The Wanderer

Read why Tim Challies

found this a particularly compelling biography. Jobs was clearly a very complex individual and Isaacson has succeeded in creating a fascinating character study. I learned a lot from reading it and am still trying to absorb and express those lessons. As is often the case when I read a biography, it will undoubtedly take several weeks or months for it all to settle.

I learned earlier today that Steve Jobs’ last words were, “Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow.” What I wouldn’t give to know what it was that he understood or perceived in those last moments. I wonder if he finally understood futility, that in all of his creativity, in all of his enlightenment, that he had missed the truest light of all.

When Hugh Latimer spoke, he spoke forcefully. His sermons cover many topics, not all of them connected to the text that he takes, but almost invariably full of good matter. What follows is taken from his “sixth sermon, preached on the first Sunday in Advent, 1552” on Romans 13.8-9 (“Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”). In the course of the sermon he touches on Romans 14.17, and begins to deal with the matter of gluttony, and deals a little tangentially with the matter of “eating and drinking,” offering to his congregation some “hedges” to put about their consumption, some guides and guards to prevent sin in eating and drinking. Firstly, he says, we should not eat raw and/or human flesh; secondly, we should only eat what belongs to us (it must not be stolen food).

When I hit the third hedge, I was struck in my own conscience, as well as with regard to the attitude of the society to which I belong. I read yesterday that one in four people in the UK is considered to be obese (not sure what the measure is), and that the proportion is expected to rise to one in two within a generation or so. Whether or not those figures and projections are accurate, I think it fair to say that the modern West is not exactly exemplary with regard to self-control and righteous moderation in the matter of food and drink. Latimer offers a pretty straightforward corrective:

Now then ye will say, “So it be my own, then I may eat of it as much as I will.” No, not so; there is another hedge. I may not commit gluttony with my own meat; for so it is written, Attendite vobia a crapula et ebrietate, “Take heed of gluttony and drunkenness.” Here is a hedge; we may not eat too much; for when we do, we displease God highly. So ye see that we may not eat of our own meat as much as we would, but rather we must keep a measure; for it is a great sin to abuse or waste the gifts of God, and to play the glutton with it. When one man consumeth as much as would serve three or four, that is an abominable thing before God; for God giveth us his creatures, not to abuse them, but to use them to our necessity and need. Let every one, therefore, have a measure, and let no man abuse the gifts of God. One man sometimes eateth more than another; we are not all alike: but for all that we ought to keep us within this hedge; that is, to take no more than sufficeth our nature; for they that abuse the gifts of God, no doubt they greatly displease God by so doing. For it is an ill-favoured thing, when a man eateth or drinketh too much at a time. Sometimes, indeed, it happeneth that a man drinketh too much; but every good and godly man will take heed to himself; when he once hath taken too much he will beware afterward. We read in scripture of Noah, that good man, which was the first that planted vineyards after the flood; he was once drunken, before he knew the strength and the nature of wine, and so lay in the tent uncovered. Now one of his sons, whose name was Cham, seeing his father lying naked, went and told his brethren of it, and so made a mocking-stock of his father. Therefore Noah, when he arose and had digested his wine, and knowing what his son had done unto him, cursed him: but we read not that Noah was drunken afterward at any time more. Therefore if ye have been drunken at any time, take heed henceforward, and leave off; abuse not the good creatures of God.

There are always opportunities for us to over-indulge, and the season of feasting is almost upon us, whether it be Thanksgiving or Christmas. Let us heed Latimer’s counsel. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Let us beware of despising the Old Testament under any pretence whatever. Let us never listen to those who bid us throw it aside as an obsolete, antiquated, useless book. The religion of the Old Testament is the germ of Christianity. The Old Testament is the Gospel in the bud. The New Testament is the Gospel in full flower.— The Old Testament is the Gospel in the blade. The New Testament is the Gospel in full car.—The saints in the Old Testament saw many things through a glass darkly. But they all looked by faith to the same Saviour, and were led by the same Spirit as ourselves. These are no light matters. Much infidelity begins with an ignorant contempt of the Old Testament.

Let us, for another thing, beware of despising the law of the Ten Commandments. Let us not suppose for a moment that it is set aside by the Gospel, or that Christians have nothing to do with it. The coming of Christ did not alter the position of the Ten Commandments one hair’s breadth. If anything, it exalted and raised their authority. (Rom. iii. 31.) The law of the Ten Commandments is God’s eternal measure of right and wrong. By it is the knowledge of sin. By it the Spirit shows men their need of Christ, and drives them to Him. To it Christ refers His people as their rule and guide for holy living. In its right place it is just as important as ” the glorious Gospel.”—It cannot save us. We cannot be justified by it. But never, never let us despise it. It is a symptom of an ignorant and unhealthy state of religion, when the law is lightly esteemed. The true Christian “delights in the law of God.” (Rom. vii. 22.)

J. C. Ryle, Expository thoughts on Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 5:13-20)

. . . but the one thing that I can’t get out of my head after reading this post is that someone exists – and this is by no means to cast any nasturtiums on the man himself – whose name is Paxson Jeancake.

If you really think that you can beat that, please attempt to do so in the comments.

What follows is a tract of penetrating honesty written by Archibald Alexander, found in Practical Truths (32-34). The tract is entitled “Christianity in its nature aggressive,” and Alexander is blunt in addressing – way ahead of the game – the foibles and follies of Christianity struggling to get to grips with postmodernity and its dogmas of relativism and pluralism (ironic that so many should so dogmatically assert the absence of dogma and so dogmatically assault those who disagree). You don’t have to agree with the particular emphases of his last paragraph to find it bracing stuff:

In the charter which Christ gave to his disciples, who formed the first church under the new dispensation, the first command is one which requires action. “Go,” says he. Every Christian must be on the alert. He has marching orders from the Captain of his salvation. He cannot sit down in ease and idleness, and yet be a Christian. As the father said to his son in the parable, “Go, work in my vineyard,” so Christ says to every disciple; and it will not answer to say, “I go, sir,” and yet refuse obedience. We must be doers of the word, and not mere hearers. We must be doers of the word, and not mere professors [those making a profession]. The command given by the risen Saviour is still in force, and as it was obligatory on all who heard it at first, so it is binding on all who hear it now. “Go.”

But what are we to do? “Proselyte.” Make disciples. Convert to Christianity. The very word “proselyte” will frighten some people. No heresy in their view is so great as sectarism. But Christianity is so intolerant, that it will bear no other religion; it seeks to overthrow every other system. It if would have admitted the claims of other religions, it would have escaped persecution. But no; it denounced every other system and mode of worship as hateful to God, and destructive to the soul. And it made every disciple a proselyter. And every one now, whether male or female, bond or free, Jew or Greek, who professes Christianity, takes upon himself or herself the obligation to convert others to Christianity.

Consider the extent of the field in which we are called to labor. “Go into all the world.” “God, teach,” make disciples of, “all nations.” And when converted, let the new proselytes not be ashamed to avow their allegiance to the King of Zion, by assuming his badge. Let them be baptized into the name of the Holy Trinity. Now they are in the school of Christ, and must be carefully taught all his commandments.

Here is a great work, requiring the coöperation of all who are already initiated. The greatest charity in the world is the communication of divine truth to the ignorant. Must all preach the word? Yes, in a certain sense, and according to their ability, and in observance of due order. All may teach. All Christians are bound to teach – the parent his children, the master his servants, the schoolmaster his scholars, the citizen his more ignorant neighbours, the colporteur [carrier of books and other literature] the families he visits with books and tracts, the pastor his flock, and the missionary the unconverted Jew and heathen. Here is work enough for all, and all may labor in their appropriate sphere; but all must labor: the duty is incumbent on them, and the obligation cannot be evaded.

The time seems to be coming, predicted by Daniel, when “many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” What a change within the last half century! Then there were no Bible societies, no tract societies, no Sunday-schools, no colporteurs, no Protestant missionaries. There is, indeed, another time predicted, when there shall be no need for one to say to his neighbour, “Know the Lord; for all shall know him from the least to the greatest.” Then the work will be completed; but O, how much teaching must there be before the hundreds of millions of souls now ignorant, shall be so instructed as that none shall need further teaching. But perhaps the prophecy does not mean that none shall need farther instruction, but farther admonition – not that all shall have learned enough, but all will be fully disposed to learn. Blessed time! teaching will be then an easy as well as a delightful business.

Sometimes, Christians with a sympathetic view of culture (like myself) have a tendency to treat it all—including technology—as though it were neutral, but this isn’t the case. Like all of creation, the technological world bears witness to God’s glory and goodness with its undoubted helpfulness, its moments of beauty, and its occasional ability to inspire awe. But also like all of creation, it bears the stain and destructive power of sin, introducing us to whole new ways to destroy relationships, disrupt our lives, and distract from the glory we were created to behold.

I enjoyed Mike Cosper’s thoughtful piece on technology (remember, he’s a New Calvinist, so he means Apple!) and the distance it puts between us and the reality – the people and things – with which we need to engage.

In The Holy War, John Bunyan imagines a council of war among the hosts of Diabolus. Having entered Mansoul (now repentant and crying out to Emmanuel for help) but failed to conquer the castle of the heart, they are assessing the best way of accomplishing their ends. The suggestion has been made that Mansoul will be most effectively overcome if it is allowed to wreck itself. If the Diabolonians can only tempt and encourage the town to sin, they shall have attained their objective. The question then becomes, how can this temptation and encouragement be accomplished?

It is Lucifer who gives the answer. In essence, force has only driven Mansoul to Emmanuel for assistance. He suggests, in its place, fraud:

Then Lucifer stood up, and said, ‘The counsel of Beelzebub is pertinent. Now, the way to bring this to pass, in mine opinion, is this: let us withdraw our force from the town of Mansoul; let us do this, and let us terrify them no more, either with summons, or threats, or with the noise of our drum, or any other awakening means. Only let us lie in the field at a distance, and be as if we regarded them not; for frights, I see, do but awaken them, and make them more stand to their arms. I have also another stratagem in my head: you know Mansoul is a market-town, and a town that delights in commerce; what, therefore, if some of our Diabolonians shall feign themselves far-country men, and shall go out and bring to the market of Mansoul some of our wares to sell; and what matter at what rates they sell their wares, though it be but for half the worth? Now, let those that thus shall trade in their market be those that are witty and true to us, and I will lay my crown to pawn it will do. There are two that are come to my thoughts already, that I think will be arch at this work, and they are Mr. Penny-wise-Pound-foolish, and Mr. Get-i’the-hundred-and-Lose-i’the-shire; nor is this man with the long name at all inferior to the other. What, also, if you join with them Mr. Sweet-World and Mr. Present-Good? they are men that are civil and cunning, but our true friends and helpers. Let these, with as many more, engage in this business for us, and let Mansoul be taken up in much business, and let them grow full and rich, and this is the way to get ground of them. Remember ye not that thus we prevailed upon Laodicea, and how many at present do we hold in this snare? Now, when they begin to grow full, they will forget their misery; and if we shall not affright them, they may happen to fall asleep, and so be got to neglect their town watch, their castle watch, as well as their watch at the gates.

‘Yea, may we not, by this means, so cumber Mansoul with abundance, that they shall be forced to make of their castle a warehouse, instead of a garrison fortified against us, and a receptacle for men of war. Thus, if we get our goods and commodities thither, I reckon that the castle is more than half ours. Besides, could we so order it that it shall be filled with such kind of wares, then if we made a sudden assault upon them, it would be hard for the captains to take shelter there. Do you not know that of the parable, “The deceitfulness of riches choke the word”? and again, “When the heart is over-charged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and the cares of this life,” all mischief comes upon them at unawares?

‘Furthermore, my lords,’quoth he, ‘you very well know that it is not easy for a people to be filled with our things, and not to have some of our Diabolonians as retainers to their houses and services. Where is a Mansoulian that is full of this world, that has not for his servants and waiting men, Mr. Profuse, or Mr. Prodigality, or some other of our Diabolonian gang, as Mr. Voluptuous, Mr. Pragmatical, Mr. Ostentation, or the like? Now these can take the castle of Mansoul, or blow it up, or make it unfit for a garrison for Emmanuel, and any of these will do. Yea, these, for aught I know, may do it for us sooner than an army of twenty thousand men. Wherefore, to end as I began, my advice is, that we quietly withdraw ourselves, not offering any further force, or forcible attempts, upon the castle, at least at this time; and let us set on foot our new project, and let us see if that will not make them destroy themselves.’

This advice was highly applauded by them all, and was accounted the very masterpiece of hell, namely, to choke Mansoul with a fulness of this world, and to surfeit her heart with the good things thereof.

And hasn’t it worked well in the 21^st century? How many of God’s people living in the ease and comforts of the modern West have for their servants and waiting men such members of the “Diabolonian gang” as Mr. Profuse, Mr. Prodigality, Mr. Voluptuous, Mr. Pragmatical, Mr. Ostentation, or the like? We should take care that we do not destroy ourselves.

John Newton, writing in the delightful day when to waste an empty space on your paper would be a crying shame, and fortunately having plenty to write about to fill up the gap:

And now, how shall I fill up the rest of my paper? It is a shame for a Christian and a minister to say he has no subject at hand, when the inexhaustible theme of redeeming love is ever pressing upon our attention. I will tell you then, though you know it, that the Lord reigns.

He who once bore our sins, and carried our sorrows, is seated upon a throne of glory, and exercises all power in heaven and on earth. Thrones, principalities, and powers, bow before him. Every event in the kingdoms of providence and of grace is under his rule. His providence pervades and manages the whole, and is as minutely attentive to every part, as if there were only that single object in his view. From the tallest archangel to the meanest ant or fly, all depend on him for their being, their preservation, and their powers. He directs the sparrows where to build their nests, and to find their food. He overrules the rise and fall of nations, and bends, with an invincible energy and unerring wisdom, all events; so that, while many intend nothing less, in the issue, their designs all concur and coincide in the accomplishment of his holy will. He restrains with a mighty hand the still more formidable efforts of the powers of darkness; and Satan, with all his hosts, cannot exert their malice a hair’s breadth beyond the limits of his permission.

This is He who is the head and husband of his believing people. How happy are they who it is his good pleasure to bless! How safe are they whom He has engaged to protect! How honoured and privileged are they to whom He is pleased to manifest himself, and whom He enables and warrants to claim him as their friend and their portion! Having redeemed them by his own blood, He sets a high value upon them; He esteems them his treasure, his jewels, and keeps them as the pupil of his eye. They shall not want; they need not fear; his eye is upon them in every situation, his ear is open to their prayers, and his everlasting arms are under them for their sure support. On earth He guides their steps, controls their enemies, and directs all his dispensations for their good; while, in heaven, He is pleading their cause, preparing them a place, and communicating down to them reviving foretastes of the glory that shall be shortly revealed.

Oh how is this mystery hidden from an unbelieving world! Who can believe it, till it is made known by experience, what an intercouse is maintained in this land of shadows between the Lord of glory and sinful worms? How should we praise him that He has visited us! for we were once blind to his beauty, and insensible to his love, and should have remained so to the last, had He not prevented us with his goodness, and been found of us when we sought him not.

The Letters of John Newton, “To Mrs. Place,” (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2007), 237-239.

via The Old Guys.

I am giving a little time at present to editing what I hope will be a shortly-forthcoming volume from Reformation Heritage Books. American usage has dictated a very subtle change of title – “You better drop that hyphen if you know what’s good for you, punk!” – and so we are now working on The Brokenhearted Evangelist. In addition to John MacArthur’s kind commendation, Conrad Mbewe has also been kind enough to offer this endorsement:

Jeremy Walker’s book is in the tradition of the Puritan classic, Joseph Alleine’s Alarm to the Unconverted, but this is more Jeremy Walker’s Alarm to the Converted. It is a pleasant surprise, coming as it does from a part of our world where Christianity has largely entered a “garrison” (bunker) mode. The book, based on Psalm 51:13, is not meant simply to teach us about evangelism; it demands a verdict. He enlists the help of the great soul winners in history to reinforce his appeals. Even before I finished reading the book, I was already asking myself whether my heart was truly broken about the lost around me – and if it is, what am I doing about it?

Furthermore, there may be some assistance required – perhaps in the form of a competition – in selecting an appropriate cover for the book. More news on that as we get closer to publication, I hope.

Finally, I intend to finish the short reviews of pastoral books before long (and already have a couple more to add to those completed). Neither have I forgotten the promised competition in celebration of the initial completion of the list. Part of the delay is because I am waiting to identify and receive the prizes. So, please continue to watch this space, and we will see what we can come up with.

I have been enjoying reading up on Latimer for an upcoming address on his preaching, followed by a more developed biographical paper on the man as a whole. It being the Lord’s day tomorrow, it was somewhat timely to come across this brief description from Bishop Ryle of Latimer as a preacher:

Few, probably have ever addressed an English congregation with more effect than he did. No doubt his sermons now extant would not suit modern taste. They contain many quaint, odd, and coarse things. They are very familiar, rambling, and discursive, and often full of gossiping stories. But, after all, we are poor judges in these days of what a sermon ought to be. A modern sermon is too often a dull, tame, pointless religious essay, full of measured, round sentences, Johnsonian English, bald platitudes, timid statements, and elaborately concocted milk and water. It is a leaden sword, without either point or edge: a heavy weapon, and little likely to do much execution. But if a combination of sound Gospel doctrine, plain Saxon language, boldness, liveliness, directness, and simplicity, can make a preacher, few, I suspect, have ever equalled old Latimer.

J. C. Ryle, Five English Reformers (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1981), 106.

Although not identical, the description of today’s modern sermon would probably not be overwhelmingly positive, but the remedy seems pretty timeless: “a combination of sound Gospel doctrine, plain Saxon language, boldness, liveliness, directness, and simplicity.” May God grant that such preachers would take such sermons into their pulpits tomorrow.

Richard Crashaw’s poetic comment on the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector:

Two went up into the Temple to pray.

Two went to pray? O rather say,
One went to brag, th’other to pray.

One stands up close, and treads on high,
Where th’other dares not send his eye.

One nearer to God’s altar trod,
The other to the altar’s God.

Quoted in Ryken, Luke (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 2:255.

When we go to pray, do we have the appearance of being near to God, or do we truly come into his holy presence?

. . . Christian parents must be concerned, not just with what content children are watching, but how much exposure they really experience. Something has gone wrong when the default position of the television is on, rather than off. There is something even more wrong when children and teenagers have televisions and Internet access in their bedrooms.

Al Mohler highlights an American report about the dangers of early and unfettered access to screen entertainment and “education.” Helpful reading for parents.

The eye runs over the text, or the sounds pour into the ear. The synapses spark into life, the soul twitches, and the mouth opens or the fingers begin to tap. Within moments, a response of penetrating brilliance and almost supernatural insight has been dispatched by some means or other, and the sage sinks back into semi-somnolence, waiting to be awakened again by the demands of another moment.

Or maybe not. Because the chances are that if said sage were to review his response even a matter of minutes after it first came to his mind, he would almost certainly – if he had any sense and were any kind of a sage – have had some further thoughts, might have considered some alternatives and possibly more substantial interpretations, taken into account some balancing perspectives, or simply realised that the thing said might have been far better said, or even ought not to have been said at all. A man who is “hasty in his words” is, almost by definition, no sage: “There is more hope for a fool than for him” (Prv 29.20).

But the problem is that the nature of much modern communication almost demands an immediate response and provides multiple vehicles for it. See that tweet? Retweet it or reply. That blog post? Comment – now! That article? Write a riposte, or – better – tweet a 140 character riposte. That video? Dismiss it with a well-turned phrase. That contribution to a discussion? Slam it instantly! That Facebook update? Like it! Dislike it! Comment. Listen to that sermon. Too long? Listen to a clip. Listen to something else, look again, comment again, check again . . . quick, you might be missing something that has happened in the last ten seconds. Now, move on, keep moving, keep processing, keep responding, keep engaging. There is a time for thinking and there is a time for action, and this is no time for thinking! We have forgotten that “the heart of the righteous studies how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours forth evil” (Prv 15.28).

In past days, the very nature of media built in more time to consider, and even then men managed to obtain reputations for speaking without thinking. However, at the very least, it usually took more than a few seconds for a response to be given to a letter or a book. One had to sit, read, gather pen and ink, write sentences that could not be re-arranged when you had finished them, and paragraphs that could not be cut-and-pasted later on, not to mention the whole process of sending that communication. The pace was slower, the scope for careful, prayerful thought more evident. Now, words pour forth without, it seems, any consideration, forgetting that “in the multitude of words sin is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is wise” (Prv 10.19).

In fact, if we deliberately build the same checks and balances into our processes of consideration and response now, we will begin to enjoy some of the same benefits. When you skim the articles in your reader, some may catch your attention. Leave them for a few days and then go back to them. I can almost guarantee that much of what seemed magical at first glance will seem more mundane, much that seemed to throb with immediacy now lacks any pulsating urgency, much that seemed to gleam with brilliance has lost a little of its lustre, much that seemed to invite, even demand, an immediate response now seems a lot less important. Leave things even for a few hours and go back with a more patient and broader perspective and you will find that many things cease to appear very substantial or particularly relevant.

Now what is left? Anything of genuine pith and moment? Then the time has clearly come to respond! Really? Consider and even draft your comment, article or whatever other vehicle for response you might be using. Then stash it. Read it again after an hour or two. Stash it again. Sleep on it. Read it again. Does it still feel so necessary? Does it still seem so brilliant?

Or perhaps you have a more original piece, a review or an essay or somesuch. Perhaps it addresses the production of the moment or the spirit of the hour (some of these zeitgeists can take literally ages to develop!). Stew over it. Think about it. Then write it. Then stash it. Leave it for a day or so. Do those comments really need to be made? Does that criticism really need to be offered, or does it need to be made fairer and fuller? Perhaps it needs to be re-crafted or carefully qualified, for “a soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. The tongue of the wise uses knowledge rightly, but the mouth of fools pours forth foolishness” (Prv 15.1-2). Is that statement the fudgy, fuzzy product of the fear of man? Perhaps it needs to be honed and sharpened until the truth is clear. Have you refined a legitimate criticism to the point at which it really says nothing at all? Sometimes names should be named, and sometimes not. Which situation is this? Sometimes you should answer a fool according to his folly, and sometimes not (Prv 26.4-5). What does this folly demand? Some praise degenerates quickly into mere flattery or empty verbiage, perhaps because it is too readily given and not reserved for substance which genuinely demands it. Or, even if you have said something worth hearing, have you said it well? Are they words fitly spoken like apples of gold in settings of silver (Prv 25.11)? Internal rhythms can rise and fall, vocabulary can be rich yet accurate, style can be pleasant and powerful (even if not necessarily polished) while the substance remains pointed and profitable (even if necessarily provocative).

So we walk away. Then we walk back later. We look around. Perhaps someone else has already seen the issue more clearly and said what you had hoped to say more effectively. Perhaps you will simply realise that what you thought you had to say was not as profound, as wise, as insightful, as you first thought. Perhaps you will realise that it is cheap, shallow, or crass. Perhaps you will appreciate that there is more to learn before you respond, because “he who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him” (Prv 18.13). Perhaps now is not quite the right time to say it, for if a man is to have “joy by the answer of his mouth,” he will find that the best words are those “spoken in due season” (Prv 15.23). Perhaps you will realise that it simply does not need to be said at all, and that your best contribution to a debate – at this point at least – is silence, a refusal to clutter the conversation with inane chatter or thoughtless white noise: “He who has knowledge spares his words, and a man of understanding is of a calm spirit. Even a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace; when he shuts his lips he is considered perceptive” (Prv 17.27-8).

If something is honestly helpful, genuinely important or strictly necessary, it is still likely to require saying after some further time has passed, and may be all the better said – for style and for substance – because of a pause for thought.

Immediacy can seem brilliant and penetrating by the very fact that you said it first, but might be the enemy of accuracy, profundity, or simply considered politeness. It may be witty, but it may not be wise. It is almost certainly better to be slower and wiser and kinder, perhaps sacrificing a reputation for sparkling repartee, than to have that reputation for champagne on demand while actually spouting ill-considered froth. The frother will always have his fans, but he may sacrifice genuine penetration and enduring wisdom and broad perspective on the altar of that reputation for razor-sharp banter. Of course, quick thought and deep thought are not entirely mutually exclusive, and sometimes words are all the finer and more timely for being the production of the minute. There are times when something is so evidently crass or so plainly wrong that the fact of its exposure or rebuttal requires little consideration, although the manner may demand more careful thought. Some things are so dangerous that they must immediately be taken out with the rapier of honest wit or the bludgeon of plain speech. There are people who are so thoroughly immersed in a topic, and who have sufficient gifts of mental organisation, recall of data, and clarity of communication, that their off-the-cuff comments in their particular area of expertise carry more weight than the ill-considered dross of a thousand pompous nincompoops. Nevertheless, quick and shallow tend to be closer friends than immediate and profound. “So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (Jas 1.19-20), and “whoever guards his mouth and tongue keeps his soul from troubles” (Prv 21.23).

As a teacher of seminary students, I find it’s getting easier to identify those whom the Lord is most likely to use to bless and build his church in pastoral ministry. The Lord is sovereign, of course, and can blow all our analysis and predictions out of the water, but usually He uses “ordinary” means.

David Murray identifies what he calls a “must-have pastoral skill” – find out what it is here.

Tim Challies has begun what looks like it might be an interesting brief series on how God is speaking today, not least in the matter of discerning the Lord’s will. I appreciated his rooting the reality in the inscripturated, final Word of the living God.

I was glad to see that he pointed us toward the Lord Christ: he is our High High Priest; he is our sole Sovereign; and, he is our final and sufficient Prophet.

Eric Davis at The Cripplegate has some helpful comments on the error that occurs when

sanctification gets sacrificed on the altar of mission. It is an error I have made in my ministry, being so fixated on getting people in, I have neglected those who are already there. . . . Sanctification and missional-emphasis need not be an either/or scenario.

David Murray offers ten preaching errors that (especially) first time preachers fall in to:

1. Cramming.
2. Skimming.
3. Floating.
4. Proof-texting.
5. Quoting.
6. Lecturing.
7. Assuming.
8. Confusing.
9. Spraying.
10. Complicating.

Read the explanations here. Any to add?

Here is John Bunyan’s allegorical reckoning of prayer drawn from The Holy War. The town of Mansoul, backslidden and besieged and now indwelt by an army of Doubters under Diabolus, is in a terrible condition. Only the castle of the heart stands out, battered daily by the enemy. Petitions to the Prince Emmanuel have so far failed to obtain the needed relief, but now Mansoul is directed to the Lord Secretary (the Holy Spirit) to assist in their prayers:

After the town of Mansoul had been in this sad and lamentable condition for so long a time as I have told you, and no petitions that they presented their Prince with, all this while, could prevail, the inhabitants of the town, namely, the elders and chief of Mansoul, gathered together, and, after some time spent in condoling their miserable state and this miserable judgment coming upon them, they agreed together to draw up yet another petition, and to send it away to Emmanuel for relief. But Mr. Godly-Fear stood up and answered, that he knew that his Lord the Prince never did nor ever would receive a petition for these matters, from the hand of any whoever, unless the Lord Secretary’s hand was to it; ‘and this,’ quoth he, ‘is the reason that you prevailed not all this while.’ Then they said they would draw up one, and get the Lord Secretary’s hand unto it. But Mr. Godly-Fear answered again, that he knew also that the Lord Secretary would not set his hand to any petition that himself had not an hand in composing and drawing up. ‘And besides,’said he, ‘the Prince doth know my Lord Secretary’s hand from all the hands in the world; wherefore he cannot be deceived by any pretence whatever. Wherefore my advice is that you go to my Lord, and implore him to lend you his aid.’(Now he did yet abide in the castle, where all the captains and men-at-arms were.)

So they heartily thanked Mr. Godly-Fear, took his counsel, and did as he had bidden them. So they went and came to my Lord, and made known the cause of their coming to him; namely, that since Mansoul was in so deplorable a condition, his Highness would be pleased to undertake to draw up a petition for them to Emmanuel, the Son of the mighty Shaddai, and to their King and his Father by him.

Then said the Secretary to them, ‘What petition is it that you would have me draw up for you?’But they said, ‘Our Lord knows best the state and condition of the town of Mansoul; and how we are backslidden and degenerated from the Prince: thou also knowest who is come up to war against us, and how Mansoul is now the seat of war. My Lord knows, moreover, what barbarous usages our men, women, and children have suffered at their hands; and how our home-bred Diabolonians do walk now with more boldness than dare the townsmen in the streets of Mansoul. Let our Lord therefore, according to the wisdom of God that is in him, draw up a petition for his poor servants to our Prince Emmanuel.’ ‘Well,’ said the Lord Secretary, ‘I will draw up a petition for you, and will also set my hand thereto. ‘Then said they, ‘But when shall we call for it at the hands of our Lord?’ But he answered, ‘Yourselves must be present at the doing of it; yea, you must put your desires to it. True, the hand and pen shall be mine, but the ink and paper must be yours; else how can you say it is your petition? Nor have I need to petition for myself, because I have not offended.’ He also added as followeth: ‘No petition goes from me in my name to the Prince, and so to his Father by him, but when the people that are chiefly concerned therein do join in heart and soul in the matter, for that must be inserted therein.’

So they did heartily agree with the sentence of the Lord, and a petition was forthwith drawn up for them. But now, who should carry it? that was next. But the Secretary advised that Captain Credence should carry it; for he was a well-spoken man. They therefore called for him, and propounded to him the business. ‘Well,’ said the captain, ‘I gladly accept of the motion; and though I am lame, I will do this business for you with as much speed and as well as I can.’

When we pray, the hand and pen must be the Spirit’s, but the ink and paper must be ours, and faith – however lame – must carry the request to the throne of grace.

9 9 9. 6

In dark of night, when hell comes knocking,
And demons all around are flocking,
And every sin and fear is mocking,
Lord, save me then, I pray.

At break of day, when tears are flowing,
And every fear and doubt is growing,
And there seems neither faith nor knowing,
Lord, save me then, I pray.

At every hour, with sin assailing,
When every tempting thought is wailing,
And every hope is quickly failing,
Lord, save me then, I pray.

In that great day, with angels soaring,
When praise from every saint is pouring,
I’ll look to Christ, and cry, adoring:
“Lord, save me now, I pray.”

©JRW

See all hymns and psalms.

Sure, we all can spot the unbeliever who doesn’t fluently speak the language of Zion, we can identify the person from doctrinally anemic backgrounds because they keep cutting themselves with the sharp knives in the theology drawer, and of course any Calvinist can sniff out an Arminian within 20 seconds.

But I submit that these types of people are not the most dangerous people that attend your church. At least, they are not in my experience.

Instead, the most dangerous person at your church is . . .

Find out who the Ordinary Pastor believes is the most dangerous person in his church. It is insightful. One fellow-pastor who saw this felt it was rather a case of the nail being squarely struck on the head.

Unction is that indefinable, indescribable something which an old, renowned Scotch preacher describes thus: “There is sometimes somewhat in preaching that cannot be ascribed either to matter or expression, and cannot be described what it is, or from whence it cometh, but with a sweet violence it pierceth into the heart and affections and comes immediately from the Word; but if there be any way to obtain such a thing, it is by the heavenly disposition of the speaker.”

We call it unction. It is this unction which makes the word of God “quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” It is this unction which gives the words of the preacher such point, sharpness, and power, and which creates such friction and stir in many a dead congregation. The same truths have been told in the strictness of the letter, smooth as human oil could make them; but no signs of life, not a pulse throb; all as peaceful as the grave and as dead. The same preacher in the meanwhile receives a baptism of this unction, the divine inflatus is on him, the letter of the Word has been embellished and fired by this mysterious power, and the throbbings of life begin — life which receives or life which resists. The unction pervades and convicts the conscience and breaks the heart.

This divine unction is the feature which separates and distinguishes true gospel preaching from all other methods of presenting the truth, and which creates a wide spiritual chasm between the preacher who has it and the one who has it not. It backs and impregns revealed truth with all the energy of God. Unction is simply putting God in his own word and on his own preachers. By mighty and great prayerfulness and by continual prayerfulness, it is all potential and personal to the preacher; it inspires and clarifies his intellect, gives insight and grasp and projecting power; it gives to the preacher heart power, which is greater than head power; and tenderness, purity, force flow from the heart by it. Enlargement, freedom, fullness of thought, directness and simplicity of utterance are the fruits of this unction.

What of unction? It is the indefinable in preaching which makes it preaching. It is that which distinguishes and separates preaching from all mere human addresses. It is the divine in preaching.

HT Tim Challies, quoting E. M. Bounds in Power Through Prayer.

Words of warning and wisdom for ministers recovering from the Lord’s day, anticipating a week of labour, and looking ahead to more preaching and pastoring:

Take heed unto thyself, that thou be a lively thriving Christian. See that all thy religion run not in the channel of thy employment. It is found by experience, that as it fares with a minister in the frame of his heart, and thriving of the work of God in his soul, so doth it fare with his ministry both in its vigour and effects. A carnal frame, a dead heart, and a loose walk, makes cold and unprofitable preaching. And how common is it for ministers to neglect their own vineyard? When we read the word, we read it as ministers, to know what we should teach, rather than what we should learn as Christians. Unless there be great heed taken, it will be found, that our ministry, and labour therein, may eat out the life of our Christianity. Not that there is any discord betwixt them; but rather a friendly harmony, when each hath its place and respect. The honest believer meditates, that he may excite his grace; and ministers too often meditate only to increase their gifts. When we preach, the sincere hearer drinks in the word; and it may be we seldom mix faith with it, to grow thereby. O how hard is it to be a minister and a Christian in some of these acts! We are still conversant about the things of God; it is our study all the week long. This is our great advantage. But take heed to thyself, lest ordinary meddling with divine things bring on an ordinary and indifferent impression of them; and then their fruit to thee, and thy benefit by them, is almost gone, and hardly recovered.

Robert Traill, “By what means may ministers best win souls?” in Works, 1:241-242

Much painful truth here:

HT: David Murray.