In The Days Of Rain- Rebecca Stott

                        

Reading the paper on Friday I came across an interview with Rebecca Stott in which she was discussing this book. The headline caught my eye because it was about an escape from a cult and being a minister well I am always fascinated by these sorts of things.

As I read the interview became apparent that the cult she was referring to was in fact the Plymouth Brethren of which her father had at one time been a leading light. Intrigued I bought the book and read it in just over a day.

The first thing to say is that this book is incredibly well written, the author has a clear engaging style and short chapters which draw you in and make you want to read more and more.

From a Christian perspective this book was also helpful because in the book she details the separation the Plymouth Brethren were supposed to have from the rest of the world. She details the difficulties that this caused her when she went to school, she says for instance she had no idea how to talk to the other children, she felt that she spoke a different language to them. She spoke of the rapture of being left behind and most of them had no idea what these things meant.

As churches it is very easy to fall into the same pattern, that we speak of things that we all understand and yet nobody on the outside has any idea what we are talking about, when we speak of sin, repentance, when we speak of eschatology and soteriology. We can be guilty of speaking Christian-ese which only those on the inside understand.

As we do this more and more not only do we become unintelligible to the world outside but we forget how to speak to the world in terms that they can easily understand and so our gospel communication becomes less and less effective.

The book also highlights the harm that can be done when things go wrong in churches. Her father after being hurt by the brethren church eventually abandoned his confession of Christ and would lurch from disaster to disaster after that.

Church history is littered with examples of people who have been hurt by churches, who have been let down by Christian ministers and sadly that pattern has repeated itself, it goes from walking away from a church to abandoning a profession altogether. How we need to be temperate and considered in the words we use with one another and think before we speak.

However there are some problems with the book and some clear points of view that are being relentlessly expressed. The first main problem is that time and again she refers to the brethren church she grew up in as a cult. This may well be true however at no point in the book does Stott identify what a cult is, what the accepted academic definition of a cult is. It is just boldly asserted that this assembly was a cult.

The second issue I had with the book was the relentless feminist agenda that the book was pushing, why doesn't God speak through women? Why did the women have to sit at the back of the assembly and be quiet?

I have no problem with feminism as such, women pray in our prayer meeting, ladies present the items of praise we sing on a Sunday during worship. I hope the women in our church feel welcomed and valued because they most certainly are.

However in Stott's book it is in my view a radical feminism that is advanced. One excerpt stood as particularly demonstrative to me of Stott's line of thinking "One day when my daughters were a bit older, I told myself, I'd talk to them about that, about patriarchy and how dangerous unchecked male power can be." (Pg. 101)

Any form of unchecked power is dangerous not just unchecked male power, unchecked female power would be just as dangerous, we live in a system that recognises that, we have checks and balances in our legislative system, in our church we have several courts that can be appealed to.

This speaks of a broader problem in society that when people say what they want is equality that is not what they mean, what they mean is they want preferential treatment, they want to be treated better than others. We see this with the radical feminist agenda, with the LGBT groups and to be fair with Christian lobby groups as well.

In short would i recommend that you read this book? Absolutely it is a fantastic book offering a grown up secular insight into a religious group. Read it however with your eyes open and read it remembering 1st Corinthians 1 that the wisdom of God is foolishness to those who are perishing.

Time and again you get the impression that this intelligent women could not understand the things that happened as she was growing up and why is that? Because these things, rightly applied and understood, were revealed by God not by human wisdom.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Days-Rain-Rebecca-Stott-ebook/dp/B01N5BS5JD/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1501511371&sr=1-1&keywords=In+the+days+of+rain

A Text Without a Context is a pretext for a proof text

We have all done it...we all have them those favourite verses, those verses that seem to speak to us, those verses that resonate with where we are, those verses that at any one time God seems to be using to speak to us.


Yet how often do we stop to consider the context of these verses? If we did would these verses continue to bring us such encouragement, such joy and pleasure?


The most obvious example that springs to mind is Jeremiah 29:11


"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare[b] and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." (ESV)


A verse which on the surface of things seems to bring comfort to a people in exile, a verse which speaks of the goodness of God to his people. And in some senses it is that, but is that all it is? Well no, the whole of chapter 29 speaks of a return from exile that is conditioned on the people turning to God, seeking him with their whole heart.However there is also a note of judgement in this chapter because God will judge the kings in the line of David, verse 17 doesn't seem as encouraging as verse 11 does it, 

‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, behold, I am sending on them sword, famine, and pestilence, and I will make them like vile figs that are so rotten they cannot be eaten. 18 I will pursue them with sword, famine, and pestilence, and will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse, a terror, a hissing, and a reproach among all the nations where I have driven them,19 because they did not pay attention to my words, declares the Lord, that I persistently sent to you by my servants the prophets, but you would not listen, declares the Lord.’ (ESV)

Yet this is from the same passage from the same letter from the same book of the bible. It has to be said that verse 17 is in some senses the outworking of verse 11, that this sword, pestilence and famine are all part of the plans that LORD has for them. The plans in the immediate future may not be pleasant, may not be welcome but ultimately it is for the peoples good.



We consider another famous example from 2 Chronicles 7:14if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. (ESV)


Without looking tell me the context? The context is the finishing of the building of God's temple, the glory of the LORD coming and dwelling in the temple. The idea is of the consecration of the temple as the place where God's presence would be physically.For us today to simply take this and use it as a call to prayer probably isn't appropriate, unless of course we happen to be in the temple. 


For us to apply either of these two passage to us directly without first going through the lens of Jesus Christ isn't right. Only when we see that Christ is where we meet with God today do we understand 2 Chronicles 7, only when we see that in Christ our sin has been forgiven will we understand 2 Chronicles 7, only when we see Christ and has painful death can we truly appreciate the plans that the LORD has for us.


Yet the question may be so what? Why does this matter? Well it matters because if we pursue this practice of taking texts out of context it makes it very easy to make the bible say things that the bible doesn't say.


Think about 1st Corinthians 7:1

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman (ESV)


Without the context we could argue that Paul is actually advancing homosexuality,, celibacy or any number of things, the context shows us that actually what Paul is arguing for is marriage between one and and one woman because of the danger to sin.Now what am I saying? Don't have favourite verses? Don't have verses that encourage you in difficult times absolutely not but what Im saying is remember that those verses have a context, a situation into which they were written originally, remember that and don't jump to it being all about me.

Who Can You Trust?

There was a report in The Times last week about what occupations people trust the most, surprisingly hairdressers came out on top as the most trusted occupation, perhaps less surprisingly estate agents and lawyers faired less well in the poll.

However the interesting thing for me was that for the first time ever scientists were more trusted than members of the clergy. So what you may think but actually it is a pretty big deal weather we realise it or not.

Firstly it seems staggering to me that the clergy have gotten a reputation as people who dont tell the truth, as people who can't be trusted. There are a lot of things feeding into this I suspect, growing secularism means that the clergy no longer have the place they once had and things like the child sexual abuse scandal have understandably eroded people's trust in the clergy.

However what impact does this have when we stand up to preach? If people in the pew are wondering if this man is trustworthy then how will our message be received? At best it will be received as well that was nice but can you trust it? At worst....it will be received as a lie. If thats what the people in the pew who know us think imagine what the outsider will think of us.

Secondly and more worryingly for me is the impact this has when people like Richard Dawkins speak on issues of religion and morality in the media. We may not care to accept it but yet more people trust scientists than trust ministers, so if Dawkins or Brian Cox comes out and says something more people are ready to believe it than not. This then feeds into the idea that science is the only infallible discipline in the universe, only when science has explained something do we fully understand it.

So what are we going to do? Well primarily ministers have to become known again as people who can be relied upon to tell the truth, people who can be trusted. Only when we have regained the public trust can we start to fight the war. Until that point the perception will be that you can't trust ministers and what they say. Let us as Christians learn to live increasingly sanctified God glorifying lives.

How Then Shall We Live?

What is the goal of good preaching? What should a great sermon be? Should it be an act of great oratory? Should it be full of passion and verve? Should it touch us emotionally? Should it reach us logically?

Ideally a great sermon would be all of the above, but fundamentally what should a great sermon do? It should cause us to ask the question how then should I live? Given what I have heard from God's revealed word how should I alter my life? How should I change my life so that it is more conformed to the image of God's son Jesus Christ?

Yet as I reflect on nearly eight years preaching periodically I think this is still the thing I struggle with most...how do I apply this passage to people who are listening? How does the exegesis of this passage help the lady in the pew struggling with infertility? How does the exegesis of this passage help the man struggling with envy? This is difficult because it requires us to know the people we are preaching to, to make an accurate application we need to know the struggles of the people, the pains of the people, the hurts of the people.

Of course we can make general applications of the "now go and do likewise" variety, but yet in order to make application which is real and heartfelt we must know the people. We must never use the pulpit as a battering ram to hammer someone who has confided in us but yet the word of God needs to be applied. For it to be applied effectively it requires knowledge of the people, knowledge of their struggles and knowledge of the situations which they find themselves in. In short it requires us as preachers to love the people we are preaching too, it requires us to desire not that people think we are a great orator, a passionate speaker or an intellectual giant but that we desire that people come away from our sermons thinking in light of todays sermon i really shouldn't gossip about that women in work, in light of todays sermon i really don't need to spend all those extra hours in work.

What makes a great sermon, of course it should be logical, of course it should be delivered with passion, of course it should be intellectually stimulating, but above all a great sermon should cause us to ask how then should I live in light of God's revelation to me? How should my life be changed and moulded by what I heard today?

A Most Prized Doctrine?

If i asked you tonight what the most prized doctrine of your faith was, what would you say? God, salvation, man? If you had asked me the same questions a few years ago I think i probably would have had to first clarify what you meant by doctrine and then probably would have vehemently stuck to salvation being the most key doctrine of my faith.

But yet over the past three years my opinion has changed...three years spent studying have convinced me that the most important doctrine of my faith is not salvation, its not my doctrine of God, its not my doctrine of man but my doctrine of scripture.

This may seem like a radical statement and may lead some of you to think that I have lost all common sense I may or may not have had but allow me to explain. I have come to the conclusion that our doctrine of scripture underpins every other doctrine we have:

GOD: Fundamentally how can we know what God is like if he has not revealed himself to us in scripture? Sure we have general revelation such as the Psalmist speaks of in Psalm 8, but yet as Paul reminds us that revelation on its own leaves men without excuse but yet it can never lead to salvation.

I have seen some spectacular sights in my time, times when nature has taken my breath away, Table Mountain in South Africa being probably the most notable, and yet Table Mountain in all its splendour can't reveal God's holiness to me, it can't reveal God's plan of salvation, it can only reveal a part of God to me. Yet in Scripture we have God revealed in so much more detail (and yet amazingly we still only scratch the surface of who God is).

MAN: How do we explain evil in the world? Is God just mean and capricious? Are some people just bad while others seek to live a good life? In scripture we get the most complete doctrine of man, that they are made in the image of God, that they are fallen and sinful. That they are made for a purpose. None of this is accessible purely from looking at a man or woman on the street.

SALVATION: Only in scripture is it revealed to me how I as a sinful fallen human being can be made right with this God. I can't figure this out on my own, left to my own devices I have no hope of right relationship with God. Yet thats why the gospel is such good news because it does hold out that hope of relationship restored.

Why does all this matter though? Well everywhere we look, even in many evangelical churches the doctrine of scripture is under attack:

Paul didn't really mean that. 

That was in the Old Testament when people related to God in a different way. 

There are cultural differences here that we just can't appreciate. 

Yet all of this undermines any of the doctrines which we hold to be true, because only as God has revealed Himself to us in His word can we be sure that we are building on solid ground. If we remove the stability of God's revelation we are in danger of building our whole theology on jelly, with insecure foundations which will one day give way.

Whats the most important doctrine to me? My doctrine of scripture because everything else is built upon that...

The Economics Of Manna

Whilst listening to Sunday Sequence on Radio Ulster this morning there was a discussion around the World Economic Forum which is meeting in Davos this week. The main thrust of the report was that the most wealthy 80 people in the world have more money than the bottom 50%.

During the course of the discussion one of the contributors who was there to provide the Theological angle said that the story of Manna in the wilderness teaches us a great economic lesson. The children of Israel are told to gather the amount of Manna they need for the day and if they collected more then it rotted. If you have too much money gathered into the hands of a few people then eventually it will rot. This is an interesting theory but is it an accurate reading of the story of the Manna in the wilderness?

To be honest I think this is a prime example of Isogesis rather than exegesis, of reading a meaning you want to find into a text rather than letting the text speak for itself. The whole point of the story of the Manna in the wilderness is not to teach us an economic lesson, the whole point of the story of the Manna in the wilderness is to teach us to trust in God to provide for us. 

The people are grumbling, wishing for a return to slavery in Egypt where they at least had food to eat, the grumble against Moses and against God. God therefore seeks to test them seeing if they will indeed listen to Him and follow His instruction or will they continue to gather more bread than they need? Will they trust God even in situations which seem so unpromising?

As we look out into the world today there are so many situations that seem unpromising, be it the rise of secularism within our own culture, the rise of IS in the Middle East. So much in which there seems no hope but yet will we trust God today to provide for our needs? Or will we look to ourselves? 

The story of the Manna then exists not as an economic lesson but as a lesson to trust God, trust in His  provision for us and his sovereignty over His creation

What does Thomas Jefferson have to do with Facebook?

It may seem like a strange question to ask what links a U.S. President to a medium of communication which was invented some 200 years after his death but Thomas Jefferson is linked to social media in a clear way….selection.


Recently those of you who have been on Facebook will have spotted this new trend where people will nominate each other to share their favourite Bible Verse and then nominate someone else who will share theirs and so on… I suppose its kind of a sanctified chain mail.


Thomas Jefferson had much the same idea when he was president and commissioned a special edition of the bible to be printed. With one correction, he took a razor blade and cut out all the bits of the bible he didn’t like. So naturally most of the Old Testament with its references to a God of judgement were gone, many of Paul’s letters were gone, anything Jefferson didn’t like was gone.


Essentially when we are selecting favourite verses of Scripture we are saying much the same thing as Jefferson did, perhaps not intentionally but we are doing it anyway. We are saying I like this bit but not that bit, this bit about God’s love speaks to me but this bit about God’s purity doesn’t.

The reason this is key for us to think about is because “all Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). All of the bible including the bits we may not like or the bits we find difficult is the word of God, is God communicating something of His character and nature to us.

If we lose our hold on the doctrine of scripture then all of our other doctrines really fall by the wayside as well, how can we be sure of our doctrine of man if we don’t take Genesis 1-3 seriously, how can we be sure of God’s plan of redemption, how can we be sure our doctrine of God is right if we don’t accept God’s revelation of Himself to us? If we lose sight of the importance of the doctrine of scripture then all of our other doctrines readily fall apart from there.

I’m not saying that sharing scripture and clogging up people’s news feeds with scripture is nessecarily a bad thing but I would question what it says about our doctrine of scripture? Are we valuing certain passages over and against another, when the truth is that all of scripture has been given to us for our benefit for our edification and as part of God’s revelation of himself to us?