I’m off with my family to see my folks in Ayrshire. Back on Tuesday, DV.

You will note that I have not been blogging over the last couple of days. This is because I have had a kind of bloggy holiday. What’s that, you say? Well, in my various travellings I came across an entry by Messy Christian. I was interested and a bit concerned about the content of one of her posts, so I posted a comment. Well, I got into a couple of rather long conversations which have detained me somewhat, using up all my limited bloggy time – I was camping out contributing to someone else’s blog! Now I’m back.

It was interesting. I can’t say I came back unscathed. The people I was dealing with have formed/are forming a particular blog-based Christian subculture which seems to have real problems with visible expressions of the church. I have really only, scratched the surface, but the discussion I got into concerned the place and role of elders in a church. For them, there seems to be no concept of elders ‘ruling’. Right at the start, on the basis of a few sentences I was called a ‘churchianity freak’! Charming.

I notice two problems that immediately stand out, both from the interaction, and from other related articles: firstly that is poor exegesis of scripture to back up views. What there is is exegesis of the English, not the Greek – plenty of scope for anachronistic interpretations. I also notice a lack of interest in church history (well, it’s evil and corrupt isn’t it?). As a result the primitive church is idealised.

I’ll keep my eye on this. It’s quite interesting as a sociological development, but of some concern for biblical Christianity. I may review some articles which have emerged if I get the time.

Went into Derby for a meeting this afternoon – 6 miles in and 6 back. I made a quick count of the Euro Parliament political posters attached to lampposts on the way in. Here’s the result:

UK Independence: 11

Liberal Democrats: 6

Labour: 5

Conservative: 0

Respect: 0

BNP: 0

Greens: 0

UKIP are obviously keen and have some money. They also had the only billboard poster with Say No! to the European Union [cue: raspberry blowing]. Must be all those accountant types. I note that they are getting a lot of interest in my newspaper today.

Lib Dems were in the suburban areas, Labour in the urban areas. Predictable.

Where were the Tories? I saw what I thought was one of theirs – it had the right colours – but when I got close up it was an ad for Freddie’s Play Kingdom. Easy mistake to make.

So I make it UKIP out in front for effort. But still 2 weeks to go.

…, I’m hungry and I want toast with butter. But there’s not an ounce of butter in the house.

Disaster.

Like most people, we’re being inundated with fliers for the European elections on June 10th. I’m impressed that we’ve had so much. They must care! Here’s a summary:

Labour:Working Hard for Britain Large, thin glossy paper- looks like a supermarket flier. Not good. Picture of nice family in kiddies’ playground. Very little about Europe. All about Labour’s domestic record. .

Also there are six pictures of Labour people inside. “Which one is the candidate?” I said to Susan.

“All of them!” she said.

“What?”

It then dawned on me that the system for this election is not what I expected. Susan didn’t know what it was either. I’m still none the wiser. Does anyone know?

Conservative:Putting Britain First. Thick paper, not as glossy. Mmm. Nice. Focus on Britain’s relationship with Europe. Heavy on the need for a referendum on the new constitution. ‘Personal’ message from Michael Howard. (Is that good or bad? Hmm.) Six shiny double-barreled faces smiling at one.

Liberal Democrats:Let’s make Europe work for all of us. (what? for the MEPs or the people?) Smaller sheet in supermarket flier paper – boo – not trying hard enough. Slags off Tories as anti-Europe, and Labour for Iraq. Usual gubbins about cutting waste etc. Six fuzzy out-of-focus faces, holiday snap style, smiling (I think).

Now the little parties:

UK Independence:Say no to European Union. Well that’s clear. Two-colour theme (pink & yellow…mmm, nice). Mug of Kilroy-Silk inside. “Say No” to all sorts of things. Also known as the “Let’s Run Away While Blowing Raspberries at Everyone” Party. Looks like a bunch of old accountant-types.

Respect:Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community, Trade Unionism. Gorgeous George Galloway’s mob. Apparently run along Stalinist lines. Double plus ungood. Nice leaflet – best design. Nothing about Europe though. All anti-Blair.

British National Party:SAFE – Stop Asylum For Ever. Well that’s clear too. Single issue. This is the funniest. There is one candidate pictured with his family. On top of the picture is a quote, apparently from the little boy (looks aged 2 or 3), which says “My Dad isn’t a racist!” What a clever child! They’re not racist after all! No, no, … er … no?

Well there you have it. Who would you vote for?

Pretty Bauble: Elusive gold fillings

Untold Riches: The universe sustained moment by moment

Pretty Bauble : An impulse

Untold Riches: The gospel faithfully preached

Pretty Bauble : Speaking foreign languages

Untold Riches: Living in the power of the resurrection

Before I start, I apologise for the lengthy quotes in this post, but I think it is necessary to make a point.

One writer writes that

The normal Christian life is one of spiritual growth toward greater and greater likeness to Jesus Christ.

Sounds good. This is the concern of sanctification: likeness to Christ. This writer goes on to say

God does influence our minds directly, but his primary method of bringing about growth is through what are commonly called the “means of grace,” or conduits of divine energy. In these means we are not passive but must participate actively. Even though God indeed works in us both the willing and the doing of His good pleasure, we are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12-13)

Prayer. Through prayer our companionship with God reaches its highest intensity. Not only do we grow more like him through this companionship, but we find that prayer is the great means of victory at the moment of temptation.

Scripture. The Bible is God’s means of revealing his character and thus his will for our thoughts and actions. Therefore, the more we know his word, the higher the potential we have for conforming to his will. It is the milk and bread and meat of the soul. Furthermore, Jesus demonstrated in His hour of temptation that Scripture I is a great weapon in spiritual warfare. As we study it diligently to understand it and as we meditate on it constantly to apply it to life, we will be prepared to use it to overcome temptation.

Church. The congregation of God’s family is indispenpsible for spiritual growth. United worship and observance of the ordinances, teaching fellowship, discipline, service and witness within the responsible structure of the church are God’s ordained means for the growth of each member.

Suffering. Suffering may be God’s great shortcut to spiritual growth. Our response to suffering determines its benefit to us, of course for the same adversity may be destructive or life building. The response of faith, that is, confidence that God has permitted the trial for His glory and our own good, transforms a potentially evil circumstance into a means of making us more like the Suffering Servant Himself.

These four “Tools of the Spirit” are indispensable to Christian growth.

All sounds like useful, practical stuff.

Now, here’s another quote, from a different author. What do you make of this?

While we are constantly dependent on the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit, we must also take account of the fact that sanctification is a process that draws within its scope the conscious life of the believer. The sanctified are not passive or quiescent in this process. Nothing shows this more clearly than the exhortation of the apostle: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12, 13). The salvation refered to here is not the salvation already in possession but the Eschatological salvation. And not text sets forth more succinctly and clearly the relation of God’s working to our working. God’s working in us is not suspended because we work, nor our working suspended because God works. Neither is the relation strictly one of co-operation as if God did his part and we did ours so that the conjunction or coordination of both produced the required result. God works in us and we also work. But the relation is that because God works we work. All working out of salvation on our part is the effect of God’s working in us, not the willing to the exclusion of the doing and not the doing to the exclusion of the willing, but both the willing and the doing. And this working of God is directed to the end of enabling us to will and to do that which is well pleasing to him. We have here not only the explanation of all acceptable activity on our part but we have also the incentive to our willing and working. What the apostle is urging is the necessity of working out our own salvation, and the encouragement he supplies is the assurance that it is God himself who works in us. The more persistently active we are in working, the more persuaded we may be that all the energizing grace and power is of God.

The writer goes on to say

Sanctification involves the concentration of thought, of interest, of heart, mind, will and purpose upon the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus and the engagement of our whole being with those means which God has instituted for the attainment of that destination. Sanctification is the sanctification of persons, and persons are not machines; it is the sanctification of persons renewed after the image of God in knowledge, righteousness and holiness. The prospect it offers is to know even as we are known and to be holy even as God is holy. Everyone who has this hope in God purifies himself even as he is pure (1 John 3:3).

On first reading the two authors may seem to be saying the same thing about sanctification. The objective is the same (likeness to Christ). The key verse seems to be the same (Phil. 2:12,13). However there is an important difference. Note how the first writer quickly zooms in on certain activities as crucial to the process of sanctification. They are “Tools of the Holy Spirit”, “conduits of divine energy”. This is in sharp contrast to the second writer who emphasizes that the key activity is that of God in the believer, working with the whole of his being. It is not that the activities listed by the first writer are excluded by the second: he mentions the “means which God has instituted”. But they do not take centre stage.

It is an observation of some that the modern preoccupation with application of Scripture leads us Christians to want to tear off strips of the sanctification process into bite-sized, manageable chunks that we can do. The view underlying this approach is that a person’s life is dividable into chunks, some sanctified, others not. My task is a Christian is to “take the territory” of my life in little packages and thereby grow in sanctification. Preaching is therefore imperative driven, and my response one of doing doable tasks.

However, what is clear from the second writer is that the whole man needs to be renewed, that he cannot be divided into chunks and that there is no part that is not in need of sanctification. Therefore, in myself I am simply not able to “take territory”. Helpless as I find myself, I must turn to God in faith for the help I need. A preacher who recognizes this has a radically different approach to preaching. His method is to present the indicatives of the faith, in order that the faith of the believer is drawn out. The Christian therefore responds in faith, recognizing that he is utterly helpless, and knowing that his whole self is in need. There is no tendency to smugness here.

Of course, faith results in action. It wouldn’t be faith otherwise, would it?

(BTW The first quote is from J. R. McQuilkin in Five Views on Sanctification (Zondevan) pp. 178, 180, 181. The second is from John Murray Redemption: Accomplished and Applied (Banner of Truth) pp. 148-150. )

Here’s a collection of things I have come across in the blogosphere recently.

Firstly, thanks to Jon here’s a site that can waste lots of your time. Type in a word and you get a list of silly words back. I’m afraid this kind of thing sends me into a very unbecoming fit of giggles.

Also, a very useful resource for any Americans wanting to enjoy these pleasant shores. Perhaps slightly more useful than the orientation course some American former Rolls-Royce colleagues told me about. Now that was funny! (BTW thanks Iconoblog.)

Then, on a more serious note, here is a thought on pragmatism in the church (via Jollyblogger). Perhaps it was made more poignant by the post of Messy Christian who is clearly struggling with this form of results-based ministry. The pastoral issue she presents is as a result of bad theology arising from bad biblical study.

Finally, since some others are intimating their favourite preachers, here are a couple who were influential on me during my student days in Glasgow: Eric Alexander, who was the minster at St. George’s-Tron church, and Sinclair Ferguson, the then associate minister who was just getting his feet under the table at Westminster. Sound quality is pretty poor, but enjoy!

I haven’t got much time to write anything thoughtful , but here’s a piccy: Kenneth the cat spying on the neighbours.

Well, I got fed up with the decor again. I also got fed up with the DIY approach, and since Blogger has come out with a brand new range of stylish off-the-shelf numbers, I thought I would choose one of them. So here it is…

It hasn’t stopped my daughter complaining that she liked the orange back ground I once had. Orange? Eh?

Anyway, I’ve also jettisoned the Haloscan comments in favour of the new fangled Blogger option. This seems to have the advantage of keeping the comments with the original post, which I like. It has the disadvantage that I think commenters have to register with Blogger to ‘sign’ their comments, otherwise they are anonymous. (This doesn’t stop people signing within the comment itself, I suppose.)

We’ll give it a couple of weeks and see how it goes.

Have a nice day!