in the love of God and continue in Christ's love, which constrains you to obedience and holiness." O to know that sweet constraint, the constraint of true religion 2 COR 5:14 "the love of Christ constraineth us". A constraint that enables us to put sin to death and to keep ourselves from the world. "I will run the way of thy commandments, when thou shalt enlarge my heart" (Psalm 119:32).

The Tragedy of Virtual Worship

Virtual worship has become the norm in the evangelical church. The fact that reality has been forfeited for illusory good feelings should be obvious to anyone. Where is the reality in seeking to conduct church services with the slick patter of a Master of Ceremonies, punctuated by empty songs that mimic a worldly, easy style of rock music? And when all this is achieved by the pragmatics of applied marketing and business growth strategy rather than biblical principle where again is the reality?

Should we be surprised when religion is characterised in the media by a lack of reality and when in popular culture in general, Christian words have become empty words? The idea of the sacred seems to have vanished. The church thinks that it can broaden its appeal by mimicing the virtuality of the world. Why should folk want a mediocre version from the church of what they can already have from the world? In the same way that popular culture (particularly the sinister world of club culture) offers and manufactures brief ecstatic emotional experiences, the church has invented virtual worship (some, horrifically, have gone the whole way and developed 'rave' services). It is all of course, commercially driven with the latest worship fad also neatly manifesting itself as the leading marketing edge.

As Peter Masters shows this is the current point to which the sixties development of a popular culture version of worship has taken us. This revolution produced "a form of worship fashioned and conceived in the womb of the hippie meditational mysticism, in which hippies in their hundreds and thousands would sit on California hillsides with eyes closed, swaying themselves into an ecstatic state of experience. Former hippies carried into their new Christian allegiance the method of seeking the emotional release or sensations to which they were accustomed, and no one showed them a better way." Peter Masters, "Worship in the Melting Pot: Is New Worship Compatible with Traditional Worship?" in Sword and Trowel (no. 3, 1998), p. 13.

The apostle Paul speaks of the spiritual reality that should obtain in the worship of the Church, the unbeliever should come into the church service and be so convicted by God's Word that "falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth" (1Cor 14:25). Virtual worship creates 'virtual religion', and virtual religion creates virtual Christians. And sadly evangelicals have long been too effective at producing virtual Christians through the virtual conversions of high-pressure evangelistic technique.

Thus we hear of "post-modern" evangelical worship developing in the United States as the next stage beyond the blandness of so-called contemporary worship music and "seeker-sensitive/user-friendly" services. This can be a heady cocktail of any of the following: orthodox icons, rock music, candles, Gregorian chant, snippets stolen from Roman Catholic liturgies not forgetting some charismatic elements (see article by Daniel Harrell, Leadership Journal, Spring 1999, Vol.XX, No. 2, p.37). Youth For Christ in the UK have likewise developed in past years something called Labyrinth a multi-media "spiritual" journey experience that involves meditation, candles and music Anything is permitted as long as it feels "authentic." But what feels authentic is no standard of what is authentic, no longer is the standard spoken words that conform to Scripture. There may be a show of humility (and that word "show" is vitally significant) in these things but they are "will-worship".

But where carnal pretence reigns we find nothing better than the "novel spirituality" that was generated through manufacturing a golden calf which could be worshipped as the gods who had brought the children of Israel out of Egypt. As John Calvin notes, man's mind, "so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols," so that "it dares to imagine a god according to its own capacity; as it sluggishly plods, indeed is overwhelmed with the crassest ignorance, it conceives an unreality and an empty appearance as God." (Institutes 1.11.8). Virtual worship brings God down to the conceptions of man and squeezes God into human capacities: human preferences and thoughts. The LORD has made it clear that He will not be worshipped according to the mind and will of man. "Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men" (Isaiah 29:13).

It is a conflict between carnal pretence and divine precept. The same conflict was apparent at the time of the Reformation (read "War Against the Idols", Carlos M. Eire). In fact, the Roman Catholic Church with its refusal to be instructed and directed by the Word of God alone has always mastered its own virtual worship of a man-made syncretistic type that focuses on the visual. Evangelicalism with its fashion-driven will-worship has taken the same route. We must remember, however, that the great tragedy of virtual worship is not just its fictitious nature but that it transgresses the second commandment and strikes at the glory of God.

worldly christians?

A new type of professing Christian has emerged over recent decades; one whose lifestyle is in no way different from that of an unbeliever except that they make a profession. In many evangelical churches the worldly Christian is now the norm. "Try to fit it in with the world" says the worldly Christian, "it’s wrong to put up barriers and not be accepted". They have been told that godly living is really a kind of legalism that makes God into a killjoy. They have been misled to believe that what the gospel does is to make lives that are only already partially fulfilled by the world to be completely fulfilled by Jesus, who is a type of missing add-on extra. Worldly Christians are assured by the equally materialistic lifestyle of other professing Christians: they take their standard from each other primarily rather than the Word of God. What does the New Testament say, however? Can we simply live as pagans: going to the same places and enjoying the same pleasures?

These are days in which we need to hear the clear, uncompromising teaching of the apostles. The apostle Paul writes in Romans 13: 13-14: "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof". That whole passage in Romans 13 is indeed powerful, especially beginning at verse 11. Paul is picking up a previous theme stated at the beginning of Romans 12 (one of the major turning points of the epistle to the Romans). In Romans 12:2 there is a clear command: "Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind".

No time for it

In the latter part of Romans 13 this command is given added urgency by the consideration that time is so short. We must have an eye on the clock, as it were, "knowing the time". There is significance in each moment, any life is so short that each moment is vitally important (Psalm 90:9-11). Eternity is always at hand. "And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light". The apostle Paul is making it clear that time is shorter than we think. The present age is temporary like one single night (Psalm 90:4). The day of the appearing of our Lord and Saviour will soon come. We must live our lives in recognition of this fact rather than quibble or speculate about whether the second coming will take place before we die (John 21:22). We can be aware of the light of that "day" afar off just as Abraham saw Christ's day centuries before, and was glad (John 8:54).

Living honestly

It is a question of attitude and response to these facts - if we think it will always and forever be only dark and night then we will do the works of darkness. But if we know that a new era, a new world, a new heavens and new earth must come about as sure as day follows night, if there is a horizon as certain as every days dawn - we will prepare for that morning by dressing and acting appropriately. "Live as though the day has already dawned" he is saying, "let us walk honestly as in the day". The word "honestly" has the sense of properly or becomingly and therefore the type of behaviour that is suitable and respectable for the daytime. Behind the apostle's imagery is the assumption that even pagans have a limited sense of decency and conscience. They would never engage in some of their shameful deeds except at night when they can have the cloak of darkness rather than do what they do in full view. Paul is implying that we ought to and must live open lives and do nothing, of which we might be ashamed, especially if the Second Coming of Christ interrupted it.

Giving an account of our stewardship

Perhaps the apostle Paul has in mind the picture of a large household, the management of which has been left to various servants by the rich homeowner. Some of the servants take advantage of his goods and wine cellar and leave aside their duties and responsibility for a wild time. One servant, however, has kept his affairs in order, and rises early to go about his business, knowing that some day perhaps in the early morning (who knows?) his master will arrive. "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall being to smite his fellow-servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of. And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 24:44-51).

"And that servant, which knew his lords will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more" (Luke 12:47-48). What if having been given gifts, talents, and resources and having been instructed to trade with them to make them useful and profitable in extending our Masters estate ("occupy till I come" Luke 19:13) we should be asked suddenly to "give an account of stewardship"? (Luke 16:2) The call is to wake up and to get our house in order. It is "high time" - the crisis time of the crucial moments before the deadline of the judgement. The candle of night is burning very low, it is far-gone like a burning match that is very nearly spent, hardly anything is left. Paul is the watchman, calling out the last watch of the night. It is now the hour to be roused out of sleep. The apostle Peter makes the same point about remaining time in one of this letters. "He that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead". I Peter 4:1-5 The reasons and arguments that Peter uses are exactly the same as Paul's: the (sinful) past and the future (God's judgement day) must dominate our view of the present. Our past is a goad behind us; the shame and pain of it prodding us forward, the future is bright but with a holy brightness that shines on all of our life, exposing every area however private and undisclosed. Our consciences are quickened as we realise that we have already filled up our lives with so much that will shame us profoundly on that Day. As the parables indicate, the day of judgement will be a time of reward, (Rev. 22:12) what can we expect?

Casting off the works of darkness

Wake up to these facts, says Paul, wake up to these towering shadows of past and future that influence the present so totally. Compare the present with the past and the future, see how short the present is, you don't in fact know how long it will be and that is why each moment of it is precious. Too much time has been lost already. "All the time we spend in a sinful state is all lost time. O look to this you young ones. All the time you spend in the vanity of your youth is lost time, and you who have lived until you are old and have been a long time in a sinful state, you have lost all your time. O the time upon which eternity depends is all lost for you have spent it in the ways of sin which has no good in it at all". (Jeremiah Burroughs)

"Are you living like a pagan?" asks Paul, "Are you doing the works of darkness, hoping to get away with it unnoticed because none has found out?" "Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame" (I Corinthians 15:34). Are you flirting with the gross sins that Peter lists? Surely you know that God sees and won't ignore it? (Psalm 90:8). Have you lost your spiritual and moral alertness, drowsing away in apathy? You need a sudden recollection of forgotten duty. The ultimate mark of our generation is of course apathy: the tuned out, dropped out careless sloth of many a young person: the sleep of unconcern about their destiny, their existence and their lifestyle. There is a deadly apathy that is ignorant of coming judgement and will not listen to any warnings. "Seek him that...turneth the shadow of death into the morning...The LORD is his name" (Amos 5:8).

"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the masters use, and prepared unto every good work. Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart". (I Timothy 2:19-22).

Sinful practice and the works of darkness must be cast off and thrown away, these three vile pairs that Paul mentions in particular: rioting and drunkenness, chambering and wantonness, strife and envying.

The word translated "rioting" is rendered "revellings" in I Pet. 4:3 and Gal. 5:21. It means boisterous merrymaking, we might call it partying or clubbing in our day. In some evangelical churches up and down the land the youth fellowship after church consists of heading to the pub. Many university Christian unions find that their meetings must not be organised at a time that would prevent members from going to pubs and clubs. Is it right for a Christian to do these things? Are we free to if we want to? Our age and many Christians sadly say, "Yes, it's not forbidden really" or "its up to you to decide". As though the Scriptures had not said 'be not among winebibbers'.

Neither Paul nor Peter, however, is not afraid to draw the line and be seen to dictate how Christians ought to live, they are not vague and noncommittal at all. The word connected with "rioting" "drunkenness" means excess or "drinking bouts" (having alcoholic drink after alcoholic drink) and is generally translated as 'drunkenness'. "Take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares" (Luke 21:34).

"Chambering" might be translated as cohabitation, but probably has more a meaning of promiscuous sex (the word is related to conception in Rom. 9:10). "Wantonness" is a word sometimes translated "lasciviousness" (Mark 7:22, 2 Cor 12:21, Gal. 5:19, Eph 4:19) or lustfulness (I Peter 4:3). Paul would have used the Greek word for fornication if he meant that alone, but this would repeat the sense of "chambering". Paul is surely covering all relevant actions, attitudes, words, and motives.

We would do well to return to the Westminster catechisms. The Larger Catechism teaches us that the duties required in the seventh commandment: "chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behaviour; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance; keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel...diligent labour in our callings, shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto". The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment "besides the neglect of the duties required, are "all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behaviour, immodest apparel...idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others". There are Scripture proofs for all these statements too. All in all, it deals with lustfulness as the fuel and force of a wide range of sins, an excess of lust that totally dominates, possesses and controls. The way of guarding against this sin is to be strict in controlling what our eyes and ears take in.

Each pair of sins in Paul's list appears to deal firstly with shared sins and secondly with personal sins, he deals with the root as well as the outward manifestation. When he goes on to speak of strife and dissension, or fighting, he is dealing with the root of envy. Verbal strife comes from built up envy and frustrated selfishness (which is what envy is). The apostle James describes this sullen, selfish covetousness accurately. It is a spirit that seems to characterise the youth and youth culture of our day.

"From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts" James 4:1-3.

However, fashionable all these pairs of sinful practices are (and they are supremely fashionable since selfishness and serving ones own lusts are the only thing that apathy does not touch) they are clothes that we cannot wear. Instead we should prove our identity as children of God by putting on the armour or weapons of light. We cannot put on night-clothes in preparation for a battle and self-defence. The flimsiness of night-clothes could not be more different from battle-wear: wearing night-clothes on military duty or in battle is about as absurd as wearing armour in bed. We must be prepared at all times therefore, ready for action, ready either to be on the defensive or the offensive.

Put on Christ

In the Bible the metaphor of clothing generally represents character, ability, and commitment. To put on Christ - is to put on the armour of light, to draw upon our resources in union with him, to live out the new man in Christ Jesus. Union with Christ is the crucial fact of the Christian life: think of how much the New Testament uses the words "in Christ". Paul urges us to be what we really are; to live properly dressed wearing the new garments of holiness that speak of our new status as sons of God. We are to enjoy and to display what is ours. "Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breast plate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation." (I Thess. 5:5-8).

We are given the practical help of this last phrase "make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof". Paul is telling us how to avoid these sins of excess, these works of darkness. The crucial point concerns the mind, the command "make not provision" means "don't plan or think about such things beforehand", don't think about anything that would put you in a dangerous situation, and don't plan to put yourself there. Before you do things and enter into situations think about consequences and where it will lead. A thought sows an action. The answer is to make the things of God a conscious priority, to set your mind on things above and then there will not be room for sinfulness and even dubious things, we can only die more and more to sin as we live more and more to righteousness. This passage tells us that as Christians we can have no other lifestyle.

"Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately. blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them sit down to meat, and will some forth and serve them. And if he come in the second watch, or come in the third watch and find them so, blessed are those servants." (Luke 12:35-37, read also Matt 25:1-13).