Taking every thought captive

Tim Challies posted another article on reading (Random Thoughts on Reading, 26 Feb 2009) that is encouraging and helpful, as usual. I’ve never had much of a problem with reading as such, only with retaining, but I think he’s right to say that we shouldn’t get too hung up on retention. There are many things that stick from my reading subconsciously, and then reappear later when they click with something else. I definitely think that reading with pencil in hand improves retention, since it encourages reflection and promotes engagement with the author. I tend to file my handwritten notes, usually typed afterwards. I find the act of typing the notes also helps retention, even if it takes time. The time spent on review is worthwhile.

I think all bibliophiles must carry a book around for daily downtime. Those ten or more minutes waiting for appointments are much more profitable with a good book. It’s also a good reason to have several books on the go at any one time, since not all are suitable for reading at such times, aside from the size of some of the tomes I tend to read. I also find it useful to carry an old pocket diary with me, so that I can jot down notes, as well. I never use the diaries I get free from the various institutes I belong to and organizations I work for, so I use them as free notebooks, rather than diaries. Desk diaries are useful for taking notes at meetings and conferences, and the year planners can be used as indexes, since it can take some time before I get round to typing up my notes.

Mark Dever has interviewed Don Carson about his own books, and a few by others. Just under an hour in length, it is well worth the listen for his insights, and Dever’s comments. One thing, among several, that stood out for me was the need to make use of indexes to get to the information you need. I made the mistake of listening while doing something else, so I’m going to have to listen again some time to get the most out of it. But on reflection, I think I would have needed to do that anyway. Now I’ve added to my wishlist!

Ecclesiastes may not be your idea of a good summer read, or a good read at any time of year. But over the summer I found it came alive in the hands of Sinclair Ferguson in an exceedingly relevant and readable way.

The Pundit’s Folly (Banner of Truth, 1995) is a short book of only four chapters, but Ferguson manages to get to the heart of Qoheleth’s (the name of the author and the title of the book according to the Hebrew) message in a concise way by looking at four man themes: eduction, pleasure, work, and success. He applies the message of the book forcefully, but graciously.

In the second half of the book, he expounds the Gospel clearly, taking Qoheleth as his starting point. This is a book that would help any Christian, no matter their age or spiritual maturity to gain a clear understanding of the message of the book of Qoheleth. Considering how modern, or perhaps postmodern, Qoheleth sounds, it is a highly relevant, if frequently overlooked, book in the Bible.

Ferguson’s book would also be suitable to give to a Christian who is struggling with their faith in any of the areas he covers. It would also be an appropriate gift for an unbelieving friend who is thinking seriously about God and these issues.

If you prefer audio to print, then Philip Ryken’s current morning sermon series at Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, is on Ecclesiastes, currently in chapter 9. I’ve also found it extremely helpful in getting to grips with the book.

Here’s some encouragement for Monday morning. We sang this yesterday, and I really enjoy singing it to Johann Cruger’s great old German tune Jesus, meine Zuversicht. How could you have Monday morning blues after singing these words.

Jesus lives, and so shall I.
Death! thy sting is gone forever!
He who deigned for me to die,
Lives, the bands of death to sever.
He shall raise me from the dust:
Jesus is my Hope and Trust.

Jesus lives, and reigns supreme,
And, his kingdom still remaining,
I shall also be with him,
Ever living, ever reigning.
God has promised: be it must:
Jesus is my Hope and Trust.

Jesus lives, and by his grace,
Vict’ry o’er my passions giving,
I will cleanse my heart and ways,
Ever to his glory living.
Me he raises from the dust.
Jesus is my Hope and Trust.

Jesus lives, I know full well
Nought from him my heart can sever,
Life nor death nor powers of hell,
Joy nor grief, hence forth forever.
None of all his saints is lost;
Jesus is my Hope and Trust.

Jesus lives, and death is now
But my entrance into glory.
Courage, then, my soul, for thou
Hast a crown of life before thee;
Thou shalt find thy hopes were just;
Jesus is the Christian’s Trust.

Christian Fürchtegott Gellert, 1715-69
Text taken from Trinity Hymnal (blue book 596)

Steve Lawson will be speaking at the new 2009 Expositors’ Conference to be held in Edinburgh in August. Other speakers include Peter Grainger and Iain Murray. Details are available on the conference Web site. All in all it looks like an interesting and profitable programme. Bookings can now be made.

I’ve been reading Donald Macleod’s book Behold Your God (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 1990) with profit. Today, in chapter 4, in the midst of a discussion of the demonstration of the power of God in its primary manifestation in creation he says,

“We do not believe that God spoke the world into being because we have empirically verified that theory. We believe it on the testimony of God. In His Word He assures us that it is so. To put it otherwise: belief in creation by the word of God is part of the tribute we owe to Christ. It was what He believed: and our every thought is captive to the obedience of Christ.” (pp. 47-48)

Here is one more way of taking every thought captive. It had not occurred to me before to look at it in this way, and I’m grateful to Macleod for this insight. To take it a step further, of course Christ believed it, it was he who made the universe. Not to believe in what he had done would be a most peculiar way to think.

This is not some lame way of escaping from the plain facts of reality and settling for a weak fantasy. Macleod makes it clear: “Faith does not here indicate a different degree of certainty, as if knowledge meant strong conviction and faith something more hesitant.” (p. 47) Such faith is vigorous, based as it is on the strength of a different testimony to that of science. Indeed, the assertion of faith that God created is not open to science, it is beyond its remit. When scientists deny it in the name of science they have moved out of their discipline into the realm of religion, of scientism. We have the testimony of God the Creator, of Jesus the Creator, to creation. The strength of opposition to Jesus’ own self-testimony is no less strong today than it was when he was on earth (e.g. John 5:30-47). But what stronger testimony can there be to creation than the word of the Creator?

This reflection has reminded me of several prints that hang in various places in our home. They are by Steven Townsend, and each one is not only signed by the artist, but he has annotated his signature either with the initials “JTC” or the full phrase “Jesus the Creator”. You can enjoy the beauty of the creation of Jesus the Creator a little more by visiting The Townsend Gallery and viewing some of Steven’s most recent works (no personal connection, and no commission!). As the site says, the Web doesn’t do justice to the realism of the paintings, but even it’s inadequacy is mindblowing. Much more so the real thing.

A summer scene along the River Lagan, Belfast

Graeme Goldsworthy points out how Jacob was an unnatural choice for God, not simply because he was the younger twin.

Jacob is not a good person at all — quite the opposite. His election is not grounded on his merits foreseen by God (compare Romans 9:10-13). But Jacob is converted by the grace of God and becomes the father of the covenant people. (p. 69)

It’s easy to overlook this aspect of the story. We can get all hung up about Esau’s non-election, and mistakenly get it into our heads that Jacob was a goody-two-shoes, so God could naturally choose him. If all we had to go on was Abel, we might come to that conclusion, though, of course, we don’t know how peasant or obnoxious he might have been.

It reminds me of a recent discussion about God’s fairness in not saving many, but only a few. Of course, it is hard to substantiate the numerical balance without access to all the figures for human population, past, present and future. It appears to be unbalanced in our day, at least from where I live. But, if we lived in some parts of Africa, Asia, or South America we might have a very different perception of the balance.

But, to pick up on the point Goldsworthy makes about Jacob’s fundamental badness. If we concentrate on Esau, or the non-elect in general, we miss the more amazing fact. Esau was no more a good person than Jacob. Both alike stood under God’s just condemnation. as every human being does. The amazing fact is that God should choose any, not that God should not choose all. Undue emphasis on the latter will lead to frustration, despair, even anger, all because of imbalance. Remembering the former must lead to humility, thankfulness and praise.

God never picks the fit to be converted, only the unfit. That is just as well, since we are all unfit converts. But like Jacob we may be changed, conformed into the image of his Son (Romans 8:29).

__________

Graeme Goldsworth, Gospel and Kingdom, (1981) in The Goldsworthy Trilogy (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2000)

(spelling corrected 22 Feb)

James Montgomery Boice tells of two stories recounted by contributors to a radio programme about spiritual experiences:

The first was a girl who explained how she had felt a sudden urge to leave her home in the northern part of the state [of California] and hitchhike down the coastal road. Halfway to Los Angeles she sensed that “this was the place.”  So she had the driver stop the car, got out, and went down the hill to the shore where she found a cave and camped out for a couple days. Then — because she thought God (or something) was leading her to do this — she went down into the water and mingled with the rocks and seaweed as if she were at the dawn of creation. Finally an animal came by, and she took this as a sign that it was time to go. She climbed the bank and hitchhiked back to northern California. That was her “spiritual experience.”

The other person I listened to seemed to be an older woman. She said she had her experience quite recently — on Election Day. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were running in that election. She said, “I have always been a Democrat, and when I went into that voting booth I was planning to vote for Jimmy Carter. But something happened. A strange feeling came over me and I pulled the lever for Reagan.” She did not say whether the influence she had felt was benign or demonic, but I think she believed it was the latter. \1/

A few pages later he recounts a biblical spiritual experience:

In 2 Peter 1, where Peter spoke about his special experiences as an apostle, he described the things he had that we do not have. He listed them beginning, “we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (v. 16), that is to say, Our eyes actually saw Jesus Christ; and furthermore we did not only see Christ in the flesh, where his godhead was veiled, as it were, but rather in the moment of his transfiguration. He appeared before us clothed in light. And not only did we have this vision. We also heard a voice from heaven, and the voice from heaven said clearly (we heard it with our ears), “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased” (v. 17). \2/

This passage Boice refers to makes an important point, though it is not the point of his chapter, so he does not comment on it. But yet it illuminates a deficiency in his opening accounts. In both, there was a sense or feeling recounted, and in one there was something seen. Peter (and his companions James and John) certainly saw something very unusual on the Mount of Transfiguration. But the one component of their experience that sets it apart from many ‘spiritual experiences’ recounted today is the voice they heard. It was not a voice in their head, they were not mad. God pointed them audibly to his Son as the focus of that experience, and communicated to them his love for and pleasure in Jesus. What they saw was not enough. Nor what they felt. What they heard was vitally important. It was what set their experience apart from all others as an authentic, genuine experience of the Living God.

There are relatively few similar experiences in Scripture where people of God saw God’s glory or had an angelic visitation. Never was that the sum total of their experience. They never simply saw, or simply felt a presence. Always God, or his messenger, spoke, either to explain the experience, or to give clear and unambiguous instructions.

This was so from the first recorded meeting of man and God in the Garden after the fateful fruit had been eaten. When Moses saw the bush, he heard the voice. When Israel saw the smoke atop Mount Sinai, they heard the voice. When God displayed his glory to Moses, he spoke and explained who he was in simple, yet profound, terms. He did not simply show Moses a great sight. He communicated great truth verbally. Moses was not free to assign any meaning he liked to the experience. God explained the significance.

Genuine spiritual experience will always be accompanied by God’s explanation. Even today that will be the case. We will not normally hear his voice audibly, but our experience will be in accordance with the Word of God if it a genuine spiritual experience, and experience of the true and living God. It will not necessarily mimic an experience recorded in Scripture, though it may, but Scripture will make clear the meaning and significance if we submit to it. God is his own interpreter, and he will make it plain.

__________

Quotations from: James Montgomery Boice, Standing on the Rock: Biblical Authority in a Secular Age (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994). \1/ pp. 27-28. \2/ p. 30.

Donald Macleod gives a marvellously clear and tremendously encouraging summary of God’s power in redemption.*

He distinguishes it from providence with which it is closely intertwined simply to make clear what it is. He sees it manifested in 3 ways:

1. Christ’s virginal conception.
2. Christ’s resurrection (which he points out is ascribed in various Scriptures to each member of the Trinity in turn).
3. The application of redemption to believers.

This application to believers he develops in 4 ways:

1. It is definite and irreversible, yet involves a progressive sanctification.
2. It operates through the Word of God, which is ineffective by itself unless accompanied by the power of God.
3. It is demonstrated in preserving power that does not rob us of our responsibility while being specially available in times of great need.
4. It will culminate in the resurrection of believers.

I found his concluding remarks on its demonstration in times of need particularly clear and encouraging:

“There is nothing greater in the life of the church than to see men and women, temperamentally and constitutionally weak and fragile, enabled to endure what would make strong men quake: able to be patient in affliction, content whatever their circumstances, and making melody in their hearts always and in all things (Ephesians 5:20). That is the acme of Christian achievement and one of the most moving accomplishments of omnipotence.” (pp. 57-58)

I am sure we can all think of men and women who displayed this divine demonstration of preserving power, and who, like Macleod, gave all the credit to Him whose power enabled them to display His glory in their lives. The daily challenge is to be one of their number.

__________

* Donald Macleod, Behold Your God, Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 1990, pp. 53-58

Jason Ramasami’s latest cartoon is very thought-provoking.

HT: David Field