Taking every thought captive

John Brand has just posted an instructive quotation from Spurgeon on the importance of reading, a subject dear to my heart. I particularly liked the sentence, “He who will not use the thoughts of other men’s brains, proves that he has no brains of his own.”

In last evening’s sermon our pastor mentioned the popular book 100 Things to Do Before You Die. A quick Google search revealed that others have lists ranging from 10 to 1000 things. It got me to thinking that though the books may be best sellers, and the concept appealing to many, the whole idea holds no attraction whatsoever for any Christian.

Why? Because the books have been published too late! Isn’t a Christian someone who has already died? Romans 6:2 and Galatians 2:19-21 spring readily to mind.

What would be a more appropriate concept is x things to do after you die. Now that would be interesting for a Christian.

But then again, the publishing opportunity is limited — it’s already been done. It’s called The New Testament.

Just before going to morning worship I was reading the first chapter of the Book of Revelation in preparation, since our pastor is preaching through the book. It struck me that while it is a book in two parts, there are also two major strands running through the book. The book deals with events (“to show to his servants the things that must soon take place”, 1:1) and behaviour (“who keep what is written in it”, 1:3). Thus, the purpose of the book is to show coming events, while the purpose of showing the events is to encourage readers to live in coming with those coming events.

The events are not unimportant, but are not an end in themselves. Of far greater importance is the kind of life lived in the knowledge of those events, what David Gooding would call “the moral and spiritual implications of prophecy”. Peter’s question is relevant to any study of Revelation — “since all these things are to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness … ?” (2 Peter 3:11).

But while the main purpose of the book is to encourage a Christian lifestyle consistent with the teachings of Revelation, and by extension the Bible as a whole, the means God has employed to encourage us to live this kind of life is to reveal future events. So we must not neglect understanding what it is God has revealed to us. While it can be an attractive option to skim lightly over the events in Revelation, and be happy to agree to disagree with others on the detail, that is unlikely to yield sufficient benefit from any reading of the book.

If the keeping of the teaching is related to the knowing of the events, it must surely be more difficult, if not impossible, to understand the teaching without understanding the events. And a further implication for any interpretation of the book is that as it was God’s intention to reveal the events, rather than conceal them, interpretation must not only be possible, but is unlikely to be exceptionally difficult. That is not to say that a superficial reading of Revelation will yield any or all of the meaning and teaching of the book, no more than it will for any other part of Scripture.

It may, of course, rank alongside those difficult parts of Paul’s letters to which Peter alludes (2 Peter 3:15-16). But the problem is not, he tells us, the difficulty in understanding, but ignorance. If we do not know what Revelation is about, and that would include the events, then there is a very real danger that our ignorance, combined with instability, will lead to our destruction. If we don’t know the events, and don’t discover the doctrine, that will impact our behaviour.

Peter is not specific about the instability he mentions, but given the context of understanding Scripture, it is reasonable to conclude that he is on a similar tack to James, where wisdom and unwavering faith are the antidote to instability (James 1:5-8). Paul himself indicates that mature understanding of doctrine is an essential antidote to instability (Eph 4:11-16). There he stresses the importance of knowing Christ as an effective remedy against instability.

If we are to understand Revelation properly, we must get to know Christ, as he is portrayed throughout the book. Chapter 1 brings us with John to the feet of Christ. If we are to understand the seven letters that follow, we must understand what chapter 1 teaches about Christ, for the letters are closely related. And Christ appears similarly throughout the book — in chapter 5 as the Lamb in the midst of the Throne; in chapter 10 as a mighty angel, astride land and sea; in chapter 14 as the Lamb amidst the 144,000; and in chapter 19 as the rider on the white horse. Are these other pictures of Christ similarly related to the passages that follow them?

It would appear, then, that the key to understanding Revelation is to understand the events, and the key to understanding the events is to understand Christ as he reveals himself in the book. But then that is no different from the rest of Scripture, as our Lord himself taught us, as he showed the disciples in the Seven-Mile Sermon, where he began “with Moses and all the prophets” and “interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27).

So without understanding Christ we will fail to understand Revelation. But perhaps John’s reaction to the vision of Christ in chapter 1 is also instructive for our understanding of the book — he fell at Christ’s feet (1:17). It is most likely because of the overwhelming nature of the encounter, rather than worship, though often his falling is taken to be worship. We, too, can be overwhelmed by the vision. But we need to take Christ’s reassurance not to fear to heart. We need to heed the guides John has throughout the book, who patiently explain the meaning of the various things he saw. Interpreting Revelation may not necessarily be straightforward, but it will be needlessly more difficult if we fail to see Christ in its pages, and heed the guides embedded within the text.

But worship will be important in gaining a proper understanding of the book. John may not have worshipped in chapter 1, but Christ’s appearance in chapter 5 elicits worship from the heavenly multitude. It is expected of God’s people that they will worship in response to what they see and hear in this book. In chapter 13 , by contrast, the earth dwellers and beast followers worship the dragon and the beast (13:5, 15), and one senses disapproval at that point.

When John finally falls down himself in worship (19:10; 22:8,9) he is rebuked for attempting to worship anyone less than God himself. And throughout the book we have regular refrains of worship that must lead us to conclude that the only adequate response to this book will be worship. If our supposed grasp of it does not lead us to worship then it might be a reasonable conclusion that we have failed to obtain a truly sound grasp of it, however much we might claim to understand the events described in it.

To understand Revelation aright we will need to get to grips with the events, and from them deduce the doctrine. The test of our understanding will be in our behaviour in the light of the events, and our evident worship stemming from our grasp of the teaching, and the Christ of the book.

This evening I came across a note I had written in a notebook some time earlier this year. I can’t remember what prompted me to write it, and I’m sure the idea wasn’t entirely original, so if anyone knows anything similar, perhaps they would let me know.

It’s a short step from thinking God doesn’t matter, to thinking he doesn’t exist. It may be fashionable to parade one’s atheism in public, but there is a danger for Christian people that we can live as if God didn’t matter, and worse, as if he didn’t exist.

Far from being closer to God in a garden than anywhere else on earth, Eve found it easier to think God didn’t matter when she was in the Garden. It seemed to make so much sense when the idea was suggested to her by a talking snake. Now that ought to have sent alarm bells ringing in her head. It’s one thing to think that God doesn’t matter, but it’s another thing altogether to take advice on theology from a talking snake.

The sobering thing to realise is that we live in what might be termed less than the ideal circumstances of Eden. How much easier to make Eve’s mistake, and be deceived about our Maker. There are still plenty of talking snakes giving advice on theology! But Paul’s advice is still relevant:

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:3.

We need to be on our guard against gaining a wrong perspective on life. Both messages today from our pastor stressed this need. This morning we were reminded of just who Jesus really is (from Revelation 1:9-20). He is not the domesticated figure the world likes to portray him as. He is the very God of heaven. No wonder John “fell at his feet as though dead”. This evening we considered true value from Matthew 13:44-46, and once again our thoughts were directed to Christ. The antidote for practical Christian atheism (living as if God didn’t matter, or worse, as if he didn’t exist) is constant consideration of Christ, his value and his worth.

I’ve been reading Revelation since our pastor started a series of Sunday morning sermons on the book last Sunday. As is my practice, I try to break up the book into sections to get a better understanding of its contents, and as usual I find myself torn between several schemes.

A passing comment last Sunday about the book being in two sections led me to think what they might be. Here’s my initial take on a bipartite Revelation.

The basis of such a division has to be Rev 1:19 which identifies the book with “the things that you [John] have seen”. The book is a record of the vision(s) John saw, and accords with his constant refrain of “I saw …” or “I was shown …”.

Part 1 would be “those that are”, presumably the present from John’s perspective. This must be chapters 1-3, dealing with the 7 churches, and preceded by the vision of the “one like a son of man” (1:13).

Part 2 would be “those that are to take place after this”, which would be future from John’s perspective, and at least partly future from ours (how much would depend on your millennial views). This would be the remainder of the book (chapters 4-22). Like the first part, it begins with a vision of God, this time the one who sits on the throne (ch 4) and the Lamb (ch 5). The remainder of this part is a more involved series of visions.

In last Sunday morning’s sermon, our pastor mentioned what might be termed the general optimism about the future of the world up to, say, the mid twentieth century. He noted how this has been replaced in recent decades with a general pessimism, symbolised most notably in the popular consciousness by global warming.

And yet, despite frequent predictions of cataclysm, it struck me that we tend to live our lives almost in complete oblivion to it. In some ways we are like King Hezekiah, who responded to Isaiah’s prediction of disaster by comforting himself that it wouldn’t happen in his lifetime (Isa. 39:8).

However, perhaps our reaction is based on our implicit faith in science. Scientists have revealed this scenario of doom to us, and we trust them to discover the solution. In so doing, we attribute to them an omnipotence they do not possess. We place in them a trust they cannot fulfil. And we give them honour they do not deserve. That is not to denigrate the great ability of many, which has brought much blessing to humankind. But the self-evident fact is that they are not in control of our destiny. God alone is. That is the clear message of the last book in the Bible — Revelation.

John Brand has started a new series of blog postings over at A Steward of the Secret Things called The 222 Principle. In his second posting he shares some advice from Geoffrey Grogan to new preachers. They are a helpful reminder to all who preach, but it struck me that in many ways his advice is no different from what all Christians should practice in their reading of the Bible.

Knowledge of the contents is a vital foundation step to understanding the Bible. Prayerful application to one’s own life is for all. And while analysis may seem more relevant to preachers, it is a useful way for every Christian to achieve a sound understanding of the Bible’s message.

The preacher will take what he has learned via these steps and communicate it to others. But these three steps are essentially what every Christian should undertake in their personal Bible study.

Magnus Linklater wrote a refreshingly honest piece in The Times last month. I found it heartening to see that not every self-proclaimed atheist agrees uncritically with Richard Dawkins and his fellow militant atheists (Hitchins, Dennett, Harris, Toynbee, et al.).

In one sense it is easy to see what Linklater is uneasy about. According to Dawkins (if that doesn’t sound too much like The Gospel According to Dawkins), he is a vacuous atheist. Who wants to be called vacuous? Inconsistent, yes. A heretic, even — his words not mine. He sounds more like a reluctant convert who is having second and third thoughts. And it’s not too hard to see why. Rather than thanking God he is an atheist, he ought to thank God he is having second thoughts. And well he might.

Proclaiming oneself an atheist is a big step to take. It is, however, a step in the wrong direction. The only right step to take from agnosticism is the one Adam took from his fig-leaf-bedecked rebellion (not agnosticism or atheism) — towards God, not away from him.

But then, as a Christian, I would think that. Look, however, at what Linklater himself says. He is reassured by Dawkins on his mental independence. He feels the healthy effects of his bold step. But he’s worried about Dawkins’s qualification “nearly always” — Richard Dawkins could be wrong! Yes, he is wrong. He could not be any more wrong. To rely on his pronouncements is justifiably to be worried.

Adam got to wear his fig leaves precisely because he exercised independence of mind. Far from a healthy step, it was the most unhealthy step he could have taken — terminally so. He followed the shallow, flawed logic of a persuasive anti-god exponent. His deceiver was no mere atheist. No, he was a convinced theist, as well he might be (cf. James 2:19). But he was an anti-theist — he was utterly opposed to God. Like his latter day disciple, he sought to convince our first parents that independence of mind was a healthy and desirable thing. But such a mode of thinking will condemn its proponents to the very hell Magnus Linklater thinks a fantasy. Sadly, it is the mode of thinking that is the fantasy, not the eternal abode.

Why does Linklater find comfort in religion, and specifically Christian religion? Given his espousal of atheism, it is certainly inconsistent. But I venture to suggest, it is a good sign. He has not succumbed totally to the Lie, for lie is what it is — God does exist, and to say and believe otherwise is to speak and believe the greatest lie in the universe.

May that inconsistent comfort in the things of God grow in his mind. Well might he feel he is on the “shifting sands of uncertainty.” He is. But unlike the foolish builder in Jesus’ parable (Mat. 7:24-27) he has begun to realise the precarious position he is in. His position is at variance with the very nature of the universe, and the manifest reality of the living God. As the late Francis A. Schaeffer often insisted, this universe is personal, not impersonal. To seek to live in a universe stamped with the very personality of its Creator as if he did not exist is bound to lead to uncertainty. Suppressing the truth (Rom 1:18ff) is a very dangerous thing. If one persists in it to the end of earthy life, it will result in the full effects of the wrath of God being meted out against oneself — what Linklater supposes to be a fantasy (Hell) will be known as an eternal reality.

But God has designed this universe in such a way that what can be known about him is plain. It is no accident. God has shown it to us. “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.” (Rom 1:20) Such manifest revelation of God as this world in which we live provides, leaves us without an excuse not to believe in God. Our claim to be wise — the “healthy independence of mind” that Dawkins so deludedly proposes — is in fact evidence of our folly. We have “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” (Rom 1:23) Not for Dawkins the worship of mere animals. But worship nonetheless he engages in — worship of man. If he will not have the living God, god he must have. Since there is nothing with higher intelligence than himself and his species, that has become his god. But to do such a thing is to exchange “the truth about God for a lie” and to worship and serve “the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” (Rom 1:25)

Well might Linklater feel uncertain and uneasy. He is living a lie, however sincerely he may believe it, and I have no doubt he is sincere. Rather than thank God for his atheism, he would do well to take the next step in his atheistic heresy. I welcome him to the ranks of heresy, a heresy to which I am myself committed. I do not believe in atheism, and must therefore be an atheist heretic.

But simply to doubt or disbelieve atheism is not enough. If The Lie is to be abandoned with any profit, it must be forsaken for The Truth. That Truth will lead to worship of the Creator. It will entail embracing the one who proclaimed himself The Truth (John 14:6). It will also entail the admission of that wrong-headed independent thinking — what the Bible calls confession of sin.

Far from entering a closed-minded universe of intellectual darkness, such a confession will lead one into a gloriously illuminated Technicolor universe, the like of which no Hollywood cinematic extravaganza could capture. It is to leave our tiny, cramped, two-dimensional hovel we pathetically call a universe for the expansive reality of all that God has created. We move from darkness into light (Col 1:13-14). From the blindness of unbelieving minds to hearts in which shines “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2Co 4:6).

Who could be content with the sterility of antitheism, thinking and acting in an imaginary universe devised by impotent minds? Who could be content with the comfortlessness of mere amorphous theism? The enjoyment of reality is to be found in worshipping the Creator — the one we have known for 2000 years as Jesus of Nazareth. He is The Truth. Facing the truth means bowing our minds and hearts and wills to his benevolent Lordship.

To all atheist heretics, I say to you, “we implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2Co 5:20).

These are the facts as we have received them
Are these the truths evolution believes?
(with apologies to Michael Saward)

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.
Council of Europe, The dangers of creationism in education, Doc. 11375, para A8, 17 Sep 2007

To which I say, Oh really! And call me a religious fanatic if you please, but really, do you expect anyone with an ounce of wit to take this kind of statement seriously?

91. With creationism today, we are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which, the better to impose religious dogma, are attacking the very core of the knowledge that we have built up little by little concerning nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe. There can be no doubt that this is a serious attack on human rights.

92. There is a great risk of a serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs and ideals and what has to do with science, and of the advent of an “all things are equal” attitude, which may seem appealing and tolerant but is actually extremely harmful.

Council of Europe, Doc. 11375, para B91-92, 17 Sep 2007

There is a great risk of serious confusion being introduced into more than children’s minds by this kind of thinking. Moreover, that damage that such wrong thinking causes will have eternal consequences. The whole document is shot through with serious logical flaws and scaremongering innuendo. Albert Mohler rightly concludes,

This resolution is so extreme that, at first glance,  it appears to be a farce or parody.  Sadly, it is not.  This is no joke.  This is the shape of a secularized future.

Those who would attack the rights of human beings are sitting in Strasbourg, Brussels, etc. and voting in favour of such nonsense. To seek to convince anyone that the living God did not create us and that we have no responsibility to him for anything we do will surely lead millions to a lost eternity. It is the work one one father, who was a liar from the beginning.

But then I forget, I’m simply intransigent:

The most intransigent of the supporters of creationism claim that the world was created by God in six days and maintain that the transformist or evolutionist theories that conflict with the Bible, according to which God created each plant or animal species individually, can only be lies.
Council of Europe, Doc. 11375, para B — Report of Mr Guy Lengagne (revised) 30, 17 Sep 2007

Well, what else could a thing be but a lie if it conflicts with the truth of the living God who made heaven and earth and all things in them? It is intransigent to insist on the truth? Surely it is deluded to insist on a lie. But what is it to scaremonger in the way that this report does? I could hardly believe that the report said,

It now pervades the whole of science and is one of its fundamental principles, so it appears legitimate to consider the consequences that denying evolution could have on the development of our societies. How, for example, can advances be made in medical research with the aim of effectively combating diseases like AIDS if every principle of evolution is denied? Basically, evolution pervades all medical research. How can we consider living in a world without medicine? That appears absurd, but removing the teaching of evolution from the curriculum, as advocated by the creationists, could result in a considerable reduction in, if not the end of, medical research.
Council of Europe, Doc. 11375, para B — Report of Mr Guy Lengagne (revised) 82, 17 Sep 2007

I believe God created this universe, but I am not against medicine. In fact, I believe that medicine is a gracious gift of God. I know no Christian who would advocate the end of medical research and the return to a world without medicine. Perhaps there may be some — I am not, after all, onmiscient.

What, I wondered, is a world without medicine? When did such a world exist? Medicine was practised in ancient civilisations, like Greece and Egypt, that predate Christianity. Let us not How can one blame Christians for the possible demise of medicine? But then Nero blamed the ills of Rome on Christians. Shame on you, Mr Lengagne. And shame on you, European politicians, for accepting such scaremongering. What scientific basis can you claim for such a report? Would it not be more correct to surmise that because many Christians raise valid moral objections to some kinds of medical research, concerns that many non-Christians also share, that those with a substantial financial stake at risk are prepared to up the ante by whatever means possible, unfounded and scurrilous innuendo included?

Having persevered to the end I was surprised to see that this report was adopted unanimously by the committee — that is if you could consider 15 people acting on behalf of 82 unanimous. Now that’s representative government in action.

Sadly, I live in a part of the world where this unrepresentative, highly biased, and largely unscientific report is likely to hold sway with policy makers. I regret ever voting for Britain’s entry into Europe, and will certainly vote for leaving, should this or any future British government let me. I’m not sure that I want “creationism” taught in science classrooms in this country, but I do find the totalitarian-style imposition of evolutionism worrying, though not unexpected. The world will not explode if everyone doesn’t believe in evolution. The world won’t even be a nastier, more dismal place if they don’t. I suspect that only fanatical atheists/evolutionists will be disappointed. If they want “tolerance”, then why don’t they practise what they preach? They can’t command respect when they deny those who disagree with them some expression of their beliefs. Wouldn’t that be somewhat fanatical, not to mention hypocritical?