Monday, February 25, 2008

John Armstrong, " Sexuality and the Lord's Supper: Part One"

(From the ACT3 Weekly Letter)

Sexuality and the Lord's Supper: Part One

February 25, 2008
John H. Armstrong



The linking of the two terms in my title seems rather shocking at first glance. What does sex have to do with Communion? How can any Christian theologian connect the two this closely? Well, the fact is this-this is exactly what theologians have done for centuries, and for very good reason. My defense for this connection comes from none other than the apostle Paul himself. In 1 Corinthians Paul moves from the subject of sexuality to that of union with Christ in the Eucharist and then back again. Thus this connection has always been rather deeply rooted in the best of Christian tradition. It is we moderns who have broken this link, especially in the last three centuries, and thereby we have destroyed sexuality as Eucharistic.

Why Our Society Has a Difficult Time with This Connection

There are at least two reasons why moderns have a hard time seeing sexuality as Eucharistic. The first is obvious. The body has been massively trivialized in our society. Since sexuality is an activity of the body and the soul this trivialization of the human body leads to the even deeper trivialization of sex itself. In the common view of things sex is a form of recreation. Or just as wrong as this idea, sex becomes something we ignore or reject as harmful or ugly, though admittedly necessary for the procreation of the race. (But given our culture's desire for death, procreation is not an issue for many.) Homosexuality is accepted increasingly, followed closely now by transgendered sexuality. But close behind, to the surprise of some, is asexuality. A new asceticism, which is not Christian at all, sees sex as simply a bother, something to be tolerated at best.

Michele Kirsch, writing in The Times (London) in March of 2005 gave a number of quotes that underscore my point. I share two of them.

"It is more disinterest than disgust. Occasionally, when I contemplate everything the sexual act involves, I think, 'Ugh, why would I want to do that?' It is just something I don't feel the need to experience!"

And an asexual writer added, in an essay, titled, "My Life as an Amoeba":

"I find that being devoid of sexuality makes my life a lot easier. By not participating in that aspect of my life, my time is freed for other activities, building shrines, memorizing cure lyrics, studying forensic psychology."

Biblical and orthodox Christianity has a much better idea about sex and humanity. The Church cherishes sexuality as basic and inherent to our humanity. St. John Chrysostom captured this in a sermon on sex when he noticed people blushing. He became quite angry and asked the congregation: "Why do you blush? Is it not pure? You are behaving like heretics" (12th Homily on the Epistle to the Colossians).

Even Thomas Aquinas, not a source that you would readily think would underscore this same point of view about sex, suggested that thinking of sexuality as repulsive is a failure of true charity (love) and "a moral defect" (Summa Theologica II.II.142.1).

The second reason our society, and the Church, has a difficult time in seeing how the Eucharist relates to sexuality is that it views the human body as an object that belongs to us. My body is my body! But Scripture plainly says, "You are not your own." Look at the various modern books on the body. They fill the front tables of our favorite book stores. Man is a machine and the owner's manual is designed so that each owner can take charge over his or her own machine. The body is a possession, indeed the ultimate possession. Thus modern thought says "It's my body and I will do with it what I want." I can mark it, abuse it and do whatever I please with it.

This thinking about the body is deeply rooted in modernity. John Locke established his philosophy of the human person on the idea of "self-ownership." We are thus "a property in [our own] person." Against this philosophy the Church's teaching seems like pure restriction!

Timothy Radcliffe, a Dominican friar in Oxford, rightly says that the Christian view of sexuality "is about [the] living relationships of gift rather than of property exchange" (What Is the Point of Being a Christian? Burnes and Oates: London, 2005, 95). That's it-gift, not property exchange. Get this point fixed in your mind and you will have truly captured the startling truth that will lead you to see how sex and the Eucharist relate.

The Church's Doctrine of Sexuality

Let's be clear about this-the Church has not always handled sexuality well. But the essential core of the matter has been pretty clear, even more so in the East than the West. (We can thank St. Augustine for some of this mistaken stuff.) The Christian teaching is that we are to engage in sexual intercourse only with those to whom we are married in a covenantal bond. That bond is to be between a man and a woman and this relationship must remain open to procreation. (This is where the Roman Catholic Church opposes birth control because it sees it as artificially refusing to remain genuinely open to procreation. I believe their point is worthy of much more thought by all Christians, especially since the modern practice of birth control is rooted in many false ideologies, but in the end I am not convinced of Rome's position. Rome's position is not held by the rest of the Christian Church, East or West.)

The reality is clear, however. Vast numbers of Christians are divorced, remarried, living with unmarried partners, even sometimes with partners of the same sex. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 stands as a very stark and strong warning that the practice of certain sins, without repentance, will lead to spiritual death. Such will "not inherit the kingdom of God" says Paul. Sexual sins are on the list but note that there are other sins there, too; e.g., greed, slander and stealing. I hear next to no serious dealing with these words by those who promote sexual malpractice in the Church. )

We must be very clear about this. There is a Grand Canyon between what the Bible says about sexual ethics and what most of us practice in our actual churches. And sometimes attempts to correct this problem, attempts which are called for biblically, are almost as bad as the problems themselves. How we measure justice and mercy is always a challenge and simplistic solutions are very often neither pastoral nor wise.

This is part of what profoundly disturbs me about the present debate over homosexuality in the Church. I stand against all acceptance of homosexual practice as normative Christian behavior. But I am also troubled by the self-righteous way that we single out homosexual sin as if this sexual sin is the only one we should attack in trying to restore moral purity to the visible Church.

How Then Should We Respond?

Timothy Radcliffe suggests that one approach to this problem is to "strongly insist on the received teaching" (What Is the Point of Being a Christian?, 95). This is the response of many conservative churches and Christians. When this is done there is a very real danger, and I've personally seen it in many contexts. The danger is this-our churches become sects, narrow groups with a virtual phobia about sex. Our sexual ethic becomes so tightly wound, at least emotionally, that we have a hard time relating to real people who live around us. We fear they will pollute our children, corrupt our homes, and destroy our culture. (We need to be careful here for sure but we also need to be wary of withdrawing us and our children from the world. We are not building ghettoes for Christian saints but gospel communities that are inclusive in their invitation to come to the feet of Christ!) We forget that the gospel is good news, both for them and for us together.

But there is another problem here. Many conservative Christians cling to certain aspects of the Church's historic teaching on sexuality, while they ignore whole other areas of serious ethical teaching. The result is a form of hypocrisy that can be seen by the wider society from miles away.

If we allow people to be cavalier about sexual ethics, and do as they please, then are we not in danger of teaching them to disregard all other Christian ethical teaching as outdated and useless in the day-to-day world? Radcliffe, writing as a Catholic, says of some people: "Others remain Catholic, but feel either burdened with guilt or second-class citizens, excluded from Communion because they are in 'irregular situations'" (What Is the Point of Being a Christian?, 95).

But if the Christian Church simply accepts (approves) modern sexual practices and ideas then she is in an even worse state. When this happens, we assimilate the world's views of sexuality and then miss the gift that God has actually given to us. This is also why we miss the connection with the Eucharist as I will attempt to show.

In his insightful essay, Radcliffe refers to the way that some Catholics resolve this tension with a "pastoral solution." In this approach the teaching of the Church is openly asserted, but "subtle hints are given that everybody is welcome" (What is the Point in Being a Christian?, 96). In evangelical churches we tend to talk about sex a lot. When we do we always make it very clear that we oppose homosexual practice. What we also do is make it equally clear, to most it seems, that we do not like homosexuals. This has had a massive impact upon us missionally.

A recent poll found that the number one thing most non-Christians thought of when the Church came to their minds was "intolerance and hatred for gays." This is likely not your own view, but it is the way your non-Christian neighbors see your church and mine. If we are serious about evangelization we have to find a solution to this very real problem. The "pastoral solution" that Radcliffe refers to is not the right one but it is a humane one, which is more than can be said for many of the approaches that we presently take.

What Is the Solution?

Timothy Radliffe admits that he doesn't know what the real solution to this issue is. But at least in terms of how we uphold the Church's ethical standards, while at the same time we remain compassionate, humane and attractional to unbelievers and Christians who struggle deeply with sexual sin, such a solution must be sought. I agree with him after reading his few pages in his essay titled: "The Body Electric."

What Radcliffe profoundly reminds me of is that the "starting point" for understanding sexuality, and for teaching it in the modern era, is the Lord's Supper.

The Last Supper is the very real story of Jesus giving himself over, in body and soul, to his disciples and his enemies. His own disciples denied him and ran. One even sold him out! But his gift to them was his body. This gift reminds us that sexuality is not separable from vulnerability. There is a deep "tenderness" (Radcliffe) here that means someone is very likely to get hurt. Someone could be, and will be, used. There is an "extreme realism" about this matter, a realism that focuses our hearts on the idea that when we give ourselves up to someone else there is real danger.

A truly Christian sexual ethic says, "Give yourself up. Take this gift from God and give it to another much like Jesus gave himself up for you in his body and soul as he now gives himself to us in the Eucharist." This is how Jesus lived and died. This is love. Love gives and love surrenders. Only when this is taught clearly, and modeled powerfully, will the Church see why Christian sexual ethics matters at all. We lost this in the 20th century, not all at once but over the course of a hundred years or so. The Church slept through that revolution. Only now have some awakened to the depth of the sexual compromise, principally because of the homosexual debate that now rages. It would be a great tragedy if we followed a course in this new century that sees the primary objective of the Church's sexual teaching as that of opposing gays and lesbians.

Next Week: How the Lord's Supper can help us regain the proper understanding of sexual ethics and theology.

The Breastplate of St. Patrick

I bind unto myself today
the strong Name of the Trinity,
by invocation of the same,
the Three in One, and One in Three.

I bind this day to me for ever,
by power of faith, Christ's Incarnation;
his baptism in Jordan river;
his death on cross for my salvation;
his bursting from the spicèd tomb;
his riding up the heavenly way;
his coming at the day of doom:
I bind unto myself today.

I bind unto myself the power
of the great love of cherubim;
the sweet "Well done" in judgment hour;
the service of the seraphim;
confessors' faith, apostles' word,
the patriarchs' prayers, the prophets' scrolls;
all good deeds done unto the Lord,
and purity of virgin souls.

I bind unto myself today
the virtues of the starlit heaven
the glorious sun's life-giving ray,
the whiteness of the moon at even,
the flashing of the lightning free,
the whirling wind's tempestuous shocks,
the stable earth, the deep salt sea,
around the old eternal rocks.

I bind unto myself today
the power of God to hold and lead,
his eye to watch, his might to stay,
his ear to hearken, to my need;
the wisdom of my God to teach,
his hand to guide, his shield to ward;
the word of God to give me speech,
his heavenly host to be my guard.

Christ be with me,
Christ within me,
Christ behind me,
Christ before me,
Christ beside me,
Christ to win me,
Christ to comfort
and restore me.
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ in quiet,
Christ in danger,
Christ in hearts of
all that love me,
Christ in mouth of
friend and stranger.

I bind unto myself today
the strong Name of the Trinity,
by invocation of the same,
the Three in One, and One in Three.
Of whom all nature hath creation,
eternal Father, Spirit, Word:
praise to the Lord of my salvation,
salvation is of Christ the Lord.

Words: attributed to St. Patrick (372-466);
trans. Cecil Frances Alexander (1818-1895), 1889

Music: St. Patrick's Breastplate and Gartan (verse 6)

Meter: LMD

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Gene Veith, "The Butcher's Bill of Atheism" [Contra Atheism]

http://www.geneveith.com/the-butchers-bill-of-atheism/_355/

The butcher's bill of atheism

Dr. Aikman on an urban legend pushed by the "new atheists," and one of their major blind spots: 

Atheists who spend much of their time revisiting the crimes of religion ought to be quizzed again and again about what happens when governments adopt atheism as their official worldview.It is one of the most erroneous statements in popular culture in America, one of the most inaccurate but frequently repeated "urban legends," that more people have been killed in wars of religion than any other kind of war.Wrong. If the entire list of victims of every religious war ever fought, from the Crusades, through the wars of religion in Europe after the Protestant Reformation, to the brutal attacks upon each other of Muslims and Hindus in the sub-continent of India is added up, that number is completely dwarfed by those murdered by Communist regimes in the twentieth century.According to some estimates, the number of people murdered under Communism, whether in wars started by Communist regimes, or as a result of internal repression against domestic adversaries, or in policies deliberately intended to produce starvation (Stalin's holocaust in the Ukraine through starvation in 1933 murdered between seven and eleven million men, women, and children) approaches a total of 100 million.Then there is Hitler, who by general agreement deliberately murdered about twelve million people but started a war that took the lives of some 50 million. Hitler wasn't technically an atheist – we'll come to this in a moment –but there is no question that he acted as if there were no Divine personality or moral code above him to which he was going to be held accountable. In short, he certainly acted like someone in total rebellion against God.  

150 million dead!

Gene Veith, "The Case of Typing Monkeys" [Contra Atheism]

http://www.geneveith.com/the-case-of-the-typing-monkeys/_354/



The case of the typing monkeys

Dr. Aikman recounting one reason the noted atheist Anthony Flew (whose arguments against the existence of God I was subjected to when I was an undergraduate) changed his mind:

 The "Monkey Theorem," in its popular form, holds that if you have an infinite number of monkeys banging away at an infinite number of keyboards, eventually you will get from one of them Shakespeare's Sonnet Eighteen, the first four lines of which read:  

 "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? /Thou art more lovely and more temperate./ Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May/ And summer's lease hath all too short a date.    

 Well, in  the 1990's the British National Council of the Arts, in an inventive use of taxpayers' money, placed six monkeys in a cage with a computer.  After banging away at the keyboard for a whole month – and using the computer as a bathroom at the same time – the monkeys had typed 50 pages but failed to produce a single word in the English language, not even the letter "a" by itself.   [Gerry] Schroeder applied probability theory to the "Monkey Theorem" and calculated that the chance of getting Sonnet Eighteen by chance was 26 multiplied by itself 488 times (488 is the number of letters in the sonnet) or, in base 10, 10 to the 690th.  If that number is written out, it is 1 with 690 zeroes following it.  But, as Schroeder showed, the number of particles in the entire universe –  protons, electrons and neutrons – is only ten to the 80th.  Thus, even if every particle in the universe were a computer chip that had been spinning out random letters a million times a second since the beginning of time, there would still be no Shakespeare's Sonnet Eighteen by chance.  As Flew concluded, "if the theorem [the Monkey Theorem] won't work for a single sonnet, then of course it's simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.

 

I love knowing that there are 10 to the 80th particles in the universe!  Is that all?  And a typing monkey couldn't come up with one of them!

 

Matt Colver, "Baptism for Forgiveness in Acts 2:38"

http://upsaid.com/mac47

May 09 2007 A.D.

BAPTISM FOR FORGIVENESS IN ACTS 2:38

Cal Beisner is at it again. He claims that in Acts 2:38,
A careful study of the Greek grammar [Hm. How come nothing can ever be demonstrated by careless study of Greek grammar? - MC] at this point shows that it is repentance, not baptism, which is "for the remission of sins." The Greek text reads (translated):

You (plural) repent and be baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (the) remission of the sins of you.

This makes it clear that "remission of your [plural] sins" is the result of "you [plural] repent[ing]," not of "each one [singular] being baptized." The command to repent is given in the plural number and second person; the command to be baptized is given in the singular number and third person; the sins remitted belong to "you" in the plural number and second person. It is therefore improper to refer "remission of sins" to "baptism" as its cause, for this would mean that each one was baptized for the remission of the sins of all those present.
This is too funny by half. Let's examine the grammar and the context.

The original reads: Μετανοήσατε, [φησίν,] καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν... Now, there is no way any Greek-speaker would have read the "eis" clause ("for the forgiveness of your sins") as anything other than the purpose for which each man is to be baptized. Indeed, the only question to my mind is whether the prior command "Repent" is even included as something done "for the forgiveness of your sins". (Obviously, theologically-speaking, it is. I mean grammatically.) Grammatically, Beisner has it exactly backward. So-called "purposive eis" will be construed with whatever the most recent verb or set of verbs was. We might be able to exclude "repent," because it is farther away, and separated from the rest of the sentence by the dialogue tag ("phesi", if your MSS have it). Neither of these reasons is at all compelling, but they at least can be paralleled by other instances. It is grammatically conceivable that "repent" might not be "for the forgiveness of your sins." By contrast, we cannot even conceivably exclude "baptisthetw". Had Paul wanted to say "repent for the forgiveness of your sins, and let each of you be baptized", he would have done it. Greek prepositional phrases work pretty much like English: to put "for forgiveness" after "let each be baptized", when you mean it to go only with "repent" would be just as misleading in Greek as in English.

And no, there is nothing to motivate a "parenthesis" here. There is no problem at all with the switch from singular to plural. "Let each of you be baptized" is singular because the baptism in view is not a mass sprinkling like Moses did in Ex. 24, but a head-for-head matter. It's just good old-fashioned Second Temple Judaism at work, just as the Pharisees were upset at Jesus for letting his disciples eat with unwashed hands, and for not fasting, because they felt that each person who individually failed to do these things was thereby hindering the corporate, national, restoration from the punishment under which Israel was languishing. (Wright's "exile"). So the position Cal rejects is precisely right: "each one was baptized for the sins of all present."

To my mind, Acts 2:38 is not even primarily addressing the question of individual sins and individual forgiveness. Peter's stunning peroration in 2:36 is that "all the house of Israel" -- very emphatically corporate! -- should know that God has made Lord and Christ this Jesus "whom you (pl.) crucified."

The command to repent and be baptized is Peter's answer to his audience's question about this horrible, nation-destroying sin of Messiah-rejection ("They were cut to the heart" and asked "What shall we do?" , 2:37). They are thinking, "Oh no. This guy that our leaders executed was actually the Messiah after all. We're screwed!"

That Peter's answer is likewise historically contextualized is clear from his exhortation in 2:40 - "Be saved from this twisted generation." He doesn't tell them to look into their hearts and discover, a la Sonship, that "You're worse than you could ever imagine." Everyone seems to have a pretty "robust" conscience, to use K. Stendahl's term. The problem is not so much that everyone in the crowd is a sinner in a general sense. The problem is that Israel is suddenly revealed as a very unfortunate corporate solidarity to belong to at this particular moment in covenant history.

Peter is preaching especially to Jews here. It's certainly true that Christ saves Gentiles from the curse of Adam -- not the curse of the Torah. But here, we see further confirmation that N.T. Wright is right. Peter is talking to Israel under the curse of the covenant, about to be cut off because they did not heed the prophet like Moses; He is telling them that the covenant blessings of Deuteronomy lies on the other side of that event, for those who will join themselves (2:41 - prosetethesan, "were added") to the Israel that is already on the other side of this curse, i.e. the Church. In the logic of Peter's speech here in Acts 2, one gets baptized individually in order to belong to the corporate body that is being saved.

So in my view, Beisner is wrong about baptism in Acts 2:38, first because he doesn't read covenant-historically. He's trapped in a TR, individual-salvation mindset. The erroneous claims about Greek grammar are just an inevitable symptom of this larger, more far-reaching misunderstanding.



() Posted by Matt at 12 : 29 pm, 5/09/07

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

John Amstrong, "Why Lent?"

[From ACT3 Weekly E-mail, February 18, 2008]

Why Lent?

February 18, 2008
John H. Armstrong



My own spiritual tradition never mentioned the season of Lent. My first recollection of Lent was, therefore, quite negative. I remember Catholics getting ashes on their forehead on a Wednesday (there weren't many Catholics where I grew up in the 1950s) and I thought in my simple mind that these very confused people were just showing their piety off in public. My second thought, formed a few years later, was that Lent was a time to abstain from something you enjoyed (ice cream, chocolate, hamburgers, etc.) so that you could help add something to your good works in the hope that you would get into heaven when you died. Even when I entered the ministry, and remained a pastor for twenty years, I never thought about participating in Lent. It was, put simply, foreign territory for my spiritual life.

All this changed a few years ago, especially when I began to read ancient and classical Christian theology and inquire into the reasons why Christian tradition had developed seasons like Lent on the Church calendar. Then I participated in my first Ash Wednesday service (in a Lutheran context) and shared in Lenten observance with understanding. Now it has come to mean a great deal to me.

Lent?

One popular evangelical theologian defines Lent as "a time of abstinence, prayer and works of charity." This simplistic definition is accurate, to a point, but it merely reinforces the common evangelical mistakes about Lent in the process.

Lent is the forty day period (excluding Sundays) following Ash Wednesday and ending with the celebration of the Church on Easter eve. The forty days are a reflection of the forty days our Lord faced temptation in order to prepare for his great work of ministry and sacrifice. This is why Matthew 4:1-11 is often connected, and why I used it in my own Ash Wednesday sermon this year. (We also recall that both Moses and Elijah fasted for forty days.)

Lent is a season of preparation more than anything else. We are preparing for the greatest celebration of them all-Easter. In the early days of the Church, Lent was a time of preparation for baptism and remains such in the East down to the present day. Protestants have tended to use it more as a time for study, personal and congregational worship and deepening their own repentance.

The first formal mention of forty days in association with Lent came in the Canons of Nicea in A. D. 325. though in the West the actual time was not finally determined until as late as the seventh century. One prominent early Church father, Irenaeus, said that fasting should not exceed two or three days during Lent. Certain ascetic and rigid practices about fasting did develop fairly early. For example, a common practice was to eat only one meal a day, late in the day. Meat, fish and even eggs were not eaten in many sections of the Church. Only centuries later was a great deal of this relaxed in the West. In the East some of it is retained to this day.

In the Western Church the penitential aspect of Lent is reflected in the various aspects of the liturgy, such as in the use of purple vestments and the omission of the Alleluia. Today the emphasis is more on abstaining from ecclesial festivities, by the giving of alms and by the devotion of more time to spiritual growth and development. Following the Protestant Reformation, and in reaction to fasts being abused, much of this fell away, though Lutherans and Anglicans held on to the core of the practice and do so to this day. Increasingly, I find younger Christians asking questions about the practice and longing to know more about it. In emerging Western Church settings there has been some recovery of the idea and practice, though this is in no way universal.

But Is it Biblical?

Most evangelicals want to know, "What is the biblical basis for things like Lent?" The answer is not simple, and a simple response misses the point, at least to my mind.

If it is biblical, and it is, to fast, to repent, to seek God, to pray and develop my spiritual life intentionally, then surely Lent can be used toward this end even if we are not commanded to keep it. So there is no compelling reason to not keep Lent in the New Testament.

I would argue that asking the question this way is actually not the right way to ask the biblical question. Once you read the tradition, with any degree of respect for historical development and Early Church practice, you soon discover that there is a wealth of common practice among early Christians that is not only worth retaining but extremely valuable for one's spiritual growth.

The apostle Paul warns us about human regulations and celebrations that are not to be used to judge one another. He writes:

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ (Colossians 2:16-17).

But this text has often been misunderstood by evangelicals, who seem to think all Church celebration, rooted in Church tradition, are wrong. What Paul is really saying here is that man-centered superstitious ritualism is deadly. Mystical experiences, in and of themselves, are not even wrong. They are, however, dangerous since they can lead to pride, deception and schism.

What Paul says elsewhere, very plainly, is that true Christian worship centers in the living Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 11-14) present with his gathered congregation, speaking to his flock and culminating in communion with them in the Eucharist. This is so obvious that even the most radical Reformers understood this very clearly.

Ascetic Practice

Ascetic practices are not wrong either. In fact, they are taught by God. Matthew 6 makes this very plain-fasting, prayer and almsgiving-when it declares certain practices to be normative for followers of Jesus.

The correct idea behind ascetic practice is found in the New Testament word, askéō, to exercise. It is used only in Acts 24:16: "I exercise (strive) or exert myself to keep my conscience clear before God and all people." The term was used by ancient Greeks to tame the passions, to exercise virtue and thought control. Philo found in Jacob (Genesis 32:24ff.) the model for this practice and later Church fathers like Clement and Origen adopted this usage. The idea is found, without the word, in 1 Corinthians 9:25ff where the term askeín resembles the self-discipline of an athlete in training. Though the word is not used, there is a parallel text, for sure, in 1 Timothy 4:7-8. Thus the early Church developed the idea of askēsis, or "exercise, practice or training."

Over time the Church developed three types of theology-moral, mystical and ascetical. Ascetical theology dealt with the so-called "ordinary" ways of Christian perfection, or maturity. Insofar as grace would allow us to perfect the fear of God and the love of Christ, this theology treated the means employed and the dangers to be avoided along the way. If there is a goal to be reached, namely to become more and more like Christ, then how am I to pursue it?

It is at this point that I have to bear witness to the power of all of this kind of thinking, and living, in my own life. I was taught that to try to be like Jesus was impossible and all I needed to do was rest in his grace. In one sense this is, of course, profoundly true. In another it is a dangerous error. I was also taught to grow as a Christian, though this was pretty optional and advised for those who really wanted to be fruitful. But then I asked, "What then should I do now that I am a Christian?" The answer was rather simple-pray, read the Bible and attend church to get fellowship and teaching. Eventually I learned about keeping "a quiet time" and thus about regular daily Bible reading. But after these disciplines the well went dry. This is precisely where things like Lent came into my journey with great power. These disciplines, used with care and not as empty human traditions (which they are not since they were developed over centuries by thoughtful and serious Christians), provided me with a way to pursue my Savior's heart and to draw closer and closer to him. I am so far away still but I feel I am making progress I never knew for many, many years.

Lent This Year

Brennan Manning writes: "You see, the older I get, the more I ask myself, 'How is my life unfolding in terms of my primary goal of living with God forever?'" This is what has been dominant in my Lenten reflections this year. My regret is that it took me so long to see this picture of how my life was unfolding before God. It didn't need to be this way, I am now convinced. I don't blame my evangelicalism for this, but I do not think it helped me at this point either.

Lent, this year, is forcing me to take this question to heart on a day-to-day basis. If my goal is to be more like Christ, thus to see him and be satisfied with him, and him be satisfied with me, then this is the question to be asking right now.

What does Lent have to do with this question you ask? Well, it takes me out of my routines and raises all the right questions on an annual basis. There is an admonition that goes this way: "A Lent missed is a year lost from the spiritual life." I do not fully believe that, but I understand why it is stated that way now that I understand Lent better.

Emilie Griffin, in her new Lenten book, Small Surrenders (Paraclete Press: Brewster, Massachusetts, 2008) states this better than I can when she writes:

Lent has been marked out by the church as a time to ask oneself the big questions: What am I doing with my time? What am I doing with my life? How well am I expressing the imprint of Christ upon my heart? How deep is my charity? How deep is my love? How devoted is my service? How is my life unfolding in terms of my primary goal of living with God forever" (22)?

Griffin's title captures it for me. As an evangelical I was taught that there was really one great surrender, the one when I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior. Then there was a "second surrender" when I came into a deeper life of total commitment, or something like that. But "small surrenders" were not part of my framework. I think what I missed was huge now. "Lent," says Griffin, "is a time of benchmarks."

I find Lent to be a very evangelical experience. It reminds me that what I am, what I am becoming, is what allows me to become a "little Christ" and thus to become an expression of his life to others. Am I full of hope? Do I rejoice in suffering? Do I care about the needs in the lives of those around me?

Lent is coming to the question, intentionally and annually: "How am I doing?" An accurate answer will often elude us since sin blinds us even to ourselves. This is where spiritual friendship, godly counsel and the season of Lent all come to our aid. Authentic friendship and a non-showy pursuit of spiritual formation and personal transformation is what it is all about. Ideally, we all ask these questions throughout the entire year. Lent is, however, a wonderful reminder that we can use this forty day journey to intensify the question, thus we can pursue more directly more "small surrenders."

Monday, February 18, 2008

Tony Reinke, The Blank Bible

http://spurgeon.wordpress.com/2006/11/30/tss-blank-bible-index/

Tony Reinke, The Puritan Study Series

http://spurgeon.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/the-puritan-study-series-index/

// Introduction

The Puritan Study was born out of two convictions. First, the faithful Puritan preachers offer much biblical wisdom to the 21st century. Secondly, the church always struggles to remain faithful to the expositional ministry of the Word. Without advocating an exposition that overlooks the insights of previous generations, nor placing an improper emphasis on Puritan literature over Scripture, the church needs to think about how we can complement our expositions of Scripture with the great Puritan literature. This conviction pushed me to rethink my own use of the Puritans and to re-build a Puritan library specifically suited for expositional preaching.

The Puritan Study series covers many related topics: Which Puritans are most helpful in expositions? How do electronic and printed books work together? How do we effectively and quickly search Puritan literature? How can I implement specific Puritan insights into my sermons? And, how can I build a useful Puritan library of my own?

Overall, I hope that my readers will gain a healthy respect for the Puritan preachers from a long-passed era that encourages us to be biblically faithful to our own generation. My prayer is that the Puritan Study series will help our lives and preaching become more biblically mature.

————————–

// Main series posts

Part 1: The delights and pains of Puritan study
Part 2: The rules of a Puritan library
Part 3: The people of a Puritan library
Part 4: Why our effective use of the Puritans begins with our Bibles
Part 5: Print book searches
Part 6: Electronic searches
Part 7: Using the Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Part 8: To quote or not to quote?
Part 9: The strategy of building a Puritan library
Part 10: Concluding thoughts, part 1
Part 11: Concluding thoughts, part 2
Part 12: Q&A > Which Puritan should I start with?
Part 13: Photographs of the Puritan Library

————————–

// Full book reviews

1. The Complete Works of Thomas Boston (12 volumes)
2. The Works of John Flavel (6 volumes)
3. The Gospel Life Series by Jeremiah Burroughs (6 volumes)
4. The Works of Thomas Goodwin (12 volumes)

Reviews of these works will continue, Lord willing…


John Piper, "The Chief Design of My Life: Mortification and Universal Holiness: Reflections on the Life and Thought of John Owen" (1994 Bethlehem Conference for Pastors)

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Biographies/1466_The_Chief_Design_of_My_Life_Mortification_and_Universal_Holiness/

The Chief Design of My Life: Mortification and Universal Holiness

Reflections on the Life and Thought of John Owen
1994 Bethlehem Conference for Pastors
Listen   |   Download

By John Piper January 25, 1994

 


Introduction

There have been six keynote speakers at the Bethlehem Conference for Pastors before this year. Half of them have said that John Owen is the most influential Christian writer in their lives. That is amazing for a man who has been dead for 311 years, and who wrote in a way so difficult to read that even he saw his work as immensely demanding in his own generation.

For example, his book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, is probably his most famous and most influential book. It was published in 1647 when Owen was 31 years old. It is the fullest and probably the most persuasive book ever written on the "L" in TULIP: limited atonement.

The point of the book is that when Paul says, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her," (Eph. 5:25), he means that Christ really did something decisive and unique for the church when he died for her—something that is particular and sovereign, and different from what he does for people who experience his final judgment and wrath. The book argues that the particular love Christ has for his bride is something more wonderful than the general love he has for his enemies. It is a covenant love. It pursues and overtakes and subdues and forgives and transforms and overcomes every resistance in the beloved. The Death of Death is a great and powerful book—it kept me up for many evenings about twelve years ago as I was trying to decide what I really believed about the third point of Calvinism.

But, I'm getting ahead of myself. The point I was making is that it is amazing that Owen can have such a remarkable impact today when he has been dead 311 years and his way of writing is extremely difficult. And even he knows his work is difficult. In the Preface ("To the Reader") of The Death of Death Owen does what no good marketing agent would allow today. He begins like this: "READER ... If thou art, as many in this pretending age, a sign or title gazer, and comest into books as Cato into the theatre, to go out again,—thou hast had thy entertainment; farewell!" (X, 149) (see note 1).

Owen's influence on prominent contemporary theologians

Nevertheless, J.I. Packer and Roger Nicole and Sinclair Ferguson did not bid Owen farewell. They lingered. And they learned. And today all three of them say that no Christian writer has had a greater impact on them than John Owen.

J.I. Packer

Packer says that Owen is the hero of his book, Quest for Godliness, a book about The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. That is saying a lot, because for Packer the Puritans are the redwoods in the forest of theology (see note 2). And John Owen is "the greatest among the Puritan theologians." In other words he is the tallest of the redwoods. "For solidity, profundity, massiveness and majesty in exhibiting from Scripture God's ways with sinful mankind there is no one to touch him" (see note 3).

But Packer has a very personal reason for loving John Owen. I've heard him tell the story of the crisis he came into soon after his conversion. He was in danger in his student days of despairing under a perfectionistic teaching that did not take indwelling sin seriously. The discovery of John Owen brought him back to reality. "Suffice it so say," Packer recalls, "that without Owen I might well have gone off my head or got bogged down in mystical fanaticism" (see note 4).

So Packer virtually says he owes his life, and not just his theology to John Owen. It's not surprising then that Packer would say with regard to Owen's style that, while laborious and difficult, "the reward to be reaped from studying Owen is worth all the labour involved" (see note 5).

Roger Nicole

Roger Nicole, who taught at Gordon-Conwell Seminary for over 40 years said when he was here in 1989 that John Owen is the greatest theologian who has ever written in the English language. He even paused and said, even greater than the great Jonathan Edwards. That really caught my attention, because I am sure Nicole has read more of those two greats than most theologians and pastors have.

Sinclair Ferguson

Sinclair Ferguson, who was here in 1990, wrote an entire book on Owen, John Owen on the Christian Life, and tells us about his debt that began, if you can believe it, when he was still a teenager:

My personal interest in [Owen] as a teacher and theologian began in my late teenage years when I first read some of his writing. Like others, before and since, I found that they dealt with issues which contemporary evangelical literature rarely, if ever, touched. Owen's penetrating exposition opened up areas of need in my own heart, but also correspondingly profound assurances of grace in Jesus Christ ... Ever since those first encounters with his Works, I have remained in his debt ... To have known the pastoral ministry of John Owen during these years (albeit in written form) has been a rich privilege; to have known Owen's God an even greater one (see note 6).
Others

Of course the magnitude of John Owen's influence goes well beyond these three. To Ambrose Barnes he was "the Calvin of England." To Anthony Wood, he was "the Atlas and Patriarch of Independency" (see note 7). Charles Bridges, in The Christian Ministry (1830) said,

Indeed upon the whole—for luminous exposition, and powerful defence of Scriptural doctrine—for determined enforcement of practical obligation —for skillful anatomy of the self-deceitfulness of the heart—and for a detailed and wise treatment of the diversified exercises of the Christian's heart, he stands probably unrivaled" (see note 8). If Nicole and Bridges are right—that John Owen is unrivaled in the English speaking world—then Jonathan Edwards was not too far behind, and Edwards pays his respect to Owen not only by quoting him substantially in the Religious Affections, but also by recording in his "Catalogue" of readings the recommendation of Hallyburton to his students at St. Andrews University that the writings of John Owen are to be valued above all human writings for a true view of the mystery of the gospel (see note 9).

One of the reasons I linger over these tributes so long is that I want you to feel drawn not just to Owen, but to the value of having some great heroes in the ministry. There are not many around today. And God wills that we have heroes. Hebrews 13:7—"Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith." It seems to me that the Christian leaders today that come closest to being heroes are the ones who had great heroes. I hope you have one or two, living or dead. Maybe Owen will become one.

An Overview of Owen's Life

Most people—even pastors and theologians—don't know much about John Owen. One of the reasons is that his writings are not popular today (see note 10). But another reason is that not much is known about him —at least not much about his personal life. Peter Toon, in his 1971 biography says, "Not one of Owen's diaries has been preserved; and ... the extant letters in which he lays bare his soul are very few, and recorded, personal reactions of others to him are brief and scarce (see note 11) ... We have to rely on a few letters and a few remarks of others to seek to understand him as a man. And these are insufficient to probe the depths of his character. So Owen must remain hidden as it were behind a veil ... his secret thoughts remain his own" (see note 12).

I think this may be a little misleading because when you read the more practical works of Owen the man shines through in a way that I think reveals the deep places of his heart. But still the details of his personal life are frustratingly few. You will see this—and share my frustration— in what follows.

Owen was born in England in 1616, the same year that William Shakespeare died and four years before the Pilgrims set sail for New England. This is virtually in the middle of the great Puritan century (roughly 1560 to 1660).

Puritanism was at heart a spiritual movement, passionately concerned with God and godliness. It began in England with William Tyndale the Bible translator, Luther's contemporary, a generation before the word "Puritan" was coined, and it continued till the latter years of the seventeenth century, some decades after "Puritan" had fallen out of use ... Puritanism was essentially a movement for church reform, pastoral renewal and evangelism, and spiritual revival ... The Puritan goal was to complete what England's Reformation began: to finish reshaping Anglican worship, to introduce effective church discipline into Anglican parishes, to establish righteousness in the political, domestic, and socioeconomic fields, and to convert all Englishmen to a vigorous evangelical faith (see note 13).
Owen was born in the middle of this movement and became its greatest pastor-theologian as the movement ended almost simultaneously with his death in 1683 (see note 14). His father was a pastor in Stadham, five miles north of Oxford. He had three brothers and a sister. In all his writings he does not mention his mother or his siblings. There is one brief reference to this father which says, "I was bred up from my infancy under the care of my father, who was a Nonconformist all his days, and a painful laborer in the vineyard of the Lord" (see note 15).

At the age of 10 he was sent to the grammar school run by Edward Sylvester in Oxford where he prepared for the university. He entered Queens College, Oxford at 12, took his Bachelor of Arts at 16 and his M.A. three years later at 19. We can get a flavor of what the boy was like from the observation by Peter Toon that Owen's zeal for knowledge was so great at this time that "he often allowed himself only four hours of sleep each night. His health was affected, and in later life, when he was often on a sick-bed, he regretted these hours of rest that he had missed as a youth" (see note 16).

Owen began his work for the B.D. but could not stand the high church Arminianism and formalism of Oxford any longer and dropped out to become a personal tutor and chaplain to some wealth families near London.

In 1642 the Civil war began between Parliament and King Charles (between the high-church religion of William Laud and the Puritan religion of the Presbyterians and Independents in the House of Commons). Owen was sympathetic with Parliament against the king and Laud, and so he was pushed out of his chaplaincy and moved to London where five major events of his life happened in the next four years that stamped the rest of his life.

Five Events that Stamped the Rest of his Life

A. Conversion

The first is his conversion—or his assurance of salvation and deepening of his personal communion with God. It is remarkable that it happened in a way almost identical to Charles Spurgeon's conversion two centuries later. On January 6, 1850 Spurgeon was driven by a snow storm into a Primitive Methodist Chapel where a layman stood in for the pastor and took the text from Isaiah 45:22, "Look to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth." Spurgeon looked and was saved (see note 17).

Owen was a convinced Calvinist with large doctrinal knowledge, but he lacked the sense of the reality of his own salvation. That sense of personal reality in all that he wrote was going to make all the difference in the world for Owen in the years to come. So what happened one Sunday in 1642 is very important.

When Owen was 26 years old he went with his cousin to hear the famous Presbyterian, Edmund Calamy at St. Mary's Church Aldermanbury. But it turned out Calamy could not preach and a country preacher took his place. Owen's cousin wanted to leave. But something held Owen to his seat. The simple preacher took as his text Matthew 8:26, "Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?" It was God's appointed word and appointed time for Owen's awakening. His doubts and fears and worries as to whether he was truly born anew by the Holy Spirit were gone. He felt himself liberated and adopted as a Son of God. When you read the penetrating practical works of Owen on the work of the Spirit and the nature of true communion with God it is hard to doubt the reality of what God did on this Sunday in 1642 (see note 18).

B. Marriage

The second crucial event in those early years in London was Owen's marriage to a young woman named Mary Rooke. He was married to her for 31 years, from 1644 to 1675. We know virtually nothing about her. But we do know one absolutely stunning fact that must have colored all of Owen's ministry for the rest of his life (He died eight years after she did.). We know that she bore him 11 children, and all but one died as a child, and that one daughter died as a young adult. In other words Owen experienced the death of eleven children and his wife! That's one child born and lost on the average every three years of Owen's adult life (see note 19).

We don't have one reference to Mary or to the children or to his pain in all his books. But just knowing that the man walked in the valley of the shadow of death most of his life gives me a clue to the depth of dealing with God that we find in his works. God has his strange and painful ways of making us the kind of pastors and theologians he wants us to be.

C. First book

The third event in these early London years is the publishing of his first book. He had read thoroughly about the recent controversy in Holland between the Remonstrants (whom he called Arminians) and the Calvinists. The Remonstrance was written in 1610 and the Calvinistic response was the Synod of Dordt in 1618. In spite of all its differences Owen say the English High Church of William Laud and the Dutch Remonstrants as essentially one in their rejection of predestination which for Owen had become utterly crucial, especially since in conversion which he so thoroughly attributed to God.

So he published his first book in April 1643 with the polemical, preface-like title, A Display of Arminianism: being a discovery of the old Pelagian idol, free-will, with the new goddess, contingency, advancing themselves into the throne of God in heaven to the prejudice of His grace, providence and supreme dominion over the children of men.

This is important not only because it set his direction as a Calvinist, but as a public, controversial writer whose whole life would be swallowed up by writing ot the final month of his life in 1683.

D. Becoming a pastor

The fourth crucial event in these years was Owen's becoming a pastor of a small parish in Fordham, Essex, on July 16, 1643. He didn't stay long in this church. But I mention it because it set the course of his life as a pastor. He was always essentially a pastor, even when involved with administration at the University of Oxford and even when involved with the political events of his day. He was anything but a cloistered academic. All of his writing was done in the press of pastoral duties. There are points in his life where this seems utterly amazing—that he could keep on studying and writing with the kind of involvements that he had.

E. Addressing Parliament

The fifth event of these early years in London was the invitation in 1646 to speak to the Parliament. In those days there were fast days during the year when the government asked certain pastors to preach to the House of Commons. It was a great honor. This message catapulted Owen into political affairs for the next 14 years.

Owen came to the attention of Oliver Cromwell, the governmental leader ("Protector") in the absence of a king, and Cromwell is reputed to have said to Owen, "Sir, you are a person I must be acquainted with;" to which Owen replied, "that will be much more to my advantage than yours" (see note 20).

Well, maybe and maybe not. With that acquaintance Owen was thrown into the turmoil of civil war. Cromwell made him his chaplain and carried him off to Ireland and Scotland to preach to his troops and to assess the religious situation in these countries and to give the theological justification for Cromwell's politics.

Not only that Cromwell in 1651 appointed Owen to the Deanship at Christ Church College in Oxford and then the next year made him also the Vice-Chancellor. He is involved with Oxford for nine years until 1660 when Charles II returns and things begin to go very bad for the Puritans.

Fruitfulness Amid Pressure

What began to amaze me as I learned how public and how administratively laden Owen's life was, was how he was able to keep on studying and writing in spite of it all, and in part because of it all.

At Oxford Owen was responsible for the services of worship because Christ Church was a cathedral as well as a college and he was the preacher. He was responsible for the choice of students, the appointment of chaplains, the provision of tutorial facilities, the administration of discipline, the oversight of property, the collection of rents and tithes, the gift of livings and the care of almsmen the church hospital. but his whole aim in all his duties Peter Toon says was "to establish the whole life of the College on the Word of God (see note 21).

His life was simply overwhelmed with pressure. I can't imagine what kind of family life he had, and during his time his children were dying (We know that at least two sons died in the plague of 1655.). When he finished his duties as Vice chancellor he said in his closing address,

Labours have been numberless; besides submitting to enormous expense, often when brought to the brink of death on your account, I have hated these limbs and this feeble body which was ready to desert my mind; the reproaches of the vulgar have been disregarded; the envy of others has been overcome: in these circumstances I wish you all prosperity and bid you farewell (see note 22).
In spite of all that administrative pressure and even hostility because of his commitment to godliness and to the Puritan cause, he was constantly studying and writing, probably late at night instead of sleeping. That's how concerned he was with doctrinal faithfulness to Scripture. Peter Toon lists 22 published works during those years. For example, he published his defense of the Saints' Perseverance in 1654. He saw a man named John Goodwin spreading error on this doctrine and he felt constrained, in all his other duties, to answer him—with 666 pages! It fills all of volume 11 in his Works. And he wasn't writing fluff that would vanish overnight. One biographer said that this book is "the most masterly vindication of the perseverance of the saints in the English tongue" (see note 23).

During these administrative years he also wrote Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers (1656), Of Communion with God (1657), Of Temptation: The Nature and Power of It (1658). What is so remarkable about these books is that they are what I would call intensely personal and in many places very sweet. So he wasn't just fighting doctrinal battles he was fighting sin and temptation. And he wasn't just fighting, he was trying to foster heartfelt communion with God in the students.

He was relieved of his duties of the Deanship in 1660 (having laid down the Vice-Chancelorship in 1657). Cromwell had died in 1658. The monarchy with Charles II was back. The Act of Uniformity that put 2000 Puritans out of their pulpits was just around the corner (1662). The days ahead for Owen now were not the great political, academic days of the last 14 years. He was now from 1660 until his death in 1693 a kind of fugitive pastor in London.

During these years he became what some have called the "Atlas and Patriarch of Independency." He had begun his ministry as a Puritan of Presbyterian persuasion. But he became persuaded that the Congregational form of government is more Biblical. He was the main spokesman for this wing of Non-conformity, and wrote extensively to defend the view (see note 24).

But even more significant he was the main spokesman for tolerance of both Presbyterian and Episcopal forms. Even while at Oxford he had the authority to squash Anglican worship, but he allowed a group of Episcopalians to worship in rooms across from his own quarters (see note 25). He wrote numerous tracts and books to call for tolerance within Orthodoxy. For example in 1667 he wrote (in Indulgence and Toleration Considered):

It seems that we are some of the first who ever anywhere in the world, from the foundation of it, thought of ruining and destroying persons of the same religion with ourselves, merely upon the choice of some peculiar ways of worship in that religion (see note 26).
His ideas of tolerance were so significant that they had a large influence on William Penn, the Quaker and founder of Pennsylvania, who was a student of Owen. And it is significant to me as a Baptist that in 1669 he wrote, with several other pastors, a letter of concern to the governor and congregationalists of Massachusetts pleading with them not to persecute the Baptists (see note 27).
Pastoral Ministry

During these 23 years after 1660 Owen was a pastor. Because of the political situation he was not always able to stay in one place and be with his people but he seemed to carry them on his heart even when he was moving around. Near the end of his life he wrote to his flock, "Although I am absent from you in body, I am in mind and affection and spirit present with you, and in your assemblies; for I hope you will be found my crown and rejoicing in the day of the Lord" (see note 28).

Not only that, he actively counseled and made plans for their care in his absence. He counseled them in one letter with words that are amazingly relevant to pastoral care struggles in our churches today:

I beseech you to hear a word of advice in case the persecution increases, which it is like to do for a season. I could wish that because you have no ruling elders, and your teachers cannot walk about publicly with safety, that you would appoint some among yourselves, who may continually as their occasions will admit, go up and down from house to house and apply themselves peculiarly to the weak, the tempted, the fearful, those who are ready to despond, or to halt, and to encourage them in the Lord. Choose out those unto this end who are endued with a spirit of courage and fortitude; and let them know that they are happy whom Christ will honor with His blessed work. And I desire the persons may be of this number who are faithful men, and know the state of the church; by this means you will know what is the frame of the members of the church, which will be a great direction to you, even in your prayers (see note 29).
Under normal circumstances Owen believed and taught that, "The first and principal duty of a pastor is to feed the flock by diligent preaching of the word" (see note 30). He pointed to Jeremiah 3:15 and the purpose of God to "give to his church pastors according to his own heart, who should feed them with knowledge and understanding." He showed that the care of preaching the gospel was committed to Peter, and through him to all true pastors of the church under the name of "feeding" (John 21:15, 16). He cited Acts 6 and the apostles decision to free themselves from all encumbrances that they may give themselves wholly to the word and prayer. He referred to 1 Timothy 5:17 that it is the pastor's duty to "labor in the word and doctrine," and to Acts 20:28 where the overseers of the flock are to feed them with the word.

Then he says, "Nor is it required only that he preach now and then at his leisure; but that he lay aside all other employments, though lawful, all other duties in the church, as unto such a constant attendance on them as would divert him from this work, that he give himself unto it ... Without this, no man will be able to give a comfortable account of his pastoral office at the last day" (see note 31). I think it would be fair to say that this is the way Owen fulfilled his charge during these years whenever the political situation allowed him.

Owen and Bunyan

It's not clear to me why some Puritans at this time were in prison and others, like Owen were not. Part of the explanation was how openly they preached. Part of it was that Owen was a national figure with connections in high places. Part of it was that the persecution was not nationally uniform, but some local officials were more rigorous than others.

But whatever the explanation it is remarkable the relationship that John Owen had in these years with John Bunyan who spent too many of them in prison. One story says that King Charles II asked Owen one time why he bothered going to hear an uneducated Tinker like Bunyan preach. Owen replied, "Could I posses the tinker's abilities for preaching, please your majesty, I would gladly relinquish all my learning" (see note 32).

One of the best illustrations of God's hiding a smiling face behind a frowning providence is the story of how Owen failed to help Bunyan get out of prison. Repeatedly when Bunyan was in prison Owen worked for his release with all the strings he could pull. But to no avail. But when John Bunyan came out in 1676 he brought with him a manuscript "the worth and importance of which can scarcely be comprehended" (see note 33). In fact Owen met with Bunyan and recommended his own publisher, Nathaniel Ponder. The partnership succeeded, and the book that has probably done more good, after the Bible, was released to the world—all because Owen failed in his good attempts to get Bunyan released, and because he succeeded in finding him a publisher. The lesson: "Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,/but trust him for his grace;/behind a frowning providence/he hides a smiling face."

Death

Owen died August 24, 1683. He was buried on September 4, in Bunhill Fields, London, where five years later the Tinker and "Immortal Dreamer of Bedford Jail" would be buried with him. It was fitting for the two to lie down together, after the Congregational Giant had labored so long in the cause of toleration for lowly Baptists in England and New England.

His All-encompassing Aim in Life—Holiness

What I would like to try to do now is get close to the heart of what made this man tick and what made him great. I think the Lord wants us to be inspired by this man in some deep personal and spiritual ways. That seems to be the way he has touched people most—like J. I. Packer and Sinclair Ferguson.

I think the words of his which come closest to giving us the heart and aim of his life are found in the preface to the little book: Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers which was based on sermons that he preached to the students and academic community at Oxford:

I hope I may own in sincerity that my heart's desire unto God, and the chief design of my life ... are, that mortification and universal holiness may be promoted in my own and in the hearts and ways of others, to the glory of God, that so the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be adorned in all things (see note 34).
That was 1656. Owen was 40 years old. Twenty-five years later he was still sounding the same note in his preaching and writing. In 1681 he published The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded. Sinclair Ferguson is probably right when he says, "Everything he wrote for his contemporaries had a practical and pastoral aim in view—the promotion of true Christian living" (see note 35)—in other words the mortification of sin and the advancement of holiness.

This was his burden not only for the churches but also for the University when he was there. Peter Toon says, "Owen's special emphasis was to insist that the whole academic curriculum be submerged in preaching and catechizing and prayer. He wanted the graduates of Oxford not only to be proficient in the Arts and Sciences but also to aspire after godliness" (see note 36).

Even in his political messages—the sermons to Parliament—the theme was repeatedly holiness. He based this on the Old Testament patter— that "the people of Israel were at the height of their fortunes when their leaders were godly" (see note 37). So the key issue for him was that the legislature be made up of holy people.

His concern that the gospel spread and be adorned with holiness was not just a burden for his English homeland. When he came back from Ireland in 1650 where he had seen the English forces, under Cromwell, decimate the Irish, he preached to Parliament and pleaded for another kind of warfare:

"How is it that Jesus Christ is in Ireland only as a lion staining all his garments with the blood of his enemies; and none to hold him out as a Lamb sprinkled with his own blood to his friends? ... Is this to deal fairly with the Lord Jesus?—call him out to do battle and then keep away his crown? God hath been faithful in doing great things for you; be faithful in this one—do your utmost for the preaching of the Gospel in Ireland" (see note 38).
From his writings and from the testimony of others it seems fair to say that the aim of personal holiness in all of life, and the mortifying of all known sin really was the labor not only of his teaching but of his own personal life.

David Clarkson, his pastoral associate in the later years of Owen's ministry, gave his funeral address. In it he said,

A great light is fallen; one of eminency for holiness, learning, parts and abilities; a pastor, a scholar, a divine of the first magnitude; holiness gave a divine lustre to his other accomplishments, it shined in his whole course, and was diffused through his whole conversation (see note 39).
John Stoughton said, "His piety equaled his erudition" (see note 40). Thomas Chalmers of Scotland commented on On the Nature, Power, Deceit, and Prevalence of Indwelling Sin in Believers, "It is most important to be instructed on this subject by one who had reached such lofty attainments in holiness, and whose profound and experimental acquaintance with the spiritual life so well fitted him for expounding its nature and operations" (see note 41).

Why We Should Listen to John Owen

The reason this question is so urgent for us today is not only that there is a holiness without which we will not see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14), but that there seems to be a shortage of political and ecclesiastical leaders today who make the quest for holiness as central as the quest for church growth or political success. The President of the United States communicated very clearly that he did not think his personal holiness was a significant factor in his leadership of this nation. The cavalier way many church leaders treat sexual propriety is an echo of the same disease. John Owen would have been appalled at both the national and the ecclesiastical scene.

John Owen is a good counselor and model for us on this matter of holiness because he was not a hermit. We often think some people have the monkish luxury of just staying out of the mess of public life and becoming holy people. Not so the Puritans of Owen's day. J. I. Packer said that Puritanism was "a reformed monasticism outside the cloister and away from monkish vows" (see note 42). This is especially true of Owen.

His contemporary, Richard Baxter, called Owen "the great doer" (see note 43). He lived in the public eye. He was involved in academic administration; he was in politics up to his ears; he was entangled with the leading military officers of the country; he was embroiled in controversies over all kinds of matters from the authenticity of the Hebrew vowel points and the Epistle of Ignatius to the national laws of toleration and the nature of justification; he was looked to by thousands of congregational independent ministers as their spokesman at the national level; he was all the while pastoring people—and don't forget, losing a child in death every three years.

And we all know that a life like that is shot through with criticism that can break the spirit and make the quest for personal holiness doubly difficult. When his adversaries could not better him in argument they resorted to character assassination. He was called, "the great bell-weather of disturbance and sedition ... a person who would have vied with Mahomet himself both for boldness and imposture ... a viper, so swollen with venom that it must either burst or spit its poison" (see note 44).

And even more painful and disheartening is the criticism of friends. He once got a letter from John Eliot, the missionary to the Indians in America, that wounded him more deeply, he said, than any of his adversaries.

What I have received from you ... hath printed deeper, and left a greater impression upon my mind, than all the virulent revilings and false accusations I have met withal from my professed adversaries ... That I should now be apprehended to have given a wound unto holiness in the churches, it is one of the saddest frowns in the cloudy brows of Divine Providence (see note 45).
Add to this the daily burdens of living in a pre-technological world with no modern conveniences, and passing through two major plagues one of which in 1665 killed 70,000 of the half-million people in London (see note 46), plus the 20 years of living outside the protection of the law—then we know that John Owen's holiness was not worked out in the comforts of peace and leisure and safety. When a man like this, under these circumstances, is remembered and extolled for centuries for his personal holiness we should listen.

How Did He Pursue Holiness?

Owen humbled himself under the mighty hand of God.

Though he was one of the most influential and well-known men of his day his view of his own place in God's economy was sober and humble. Two days before he died he wrote in a letter to Charles Fleetwood, "I am leaving the ship of the Church in a storm, but while the great Pilot is in it the loss of a poor under-rower will be inconsiderable" (see note 47).

Packer says that "Owen, [though] a proud man by nature, had been brought low in and by his conversion, and thereafter he kept himself low by recurring contemplation of his inbred sinfulness" (see note 48). What Owen wrote illustrates this:

To keep our souls in a constant state of mourning and self-abasement is the most necessary part of our wisdom ... and it is so far from having any inconsistency with those consolations and joys, which the gospel tenders unto us in believer, as that it is the only way to let them into the soul in a due manner (see note 49).

With regard to his immense learning and the tremendous insight he had into the things of God he seems to have a humbler attitude toward his achievements because he had climbed high enough to see over the first ridge of revelation into the endless mysteries of God.

I make no pretence of searching into the bottom or depths of any part of this "great mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh." They are altogether unsearchable, unto the [limit] of the most enlightened minds, in this life. What we shall farther comprehend of them in the other world, God only knows (see note 50).
This humility opened Owen's soul to the greatest visions of Christ in the Scriptures. And he believed with all his heart the truth of 2 Corinthians 3:18 that by contemplating the glory of Christ "we may be gradually transformed into the same glory" (see note 51). And that is nothing other than holiness.
Owen grew in knowledge of God by obeying what he knew already.

In other words Owen recognized that holiness was not merely the goal of all true learning; it is also the means of more true learning. This elevated holiness even higher in his life: it was the aim of his life and, in large measure, the means of getting there.

The true notion of holy evangelical truths will not live, at least not flourish, where they are divided from a holy conversation (=life). As we learn all to practice [!!!], so we learn much by practice ... and herein alone can we come unto the assurance, that what we know and learn is indeed the truth [cf. John 7:17] ... And hereby will they be led continually into farther degrees of knowledge. For the mind of man is capable of receiving continual supplies in the increase of light and knowledge ... if ... they are improved unto their proper end in obedience unto God. but without this the mind will be quickly stuffed with notions so that no streams can descend into it from the fountain of truth (see note 52).
Thus Owen kept the streams of the fountain of truth open by making personal obedience the effect of all that he learned, and the means of more.
Owen passionately pursued a personal communion with God.

It is incredible that Owen was able to keep writing edifying and weighty books and pamphlets under the pressures of his life. The key was his personal communion with God. Andrew Thomson, one of his biographers wrote,

It is interesting to find the ample evidence which [his work on Mortification] affords, that amid the din of theological controversy, the engrossing and perplexing activities of a high public station, and the chilling damps of a university, he was yet living near God, and like Jacob amid the stones of the wilderness, maintaining secret intercourse with the eternal and invisible (see note 53).
Packer says that the Puritans differ from evangelicals today because with them,

" ... communion with God was a great thing, to evangelicals today it is a comparatively small thing. The Puritans were concerned about communion with God in a way that we are not. The measure of our unconcern is the little that we say about it. When Christians meet, they talk to each other about their Christian work and Christian interests, their Christian acquaintances, the state of the churches, and the problems of theology—but rarely of their daily experience of God" (see note 54).

But God was seeing to it that Owen and the suffering Puritans of his day lived closer to God and sought after communion with God more earnestly than we. Writing a letter during an illness in 1674 he said to a friend, "Christ is our best friend, and ere long will be our only friend. I pray God will all my heart that I may be weary of everything else but converse and communion with Him" (see note 55). God was using illness and all the other pressures of Owen's life to drive him into communion with God and not away form it.

But Owen was also very intentional about his communion with God. He said, "Friendship is most maintained and kept up by visits; and these, the more free and less occasioned by urgent business (see note 56) ..." In other words, in the midst of all his academic and political and ecclesiastical labors he made many visits to his Friend, Jesus Christ.

And when he went he did not just go with petitions for things or even for deliverance in his many hardships. He went to see his glorious friend and to contemplate his greatness. The last book he wrote—he was finishing it as he died—is called Meditations on the Glory of Christ. That says a great deal about the focus and outcome of Owen's life. In it he said,

The revelation ... of Christ ... deserves the severest of our thoughts, the best of our meditations and our utmost diligence in them ... What better preparation can there be for [our future enjoyment of the glory of Christ] than in a constant previous contemplation of that glory in the revelation that is made in the Gospel (see note 57).
The contemplation Owen has in mind is made up of at least two things: on the one hand there is what he called his "severest thoughts" and "best meditations" or in another place "assiduous meditations," and on the other had relentless prayer. The two are illustrated in his work on Hebrews.

One of his greatest achievements was his seven volume commentary on Hebrews. When he finished it near the end of his life he said, "Now my work is done: it is time for me to die" (see note 58). How did he doe it? We get a glimpse from the preface:

I must now say, that, after all my searching and reading, prayer and assiduous meditation have been my only resort, and by far the most useful means of light and assistance. By these have my thoughts been freed from many an entanglement (see note 59).

His aim in all he did was to grasp the mind of Christ and reflect it in his behavior. This means that the quest for holiness was always bound up with a quest for true knowledge of God. That's why prayer and study and meditation always went together.

I suppose ... this may be fixed on as a common principle of Christianity; namely, that constant and fervent prayer for the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit, is such an indispensable means for ... attaining the knowledge of the mind of God in the Scripture, as that without it all others will not [avail] (see note 60).

Owen gives us a glimpse into the struggle that we all have in this regard lest anyone think he was above the battle. He wrote to John Eliot in New England,

I do acknowledge unto you that I have a dry and barren spirit, and I do heartily beg your prayers that the Holy One would, notwithstanding all my sinful provocations, water me from above. (see note 61).
In other words the prayers of others were essential not just his own.

The chief source of all that Owen preached and wrote was this "assiduous meditation" on Scripture and prayer. Which leads us to the fourth way that Owen achieved such holiness in his immensely busy and productive life. Which leads us to the fourth way that Owen achieved such holiness in his immensely busy and productive life.

Owen was authentic in commending in public only what he had experienced in private.

One great hindrance to holiness in the ministry of the word is that we are prone to preach and write without pressing into the things we say and making them real to our own souls. Over the years words begin to come easy, and we find we can speak of mysteries without standing in awe; we can speak of purity without feeling pure; we can speak of zeal without spiritual passion; we can speak of God's holiness without trembling; we can speak of sin without sorrow; we can speak of heaven without eagerness. And the result is a terrible hardening of the spiritual life.

Words came easy for Owen, but he set himself against this terrible disease of unauthenticity and secured his growth in holiness. He began with the premise: "Our happiness consisteth not in the knowing the things of the gospel, but in the doing of them" (see note 61). Doing, not just knowing, was the goal of all his studies.

As a means to this authentic doing he labored to experience every truth he preached. He said,

I hold myself bound in conscience and in honor, not even to imagine that I have attained a proper knowledge of any one article of truth, much less to publish it, unless through the Holy Spirit I have had such a taste of it, in its spiritual sense, that I may be able, from the heart, to say with the psalmist, 'I have believed, and therefore I have spoken' (see note 62).

So for example his Exposition of Psalm 130 (320 pages on eight verses) is the laying open not only of the Psalm but of his own heart. Andrew Thomson says,

When Owen ... laid open the book of God, he laid open at the same time the book of his own heart and of his own history, and produced a book which ... is rich in golden thoughts, and instinct with the living experience of 'one who spake what he knew, and testified what he had seen' (see note 63).
The same biographer said of Owen's On The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded (1681) that he "first preached [it] to his own heart, and then to a private congregation; and which reveals to us the almost untouched and untrodden eminences on which Owen walked in the last years of his pilgrimage" (see note 64).

This was the conviction that controlled Owen:

A man preacheth that sermon only well unto others which preacheth itself in his own soul. And he that doth not feed on and thrive in the digestion of the food which he provides for others will scarce make it savoury unto them; yea, he knows not but the food he hath provided may bd poison, unless he have really tasted of it himself. If the word do not dwell with power in us, it will not pass with power from us (see note 65).

It was this conviction that sustained Owen in his immensely busy public life of controversy and conflict. Whenever he undertook to defend a truth, he sought first of all to take that truth deeply into his heart and gain a real spiritual experience of it so that there would be no artificiality in the debate and no mere posturing or gamesmanship. He was made steady in the battle because he had come to experience the truth at the personal level of the fruits of holiness and knew that God was in it. Here is the way he put it in the Preface to The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated (1655):

When the heart is cast indeed into the mould of the doctrine that the mind embraceth,—when the evidence and necessity of the truth abides in us,—when not the sense of the words only is in our heads, but the sense of the thing abides in our hearts—when we have communion with God in the doctrine we contend for—then shall we be garrisoned by the grace of God against all the assaults of men (see note 66).
That, I think, was the key to Owen's life and ministry, so renown for holiness —"when we have communion with God in the doctrine we contend for—then shall we be garrisoned by the grace of God against all the assaults of men."

The last thing Owen was doing at the end of his life came was communing with Christ in a work that was later published as Meditations on the Glory of Christ. His friend William Payne was helping him edit the work. Near the end Owen said, "O, brother Payne, the long-wished for day is come at last, in which I shall see the glory in another manner than I have ever done or was capable of doing in this world" (see note 67).

But Owen saw more glory than most of us see, and that is why he was known for his holiness, because Paul taught us plainly and Owen believed, "We all with unveiled face beholding the glory of the Lord are being changed into that same image from one degree of glory to the next."

Lesson from Owen's life

The primary lesson I take away from this study of Owen's life and thought is that in all our enterprises and projects the primary goal for his glory should be holiness to the Lord. The indispensable means of that holiness is the cultivation of personal, deep, authentic communion with God— the full meaning of which I leave for him to teach you as you read his works (see note 68).

Notes:

1. In this paper all references to the works of John Owen will be taken from The Works of John Owen, ed. William Goold, 23 volumes (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965, this edition originally published 1850-53). The last 7 volumes are the Exposition to the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Roman numeral will refer to the volume in this set, and the Arabic numeral to the page.
2. J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1990), p. 11.
3. A Quest for Godliness, p. 81.
4. A Quest for Godliness, p. 12. The story is told more fully in John Owen, Sin and Temptation, abridged and edited by James M. Houston (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1983), introduction, pp. xxv-xxix.
5. A Quest for Godliness, p. 147.
6. Sinclair B. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1987), pp. x-xi.
7. Peter Toon, God's Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen, (Exeter, Devon: Paternoster Press, 1971), p. 173.
8. Charles Bridge, The Christian Ministry, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1967, originally published, 1830), p. 41.
9. Jonathan Edwards, Religious Affections, ed. by John E. Smith (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), p. 69. The quotes of Owen in Edwards are on pp. 250f, 372f.
10. The Banner of Truth has caused a little renaissance of interest by publishing his collected works in 23 volumes (7 of them the massive Hebrews Commentary) plus one or two paper backs.
11. God's Statesman, p. vii.
12. God's Statesman, p. 177.
13. A Quest for Godliness, p. 28.
14. J. I. Packer says that Puritanism developed under Elizabeth, James and Charles, and blossomed in the Interregnum [1640's and 1650's], before it withered in the dark tunnel of persecution between 1660 (Restoration) and 1689 (Toleration). A Quest For Godliness, pp. 28f.
15. Works, XII, p. 224.
16. God's Statesman, p. 6.
17. Charles Spurgeon, C. H. Spurgeon: Autobiography, Vol. I, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust: 1962), p. 87.
18. God's Statesman, p. 12f.
19. Andrew Thomson wrote, "Nearly all the information that has descended to us regarding this union [with Mary], from the earlier biographies amounts to this,—that the lady bore to him eleven children, all of whom, except one daughter, died in early youth. This only daughter became the wife of a Welsh gentleman; but the union proving unhappy, she 'returned to her kindred and to her father's house,' and soon after died of consumption." Works I, xxxiii. "When she died in 1676 [Owen] remained a widower for about 18 months and married Dorothy D'Oyley. His exercises by affliction were very great in respect of his children, none of whom he much enjoyed while living, and saw them all go off the stage before him." Works I, p. xcv.
20. A Religious Encyclopedia, ed. by Philip Schaff, (New York: The Christian Literature Co., 1888) 3 vols. vol. 3, p. 1711.
21. God's Statesman, p. 54.
22. God's Statesman, p. 77f.
23. Works, I, p. lvii.
24. A Discourse concerning Evangelical Love, Church Peace and Unity (1672); An Inquiry into the Original Nature .. and Communion of Evangelical Churches (1681); and the classic text, True Nature of a Gospel Church (1689 posthumously).
25. Works, I, p. li.
26. God's Statesman, p. 132.
27. God's Statesman, p. 162. See the letter in Peter Toon, ed. The Correspondence of John Owen (1616-1683), (Cambridge: James Clarke and Co. Ltd., 1970), pp. 145-146.
28. God's Statesman, p. 157.
29. The Correspondence of John Owen, p. 171.
30. Works, XVI, 74.
31. Works, XVI, 74-75.
32. God's Statesman, p. 162.
33. God's Statesman, p. 161.
34. God's Statesman, p. 55.
35. John Owen on the Christian Life, p. xi. Italics added. See below, note 52.
36. God's Statesman, p. 78.
37. God's Statesman, p. 120.
38. God's Statesman, p. 41.
39. God's Statesman, p. 173.
40. A Religious Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 1712.
41. Works, I, p. lxxxiv.
42. A Quest for Godliness, p. 28.
43. God's Statesman, p. 95.
44. Works, I, p. lxxxix.
45. The Correspondence of John Owen, p. 154.
46. God's Statesman, p. 131.
47. The Correspondence of John Owen, p. 174.
48. A Quest for Godliness, p. 193.
49. Works, VII, p. 532.
50. Works, I, p. 44; cf. VI, pp. 64, 68.
51. God's Statesman, p. 175; Works, I, p. 275.
52. Works, I, p. lxiv-lxv.
53. Works, I, p. lxiv-lxv.
54. A Quest for Godliness, p. 215.
55. God's Statesman, p. 153.
56. Works, VII, 197f.
57. Works, I, p. 275.
58. God's Statesman, p. 168.
59. Works, I, p. lxxxv. Italics added.
60. Works, IV, p. 203.
61. Works, XIV, p. 311.
62. Works, X, p. 488.
63. Works, I, p. lxxxiv.
64. Works, I, p. xcix-c.
65. Works, XVI, p. 76. See also on justification p. 76.
66. Works, I, p. lxiii-lxiv.
67. God's Statesman, p. 171.
68. By way of recommendation for one beginning to read Owen I would suggest the following list on the basis of their being especially influential doctrinally or especially inspiring practically.

Doctrinally I would suggest:

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (1647)
The Doctrine of the Saint's Perseverance (1654)
A Discourse on the Holy Spirit (1674)
True Nature of the Gospel Church (1689)

Practically I would suggest:

Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers (1656)
Of Temptation: the Nature and Power of It (1658)
The Nature, Power, Deceit and Prevalency of Indwelling Sin (1667)
The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually-minded (1681)
Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ (1684)