Chapter 4 in a nut shell is a strong prohibition against idolatry – the worship of that which is Not God. He draws his admonition from the 2nd Commandment and supports from Romans 1. He comes down strong to say that the use of pictures and images in worship, which are designed to represent God or Jesus Christ, is wrong. Packer approvingly quotes the eminent Old Princeton theologian Charles Hodge:

“idolatry consists not only in the worship of false gods, but also in the worship of the true God by images.”

He reasons the use of images does two very grievous things to our worship:

• Images dishonor God, for the obscure his glory – nothing on earth can properly represent who God is – quoting Calvin – Packer says that doing such distorts and corrupts the Majesty of God in our minds.
• Images mislead us, for they convey false ideas about God – images become our focus and we begin to worship that image or view of God instead of God as he reveals himself to be – this will prevent the worship of God in truth.

Next Packer begins to take to task not only created images but mental images as well. He says that humans have no right to vainly speculate who God is or is not. The object of his critique at this point is theology that is purely speculative – not based upon biblical revelation – which is tantamount to mere guesswork (Packer 48). One question that did arise for me towards the end of this section is what appears to be an affront on the doctrine of analogy. I am taking it that he is critiquing a view of analogy that says we just guess who God is from natural theology alone – not the doctrine of analogy that makes our language about God meaningful.

In the 1993 edition there is a rejoinder which answers objections he has seen over the years as a result of this chapter. Namely:

• Christian worship requires the aesthetic and the visual arts – to this Packer says YES! but not in imagining God or Christ.
• The imagination must be sanctified and expressed – again Packer says YES! but says we should choose language as our tool for the imagination in the contemplation of God. I would add that this would allow us to treat the beauty of God in the abstract rather than the concrete/corporeal. Seeing God in the mind’s eye rather than with the physical eye.
• Crucifixes, images, pictures of Jesus are helpful in devotion – Packer says as soon as the images are treated as representational rather than symbolic they will corrupt the devotion they inspire – he says, rather to be safe than sorry.

In some sense I agree with his warning – to avoid representing the immortal, invisible, triune God with a earthbound image – such is impossible and yes, blasphemous. But the question arises – what of the Jesus Film which is used by churches and agencies world wide to lead people to the Lord and plant churches? What of Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ? What of the film, The Gospel of John whose script is the text of Scripture (albeit the somewhat loose Good News Bible) – These questions are unanswered by this chapter for me. Bottom line - I don't know that I would go as far as Packer does - there are many creative artitst that should unleash their visual gifts for our Lord - I agree not to depict God or the Trinity, but the arts have a powerful strength in helping us feel what we know by the Word...that which is good, right and true.

Out...

--------

Packer begins this chapter with a series of questions. What were we made for? To know God. What aim should we set for our lives? Ditto. Eternal Life? To know God. His point is clear the Summum bonum of life is to know the all satisfying God. Jeremiah tells us that if we are to boast in anything, we are to boast that we understand and know God (Jeremiah 9:23-24) Parenthetically evil is the reciprocal – to turn from God to other things for our life and satisfaction (Jeremiah 2:13)

Knowing God is the most perpetually thrilling and satisfying thing in life. It is truly the one thing that will never grow tired, dull, and lifeless over time. Only God is big enough to inspire wonder, to give love, to give us truth, and ultimate security for this life and the next.

A few quotes from GK Chesterton came to mind about the wonder of God and the joy of knowing him…and the drudgery of life without God…somewhat related:

There is a vital objection to the advice merely to grin and bear it. The objection is that if you merely bear it, you do not grin.

GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy (New York: NY, Image books, 1959) 104.

Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, “Do it again”; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, “Do it again” to the sun; and every evening, “Do it again” to the moon.

Ibid 58.

But what does it mean to know God? Packer lists several possibilities:

• An emotion
• A bodily experience
• Intellectual experience
• See a Vision
• Hear a Voice

All, I admit have crossed my mind at some point in my short life. Packer next begins by a discussion of how we know things – objects, animals, people, important people, and finally God. His line of thinking stems from this – to know a person they must reveal something to you about themselves, to know a high ranking person – they stoop low to reveal to someone of a lower standing. Such it is with God – he stoops love in his grace to love and reveal himself to us. Packer summarizes this short discourse with the following statement:

We must say that knowing God involves, first, listening to God’s Word [in this he means Scripture] and receiving it as the Holy Spirit interprets it, in application to oneself; second, noting the God’s nature and character, as his Word and works reveal it; third, accepting his invitations and doing what he commands; fourth, recognizing and rejoicing in the love that he has show in thus approaching you and drawing you into this divine fellowship.

JI Packer, Knowing God, Americanized Edition (Downers Grove: IL, Intervarsity Press, 1993) 37.

The next part of this chapter goes to Knowing Jesus – the God-man, the Word (Logos) made flesh. This Jesus is our access to God – to knowing God as he reveals himself in the person of Christ. Though the first disciples walked with Jesus bodily, we too walk with him today in intimate and personal fellowship through the Spirit. Jesus comes to us as our savior, to free us from sin, guilt, death, and judgment. Knowing Jesus is knowing the mercy of God.

I was refreshed to see Packer affirm the emotions in knowing God, as well as the intellect and the will. In our days, and in days past I suppose, we seem to ping pong back and forth between the emotional/existential and the intellectual/contemplative. Such balance is refreshing and indeed what I need for my soul. Both the call to THINK and to at times WEEP for JOY.

Packer closes the chapter reminding us that we know God by his grace because he reveals himself to us. He knows us and this is why we can know Him. His choice – a cause for pause and humility.

Out.

--------

With several papers looming from a summer class, with a new class finally crested onto the calendar (started a new on last week), I have no business picking up an unrelated book. But, alas, my amazon.com trigger finger did again get heavy this week and a little (well, maybe I should say large at 600 pages) showed up on my stoop. After having enjoyed George Marsden's book The Soul of the American University over Christmas break, I was even more excited to get to his new biography Jonathan Edwards - A Life (Yale Univesity Press). The new printing of the 2003 book in paperback sealed the deal and Amazon was up to the task. I probably won't finish this book for quite some time (hopefull I will, finish it) but finding an hour in it today was no disappointment. With Edwards studies growing and the influence of his thought surging through many in the current scene, reading about this life is of interest to me. A quick outline of this man's life is available here - http://www.yale.edu/wje/html/life_of__edwards.html. Out... --------

I have known God and that is all that matters. Not known about God, not facts concerning God nor right theology, but I have known God and nothing else matters. Such is the subject of Chapter 2 of Knowing God. In all of our talk about salvation, truth, God, Christ, heaven, hell, redemption, and the life to come do we really know God in such a way that nothing else matters. This is Packer’s challenge to us.

Certainly a challenging question to me. In my life I have seen days of arid spiritual dryness that I have seen in my life when I have doubted and questioned my knowledge of God. Yet there have been days soaked with the rains of a vision of God so powerful that I had no choice but weep in thanksgiving that such a presence was so close to my soul.

The essence of this chapter – the reality of our personal, intimate knowledge of God cannot be dodged, nor should it. In the mundane of life, the everyday normalcy of existence, how we need to know the heart, the character, and the voice of the one who breaks into our world and overwhelms us with his grace. I have wrestled with this in my reading (particularly in Jonathan Edwards Religious Affections and a contemporary work by Donald Whitney, Ten Questions to Diagnose Your Spiritual Health), I have wrestled with it in watching those I love in anguish of soul and heart ache, I have wrestled with it in the midst of agonizing intellectual questions that seemed to have no end, but in the end my soul has been comforted by God in the midst of the journey. One thing is certain, I desire to know God in the way Packer describes (great energy for God, great thoughts about God, great boldness for God in spite of harsh consequences, and great contentment in God alone) but feel so far from obtaining such a loft height.

A quote from Edwards came to mind – in the state of my weak affections and desire to know God. Humbled to dust…

So has God disposed things, in the affair of our redemption, and in his glorious dispensations, revealed to us in the gospel, as though everything were purposely contrived in such a manner, as to have the greatest possible tendency to reach our hearts in the most tender part, and move our affections most sensibly and strongly. How great cause have we therefore to be humbled to the dust, that we are no more affected!

Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections, Banner of Truth Edition (Carlisle:PA, Banner of Truth Trust, 2001) 53.

--------

The book begins with a rather lengthy quote from Charles Hadden Spurgeon. A wonderful quote which I will not reproduce here for the sake of time exhorted and encouraged me about the nature of Theology, the study of the divine. First, it humbles the mind. Spurgeon writes:

But when we come to this master science, finding that our plumbline cannot sound its depth, and that our eagle eye cannot see its height, we turn away with the thought that vain main would be wise, but he is like a wild ass’s colt; and with solemn exclamation, “I am but yesterday, and know nothing.” No subject of contemplation will tend more to humble the mind, than thoughts of God…

Quoted in JI Packer, Knowing God, Americanized Edition (Downers Grove: IL, Intervarsity Press, 1993) 18.

Second, theology enlarges the mind. Again Spurgeon helps us:

Nothing will so enlarge the intellect, nothing so magnify the whole soul of man, as a devout, earnest, continued investigation of the great subject of the Deity.

Ibid. 18.

Finally, not only does theology both humble the mind and set the mind ablaze, the contemplation of Christ is also a balm for every wound and speaks peace to the winds of trial.

The study of God, who He is, who I am in light of Him, the purpose and nature of my life in reference to the will of God for the Universe – such is the content of Theology, such is central to human existence. Packer writes that one disregards God and Theology at our own peril. The neglecting thereof, results in what he calls the wasting of life and the loss of one’s soul:

Disregard the study of God and you sentence yourself to stumble and blunder through life blindfolded, as it were, with no sense of direction and no understanding of what surrounds you. This way you can waste your life and loose your soul.

Packer, 19.

After laying out five foundational areas of study for theology ( God speaking in his word, God as Lord and King over all, God as Savior in Jesus Christ, God as triune, Godliness as response in obedience and faith to God’s revelation), speaking of basic themes in the study of God (his noncommunicable attributes, his powers, perfections) he moves on to close the chapter by warning those who will study such lofty and glorious things not to allow such knowledge to puff us up with arrogance. The chapter closes with a great explanation of what it means for one to meditate on the truth about God in relationship with and in humble submission before God Himself. Christian Meditation, lost in today’s busy and buzzing world of church programs and bottom shelf faith, is described with great clarity in the finals words of this chapter:

Meditation is the activity of calling to mind, and thinking over, and dwelling on, and applying to oneself, the various things that one knows about the works and ways and purposes and promises of God. It is an activity of holy thought, consciously performed in the presence of God, under the eye of God, by the help of God, as a means to communion with God.

Its purpose is to clear one’s mental and spiritual vision of God, and to let his truth make its full and proper impact on one’s mind and heart. It is a matter of talking to oneself about God and oneself; it is, indeed, often a matter of arguing with oneself, reasoning oneself out of moods of doubt and unbelief into a clear apprehension of God’s power and grace.

Packer, 23.

And with that – I just say Amen! Oh, if more of our counselors and psychologists would prescribe more of the like.

--------

Over the next couple of months I will be in a class studying systematic theology (Prolegomena, The doctrine of revelation and the Bible, and Theology Proper) - in plain language the class is about a systematic study of the major doctrines of the Christian faith. Part of the class will be working through the book Knowing God by JI Packer professor emeritus at Regent College, and thinking out loud about the content of its pages. I figured I would use POC Blog as the vehicle. Hopefully you won't be bored to death by the thoughts and perhaps encouraged to pick up the book. Packer's book is one which is becoming a classic in a short amount of time. --------

For anyone out there who has heard the ever increasing choir of those "who are emerging" "who are reimaging - church, evangelism, spirituality" "Who are in the next wave" "Who see all things as dance" proclaiming judgment upon everthing "of modernity" let’s do this as an exercise in “PoMo/Emerging Christian” understanding – This is a good one to use as an exercise - http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=825 Read it first at the link above, then go below - I’ll comment on this as we go in bold, to show how much of this is just language games and silliness and we really need to get on with something much more productive for the Kingdom of God. Your modern, no your modern, no I'm postmodern...yada, yada - is getting waaaaay old.

The "Rule of Pinky"
by John O'Keefe
Saturday July 24, 2004

PAGE: 1

While I would never say there should be a “litmus test” (such tests are wrong for the “postmodern”– because they imply certainty – in other words – they don’t like things so tightened down)for being a postmodern/emerging community of faith, I will say just claiming to be one does not make you one. I am Irish. I could claim to be German, learn the language, learn the culture, and learn to like the food (I all ready like the beer), but I would not be German (he is stating a combination of two principles known as the law of identity – something IS what it IS and the law of non-Contradiction – Something cannot be what it is and NOT what it is at the same time and in the same sense – these are logical maxims that PoMos usually deny, but then use in their arguments – as he will do – ie I’m not going to give you a test – I don’t believe it that – but here is a test). At best, I would be an Irishman who appreciates German culture. And at worst, I would be a person seeking to be what he is not for some alternative gain.The same is true within the postmodern/emerging conversation. For example, if Willowcreek or Saddleback (the always hated mega church) today decided to call itself "postmodern/emerging" that would not make it so. If a church calls itself postmodern/emerging, just because it is trying to reach a "younger crowd," that self-imposed label doesn’t make the church an actual postmodern/emerging community of faith. Let me restate my opening line again, while I would never (there it is again) say there was an absolute "litmus test" for a postmodern/emerging community of faith I do have to say that there are “standards.” (what is that but a rule to judge by? – putting it in quotes does not change this – now we all really believe in standards to judge something to be what it is – so why play games and act like we do not) There has to be something that marks a postmodern/emerging community of faith. These “standards” may be loose, “unofficial,” and even questionable, (then how useful are they) but I think they are central (read core to their identity – can’t be one without it – so they are not so loose and unofficial after all) to all postmodern/emerging communities of faith; you can see them as a kind of “rule of pinky” (thumbs are too modern) (that is just silly, I would say stupid, but my daughter won't let me use that word any more) that I think we can use to determine if a community of faith is, or is not, postmodern/emerging.How it came to be:At ginkworld.net we receive over 100 requests a month from different communities of faith to be added to the “community of faith listing” (which is vast and growing). And out of those, we may add only 10 to 15. Most of the requests are from churches that are very modern, very "willowback" (read 666) in structure and style. Some of these churches desire to call themselves “postmodern/emerging” not because they are, but because they see “postmodern/emerging” as the “new thing,” the “next-wave” in ministry, the “edge,” or the “cool thing to do.” They have no idea what it means to be postmodern/emerging (who does?). They read Kimball, Sweet, or some other author, and they feel if they don’t catch this wave they'll miss the beach all together. (Well, most of these authors tell people that they are “Missing the point”, that Christianity must change to mirror the culture or be irrelevant etc. There are books, convergences, web sites, conversations, experiences, ad nauseum which say precisely this – change or miss the beach all together) Others desire to be added to our list because they want to “attract and fix” people with a postmodern/emerging mind. One church asked that we add them, and when we sent them a email explaining that they would not be added (we have now stopped giving rejection emails) to explain why we did not add them – they got mad. They were not angry because they were postmodern/emerging and we missed it—they admitted as much. All they wanted was to be listed so they could minister to, as the senior pastor put it, “the lost postmodern believers who are being tricked into thinking that anything but ‘the true church of Christ’ is the answer.”This led us to ask some very important questions:

• Just because they desire to call themselves "postmodern/emerging," must we agree and post them?
• What would we see as central to a “postmodern/emerging” community of faith?
• If we did post those that were questionable, are we being honest to our call?
• Are we being honest to those who are looking for something different when they come to our site to find a “postmodern/emerging” community of faith?
• If we left to a committee (very modern idea) (gasp) to decide, who would be put on?

The question for us became, “How do we decide who to add to a list of “postmodern/emerging” communities of faith and still be honest, open, and direct concerning it? Over time, we developed the following criteria that works for us (always add the “for us” – that eliminates sounding like you are making an absolute judgment – but why can’t a modernist church be a postmodern/emerging church if these are just “their” standards – who are they to judge who is and who is not postmodern). But with all that being said, let me share with you that at some level this is still something each and every person needs to ask him or herself (it is person relative, or “community relative” for the more academically sophisticated postmodern). These are basic criteria, and not, by any means, to be taken as “written in stone.” (can’t do that, can’t be certain – but heck, God did write some things in stone – and those things can be understand by human beings – God reveals by writing some things in stone, and he did give us a book, a Bible – am I WRONG?)

“the rule of pinky” (playful and being cute are postmodern trademarks – they could not say “The Rules that Make You a Postmodern/Missional/Emerging Community – because that would be too “modern” of them.)

• A postmodern/emerging community of faith needs to have a willingness to encourage it’s participants to extend the self to the world around.
• As a gathering, they need to have a desire to see “community” as something more then a collection of small tribes, and they need to be able to see past their own tribe to that of others. They need to move from inside the community to a place of “uncomfort” and be in mission to all.
• A postmodern/emerging community of faith needs a willingness to move past what is, and redefine what will be. While we would never ask them to be innovators, we would expect them not to be imitators. If what the community is seeking to do is imitate another community, then that is not seeing what can be – but only living what is. When people “imitate” that tells us they see this as another “church program” and not a true expression of community and self. (This is a key problem I have with some in this movement – God’s idea was the church – it is not ours to make up as we go – there better be some imitation through the centuries, in fact for all of time, else the gospel is completely washed away by expressing “self” and “community” – Jude 3 tells us differently – that there is something once for ALL entrusted to us)
• A postmodern/emerging community of faith needs a willingness to treat all people as equals. When we say “all people,” we mean all people, regardless of age, race, gender, belief system or any other “box” we can think of, are equal in the eyes of God. (AMEN!!! Equal in God’s eyes because of what we are – made in his image. But let’s not let this thinking degrade into universalism as I have seen on many a pomo message board – Jesus taught that there are sheep and goats)
• A postmodern/emerging community of faith has a willingness to hear the voices of others. The idea that we accept people is cool, but if you are not going to hear them, we are simply speaking empty words; it is not just “hear” it is “listen.” (Sure, this is just being a kind and courteous person. But what does it mean to listen to someone who denies that Jesus is who Jesus says he is – I will love that person, hang with them, but I will not listen if listen means accept the truth of what everyone says – or that everything that someone says is even valuable.)
• A postmodern/emerging community of faith has a willingness to not be driven by programs, building or budgets. It does not center on what it has but on what it can do with that it has. (Again, this is not very thoughtful – if one goes to “do something” one has to take action. If doing it together, it must be organized otherwise you cannot do something “together” – scrap the building – fine by me, but if money is given to the elders of a community of faith it better be stewarded – God requires this – and spending what you do not have is bad news – so you better have a budget. Perhaps what needs to be said is “not by programs, buildings, or budgets” which leave God out, which are prayerless, which give not thought to the Spirit and Word of God.)
  The idea that there are no standards to be a postmodern/emerging church is just not the case. There may be no “hard and fast” rules (then why exclude others from the PoMo club), and it may be hard to apply the standards. To be honest, all of them do not have to be 100% on the line; there is room for grace. Just keep in mind, I don't think anyone who has written any book with a postmodern/emerging slant has ever suggested that there was no standard. (Good, now let’s just give up the game and talk about what is good, right and true – from our tradition and faith given to us by God)

Anyway, let God (the Trinity) be true, and may our hearts and minds seek after he who is the truth.

Out

--------

This morning I listened to to message on the life and teaching of the 20th century English preacher - Martin Lloyd-Jones (see John Piper's manuscript on Lloyd-Jones, audio available in the series Men of Whom the World is Not Worthy). A medical doctor by his early twenties, Lloyd-Jones had a powerful conversion to Christ and experienced an unmistakable call to be a herald of the good news. Among other things, Lloyd-Jones desired to see a powerful visitation of the Spirit of God upon people that was manifested through preacher and vindicated by powerful works of God. This speaks afresh to todays debates within the Christian church as to the role and reality of "signs and wonders" "spiritual gifts" etc. These debates between the "cessasionists" - those who say that such signs and gifts have "ceased" and those generally lumped together as "charismatics" - Lloyd-Jones had strong critique for both and seemed to call for a balance of the two. In other words, signs and wonders never replace the preaching of the gospel. Signs and wonders are not what convert and save sinners. But on the other hand. Such signs never diminished the role of preaching in the New Testament. That messages preached were at times accompanied by demonstrations of the works of the Spirit. The two need not be anti-thetical. Lloyd-Jones offers some good advice for both sides and perhaps carves out well a middle position for those who desire the Word of God to be studied, understood, taught and preached without thinking this means that God cannot show his power in this physical world through certain manifestations of the Spirit. The following two lists may prove helpful - these are directly from John Piper's maunscipt:

Martin Lloyd-Jones' Criticisms of the Pentecostalism He Knew

1. He insisted that revival have a sound doctrinal basis. And from what he saw there was a minimization of doctrine almost everywhere that unity and renewal were being claimed (see note 53). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth and revival will be shallow and short-lived without deeper doctrinal roots than the charismatic tree seems to have.
2. Charismatics put too much stress on what they do and not enough emphasis on the freedom and sovereignty of the Spirit, to come and go on his own terms. "Spiritual gifts," he says, "are always controlled by the Holy Spirit. they are given, and one does not know when they are going to be given" (see note 54). You can pray for the baptism of the Spirit, but that does not guarantee that it happens ... It is in his control. He is the Lord. He is a sovereign Lord and he does it in his own time and in his own way (see note 55).
3. Charismatics sometimes insist on tongues as a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit which of course he rejects. It seems to be that the teaching of the Scripture itself, plus the evidence of the history of the church, establishes the fact that the baptism with the Spirit is not always accompanied by particular gifts (see note 56).
4. But even more often most charismatics claim to be able to speak in tongues whenever they want to. This, he argues is clearly against what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:18, "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all." If he and they could speak in tongues any time they chose, then there would be no point in thanking God that the blessing of tongues is more often given to him than to them (see note 57).
5. Too often, experiences are sought for their own sake rather than for the sake of empowerment for witness and for the glory of Christ (see note 58). The aim is not to have experiences in themselves but to empower for outreach and making Christ known (see note 59) ... We must test anything that claims to be a movement of the Spirit in terms of its evangelistic power (see note 60) ... The supreme test of anything that claims to be the work of the Holy Spirit is John 16:14 -- "He shall glorify me" (see note 61).
6. Charismatics can easily fall into the mistake of assuming that if a person has powerful gifts that person is thus a good person and is fit to lead and teach. This is not true. Lloyd-Jones is aware that baptism with the Holy Spirit and the possession of gifts does not certify one's moral fitness to minister or speak for God. The spiritual condition at Corinth, in terms of sanctification, was low and yet there was much evidence of divine power. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is primarily and essentially a baptism with power ... [But] there is no direct connection between the baptism with the Holy Spirit and sanctification (see note 62) ... It is something that can be isolated, whereas sanctification is a continuing and a continuous process (see note 63).
7. Charismatics characteristically tend to be more interested in subjective impressions and unusual giftings than in the exposition of Scripture. Be suspicious, he says, of any claim to a "fresh revelation of truth" (see note 64). (In view of what he said above concerning how the Holy Spirit speaks today in guidance, he cannot mean here that all direct communication from God is ruled out.)
8. Charismatics sometimes encourage people to give up control of their reason and to let themselves go. Lloyd-Jones disagrees. "We must never let ourselves go" (see note 65). A blank mind is not advocated in the Scriptures (see note 66). the glory of Christianity is what we can "at one and the same time ... be gripped and lifted up by the Spirit and still be in control" (see 1 Cor. 14:32) (see note 67). We must always be in a position to test all things, since Satan and hypnotism can imitate the most remarkable things (see note 68).

Martin Lloyd-Jones' Warnings to Spirit-Quenching Formalists

But having said all that, by way of warning and balance, Lloyd-Jones comes back to the strong affirmation of openness to the supernatural demonstration of power that the world needs so badly. Of those who sit back and point their finger at the charismatic excesses of good people he says, "God have mercy upon them! God have mercy upon them! It is better to be too credulous than to be carnal and to be smug and dead (see note 69).
He even describes how many people quench the Spirit through fear of the unusual or supernatural.

• This has often happened: in a meeting ... you begins to be afraid as to what is going to happen and to say, "If I do this what will take place?" That is quenching the Spirit. It is resisting his general movement upon your spirit. You feel his gracious influence, and then you hesitate and are uncertain or you are frightened. That is quenching the Spirit (see note 70).
• Certain people by nature are afraid of the supernatural, of the unusual, of disorder. You can be so afraid of disorder, so concerned about discipline and decorum and control, that you become guilty of what the Scripture calls "quenching the Spirit" (see note 71).

Such balance is refreshing, especially from one of the founders of Banner of Truth Trust

Out

--------

--------

Last night I read a great piece on the nature of anger, contempt, and slanderous speech. Now right, what a fun life I lead to read such wonderful topics. But seriously, it was about the teaching of Jesus on anger and our relationships to others in a great book I am reading (Dallas Willard's The Divine Conspiracy - we'll probably blog a bit in the coming weeks on this book). The passage discussed is found in Jesus' sermon given on a hillside - a short but world-changing discourse that philosophers pupils, and preachers have marveled at for centuries. As recorded in Matthew's gospel (Matt 5):

Verses 21,22 - "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.

1) Anger is a response to others and circumstances which arises when something thwarts our will - we get angry when someone messes up our game plan. Anger in and of it self is not necessarily bad - in fact, there are some things which ought to make us angry. However, anger which lingers, which stews, and boils in the cauldron of the soul becomes a root in the affections from which the most heinous of human evils flows. Jesus said, it is anger towards a brother that makes us liable to judgment. 2) Contempt finds its origin in unresolved anger and resentment of another. It moves past "he made me angry" to "that guy makes me sick" - Insult, contempt for another - Jesus, warns us in Matthew 5 - is a high crime that is worthy of judgment at the council - or the tribunal that ruled on the affairs of people. 3) Slanderous speech! "You Fool!" - moving from anger to contempt into cursing another - for our day saying to another "You Fool" sounds very tame. How can that possibly be that bad of a thing - the word used in the New Testament here is actually "Raca" - a harsh term of abuse used to slander and insult. "That guy is a piece of #%$@!" - would better explain the term in our day. That may sound harsh, but that is the nature of the heart Jesus is describes. To devalue that which God has declared immeasurably valuable - the human soul defiled in the heart and speech of another - it is worthy of hell.

How much of the pain in our world - violence and murder have found their seat on the pride and offended will of man which brought forth his anger. James' advice is well taken -

• Quick to listen - showing value to others
• Slow to speak - shut my big mouth, for how much stuff that flows from our traps becomes a trap for others
• Slow to become angry - Why? It does not bring about the righteousness that God desires...nor peace, nor hope, nor love, nor healing for communities, nor passion for the good, nor anything else profitable.

If anger comes because of the view of evil and injustice - may it move us to action - not angry souls at war with the world, viewing all as an enemy. May we ever remember that there is an enemy but it is not your neighbor - such an enemy must be fought with weapons not carnal. Now, what of pacifism? The role of the state to bear the sword of wrath against wickedness (Rom 13) - such will have to wait for other days.

Out

--------