Harvest Bible Chapel - London Latest News

Harvest Bible Chapel - London Latest Newshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/News.aspx?site_id=10194The latest news articles for Harvest Bible Chapel - Londonen-usMon, 06 Sep 2010 22:53:17 GMTYouth and Faithhttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=221055&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=221055&ref_object=news_rssMon, 30 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMTIt isn't often I cite from CNN but here is an interesting article from their site. It appears that the author would be more liberal theologically but she wrote a book about teens and faith and has a number of interesting statements that all parents should consider. Here are a few of the interesting statements in the article, which comes from a book the author wrote. Not recommending the book as I haven't rad it but the info for the book is in the article. And I am not recommending all that is in the article but did find a number of the comments interesting. Norm Interesting quotes: <ul> <li>Dean says more American teenagers are embracing what she calls "moralistic therapeutic deism." Translation: It's a watered-down faith that portrays God as a "divine therapist" whose chief goal is to boost people's self-esteem. </li> <li>Dean says committed Christian teens share four traits: They have a personal story about God they can share, a deep connection to a faith community, a sense of purpose and a sense of hope about their future. </li> <li> Some adults don't expect much from youth pastors. They simply want them to keep their children off drugs and away from premarital sex. Others practice a "gospel of niceness," where faith is simply doing good and not ruffling feathers. The Christian call to take risks, witness and sacrifice for others is muted, she says. "If teenagers lack an articulate faith, it may be because the faith we show them is too spineless to merit much in the way of conversation </li> <li> Teens want to be challenged; they want their tough questions taken on, she says. "We think that they want cake, but they actually want steak and potatoes, and we keep giving them cake. </li> <li> Churches, not just parents, share some of the blame for teens' religious apathy as well, says Corrie, the Emory professor. She says pastors often preach a safe message that can bring in the largest number of congregants. The result: more people and yawning in the pews. "If your church can't survive without a certain number of members pledging, you might not want to preach a message that might make people mad," Corrie says. "We can all agree that we should all be good and that God rewards those who are nice." Corrie, echoing the author of "Almost Christian," says the gospel of niceness can't teach teens how to confront tragedy. "It can't bear the weight of deeper questions. </li> <li> What can a parent do then? Get "radical," Dean says. She says parents who perform one act of radical faith in front of their children convey more than a multitude of sermons and mission trips. A parent's radical act of faith could involve something as simple as spending a summer in Bolivia working on an agricultural renewal project or turning down a more lucrative job offer to stay at a struggling church, Dean says. But it's not enough to be radical -- parents must explain "this is how Christians live. </li> </ul> ARTICLE: (CNN) By John Blake, CNN -- August 27, 2010 8:57 a.m. EDT If you're the parent of a Christian teenager, Kenda Creasy Dean has this warning: Your child is following a "mutant" form of Christianity, and you may be responsible. Dean says more American teenagers are embracing what she calls "moralistic therapeutic deism." Translation: It's a watered-down faith that portrays God as a "divine therapist" whose chief goal is to boost people's self-esteem. Dean is a minister, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and the author of "Almost Christian," a new book that argues that many parents and pastors are unwittingly passing on this self-serving strain of Christianity. She says this "imposter'' faith is one reason teenagers abandon churches. "If this is the God they're seeing in church, they are right to leave us in the dust," Dean says. "Churches don't give them enough to be passionate about." What traits passionate teens share Dean drew her conclusions from what she calls one of the most depressing summers of her life. She interviewed teens about their faith after helping conduct research for a controversial study called the National Study of Youth and Religion.  <div class="cnn_strylftcntnt"> <div class="cnn_strylctcntr cnn_strylctcquote"> <div class="cnn_strylctcqcntr"> <div>They have a lot to say. They can talk about money, sex and their family relationships with nuance. --Kenda Creasy Dean, author </div> </div> </div> </div>  The study, which included in-depth interviews with at least 3,300 American teenagers between 13 and 17, found that most American teens who called themselves Christian were indifferent and inarticulate about their faith. The study included Christians of all stripes -- from Catholics to Protestants of both conservative and liberal denominations. Though three out of four American teenagers claim to be Christian, fewer than half practice their faith, only half deem it important, and most can't talk coherently about their beliefs, the study found. Many teenagers thought that God simply wanted them to feel good and do good -- what the study's researchers called "moralistic therapeutic deism." Some critics told Dean that most teenagers can't talk coherently about any deep subject, but Dean says abundant research shows that's not true. "They have a lot to say," Dean says. "They can talk about money, sex and their family relationships with nuance. Most people who work with teenagers know that they are not naturally inarticulate." In "<a href="http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/SociologyofReligion/?view=usa&ci=9780195314847">Almost Christian</a>," Dean talks to the teens who are articulate about their faith. Most come from Mormon and evangelical churches, which tend to do a better job of instilling religious passion in teens, she says. No matter their background, Dean says committed Christian teens share four traits: They have a personal story about God they can share, a deep connection to a faith community, a sense of purpose and a sense of hope about their future. "There are countless studies that show that religious teenagers do better in school, have better relationships with their parents and engage in less high-risk behavior," she says. "They do a lot of things that parents pray for." Dean, a United Methodist Church minister who says parents are the most important influence on their children's faith, places the ultimate blame for teens' religious apathy on adults. Some adults don't expect much from youth pastors. They simply want them to keep their children off drugs and away from premarital sex. Others practice a "gospel of niceness," where faith is simply doing good and not ruffling feathers. The Christian call to take risks, witness and sacrifice for others is muted, she says. "If teenagers lack an articulate faith, it may be because the faith we show them is too spineless to merit much in the way of conversation," wrote Dean, a professor of youth and church culture at Princeton Theological Seminary. More teens may be drifting away from conventional Christianity. But their desire to help others has not diminished, another author says. Barbara A. Lewis, author of "The Teen Guide to Global Action," says Dean is right -- more teens are embracing a nebulous belief in God. Yet there's been an "explosion" in youth service since 1995 that Lewis attributes to more schools emphasizing community service. Teens that are less religious aren't automatically less compassionate, she says. "I see an increase in youth passion to make the world a better place," she says. "I see young people reaching out to solve problems. They're not waiting for adults." What religious teens say about their peers  <div class="cnn_strylftcntnt"> <div class="cnn_strylctcntr cnn_strylctcquote"> <div class="cnn_strylctcqcntr"> <div>We think that they want cake, but they actually want steak and potatoes, and we keep giving them cake. --Elizabeth Corrie, Emory University professor </div> </div> </div> </div>  Elizabeth Corrie meets some of these idealistic teens every summer. She has taken on the book's central challenge: instilling religious passion in teens. Corrie, who once taught high school religion, now directs a program called <a href="http://yti.emory.edu/" class="cnnInlineTopic" target="new">YTI</a> -- the Youth Theological Initiative at Emory University in Georgia. YTI operates like a theological boot camp for teens. At least 36 rising high school juniors and seniors from across the country gather for three weeks of Christian training. They worship together, take pilgrimages to varying religious communities and participate in community projects. Corrie says she sees no shortage of teenagers who want to be inspired and make the world better. But the Christianity some are taught doesn't inspire them "to change anything that's broken in the world." Teens want to be challenged; they want their tough questions taken on, she says. "We think that they want cake, but they actually want steak and potatoes, and we keep giving them cake," Corrie says. David Wheaton, an Atlanta high school senior, says many of his peers aren't excited about Christianity because they don't see the payoff. "If they can't see benefits immediately, they stay away from it," Wheaton says. "They don't want to make sacrifices." How 'radical' parents instill religious passion in their children Churches, not just parents, share some of the blame for teens' religious apathy as well, says Corrie, the Emory professor. She says pastors often preach a safe message that can bring in the largest number of congregants. The result: more people and yawning in the pews. "If your church can't survive without a certain number of members pledging, you might not want to preach a message that might make people mad," Corrie says. "We can all agree that we should all be good and that God rewards those who are nice." Corrie, echoing the author of "Almost Christian," says the gospel of niceness can't teach teens how to confront tragedy. "It can't bear the weight of deeper questions: Why are my parents getting a divorce? Why did my best friend commit suicide? Why, in this economy, can't I get the good job I was promised if I was a good kid?" What can a parent do then? Get "radical," Dean says. She says parents who perform one act of radical faith in front of their children convey more than a multitude of sermons and mission trips. A parent's radical act of faith could involve something as simple as spending a summer in Bolivia working on an agricultural renewal project or turning down a more lucrative job offer to stay at a struggling church, Dean says. But it's not enough to be radical -- parents must explain "this is how Christians live," she says. "If you don't say you're doing it because of your faith, kids are going to say my parents are really nice people," Dean says. "It doesn't register that faith is supposed to make you live differently unless parents help their kids connect the dots." 'They called when all the cards stopped' Anne Havard, an Atlanta teenager, might be considered radical. She's a teen whose faith appears to be on fire. Havard, who participated in the Emory program, bubbles over with energy when she talks about possibly teaching theology in the future and quotes heavy-duty scholars such as theologian Karl Barth. She's so fired up about her faith that after one question, Havard goes on a five-minute tear before stopping and chuckling: "Sorry, I just talked a long time." Havard says her faith has been nurtured by what Dean, the "Almost Christian" author, would call a significant faith community. In 2006, Havard lost her father to a rare form of cancer. Then she lost one of her best friends -- a young woman in the prime of life -- to cancer as well. Her church and her pastor stepped in, she says. "They called when all the cards stopped," she says. When asked how her faith held up after losing her father and friend, Havard didn't fumble for words like some of the teens in "Almost Christian." She says God spoke the most to her when she felt alone -- as Jesus must have felt on the cross. "When Jesus was on the cross crying out, 'My God, why have you forsaken me?' Jesus was part of God,'' she says. "Then God knows what it means to doubt. "It's OK to be in a storm, to be in a doubt," she says, "because God was there, too." 221055http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/221055-thumbnail.jpg?1008300456Should you follow the world's wisdom?http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=220714&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=220714&ref_object=news_rssThu, 26 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMTRecently read this article about a guy pursuing the 'perfect credit score'. What really struck me was his comment that a high credit score (in the US called your FICO score) means, "You're trustworthy". The Bible says what we should aim for is not to borrow money (although if you do of course Scripture says you are to always pay it back) but rather to save up and pay for things exercising self-control until we have worked and saved enough to buy. Proverbs 22:7 is a good sample teaching of Scripture when it says, 'the borrower is a slave to the lender'. So credit (borrowing with an ability to pay back) is not sinful whereas debt (borrowing when you have no ability to pay back) is. But also, borrowing is spending tomorrow's income on today's expenses and for all of the 'want' purchases in our lives would be very, very unwise and we believe contrary to Scripture. I would STRONGLY - did i say that 'strongly' enough? Encourage each Harvest person, couple or family to take our Financial Peace University FOCIS group (Finding Out Christ Is Sufficient) which will be offered again this winter. This is an amazing and in many ways, life changing course, taught by financial expert <a href="http://www.daveramsey.com/fpu/">Dave Ramsey</a> (via DVD) and will give you all you need to either begin your financial life Biblically and wisely or make some needed changes to get things back to a healthy and Biblical place. In this 13 week course Dave points out how the real perfect credit score is 0 not 850. The lenders (credit card companies, banks, etc.) want us to think that we are wise and 'trustworthy' when we borrow lots and repay. But that is because they are making money off of our borrowing habits. It is far better in every way to never borrow (not possible for all - at least right away) but rather pay cash for everything. Now if you are reacting to this statement I really encourage you to take the FPU class this winter as you will discover some amazing truths which I think could really bless you. I have watched and/or listened to the course twice and am working through it again. Over 100 Harvest people have taken it and discovered the truths which are so practical and helpful. So - lots of advance warning - start planning now to take this amazing class when offered this winter right here at Harvest! Here is the article I read which I found so typical of worldly wisdom but so contrary to God's wisdom. Norm <img align="left" src="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/FICO%20score.jpg" style="width: 200px; height: 193px;" />  <style>  </style>   (MONEY Magazine - Ismat Sarah Mangla, staff writerAugust 26, 2010: 8:17 AM ET) -- A major league pitcher dreams of throwing a perfect game. High schoolers eyeing the Ivy League study furiously in hopes of earning 2400 on the SAT. Meanwhile, Chris Peplinski is pursuing his own brand of flawlessness: an 850 credit score. <o:p></o:p> The 37-year-old stay-at-home dad from Rogers, Ark., has already nabbed 813 on the FICO scale, the credit scoring system most lenders use in sizing up potential borrowers. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> That ranks him above more than 82% of Americans and comes with a big payoff: It entitles him to ultralow rates on loans, saving him tens of thousands of bucks over a lifetime. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Nevertheless, Peplinski won't be satisfied until he hits the maximum: 850. Why? "Your credit score tells a lot about you," Peplinski explains. "A high score means you're responsible and in control of your life. “You're trustworthy." <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> To reach his goal, Peplinski voraciously reads up on every element that goes into a FICO score, checks his number every three months, and tweaks his behavior to eke out every possible additional point. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Two years ago, he took out a car loan even though he and his wife, Chrissy, had the cash to buy their wheels outright. He figured that adding to his mix of credit might boost his score. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In spite of Chris's best efforts, landing an 850 may be a quixotic goal -- only about 0.5% of Americans manage it, FICO reports. "The 850 score is kind of like a unicorn," says John Ulzheimer, a credit scoring expert with Credit.com who used to work for FICO. "Everybody talks about it, but nobody's seen it." <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The reality is that you don't need to catch the unicorn to catch the best rates. But adopting some of the habits of Peplinski and other members of the 800 club can help you improve your own score. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> And that can translate into real money: On a $300,000 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, the most credit-worthy borrowers will pay $14,200 less than those one tier below, $25,600 less than those two tiers below. <o:p></o:p>  220714http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/220714-thumbnail.jpg?1008260112Elder Candidatehttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=220157&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=220157&ref_object=news_rssThu, 19 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT   We would like to announce that Rod Bray is being considered as an elder at Harvest London. <o:p></o:p> Background: We believe God would have us grow our elders team numerically and this announcement marks the beginning of this expansion. From the time Leo Klus was with us as an elder we began to pray and discuss who God would have us add. Thus for over two years we have been praying and seeking God’s leading regarding the who and when. In March of this year we approached Rod and asked him to consider becoming an elder candidate and to begin meeting with our elder team to give him and us a chance to further examine the fit, gifting and calling of Rod as an elder. After much prayer and this five months of working together believe God has prepared Rod for this role and we are bringing him to you, our church family, to prayerfully consider whether you believe he is qualified as an elder according to Scripture. Structure: We are an elder-led church meaning that Biblically we see God’s design for leadership is a plurality of godly and called men to act as under-shepherds (Jesus is the Chief Shepherd) feeding and leading the church. Our elders primarily focus on the leading, care and nurture of those God has entrusted to us. You will see in some of our material about our structure that we refer to the elders as looking after the direction, doctrine and discipline within the church. In other words a summary of our responsibility is to determine where God is leading us as a church, what our church believes about Scripture and the care and nurture of our people. <o:p></o:p> New elders are selected by the existing elder team with much prayer and thorough investigation, which includes asking the church family to examine each man according to God’s Word. Our elders serve a three-year term, which can be renewed in additional three-year terms after a review process. And our elders do not vote but make all decisions by prayer, gathering information, in-depth discussions and seeking consensus as God leads. <o:p></o:p> <img alt="" style="width: 400px; height: 300px;" align="left" src="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Rod%20on%20missions%20tripo.jpg" />Bio: <o:p></o:p> Rod and his wife Connie have been a key part of Harvest London for many years now. They have two children who are both believers in Christ; Sarah who is married to Steve Greydanus and is on our worship team, and Siobhan who is a student at Fanshawe College and serves on a variety of Sunday ministry teams. <o:p></o:p> Rod has a computer consulting company along with a couple of other partners and is very involved in the actual programming side of the business. Connie is a vice principal with Thames Valley District School Board. <o:p></o:p> Their ministry experience with us includes a time as flock leaders and small group leaders for many years. Connie has given leadership to our greeters and ushers team and held numerous leadership roles in past years. Rod has served on a setup team for many years and can be seen helping out just about anywhere there is a need. <o:p></o:p> Rod and Connie have exhibited humble, teachable and submissive hearts to God, His Word and our Elders team during their entire time with us. They are fully supportive of our doctrine and distinctives including our purpose and 4 pillars. <o:p></o:p> Qualifications: <o:p></o:p> Elders are held up to the highest standard according to the Word of God. Being an elder-led church places significant responsibility upon our elders. Each elder is required to open up his entire life in full accountability to the other elders including his personal walk, his family life, work life, finances, time, purity, spiritual growth, etc. And each elder affirms that the call to elder means a commitment to servant leadership and thus God and His church are put above one’s own personal needs and wants. Humble, sacrificial, gentle leading by serving is the call. <o:p></o:p> Scripture teaches clearly about the qualifications each elder is to be measured against. We would ask you to prayerfully consider Rod according to these passages. <o:p></o:p> 1 Timothy 3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. <o:p></o:p> Titus 1:6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. <o:p></o:p> Process: <o:p></o:p> We have prayerfully and extensively examined Rod and his worship, walk and work for Christ according to Scripture and believe him to be a man of God, fully devoted to the kingdom and the advancement of God’s church. We believe he qualifies in every area and thus are presenting him to you for your consideration. <o:p></o:p> After much prayer and contemplation should you believe Rod is not qualified according to Scripture we would ask you to first go directly to Rod and share your concern(s) with him. If after talking with Rod you still have concerns, either Rod or you should approach our Elders team. We will investigate and make a decision regarding moving forward or not. <o:p></o:p> We would ask you to take the next month to consider prayerfully this important request. Should Rod proceed through this next phase he would be installed as an elder in a Sunday service shortly after this phase of the process. <o:p></o:p> Tim Wiebe (elder chair) – timdeb.wiebe@rogers.com John Klassen – jpklassen@rogers.com<o:p></o:p> Norm Millar – norm@harvestlondon.ca<o:p></o:p> Rod Bray - rodbray@yahoo.com<o:p></o:p>  220157http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/220157-thumbnail.jpg?1008190335God's Grace on Display in Arad, Romaniahttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=219330&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=219330&ref_object=news_rssWed, 11 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT The following article and video are copied from Harvest Fellowship website (click <a href="http://www.harvestbiblefellowship.org/10295/article/article_id/218444/God_s_Grace_on_Display___Arad__Romania">here</a>). I love what God is doing around this globe in His church and we always need to be a part of the larger body of Christ. I would encourage you to read what follows, watch the entire video (it made me cry several times seeing God at work) and pray for the church in Romania and consider contributing to their facility needs. Norm ================================================================================= It is our privilege to share this powerful display of God's grace in the lives of His people. <img align="left" src="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/GraceMeta.jpg" style="width: 125px; height: 120px;" /> More than a presentation of various ministries or an organization, the video below is a statement of the fact that <a href="http://www.bisericametanoia.ro/">Harvest Metanoia Arad</a> is passionately building His Church! Metanoia Arad is a community of believers who fully experience God and want to live in a dynamic and genuine way to lift high the name of Jesus... <object width="600" height="450"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=13936649&server=vimeo.com&show_title=0&show_byline=0&show_portrait=0&color=ffffff&fullscreen=1&autoplay=0&loop=0" /></object> On a continent where hundreds of churches are closing each year due to the lack of believers, this church is growing by an average of 100 members annually. Every weekend 600 adults and 140 children worship at Metanoia Arad (with approximately 500 meeting in over 50 small groups). Three services every weekend are not enough to keep from overfilling their auditorium seating; lack of space has been a primary issue for the past few years. Enter prayer and fasting... Metanoia believers were rotating through a fast every day for three years and seeking the Lord fervently because there were no visible options; nothing existed in Arad to meet their worship needs. Then in the fall of 2009, after looking at more than thirty properties, the Lord provided a 2-acre piece of land adjacent to Arad's most traveled road and railway. By the spring of 2010, the church raised enough money to purchase the property. The plan now is to build. Leaders and the Metanioa congregation are trusting God once again to provide as only He can to raise up a new home for the believers in Arad. Step one is to sell their current building, which will enable them to build a gymnasium on the property for a place to gather for services until the Lord provides the funds needed to build a worship center. What can you do? <ol> <li>Pray. This is our most important request! Pray with us that God will bless His people and for this work to be established by His hand, so that our only boast is in the Lord Jesus. </li> <li>Share this with other believers and your network of friends/family to enlist their prayers. Freely forward your newsletter or click the "share" or "email" icons at the top of the news article. </li> <li>Help through a matching fund. Our goal is to support this work financially and our hope is to tell the church in Arad we will match their giving dollar-for-dollar, up to $100,000. While the weight of this capital campaign needs to be carried by the church in Arad, we would like to match their faithfulness if God enables us to do so. (Harvest Bible Fellowship has established an account for this matching gift where tax deductible contributions can be made. Contact <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/mailto:krv@harvestbiblefellowship.org?subject=Metanoia%20Building%20Donation">krv@harvestbiblefellowship.org</a> if the Lord leads you in this direction.)</li> <li>Keep praying! God has already used Metanoia Arad to plant five daughter churches, and we are trusting He will further His Kingdom through this church throughout Romania and Europe. Pray that the testimony of the Lord Jesus and the Word of God will continue to be proclaimed in this country and all of Europe with boldness.</li> </ol> 219330http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/219330-thumbnail.jpg?1008110921Think about it ...http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=218429&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=218429&ref_object=news_rssTue, 10 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMTThe Bible is very clear - God created out of nothing all that is ... in six days! So many read back into the Genesis account what they want it to say, or they discredit what it clearly says, often mocking it, out of a higher respect for opinions and beliefs of scientists (not all scientists). Science by its own very definition cannot 'prove' how everything got here - it is a theory - evolution is and so is creationism. Those who hold to evolution believe that if they say it is a fact enough times everyone will believe them ... and they have almost accomplished that goal. Mocking creationism, attacking it, belittling it, condemning it and going after any who hold to that belief has reduced the numbers of Biblical creationists to a minority. But God said it this way in 1 Cor. 1:20 "Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" and again in verse 25, "For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." God's ways are not our ways, and His ways are so much higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9). There are many great reasons scientifically to hold to a literal creationism and Scripture is clear that this is God's truth for how everything came to be so don't lose confidence nor give up ground to those who would seek to 'suppress the truth in unrighteousness'. As a way to encourage you I would like you to watch the following video clip taken from a secular conference called TED's which holds all sorts of interesting talks. You can view the entire presentation <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_bolinsky_animates_a_cell.html">here</a>. As you watch this I want you to ask yourself some honest questions - forget the propaganda put forth by atheistic and liberal evangelists - and ask yourself honestly whether you believe this sort of complexity and cooperation as well as communication could happen by accident or chance? As the speaker says himself, we only 'know almost a percent of what is going on' and 'how powerful our cells are' and they scream forth of 'truth and beauty' as he says - but like Romans 1:25 tells us - those who reject God as the Creator end up 'exchanging the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.' Ask yourself how these complex systems - so many required for one cell to function - could develop independent of each other by random accident and yet each be beneficial such that they were stronger and hence survived. AND how these complex micro machines could each evolve on their own and yet be so in sync from a timing standpoint that the larger organs they live within and compromise could evolve at the same time thus providing an evolutionary step forward. I mean really ... which requires more faith - belief in a Divine Creator who designed and spoke everything into existence or random chance producing such detailed, ordered, beautiful, dependent systems and complex machines? Watch and decide for yourself. <object width="400" height="300"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=14033295&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=1&color=&fullscreen=1&autoplay=0&loop=0" /></object> <a href="http://vimeo.com/14033295">Fascinating cell animation</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user4243236">Norm Millar</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.218429http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/218429-thumbnail.jpg?1008101108Some thoughts on witnessing to the truth ...http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=218321&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=218321&ref_object=news_rssSun, 08 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMTWitnesses to the Truth...and nothing but. The story is told of a family who sat in the emergency clinic at the hospital as a result of the oldest son, Johnny, breaking a rib. After receiving chest x-rays, Johnny and his family met again with the doctor to view and discuss the results. When the x-ray pictures were placed in front of them, Johnny’s sister Sally gasped with horror! “Are you OK, Sally?”, asked the doctor. “No, I don’t think so.” Sally responded, her voice quivering. “Doctor, isn’t that a picture of Johnny’s heart?” “Why, yes it is, Sally. Is there something wrong?” “Well...where is Jesus?” After experiencing the new birth of eternal salvation in Jesus Christ, it’s perfectly normal to go to the greatest lengths possible to share this Good News with others - especially those we love most. In fact, Paul the Apostle was even willing to give up his own salvation if it would bring the Jews to Christ! However, he also rebuked the Galatians for their willingness to so quickly depart from the true Gospel they had received to embrace another false “Gospel” devoid of any hope, even proclaiming preachers of this alternate Gospel accursed. Likewise, in our zeal to see others saved, many Christians today often run the risk of communicating a similar sort of “mixed message”, devoid of true hope and saving power through the use of misleading and/or unbiblical words and phrases. In addition to “ask Jesus into your heart”, here are several other common invitations made by Christians with good intentions: <ul> <li>“Make Jesus your Lord and Savior.”</li> <li>“Just believe in Jesus.” </li> <li>“You have a God-shaped hole in your heart and only Jesus can fill it.” </li> <li>“Accept Jesus.”</li> <li>“Make a decision for Jesus.”</li> <li>“It is easy to believe.”</li> <li>“God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” </li> <li>“Come to Jesus just as you are.” </li> <li>“Come to Jesus and you will receive forgiveness of sins and ____.”</li> <li>“Come to Jesus and experience love, joy, peace....” </li> <li>“Jesus is the missing piece.” </li> <li>“Jesus is better than fame and fortune.” </li> </ul> Just as Jesus came to bear witness of the truth (Jn. 18:37) He has commanded us as His followers to do the same. While many of these friendly phrases may seem more palatable to the unsaved ear, we must always remember that it’s the foolish preaching of the Cross that God uses to bring the spiritually dead to life in Christ. While we know that salvation is always a sovereign work of God, the following are a few biblical truth tips to take to heart to ensure that we don’t slip into pragmatic preaching that empties the Cross of it’s power. The truth is...we must be sure the Lord God Almighty is a merciful and gracious God who saves all who call on Him. He will save those who respond to these invitations, but He always does so through the true Gospel. We want people to come into the fold, but when we use these invitations we’re actually substituting our own wisdom for that of God. Paul wrote that he was not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is the very power of God to salvation (Rom. 1:16; 2 Tm. 1:8). The truth is...we demonstrate our shame when we try to “polish” the Gospel to make it more attractive. We do this by either adding works to make it seem more “holy”, or by trying to soften the personal blow the exposure of sin makes to a person’s ego. Preaching these modifications to the Gospel is accursed. The only solution we have is to tell people the plain, ugly, and beautiful truth of the Gospel. The truth is...we are all horrible sinners who have gone astray (Is. 53:6), all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God (Rom 3:23), and all will be individually held accountable for our behavior (Ez. 18). Further, the the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23) and so individually those who sin shall die because of it (Ez. 18:4). But the Good News is that God has laid all of our iniquity on His own Son, Jesus Christ (Is. 53:6; Rom 6:10; Heb. 7:27; 9:12) to satisfy His own wrath for the sins of the world (1 Jn. 2:2). The truth is...blessed are the guilty, ungodly sinners who repent of their sin and put their faith in the Christ of the Gospel, Who fully satisfied the wrath of God, because like Abraham their assurance in the promise of God will be accounted as true righteousness (Rom. 4). God will baptize any who do so into the only acceptable sacrifice for sin; the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:3-10; 1 Cor. 15:1-11). This is the only way God reconciles sinners to Himself, and bestows Eternal Life. While it’s understandable that Christians would say just about anything to help others get saved, we must remember that the Gospel of God is the only solution He provided and invitation He gives. Those who believe will be saved, those who do not will be condemned (Mk. 16:15-16). The message might not sound “catchy”, and it’s far from politically correct, but it is true...and it will be forever “relevant” unto salvation. For more comprehensive teaching on the dangers of trying to modify the Gospel to make it more palatable, listen to this message entitled “<a href="http://www.livingwaters.com/learn/trueandfalse.htm">True & False Conversion</a>” by Ray Comfort. Cory McKenna, Pastor of Local Missions Harvest Bible Chapel London 218321http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/218321-thumbnail.jpg?1008080638Harvest hires an evangelist!!!http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=217694&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=217694&ref_object=news_rssSun, 01 Aug 2010 05:00:00 GMT We are very excited to announce that we have hired Cory McKenna full-time as Pastor of Local Missions effective August 2nd, 2010. <img src="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/cory.jpg" /> God has been increasing the evangelistic temperature of our church over the past few years especially this year. Numerous conversions, the GO team operating on all cylinders out sharing the gospel weekly, the gospel regularly presented on Sundays and in various ministries – lots happening. But this past winter God began to press on me that although our commitment to and practice of evangelism had increased significantly over the past few years – I began to sense that God would have us amp this up such that Harvest London would be characterized as a church passionate about the gospel and radically committed to getting the gospel to all. I was becoming convinced that on top of our commitment to worship and the word that God was calling Harvest London to be supercharged evangelistically!<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Our elders team began to discuss this and to pray about it asking God if this was of Him and if so what He would have us do to follow faithfully in what new thing He was going to do. During the spring time God confirmed in a variety of ways that He was indeed calling us to step forth boldly in our commitment to evangelism. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I long to see, and believe God is calling us to a place where we would see conversions on a weekly basis, baptisms every Sunday, new life springing up all around us, where every ministry keeps the gospel front and center. That we would be a church in which our people know the gospel, know how to share the gospel and are regularly being witnesses for Jesus Christ in all they do. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The addition of Cory as pastor of local missions is a huge step forward in this. Having Cory bringing the gifting of leadership, evangelism, and teaching to our ministry full-time will enable us to put significant emphasis on this call. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Cory and Dawn McKenna and their boys have been a part of our church since the beginning of 2008. God led Cory to begin an evangelism ministry called <a href="http://www.thecrosscurrent.com/">The Cross Current</a> a number of years ago which continues to grow and is targeted at helping all churches grow in evangelism and is also committed to actively doing evangelism. TCC has a radio ministry (click <a href="http://tccradio.com/">here</a>), a new program on webtv (click <a href="http://thestreamtv.com/CROSS/index.html">here</a>), street witnessing ministry, training classes, web ministry, CD ministry, etc. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Cory has experience as a business person, as a musician, as an associate pastor, as a preacher, as a teacher for Creation Ministries International, and with us leading our evangelism ministry as a volunteer for several years as well as teaching our youth many a Wednesday evening and preaching some Sundays.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In his new role with us Cory will be leading our prayer ministry, our compassion ministries and our evangelism ministries as these three are all so interrelated. Prayer is so essential as new life, birth from above, conversion does not happen apart for the Spirit of God doing a miraculous work in the life of one who is alienated from their Creator. Compassion because we cannot just share the good news of Jesus Christ if someone is hungry or cold or homeless. So our compassion ministries are designed to help with the practical needs of people in our city while we tell them about their true spiritual needs. Now being a pastor over evangelism does NOT mean Cory will be doing all our evangelism. We are not outsourcing our personal evangelism to him. Nothing could be further from the truth. Please understand this – although Cory has to be constantly sharing the gospel for this is how God has wired him – his role with us is to help disciple and mentor some people who will disciple and mentor some people who will disciple and mentor some people until all of us are actively, faithfully, boldly and Biblically sharing the gospel in all walks of life. This is key – all of us being witnesses for Jesus in the mission locations He has placed us at school, at work, and in our families and neighborhoods. Cory will provide leadership, vision, direction and teaching to help all of us – to help Harvest London – be faithful in proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Our elders, staff and flock leaders are very excited about adding Cory to our team. I personally can’t wait to see what God will do as Cory applies full-time work hours to helping our children’s ministry, our youth ministry, our adult ministries, our Sunday services, our small groups, all our ministries be more effective and more consistent and more biblically accurate in presenting the gospel. <o:p> </o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p>We recognize that God has given Cory a significant gift and impact for the kingdom and as such we will free Cory to continue to help, teach, mentor and encourage other pastors and other churches in evangelism as well. We have been given a gift to have Cory on staff but we want to share the good gifts God gives us with fellow Christians and like-minded churches. So Cory (at times via TCC) will still be available and looking to help those churches outside Harvest London in this area. </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> What is interesting is that God has been graciously increasing our giving via the offerings over the past 3 months such that our step of faith in hiring Cory is not that we can afford another staff member but rather faith that the increases we have already been experiencing will continue into the future. So we see God’s hand clearly in this move. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Just FYI while speaking about finances – if you have been noticing our spending exceeding our income and budget in our handout every week some of that is due to the fact that God continues to grow us faster than we were able to anticipate when doing our 2010 budgeting – so our ministry is just bigger and requiring more. But the bulk of the extra expenses is a gift God lead us to make to Harvest Barrie back in June as they are going through a difficult time and as part of that were facing some financial stress and so, believing that when God blesses us it is so we can bless others, we gave Harvest Barrie a gift of $25,000 out of our reserve fund. Harvest Barrie has been used by God many, many times to bless us with encouragement, direction, counsel, training, and expertise during our years of transition so we were overjoyed to provide a little blessing back to them believing together with them that God is healing them and will advance their ministry once again. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> You can contact Cory at our office phone number or e-mail him at cory@harvestlondon.ca. All our elders and staff would like to welcome Cory to our team and thank God for His gracious provision in this and His clear leading. <o:p></o:p> 217694http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/217694-thumbnail.jpg?1008010754Does Parenting make you Happy?http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=215803&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=215803&ref_object=news_rssThu, 08 Jul 2010 05:00:00 GMTHere is a great article from Al Mohler's blog about parenting. He interacts with a recent study and an article from New York Magazine. Folks as you read this entry please remember the Scripture is clear, and many Christians are confused these days, that children are not to be the center of the family. They are a welcome addition to the family which exists with husband and wife. Child centered parenting is a major problem in our culture and day. And Scripture also says that parents are the authority in the home and their role is to disciple, which means to train and discipline (means train the heart) their children to maturity. Parents are not to do what makes the child happy or what the child wants. The parent is in charge and needs to take charge as far too many parents are consumed and worn out having bought into the lie that children know what is best for them and what they need. The power and pull of our sinfulness and selfishness is such that what they need - from birth - is direction, instruction, discipline, correction, encouragement, training, etc. They need structure and routine. They need direction because -- well let me say it this way -- because our sinful nature has a bent toward chaos, selfishness, impulse, that I want it and I want it all and I want it now pull. So they need us to parent them. We are not peers, not friends and not servants to them - we are parents. And that is a high and holy calling by God. If we do this well, by God's grace, we will become their friends and peers as they enter into adulthood but in their growing up years we are the parents, they are the children. We lead, teach, train, correct, discipline and direct, they obey and follow Scripture says. Anyway, enough of my rambling. Here is Al Mohler's article - well worth the read. You can find the source <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/07/08/why-are-parents-so-unhappy-and-who-would-settle-for-happiness-anyway/">HERE</a>. Norm <h1 class="post-title">Why Are Parents So Unhappy? And Who Would Settle for Happiness, Anyway?</h1> <div class="post-excerpt"> Christians must see children as gifts from God, not as projects, understanding family life as a crucible for holiness, not an experiment in happiness. </div> Thursday, July 8, 2010 <img align="left" src="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/parenting%20pic.jpg" style="width: 200px; height: 165px;" />For those interested in the fate of our culture, New York Magazine is an indispensable barometer. This single magazine, perhaps more than any other periodical, offers feature articles that catch the cultural conversation. Granted, that cultural conversation is largely Manhattan-centric and geared to the highly educated and economically secure classes. But, since those are the very people who tend to direct the cultural conversation, what interests them will almost surely soon interest the rest of the nation. This week, the issue is children and happiness. Not the happiness of children, but the debate over whether having children makes for parental happiness. Looking first to the sociological and psychological data, the picture looks bleak. According to the current scholarly consensus, parents are more likely to be depressed than non-parents, and parents report themselves as less happy as well. In her article, “All Joy and No Fun: Why Parents Hate Parenting,” writer Jennifer Senior wonders aloud why parents seem to be less happy than non-parents, but simultaneously claim that parenthood is such a great thing. What is the disconnect? “From the perspective of the species, it’s perfectly unmysterious why people have children,” writes Senior. “From the perspective of the individual, however, it’s more of a mystery than one might think. Most people assume that having children will make them happier. Yet a wide variety of academic research shows that parents are not happier than their childless peers, and in many cases are less so.” Trust me on this — you really do not need to read through those academic research papers. Here is a summary: The “scholarly consensus” is that children and parental happiness just do not go together. According to the data, parents are less happy than non-parents, parents of infants and toddlers are especially not happy, single parents are less happy than married parents, and mothers are less happy than fathers. Except, that is, when it comes to single fathers, who are the most unhappy of all. And yet, people continue to insist and hope that having children will make them happier. Why? “One answer could simply be that parents are deluded, in the grip of some false consciousness that’s good for mankind but not for men and women in particular,” Senior explains. There is good reason to doubt the value of much social science research and many psychological studies. Nevertheless, taking the data at face value is an interesting exercise in thinking about the nature of parenthood and the question of human happiness. In the most important section of her article, Jennifer Senior tellingly suggests that what might have changed is the way we view children and parenthood. In her words, “the possibility that parents don’t much enjoy parenting because the experience of raising children has fundamentally changed.” This is where her article becomes especially important. She writes: Before urbanization, children were viewed as economic assets to their parents. If you had a farm, they toiled alongside you to maintain its upkeep; if you had a family business, the kids helped mind the store. But all of this dramatically changed with the moral and technological revolutions of modernity. As we gained in prosperity, childhood came increasingly to be viewed as a protected, privileged time, and once college degrees became essential to getting ahead, children became not only a great expense but subjects to be sculpted, stimulated, instructed, groomed. (The Princeton sociologist Viviana Zelizer describes this transformation of a child’s value in five ruthless words: “Economically worthless but emotionally priceless.”) Kids, in short, went from being our staffs to being our bosses. Interestingly, Senior introduces this article with a spectacularly horrifying account of a mother trying to cajole her eight-year-old son away from the computer in order to do his homework. The account comes from the massive film project undertaken by the UCLA Center on Everyday Lives of Families. These hundreds of hours of recorded middle-class family life show over and over again that many, if not most, parents see themselves as constant negotiators with their strong-willed children. The absence of parental authority and control is genuinely horrifying. One UCLA graduate student described the experience of watching the recordings as “the very purest form of birth control ever devised. Ever.” What Jennifer Senior actually chronicles in her essay is the fact that parents now see children as projects to be developed. These children — especially those in middle and upper-middle class families — are constantly en route to one practice or another, subjected to class after class, and pushed into the level of academic and social success that their parents think absolutely necessary for success in life. These parents feel guilty if they allow a single opportunity for organized play or a learning activity to pass. Yes, parenthood has changed. Many parents do see their children as described by Senior — as “subjects to be sculpted, stimulated, instructed, groomed.” Parental authority is replaced by constant power struggles, lest the children be psychologically warped by a parent who stands in authority. Discipline is replaced by never-ending negotiation. The peace of the home is replaced by constant activity and frenetic energy. The earliest years of a child’s life are increasingly filled with organized activity and institutional settings. No wonder parents are less happy now. Add to this the very important insight Senior offers about the age of parenthood. As she suggests, when couples postpone parenthood for so many years, building careers and social lives and professional profiles, parenthood can seem more an interruption than a blessing. Senior cites psychologist Jean Twenge, “They become parents later in life. There’s a loss of freedom, a loss of autonomy. It’s totally different from going from your parents’ house to immediately having a baby. Now you know what you’re giving up.” The Christian understanding of children and parenthood just doesn’t fit these categories. The first problem is the isolation of happiness as the major concern. Interestingly enough, the Bible doesn’t seem overly concerned with human happiness. One reason for this is surely that happiness is just too passing as a perception, and too inadequate as a category. In a fallen world, the wrong things will make us happy or unhappy. Add to this the fact that we seem to be largely incompetent at making ourselves happy, or even at knowing what will make us happy. Go figure. The second problem is the fact that marriage and children now appear on our cultural screen as personal choices, rather than as the norm and expectation. Once these responsibilities are transformed into choices, the only reason to choose them is if we believe they will make us happy. If we do not find ourselves adequately compensated — especially in emotional terms — for making this choice, we assume it was the wrong choice. The third problem has to do with the changes in parenting that Jennifer Senior documents in her essay. From a biblical perspective, these are not healthy changes. When children gain control of the household, the home is robbed of order, health, and peace. The child is robbed of what he or she needs most — a loving parent who is undeniably in authority. Christians must see children as gifts from God, not as projects. We should see marriage and parenthood as a stewardship and privilege, not as a mere lifestyle choice. We must resist the cultural seductions and raise children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and understand family life as a crucible for holiness, not an experiment in happiness. And when it comes to happiness, we must aim for something higher. Christians are called to joy and satisfaction in Christ, and to find joy in the duties and privileges of this earthly life. Every parent will know moments of honest unhappiness, but the Christian parent settles for nothing less than joy. <hr class="footer" /> I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at<a href="http://www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler"> www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler</a>. Jennifer Senior, “<a href="http://nymag.com/print/?/news/features/67024/">All Joy and No Fun: Why Parents Hate Parenting</a>,” New York Magazine, July 4, 2010. 215803http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/215803-thumbnail.jpg?1007081117Photos: Children's Worshiphttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=215590&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=215590&ref_object=news_rssMon, 05 Jul 2010 05:00:00 GMTHere's something interesting we learned when a group of Children's Ministry workers visited Harvest University back in April 2010. Harvest London is the only Harvest Bible Chapel out of 49 other church plants at the time that had a live children's worship service! We thank the Lord for his graciousness in providing such a wealth of musical talent, as well as hard working individuals who are committed to providing our children't with an energetic and Christ-centered worship experience. <div> </div> <div>Check out these photos below to see what happens each and every Sunday.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> 215590http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/215590-thumbnail.jpg?1007050947Great Bible Reading Programhttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=214569&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=214569&ref_object=news_rssMon, 28 Jun 2010 05:00:00 GMTIn our service on June 27th we encourage all of Harvest London to participate in a great Bible reading program for the summer. We would love to see people use this program all year but we challenged each one to give it a try for the summer. We handed out a sheet with 10 book marks which correspond to the 10 lists in this reading program. <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/214568.pdf">Here</a> is a great description about this reading program to help you understand how to approach this and why we are recommending it. Enjoy God's Word as we believe He will transform us as we commit to abide with Him via His Word. And if you would like a copy of the bookmark page we handed out <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/214571.pdf">HERE</a> it is - you can print and cut them and then use them in your Bible to mark your 10 lists in your Bible for your daily reading. Here are a few more traditional Bible reading plans in case you want to follow a more traditional approach ... can't go wrong as long as you are reading God's Word!! <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/142590.pdf">Read through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation</a> <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/142591.pdf">Read through the Bible chronologically</a> - in the order the books were written <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/142595.pdf">Read through the Bible historically</a> - in the order they happened 214569http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/214569-thumbnail.jpg?1006280727Update on our help with Haitihttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=213821&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=213821&ref_object=news_rssFri, 18 Jun 2010 05:00:00 GMTChurches Helping Churches - the new organization created by Harvest Bible Chapels and Acts 29 churches to help Haiti with the relief efforts, focusing specifically on the churches is going strong! Over $2 million has been raised so far for this effort and a strong and still growing relationship with the main seminary in Port-Au-Prince is our primary connection to help rebuild, mentor and train the churches in that country. Thomas Kim is the executive director of Churches Helping Churches and here is a recent update by him. copied from - <a href="http://churcheshelpingchurches.com/index.php/2010/06/toms-reflections-on-haitian-pastors-retreat/">http://churcheshelpingchurches.com/index.php/2010/06/toms-reflections-on-haitian-pastors-retreat/ </a> <h1 class="title"><a href="http://churcheshelpingchurches.com/index.php/2010/06/toms-reflections-on-haitian-pastors-retreat/" rel="bookmark" title="Tom’s Reflections on Haitian Pastors Retreat">Tom’s Reflections on Haitian Pastors Retreat</a></h1> 4 Jun <div class="entry"> <img src="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/thomas.jpg" /> I have replayed the events of last week in my mind over and over. The Churches Helping Pastors retreat ended with Dr. Dorlus, the President of S.T.E.P., privately saying to me, “This is the best conference we’ve ever had.” Here are just a few of the reasons why: <ul> <li>Personal spiritual renewal: It is relatively easy to put together a gathering that results in intellectual enrichment. But this wasn’t our goal. We were praying for God to bring healing to pastors’ afflictions as they opened up. The first evening, one of the pastors shared in tears about the loss of his son and daughter. At one point in the conference, one of the most respected church leaders in the country stood in front of 200 peers and confessed a personal sin committed just the day before. The S.T.E.P. faculty later told me this never happens in Haiti. This kind of vulnerability and brokenness does not get crafted by human hands. God was clearly at work.</li> <li>Practical equipping: I will never forget this sentence that was repeated before and during the conference: “You already have more than you know to counsel those in need. You have the gospel.” Many pastors came thinking they would receive new skills to put in their toolkit, but instead, they learned how to practically use the one they already had.</li> <li>Revitalized vision and passion: The final day, we gave an opportunity for pastors to come and share final words. Pastor Ford Estima, a leader of leaders, started off, “For me to say how much this week helped me would diminish its value.” After a few more words, he finished by looking directly at the teaching team from the U.S. who challenged and encouraged the Haitian pastors throughout the week. Estima exclaimed, “What you asked for, you will get it!” The entire room burst into both laughter and agreement.</li> <li>About the container: Many have asked me about that. The container didn’t show up, but God did. The shipper delivered the container four days later than promised, which did not give us enough time to get it through customs. The most critical item was our 5,000 square foot tent. With rainy season in full swing ramping up into hurricane season, it literally rains everyday in Haiti. I arrived a day early, and sure enough, the rains poured and the power went out. But once the men started to arrive, the weather patterns throughout the week seemed to revolve around our program. For five days, we did not get rained on once. Many of the Haitians were scratching their heads in disbelief. On Friday, when we left, it was as if God let go of the edges of clouds he was holding open. The sun disappeared, and the rain poured. I was reminded that it wasn’t the first time I’ve seen mysteriously favorable weather for the sake of ministry.</li> <li>Church Reconstruction: Based on the needs, we will either rebuild or repair churches. Based off an approach developed with Habitat for Humanity, we are partnering with Calvary Chapel Ft. Lauderdale to donate a frame structure and tarp covering to 30 smaller churches in Jacmel. For donors who are interested in sponsoring specific needs and permanent building materials beyond the initial frame structure, direct sponsorship opportunities will be made available online. Haiti is no longer in a state of emergency, and some form of regular life has returned to the street of Port-au-Prince. Because of the extreme poverty and lack of infrastructure prior to the earthquake, however, proper recovery is extremely complex and fragile. Therefore, one of CHC’s core operating principles is to lead from behind. This is why we are being very careful not to rush these rebuilding plans. Haitians have to own and execute initiatives for sustainable recovery. Many well-respected NGOs are responding the same way: Plan slowly by consensus, then execute quickly through Haitian leadership. While this plan might seem slow, we are convinced it is the best way to ensure that the church in Haiti rebuild and be strong, not just until the next crisis, but for generations. </li> </ul> To the men who attended Churches Helping Pastors, I can’t wait to see what the Lord does in and through you in the weeks to come! To those that gave toward and prayed for this event, thank you. A special thanks to those who keep up-to-date on the latest happenings for real-time prayer needs. We felt an uncanny connection with you throughout the week. And so after it was all finished, I was exhausted but found myself lying down – eyes wide open, mind racing, heart pounding – surprised by God. To Him be the glory! –Tom Thomas Kim is the executive director of Churches Helping Churches. He is based in Chicago. </div> 213821http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/213821-thumbnail.png?1006180831Is your life/family being hurt by the digital age we live in?http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=213685&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=213685&ref_object=news_rssThu, 17 Jun 2010 05:00:00 GMTI read this blog entry by Dr. Al Mohler (Southern Seminary President) this morning and wanted to share it with you. To be honest I was very convicted by it as I am a bit of an addict when it comes to e-mail, my iphone and technology. Dr. Mohler shares some profound concerns in what follows which each of us needs to seriously consider for our own lives and if we have a family we should ask how this is impacting and perhaps shaping and even hurting our relationships. Parents, we must also ask how close these concerns could be to defining our children and perhaps setting them on a path which will result in long-term damage. I am not throwing out my iphone, my laptop or my love of technology but I am looking at how I can turn it off more regularly so it does not control me. God has already begun to work on me in this area as I realized in April that I was expecting our church staff to respond to my texts or e-mails 24x7. So at a staff meeting in May I told all of them that after business hours if I needed something from them I would call them but they should feel free to ignore my e-mails/texts (and each others) until business hours. I was convicted that I had been intruding in their family time unnecessarily. I bought my iphone (with my wife's permission:)) to help me keep connected as all our work e-mails, calendars, and documents are available via a web server and I love the convenience and speed of it but I must ensure I use it rather than being used and controlled by technology. Plus an iphone is as close as I will ever get to cool so I really don't want to get rid of it:) Please read what follows and prayerfully consider if your use of technology is advancing or hindering your walk with Christ and with others. Norm The following is copied from - <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/06/17/meet-the-new-american-family-digitally-deluged/">http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/06/17/meet-the-new-american-family-digitally-deluged/</a> <h1 class="post-title">Meet the New American Family, Digitally Deluged</h1> Thursday, June 17, 2010 <img src="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/keyboard.jpg" /> The Campbell family of California just might be the prototypical American family of the future. Kord Campbell and his wife, Brenda, recently moved to the the San Francisco area from Oklahoma, along with their two children, Lily, age 8, and Connor, age 16. They also came with plenty of digital technology — and they have acquired more. The family is profiled by Matt Richtel in an article in the June 7, 2010 edition of The New York Times. As Richtel explains, the Campbells might not be just any other family in the neighborhood with respect to their digital habits. Then again, they might be, after all. At the very least, they probably point to a new family reality that will become all the more common. Kord Campbell is starting a software venture. And yet, his life is so filled with e-mails, text messages, chats, Web pages, and video games that he missed a crucial e-mail from a company wanting to buy his business — for 12 days. In Richtel’s word, Campbell is struggling with a “deluge of data.” More alarming than that, his family is drowning in the deluge as well. As Richtel reports: “Even after he unplugs, he craves the stimulation he gets from his electronic gadgets. He forgets things like dinner plans, and he has trouble focusing on his family.” “This is your brain on computers,” Richtel asserts. Scientists are beginning to document the effects of digital exposure on the brain. They are finding that everything from phone calls (remember those?) to e-mail and text messages exacts a toll on the brain’s ability to concentrate and focus. Furthermore, they have identified a physiological reward for digital stimulation — a “dopamine squirt.” That little squirt of dopamine in the brain serves as a physiological pay-off for digital stimulation, and it can be habit-forming. It is for Kord Campbell. This husband and father admits to being often unable to focus on his wife and children and their family life. He goes to sleep with a laptop or similar device on his chest. When he awakens, he goes directly online, where he remains throughout the day. During family time, he often retreats into his digital world. He has left family outings to play video games and check his digital gadgets. Brenda laments, “It seems like he can no longer be fully in the moment.” When he tries to unplug, he becomes “crotchety until he gets his fix.” And yet, rather than attempt a move out of such digital dependence, Mr. Campbell seems to be drawing his family members into the digital net. Brenda checks e-mail about 25 times a day, sends and received text messages, and is getting more involved on Facebook. Connor, age 16, is becoming so involved in the digital world that his grades are slipping. Lily, age 8, has only one hour of unstructured time each day, and she often devotes that hour to digital devices. Connor apparently has a computer with Internet access in his bedroom, along with his iPhone. When he studies, an inner voice seems to call out to him to move instead to a digital distraction. The Campbells may be atypical in the extent of their digital entanglements, but new research indicates that they are probably not as atypical as we would hope. Richtel reports that Americans in 2008 consumed three times more daily information than in 1960. Those who use computers at work change windows or screens an average of 37 times an hour. The change in human experience is so vast that Adam Gazzaley of the University of California, San Francisco, names it one of the most significant shifts ever experienced in the history of humanity — and one with inevitable consequences. What about multitasking? Many people claim that exposure to digital technologies prompts the development of a new mental skill, managing multiple mental tasks. As it turns out, multitasking seems to be more of an illusion than a reality. Richtel reports that brain researcher Eyal Ophir of Stanford University has found that multitasking actually takes quite a toll on the brain’s ability to concentrate on anything. Furthermore, research also suggests that multitaskers have a very difficult time turning that mode of thinking off — a fact that goes a long way toward explaining why some people cannot handle real-life face-to-face conversations. In an accompanying article in The New York Times, Tara Parker Pope asked a chilling but revealing question: “Has the high-speed Internet made you impatient with slow-speed children?” Does that question not arrest you on the spot? The research indicates that people who are highly invested in digital involvements are less empathetic, less attentive, less patient, and less able to remember something as basic as a conversation. Just imagine what all this means. While the average American is likely to express some measure of concern in light of this research, and while most families no doubt seek a life different than that described of the Campbells, Christians have to look at this picture with a very different and far deeper set of concerns. Is that what we were created to be? Is this the purpose for when God created humanity? The Creator made us in his image, and thus to be relational beings. But this relationality is intended to be expressed first and foremost in relationships with human beings, and certainly not with machines. A biblical understanding will also press us to identify the relationships of our greatest accountability — the relationships of marriage, family, kinship, and congregation — as well as the relationships of greatest Gospel opportunity. When these relationships suffer due to digital distractions, we bear full moral responsibility. The answer is not to throw away all the digital gadgets. The information revolution is here to stay, and it comes with great gifts as well as tremendous temptations. Christians are not called to be modern-day Luddites, smashing digital devices with sledgehammers. But we are called to be faithful stewards of digital opportunities, even as we are also called to be faithful in all our relationships. That second stewardship is surely of greater importance than the first. This stewardship will require clear boundaries, honest self-knowledge, and authentic accountability. Otherwise, you may well end up spending more time with your digital devices than with the people you love. Count on this . . . they will notice. 213685http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/213685-thumbnail.jpg?1006170838Sundays @ Harvest - Videohttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=212170&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=212170&ref_object=news_rssSun, 06 Jun 2010 05:00:00 GMT <object width="651" height="431"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=12212834&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=0&show_portrait=0&color=00adef&fullscreen=1" /></object> 212170http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/212170-thumbnail.jpg?1006020726New Online Giving System at Harvesthttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=212172&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=212172&ref_object=news_rssWed, 02 Jun 2010 05:00:00 GMT Faithful giving is truly the foundation upon which our ministry is built. For your convenience and simplicity, Harvest Bible Chapel now offers an Online Giving Program which enables you to make contributions to Harvest at any time from your computer or even your smartphone. Simplicity If you currently do your banking and bill payments online then you already know how to use this system. Harvest Bible Chapel London has been set up as an online merchant with all the major banks in Canada, allowing you the flexibility to set regular contributions, or make them when you need to. You can set your contributions to come out automatically on specified dates, or manually make contributions. And the best part of all - it's free to use! Supported Banks <ul> <li>BMO Financial </li> <li>CIBC</li> <li> PC Financial</li> <li>Scotiabank </li> <li> Royal Bank of Canada</li> <li> TD Canada Trust</li> </ul> Supported Credit Unions <ul> <li> Coming soon. Please contact your credit union and ask to have Harvest Bible Chapel London setup as a payee on your internet banking.</li> </ul> How the Program Works To enroll send an email ashley@harvestlondon.ca or call Ashley at the office to get enrolled. Provide your full name, address, email address and telephone number. We will send you a letter confirming that you are set up in our system, and we will provide you with a personal account number. You need this account number to be able to use your online bill payment system. Please note that you must contact us first and get your account number before making contributions online or we will not be able to issue you with a tax receipt at the end of the year. Once a contribution has been made we are notified by your bank. The transaction will appear on your monthly bank statement, and it will be recorded on the tax-deductable contribution statement we send to all our donors of Harvest Bible Chapel at the end of the year. How to Make Changes or Stop Your Withdrawals The best part about this system it is very uncomplicated. Any changes to your contributions can be done by you immediately through your online banking interface. How to setup online giving video This video shows how to setup online giving through a PC Financial account. Consult your bank if you are unclear on how to add Harvest Bible Chapel London as a payee on your online bank account. <object width="651" height="488"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=10213117&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=0&show_portrait=0&color=00adef&fullscreen=1" /></object> We trust that taking advantage of this program will benefit your own stewardship of God's resources as much as it will benefit the ministries of Harvest Bible Chapel. "Each one must give as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Corinthians 9:7 212172http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/212172-thumbnail.jpg?1006020749A short video to challenge prosperity gospel theologyhttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=210605&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=210605&ref_object=news_rssFri, 14 May 2010 05:00:00 GMTIn our two week mini-series on giving (Where is your treasure?) we have examined the Old Testament and then the New Testament teaching on giving and have discovered that God's plan for us is to pay our taxes faithfully and to give generously and with cheerful hearts of whatever offering He encourages our hearts to give. And we are to give that primarily back to Him through His church. Some would twist and distort God's teaching in Scripture and take His promises in ways that they are not given such that they believe and teach that God want you rich and God will make you rich if you just plant the seed of faith by giving to their ministry a gift. Well the prosperity gospel of the gospel of health and wealth is not Biblical. Here is a short clip of pastor John Piper preaching on his view of this. This clip is rather pointed and blunt and I offer it here for you to listen to, consider, pray about, search the Scriptures over --- to spur you on to figure out what you think about the prosperity gospel yourself. So ask God to direct your heart and mind as you watch the following ... <object width="480" height="385"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PTc_FoELt8s&hl=en_US&fs=1&" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /></object>210605http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/210605-thumbnail.jpg?1005140233Great sermons from Together for the Gospel 2010http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=208505&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=208505&ref_object=news_rssSun, 25 Apr 2010 05:00:00 GMTIn April about 7,000 Christians met in Louisville Kentucky for this year's Together for the Gospel conference. This is one of the best conferences anywhere and is put on every other year. We would encourage you to go to their web page by clicking <a href="http://www.t4g.org/resources/">HERE</a> and listen to some/all of the sermons from this year's conference (and you can get the sermons from past years also - well worth your time investment). These are all available for free! If you want to watch the video sermons from the conference click <a href="http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/Blog/post/T4G-Conference-Video.aspx">HERE</a>. We would especially encourage you to listen to John MacArthur's sermon on the 'Theology of Sleep' and Thabiti Anyabwile's on '‘Fine-Sounding Arguments’ — How Wrongly ‘Engaging the Culture’ Adjusts the Gospel'. We had some men who attended this conference this year (I was blessed to be able to attend two years ago) so if you have questions please ask BK Smith, Cory McKenna, Tom Briggs, Jeff Mardling or Chris Wood. Blessings, Norm 208505http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/208505-thumbnail.jpg?1004250532Video from Harvest Liberiahttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=208190&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=208190&ref_object=news_rssThu, 22 Apr 2010 05:00:00 GMT <object width="651" height="366"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=11197711&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=0&show_portrait=0&color=00adef&fullscreen=1" /></object> 208190http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/208190-thumbnail.jpg?1004220907Harvest Bible Chapel - 49 Churches in Ten Years!http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=208191&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=208191&ref_object=news_rssThu, 22 Apr 2010 05:00:00 GMT <object width="651" height="366"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=11176673&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=0&show_portrait=0&color=00adef&fullscreen=1" /></object> 208191http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/208191-thumbnail.jpg?1004220909Panel discussion of Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianityhttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=206606&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=206606&ref_object=news_rssThu, 08 Apr 2010 05:00:00 GMTIn a previous news item (entitled 'The danger of key emerging leader's teaching') I provided a link to a trustworthy review of McLaren's newest book. But due to the impact he has and is still having I have concerns that our people are aware of the danger of this man and his teaching. You can find his books, including his recent book, in Christian bookstores in our city and he is promoted by various pastors and Christians actively. However, Brian McLaren has revealed himself as a man who does not hold to the Christian faith. I would suggest that he is a liberal - not a Christian, at least based on his own writing and teaching. He has given up on the core elements of the Christian faith. We seldom take a stand like this to name people but one of our roles as elders is to help protect the church from wolves in sheep's clothing. This book is not about a 'new kind of Christianity' but rather promoting a false kind of Christianity. Now we recognize that there is significant diversity within Christianity and this is why we like the idea of: <ol> <li>On the majors conviction,</li> <li>On the minors tolerance,</li> <li>and in all things love</li> </ol> When we talk about the 'majors' this refers to the truth that you must hold to certain core teachings to be one who stands within the Biblical definition of Christian, born again, follower of Jesus Christ. Deviate from one of these and you no longer have a Christian (at least according to Scripture) faith. If you want to dig deeper into this here is a panel discussion (an hour long) about his book and the valid concerns and errors the book has. This is a panel facilitated by Dr. Albert Mohler involving some profs from Southern Seminary. (source for this video is - http://www.sbts.edu/resources/chapel/chapel-spring-2010/panel-discussion-a-new-kind-of-christianity-brian-mclaren-recasts-the-gospel/?play=true) 206606http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/206606-thumbnail.jpg?1004080310Update on churcheshelpingchurches.com re Haitihttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=202481&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=202481&ref_object=news_rssTue, 09 Mar 2010 06:00:00 GMT <div> <a href="http://churcheshelpingchurches.com/index.php/2010/02/haiti-and-chili-update/" rel="bookmark" title="Haiti and Chile Update">Haiti and Chile Update</a> </div> <div> 28 Feb <div class="entry"> <h3>Chile</h3> Churches Helping Churches is prayerfully reviewing how and when we can best help the areas affected by the Chile earthquake. Since this development is so recent, we still don’t know what the damage is yet. Therefore, we are postponing any type of benevolence offering at this moment. Meanwhile, we continue to remain focused and committed to the efforts that we have begun in Haiti. <h3>Haiti</h3> I’ve come across the word “Haiti” at least 1,000 times in the past week – in the news and on the radio, in conversations and in prayers, in articles and in emails. Most of the time, I hear awful stories and statistics. True confession: I don’t even bother putting myself in their shoes anymore. It’s just too painful. But this blog post isn’t about that. I want to tell you what I hear about the other half of the time. Relief organizations have flooded Port Au Prince. In some areas, so much aid has reached the people that bags of food are being returned to the distribution centers. So many foreign aid workers have responded to crisis that some are looking for work to do. The job is nowhere near finished, but I am absolutely blown away by the generosity and service of the international community. If you’ve given to some of these agencies, it’s showing. Furthermore, I am blown away by the generosity and service of God’s people that gave birth to Churches Helping Churches. Here are a few updates for you: Haiti Trip I am leaving for Haiti tomorrow with very specific objectives in mind. <ul> <li>First, I am meeting key Christian leaders within Haiti to refine a church planting strategy into the tent cities. FYI, the tent cities are exactly what they sound like. People who are homeless or afraid to enter their buildings are living in large communities of temporary tents. We are exploring how we can bring the church to them.</li> <li>Second, we are partnering with Calvary Chapel, who is launching a holistic care base camp. This project is in full swing! The goal is to provide for all of the needs of those who are displaced, from food to medicine to counseling, even VBS for children. We will bring back pictures!</li> <li>Third, remember Jacques? He and STEP Seminary are still housing 2,500 people. The wall to the seminary has been rebuilt to provide protection from the violence outside. Many of these pastors-to-be have had their dreams crushed. We hope to get them back on track, so they can someday lead churches that serve the local community.</li> </ul> In these efforts, we are coming alongside existing churches and organizations that were already in Haiti pre-earthquake. Please pray that this trip would be fruitful and accerate our efforts. T-shirts <a href="http://store.walkintheword.com/p-2124-churches-helping-churches-t-shirt.aspx?mc=haiti&bt=CHC&sc=CHC" target="_blank">T-shirts are for sale.</a> Proceeds from your purchase will go to Churches Helping Churches. Buying this shirt helps support a church. Wearing this shirt helps promote awareness. You can’t go wrong on this on fellas! =) Thomas Hurst <a href="http://blog.marshillchurch.org/2010/02/24/the-things-she-carried/" target="_blank">Thomas</a> is a Pulitzer Prize-finalist photojournalist who currently serves on staff at Mars Hill Church and was part of a team that traveled to Haiti on behalf of Churches Helping Churches. Check his posts in coming weeks as he shares his thoughts on particular images he took and moments he and the team experienced in their 32 hours on the ground in earthquake-ravaged Port-Au-Prince. Volunteers Let me echo James’ statement: We hear you! We have ALL of your requests on file. Thank you for your willingness to serve and your patience with us. We’ve identified the key needs at this moment and have contacted those best suited to help. As soon as more needs or possibly even trip opportunities surface, we will contact you. Thank you for your partnership! For a new Haiti, Tom Kim - Executive Director of churcheshelpingchurches.com Acts 20:24 copied from - churcheshelpingchurches.com </div> </div>202481http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/202481-thumbnail.jpg?1003090104The danger of key emerging leader's teachinghttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=200496&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=200496&ref_object=news_rssMon, 22 Feb 2010 06:00:00 GMTEmerging, emergent - perhaps you have heard these terms or labels. Although they used to refer to different groups they are now often used synonymously. An emerging church or leader would be one which believes the church needs to 'emerge' out of the beliefs and practices that have characterized it over the past decades and transform itself to reach the 'postmodern' (click <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern">HERE</a> to read a description of what this is) world we live in. It is not easy to categorize or group emerging leaders or churches as there is a lot of variety and they don't even want to be called a 'movement' but rather simply a 'conversation'. However, there are certainly some common characteristics among the most influential of this conversation. They believe a radical overhaul of church mission and purpose, evangelism, worship, leadership and community is essential. This involves, for the most part, a throwing out of much of what most would recognize church as being. For sure we believe there are valid criticisms of how we all do church and we must not only accept critique from others but should be tenacious to ask ourselves the hard questions about what we do and why we do it. However, we firmly believe that much of the emerging/emergent thinking is a repackaging of the liberalism which plagued churches 50-100 years ago. There seems to be a desire and willingness to throw out all that makes us evangelical in trying to emerge from the church of the past. Click <a href="http://www.takebackcanada.com/emergingchurch.html">HERE</a> for a site with lots of Biblical critiques of the emergent church if you want more info than this. The reason for this article is to show you an example of how distorted, twisted, unbiblical and heretical some of the key emerging leaders have gotten and to warn you of the dangers of this conversation. Yes ask questions, yes critique and challenge, yes seek to always grow and learn but no, we cannot throw out the Bible nor the core commands of Scripture for the church in this quest. Of all the emerging authors, speakers, thinkers and bloggers the most widely known and influential would be Brian McLaren. Here is an honest and trustworthy critique of one of his latest books. The author of this review is Kevin DeYoung who along with Ted Kluck wrote a very fair and insightful book examining the emerging movement and one I would recommend as a starting point for those wanting to read more deeply about this approach to church (or better said, about this desire to deconstruct the church leaving little useful for the advancement of the gospel). Their book is called, 'Why we're not emergent: by two guys who should be". Click <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/200497.pdf">HERE</a> to read Kevin DeYoung's review of Brian McLaren's book, 'A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith'. I think you will be shocked to see how twisted and unbiblical his thinking is and yet you can find his books in most any Christian bookstore, many church libraries and he is widely embraced as a conference speaker and 'expert' on church ... very sad. This demonstrates the need in our day-and-age for Christians to be more discerning as not all who claim to be Christians adhere to a Biblical definition of what that is. I can't end this without recommending two more great books which point out the dangers of the emerging movement which also show Biblically what we should believe about church. <ol> <li>The first is D.A. Carson's book called, 'Becoming conversant with the emerging church'</li> <li>The second is John MacArthur's called, 'The truth war'</li> </ol> Norm 200496http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/200496-thumbnail.jpg?1002231100Why so many churches hear so little of the Biblehttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=199904&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=199904&ref_object=news_rssFri, 19 Feb 2010 06:00:00 GMTThe following is from a blog by Dr. Albert Mohler (if you aren't reading his blog or listening to his podcasts you really need to be). Check him out at - <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com">www.albertmohler.com.</a> I thought his comments on the state of the average North American church in relation to the preaching and reading of God's Word was a good reminder and perhaps even convicting word to us at Harvest. I love and so appreciate how all of you come on Sunday and enter into our small groups hungry for God's Word. You make it easy for us who teach and preach to do what God has called us to - so THANKS! I was a little convicted by his words however in terms of the time and attention we give to reading God's Word as a church. I think this is something I need to prayerfully consider as I sensed the push of the Holy Spirit on this in my own heart about my own commitment to reading God's Word with/for our people on a Sunday. Anyway - enjoy his blog article. Following Dr. Mohler's article I have included the article he refers to from Christianity Today. Norm <span style="border-collapse: separate; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium; font-family: times; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="Apple-style-span"> <h1 style="font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin-top: 0px;">Falling on Deaf Ears? — Why So Many Churches Hear So Little of the Bible</h1> (Click <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/02/19/falling-on-deaf-ears-why-so-many-churches-hear-so-little-of-the-bible/">HERE</a> for source) <table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" style="font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted: Friday, February 19, 2010 at 8:32 am ET</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> "It is well and good for the preacher to base his sermon on the Bible, but he better get to something relevant pretty quickly, or we start mentally to check out." That stunningly clear sentence reflects one of the most amazing, tragic, and lamentable characteristics of contemporary Christianity -- an impatience with the Word of God. <span style="border-collapse: separate; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium; font-family: times; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="Apple-style-span"> The sentence above comes from Mark Galli, senior managing editor of Christianity Today in an essay entitled "Yawning at the Word. (see below for a copy of this article)" In just a few hundred words, he captures the tragedy of a church increasingly impatient with and resistant to the reading and preaching of the Bible. We may wince when we read him relate his recent experiences, but we also recognize the ring of truth. Galli was told to cut down on the biblical references in his sermon. "You'll lose people," the staff member warned. In a Bible study session on creation, the teacher was requested to come back the next Sunday prepared to take questions at the expense of reading the relevant scriptural texts on the doctrine. Cutting down on the number of Bible verses "would save time and, it was strongly implied, would better hold people's interest." As Galli reflected, "Anyone who's been in the preaching and teaching business knows these are not isolated examples but represent the larger reality." Indeed, in many churches there is very little reading of the Bible in worship and sermons are marked by attention to the congregation's concerns, but not by any adequate attention to the biblical text. The exposition of the Bible has given way to the concerns, real or perceived, of the listeners. The authority of the Bible is swallowed up in the imposed authority of congregational concerns. As Mark Galli notes: It has been said to the point of boredom that we live in a narcissistic age, where we are wont to fixate on our needs, our wants, our wishes, and our hopes—at the expense of others and certainly at the expense of God. We do not like it when a teacher uses up the whole class time presenting her material, even if it is material from the Word of God. We want to be able to askour questions about our concerns, otherwise we feel talked down to, or we feel the class is not relevant to our lives. It is well and good for the preacher to base his sermon on the Bible, but he better get to something relevant pretty quickly, or we start mentally to check out. Don't spend a lot of time in the Bible, we tell our preachers, but be sure to get to personal illustrations, examples from daily life, and most importantly, an application that we can use. The fixation on our own sense of need and interest looms as the most significant factor in this marginalization and silencing of the Word. Individually, each human being in the room is an amalgam of wants, needs, intuitions, interests, and distractions. Corporately, the congregation is a mass of expectations, desperate hopes, consuming fears, and impatient urges. All of this adds up, unless unchecked by the authentic reading and preaching of the Word of God, to a form of group therapy, entertainment, and wasted time -- if not worse. Galli has this situation clearly in his sights when he asserts that many congregations expect the preacher to start from some text in the Bible, but then quickly move on "to things that really interest us." Like . . . ourselves? One of the earliest examples of what we would call the preaching of the Bible may well be found in Nehemiah 8:1-8: And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate. And they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses that the Lord had commanded Israel. So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could understand what they heard, on the first day of the seventh month. And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law. And Ezra the scribe stood on a wooden platform that they had made for the purpose. And beside him stood Mattithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah, and Maaseiah on his right hand, and Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, Zechariah, and Meshullam on his left hand. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people, and as he opened it all the people stood. And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God, and all the people answered, “Amen, Amen,” lifting up their hands. And they bowed their heads and worshiped the Lord. Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the Law, while the people remained in their places. They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading with their faces to the ground. [English Standard Version] Ezra and his companions stood on a platform before the congregation. They read the scriptural text clearly, and then explained the meaning of the Scripture to the people. The congregation received the Word humbly, while standing. The pattern is profoundly easy to understand -- the Bible was read and explained and received. As Hughes Oliphant Old comments, "This account of the reading of the Law indicates that already at the time of the writing of this text there was a considerable amount of ceremonial framing of the public reading of Scripture. This ceremonial framing is a witness to the authority of the Bible." The reading and exposition took place in a context of worship as the people listened to the Word of God. The point of the sermon was simple -- "to make clear the reading of the Scriptures." In many churches, there is almost no public reading of the Word of God. Worship is filled with music, but congregations seem disinterested in listening to the reading of the Bible. We are called to sing in worship, but the congregation cannot live only on the portions of Scripture that are woven into songs and hymns. Christians need the ministry of the Word as the Bible is read before the congregation and God's people -- young and old, rich and poor, married and unmarried, sick and well -- hear it together. The sermon is to consist of the exposition of the Word of God, powerfully and faithfully read, explained, and applied. It is not enough that the sermon take a biblical text as its starting point. How can so many of today's churches demonstrate what can only be described as an impatience with the Word of God? The biblical formula is clear -- the neglect of the Word can only lead to disaster, disobedience, and death. God rescues his church from error, preserves his church in truth, and propels his church in witness only by his Word -- not by congregational self-study. In the end, an impatience with the Word of God can be explained only by an impatience with God. We -- both individually and congregationally -- neglect God's Word to our own ruin. As Jesus himself declared, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Article from Christianity Today by Mark Galli - click <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/novemberweb-only/144-41.0.html">HERE</a> for source <span style="border-collapse: separate; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium; font-family: times; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="Apple-style-span"> <p style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text"> <span style="border-collapse: separate; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium; font-family: times; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="Apple-style-span"> <div style="font-family: georgia,'times new roman',helvetica,verdana,sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; font-size: 18pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(111, 121, 161);" class="title">Yawning at the Word</div> <div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="deck">It's really hard to listen to God when there are really interesting things to think about.</div> <div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 8pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(111, 121, 161);" class="byline">Mark Galli | posted 11/05/2009 10:33AM</div> <p style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text">When I preach, I often quote the Bible to drive home my point. I think it more persuasive to show that what I'm saying is not merely my opinion but a consistent theme of Scripture. And to avoid the impression that I'm proof-texting or lifting verses out of context, I quote longer passages—anywhere from 2 to 6 verses. <p style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text">When I did this at one church, a staff member whom I'd asked for feedback between services told me to cut down on the Scripture quotations. "You'll lose people," he said. <p style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text">I understood the reality he was addressing, and so I scratched out the biblical references for the next sermon. But lately I'm beginning to question that move, and wondering, Why have we become so impatient and bored with the Word of God? I ask this not in a scolding tone, but in wonderment, not to point fingers, for I wonder at myself as well. <p style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text">Another example of this phenomenon: Recently in an adult Sunday school class, I heard a detailed and persuasive lecture on a biblical theology of creation. Rather than reading Genesis 1 and just waxing eloquent from that point on, the teacher patiently read passage after passage to demonstrate how central creation is in the Bible even after Genesis, especially in the covenant God made with his people. After class, the moderator for the class suggested that, for the following week, the teacher make room for questions; he suggested the teacher cut down on the reading of so many Bible verses as this would save time and, it was strongly implied, would better hold people's interest. <p style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text">Anyone who's been in the preaching and teaching business knows these are not isolated examples but represent the larger reality. We teachers and preachers are well aware of how easily listeners get bored. And we recognize that, when it comes to good teaching technique, extensive quoting of anything can become tedious, and that, yes, it is important to make time in one's presentation for questions. Still, these examples reveal such a feature of current church culture that we might want to question ourselves. <div align="center" style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text">* * *</div> <p style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text">It has been said to the point of boredom that we live in a narcissistic age, where we are wont to fixate on our needs, our wants, our wishes, and our hopes—at the expense of others and certainly at the expense of God. We do not like it when a teacher uses up the whole class time presenting her material, even if it is material from the Word of God. We want to be able to ask our questions about ourconcerns, otherwise we feel talked down to, or we feel the class is not relevant to our lives. <p style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text">It is well and good for the preacher to base his sermon on the Bible, but he better get to something relevant pretty quickly, or we start mentally to check out. Don't spend a lot of time in the Bible, we tell our preachers, but be sure to get to personal illustrations, examples from daily life, and most importantly, an application that we can use. <p style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text">It's easy to see how this culture has profoundly reshaped the dynamics of preaching and teaching. All the demands have been placed on the shoulders of the preacher, so anxious are we to meet needs and stay relevant. No longer are listeners asked to listen humbly to the proclamation of God's Word, in all its mystery and glory. To be sure, we want the preacher to begin with the Word—we're Christians after all—but only as a starting point, and only as long as he moves on to things that really interest us. <div align="center" style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text">* * *</div> <p style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text">We often hear people say how difficult it is to hear God anymore, and I wonder if one reason is that we've forgotten how to listen to the Word of God when it comes to us in the sanctuary or the classroom. We listen like a husband and wife listen when they are in the middle of an argument: they listen only so they can have ammunition to mount a counterattack. That's not listening. And when we listen to the sermon only to hear what seems immediately and directly relevant, neither is that listening. And yet we've raised a whole generation of Christians to listen like this. <span style="border-collapse: separate; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium; font-family: times; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="Apple-style-span"> <p style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text">Again: I do not claim that I have transcended this cultural impatience with the Bible. I'm as irritated as the next person when it comes to the public reading of Scripture. Doesn't this person have anything original to say? I think. Isn't he going to address this issue, or that concern? Get on with it! At least I hope he says something funny soon … . <p style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text">I try to laugh at myself when I catch myself in such moods: bored with the very revelation of God! We have this extraordinary gift, this miracle book, from the Creator of Heaven and Earth, the Mystery of the Universe, the Infinite One whom we (the finite) cannot begin to fathom, the Holy One whom we (blinded by our unholiness) cannot begin to comprehend. The One who can answer our deepest questions but could remain The Question, the One who can restore our broken humanity, but could remain a vague Hypothesis—this One has revealed himself in Law, Prophets, and Gospel—in the words of a collection we now call Holy Scripture. <p style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text">Whenever the Bible is read, a hush should come over us. We should be inching toward the edge of our seats, leaning forward, turning our best ear toward the speaker, fearful we'll miss a single word—the deeds and words and character of Almighty and Merciful God are being revealed! In a world of suffering and pain, of doubt and despair, of questions about the meaning and purpose of existence, we are about to hear of God's glory, forgiveness, mercy and love, of his intention for the world, of his promise to make it all good in the end, of the way to join his people, of the means to abide with him forever! And there we sit, tapping our feet, mentally telling the preacher to get on with it. <p style="margin: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 15pt;" class="text">But if we take the trouble to listen, really listen, to that Word, we'll discover something else marvelous: that the One being revealed is as patient with us as we are impatient with his Word, and as enamored with us as we are bored with him. Ah yes, even more enamored. <p style="margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 14px; font-family: georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 9pt; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 15pt;" class="bio">Mark Galli is senior managing editor of Christianity Today and author of <a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: underline; font-style: normal;" class="citation" target="_blank" href="http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=WW072482&p=1006327">A Great and Terrible Love: A Spiritual Journey into the Attributes of God</a> (Baker). 199904http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/199904-thumbnail.jpg?1002190842Haiti Update from Churcheshelpingchurches.comhttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=199437&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=199437&ref_object=news_rssMon, 15 Feb 2010 06:00:00 GMTFor the original source on this update click <a href="http://blog.harvestbiblefellowship.org/?p=3755">HERE</a> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium; font-family: times; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> <h2 style="margin: 0px; font-size: 26px; line-height: 24px; color: rgb(141, 63, 35); padding-bottom: 5px;"><a href="http://blog.harvestbiblefellowship.org/?p=3755" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(141, 63, 35);">Haiti Updates</a></h2> <ul class="nav-post" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 18px; overflow: hidden; width: 408px; list-style-type: none; float: left;"> <li class="none" style="padding: 0px 8px 0px 0px; float: left; background-image: none;">Posted By James MacDonald on February 15, 2010</li> </ul> Hey, Mark Driscoll and I are on the phone almost every day putting together the plan to strategically utilize the funds that have been flowing into Churches Helping Churches. Keep in mind that our long term goal is 10,000 churches in America taking up a ‘love offering’ for any war torn, or disaster devastated area the Sunday following the event itself. Beyond that we hope to locate healthy churches reaching into these areas and assist them in their work. (that makes us “churches helping churches helping churches” ) We know that our impact upon the church in Haiti has to be powerful and lasting for people to continue to trust us with their relief giving. To that end I have the following updates: <img align="left" style="width: 163px; height: 208px;" src="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/ThomasKim.JPG" /> 1) Introducing Thomas Kim I want to introduce you to Thomas Kim, the new Executive Director of Churches Helping Churches. He has great passion for the church. Thomas is a former pastor in a Presbyterian church. He has also delivered expository sermons, given practical seminars, and trained pastors in Cambodia, China, Kenya, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, and the United States. Thomas also scouted church and NGO partnership opportunities internationally. Resulting projects include Bible delivery to the Chinese underground church, North Korean refugee care, and a hope and healing conference for Cambodian youth. In addition to being a pastor, Thomas also formerly worked with Crossing Borders (North Korean refugee shelter) and Joshua Generation (youth workers resource and empowerment). In addition to ministry, Thomas also brings extensive business experience to this new position. He holds a M.B.A. from the University of Chicago and has completed coursework at Fuller Theological Seminary in Organizational Dynamics and International Leadership. And in addition to speaking English, he also has a basic knowledge of Korean and Spanish. We believe that he is God’s provision to lead Churches Helping Churches. Thomas’ focus in the first 30 days will be to: • Assess the most urgent church needs in Haiti that CHC can start addressing for immediate impact • Start working closely with our man on the ground in Haiti, Pastor Jacques • Develop a response pipeline for the increasing number of request for help and offers for assistance • Identify initial strategic partnerships within North America • Determine the organizational requirements needed to grow CHC effectively, efficiently 2) Partnership with Calvary Chapel in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Bob Coy, senior pastor of Calvary Chapel in Ft. Lauderdale (CCFL), was one of the pastors that encouraged me to pursue this vision for CHC from the beginning. He has more than 20 years of experience working with churches in Haiti. We plan to use some CHC funds to match the gifts that have already made to CCFL for Haiti. These combined funds will be put to use to rebuild a church and an orphanage outside Port-au-Prince. More details of this work and photos will be coming soon. 3) Increased Media Coverage Now that the focus in Haiti is shifting to rebuilding the country, interest in Churches Helping Churches increases daily. For a more complete look at the media outlets covering this story, check out the <a href="http://churcheshelpingchurches.com/index.php/media/" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/churcheshelpingchurches.com');">Media page</a> on ChurchesHelpingChurches.com. 4) Amazing Response to Volunteer We hear you! And we are sorry if you have sent an e-mail or not heard back from us about how you can serve with CHC. We are deluged with responses. We are trying to focus on the relief opportunities already in front of us and determining where we can make the most impact. So, I want to ask for your patience with us—and pray for the people and the churches of Haiti. Now that the new Executive Director, Thomas Kim, is on board, you can expect to hear back from us as soon as a plan begins to take shape. 5) Church Planting in Haiti We are in contact with a number of church planting organizations that want to partner with us to see churches planted in the areas where the Haitian refugees are being relocated to. Keep us in your prayers, more updates to follow very soon. James 199437http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/199437-thumbnail.jpg?1002151012Men - get serious about your faith!http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=197892&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=197892&ref_object=news_rssFri, 05 Feb 2010 06:00:00 GMTThey following is a copy of Friday, February 5th blog entry by Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Seminary in Louisville. I have heard Dr. Mohler preach many times and have been greatly blessed by his writings and would strongly encourage you to become a follower of his blog and podcast (click <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/02/05/newsnote-masculinity-in-a-can-fight-club-at-church-and-the-crisis-of-manhood/">HERE</a> for the link). He has one of the best Christian minds in the world and does a great job of assessing the intersection of Christianity and cutlture from a solid Biblical standpoint. The following blog entry does a good job of summarizing something we are well aware of at Harvest which is that the church must make a special effort to attract, disciple and engage men. A few years ago when preparing to teach a men's bible study I found the following from David Murrow in his book, 'Why Men Hate Going to Church'. These stats alone should highlight the desperate need for the church to call men to a serious following of Christ while not missing the call to also minister effectively to women. <ul> <li>When mom is a regular church goer but dad attends infrequently just 3% of kids grow up to attend regularly</li> <li>When mom is a regular church goer but dad never attends, 2% of kids become regular attenders</li> <li>When both mom and dad attend regularly, 33% of kids grow up to attend regularly</li> <li>Now get this - when dad attends regularly but mom only goes occasionally, 38% of kids attend regularly when they grow up</li> <li>And finally a shocking find is that when dad is regular but mom never attends, 44% of kids end up attending regularly. </li> </ul> Now I don't fully understand these statistics and why the numbers go up when mom becomes less interested. And I made a joke to the dads when I taught this info that the best thing their wife could do for their children's future was to stop going to church! Now obviously that is not accurate nor true. But perhaps what we see here is that dads take on more serious spiritual interest with a disinterested spouse. The point is very clear from these numbers, from what Dr. Mohler says and from what I have learned from 30 years of personal experience in church working with families - men your level of spiritual life and passion will have a MONSTER impact on your children's spiritual walk. So men - get serious about your faith - PLEASE! Enjoy this article and men please prayerfully consider where you are at in your walk with Christ and if changes are needed please contact your small group leader or one of the elders or pastors. Norm <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium; font-family: times; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> <h1 style="font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin-top: 0px;">NewsNote: Masculinity in a Can, Fight Club at Church, and the Crisis of Manhood</h1> <table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"> <tbody> </tbody> </table> <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/files/2010/02/86490644.jpg" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 102);"><img alt="" width="199" height="300" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-11383" src="http://www.albertmohler.com/files/2010/02/86490644-199x300.jpg" style="border-width: 0px; margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; float: left;" /></a>You do not have to look far to find evidence of the fact that males are in trouble in these confused and confusing times. On the university campuses, women undergraduate students outnumber young men by a clear margin -- 60% to 40%. A frightening percentage of young males are or have been behind bars, and the vast majority of young men are delaying their assumption of adult roles and responsibilities until well into their twenties or early thirties. A crisis of fatherlessness marks the lives of millions of boys and young men, with boys growing up without fathers in the home now comprising a majority within some ethic groups and urban populations. At almost every grade level, boys are performing below girls, and are often left behind as girls go on to more advanced levels of learning. Then, adding insult to injury, reports from scientists indicate that both sperm counts and testosterone levels are falling among some boys and men -- blamed on anything from hormone supplements in the food chain to chemical contamination of ground water. In many churches, young men and older boys are simply missing. The absence of young men ages 18 to 30 is just a fact of life in many congregations. Though this is especially acute in the mainline Protestant denominations, it is increasingly true of many evangelical churches as well. One dimension of this problem is the difficulty of helping boys develop into manhood -- a responsible, healthy, and meaningful manhood. Put simply, many of the most significant man-making institutions of our society are either gone or in big trouble. Military service is now both voluntary and no longer male-only. Organizations like the Boy Scouts attract more opposition and fewer boys. Even as the Boy Scouts of America marks the organization's centennial this year, that proud American institution that shaped the lives of so many boys is marginalized and under attack. Add the absence of fathers to all this and this society faces a challenge unprecedented in human history. A society cannot survive without a means of assisting boys to grow into responsible manhood. The same is true, of course, of the church -- only in the church the stakes are even higher. An enlightening (and oddly odorous) illustration of this social problem comes from The New York Times. Reporter Jan Hoffman tells of young boys now using "hypermasculine" products in order to demonstrate their masculinity and advertise their male identity -- largely through the smells they put off. Hoffman tells of Noah and Keenan Assaraf, age 13 and 14 respectively, who live near San Diego, where daily "they walk out the door in a cloud of spray-on macho," according to their mom. The smell, she says, "drives me nuts." Even as marketers insist the products are intended for young males ages 18 to 26, the products have now "reached into the turbulent, vulnerable world of their little brothers, ages 10 to 14." As Jan Hoffman explains: Boys themselves, at a younger age, have also become increasingly self-conscious about their appearance and identity. They are trying to tame their twitching, maturing bodies, select from a growing smorgasbord of identities — goth, slacker, jock, emo — and position themselves with their texting, titillating, brand-savvy female peers, who are hitting puberty ever earlier. And armies of researchers note that tween boys have modest disposable incomes, just fine for products that typically sell for less than $7. “More insecurity equals more product need, equals more opportunity for marketers,” said Kit Yarrow, a professor of psychology and marketing at Golden Gate University. Insecurity seems to be a major motivating factor. Jake Guttenberg, a New York seventh grader, told the paper he uses one of these "deodorants" because, "I feel confident when I wear it." Lyn Mikel Brown of Colby College was blunt in her assessment: "These are just one of many products that cultivate anxiety in boys at younger and younger ages about what it means to man up . . . to be the kind of boy they’re told girls will want and other boys will respect. They’re playing with the failure to be that kind of guy, to be heterosexual even.” Interestingly, Hoffman reports that these products are often bought for boys by their mothers, "simply relieved that their sons are thinking about body odor." Just about any mom will nod in agreement at this point -- but where are the dads? These boys are acting out what society is telling them -- urging them to be hypermasculine, hypersexualized, hyperconsumers. You don't have to consult with Karl Marx to be leery of the marketing of these products to preteen boys. You do not have to know these boys to be saddened that they, while understandably and naturally desire to grow up into manhood, think that "masculinity in a can" is the way to get there. Their desire to identify as masculine is natural and healthy -- even essential -- but the lack of real support in getting there leads them into confusion. The New York Times also offers evidence of the crisis of manhood in a second article, in which reporter R. M. Schneiderman takes readers into a world of "mixed martial arts" in some evangelical churches and ministries. "The outreach is part of a larger and more longstanding effort on the part of some ministers who fear that their churches have become too feminized, promoting kindness and compassion at the expense of strength and responsibility, he explains. From his report: In the back room of a theater on Beale Street [in Memphis], John Renken, 37, a pastor, recently led a group of young men in prayer. “Father, we thank you for tonight,” he said. “We pray that we will be a representation of you.” An hour later, a member of his flock who had bowed his head was now unleashing a torrent of blows on an opponent, and Mr. Renken was offering guidance that was not exactly prayerful. “Hard punches!” he shouted from the sidelines of a martial arts event called Cage Assault. “Finish the fight! To the head! To the head!” In order to reach young men, some churches are turning to mixed martial arts, defined as "a sport with a reputation for violence and blood that combines kickboxing, wrestling, and other fighting styles." The main issue here is not the legitimacy of martial arts, but the fact that these churches are making a self-conscious effort to reach young men and boys with some kind of proof that Christianity is not a feminized and testosterone-free faith that appeals only to women. Of course, Christianity honors the man who fights "the good fight of faith," and the most important fight to which a Christian man is called is the fight to grow up into godly manhood, to be true to wife and provide for his children, to make a real contribution in the home, in the church, and in the society, and to show the glory of God in faithfully living out all that God calls a man to be and to do. This means a fight for truth, for the Gospel, and for the virtues of the Christian life. The New Testament is filled with masculine -- and even martial -- images of Christian faithfulness. We must be unashamed of these, and help a rising generation of men and boys to understand what it means to be a man in Christ. The Christian man does not embrace brutality for the sake of proving his manhood. This much is clear -- we are living in strange times, getting stranger by the minute. Churches and parents are right to be concerned about the new challenges of helping boys to grow into manhood. The crisis is real, and this one demands urgent attention. Boys will never find real masculinity in a can, but boys and young men should find respect for and examples of genuine manhood at church. What about your church? ____________________________ I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler. Jan Hoffman, "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/fashion/31smell.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 102);">Masculinity in a Spray Can</a>," The New York Times, Saturday, January 29, 2010. R. M. Schneiderman, "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/us/02fight.html" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 102);">Flock is Now a Fight Team in Some Ministries</a>," The New York Times, Tuesday, February 2, 2010. We had a lively discussion of these issues on Thursday's edition of <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/02/04/masculinity-in-a-spray-can-the-call-for-men-in-today%e2%80%99s-church/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 102);">The Albert Mohler Program</a>. Listen <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/02/04/masculinity-in-a-spray-can-the-call-for-men-in-today%e2%80%99s-church/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 102);">here</a>. See my resources, "<a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2005/04/21/from-boy-to-man-the-marks-of-manhood-part-one/" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 102);">From Boy to Man: The Marks of Manhood, Part One</a>" and "<a href="http://http//www.albertmohler.com/2005/04/22/from-boy-to-man-the-marks-of-manhood-part-two/" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 102);">From Boy to Man: The Marks of Manhood, Part Two</a>." 197892http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/197892-thumbnail.jpg?1002050828Are you sharing the 'GOSPEL'?http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=197773&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=197773&ref_object=news_rssThu, 04 Feb 2010 06:00:00 GMTHi all, In our series from John 4-7 called, 'Can't Keep Silent' we are learning from Jesus own witnessing what our witness is to be all about. One of the key needs to be a faithful witness is to get the message right. Over the coming weeks we will provide some helps regarding the content of the gospel for you but I wanted to share this video with you right now to help with this. Check out Pastor James McDonald as he does a great job summarizing four essential truths which we must include when we are presenting the gospel to someone. If you don't have these four in some form you don't have the gospel. <object width="640" height="360"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=8622695&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=0&show_portrait=0&color=ebd705&fullscreen=1" /></object> If you would like some additional helps right now with how to share the gospel you can click <a href="http://www.thecrosscurrent.com/index.html">HERE</a> to go to The Cross Current website where you will find a ton of helps such as videos, MP3s, articles, tips, etc. Norm 197773http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/197773-thumbnail.jpg?1002040308Baptism Event Video - January 16, 2010http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=196834&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=196834&ref_object=news_rssSun, 31 Jan 2010 06:00:00 GMT <object width="651" height="488"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=9045435&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=0&show_portrait=0&color=00adef&fullscreen=1" /></object> 196834http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/196834-thumbnail.jpg?1001281040Churches Helping Churches Updatehttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=196075&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=196075&ref_object=news_rssSun, 24 Jan 2010 06:00:00 GMT <div>We would encourage you to continue to support the effort of churches to help the churches in Haiti to rebuild and continue to press forward with their call to preach the Word, exalt Christ, evangelize their country, etc. </div> <div> </div> <div>And please know that this is not just Harvest churches nor is it just churches from the US or Canada but is becoming a global effort with churches from many countries now joining. As of the middle of January over 100 churches have joined. </div> <div> </div> <div>Just the first Sunday of this effort to help over $630,000 was raised to help and many, many more churches have yet to take up offerings which will be happening in the weeks to come.</div> <div> </div> <div>The good news is that James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll along with a medical team, a security team and a video/photo team were on ground in Haiti January 18th and 19th to assess the churches needs first hand and to ensure that our efforts will not be wasted nor misused.</div> <div> </div> <div>A Haitian Seminary worker (living in Haiti) is being employed full-time as one who knows first hand which churches are faithful to the Word and which are sold-out in advancing the kingdom. He will help www.churcheshelpingchurches.com direct their resources and efforts where most needed to help the church in Haiti rebuild. </div> <div> </div> <div>So please consider joining this important and what will be an ongoing partnership for months and years to come. You don't have to give for years but our goal is to not forget when the next news headlines hit. </div> <div> </div> <div>Below is a video by the team which went to check out the need and you can click on the following to learn more - click <a href="http://www.churcheshelpingchurches.com"> HERE</a></div> <div> </div> <div>Norm</div> <div> </div> <div> <object width="560" height="340"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/esUu2C6kLu8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /></object></div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> The following is the Sunday sermon (January 24, 2010) from Mars Hill by Mark Driscoll. In this sermon you can see more video from his and James trip as well as hear his description of what he saw, learned and how it impacted him. <object width="560" height="340"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GQo76Itl6cw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /></object></div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> 196075http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/196075-thumbnail.jpg?1001240633Harvest helps Haiti Updatehttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=195415&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=195415&ref_object=news_rssMon, 18 Jan 2010 06:00:00 GMT <div> Update on our desire to help the churches in Haiti. <div> </div> <div>First, THANK YOU for your generosity on Sunday January 17,, 2010 for this need. I am excited to report that about $7,000 was donated and 100% of that will be directed through Harvest Bible Fellowship Canada to churches in Haiti. This is another example of the amazing heart and sold-out commitment God has given our people. We just made what was really a brief announcement and encouraged people to give as together with the other Harvest churches we wanted to help the churches in Haiti. And in response you all gave so generously. </div> <div> </div> <div>The Harvest churches in Ontario are each collecting for this cause and about $100,000 has been collected already from the 7 Ontario Harvest churches in just a couple of days! Praise God for His goodness in this!</div> <div> </div> <div>Please continue to PRAY for James MacDonald who is the senior and planting pastor of the first Harvest church in Chicago and of the Harvest Fellowship church planting ministry and please PRAY for Mark Driscoll who is the senior and planting pastor of Mars Hill in Seattle and the Acts 29 ministry of church planting.</div> <div> </div> <div>James and Mark visited Port-Au-Prince the week of January 18th and by God's grace were able to see first hand the devastation and the need and to begin to determine the where, how and when we can help the churches in Haiti. They also took with them a team of doctors and surgeons and two thousand pounds of medical supplies.</div> <div> </div> <div>You can go to the new website for this effort to help the churches in Haiti by clicking <a href="http://www.churcheshelpingchurches.com"> HERE</a>. You can also get frequent updates by following James and Mark on Twitter - you will find the link on the above site. If you want to contribute further to this cause i would NOT encourage you to use the on-line giving option on the churcheshelpingchurches.com site as it is USA based and you won't get a charitable receipt. But if you make your donation to Harvest London and include your name and address and clearly mark your donation as 'Haiti' then we will forward it on and issue you a receipt for tax purposes. </div> <div> </div> <div>Please continue to pray for the team and for all of us to do what God would call us to do. At this point and in the near future there is no chance of us sending teams but there will be much to be done in the coming months and years so we may be able to participate in this way as many of you have asked about this.</div> <div> </div> <div>You can find a few video updates on the www.churcheshelpingchurches.com site. So far it appears all the Harvest churches (US & Canada) have donated about $630,000 for helping the churches of Haiti and more are still to collect this Sunday!</div> <div> </div> <div>It is a JOY to serve you and to see God at work in our church and let's not stop praying for our brothers and sisters in Haiti seeking God's care for them and seeking His wisdom on how we can best help them in the days to come.</div> <div> </div> <div>Together in His service,</div> <div> </div> <div>Norm</div> </div> 195415http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/195415-thumbnail.jpg?1001181056Praying for a prodigal ...http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=193243&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=193243&ref_object=news_rssWed, 30 Dec 2009 06:00:00 GMTIn our holiday two-week series on Luke 15 we are discovering again the story Jesus creates and tells revealing God's heart for those who are far from Him. It is such a powerful and beautiful story reminding us again of the amazing grace of God. Jesus was being accused of not being a man of God for He hung out with and loved sinners (Luke 15:1). So in response Jesus tells three stories; the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:3-7), the parable of the lost coin (Luke 15:8-10) and the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:11-32). These stories are designed to reveal God's heart for lost people - sinners - those who have rejected Him and are far from Him. The main thrust or point of the parable of the lost or prodigal son is really that of the older brother for he represents the Scribes and Pharisees - those who were religious and/or legalistic but did not have a heart for the things the Father does. But in telling this story Jesus also paints such a powerful and wonderful picture of the grace of the Father being poured out upon the prodigal son. It is so moving and overwhelming. The story has so many elements that we could go on and on but I will get to the point of this news item. I wanted to provide some encouragement and comfort to parents who have a prodigal son or daughter. So here is a sermon delivered years ago by Pastor Jim Cymbala (pastor of the Brooklyn Tabernacle). This sermon is really a prophetic call to the church to come back to a core function of being a house of prayer. But in this sermon Jim tells the story of when their daughter ran from God and from them as parents and how God used the prayers of His people to bring her back. Parent, watch and listen to this sermon and I pray that in so doing God will encourage and comfort you that He is sovereign and in control and can be trusted to care for our children when you no longer have influence. But also I pray that God will use this to strengthen your resolve that absolutely the BEST thing you can do for your prodigal is to pray. So pray parent pray! Norm <object width="425" height="344"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U79YOKje2zU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /></object> 193243http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/193243-thumbnail.jpg?0912300200Great ways to feed on God's Word all week!http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=192930&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=192930&ref_object=news_rssWed, 23 Dec 2009 06:00:00 GMTHi all, One of the many benefits of living in the day-and-age we do is how easy and convenient it is to feed on God's Word. Each Christ-follower is responsible for their own spiritual walk with Christ and for their own growth. This means we need to be a people of the book beyond just Sundays or at small group. So the starting point for each of us is a daily routine of time spent reading God's Word - the Bible - and time in prayer talking with the author of the book - Jesus Christ. After you have disciplined yourself to a regular daily routine of reading the Bible and praying I would encourage you to begin to look for ways to grow your spiritual health with more of God's Word. We would recommend a number of ways to do this and in association with this we would recommend a number of pastors/preachers who you can trust in terms of their commitment to God's Word and their faithfulness to a Biblical theology. Their are others as well but this is sort of our top 10 list. We have added links to their websites where you can find their material. Want to be healthy spiritually? Then eat good spiritual food regularly! <ol> <li>Visit our resource table in the lobby on Sundays. We have a great assortment of solid material to help you grow in your walk. You can 'rent' a CD sermon series from Walk in the Word at our table for a nominal cost. You can pick up some great books at cost and these are all books which you can trust in terms of their faithfulness to Scripture. </li> <li>Buy your own material from Walk In The Word, visit their website to see what is available - <a href="http://www.walkintheword.com/">www.walkintheword.com</a></li> <li>Last year Grace To You made all John MacArthur's sermons available for download for free. This is an amazing wealth of exposition of God's Word - over 40 years worth. You can visit their site called<a href="http://www.gtycanada.org/Resources/"> www.gtycanada.org</a> to see all that is available (downloads are free or you can buy CD sets). </li> <li>One of the most popular and longtime preachers is Dr. Charles Stanley - you can see all his material at his site - <a href="http://www.intouch.org/site/c.cnKBIPNuEoG/b.4945473/k.BE35/Home.htm">www.intouch.org</a>.</li> <li>Another source of some amazing preaching all for free is Alistair Begg's site - <a href="http://www.truthforlife.org/">www.truthforlife.org</a>.</li> <li>Want more good free sermons? Then you must visit John Piper's website as all his sermons, both in transcript and mp3 format, are available for free. Decades of great preaching for free! Visit - <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/">www.desiringgod.org</a>.</li> <li>One of evangelicals best minds is Dr. Albert Mohler who is the president of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville Kentucky. Dr. Mohler is a gifted preacher and writer and has a radio program which deals with many current events and issues. His website and blog are a great source of solid theological assessment of everything current - <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/">www.albertmohler.com</a>. </li> <li>Another huge resource base for books, sermons and conferences is the Sovereign Grace Ministries site - <a href="http://www.sovereigngracestore.com/category.aspx?categoryID=3">www.sovereigngraceministries.org</a>. This organization is led by C.J. Mahaney. All sermons by him, by Joshua Harris or anyone else are their site would be fully recommended by us. </li> <li>For the younger generation in the church - college age and down - another great resource is Mark Driscoll. He is the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Washington state (don't mix this up with Rob Bell and Mars Hill church in Michigan as we can no longer recommend Rob Bell due to his disappointing shift in theology). Some of you 'old people:)' may enjoy Mark as well His website is - <a href="http://www.marshillchurch.org/">www.marshillchurch.org</a>. One WARNING with Mark is that he can be a little 'crass' in his vocabulary and at times too graphic in his topics for our full recommendation. We so wish he would pull back from this but at this point he has not - so a caution here - but solid theology and some great preaching. </li> <li>One final recommendation would be Greg Laurie. Great preacher, solid theology, interesting style, very evangelistic - we think you will be well fed by listening to Greg's preaching at - <a href="http://www.harvest.org/">www.harvest.org</a> (Greg's church is also called Harvest but is not directly associated with our Harvest circle of churches although Greg and James are good friends). </li> </ol> There are so many others we could recommend as well, preachers like Chip Ingram, Chuck Swindoll, Erwin Lutzer, Jack Graham, David Jeremiah, R.C. Sproul, Bob Coy, Ravi Zacharias, Dennis Rainey, etc.. And unfortunately there are many preachers available via the web, TV and through their books who we would not recommend but we will not get into that list but do strongly encourage you to be discerning about who you are listening to. Just because they talk about God and the Bible does not mean they are preachers or teachers who you should be allowing to place ideas and teachings into your heart and mind. Be cautious about who has influence in your life. For women who would love to be taught by another woman we would recommend; Beth Moore, Elizabeth George, Elisabeth Elliott, and Jill Briscoe as our top picks. Take advantage of the era God has placed you in and feed your soul on His word daily, feast fully and regularly on healthy spiritual food and you will discover God at work in your life in ways you never imagined possible. Harvest Staff PS. <a href="http://www.gty.org/Shop/Audio+Series/294">Here</a> is where you can find the 3 John MacArthur sermons Norm mentioned that he listened to and borrowed from regarding the sermons on the prodigal son from Luke 15:11-32. AND they are FREE to download so just click on the sermon title and you can then click download. If you want to buy the CD it will cost you $5. 192930http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/192930-thumbnail.jpg?0912231032Reformation Infohttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=185920&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=185920&ref_object=news_rssSat, 21 Nov 2009 06:00:00 GMT For a little background info on the Reformation which would link to our December series called, 'Here I Stand' which looks at the five 'solas' of the reformation click <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/185919.pdf?site_id=10194">HERE</a>. 185920http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/185920-thumbnail.jpg?0911210955Follow-up to sermon on miracle of turning water to winehttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=181617&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=181617&ref_object=news_rssMon, 12 Oct 2009 05:00:00 GMT In this sermon on John 2:1-11 we dealt briefly with what the Bible says about wine and drinking. Jesus clearly performed a miracle in John 2:1-11 wherein He turned water - six pots of water - into wine. I am very concerned that we be clear on what our understanding is of wine and drinking from a Biblical standpoint. One point of clarification. Some thought I had taught that the guests at the wedding were drunk and that Jesus made more wine so they could continue to be drunk or get drunk if not already. If anything like that came across in my teaching I apologize. Remember I said that it was likely a week long marriage celebration. So the wine would be used at the meals - not a drinking party like we see today. Drunkenness was looked down upon in their culture as a sin as well so there is no reason to think that the wine - or the additional wine Jesus made had any involvement in people getting drunk but rather was a beverage at their celebration feasts (not parties - dinner meals together). I would like to restate what I taught on Sunday to ensure I am clear on what we see the Bible saying about this topic:<o:p></o:p> The four points I emphasized in the sermon: 1. The Bible does not prohibit drinking of wine.<o:p></o:p> 2. The Bible does prohibit being drunk (Eph 5:18 and other verses)<o:p></o:p> 3. If you desire to be strong in Christ and a mature Christian believer then you will significantly limit your wine or alcohol consumption – 1 Tim 3 talks of elders being ‘not addicted to wine’. Proverbs 20:1 says this, ‘Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise.’ The more we mature the more we should set aside any and all things that may impede our walk with Christ. It should be our desire to be fully controlled by the H.S. and choose to be extra careful not to, even inadvertently, allow anything else to control us – including wine. If you choose to drink then you need to be extra careful for Scripture makes it clear you are to be fully controlled by God’s Spirit and not by anything else. Drinking can easily cause you to lose your own judgment, self-discipline, self-control, morals and modesty. So wisdom says – if your desire is to be Christ-like and to honor and serve Him then extreme moderation (or better abstinence) is the call. It is clear that Jesus never got drunk for He never sinned and it is clear He never got even a little tipsy for He was always in full and total control before God and men – so why not live like Him?<o:p></o:p> 4. Finally, you need to consider if your drinking of wine may cause others to stumble. Romans 14:21 says, ‘It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.’ Now by weaker brother Paul doesn’t mean having a glass of wine may anger or irritate a long-time Christian religious person so don’t drink – they are not a weaker brother – this passage doesn’t deal with them. A weaker brother in this passage is one who is a new Christian and has been saved out of a life of indulgence and addiction and Paul says, to consider if by exercising an area of freedom you may cause them temptation – and if so give up your freedom for their benefit. <o:p></o:p> I did state that my personal belief and strong exhortation to all Christians would be that for the sake of your children and others including new believers you need to seriously consider when, where, how much and why you would participate in wine. Personally we don’t drink – it is an area of freedom we have decided to basically give up just in case any should see us and think it is good to do this when they might not have self control. We believe that the wide spread destruction and pain associated with alcohol abuse and the damage it assaults families, marriages, individuals and society with should scream at all of us to not participate. We cannot understand why any would and would call all to pursue the place of not getting close to anything which might lead one into any sort of bondage, loss of control, sinful activities and which may cause others to stumble. <o:p> </o:p> For those who wish to look into this a little more here are a couple of good resources I would recommend:<o:p></o:p> <ul type="disc" style="margin-top: 0in;"> <li style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class="MsoNormal">First a full discussion of what the Bible says about drinking by Pastor John MacArthur. This is a copy of some of his treatment of Ephesians 5:18 from his commentary on Ephesians. John does a good job of distinguishing between today’s version of wine or alcohol and that if the Bible and how it was a much more watered down version. And yet as the later part of this document shows – it was still sufficient to get one drunk and so there was more of a water flavored by the wine drink but there was also wine which was alcoholic even if less potent than ours today. This was one of the points I made on Sunday. The word in our passage translated wine is the Greek word “oinou” which is also the word used in Eph 5:18, 1 Tim 3:8, 5:23, Titus 2:3, Luke 7:33 and has the same root as the word translated ‘drunkenness’ in 1 Peter 4:3. So although it was not as potent as our wines it still had the danger of resulting in being drunk – so it was wine – not just juice. Click <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/../Content/10194/181612.pdf">HERE</a> to read MacArthur’s thoughts.  <o:p></o:p></li> <li style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt;" class="MsoNormal">And <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/../Content/10194/181619.pdf">HERE</a> is a practical explanation by Pastor John Piper as to why he does not drink and why he is strongly recommending those in his church not drink either. <o:p></o:p></li> </ul> Finally, here is a good summary of another pastor’s thoughts on this which I think represent my views well …<o:p></o:p> “Though I cannot in biblical conscience or with biblical grounds say that taking a drink of alcohol is categorically a sin, I think there is clear, firm, and significant biblical evidence for why Christians should absolutely abstain from drinking. I agree with John MacArthur when he says, “Can I say that it is always a sin to take a drink? No. Can I say it is almost always ill-advised? Yes, because it violates the biblical principles of wisdom and witness.” <o:p></o:p> I would also encourage those who do not drink to avoid being spiritually arrogant towards those who do, as though you are somehow spiritually superior. Such arrogance is no different that the arrogance of Christian liberty mentioned above. <o:p></o:p> Therefore, without a heart of legalism, without making Scripture say something it does not say, I believe that the wisest path for Christians to walk is the one of abstinence.” 181617http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/181617-thumbnail.jpg?0910120830The Gospel in 1 Minute!http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=177165&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=177165&ref_object=news_rssTue, 08 Sep 2009 05:00:00 GMT <div>  Hi all, <o:p></o:p> <o:p> What is the gospel and why should we be so concerned about it?. Paul said this about it, 'For I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes.' (Romans 1:16) This is why we should be all about the gospel for IT is the POWER of God which SAVES lost people who are 'in the act of perishing (1 Cor. 1:18). </o:p> <o:p> Some today are downplaying the gospel saying we need to be more concerned with justice and social needs. I agree that the church has not done a good job of caring for the downtrodden and needy ones and we must improve our efforts to care and help all those we can. BUT our primary calling as a church is not social justice nor physical improvements in cultures and families. We are first and foremost ambassadors for Christ bringing His message of the gospel - the truly good news --- “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” (2 Cor. 5:18-20)</o:p> <o:p> Please don’t miss this – ‘the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God’ (1 Cor. 1:18). We must not lose sight of the true power of the church. It IS the good news, the gospel. </o:p> <o:p> So church – Christ-followers – do you know what the gospel is? Can you articulate the gospel? Are you always ‘prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you’? (1 Peter 3:15).</o:p> <o:p> Here are a couple of helps if you are struggling with what exactly needs to be included to be considered ‘the gospel’? </o:p> <o:p> First, click <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/KevTCC#play/all/uploads-all/2/EH5fO8EEvwk">HERE</a> to listen to a great summary (literally 1 minute) of what the gospel is. Thanks to The Cross Current (TCC) for this link.</o:p> <o:p> Next click <a href="http://www.thecrosscurrent.com/witnessing/GAMG.memtool.pdf">HERE</a> to read a printable version of the gospel (TCC link again).</o:p> <o:p> And click <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/blogentry.aspx?site_id=10194&entry_id=177215">HERE</a> to listen to a little more extended summary (3.5 minutes) of the gospel I gave this past spring in one of our services. </o:p> <o:p> And finally I would STRONGLY recommend you all take the great training session made available by The Cross Current through our E4 (Encounter 4) training session at Harvest London. We will be scheduling one of these in the coming months. I have personally attended (along with two of our teenagers) taken the TCC training and found it most helpful and a great investment of a day of training. If you are interested in this e-mail<a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/mailto:info@harvestlondon.ca?subject=Interested%20in%20E4%20class%20information"> info@harvestlondon.ca</a> and tell us to add your name to the list to be invited when the class is scheduled. </o:p> Norm<o:p></o:p>  </div> 177165http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/177165-thumbnail.jpg?0909081109Now Playinghttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=92717&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=92717&ref_object=news_rssMon, 07 Sep 2009 05:00:00 GMT <radeditorformatted_1> </radeditorformatted_1> <hr /> <img src="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Worship%20@%20Harvest/image.axd.jpeg" /> Each Sunday the church gathers to worship our great God. We hear from His word and we lift high the name of Jesus in song. The following is a list of songs that we have used in our worship service this month. Check back for regular service updates. <radeditorformatted_2> <div></div> <div> </div> <div><radeditorformatted_2> </radeditorformatted_2></div> <div><radeditorformatted_2> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="332" style="border-collapse: collapse; ">  <col width="146" /> <col width="186" /> <tbody> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl24" align="right" width="146" x:num="38908.0">July 11, 2010</td> <td class="xl25" width="186">Father Spirit Jesus</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl24"> </td> <td class="xl25">How Great Thou Art</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl24"> </td> <td class="xl25">Majestic</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl24"> </td> <td class="xl25">Great is Thy Faithfulness</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl24"> </td> <td class="xl25">Came To The Rescue</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl24"> </td> <td class="xl26">Before The Throne</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl24"> </td> <td class="xl25">Stronger</td> </tr>  </tbody> </table> </radeditorformatted_2></div> <div> <radeditorformatted_3> </radeditorformatted_3><radeditorformatted_4> </radeditorformatted_4> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="332" style="border-collapse: collapse; "> <tbody> </tbody> <tbody> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl24" align="right" width="146" x:num="38915.0">July 18, 2010</td> <td class="xl25" width="186">All Hail The Power of Jesus Name</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl25"> </td> <td class="xl25">We Fall Down</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl25"> </td> <td class="xl25">Your Love Never Fails</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl25"> </td> <td class="xl25">Beyond Us</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl25"> </td> <td class="xl25">Glory To God Forever</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl25"> </td> <td class="xl25">Song of The Angels</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl25"> </td> <td class="xl25">He Is Lord</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <div><radeditorformatted_5> </radeditorformatted_5><radeditorformatted_6> </radeditorformatted_6> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="332" style="border-collapse: collapse; "> <tbody> </tbody> <tbody> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl24" align="right" width="146" x:num="38922.0">July 25, 2010</td> <td class="xl26" width="186">Thank You For Saving Me</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl24"> </td> <td class="xl26">Here I Am To Worship</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl24"> </td> <td class="xl25">From The Inside Out</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl24"> </td> <td class="xl26">All Because of Jesus</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl24"> </td> <td class="xl26">Holy Holy Holy</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl24"> </td> <td class="xl26">Song Of The Angels</td> </tr> <tr height="14"> <td height="14" class="xl24"> </td> <td class="xl26">Stand In Awe</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <radeditorformatted_7><radeditorformatted_8><radeditorformatted_9> <style>  </style> <radeditorformatted_11> <radeditorformatted_12> <div> </div> <div> <div> </div> </div> <radeditorformatted_13> </radeditorformatted_13></radeditorformatted_12></radeditorformatted_11></radeditorformatted_9></radeditorformatted_8></radeditorformatted_7></div> </radeditorformatted_2>92717http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/92717-thumbnail.jpg?0904020231Free Sunday Shuttle Bus Service for UWO & Fanshawe Studentshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=176637&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=176637&ref_object=news_rssFri, 04 Sep 2009 05:00:00 GMT At Harvest Bible Chapel we are excited and thankful for the way God is actively working. Many students and young adults have found Harvest London to be the place for them to connect in worship and the word. If you are after straight-up teaching of God’s Word which will leave you challenged and encouraged in your Christian walk then Harvest London is for you. We are providing free shuttle bus service from both the Fanshawe and UWO (multiple pick up locations) to Harvest and back again after the service. <div> </div> <div>Harvest London runs two services at 9am & 11am. We run a bus for each service, arriving 30 minutes before and departing 30 minutes after each service. If you are a regular at Harvest we hope that the earlier and later departing times will give you an opportunity to serve during one of the services. For a list of ministry opportunities go to www.harvestlondon.ca/work.</div> <div> </div> <div>This bus service begins Sunday, September 12th and runs each Sunday thereafter. Join us Sunday and see what God is doing at Harvest London. </div> <div> Bus Schedule/Maps: Here is a map of the bus route from Fanshawe > UWO > Harvest London. Please note to make the service run smoother we have changed the wait times this year such that the bus will arrive at each pickup location and stop for any who are waiting and then proceed as last year it often sat and waited to be exact to our times. So PLEASE be at your stop about 5 minutes early to ensure you are there when it arrives as it won’t wait <iframe width="700" scrolling="no" height="350" frameborder="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=103357045733756620600.000473c625fd40c2da7be&ll=43.005376,-81.249998&spn=0.019741,0.109091&output=embed" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0"></iframe> View <a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255); text-align: left; " href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=103357045733756620600.000473c625fd40c2da7be&ll=43.005376,-81.249998&spn=0.019741,0.109091&source=embed">Harvest Bus route & pick up locations</a> in a larger map <div>Fanshawe Pickup location <div> <iframe width="700" scrolling="no" height="350" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=117730240564653011854.000472c36cce3e3505ffe&ll=43.012822,-81.201346&spn=0.005491,0.01502&z=16&output=embed"></iframe> View <a href="http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=117730240564653011854.000472c36cce3e3505ffe&ll=43.012822,-81.201346&spn=0.005491,0.01502&z=16&source=embed" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255); text-align: left; ">Fanshawe Pickup</a> in a larger map Campus Drive between Merlin House and Falcon House residences <div> </div> <div>First Service: <ul> <li> Pick up: approximately 7:55am</li> <li> Drop off: approximately 11:05am</li> </ul> <div> </div> <div>Second Service:</div> <div> <ul> <li>Pick up: approximately 9:55am</li> <li>Drop off: approximately 1:20pm</li> </ul> </div> <div> </div> UWO Pickup locations <iframe width="700" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=103357045733756620600.000473c7be85d5fd5b4e6&ll=43.004961,-81.26647&spn=0.021969,0.059996&z=14&output=embed"></iframe> View <a href="http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=103357045733756620600.000473c7be85d5fd5b4e6&ll=43.004961,-81.26647&spn=0.021969,0.059996&z=14&source=embed" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255); text-align: left; ">UWO pick up locations</a> in a larger map </div> <div>First Service:</div> <div> Oxford St & Richmond St corner <ul> <li>Pick up: approximately 8:05am</li> <li>Drop off: approximately 10:55am</li> </ul> Kings College <ul> <li>Pick up: approximately 8:10am</li> <li>Drop off: approximately 10:50am</li> </ul> Elgin Hall <ul> <li> Pick up: approximately 8:15am</li> <li> Drop off: approximately 10:45am</li> </ul> Saugeen-Maitland Hall <ul> <li> Pick up: approximately 8:20am</li> <li> Drop off: approximately 10:40am</li> </ul> Sarnia Rd & Western Rd corner <ul> <li> Pick up: approximately 8:25am</li> <li> Drop off: approximately 10:35am</li> </ul> <ul> </ul> </div> <div> <div>Second Service:</div> <div> Oxford St & Richmond St corner <ul> <li>Pick up: approximately 10:05am</li> <li>Drop off: approximately 1:10pm</li> </ul> Kings College <ul> <li>Pick up: approximately 10:10am</li> <li>Drop off: approximately 1:05pm</li> </ul> Elgin Hall <ul> <li>Pick up: approximately 10:15am</li> <li>Drop off: approximately 1:00pm</li> </ul> Saugeen-Maitland Hall <ul> <li>Pick up: approximately 10:20am</li> <li>Drop off: approximately 12:55pm</li> </ul> Sarnia Rd & Western Rd corner <ul> <li>Pick up: approximately 10:25am</li> <li>Drop off: approximately 12:50pm</li> </ul> <ul> </ul> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div>176637http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/176637-thumbnail.jpg?0909040944Follow-up to the sermon on marriagehttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=174853&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=174853&ref_object=news_rssTue, 18 Aug 2009 05:00:00 GMTHi all, <div> </div> <div>Sunday's sermon was a heavy one as we unpacked Genesis 2:18-25. One sermon was just not enough to deal with the various issues this text presents. I am making available <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/174852.pdf">this PDF</a> which has a few clarifying thoughts and expands on a few items I presented on Sunday but didn't have time to give a proper explanation to. Hope this helps. Norm</div> 174853http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/174853-thumbnail.jpg?0908181032Two testimonies by Ph.D. experts on why they hold to Genesis 1&2http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=159327&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=159327&ref_object=news_rssWed, 15 Jul 2009 05:00:00 GMTHi all, We are in our short summer series called 'In the Beginning' where we are examining, verse by verse Genesis 1-3. These first few weeks have had us looking at the creation of the universe, this earth and mankind as well as all the animals and life on this earth by God. We hold to a belief that is put forth in a simple and straight forward manner by Genesis 1 & 2 and is affirmed by other sections of Scripture such as Exodus 20:11, 31:17, Psalm 104, Job 38-41, Matthew 19:4, Revelation 10:6, etc. that God created all that is simply by speaking it into existence and He did this in 6 literal, 24 hour days. Well, so many today who hold to an evolutionary view attack and criticize creationists as being brain dead and not in touch with the facts, ignorant of science, etc. Because this demeaning attack is out there against those who would hold to a literal, 6 day, 24 hour day creation I wanted you to know that not only do your elder and staff leadership teams hold to this creationist view but we have many who are from the scientific field and also hold to this position. i could have asked many but I chose to ask just two - Mark DeVries and Anita Woods who both hold Ph.D.'s in the molecular biology area (I can't even understand what their field of studies are as they are way beyond me) to write a brief reason why they believe Genesis 1&2 as it is written. They both did not like the idea of keeping this to just 2-3 pages each as there is so much they have examined and are familiar with and perhaps one day i will ask them to write a more detailed explanation of why they believe in creationism but the are recognized expert scientists and experts and i thought you might like to hear from them. So click <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/159328.pdf">here for Mark's</a> and <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/159329.pdf">here for Anita's</a> brief explanations. We offer this just as a way to help increase your confidence to stand for the clear teaching of Scripture in an increasingly hostile world. Norm 159327http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/159327-thumbnail.jpg?0907150100In the beginning ...http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=158317&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=158317&ref_object=news_rssTue, 07 Jul 2009 05:00:00 GMTHi all, Just a brief note to follow up our kick-off on Sunday into our series on Genesis 1-3. We looked at the first world God created (we called it 'first' because His Word tells us He will recreate it when Christ comes again). In affirming that the Word of God is clear and concise that 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' we sought to examine how all through the Bible there is the clear teaching that God IS the Creator and therefore the Sovereign One over all that is. He created it the Bible says and He created it without using macro-evolution. By the time death entered human history Adam and Eve were already fully functioning humans. God created species ('each after their kind' which is all through Genesis 1) and God created age and beauty and intelligence. Well just as a brief follow-up I wanted to encourage you to <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/david_gallo_shows_underwater_astonishments.html">watch this</a> brief (5 minutes but trust me it will fly by) video Cory McKenna pointed me to yesterday. After watching the one Cory sent i started searching for this David Gallo guy and found<a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_gallo_on_life_in_the_deep_oceans.html"> this one</a> - you gotta watch it - so cool what God can think/create/sustain! If you watch these you will hear their affirmation of evolution and life likely beginning in these locations - obviously we disagree with their conclusions but love their exploration. Just can't help myself - there are some great videos showing God's amazing creative work - check out <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC0zOLqYnRg">this one</a> - a National Geographic video showing the ability to mimic and the defensive abilities of some sea creatures. An amazing example of the indescribable variety, beauty and complexity that our God spoke into His creation. I believe that for all eternity we will continually be blown away by example after example like this if the limitless creative majesty of God!!! Norm 158317http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/158317-thumbnail.jpg?0907071217A love for Bible doctrine!http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=152667&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=152667&ref_object=news_rssThu, 14 May 2009 05:00:00 GMT  Following up on last Sunday’s lesson as we unpacked the great truth of what theologians call the immutability of God we learned that Bible doctrine (teaching) and theology are crucial to the foundation of our faith and trust in God. This week I read this article and thought it really emphasizes what I tried to communicate last week abut the importance of Bible doctrine. This article comes from an on-line magazine called ‘Pulpit’ which I would highly recommend you read if you are interested in leading in a Biblical ministry. <a href="http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit">www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit</a><o:p></o:p> <o:p> Doctrine IS Practical</o:p> Monday, Apr 13, 2009<o:p></o:p> (By John MacArthur)<o:p></o:p> I have in my library a book by the spiritual father of a quasi-Christian cult. It argues that structured doctrine and systematized theology are contrary to the spirit of Jesus’ ministry.<o:p></o:p> The idea that Christ is anti-doctrine is a foundational belief of that cult. But no idea is further from the truth. The word doctrine simply means “teaching.” And it’s ludicrous to say that Christ is anti-teaching. The central imperative of His Great Commission is the command to teach (Matthew 28:18-20).<o:p></o:p> Unfortunately, cultists aren’t alone in their bias against doctrine. Some evangelicals have almost the same perspective. Because they view doctrine as heady and theoretical, they dismiss it as unimportant, divisive, threatening, or simply impractical.<o:p></o:p> People often ask why I emphasize doctrine so much. Now and then someone tells me frankly that my preaching needs to be less doctrinal and more practical.<o:p></o:p> Of course, practical application is vital. I don’t want to minimize its importance. But if there is a deficiency in preaching today, it is that there’s too much relational, pseudopsychological, and thinly life-related content, and not enough emphasis on sound doctrine.<o:p></o:p> The distinction between doctrinal and practical truth is artificial; doctrine is practical! In fact, nothing is more practical than sound doctrine.<o:p></o:p> The pastor who turns away from preaching sound doctrine abdicates the primary responsibility of an elder: “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). We teach truth, we teach error, or we teach nothing at all.<o:p></o:p> Building on the Truth<o:p></o:p> Practical insights, gimmicks, and illustrations mean little if they’re not attached to divine principle. There’s no basis for godly behavior apart from the truth of God’s Word. Before the preacher asks anyone to perform a certain duty, he must first deal with doctrine. He must develop his message around theological themes and draw out the principles of the texts. Then the truth can be applied.<o:p></o:p> Romans provides the clearest example. Paul doesn’t give any exhortation until he has given eleven chapters of theology.<o:p></o:p> He scales incredible heights of truth, culminating in 11:33-36, where he says, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.”<o:p></o:p> Then in chapter 12, he turns immediately to the practical consequences of the doctrine of the first 11 chapters. No passage in Scripture captures the Christian’s responsibility in the face of truth more clearly than Romans 12:1-2.<o:p></o:p> Resting on eleven chapters of profound doctrine, Paul calls each believer to a supreme act of spiritual worship — giving oneself as a living sacrifice. Doctrine gives rise to dedication to Christ, the greatest practical act. And the remainder of the book of Romans goes on to explain the many practical outworkings of one’s dedication to Christ.<o:p></o:p> He follows the same pattern in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians. The doctrinal message comes first. Upon that foundation he builds the practical application, making the logical connection with the word therefore (Romans 1:1; Galatians 5:1; Ephesians 4:1; Philippians 2:1) or then (Colossians 3:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:1).<o:p></o:p> Living by the Truth<o:p></o:p> We have imposed an artificial meaning on the word doctrine. We’ve made it something abstract and threatening, unrelated to daily living. That has brought about the disastrous idea that preaching and teaching are unrelated to living.<o:p></o:p> The scriptural concept of doctrine includes the entire message of the gospel — its teaching about God, salvation, sin, and righteousness. Those concepts are so tightly bound to daily living that the first-century mind did not see them as something separate from practical truth.<o:p></o:p> The New Testament church was founded on a solid base of doctrine. First Timothy 3:16 contains what many expositors believe is an early church hymn: “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (KJV). There, in capsule form, is the basis of all Christian teaching. Without that, no practical application matters.<o:p></o:p> Departing from the Truth<o:p></o:p> The next few verses of 1 Timothy describe what happens when men depart from the basis of biblical truth: “Some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth” (4:1-3).<o:p></o:p> Lying, hypocrisy, a dulled conscience, and false religious practices all have roots in wrong doctrine.<o:p></o:p> No ministry activity is more important than rightly understanding and clearly proclaiming sound doctrine. In 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, Paul commissions two young men to the ministry. His central theme is the importance of adhering to sound doctrine.<o:p></o:p> Paul charged Timothy: “In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following” (1 Timothy 4:6). “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching,” Paul adds, “persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you” (v. 16).<o:p></o:p> Titus 2:10 says we “adorn [or honor] the doctrine of God” by how we live. When it comes to affirming sound doctrine, what we do carries far more significance than what we say. That’s why it’s disastrous when a pastor, seminary professor, or any kind of Christian leader fails morally. The message he proclaims is that his doctrine becomes merely an intellectual exercise.<o:p></o:p> Hearing the Truth<o:p></o:p> True doctrine transforms behavior as it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. But it must be understood if it is to have its impact. The real challenge of the ministry is to dispense the truth clearly and accurately. Practical application comes easily by comparison.<o:p></o:p> No believer can apply truth he doesn’t know. Those who don’t know the Bible’s principles for marriage, divorce, family, childrearing, discipline, money, debt, work, service to Christ, responsibilities to the poor, care of widows, response to governments, eternal rewards, and other teachings will not be able to apply them.<o:p></o:p> Those who don’t’ know what the Bible teaches about salvation cannot be saved. Those who don’t know what the Bible teaches about holiness are incapable of dealing with sin. Thus they are unable to live fully to God’s glory and their own blessedness.<o:p></o:p>  152667http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/152667-thumbnail.jpg?0905140101Read through the Bible in a year plan - three options!http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=142598&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=142598&ref_object=news_rssThu, 05 Mar 2009 06:00:00 GMTWe encourage you to read the Bible regularly. Here we offer you three annual reading plans which will help you stay consistent in your Bible reading and will help you read through the entire Bible in one year. This is a great way to grow your overall Bible knowledge and enhance your walk with the Lord. <div> </div> <div>The following plans are available:</div> <div> <ol> <li><a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/142590.pdf">Read through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation</a> </li> <li><a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/142591.pdf">Read through the Bible chronologically</a> - in the order the books were written</li> <li><a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/142595.pdf">Read through the Bible historically</a> - in the order they happened </li> </ol> <div>These plans were adapted from this website (ESV plan starting January 1) - you can create/customize your own by using their wonderful site - <a href="http://www.ewordtoday.com/year/">http://www.ewordtoday.com/year/</a></div> </div> 142598http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/142598-thumbnail.jpg?0903050340A follow up to our Moth & Rust financial serieshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=142445&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=142445&ref_object=news_rssWed, 04 Mar 2009 06:00:00 GMT  The Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Timothy chapter 6, “17 As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.” ‘As for the Rich in this present age’ - most of us would read that and right away – some verbally and some just by attitude – dismiss this charge as something which does not apply to us for we are not rich. Others are rich – we see this because they drive better cars than us, live in larger houses than us, wear more expensive clothes than us and travel to better places than us for their vacations. But we are not rich – few of us would concede this point. Well let me start by strongly encouraging you to go to this site <a href="http://www.globalrichlist.com/">http://www.globalrichlist.com/</a> and type in your annual income and see if you are ‘rich’ or not! Go ahead – click on it right now – this article will still be waiting here upon your return. I think it is vital that we check ourselves to see if we are in the group Paul is addressing in 1 Timothy. Welcome back! So are you now ready to hear Paul’s command with ears that are more open and a heart, which is more committed to apply what he says now that you realize you are rich? The leadership of the church was to ‘charge’ - strong word – command, insist, boldly proclaim, call with urgency for action – charge the rich (remember this is me and you) to:<o:p></o:p> <ul style="margin-top: 0in; " type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt; ">Not be haughty - conceited – means to ‘think lofty’ or ‘to have an exalted opinion of self’. Does not our world teach – actively and aggressively teach that we SHOULD be this? God reminds us here to remember that it is all His and we are just stewards so why would a steward get all puffed up when the riches are not there because of what he/she has done.<o:p></o:p></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt; ">‘Set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy’. Our security does not come from our RRSP’s, our line-of-credit, our credit rating, our investment portfolio, our job or career nor our smarts or education or even street smarts. Our only sure and certain hope is God the only One who knows and controls all things. And notice what Paul says – God is rich toward us providing many wonderful things of this world for our enjoyment. God is not a killjoy who wants us to be miserably spiritual. He is joy and wants us to be filled with joy!<o:p></o:p></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt; ">We are to be ‘rich in good works’ – every servant truly lives to serve their master and others. We are to be all about serving – helping others, doing good for others. A servant doesn’t say, ‘what about my needs and my wants’. Rather they find their fulfillment in helping others and so should we – especially with the riches God has provided for us. <o:p></o:p></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0.1pt; margin-bottom: 0.1pt; ">And we are to be ‘generous, ready to share’. Do you share financially with others and with God? Are you always ‘ready to share’? This has the idea that you have God’s riches in your hand in an open manner holding it out quick and ready to share as needs arise. Many of us might better be pictured as having our money clasped firmly in our fists, which are shoved way down in our pockets and we give anyone we think might want some of our riches a cold and ‘back off’ sort of stare. After all we need to protect our future and besides that we worked very hard for it – they can work like us if they want some of it. <o:p></o:p></li> </ul> <o:p> </o:p> Notice Paul’s closing thought in verse 19, “thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.” <o:p></o:p> Wow, what an amazing and transforming truth if only we could grasp it. Right now with how we handle the riches (remember you ARE rich!) God has graciously poured out in our lives we can lay a ‘good’ (meaning terrific) foundation for eternity. Talk about some inside info into the best stock deal you could ever invest in – and you can’t get charged with insider trading! Be generous, be quick to help others, don’t think highly of yourself, and don’t trust in your money or stuff but rather use it to be all about God and His kingdom and those in need and by doing this you will fund the greatest retirement plan mankind will ever see. You will literally live like a king forever and ever if you obey His call now!<o:p></o:p> Well some might be thinking – not sure I want to sacrifice so much now and pay such a huge cost now with my money for a future benefit … I am more of a here and now sort of person so why would I want to obey this teaching of God’s? Paul also addresses this when he says, so that you may take hold of that which is truly life’. I think this does not just apply to the future life, heaven, and eternity. I think it also applies to the here and now. So many are passionately pursuing happiness, joy, fulfillment, pleasure here and now and they are using 100% and many are using 110% and 150% of their current riches to do this. But they keep coming up empty – the happiness lasts about as long as their last tan. The pleasure soon turns to boredom and the fulfillment is far less full than they thought it would be. What are they missing – they keep spending and buying and trying and just can’t figure it out. <o:p></o:p> Well as we concluded our four-week series on finances (called Moth and Rust) you save by giving. It is the great paradox, which so few Christians have discovered and yet is taught over and over in Scripture. Only when you embrace using the riches God has graciously entrusted you with to give and give abundantly and consistently will you discover that which your soul truly hungers after. Give and you get – not give TO get but give and you WILL get for God rewards those who obey Him. <o:p></o:p>  142445http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/142445-thumbnail.jpg?0903040207Bible verses related to moneyhttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=129734&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=129734&ref_object=news_rssThu, 05 Feb 2009 06:00:00 GMT <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/129735.pdf">This (click here) </a> is just my (Norm's) personal discovery of verses I found by reading through the Bible a few years ago. I sought to record all verses I found which talked about money - giving/saving/etc. and about working and finally about possessions, etc. I encourage you to do your own study to see what you discover. 129734http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/129734-thumbnail.jpg?0902050248Shack Reviewhttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=105791&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=105791&ref_object=news_rssWed, 17 Dec 2008 06:00:00 GMTThe fiction book called The Shack is a very popular book in Christian circles and although it is 'just a fiction book' as some have argued we believe people are influenced by what they read and as such even fiction books should not misrepresent Scripture. <div> </div> <div>We have serious concerns about the influence of The Shack and would encourage you to check out some of these reviews to see for yourself why we think this book is NOT a good read nor to be recommended.</div> <div> </div> <ol> <li>Here is a detailed overview of the book as well as a very articulate and detailed review of the significant concerns we would share - review is by Tim Challies - click here to read <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/103244.pdf">this</a> this PDF. </li> <li>Gerald Hiestand has posted a very good review of some theological concerns with The Shack on his blog - click <a href="http://blog.harvestbiblefellowship.org/?p=679 ">here </a>to read his review. </li> <li>Here is an additional theological review following up on Gerald's - click <a href="http://banannery.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/authority-in-the-shack/ ">here</a>. </li> <li>Finally - here is a GREAT and detailed uncovering of the serious problems with this book by Dr. Albert Mohler. This is a link to his radio broadcast of April 11, 2008. The first 10 minutes (approximate) of his radio program are some commentary on the US election but PLEASE stay tuned through this for his commentary on The Shack is very insightful. Click <a href="http://almohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-04-11 ">here </a>to go to his broadcast. </li> </ol> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> 105791http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/105791-thumbnail.jpg?0812040744'Seekers' - Biblical or Unbiblical Term?http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=105789&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=105789&ref_object=news_rssFri, 22 Aug 2008 05:00:00 GMTIs the term 'seekers' an acceptable term to use to describe those who are not followers of Jesus Christ. Some churches use this term all the time but others say it is not a Biblical term. This discussion paper seeks to look at what Scripture would say about referring to this group of people as 'seekers'. Click <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/105787.pdf">here</a> to open and read the PDF.105789http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/105789-thumbnail.jpg?0812040744Summary of Celebration and Vision Meetinghttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=98584&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=98584&ref_object=news_rssTue, 03 Jun 2008 05:00:00 GMT About 125 people enjoyed a great time together Sunday afternoon (June 1st) as we celebrated together God's goodness over this past ministry season and as we talked about God's vision for our future. If you were not able to make this meeting here is a synopsis of what was discussed. Steve and some members from his worship team kicked off our get-together by leading us in a time or worship and then we were blessed by a testimony from Curtis and Shannon Butler as they shared what God has been doing in their lives through Harvest and specifically through their small group. What a joy to hear of God’s transforming work – thanks Shannon and Curtis for sharing with us!Leo gave an overview of (click <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/98587.pdf">here </a>to see his PowerPoint slides):<ul><li>Our staff and what their core roles are with the church. We continue to thank God for a great staff who are skilled in their roles and who work so hard serving Christ and us. </li><li>He also presented a brief summary of our 2008 financial budget showing the general breakdown of the resources God has entrusted to us. </li><li>Finally, he presented some of the findings of a leadership survey competed for the Elders by Lee Talbot. This was an intensive survey of about 20 of our senior leadership people covering all areas of our ministry seeking to ask which areas are working well and which need some attention. The results of this survey, although not a surprise to us did affirm the direction we were headed in many ministry areas. </li></ul>This was followed by Norm speaking to three vision or future related areas:<ol><li>The senior leadership of our youth ministry. A significant assessment of our youth ministry was done this winter and we affirmed that we have a solid philosophy for our youth ministry which we believe we need to stay the course on (click <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/98596.pdf">here </a>to see a synopsis of this philosophy). We also affirmed that we have a good group of volunteers in this area and are thankful to God for their service and desire to add to their numbers as our youth group is growing (238% growth since January!!!). The Elders have determined that due to the need for consistency and maturity in our leaders we do not sense God’s leading us to hire in a youth pastor in the near future. Rather we have sensed His leading that we should fill our senior leadership need as follows (effective immediately):</li><ul><li>Remove some administrative roles (setup teams and school liaison) from Steve Toombs and ask him to devote 10 hours per week providing his expertise and experience in youth ministry to high level leadership of this area. Steve is capable of this level of leadership and this move will not hurt the quality or direction of our worship ministry. </li><li>Hire Dan Anderson on full-time asking him to commit 15 hours a week to senior level leadership in our youth ministry as well. Dan and Steve will work side-by-side with Dan bringing his proven skill and expertise for small groups, assimilation and planning to the table. These two senior leaders, we believe, will provide excellent direction for this ministry and they both already are very familiar with the ministry, the students and the leader. </li><li>We need to recruit additional leaders to supplement our current team. We likely need 4-6 mature leaders. Steve and Dan will be reallocating roles in the youth ministry implementing some leaders as small group shepherds, some as small group apprentices, and some as specialty leaders such as planning, running mixer games, planning special events, follow up and assimilation of students, etc. </li><li>We firmly believe that this approach is the best way to serve our families and students well and to grow our ministry providing consistency and leadership for the long haul. </li></ul><li>Norm also announced that effective June 1st, Leo Klus would transition his role from being 75% of his time with Harvest London as Senior Associate Staff member (and 25% of this time serving with Harvest Fellowship) to 100% working for Harvest Fellowship. Leo came to work with us last April so he has completed one year. Harvest Fellowship hired Leo on paying 90% of his cost and we picked up 10%. Not a bad deal! We are very grateful to the Harvest Fellowship for their investment in Leo and his family and in Harvest London in this manner. Leo has been a significant blessing to our Elders, staff and church through his leadership, preaching and expertise in so many areas. A large part of what God has done among us over this past year can be traced back to Leo’s involvement in our ministry so we thank God for him and thank him, Kim and his family for this. The good news for Harvest London is that Leo and Kim will be staying in London at Harvest and Leo has been asked to stay on as an Elder and has also been asked to continue preaching with us. He will average about one sermon a month for the next year or two. Please pray for Leo as he moves into this significant role of providing senior leadership to new church plants in Canada and some in the US as well as helping transition churches and existing Harvest churches. We believe God will richly bless many churches through this gifted and godly servant. </li><li>Finally, Norm presented the fact that the Elders are sensing God’s leading to get the idea of a permanent facility for Harvest London back on the table. We had pulled this idea off the table during our transition time but we believe we now need to begin a careful and steady process of determining God’s leading in terms of a home for us. (click <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/98588.pdf">here </a>to see some pictures showing general ideas ... note large download): We sought to communicate three key ideas at this meeting. First, we sense God’s leading to look for a facility that is more warehouse than traditional church building. We believe with some creativity and hard work by our volunteers we can make a warehouse shell look and feel wonderful for church but we wanted all to understand that our current direction is to either build or buy/renovate (all depends on God’s open doors) a structure which is more or less a shell with rooms and areas inside rather than the traditional church building. Second, we wanted our people to know that the current estimate for the cost of this approach based on the size of building we need (somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 square feet) is around $3,000,000. Of course this can change based on the market but we wanted people to understand that significant fund raising will be required as we likely need at least half of this in cash. But we also wanted our people to know that we are not talking about $7 - $10 million which a traditional building of similar size and function might cost. Finally, we wanted everyone to know that this is not a short term process. We are anticipating we will likely be looking at 2-5 years before we might see a move. In all of this (resources and timing) we desire to seek God’s leading and not run ahead of Him. We will move forward as God provides the direction, the resources and the green light. We will be forming a team to begin gathering expertise on the facility side as well as one on the finance side but will only move as God leads. So please pray with us that God would provide and that we will be patient but also faithful to step out in trust as He opens doors.</li></ol>We closed the meeting with about 30 minutes of Q&A led by Leo and Norm as well as a brief vision reminder by Norm.98584http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/98584-thumbnail.jpg?0812040743Wrath of God Sermon by John MacArthurhttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=91823&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=91823&ref_object=news_rssFri, 14 Mar 2008 05:00:00 GMT The Wrath of God by John MacArthur, Jr. All Rights Reserved (A copy of this message on cassette tape may be obtained by calling 1-800-55-GRACE) Romans 1:18 Tape GC 45-9 The following sermon originally appeared <a href="http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/45-9.htm">here </a>at <a href="http://www.biblebb.com/">Bible Bulletin Board </a>and is used here with permission Let’s look together this evening at the first chapter of Romans. Tonight we’re going to examine chapter 1 verse 18. And I believe as we examine this very critical verse we find the key that unlocks the gospel, the starting point of evangelism. Now the Apostle Paul has announced his theme in verses 16 and 17 as we saw last week. He says: “I’m not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.” And that really is his theme. He called it the gospel of God in verse 1 because God is its source and the gospel of Christ in verse 16 because Christ is its culmination. And he says he is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek, for in it is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written, The just shall live by faith. We saw that that was in condensed form the thesis or the theme of the entire epistle to the Romans. And now as he moves to verse 18 he begins to unfold in great detail the substance of that theme. To help the Christian reader to understand the significance and the meaning of the fullness of the gospel of Christ. And it all begins in verse 18 with this statement: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” The gospel message begins with a statement about the wrath of God. Frankly that’s diametrically opposed to most of our evangelistic technique. Most of our contemporary evangelism purposely avoids that theme. We talk about love and we talk about happiness and we talk about abundant living and we talk about forgiveness and we talk about joy, we talk about peace. And we offer people all of those things and ask them if they wouldn’t like to have all of those things. But we really very rarely talk about judgment. And I wonder in all of the times that you have presented the gospel to somebody, how many times did you introduce it by saying - By the way, did you know that the wrath of God is revealed against your ungodliness? I suppose Dale Carnegie; he has even affected our gospel presentation. We are in such a hurry to win friends and influence people that sometimes we bypass the starting point. From Paul’s perspective, fear becomes the first pressure applied to evil men. Let them know about the wrath of God. In fact, the word love, you might want to know, doesn’t appear in the Roman epistle until the fifth chapter. Now admittedly the wrath of God is a hard subject and I am not here to tell you that it’s an easy one. I find it myself very difficult to begin in speaking to people about Christ at this point. And yet it is the beginning of the gospel and the proper preparation for the announcement of grace. How can people understand anything about love if they don’t understand God’s hate? How can they understand anything about His grace if they don’t know about His law? How can they understand forgiveness if they don’t understand the penalty of sin. Men cannot understand. They cannot seek grace and salvation unless they are affected with the dread of the wrath of God that is upon them. Unless men sense they are in grave danger there’s no pressure applied to them to change. Now, sometimes when you talk about God being a God of wrath, certain people get disturbed. And they don’t understand how God can be a God of anger and God can be a God of wrath and God can be a God of fury, a God of terror. But that’s because they don’t understand God. Let’s see if we can’t help ourselves to a deeper understanding of His wrath in perspective with all of His other attributes. God’s attributes are balanced in His divine perfection. And they are perfectly balanced. If God did not have wrath and God did not have anger then He would not be God. God is perfect in love, on the one hand, and He is equally perfect in hate, on the other hand. Just as totally as He loves, so totally does He hate. As His love is unmixed, so is His hate unmixed. Of Christ, it says in Hebrews 1:9, “Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity.” And there is that perfect balance in the nature of God. As I mentioned, one of the tragedies of Christianity in our time is a failure to preach the hatred of God, the judgment of God. We’re so saccharine. We’re so sentimental. We’re so kind of mushy in our Christianity. When is the last time you heard a new song on the wrath of God? Heard one lately? I haven’t. Just to prove a point in my own mind I have an old Psalter, an old hymnal from the end of the nineteenth century and I pulled it off the shelf and started to go through the hymnal and I found hymn after hymn after hymn on the wrath of God, on the anger of God, on the vengeance of God, on the judgment of God. Hymns that sounded very much like the imprecatory Psalms, where the psalmist is asking God to come down and condemn His enemies. People don’t write hymns like that anymore. People don’t extol the wrath of God. We don’t want to talk about that in our Madison Avenue approach to presenting the message. But we will never understand at all the profound reality of God’s love until we comprehend His hate. That’s why you never even hear the word love until, the fifth chapter. There has to be a-very clear delineation of what it is that God hates. And may I add that it is not to say that God doesn’t love, but it is to say that you’ll never understand how great His love is unless you know how great His hate is. I mean, if you understand that God hates sin so profoundly then you will find it all the more amazing that He can love sinners. So that without an understanding of His hate, His love is crippled too in our thinking. Love and grace are favorite terms, are void of meaning if God does not hate. Now in spite of our aversion to seeing God as a God of hate and a God of wrath, the Scriptures clearly emphasize this, and I want to take you on a kind of a jet tour through some Scriptures. Psalm 2 verse 1: “Why do the nations rage and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.” In other words, let’s get God, let’s do away with God, do away with His rule, He intimidates us, let’s eliminate Him. “But He that sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall He speak unto them in His wrath, and vex them in His great displeasure.” Verse 12 says: “Kiss the Son, lest He be angry and you perish from the way when His wrath is kindled but a little.” In other words, when God just gets a little angry people perish. Look at Psalm 76, another illustration. This is reflecting back on the judgment of God upon the Egyptian army. It says in Psalm 76 verse 6: “At thy rebuke, 0 God of Jacob, both the chariot and horse are cast into a deep sleep. Thou, even thou, art to be feared: and who may stand in thy sight when once thou art angry? Thou didst cause judgment to be heard from heaven; the earth feared and was still, when God arose to judgment.” Look at Psalm 78 verse 49. And here is God’s wrath poured out against the enemies of Israel again, verse 49: “He cast upon them the fierceness of His anger, wrath and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them. He made a way to His anger; He spared not their soul from death but gave their life over to the pestilence; and smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength n the tabernacles of Ham.” God was angry, God was fierce. God had wrath. God had indignation and God brought trouble ... very severe. Psalm 90 verse 7, it says ... and this speaks of man as he stands before a holy God; “For we are consumed by Thine anger, and by Thine wrath are we troubled.” Verse 11: “Who knoweth the power of thine anger? Even according to thy fear, so is Thy wrath.” This is the hymn book of Israel. And I would hasten to add that they had hymns about God’s wrath. It was equally a part of God’s nature. The prophets spoke often of the wrath of God, the judgment of God. In Isaiah 9:19 it says: “Through the wrath of the Lord of hosts is the land darkened.”- And then this amazing statement: “And the people shall be as the fuel of the fire.” Jeremiah also spoke of the wrath of God, chapter 7 verse 20: “Therefore thus saith the Lord, God: Behold, Mine anger and My fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn and shall not be quenched.” Ezekiel, the prophet of God, the nineteenth verse of the seventh chapter says that: “Not their gold, nor their silver shall be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord. They shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their stomachs because it is the stumbling-block of their iniquity.” Now those are just a few passages. But the Bible is filled with statements about the wrath of God. You see His wrath exemplified in the Old Testament, against the old world when He brought the flood, against the people at the tower of Babel, against the Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain, against the Egyptians. On many occasions against the Israelites, against the enemies of Israel, you see His wrath poured out against Nadab and the others, against the spies, against Aaron and Miriam, against Abimelech, against the family of Saul, against Sennacherib, and it goes on and on. You say - Well, that’s the Old Testament. That’s right, but God doesn’t change, the same thing is true in the New Testament as well. You see the wrath of God. In John chapter 3, John - that wonderful gospel written by a man of love, that gospel that presents the Lord Jesus Christ in all His wonder and majesty and beauty - is yet a gospel that speaks of God’s wrath. John talks about it in several places, how that God’s wrath will be poured out but one particular one is at the end of the third chapter, the last verse: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abides on him.” It is not well with people who do not know Christ. It is not well with them. The wrath of God abides on them. And in the very epistle which is before us, Romans, Paul points out the wrath of God when in chapter 9 verse 22 he says: “What if God willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?” And so it goes. In Ephesians chapter 5 verse 6: “Let no man deceive you with vain words because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience.” The Bible says God will damn unbelieving men. Colossians chapter 3 says the very same thing. Second Thessalonians chapter 1 is perhaps the most vivid of all. It talks about God coming in flaming fire and taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel, who will be punished with an everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power. God is a God of wrath, people. He’s a God of anger. Now does that sound like a poor choice of starting points for the gospel? Think about it. The bad news has to come before the good news, doesn’t it? It’s kind of like going to the doctor...and having the doctor say to you - I have bad news; you have a fatal illness that has killed many people. But, I have good news, a cure has been found and I have it right here. See the good news means nothing without the bad news. Right? You have to diagnose the disease before the cure means anything. The bad news is - God hates. The good news is - God loves, but you have to start with His hate. First the diagnosis then the cure. Now look again at verse 18, it says: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven.” Why is that - for - there? What is that there for? Well, it connects us to the previous passage. The previous passage says -Justification is by faith alone. Why? Because the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. In other words, what that verse says is all men hold the truth unrighteously and are under the wrath of God. Therefore they have no capacity to justify themselves. So justification has to be by faith because all men, left to their own efforts, are under the wrath. Do you see? Justification is by faith, it has to be. It can’t be by works because by works all men are under wrath. Paul says it another way, he says: “For all have sinned and ... what? ... come short of the glory of God.” In Ephesians 2 it says: “And you who were dead in trespasses and sins.” That’s the way it is with everyone. “In time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that works in the children of disobedience, among whom we all had our manner of life,” all of us in time past, “and the lust of the flesh, desires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature the children of wrath.” Everybody born into this world is a child of wrath. Everybody born into this world is a victim of lust and desire toward evil things, everyone is born spiritually dead. We are all, says Paul, condemned already ... or says John rather, condemned already because we believe not in Christ. Frankly, folks, sentence has already been passed, the whole human race is damned to hell. We are all children of wrath under the judgment of God. Man is born condemned. All men are born into the world under the wrath. So, we start with this classic statement. And just to give you a focus the passage on the condemnation of the human race starts in chapter 1 verse 18 and goes all the way to chapter 3 verse 20. So, we’re going to be in it for a while, and you’re going to see some things about why people do the ... what they do, maybe you never saw before. But let’s begin by just looking at the concept of wrath in verse 18 and this gives us an absolutely comprehensive perspective on it. Six features of the wrath are presented here. You can follow your outline and it will help you to keep your focus on those. First, the quality of wrath ... the quality, the essence of it. What kind of wrath is it? Well, it is the wrath of God, it is divine wrath and that is a very important beginning. It is divine wrath. It isn’t like anything else that we know in this world. It isn’t like your wrath or my wrath; it isn’t like when we get angry. It isn’t like when we get mad. We get angry and we get mad when we are offended. And, frankly, we have pride in the way. Our passion, our anger and our wrath is not like this, this is the wrath of God. And like every other attribute of God it is as perfect as His holy person. His wrath is righteous wrath. It is the right kind of wrath, it is holy wrath. The passion that we call anger in this world, the thing that we call wrath in this human world is always reflective of the evil heart of man. But we must not impose that on God. One writer said, “We cannot think with full consistency of God in terms of the highest human ideals of personality and yet attribute to Him the rational passion of anger.” In other words, this writer was saying - God could never be angry because we know anger is a bad thing. But he is simply trying to say that God’s like us, and He’s not. Don’t push our concept of anger on God. God is angry in a holy way, ‘in a perfect way. God’s anger is not some capricious, irrational rage. In fact, let me go a step further. And you’re getting a lesson in theology proper here about the nature of God. God could not be God and be holy and be holy good if He didn’t react to evil. Do you understand that? He has to. He can’t be God. You cannot be holy and tolerate unholiness. It can’t be done. That’s why Habakkuk the prophet said: “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look upon iniquity.” God can’t tolerate it. And I’ll tell you something, the more Godlike you become; the more angry you will get at certain things. Even in this warped world of men, indignation against wickedness is essential of human goodness. We expect people to get mad about certain injustice. For God is infinitely beyond that because even when we get mad about the right things it’s usually polluted by our sinfulness. A classic illustration was Jesus in John 2 cleansing the temple, made a whip and just started whipping people all out of the temple. I mean, that’s a very dramatic scene. Do you want to know something? That was His first public act in Jerusalem. That is not the way you start a crusade. You don’t go into the religious places, take a whip and start flagellating everybody and overturning tables and crying about their sin, you’ll never get a crowd that way. You’ve got to send the advance committee, make it sound like harps and flowers. Jesus was furious because God was being dishonored. There was dishonesty there, there was cheating and lying and extortion and desecration. So, don’t look at the low, irrational, selfish anger of men and then push that off on God. The wrath of God is always perfect, always. The wrath of men is always somehow compromised by the presence of sin. Just to kind of fill up your thinking, listen to what the psalmist wrote: “The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance. He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.”* Is that vivid? You say - Wait a minute. You mean the righteous are so excited about God’s judgment that they want to wash their feet in the blood of the wicked? “So that a man will say - Verily, there is a reward for the righteous, verily He is a God that judgeth in the earth.”** In other words, when God judges it is so right, it is so perfect; it is so absolutely holy that God’s people are seen as if they were washing their feet in the blood of the unrighteous. Incredible concept. In Lamentations chapter 1 the Lord is righteous, for I have rebelled against His commandment, hear, I pray you, all people, and behold my sorrow.” In other words, God is judging but it’s okay - I deserve it, He’s righteous. Remember what happened to Akan? God said when you go in to take Jericho, don’t steal anything? And God just stole everything in sight, just disobeyed. He came back and buried it all in the ground in the middle of his tent. Joshua went to him and said Confess your sin, Joshua 7:19, “Confess your sin and give glory to God.” Now what did he mean by that? He meant that Akan was really going to get it. I mean, he was going to get it and he did get it. You know what happened? He died and all his family with him. Then they must have been implicated in the whole operation. But he says before you get your due judgment from God, you confess your sin. In other words, you say - I am guilty, what God does to me is the proper reaction of His holiness. You see? That’s the issue. In other words, don’t you ever impune God as if He did something impure, even when God is angry it is the right expression of His utter holiness. And we see that in Romans. We see it right where we are. The wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. And we’re going to see it over and over again in chapter 2, and in chapter 3 that God’s righteousness or God’s judgment is a righteous judgment. I might just add here the word is orgee and it is a settled indignation not a momentary fury, God doesn’t blow His cork, God doesn’t just fly off the handle. It is a settled hatred by one who could never be good and loving unless He totally hated evil. The two are inseparable, you have both or neither. Trench, the great commentator on language in the Word of God said: “Nor can there be a surer or sadder token of an utterly prostrate moral condition then the not being able to be angry with sin and sinners.” End quote. And old saint by the name of Fuller wrote this: “Anger is one of the sinews of the soul; he that lacks it hath a maimed mind and with Jacob sinews shrunk in the hollow of his thigh, must limp. Thomas Watson says: “Is God so infinitely holy? Then see how unlike to God sin is. Sin is an unclean thing. It is called an abomination. God has no mixture of evil in Him; sin has no mixture of good. It is the spirit in quintessence of evil, it turns good into evil, it has deflowered the virgin soul, made it red with guilt and black with filth. It is called the accursed thing. No wonder therefore that God hates sin.” He’s right. So the quality of wrath is that it is a wrath of God and that’s different than any other kind. Secondly, the time of wrath. Look what it says; “For the wrath of God is revealed,” is revealed. What does he mean is revealed? Literally is being constantly revealed. When is the time of God’s wrath? It’s constantly being revealed. God’s wrath is constantly being manifest. The verb apokalupto, from which we get apokalupsis or apocalypse, means to uncover, to bring to light, to make manifest, to make known. God’s wrath is always being made known. It’s visible to all of human history. It was revealed in the garden, wasn’t it? When Adam and Eve sinned and immediately the sentence of death was passed, the earth was cursed and they were thrown out of paradise. And the world had a great beginning lesson on the fact that God hates sin. It was revealed in the flood when God drowned the whole human race except for eight faithful souls. It was revealed in the drowning of Pharaoh’s army. It was revealed in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire from heaven. It was revealed in the curse of the law on every transgressor. It was revealed in the institution of the sacrificial system and all of the services of the Mosaic Law. In fact, the whole creation groans and travails in pain under the judgment of God waiting for redemption. You know, even the laws of men made against evil doers reveal the wrath of God? For all laws are based upon the mind of God. No one can plead ignorance, because the wrath of God has been revealed throughout human history. And above all, I believe the greatest demonstration of the wrath of God ever given was given on Calvary’s cross. God hates so...so deeply sin that He actually allowed His own Son to be put to death. The greatest manifestation of the wrath of God. He poured out His fury on His own beloved Son. He would not hold it back even from His own Son. That’s how He hated sin. Jeffrey Wilson, the British commentator, writes: “God is no idle spectator of world events, He is dynamically active in human affairs, the conviction of sin is constantly punctuated by divine judgment.” And the judgment on the cross sums up the world’s history. So, what is the time of the wrath of God? It’s constantly being revealed, all the time, all the time. Every time you turn around you see it. People live and die. Nations rise and fall. God judges sin. You say to yourself as I said to myself about this point in my study - Now, wait a minute, there are some people who seem to kind of prosper in spite of this, right? There are some wicked people who seem to do so well and you ask yourself the question How can they live and get away with it? I mean, why does God let them live such wretched, dissolute, vile, sinful lives? Well, don’t forget Psalm 9:16 says: “The Lord is known by the judgment which He executed.” It will come. If God lets men prosper for a while in their sin, His bowl of wrath is just all the while filling up. If He lets them sin for a while it’s just that He’s sharpening the sword. The longer God pulls back the bow, the deeper the arrow plunges when He releases it. Judgment will come. The story goes that the godly farmers in a western community were greatly shocked one summer Sunday morning when they drove to the little church in the country. They found the man who owned the forty acres across from the church was in the middle of plowing his field, turning the furrows. And he’ had been doing it all day and ignored the fact that it was the Lord’s Day. The people went on into the church and all the while they were in church they could hear the noise of all of his tractors. And so they were deeply concerned. He had worked all his other fields and purposely chosen to work the one by the church on Sunday to prove a point. He wrote a letter to the editor of a local paper, and pointed out that he had done all this on Sunday and yet he had the highest yield per acre of any farm in the county. And he asked the editor how the Christians could explain this. He didn’t feel God was involved at all. The editor with great common sense printed the letter and followed it with this simple statement. “God does not settle all His accounts in the month of October.” The quality of wrath, it’s God’s wrath. That’s different than any other kind. The time - constantly being revealed. The source -where’s the source of this wrath? Look what it says - “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven.’.’ Heaven is the source. The wrath of God comes from heaven. Earth is dominated by heaven. Wrath is dynamically effectively operative in the world of men; it comes from the throne of God. Now there are basically two ways that heaven reveals the wrath of God. Think with me on these. The first is what I call moral order and the second we’ll call personal action. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven, first of all, through moral order. In other words, when God made the world, the physical and the moral world. He built into it certain laws. If you climb a tall building and jump off you go down. If you... it doesn’t matter what you want to do, you go down. It doesn’t matter what you think you’re going to do; you still go down, the law of gravity. There are laws. You go in a car 80 miles an hour, run into a concrete wall, and a law immediately takes affect. The law of an irresistible force and an immovable object. There are laws in the physical world, there are laws in the spiritual world and God has built into the world moral law. It’s the laws of consequence, if you will. And I believe there’s a certain moral order in the universe. It’s a certain inevitability, to put it into modern terminology we could say - There’s a moral order in the world and when you violate that moral law consequences immediately take place. J.A. Froude, the historian said: “One lesson and one lesson alone, history may be said to repeat with distinctness that the world is built somehow on moral foundations and in the long run it is well with the good, and in the long run it is ill with the wicked.” Now the wrath is revealed from heaven then, first of all in the moral order. I mean, you do things that are immoral and you pay a price...you pay a price. Because the world is made on moral law. You live a dissolute life, degenerate evil life and there will be consequences. And it’s from heaven because heaven made the rules. But secondly, and it goes beyond that, the wrath of God is not simply confined to moral order, there is also personal activity on God’s part. God is not just a cosmic force who made a law and just let it run its course. God gets involved. It is not just automatic judgment by an anonymous cosmic computer. God is involved and the Bible shows a very intense personal reaction to sin within the heart of the divine being. Yes, there’s moral order but yes, there’s a real personal involvement. Let me just give you an illustration, and I wan ... I’ve got a lot of Scriptures I could show you, but let me just give you a quick one in Psalm 7:11, it says in verse 11: “God judgeth the righteous and God is angry.” God is angry. The Bible does say that God is angry, there’s not just a moral order, God is angry. And He’s not angry now and then, He’s angry with the wicked how often? “Every day.” You say - Really? Oh yeah, He’s angry every day. God is angry every day. God gets angry. There is moral law, moral order but there’s also personal act as God expresses the wrath of a holy nature. And it comes from heaven because heaven has established the moral order, and it is from the throne of God that that wrath comes. Fourth, the nature of wrath ... what is the nature of wrath? What kind of wrath is this? Well, very simply stated, the wrath of God -that’s its quality; is revealed - that’s its time, constantly revealed; from heaven that’s its source; against ungodliness and unrighteousness of men that’s its nature. It is wrath against sin. You knew that. It’s not an uncontrolled irrational fury. God is not like a criminal who takes his vengeance out on the nearest person. It is discriminated, it is carefully pointed at the unrighteousness and ungodliness of men...asebia and adikia. What do these words mean? Ungodliness and unrighteousness. The first word, although they really overlap and you could call them synonyms in the purest sense, they ... he’s simply just using two words to show us that God is angry about sin. But there are some shades of meaning that I think are interesting. The first word refers to ungodliness. And that focuses on the relationship to God. God is angry because men are not rightly related to Him. They are ungodlies, you see. They’re not godly. Men are ungodly. In Jude it says, “God is going to come and execute judgment on all and convict all that are ungodly among them, of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed.” Three ungodlies in a row. And then it says: “And of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” Four in one verse ... ungodly ... not rightly related to God. It refers to impiety toward God. It refers to a lack of reverence, a lack of devotion, a lack of worship. And it leads to idolatry. It views sin as a failure to reverence God. The second word, unrighteousness, while it encompasses the first concept as well, leans toward the result of the first word. When you are not rightly related to God and don’t reverence God properly then your transactions with everyone else around you aren’t right either. And so ungodliness leads to unrighteousness. All sin, you see, first attacks God’s majesty and then His law. And the reason, and I really believe this, the reason men treat men the way they do is because they treat God the way they do. Ungodliness leads to unrighteousness. People say - Oh, what’s happening, all the murders and all the crimes, and all the horrible things that are going on? Why is so man so inhumane to man? It’s because he is so unrelated to God. All human relationships and all human transactions are corrupted. And we’ll see more about that in the second and third chapter as well as the remainder of the first chapter. So, God’s wrath is set against sin. Thomas Watson says: “Sin is to the soul as rust is to gold, as stain is to beauty.” Sin in the Scripture is called a menstruous cloth; it’s called a plague sore. Joshua’s filthy garments were a hieroglyphic of sin. And you know as well as I how God hates sin. In fact, do you know that that’s the only thing God hates? That’s right. Did you know that? And no man will ever enter His presence with sin. Fifthly, the extent of wrath. And this is a very brief point. You say -Well, I’m...I’m a pretty good guy. I mean, this...who you talking to, MacArthur? It’s not me; I belong to the Royal Order of the Goats. I give to charity. I mean, I ... I’m basically a good person. Well, okay, the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ... what’s the next word? ... All. All? All. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Well, some people are better than others, but nobody makes it. I use to use the illustration of everybody going down to the beach and trying to jump to Catalina. Yeah, we’ll give you a running start, only 26 miles. You can run as fast as you want and as long as you want and jump. Some of us would get out about six feet, some of us might be stupendous broad jumpers and jump 26 feet, but nobody would get there. Sure people are different, some appear better than others. It’s too far to jump and so all ungodliness and unrighteous of men, nobody escapes ... no one. This only needs to be a brief point because Scripture is so clear. You can’t escape. I’m going to read you just something, you don’t need to turn to it, just listen to it. Ezekiel 17:15, talking about Zedekiah who made a covenant with God and then decided to break it and reached out to Egypt to help him when all he really needed was God, and that was his promise. “But he rebelled against him in sending his ambassadors into Egypt; they might give him horses and many people.” In other words, instead of trusting God he decided he needed Egypt’s help. And then it says: “Now since he did that, Shall he prosper? Shall he escape? Shall he break the covenant and be delivered?” Now listen to this, “As I live, saith the Lord God, surely in the place where the king dwells who made him king, whose oath he despised and whose covenant he broke even with him in the midst of Babylon he shall die.” He’ll not escape. Shall he escape? As I live the answer is - No. I don’t care who you are the faintest trace of ungodliness and unrighteousness brings you under the wrath of God and shall you escape? No. No. Inescapability. Finally, we’ve seen the quality of wrath, the time of wrath, the source of wrath, the nature of wrath, the extent of wrath and now the cause of wrath. You say--How can God hold all these poor people responsible? I mean, I mean I was born into a sinful family, what do I know? Oh, you’d be surprised what you know. The end of verse 18: “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the ... what?...the truth in unrighteousness.” Now this opens up the entire next section and next Sunday night is going to be one of the most definitive messages probably you’ve ever heard as we look at the decline and fall of man. But he says the real problem and the cause of wrath is that men hold the truth in unrighteousness. Literally we would read it this way - Men who are constantly attempting to suppress the truth by their sin. Sin just is in the heart of man so strongly that it assaults the truth. People say What about the heathen? What about this and what about that? Listen, the truth is there, as he will point out in the next passage, but men suppress it. Sin always assaults the truth. The fundamental truth of God and His Word is assaulted, there’s always an attempt to suppress it, to bury it, to obliterate it. It is the essence of sin, however, that the attempt is always futile, and men live with guilt in spite of their attempt. The knowledge of God is all over. And if the knowledge of God, listen, that I believe is available to every human being on the earth, I don’t care how obscure that individual is or how remote, I believe the knowledge of God is available and if it does its legitimate work and man allows it-to do that legitimate work it will keep a man from the excesses of sin and lead that man to God. But men suppress it. They love darkness rather than ... what?...light because.. what? ... their deeds are evil. The fool is always saying - There is no God and why does he say that? Because he doesn’t want there to be a God because if there’s a God he’s in trouble. It says in Psalm 14:1, “The fool says in his heart there’s no God.” Why? “They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” I’m sure they don’t want there to be a God to call them to accountability. Man tries to postulate that there is no God and if he doesn’t do that he says - Well, I’ll invent a God who can tolerate my sin. And he clearly avoids the true voice of God. But I really believe that there’s no problem with the people who ask the question - How are the heathen to know? I believe that God has revealed Himself to every individual and if individuals, wherever they are, no matter how remote they are, do not suppress that truth by the love of sin that will ... that truth will protect them from the excesses of sin and eventually lead them to the truth of God by His gracious providence. But men don’t do that. They avoid the truth of God. All men possess enough of the germs of divine truth and moral law to preserve them from hell, but they’ve halted the growth and development of those by the love of sin. And the wrath of God waits. If you’re not a Christian the wrath of God waits for you. Dr. Barnhouse had an apt illustration and I’ll close with this. He said, “The wrath of God is like a great water impounded behind a dam. He said, I can remember the first time I ever saw Hoover Dam, one of the greatest of all dams on earth. It has been thrown across the waters of the Colorado River and these waters have backed up for miles and penetrated into every little cove and valley. And thus it has been with the wrath of God. The first time there was ever a sin committed; the wrath of God was stored up against that sin. And as men lived upon the earth and as their hearts grew more wicked and the outbreak of their sin more violent, the store of wrath grew greater and greater, held back by the patience of God which lies across the valley of His judgment like a great dam across the river. And in His eternal foreknowledge God the Father foresaw all of the sin that would be committed after the time of Christ, your sin and my sin, and He stored His wrath against it behind the dam of His patience. And the wrath of God against sin that even today has not yet been committed is also stored up waiting for the day when His patience shall burst into its holy end. For thousands of years that dam has held and God has held back His wrath. Occasionally throughout human history He stooped to dip His hand into the pent up flood and pour a few drops of wrath on some, especially vicious outbreak of rebellion. But for the most part God seemed to overlook the sins of man in the centuries before the cross. It looked maybe as if sin was tolerated, but it was just piling up.” You know, the dam broke one day, and it broke at Calvary. And it broke on Christ and drown Him in all the sea of sin. And it will break again and it will drown all those men who are not in Christ. Christ took the judgment for those who believe. For those who do not believe, they will take their own judgment. And the wrath of God awaits them. Because they hold the truth, no matter what they claim, but they hold it and suppress it because of their sin. Now listen, that is where the gospel begins. But remember, there is good news and the good news is Christ has taken the full fury of God’s wrath, if you’ll accept His gracious substitution for you. Father, we’re grateful tonight that we’ve been able to look at this theme, hard, fearful and yet so important. It’s easy for us to get callous. Help us to be as if this were the first time we ever heard this, to rush out to warn men and women, young people of coming wrath. May no one leave this place tonight under judgment, condemnation, but may they accept the gracious provision of Christ who took that stored up dam of fury at Calvary’s-cross and may they climb to that island of safety so that when the dam breaks again at the great white throne they’ll already have entered into the paradise prepared for them. While your heads are bowed for just a moment, let me encourage you that if you don’t know our Lord Jesus Christ tonight this would be the time, no time like the present. No one knows how much time you have. This is a serious message, very serious. More serious than any message I could give, but that’s where we are in the text. And I know the Lord has purpose for it. Maybe you’re that purpose. In the silence of your heart you can open your life to Christ, ask Him to remove you from the wrath to come, accept the fact that He bore your sin in His own body on the cross and freed you if you put your faith in Him. Father, may this be a night of salvation in the hearts of many. Not just in this place but all around this country and the world where Your name is lifted up, may this be a day when heaven rejoices over souls that entered the Kingdom, stepped out from under the wrath of God into the protecting love of Christ. God, we know You’re angry over sin, we know how You hate sin but 0 how You must love to have hated sin so much and yet put it all on the One You loved, Your own Son the Lord Jesus for us. 0 how You must love. Thank You for that love, forgiving love, merciful love, gracious love. We pray that no one will leave without receiving that from Your good faithful hand. We thank You for this time together, we praise You for all that You’ve accomplished in Christ’s name. Amen. The previous sermon originally appeared <a href="http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/45-9.htm">here </a>at <a href="http://www.biblebb.com/">Bible Bulletin Board </a>and is used here with permission. 91823http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/91823-thumbnail.jpg?0812040743Substitutionary Atonement?http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=91852&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=91852&ref_object=news_rssFri, 14 Mar 2008 05:00:00 GMT The Logic of Penal Substitution By J. I. PACKER T he task which I have set myself in this lecture is to focus and explicate a belief which, by and large, is a distinguishing mark of the word-wide evangelical fraternity: namely, the belief that the cross had the character of penal substitution, and that it was in virtue of this fact that it brought salvation to mankind. Two considerations prompt my attempt. First, the significance of penal substitution is not always stated as exactly as is desirable, so that the idea often gets misunderstood and caricatured by its critics; and I should like, if I can, to make such misunderstanding more difficult. Second, I am one of those who believe that this notion takes us to the very heart of the Christian gospel, and I welcome the opportunity of commending my conviction by analysis and argument.My plan is this: first, to clear up some questions of method, so that there will be no doubt as to what I am doing; to explore what it means to call Christ’s death substitutionary; third, to see what further meaning is added when Christ’s substitutionary suffering is called penal; fourth, to note in closing that the analysis offered is not out of harmony with learned exegetical opinion. These are, I believe, needful preliminaries to any serious theological estimate of this view.I. MYSTERY AND MODEL Every theological question has behind it a history of study, and narrow eccentricity in handling it is unavoidable unless the history is taken into account. Adverse comment on the concept of penal substitution often betrays narrow eccentricity or this kind. The two main historical points relating to this idea are, first, that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon and their reforming contemporaries were the pioneers in stating it and, second, that the arguments brought against it in 1578 by the Unitarian Pelagian, Faustus Socinus, in his brilliant polemic De Jesu Christo Servatore (Of Jesus Christ the Saviour)1 have been central in discussion of it ever since. What the Reformers did was to redefine satisfactio (satisfaction), the main mediaeval category for thought about the cross. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo?, which largely determined the mediaeval development, saw Christ’s satisfactio for our sins as the offering of compensation or damages for dishonour done, but the Reformers saw it as the undergoing of vicarious punishment (poena) to meet the claims on us of God’s holy law and wrath (i.e. his punitive justice). What Socinus did was to arraign this idea as irrational, incoherent, immoral and impossible. Giving pardon, he argued, does not square with taking satisfaction, nor does the transferring of punishment from the guilty to the innocent square with justice; nor is the temporary death of one a true substitute for the eternal death of many; and a perfect substitutionary satisfaction, could such a thing be, would necessarily confer on us unlimited permission to continua in sin. Socinus’ alternative account of New Testament soteriology, based on the axiom that God forgives without requiring any satisfaction save the repentance which makes us forgivable, was evasive and unconvincing, and had little influence. But his classic critique proved momentous: it held the attention of all exponents of the Reformation view for more than a century, and created a tradition of rationalistic prejudice against that view which has effectively shaped debate about it right down to our own day.The almost mesmeric effect of Socinus’ critique on Reformed scholastics in particular was on the whole unhappy. It forced them to develop rational strength in stating and connecting up the various parts of their position, which was good, but it also led them to fight back on the challenger’s own ground, using the Socinian technique of arguing a priori about God as if he were a man — to be precise, a sixteenth- or seventeenth-century monarch, head of both the legislature and the judiciary in his own realm but bound nonetheless to respect existing law and judicial practice at every point. So the God of Calvary came to he presented in a whole series of expositions right down to that of Louis Berkhof (1938) as successfully avoiding all the moral and legal lapses which Socinus claimed to find in the Reformation view.2 But these demonstrations, however skilfully done (and demonstrators like Francis Turretin and Hodge, to name but two,3 were very skilful indeed), had builtin weaknesses. Their stance was defensive rather than declaratory, analytical and apologetic rather than doxological and kerygmatic. They made the word of the cross sound more like a conundrum than a confession of faith — more like a puzzle, we might say, than a gospel. What was happening? Just this: that in trying to beat Socinian rationalism at its own game, Reformed theologians were conceding the Socinian assumption that every aspect of God’s work of reconciliation will be exhaustively explicable in terms of a natural theology of divine government, drawn from the world of contemporary legal and political thought. Thus, in their zeal to show themselves rational, they became rationalistic.4 Here as elsewhere, methodological rationalism became in the seventeenth century a worm in the Reformed bud, leading in the next two centuries to a large-scale withering of its theological flower.Now I do not query the substantial rightness of the Reformed view of the atonement; on the contrary, I hope to confirm it, as will appear; but I think it is vital that we should unambiguously renounce any such intellectual method as that which I have described, and look for a better one. I shall now try to commend what seems to me a sounder method by offering answers to two questions: (1) What sort of knowledge of Christ’s achievement on the cross is open to us? (2) From what source and by what means do we gain it?(1) What sort of knowledge of God’s action in Christ’s death may we have? That a man named Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate about AD 30 is common historical knowledge, but Christian beliefs about his divine identity and the significance of his dying cannot be deduced from that fact alone. What further sort of knowledge about the cross, then, may Christians enjoy?The answer, we may say, is faith-knowledge: by faith we know that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Yes, indeed; but what sort of knowledge is faith-knowledge? It is a kind of knowledge of which God is both giver and content. It is a Spirit-given acquaintance with divine realities, given through acquaintance with God’s word. It is a kind of knowledge which makes the knower say in one and the same breath both ‘whereas I was blind, now I see’ (Jn 9:25) and also ‘now we see as in a mirror, darkly . . . now I know in part’ (1 Cor. 13:12). For it is a unique kind of knowledge which, though real, is not full; it is knowledge of what is discernible within a circle of light against the background of a larger darkness; it is, in short, knowledge of a mystery, the mystery of the living God at work.‘Mystery’ is used here as it was by Charles Wesley when he wrote:‘Tis mystery all! The immortal dies! Who can explore his strange design? In vain the first-born seraph tries To sound the depths of love divine!‘Mystery’ in the sense (traditional in theology) means a reality distinct from us which in our very apprehending of it remains unfathomable to us: a reality which we acknowledge as actual without knowing how it is possible, and which we therefore describe as incomprehensible, Christian metaphysicians, moved by wonder at the world, speak of the created order as ‘imagery’, meaning that there is more to it, and more of God in it, than they can grasp; and similarly Christian theologians, taught by revelation, apply the same word, for parallel reasons to the self-revealed and self-revealing God, and to his work of reconciliation and redemption through Christ. It will be seen that this definition of mystery corresponds less to Paul’s use of the word mustarion (which be applied to the open secret of God’s saving purpose, set forth in the gospel) than to his prayer that the Ephesians might ‘know the love of Christ which passes knowledge’ (Eph. 3:19). Knowing through divine enlightenment that which passes knowledge is precisely what it means to be acquainted with the mystery of God. The revealed ‘mystery’ (in Paul’s sense) of Christ confronts us with the unfathomable ‘mystery’ (in the sense I defined) of the Creator who exceeds the comprehension of his creatures. Accordingly, Paul ends his full-dress, richest-ever exposition of the mystery of Christ by crying: ‘O depth of wealth, wisdom, and knowledge in God! How unsearchable his judgments, how untraceable his ways! Who knows the mind of the Lord?. . .Source, Guide and Goal of all that is — to him to be glory for ever ! Amen’ (Rom. 11:33ff., NEB). Here Paul shows, and shares, his awareness that the God of Jesus remains the God of Job, and that the highest wisdom of the theological theorist, even when working under divine inspiration as Paul did, is to recognise that he is, as it were, gazing into the sun, whose very brightness makes it impossible for him fully to see it; so that at the end of the day he has to admit that God has much more to him than theories can ever contain, and to humble himself in adoration before the one whom he can never fully analyse.Now the atonement is a mystery in the defined sense, one aspect of the total mystery of God. But it does not stand alone in this. Every aspect of God’s reality and work, without exception, is mystery. The eternal Trinity; God’s sovereignty in creation, providence, and grace; the incarnation, exaltation, present reign and approaching return of Jesus Christ; the inspiring of the Holy Scriptures; and the ministry of the Spirit in the Christian and the Church — each of these (to look no further) is a reality beyond our full fathoming, just as the cross is. And theories about any of these things which used human analogies to dispel the dimension of mystery would deserve our distrust, just as rationalistic theories about the cross do.It must be stressed that the mystery is in each case the reality itself, as distinct from anything in our apprehension of it, and as distinct therefore from our theories, problems, affirmations and denials about it. What makes it a mystery is that creatures like ourselves can comprehend it only in part. To say this does not open the door to scepticism, for our knowledge of divine realities (like our knowledge of each other) is genuine knowledge expressed in notions which, so far as they go, are true. But it does close the door against rationalism, in the sense of theorizing that claims to explain with finality any aspect of God’s way of existing and working. And with that, it alerts us to the fact that the presence in our theology of unsolved problems is not necessarily a reflection on the truth or adequacy of our thoughts. Inadequate and untrue theories do of course exist: a theory (the word comes from theorein, to look at) is a ‘view’ or ‘sight’ of something, and if one’s way of looking at it is perverse one’s view will be distorted, and distorted views are always full of problems. But the mere presence of problems is not enough to prove a view distorted; true views in theology also entail unsolved problems, while any view that was problem-free would certainly be rationalistic and reductionist. True theories in theology, whether about the atonement or anything else, will suspect themselves of being inadequate to their object throughout. One thing that Christians know by faith is that they know only in part.None of this, of course, is new or unfamiliar; it all belongs to the main historic stream of Christian thought. But I state it here, perhaps too laboriously, because it has not always been brought to bear rigorously enough on the doctrine of the atonement. Also, this position has linguistic implications which touch the doctrine of the atonement in ways which are not always fully grasped; and my next task is to show what these are.Human knowledge and thoughts arc expressed in words, and what we must note now is that all attempts to speak of the mystery of the unique and transcendent God involve many kind; of stretching of ordinary language. We say, for instance that God is both plural and singular, being three in one; that he directs and determines the free acts of men; that he is wise, good and sovereign, when he allows Christians to starve or die of cancer; that the divine Son has always upheld the universe, even when he was human baby; and so forth. At first sight, such statements might appear nonsensical (either meaningless or false). But Christians say that, though they would be nonsensical if made of men, they are true as statements about God. If so, however, it is clear that the key words are not being used in an everyday way. Whatever our views on the origins of human language and the inspiration of the Scriptures (both matters on which it seems that options are currently being broadened rather than reduced), there can be no dispute that the meaning of all the nouns, adjectives and verbs that we use for stating facts and giving descriptions is anchored, at least in the first instance, in our experience of knowing things and people (ourselves included) in this world. Ordinary language is thus being adapted for an extraordinary purpose when we use it to speak of God. Christians have always made this adaptation easily in their prayers, praises and proclamations, as if it were a natural thing to do (as indeed I think it is), and the doubts articulated by living if somewhat old-fashioned philosophers like A. J. Ayer and Antony Flew as to whether such utterance expresses knowledge and conveys information about anything more than private attitudes seem curiously provincial as well as paradoxical.5 Moreover, it is noticeable that the common Christian verbal forms for expressing divine mysteries have from the first shown remarkable consistency and steadiness in maintaining their builtin logical strangeness, as if the apprehended reality of God was itself sustaining them (as indeed I think it was). Language about the cross illustrates this clearly: liturgies, hymns and literature, homiletical, catechetical and apologetic, all show that Christians have from the start lived by faith in Christ’s death as a sacrifice made to God in reparation for their sins, however uncouth and mythological such talk sounds (and must always have sounded), however varied the presentations of atonement which teachers tried out, and however little actual theologizing about the cross went on in particular periods, especially the early centuries.6Christian language, with its peculiarities, has been much studied during the past twenty years, and two things about it have become clear, First, all its odd, ‘stretched’, contradictory and incoherent-sounding features derive directly from the unique Christian notion of the transcendent, tripersonal Creator-God. Christians regard God as free from the limits that bind creatures like ourselves, who bear God’s image while not existing on his level, and Christian language, following biblical precedent, shakes free from ordinary limits in a way that reflects this fact. So, for instance, faced with John’s declaration in 1 John 4:8-10, ‘God is love. . . . Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins,’ Calvin can write without hesitation: ‘The word propitiation (placatio; Greek, hilasmos) has great weight: for God, in a way that cannot be put into words (ineffabili quodam modo), at the very time when he loved us, was hostile (infensus) to us till he was reconciled in Christ.’7 Calvin’s phrase ‘in a way that cannot be put into words’ is his acknowledgement that the mystery of God is beyond our grasp. To Calvin, this duality of attitude, love and hostility, which in human psychological terms is inconceivable, is part of God’s moral glory; a sentiment which might make rationalistic theologians shake their heads, but at which John certainly would have nodded his.Second, Christian speech verbalizes the apprehended mystery of God by using a distinctive non-representational ‘picture-language’. This consists of parables, analogies, metaphors and images piled up in balance with each other, as in the Bible itself (from which this language is first learned), and all pointing to the reality of God’s presence and action in order to evoke awareness of it and response to it. Analysis of the functioning of this language is currently in full swing,8 and no doubt much remains to be said. Already, however, the discussion has produced one firm result of major importance — the recognition that the verbal units of Christian speech are ‘models’, comparable to the thought-models of modern physics.9 The significance of this appears from John MacIntyre’s judgment ‘that the theory of models succeeds in reinstating the doctrine of analogy in modern theological logic . . . and that analogy is to be interpreted in terms of a theory of models and not vice versa.’10 The doctrine of analogy is the time-harboured account, going back to Aquinas, of how ordinary language is used to speak intelligibly of a God who is partly like us (because we bear his image) and partly unlike us (because he is the infinite Creator while we are finite creatures).11 All theological models, like the non-descriptive models of the physical sciences, have an analogical character; they are, we might say, analogies with a purpose, thought-patterns which function in a particular way, teaching us to focus one area of reality (relationships with God) by conceiving of it in terms of another, better known area of reality (relationships with each other). Thus they actually inform us about our relationship with God and through the Holy Spirit enable us to unify, clarify and intensify our experience in that relationship.The last song in Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat assures us that ‘any dream will do’ to wake the weary into joy. Will any model do to give knowledge of the living God? Historically, Christians have not thought so. Their characteristic theological method, whether practised clumsily or skilfully, consistently or inconsistently, has been to take biblical models as their God-given starting-point, to base their belief-system on what biblical writers use these models to say, and to let these models operate as ‘controls’, both suggesting and delimiting what further, secondary models may be developed in order to explicate these which are primary. As models in physics are hypotheses formed under the suggestive control of empirical evidence to correlate and predict phenomena, so Christian theological models are explanatory constructs formed to help us know, understand and deal with God, the ultimate reality. From this standpoint, the whole study of Christian theology, biblical, historical and systematic, is the exploring of a three-tier hierarchy of models: first, the ‘control’ models given in Scripture (God, Son of God, kingdom of God, word of God, love of God, glory of God, body of Christ, justification, adoption, redemption, new birth and so forth — in short, all the concepts analysed in Kittel’s great Wörterbuch and its many epigoni) next, dogmatic models which the church crystallized out to define and defend the faith (homoousion, Trinity, nature, hypostatic union, double procession, sacrament, supernatural, etc. — in short, all the concepts usually dealt with in doctrinal textbooks); finally, interpretive models lying between Scripture and defined dogma which particular theologians and theological schools developed for stating the faith to contemporaries (penal substitution, verbal inspiration, divinization, Barth’s ‘Nihil’ — das Nichtige — and many more).It is helpful to think of theology in these terms, and of the atonement in particular. Socinus went wrong in this matter first by identifying the biblical model of God’s kingship with his own sixteenth-century monarchy model (a mistake later repeated by Hugo Grotius), second by treating this not-wholly-biblical model as his ‘control’, and third by failing to acknowledge that the mystery of God is more than any one model, even the best, can express. We have already noticed that some orthodox writers answering Socinus tended to slip in a similar way. The passion to pack God into a conceptual box of our own making is always strong, but must be resisted. If we bear in mind that all the knowledge we can have of the atonement is of a mystery about which we can only think and speak by means of models, and which remain a mystery when all is said and done, it will keep us from rationalistic pitfalls and thus help our progress considerably.II. BIBLE AND MODEL (2) Now we come up to our second question, my answer to which has been hinted at already. By what means is knowledge of the mystery of the cross given us? I reply: through the didactic thought-models given in the Bible, which in truth are instruction, from God. In other words, I proceed on the basis of the mainstream Christian belief in biblical inspiration, which I have sought to justify elsewhere.12What this belief means, in formula terms, is that the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments have the dual character which the viva voce teaching of prophets, apostles and supremely Jesus had: in content, if not in grammatical form, it is both human witness to God and God’s witness to himself. The true analogy for inspiration is incarnation, the personal Word of God becoming flesh. As a multiple confession of faith in the God who rules, judges and saves in the space-time continuum which we call world history, the Bible consists of occasional documents, historical didactic and liturgical, all proclaiming in various ways what God has done, is doing and will do. Each document and each utterance within that document, like Jesus Christ and each of his utterances, is anchored in a particular historical situation — this particularity marks all the Christian revelation — and to discern within these particularities truths from God for universal application is the interpreter’s major task. His guideline is the knowledge that God’s word for today is found through understanding and reapplying the word that God spoke long ago in identity (substantial, not grammatical) with the message of the biblical authors. The way into God’s mind remains via their minds, for their assertions about God embody in particularized form what he wants to tell us today about himself. In other words, God says in application to us the same things that he originally said in application to those to whom the biblical books were first addressed. The details of the second application differ from the first in a way that corresponds to the difference between our situation and that of the first addresses, but the truths of principle being applied are the same. Divine speech is itself, of course, a model, but it is a controlling one. It signifies the reality of mind-to-mind instruction from God to us by verbal means, and thus teaches us to categorize all other didactic models found in Scripture, not as hypothesis or hunch, but as revelation.How do these revealed models become means of God’s instruction? Here, it must regretfully be said, Ian Ramsey, the pioneer exponent of the model-structure of biblical thinking, fails us. He describes vividly how these models trigger off religious disclosures and so evoke religious responses, but instead of equating the beliefs they express with divine teaching he leaves quite open, and therefore quite obscure, the relation between the ‘disclosures’ as intuitions of reality and the thoughts which the models convey. This means that he lacks criteria for distinguishing true from false intuitions. Sometimes he speaks as if all feelings of ‘cosmic disclosure’ convey insights that are true and self-authenticating, but one need only mention the Buddha, Mohammed, Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy, the fake prophets exposed by Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Micaiah in 1 Kings 22, and the visionaries of Colossians 2:18f., to show that this is not so. Also Ramsey seems to be without criteria for relating models to each other and developing from them a coherent belief-system, and he nowhere considers what the divine-speech model implies.13Must our understanding of how biblical models function be as limited or as loose as Ramsey’s is? Not necessarily. Recognition that the biblical witness to God has the logic of models — not isolated, incidentally, but linked together, and qualifying each other in sizeable units of meaning — is compatible with all the views taken in the modern hermeneutical debate. Central to this debate are two questions. The first is whether the reference-point and subject-matter of biblical witness is just the transformed psyche, the ‘new being’ as such, or whether it does not also, and indeed primarily, refer to saving acts of God and a living divine Saviour that were originally there as datable realities in the space-time continuum of world history, and that owe their transforming power ‘here’ in Christian lives now to the fact that they were ‘there’ on the stage of history then. To the extent that the former alternative is embraced, one has to say that the only factual information which the biblical writers communicate is that God’s people felt and thought in certain ways at certain times in Certain situations. Then one has to face the question whether the writers thought this was all the factual information they were communicating; if one says no, then one has to justify one’s disagreement with them; if one says yes, one has to explain why so much of their witness to Christ has the form of factual narration about him — why, indeed, the ‘gospel’ as a literary form was ever invented. If, however, one takes the latter alternative, as all sober reason seems to counsel, then the second central question arises: how much distortion of fact is there in the narrating, and how much of guesswork, hunch, and fantasy is there in the interpreting of the historical realities that were ‘there’? I cannot discuss these massive and complex issues here; suffice it to declare, in relation to this debate, that I am proceeding on the basis that the biblical writers do indeed give true information about certain historical events, public and in principle datable, which have resulted in a Saviour and a salvation being ‘there’ for sinners to receive by faith; and that the biblical thought-models in terms of which these events are presented and explained are revealed models, ways of thought that God himself has taught us for the true understanding of what he has done for us and will do in us.Also, I proceed on the basis that the Holy Spirit who inspired prophetic and apostolic testimony in its written as well as its oral form is now active to teach Christians through it, making them aware of its divine quality overall, its message to themselves, and the presence and potency of God in Christ to whom it points. Since the Spirit has been teaching the church in this way in every age, much of our listening to the Bible in the present will rightly take the form of reviewing theological constructions of the past, testing them by the written word from which they took their rise. When a particular theological view, professedly Bible-based, has over the centuries proved a mainspring of Christian devotion, faith and love, one approaches it, not indeed uncritically, but with respect, anticipating the discovery that it is substantially right. Our present task is to elucidate and evaluate one historic line of biblical interpretation which has had an incalculable impact on countless lives since it was clarified in the century of the Reformation; it will be strange if it proves to have been entirely wrong.14So much, then, for methodological preliminaries, which have been tedious but necessary; now to our theme directly.III. SUBSTITUTION The first thing to say about penal substitution has been said already. It is a Christian theological model, based on biblical exegesis, formed to focus a particular awareness of what Jesus did at Calvary to bring us to God. If we wish to speak of the ‘doctrine’ of penal substitution, we should remember that this model is a dramatic, kerygmatic picturing of divine action, much more like Aulén’s ‘classic idea’ of divine victory (though Aulén never saw this) than it is like the defensive formula-models which we call the Nicene ‘doctrine’ of the Trinity and the Chalcedonian ‘doctrine’ of the person of Christ. Logically, the model is put together in two stages: first, the death of Christ is declared to have been substitutionary; then the substitution is characterized, and given a specific frame of reference by adding the word penal. We shall examine the two stages separately.Stage one is to declare Christ’s death substitutionary. What does this mean? The Oxford English Dictionary defines substitution as ‘the putting of one person or thing in the place of another’. One oddity of contemporary Christian talk is that many who affirm that Jesus’ death was vicarious and representative deny that it was substitutionary; for the Dictionary defines both words in substitutionary terms! Representation is said to mean ‘the fact of standing for, or in place of, some other thing or person, esp. with a right or authority to act on their account; substitution of one thing or person for another.’ And vicarious is defined as ‘that takes or supplies the place of another thing or person; substituted instead of the proper thing or person.’ So here, it seems, is a distinction without a difference. Substitution is, in fact, a broad idea that applies whenever one person acts to supply another’s need, or to discharge his obligation, so that the other no longer has to carry the load himself. As Pannenberg says, ‘in social life, substitution is a universal phenomenon. . . . Even the structure of vocation, the division of labour, has substitutionary character. One who has a vocation performs this function for those whom he serves.’ For every service has vicarious character by recognizing a need in the person served that apart from the service that person would have to satisfy for himself.’15 In this broad sense, nobody who wishes to say with Paul that there is a true sense in which ‘Christ died for us’ (huper, on our behalf, for our benefit), and ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ (huper again) (Rom. 5:8; Gal. 3:13), and who accepts Christ’s assurance that he came ‘to give his life a ransom for many’ (anti, which means precisely ‘in place of’, ‘in exchange for’16), should hesitate to say that Christ’s death was substitutionary. Indeed, if he describes Christ’s death as vicarious he is actually saying it.It is, of course, no secret why people shy off this word. It is because they equate, and know that others equate, substitution in Christology with penal substitution. This explains the state of affairs which, writing in 1948, F. W. Camfield described as follows:If there is one conclusion which (has) come almost to be taken for granted in enlightened Christian quarters, it is that the idea of substitution has led theology on a wrong track; and that the word ‘substitution’ must now be dropped from the doctrine of the Atonement as too heavily laden with misleading and even false connotations. By ‘liberal’ or ‘modernist’ theology the idea of substitution is of course rejected out of hand. And even the theology which prides itself on being “positive” and “evangelical” and which seeks to maintain lines of communication with the great traditional doctrines of atonement is on the whole disposed to reject it. And this, not merely on the ground that it holds implications which are irrational and morally offensive, but even and specifically on the ground that it is unscriptural. Thus Dr Vincent Taylor as a result of exhaustive examination of the “Idea of Atonement in the New Testament” gives it as his conclusion that the idea of substitution has no place in the New Testament writings; that in fact it is opposed to the fundamental teaching of the New Testament; that even St Paul though he sometimes trembles on the edge of substitutionary conceptions nevertheless avoids them. It is difficult to escape the impression that Dr. Vincent Taylor’s anxiety to eliminate the idea of substitution from evangelical theology has coloured his interpretation of the New Testament witness. But his conclusions provide a striking indication of the tendency at work in modern evangelical circles. It is felt that nothing has done more to bring the evangelical doctrine of the Atonement into disrepute than the idea of substitution; and therefore, something like a sigh of relief makes itself heard when it is suggested that this idea rests on a misunderstanding of the teaching of Scripture.’17Today, more than a quarter of a century later, the picture Camfield draws would have to be qualified by reference to the vigorous vindication and use of the substitution idea by such as Pannenberg and Barth;18 nonetheless, in British theology the overall situation remains very much as Camfield describes. It would, however, clarify discussion if all who hold that Jesus by dying did something for us which we needed to do but could not, would agree that they are regarding Christ’s death as substitutionary, and differing only on the nature of the action which Jesus performed in our place and also, perhaps, on the way we enter into the benefit that flows from it. Camfield himself goes on to spell out a non-penal view of substitution.Broadly speaking, there have been three ways in which Christ’s death has been explained in the church. Each reflects a particular view of the nature of God and our plight in sin, and of what is needed to bring us to God in the fellowship of acceptance on his side and faith and love on ours. It is worth glancing at them to see how the idea of substitution fits in with each.There is first, the type of account which sees the cross as having its effect entirely on men, whether by revealing God’s love to us, or by bringing home to us how much God hates our sins, or by setting us a supreme example of godliness, or by blazing a trail to God which we may now follow, or by so involving mankind in his redemptive obedience that the life of God now flows into us, or by all these modes together. It is assumed that our basic need is lack of motivation Godward and of openness to the inflow of divine life; all that is needed to set, us in a right relationship with God is a change in us at these two points, and this Christ’s death brings about. The forgiveness of our sins is not a separate problem; as soon as we are changed we become forgivable, and are then forgiven at once. This view has little or no room for any thought of substitution, since it goes so far in equating what Christ did for us with what he does to us.A second type of account sees Christ’s death as having its effect primarily on hostile spiritual forces external to us which are held to be imprisoning us in a captivity of which our inveterate moral twistedness is one sign and symptom. The cross is seen as the work of God going forth to battle as our champion, just as David went forth as Israel’s champion to fight Goliath. Through the cross these hostile forces, however conceived — whether as sin and death, Satan and his hosts, the demonic in society and its structures, the powers of God’s wrath and curse, or anything else — are overcome and nullified, so that Christians are not in bondage to them, but share Christ’s triumph over them. The assumption here is that man’s plight is created entirely by hostile cosmic forces distinct from God; yet, seeing Jesus as our champion, exponents of this view could still properly call him our substitute, just as all the Israelites who declined Goliath’s challenge in 1 Samuel 17:8-11 could properly call David their substitute. Just as a substitute who involves others in the consequences of his action as if they had done it themselves is their representative, so a representative discharging the obligations of those whom he represents is their substitute. What this type of account of the cross affirms (though it is not usually put in these terms) is that the conquering Christ, whose victory secured our release, was our representative substitute.The third type of account denies nothing asserted by the other two views save their assumption that they are complete. It that there is biblical support for all they say, but it goes further. It grounds man’s plight as a victim of sin and Satan in the fact that, for all God’s daily goodness to him, as a sinner he stands under divine judgment, and his bondage to evil is the start of his sentence, and unless God’s rejection of him is turned into acceptance he is lost for ever. On this view, Christ’s death had its effect first on God, who was hereby propitiated (or, better, who hereby propitiated himself), and only because it had this effect did it become an overthrowing of the powers of darkness and a revealing of God’s seeking and saving love. The thought here is that by dying Christ offered to God what the West has called satisfaction for sins, satisfaction which God’s own character dictated as the only means whereby his ‘no’ to us could become a ‘yes’, Whether this Godward satisfaction is understood as the homage of death itself, or death as the perfecting of holy obedience, or an undergoing of the God-forsakenness of hell, which is God’s final judgment on sin, or a perfect confession of man’s sins combined with entry into their bitterness by sympathetic identification, or all these things together (and nothing stops us combining them together), the shape of this view remains the same — that by undergoing the cross Jesus expiated our sins, propitiated our Maker, turned God’s ‘no’ to us into a ‘yes’, and so saved us. All forms of this view see Jesus as our representative substitute in fact, whether or not they call him that, but only certain versions of it represent his substitution as penal.This analysis prompts three comments.First, it should be noted that though the two former views regularly set themselves in antithesis to the third, the third takes up into itself all the positive assertions that they make; which raises the question whether any more is at issue here than the impropriety of treating half-truth as the whole truth, and of rejecting a more comprehensive account on the basis of speculative negations about what God’s holiness requires as a basis for forgiving sins. Were it allowed that the first two views might be misunderstanding and distorting themselves in this way, the much-disputed claim that a broadly substitutionary view of the cross has always been the mainstream Christian opinion might be seen to have substance in it after all. It is a pity that books on the atonement so often take it for granted that accounts of the cross which have appeared as rivals in historical debate must be treated as intrinsically exclusive. This is always arbitrary, and sometimes quite perverse.Second, it should be noted that our analysis was simply of views about the death of Christ, so nothing was said about his resurrection. All three types of view usually agree in affirming that the resurrection is an integral part of the gospel; that the gospel proclaims a living, vindicated Saviour whose resurrection as the firstfruits of the new humanity is the basis as well as the pattern for ours is not a matter of dispute between them. It is sometimes pointed out that the second view represents the resurrection of Jesus as an organic element in his victory over the powers of death, whereas the third view does not, and hardly could, represent it as an organic element in the bearing of sin’s penalty or the tasting and confessing of its vileness (however the work of Calvary is conceived); and on this basis the third view is sometimes criticized as making the resurrection unnecessary. But this criticism may be met in two ways. The first reply is that Christ’s saving work has two parts, his dealing with his Father on our behalf by offering himself in substitutionary satisfaction for our sins and his dealing with us on his Father’s behalf by bestowing on us through faith the forgiveness which his death secured, and it is as important to distinguish these two parts as it is to hold them together. For a demonstration that part two is now possible because part one is finished, and for the actual implementing of part two, Jesus’ resurrection is indeed essential, and so appears as an organic element in his work as a whole. The second reply is that these two ways of viewing the cross should in any case be synthesized, following the example of Paul in Colossians 2:13-15, as being complementary models expressing different elements in the single complex reality which is the mystery of the cross. Third, it should be noted that not all advocates of the third type of view have been happy to use the word ‘substitution’. This has been partly, through desire to evade the Socinian criticism that in the penal realm substitution is impossible, and partly for fear that to think of Christ dying for us as our substitute obscures his call to us to die and rise in him and with him, for the moral transforming of us into his holy image. P.T. Forsyth, for example, is one who stresses the vicariousness of Christ’s action in his passion as he endured for man’s salvation God’s personal anger against man’s sin;19 yet he rejects ‘substitution’ in favour of ‘representation’ and replaces ‘substitutionary expiation (which, as these words arc commonly understood, leaves us too little committed)’ by ‘solidary reparation’, ‘solidary confession and praise’, because he wants to stress that we enter into salvation only as we identify with Christ’s death to sin and are re-created as the new humanity in him.20 But, admirable as is Forsyth’s wish to stress what is in Romans 6:1-11, avoiding the word substitution can only have the effect of obscuring what is in Romans 3:21-28, where Paul describes Christ as ‘a propitiation21 . . . by his blood’ (verse 25) in virtue of which God bestows ‘the free gift of righteousness’ (5:17) upon believing sinners and so ‘justifies the ungodly’ (4:5). As James Denney, said, ‘If Christ died the death in which sin had involved us — if in His death He took the responsibility of our sins on Himself — no word is equal to this which falls short of what is meant by calling Him our substitute.’22 The correct reply to Forsyth would seem to be that before Christ’s death can be representative, in Forsyth’s sense of setting a pattern of ‘confession and praise’ to be reproduced in our own self-denial and cross-bearing, it has to be substitutionary in Denney’s sense of absorbing God’s wrath against our sins; otherwise, our ‘confession and praise’ in solidarity with Christ becomes itself a ploy for averting that wrath — in other words, a meritorious work, aimed at securing pardon, assuming that in Christ we save ourselves.What Denney said about this in 1903 was in fact an answer by anticipation to Forsyth’s formula of 1910. A reviewer of The Death of Christ had argued that ‘if we place ourselves at Paul’s point of view, we shall see that to the eye of God the death of Christ presents itself less as an act which Christ does for the race than as an act which the race does in Christ.’ In The Atonement and the Modern Mind Denney quoted these words and commented on them thus:‘In plain English, Paul teaches less that Christ died for the ungodly, than that the ungodly in Christ died for themselves. This brings out the logic of what representative means when representative is opposed to substitute,23 The representative is ours, we are in Him, and we are supposed to get over all the moral difficulties raised by the idea of substitution just because He is ours, and because we are one with Him, But the fundamental fact of the situation is that, to begin with, Christ is not ours, and we are not one with Him. . . . we are “without Christ” (choris Christou). . . . A representative not produced by us, but given to us — not chosen by us, but the elect of God — is not a representative at all in the first instance, but a substitute,’24So the true position, on the type of view we are exploring, may be put thus: We identify with Christ against the practice of sin because we have already identified him as the one who took our place under sentence for sin. We enter upon the life of repentance because we have learned that he first endured for us the death of reparation. The Christ into whom we now accept incorporation is the Christ who previously on the cross became our propitiation — not, therefore, one in whom we achieve our reconciliation with God, but one through whom we receive it as free gift based on a finished work (cf. Rom. 5:10); and we love him, because he first loved us and gave himself for us, So substitution, on this view, really is the basic category; the thought of Christ as our representative, however construed in detail, cannot be made to mean what substitution means, and our solidarity with Christ in ‘confession and praise’, so far from being a concept alternative to that of substitution, is actually a response which presupposes it.IV. PENAL SUBSTITUTION Now we move to the second stage in our model-building, and bring in the word ‘penal’ to characterize the substitution we have in view. To add this ‘qualifier’, as Ramsey would call it, is to anchor the model of substitution (not exclusively, but regulatively) within the world of moral law, guilty conscience, and retributive justice. Thus is forged a conceptual instrument for conveying the thought that God remits our sins and accepts our persons into favour not because of any amends we have attempted, but because the penalty which was our due was diverted on to Christ. The notion which the phrase ‘penal substitution’ expresses is that Jesus Christ our Lord, moved by a love that was determined to do everything necessary to save us, endured and exhausted the destructive divine judgment for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us forgiveness, adoption and glory. To affirm penal substitution is to say that believers are in debt to Christ specifically for this, and that this is the mainspring of all their joy, peace and praise both now and for eternity.The general thought is clear enough, but for our present purpose we need a fuller analysis of its meaning, and here a methodological choice must be made, Should we appeal to particular existing accounts of penal substitution, or construct a composite of our own? At the risk of seeming idiosyncratic (which is, I suppose, the gentleman’s way of saying unsound) I plump for the latter course, for the following main reasons.First, there is no denying that penal substitution sometimes has been, and still sometimes is, asserted in ways which merit the favourite adjective of its critics — ‘crude’. As one would expect of that which for more than four centuries has been the mainspring of evangelical piety — ‘popular piety’, as Roman Catholics would call it — ways of presenting it have grown up which are devotionally evocative without always being theologically rigorous. Moreover, the more theological expositions of it since Socinus have tended to be one-track-minded; constricted in interest by the preoccupations of controversy, and absorbed in the task of proclaiming the one vital truth about the cross which others disregarded or denied, ‘upholders of the penal theory have sometimes so stressed the thought that Christ bore our penalty that they have found room for nothing else. Rarely have they in theory denied the value of other theories, but sometimes they have in practice ignored them.’25 Also, as we have seen, much of the more formative and influential discussing of penal substitution was done in the seventeenth century, at a time when Protestant exegesis of Scripture was coloured by an uncriticized and indeed unrecognized natural theology of law, and this has left its mark on many later statements. All this, being so, it might be hard to find an account of penal substitution which could safely be taken as standard or as fully representative, and it will certainly be more straight-forward if I venture an analysis of my own.Second, I have already hinted that I think it important for the theory of penal substitution to be evaluated as a model setting forth the meaning of the atonement rather than its mechanics. One result of the work of rationalistic Protestant theologians over three centuries, from the Socinians to the Hegelians, was to nourish the now common assumption that the logical function of a ‘theory’ in theology is to resolve ‘how’ problems within an established frame of thought about God and man. In other words, theological theories are like detectives’ theories in whodunits; they are hypotheses relating puzzling facts together in such a way that all puzzlement is dispelled (for the convention of ‘mystery stories’ is that by the last page no mystery should be felt to remain). Now we have seen that, for discernible historical reasons, penal substitution has sometimes been explicated as a theory of this kind, telling us how divine love and justice could be, and were, ‘reconciled’ (whatever that means); but a doubt remains as to whether this way of understanding the theme is biblically right. Is the harmonization of God’s attributes any part of the information, or is it even the kind of information, that the inspired writers are concerned to give? Gustaf Aulén characterized the ‘Christus victor’ motif (he would not call it a theory) as a dramatic idea of the atonement rather than a rationale of its mechanics, and contrasted it in this respect with the ‘Latin’ view, of which penal substitution is one form;26 but should not penal substitution equally be understood as a dramatic idea, declaring the fact of the atonement kergymatically, i.e. as gospel (good news), just as Aulén’s conquest-motif is concerned to do? I believe it should. Surely the primary issue with which penal substitution is concerned is neither the morality nor the rationality of God’s ways, but the remission of my sins; and the primary function of the concept is to correlate my knowledge of being guilty before God with my knowledge that, on the one hand, no question of my ever being judged for my sins can now arise, and, on the other hand, that the risen Christ whom I am called to accept as Lord is none other than Jesus, who secured my immunity from judgment by bearing on the cross the penalty which was my due. The effect of this correlation is not in any sense to ‘solve’ or dissipate the, mystery of the work of God (it is not that sort of mystery!); the effect is simply to define that work with precision, and thus to evoke faith, hope, praise and responsive love to Jesus Christ. So, at least, I think, and therefore I wish my presentation of penal substitution to highlight its character as a kergymatic model; and so I think it best to offer my own analytical definition, which will aim to be both descriptive of what all who have held this view had had in common, and also prescriptive of how the term should be understood in any future discussion.Third, if the present examination of penal substitution is to be worth while it must present this view in its best light, and I think an eclectic exposition will bring us closest to this goal. The typical modern criticism of older expositions of our theme is that, over and above their being less than fully moral (Socinus’ criticism), they are less than fully personal. Thus, for instance, C.W.H. Lampe rejects penal substitution because it assumes that ‘God inflicts retributive punishment’, and ‘retribution is impersonal; it considers offences in the ‘abstract . . . we ought not to ascribe purely retributive justice to God . . . the Father of mankind does not deal with his children on the basis of deterrence and retribution . . . to hang the criminal is to admit defeat at the level of love. . . . It is high time to discard the vestiges of a theory of Atonement that was geared to a conception of punishment which found nothing shocking in the idea that God should crucify sinners or the substitute who took their place. It is time, too, to stop the mouth of the blasphemer who calls it “sentimentality” to reject the idea of a God of retribution.’27 Lampe’s violent language shows the strength of his conviction that retribution belongs to a sub-personal, non-loving order of relationships, and that penal substitution dishonours the cross by anchoring it here.James Denney’s sense of the contrast between personal relations, which are moral, and legal relations, which tend to be impersonal, external and arbitrary, once drew from him an outburst which in isolation might seem parallel to Lampe’s. ‘Few things have astonished me more’ (he wrote) ‘than to be charged with teaching a “forensic” or “legal” or “judicial’ doctrine of Atonement. . . . There is nothing that I should wish to reprobate more whole-heartedly than the conception which is expressed by these words. To say that the relations of God and man are forensic is to say that they are regulated by statute — that sin is a breach of statute — that the sinner is a criminal — and that God adjudicates on him by interpreting the statute in its application to his case. Everybody knows that this is a travesty of the truth.’28 It is noticeable that Denney, the champion of the substitutionary idea, never calls Christ’s substitution ‘penal’; in his situation, the avoidance must have been deliberate. Yet Denney affirmed these four truths: first, that ‘the relations of God and man . . . are personal, but . . . determined by (moral) law’ ; second, ‘that there is in the nature of things a reaction against sin which when it has had its perfect work is fatal, that this reaction is the divine punishment of sin, and that its finally fatal character is what is meant by Scripture when it says that the wages of sin is death’; third, that ‘the inevitable reactions of the divine order against evil... are the sin itself coming back in another form and finding out the sinner. They are nothing if not retributive’; and, fourth, ‘that while the agony and the Passion were not penal in the sense of coming upon Jesus through a bad conscience, or making Him the personal object of divine wrath, they were penal in the sense that in that dark hour He had to realise to the full the divine reaction against sin in the race . . . and that without doing so He could not have been the Redeemer of that race from sin’.29 It seems to me that these affirmations point straight to a way of formulating the penal substitution model which is both moral and personal enough to evade all Lampe’s strictures and also inclusive of all that the concept means to those who embrace it. But the formulation itself will have to be my own.So I shall now attempt my analysis of penal substitution as a model of the atonement, under five heads: substitution and retribution; substitution and solidarity; substitution and mystery; substitution and salvation; substitution and divine love. Others who espouse this model must judge whether I analyse it accurately or not.1. Substitution and retribution Penal substitution, as an idea, presupposes a penalty (poena) due to us from God the Judge for wrong done and failure to meet his claims. The locus classicus on this is Romans 1:18—3:20, but the thought is everywhere in the New Testament. The judicial context is a moral context too; whereas human judicial systems are not always rooted in moral reality, the Bible treats the worlds of moral reality and of divine judgment as coinciding. Divine judgment means that retribution is entailed by our past upon our present and future existence, and God himself is in charge of this process, ensuring that the objective wrongness and guiltiness of what we have been is always ‘there’ to touch and wither what we are and shall be. In the words of Emil Brunner, ‘Guilt means that our past — that which can never be made good — always constitutes one element in our present situation.’30 When Lady Macbeth, walking and talking in her sleep, sees blood on her hand, and cannot clean or sweeten it, she witnesses to the order of retribution as all writers of tragedy and surely all reflective men — certainly, those who believe in penal substitution — have come to know it: wrongdoing may be forgotten for a time, as David forgot his sin over Bathsheba and Uriah, but sooner or later it comes back to mind, as David’s sin did under Nathan’s ministry, and at once our attention is absorbed, our peace and pleasure are gone, and something tells us that we ought to suffer for what we have done. When joined with inklings of God’s displeasure, this sense of things is the start of hell. Now it is into this context of awareness that the model of penal substitution is introduced, to focus for us four insights about our situation.Insight one concerns God; it is that the retributive principle has his sanction, and indeed expresses the holiness, justice and goodness reflected in his law, and that death, spiritual as well as physical, the loss of the life of God as well as that of the body, is the rightful sentence which he has announced against us, and now prepares to inflict.Insight two concerns ourselves: it is that, standing thus under sentence, we are helpless either to undo, the past or to shake off sin in the present, and thus have no way of averting what threatens.Insight three concerns Jesus Christ: it is that he, the God-man of John 1:1-18 and Hebrews 1-2, took our place under judgment and received in his own personal experience all the dimensions of’ the death that was our sentence, whatever these were, so laying the foundation for our pardon and immunity.‘We may not know, we cannot tell What pains he had to bear; But we believe it was for us He hung and suffered there.’Insight four concerns faith: it is that faith is a matter first and foremost of looking outside and away from oneself to Christ and his cross as the sole ground of present forgiveness and future hope. Faith sees that God’s demands remain what they were, and that God’s law of retribution, which our conscience declares to be right, has not ceased to operate in his world, nor ever will; but that in our case the law has operated already, so that all our sins, past present and even future, have been covered by Calvary. So our conscience is pacified by the knowledge that our sins have already been judged and punished, however strange the statement may sound, in the person and death of another. Bunyan’s pilgrim before the cross loses his burden, and Toplady can assure himself that:‘If thou my pardon hast secured, And freely in my room endured The whole of wrath divine, Payment God cannot twice demand, First from my bleeding surety’s hand And then again from mine.’ Reasoning thus, faith grasps the reality of God’s free gift of righteousness, i.e. the ‘rightness’ with God that the righteous enjoy (cf. Rom. 5:16f.), and with it the justified man’s obligation to live henceforth ‘unto’ the one who for his sake died and rose again (cf. 2 Cor. 5:14).This analysis, if correct, shows what job the word ‘penal’ does in our model. It is there, not to prompt theoretical puzzlement about the transferring of guilt, but to articulate the insight of believers who, as they look at Calvary in the light of the New Testament, are constrained to say, ‘Jesus was bearing the judgment I deserved (and deserve), the penalty for my sins, the punishment due to me’ — ‘he loved me, and gave himself for me’ (Gal. 2:20). How it was possible for him to bear their penalty they do not claim to know, any more than they know how it was possible for him to be made man; but that he bore it is the certainty on which all their hopes rest.2. Substitution and solidarity Anticipating the rationalistic criticism that guilt is not transferable and the substitution described, if real, would be immoral, our model now invokes Paul’s description of the Lord Jesus Christ as the second man and last Adam, who involved us in his sin-bearing as truly as Adam involved us in his sinning (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45ff.; Rom. 5:12 ff.). Penal substitution was seen by Luther, the pioneer in stating it, and by those who came after as grounded in this ontological solidarity, and as being one ‘moment’ in the larger mystery of what Luther called ‘a wonderful exchange’31 and Dr Morna Hooker designates ‘interchange in Christ’,32 In this mystery there are four ‘moments’ to be distinguished The first is the incarnation when the Son of God came into the human situation, ‘born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them which were under the law’ (Gal. 4:4f.). The second ‘moment’ was the cross, where Jesus, as Luther and Calvin put it, carried our identity33 and effectively involved us all in his dying — as Paul says, ‘one died for all, therefore all died’ (2 Cor. 5:14). Nor is this sharing in Christ’s death a legal fiction, a form of words to which no reality corresponds; it is part of the objective fact of Christ, the mystery that is ‘there’ whether we grasp it or not. So now Christ’s substitution for us, which is exclusive in the sense of making the work of atonement wholly his and allowing us no share in performing it, is seen to be from another standpoint inclusive of us, inasmuch as ontologically and objectively, in a manner transcending bounds of space and time, Christ has taken us with him into his death and through his death into his resurrection. Thus knowledge of Christ’s death for us as our sin-bearing substitute requires us to see ourselves ac dead, risen and alive for evermore in him, We who believe have died — painlessly and invisibly, we might say — in solidarity with him because he died, painfully and publicly, in substitution for us. His death for us brought remission of sins committed ‘in’ Adam so that ‘in’ him we might enjoy God’s acceptance; our death ‘in’ him brings release from the existence we knew ‘in’ Adam, so that ‘in’ him we are raised to new life and become new creatures (cf. Rom. 5–6; 2 Cor. 5:17, 21; Col. 2:6-3:4). The third ‘moment’ in this interchange comes when, through faith and God’s gift of the Spirit, we become ‘the righteousness of God’ and ‘rich’ — that is, justified from sin and accepted as heirs of God in and with Christ — by virtue of him who became ‘poor’ for us in the incarnation and was ‘made sin’ for us by penal substitution on the cross (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21, 8:9). And the fourth ‘moment’ will be when this same Jesus Christ, who was exalted to glory after being humbled to death for us, reappears to ‘fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory’ (cf. Phil. 2:5-11, 3:21).Sometimes it is urged that in relation to this comprehensive mystery of solidarity and interchange, viewed as a whole, Christ the ‘pioneer’ (archagos: Heb. 2:10, 12:2) is best designated the ‘representative’ and ‘first-fruits’ of the new humanity, rather than be called our substitute.34 Inasmuch as the interchange-theme centres upon our renewal in Christ’s image, this point may be readily accepted, provided it Is also seen that in relation to the particular mystery of sin-bearing, which is at the heart of the interchange, Christ as victim of the penal process has to be called our substitute, since the purpose and effect of his suffering was precisely to ensure that no such suffering — no Godforsakenness, no dereliction — should remain for us. In the light of earlier discussion35 we are already entitled to dismiss the proposal to call Christ’s death representative rather than substitutionary as both confusing and confused, since it suggests, first, that we chose Christ to act for us, second, that the death we die in him is of the same order as the death he died for us, and third, that by dying in Christ we atone for our sins — all of which are false. Here now is a further reason for rejecting the proposal — namely, that it misses or muffs the point that what Christ bore on the cross was the Godforsakenness of penal judgment, which we shall never have to bear because he accepted it in our place. The appropriate formulation is that on the cross Jesus’ representative relation to us, as the last Adam whose image we are to bear, took the form of substituting for us under judgment, as the suffering servant of God on whom the Lord ‘laid the iniquity of us all’.36 The two ideas, representation and substitution, are complementary, not alternatives, and both are needed here.3 Substitution and mystery It will by now be clear that those who affirm penal substitution offer this model not as an explanatory analysis of what lay ‘behind’ Christ’s atoning, death in the way that the laws of heat provide an explanatory analysis of what lies ‘behind’ the boiling of a kettle, but rather as a pointer directing attention to various fundamental features of’ the mystery — that is, according to our earlier definition, the transcendent and not-wholly-comprehensible divine reality — of Christ’s atoning death itself, as the New Testament writers declare it, Most prominent among these features are the mysterious divine love which was its source, and of which it is the measure (cf. Rom. 5:8; 1John 4:8-10; John 15:13); the mysterious necessity for it, evident from Paul’s witness in Romans 8:32 that God did not spare his Son, but gave him up to death for us, which shows that, he being he, he could not have saved us at any less cost to himself; the mysterious solidarity in virtue of which Christ could be ‘made sin’ by the imputing to him of our answerability, and could die for our sins in our place, and we could be ‘made righteous’ before God through faith by the virtue of his obedience (cf. Rom. 5:17-19; 2Cor. 5:21); and the mysterious mode of union whereby, without any diminution of our individuality as persons, or his, Christ and we are ‘in’ each other in such a sense that already we have passed with him through death into risen life. Recognition of these mysteries causes no embarrassment, nor need it; since the cross is undeniably central in the New Testament witness to God’s work, it was only to be expected that more dimensions of mystery would be found clustered here than anywhere. (Indeed, there are more than we listed; for a full statement, the tri-unity of the loving God, the incarnation itself, and God’s predestining the free acts of his enemies, would also, have to come in.) To the question, what does the cross mean in God’s plan for man’s good, a biblical answer is ready to hand, but when we ask how these things can be we find ourselves facing mystery at every point.Rationalistic criticism since Socinus has persistently called in question both the so1idarity on which substitution is based and the need for penal satisfaction as a basis for forgiveness. This, however, is ‘naturalistic’ criticism, which assumes that what man could not do or would not require God will not do or require either. Such criticism is profoundly perverse, for it shrinks God the Creator into the image of man the creature and loses sight of the paradoxical quality of the gospel of which the New Testament is so clearly aware. (When man justifies the wicked, it is a miscarriage of justice which God hates, but when God justifies the ungodly it is a miracle of grace for us to adore [Prov, 17:15; Rom. 4:5].) The way to stand against naturalistic theology is to keep in view its reductionist method which makes man the standard for God; to stress that according to Scripture the Creator and his work are of necessity mysterious to us, even as revealed (to make this point is the proper logical task of the word ‘supernatural’ in theology); and to remember that what is above reason is not necessari1y against it. As regards the atonement, the appropriate response to the Socinian critique starts by laying down that all our understanding of the cross comes from attending to the biblical witnesses and learning to hear and echo what they say about it; speculative rationalism breeds only misunderstanding, nothing more.4. Substitution and salvation So far our analysis has, I think, expressed the beliefs of all who would say that penal substitution is the key to understanding the cross. But now comes a point of uncertainty and division. That Christ’s penal substitution for us under divine judgment is the sole meritorious ground on which our relationship with God is restored, and is in this sense decisive for our salvation, is a Reformation point against Rome37 to which all conservative Protestants hold. But in ordinary everyday contexts substitution is a definite and precise relationship whereby the specific obligations of one or more persons are taken over and discharged by someone else (as on the memorable occasion when I had to cry off a meeting at two days’ notice due to an air strike and found afterwards that Billy Graham had consented to speak as my substitute). Should we not then think of Christ’s substitution for us on the cross as a definite, one-to-one relationship between him and each individual sinner? This seems scriptural, for Paul says, ‘He loved me and gave himself for me’ (Gal. 2:20). But if Christ specifically took and discharged my penal obligation as a sinner, does it not follow that the cross was decisive for my salvation not only as its sole meritorious ground, but also as guaranteeing that I should be brought to faith, and through faith to eternal life? For is not the faith which receives salvation part of God’s gift of salvation, according to what is affirmed in Philippians 1:29 and John 6:44f. and implied in what Paul says of God calling and John of new birth?38 And if Christ by his death on my behalf secured, reconciliation and righteousness as gifts for me to receive (Rom. 5:11, 17), did not this make it certain that the faith which receives these gifts would also be given me, as a direct consequence of Christ’s dying for me? Once this is granted, however, we are shut up to a choice between universa1ism and some form of the view that Christ died to save only a part of the human race. But if we reject these options, what have we left? The only coherent alternative is to suppose that though God purposed to save every man through the cross, some thwart his purpose by persistent unbelief; which can only be said if one is ready to maintain that God, after all, does no more than make faith possible, and then in some sense that is decisive for him as well as us leaves it to us to make faith actual. Moreover, any who take this position must redefine substitution in imprecise terms, if indeed they do not drop the term altogether, for they are committing themselves to deny that Christ’s vicarious sacrifice ensures anyone’s salvation. Also, they have to give up Toplady’s position. ‘Payment God cannot twice demand, First from my bleeding surety’s hand, And then again from mine’ — for it is of the essence of their view that some whose sins Christ bore, with saving intent, will ultimately pay the penalty for those same sins in their own persons. So it seems that if we are going to affirm penal substitution for all without exception we must either infer universal salvation or else, to evade this inference, deny the saving efficacy of the substitution for anyone; and if we are going to affirm penal substitution as an effective saving act of God we must either infer universal salvation or else, to evade this inference, restrict the scope of the substitution, making it a substitution for some, not all.39All this is familiar ground to students of the Arminian controversy of the first half of the seventeenth century and of the conservative Reformed tradition since that time;40 only the presentation is novel, since I have ventured to point up the problem as one of defining Christ’s substitution, taking this as the key word for the view we are exploring. In modern usage that indeed is what it is, but only during the past century has it become so; prior to that, all conservative Protestants, at least in the English-speaking world, preferred ‘satisfaction’ as the label and key word for their doctrine of the cross.41As I pointed it up, the matter in debate might seem purely verbal, but there is more to it than that. The question is, whether the thought that substitution entails salvation does or does not belong to the convictional ‘weave’ of Scripture, to which ‘penal substitution’ as a theological model must conform. There seems little doubt as to the answer. Though the New Testament writers do not discuss the question in anything like this form, nor is their language about .the cross always as guarded as language has to be once debate on the problem has begun, they do in fact constantly take for granted that the death of Christ is the act of God which has made certain the salvation of those who are saved. The use made of the categories of ransom, redemption, reconciliation, sacrifice and victory; the many declarations of God’s purpose that Christ through the cross should save those given him, the church, his sheep and friends, God’s people; the many statements viewing Christ’s heavenly intercession and work in men as the outflow of what he did for them by his death; and the uniform view of faith as a means, not of meriting, but of receiving — all these features point unambiguously in one direction. Twice in Romans Paul makes explicit his conviction that Christ’s having died ‘for’ (huper) us — that is, us who now believe — guarantees final blessedness. In 5:8f. he says: ‘While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath through him.’ In 8:32 he asks: ‘He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?’ Moreover, Paul and John explicitly depict God’s saving work as a unity in which Christ’s death fulfils a purpose of election and leads on to what the Puritans called ‘application of redemption’ — God ‘calling’ and ‘drawing’ unbelievers to himself, justifying them from their sins and giving them life as they believe, and finally glorifying them with Christ in his own presence.42 To be sure, Paul and John insist, as all the New Testament does, that God in the gospel promises life and salvation to everyone who believes and calls on Christ (cf. John 3:16; Rom. 10:13); this, indeed, is to them the primary truth, and when the plan of salvation appears in their writings (in John’s case, on the lips of our Lord) its logical role is to account for, and give hope of, the phenomenon of sinners responding to God’s promise. Thus, through the knowledge that God is resolved to evoke the response he commands, Christians are assured of being kept safe, and evangelists of not labouring in vain. It may be added: is there any good reason for finding difficulty with the notion that the cross both justifies the ‘free offer’ of Christ to all men and also guarantees the believing, the accepting and the glorifying of those who respond, when this was precisely what Paul and John affirmed?At all events, if the use historically made of the penal substitution model is examined, there is no doubt, despite occasional contusions of thought, that part of the intention is to celebrate the decisiveness of the cross as in every sense the procuring cause of salvation.5. Substitution and divine love The penal substitution model has been criticised for depicting a kind Son placating a fierce Father in order to make him love man, which he did not do before. The criticism is, however, inept, for penal substitution is a Trinitarian model, for which the motivational unity of Father and Son is axiomatic. The New Testament presents God’s gift of his Son to die as the supreme expression of his love to men. ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son’ (John 3:16). ‘God is love, . . . Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ (1 John 4:8-10). ‘God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us’ (Rom. 5:8), Similarly, the New Testament presents the Son’s voluntary acceptance of death as the supreme expression of his love to men. ‘He loved me, and gave himself for me’ (Gal. 2:20). ‘Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends . . .’ (John 15:13f.) And the two loves, the love of Father and Son, are one: a point which the penal substitution model, as used, firmly grasps.Furthermore, if the true measure of love is how low it stoops to help, and how much in its humility it is ready to do and bear, then it may fairly be claimed that the penal substitutionary model embodies a richer witness to divine love than any other model of atonement, for it sees the Son at his Father’s will going lower than any other view ventures to suggest. That death on the cross was a criminal’s death, physically as painful as, if not more painful than, any mode of judicial execution that the world has seen; and that Jesus endured it in full consciousness of being innocent before God and man, and yet of being despised and rejected, whether in malicious conceit or in sheer fecklessness, by persons he had loved and tried to save — this is ground common to all views, and tells us already that the love of Jesus, which took him to the cross, brought him appallingly low. But the penal substitution model adds to all this a further dimension of truly unimaginable distress, compared with which everything mentioned so far pales into insignificance. This is the dimension indicated by Denney — ‘that in that dark hour He had to realise to the full the divine reaction against sin in the race.’ Owen stated this formally, abstractly and non-psychologically: Christ, he said, satisfied God’s justice ‘for all the sins of all those for whom he made satisfaction, by undergoing that same punishment which, by reason of the obligation that was upon them, they were bound to undergo. When I say the same I mean essentially the same in weight and pressure, though not in all accidents of duration and the like . . .’43 Jonathan Edwards expressed the thought with tender and noble empathy: ‘God dealt with him as if he had been exceedingly angry with him, and as though he had been the object of his dreadful wrath. This made all the sufferings of Christ the more terrible to him, because they were from the hand of his Father, whom he infinitely loved, and whose infinite love he had had eternal experience of. Besides, it was an effect of God’s wrath that he forsook Christ. This caused Christ to cry out . . . “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” This was infinitely terrible to Christ. Christ’s knowledge of the glory of the Father, and his love to the Father, and the sense and experience he had had of the worth of his Father’s love to him, made the withholding the pleasant ideas and manifestations of his Father’s love as terrible to him, as the sense and knowledge of his hatred is to the damned, that have no knowledge of God’s excellency, no love to him, nor any experience of the infinite sweetness of his love.’44 And the legendary ‘Rabbi’ Duncan concentrated it all into a single unforgettable sentence, in a famous outburst to one of his classes: ‘D’ye know what Calvary was? what? what? what?’ Then, with tears on his face — ‘It was damnation; and he took it lovingly.’ It is precisely this love that, in the last analysis, penal substitution is all about, and that explains its power in the lives of those who acknowledge it.45What was potentially the most damaging criticism of penal substitution came not from Socinus, but from McLeod Campbell, who argued that by saying that God must punish sin but need not act in mercy at all (and in fact does not act in mercy towards all), Reformed exponents of this view reduced God’s love to an arbitrary decision which does not reveal his character, but leaves him even in blessing us an enigma to us, ‘the unknown God’.46 The real target of Campbell’s criticism is the Scotist model of divine personality with which, rightly or wrongly, he thought Reformed theologians worked; and a sufficient reply, from the standpoint of this lecture, would be that since the Bible says both that Christ’s death was a penal substitution for God’s people and also that it reveals God’s love to sinful men as such, and since the Bible further declares that Christ is the Father’s image, so that everything we learn of the Son’s love is knowledge of the Father’s love also, Campbell’s complaint is unreal. But Campbell’s criticism, if carried, would be fatal, for any account of the atonement that fails to highlight its character as a revelation of redeeming love stands self-condemned.The ingredients in the evangelical model of penal substitution are now, I believe, all before us, along with the task it performs. It embodies and expresses insights about the cross which are basic to personal religion, and which I therefore state in personal terms, as follows:(1) God, in Denney’s phrase, ‘condones nothing’, but judges all sin as it deserves: which Scripture affirms, and my conscience confirms, to be right.(2) My sins merit ultimate penal suffering and rejection from God’s presence (conscience also confirms this), and nothing I do can blot them out.(3) The penalty due to me for my sins, whatever it was, was paid for me by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in his death on the cross.(4) Because this is so, I through faith in him am made ‘the righteousness of God in him’, i.e. I am justified; pardon, acceptance and sonship become mine.(5) Christ’s death for me is my sole ground of hope before God. ‘If he fulfilled not justice, I must; if he underwent not wrath, I must to eternity.’47(6) My faith in Christ is God’s own gift to me, given in virtue of Christ’s death for me: i.e. the cross procured it.(7) Christ’s death for me guarantees my preservation to glory.(8) Christ’s death for me is the measure and pledge of the love of the Father and the Son to me.(9) Christ’s death for me calls and constrains me to trust, to worship, to love and to serve.Thus we see what, according to this model, the cross achieved and achieves.V. CONCLUSION: THE CROSS IN THE BIBLE In drawing the threads together, two general questions about the relation of the penal substitutionary model to the biblical data as a whole may be briefly considered.(1) Are the contents and functioning of this model inconsistent in any way with the faith and religion of the New Testament? Is it degrading to God, or morally offensive, as is sometimes alleged? Our analysis has, I hope, served to show that it is not any of these things. And to have shown that may not be time wasted, for it seems clear that treatments of biblical material on the atonement are often influenced by prejudices of this kind, which produce reluctance to recognize how strong is the evidence for the integral place of substitution in biblical thinking about the cross.48(2) Is our model truly based on the Bible? On this, several quick points may be made.First, full weight must be given to the fact that, as Luther saw, the central question to which the whole New Testament in one way or another is addressed is the question of our relationship, here and hereafter, with our holy Creator: the question, that is, how weak, perverse, estranged and guilty sinners may gain and guard knowledge of God’s gracious pardon, acceptance and renewal. It is to this question that Christ is the answer, and that all New Testament interpretation of the cross relates.Second, full weight must also be given to the fact that all who down the centuries have espoused this model of penal substitution have done so because they thought the Bible taught it, and scholars who for whatever reason take a different view repeatedly acknowledge that there are Bible passages which would most naturally be taken in a penal substitutionary sense. Such passages include Isaiah 53 (where Whale, as we saw, [n. 36] finds penal substitution mentioned twelve times), Galatians 3:13, 2 Corinthians 5:15, I Peter 3:18; and there are many analogous to these.Third, it must be noticed that the familiar exegetical arguments which, if accepted, erode the substitutionary view — the arguments, for instance, for a non-personal concept of God’s wrath and a non-propitiatory understanding of the hilaskomai word. group, or for the interpreting of bloodshed in the Old Testament sacrifices as the release of life to invigorate rather than the ending of it to expiate — only amount to this: that certain passages may not mean quite what they have appeared to mean to Bible students of earlier generations. But at every point it remains distinctly arguable that the time-honoured view is the true one, after all.Fourth, it must be noted that there is no shortage of scholars who maintain the integral place of penal substitution in the New Testament witness to the cross. The outstanding contributions of James Denney and Leon Morris have already been mentioned, and they do not stand alone. For further illustration of this point, I subjoin two quotations from Professor A. M. Hunter. I do so without comment; they speak for themselves.The first quotation is on the teaching of Jesus in the synoptic gospels. Having referred to theories of the atonement ‘which deal in “satisfaction” or substitution, or make use of “the sacrificial principle”’, Hunter proceeds: ‘It is with this type of theory that the sayings of Jesus seem best to agree. There can be little doubt that Jesus viewed his death as a representative sacrifice for “the many”. Not only is His thought saturated in Isa. liii (which is a doctrine of representative suffering), but His words over the cup — indeed, the whole narrative of the Last Supper — almost demand to be interpreted in terms of a sacrifice in whose virtue His followers can share. The idea of substitution which is prominent in Isa. liii appears in the ransom saying. And it requires only a little reading between the lines to find in the “cup” saying, the story of the Agony, and the cry of dereliction, evidence that Christ’s sufferings were what, for lack of a better word, we can only call “penal”.49The second quotation picks up comments on what, by common consent, are Paul’s two loci classici on the method of atonement, 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Galatians 3:13. On the first, Hunter writes: ‘Paul declares that the crucified Christ, on our behalf, took the whole reality of sin upon himself, like the scapegoat: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Paul sees the Cross as an act of God’s doing in which the Sinless One, for the sake of sinners, somehow experienced the horror of the divine reaction against sin so that there might be condemnation no more.‘Gal. 3:13 moves in the same realm of ideas. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.”’ (I interpose here my own comment, that Paul’s aorist participle is explaining the method of redemption, answering the question ‘how did Christ redeem us?’, and might equally well therefore be translated ‘by becoming a curse for us’.) ‘The curse is the divine condemnation of sin which leads to death. To this curse we lay exposed; but Christ on his cross identified himself with the doom impending on sinners that, through his act, the curse passes away and we go free.‘Such passages show the holy love of God taking awful issue in the Cross with the sin of man. Christ, by God’s appointing, dies the sinner’s death, and so removes sin. Is there a simpler way of saying this than that Christ bore our sins? We are not fond nowadays of calling Christ’s suffering “penal” or of styling him our “substitute”; but can we avoid using some such words as these to express Paul’s view of the atonement?’50Well, can we? And if not, what follows? Can we then justify ourselves in holding a view of the atonement into which penal substitution does not enter? Ought we not to reconsider whether penal substitution is not, after all, the heart of the matter? These are among the questions which our preliminary survey in this lecture has raised. It is to be hoped that they will receive the attention they deserve. <div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align="center"> This article was copied from <a href="http://www.the-highway.com/cross_Packer.html">here </a>for the people of Harvest London's use. <hr align="center" width="100%" size="2" /></div>Notes <ol type="1"><li style="COLOR: black">Socinus’ arguments were incorporated in the Racovian Catechism, published at Racow (the modern Cracow) in 1605, which set forth the Unitarianism of the ‘Polish Brethren’. After several revisions of detail down to 1680 the text was finalized and in due course translated into English by Thomas Rees (London, 1818). It is a document of classical importance in Unitarian history. </li><li style="COLOR: black">See L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology 4, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, and Banner of Truths, London (1949) 373-383. Berkhof’s zeal to show that God did nothing illegal or unjust makes a strange impression on the post-Watergate reader. </li><li style="COLOR: black">See F. Turretin, Institutio Theologiae Elenchticae Geneva (1682), II. xiv, ‘De Officio Christi Mediatoris’, and A. A. Hodge, The Atonement, Nelson, London (1868). Turretin’s position is usefully summarized in L. W. Grensted, A Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement, Manchester University Press (1 920) 241-252. Cf. J. F. Heidegger’s parallel account in his Corpus Theologiae Christianae, Zurich (1700), which R. S. Franks reviews in The Work of Christ, Nelson, London (1962) 426ff. </li><li style="COLOR: black">In his influential book Christus Victor, tr. A. G. Hebert, SPCK, London (1931), which advocated a ‘dramatic’, non-rational way of declaring God’s conquest of evil through the cross, Gustaf Aulén describes the ‘Latin’ account of the atonement (i.e. that of Anselm and Protestant orthodoxy) as ‘juridical in its inmost essence’ (p. 106), and says: ‘It concentrates its effort upon a rational attempt to explain how the Divine Love and the Divine Justice can be reconciled. The Love of God is regulated by His Justice, and is only free to act within the limits that Justice marks out. Ratio and Lex, rationality and justice, go hand in hand. . . The attempt is made by the scholastics to elaborate a theology which shall provide a comprehensive explanation of the Divine government of the world, which shall answer all questions and solve all riddles. . . .’ (pp. 173f.) What Aulén fails to note is how much of this implicitly rationalistic cast of thought was a direct reaction to Socinus’ rationalistic critique. In fact, Aulén does not mention Socinus at all; nor does he refer to Calvin, who asserts penal substitution as strongly as any, but follows an exegetical and Christocentric method which is not in the least scholastic or rationalistic. Calvin shows no interest in the reconciling of God’s love and justice as a theoretical problem; his only interest is in the mysterious but blessed fact that at the cross God did act in both love and justice to save us from our sins. Cf. P. van Buren, Christ in our Place: the substitutionary character of Calvin’s doctrine of Reconciliation, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh (1957). </li><li style="COLOR: black">Ayer voiced his doubts in Language, Truth and Logic, Gollancz, London (1936, 2nd ed. 1946), Flew his in ‘Theology and Falsification’, New Essays in Philosophical Theology, ed. A. G. N. Flew and Alasdair Maclntyre, SCM, London (1955) 96-130. There are replies in, among other books, E. L. Mascall, Words and Images, Longmans, London (1957); Faith and Logic, ed. Basil Mitchell, Allen and Unwin, London (1957); Frederick Ferré, Language, Logic and God, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London (1962; Fontana ed. 1970); W. Hordern, Speaking of God, Macmillan, New York (1964). </li><li style="COLOR: black">Of the church in the patristic period H. B. W. Turner writes: ‘Its experience of Redemption through Christ was far richer than its attempted formulations of this experience’ (The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption, Mowbray, London (1952) 13; cf. chapter V, ‘Christ our Victim’). On T. F. Torrance’s sharp-edged thesis in The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh (1948) that the Apostolic Fathers lapsed from New Testament faith in the cross to a legalism of self-salvation, Robert S. Paul’s comment in The Atonement and the Sacraments, Hodder and Stoughton, London (1961), 37, note 2, is just: ‘To me he has made his case almost too well, for at the end I am left asking the question, “In what sense, then, could the Church change this much and still be the Church?” In fact, Torrance’s thesis needs the qualification of Turner’s statement quoted above. </li><li style="COLOR: black">Inst. II. xvii. 2. This thought is picked up in Anglican Article II: ‘Christ . . . truly suffered . . . to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.’ On propitiation, cf. note 21 below. </li><li style="COLOR: black">For surveys of the present state of play, Ferré’s Language, Logic God; Ian C. Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, SCM, London (1974); John Macquarrie, God-Talk, SCM, London (1967). </li><li style="COLOR: black">The pioneer in stating this was Ian T. Ramsey: see his Religious Language, SCM, London (1957); Models and Mystery, Oxford University Press London (1964); Christian Discourse, Oxford University Press, London (1965). For further discussion of models in theology cf. John Maclntyre, The Shape of Christology, SCM, London (1966), especially 54-81; Thomas Fawcett, The Symbolic Language of Religion, SCM, London (1970) 69-94; Barbour, op. cit. </li><li style="COLOR: black">The Shape of Christology, 63. </li><li style="COLOR: black">The idea of analogy is formulated by the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, s.v., as follows: ‘A method of predication whereby concepts derived from a familiar object are made applicable to a relatively unknown object in virtue of some similarity between the two otherwise dissimilar objects.’ Aquinas’ account of analogy is in Summa Theologica I. xiii and can be read in Words about God, ed. Ian T. Ramsey, SCM, London (1971) 36ff. </li><li style="COLOR: black">For Thomists, the doctrine of analogy serves to explain how knowledge of creatures gives knowledge of their Creator (natural theology) as well as how biblical imagery gives knowledge of the God of both nature and grace (scriptural theology). For a technical Thomist discussion, concentrating on analogy in natural theology, see E. L. Mascall, Existence and Analogy, Longmans, London (1949) 92-121. </li><li style="COLOR: black">For Ramsey’s overall view of models, see the works cited in note 9. On most theological subjects his opinions, so far as he reveals them, are unexceptionably middle-of-the-road, but it is noteworthy that in his lecture on ‘Atonement Theology’ in Christian Discourse (pp. 28ff.) he hails Hastings Rashdall’s Abelardian treatise The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology (1919) as ‘definitive’ (p. 29; no reasons given); limits the ‘cosmic disclosure’ evoked by the cross to a sense of ‘the victorious will of God’, whose plan to maintain a remnant did not fail (pp. 32, 34), and whose love this victory shows (pp. 59f.); rejects the grounding of justification on substitution or satisfaction as involving ‘frontier-clashes with the language of morals’ (p. 40; the old Socinian objection); and criticizes the exegeting of justification, substitution, satisfaction, reconciliation, redemption, propitiation and expiation as if these words ‘were not models at all, but described procedural transactions each describing a species of atonement engineering’ (p. 44). Profound confusion appears here. Certainly these words arc models, but what they are models of is precisely procedural transactions for achieving atonement, transactions in which the Father and the Son dealt with each other on our behalf. The contents apostolic argument in which these models appear make this unambiguously plain, and to assume, as Ramsey seems to do, that as models they can only have a directly subjective reference to what Bultmann would call a new self-understanding is quite arbitrary. Indeed, Ramsey himself goes on to show that the model-category for biblical concepts does not require an exclusively subjective reference, for he dwells on ‘love’ as a model of God’s activity (p. 59) and If love can be such a model, why not these other words? It seems evident that Ramsey brought Abelardian-Socinian assumptions to his study of the biblical words, rather than deriving his views from that study. </li><li style="COLOR: black">Cf. Vincent Taylor’s remark, in The Atonement in New Testament Teaching, Epworth Press, London (1940) 301f.: ‘The thought of substitution is one we have perhaps been more anxious to reject than to assess; yet the immeasurable sense of gratitude with which it is associated . . . is too great a thing to be wanting in a worthy theory of the Atonement.’ </li><li style="COLOR: black">Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, tr. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe, SCM, London (1968) 268, 259. </li><li style="COLOR: black">See R. E. Davies, ‘Christ in our Place—the contribution of the Prepositions’, Tyndale Bulletin 21 (1970) 72ff. </li><li style="COLOR: black">F. W. Camfield, ‘The Idea of Substitution in the Doctrine of the Atonement’, SJT I (1948) 282f., referring to Vincent Taylor, The Atonement in New Testament Teaching. Taylor, while allowing that Paul ‘in particular, is within a hair’s breadth of substitutions’ (p. 288), and that ‘a theologian who retires to a doctrinal fortress guarded by such ordnance as Mark x. 45, Romans vi. 10f., 2 Corinthians v. 14, 21, Galatians iii. 13, and 1 Timothy ii. 5f., is more difficult to dislodge than many New Testament students imagine’ (p. 289), rejects substitution as implying a redemption ‘wrought entirely outside of, and apart from, ourselves so that we have nothing to do but to accept its benefits’ (p. 125). He describes Christ’s death as a representative sacrifice, involving endurance of sin’s penalty plus that archetypal expression of penitence for humanity’s wrongdoing which was first conceived by McLeod Campbell and R. C. Moberly. We participate in this sacrifice, Taylor continues, by offering it on our own behalf, which we do by letting it teach us to repent. Taylor admits that from his standpoint there is ‘a gap in Pauline teaching. With clear eyes St Paul marks “the one act of righteousness” in the obedience of Christ (Romans v. 18f.) and the fact that He was “made to be sin on our behalf” (2 Corinthians v. 21), but he nowhere speaks of Him as voicing the sorrow and contrition of men in the presence of His Father’ (p. 291). </li><li style="COLOR: black">See Pannenberg, op. cit., pp. 258-269; Barth, Church Dogmatics IV. I, tr. G. W. Bromiley, T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh (1956), viif., 230ff., 550ff. </li><li style="COLOR: black">‘He turned the penalty He endured into sacrifice He offered. And the sacrifice He offered was the judgment He accepted. His passive suffering became active obedience, and obedience to a holy doom’ (The Work of Christ, Hodder and Stoughton, London (1910) 163). In a 2,000-word ‘Addendum’ Forsyth combats the Ritschlian view, later to be espoused by C. H. Dodd, that the wrath of God is simply the ‘automatic recoil of His moral order upon the transgressor . , . as if there were no personal reaction of a Holy God Himself upon the sin, and no infliction of His displeasure upon the sinner’ (p. 239). He argues to the position that ‘what Christ bore was not simply a sense of the connection between the sinner and the impersonal consequences of sin, but a sense of the sinner’s relation to the personal vis-à-vis of an angry God. God never left him, but He did refuse Him His face. The communion was not broken, but its light was withdrawn’ (p. 243). </li><li style="COLOR: black">Op. cit., pp. 164, 182, 223, 225f. ‘Substitution does not take account of the moral results (of the cross) on the soul’ (p. 182, note). </li><li style="COLOR: black">‘Propitiation’ (which means quenching God’s wrath against sinners) is replaced by ‘expiation’ (which means removing sins from God’s sight) in RSV and other modern versions. The idea of propitiation includes that of expiation as its means; thus the effect of this change is not to bring in a sacrificial motif that was previously absent, but to cut out a reference to quenching God’s anger that was previously thought to be present. The case for ‘expiation’ was put forward by C. H. Dodd in 1935 and at first gained wide support, but a generation of debate has shown that ‘the linguistic evidence seems to favour “propitiation”’ (Matthew Black, Romans, New Century Bible, Oliphants, London (1973) 68). See the full coverage of literature cited by Black, and also David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings Cambridge University Press (1967) 23-48. </li><li style="COLOR: black">Denney, The Death of Christ, 2nd ed., including The Atonement and the Modern Mind, Hodder and Stoughtons, London (1911) 73. Denney’s summary of the meaning of Rom. 3:25f. is worth quoting. ‘It is Christ set forth in His blood who is a propitiation; that is, it is Christ who died. In dying, as St Paul conceived it, He made our sin His own; He took it on Himself as the reality which it is in God’s sight and to God’s law: He became sin, became a curse for us. It is this which gives His death a propitiatory character and power; in other words, which makes it possible for God to be at once righteous and a God who accepts as righteous those who believe in Jesus. . . . I do not know any word which conveys the truth of this if “vicarious” or “substitutionary” does not, nor do I know any interpretation of Christ’s death which enables us to regard it as a demonstration of love to sinners, if this vicarious or substitutionary character is denied’ (p. 126). Denney’s point in the last sentence is that Christ’s death only reveals God’s love if it accomplished something which we needed, which we could not do for ourselves, and which Christ could not do without dying. </li><li style="COLOR: black">It should be noted that in addition to the rather specialized usage that Denney has in view, whereby one’s ‘representative’ is the one whose behaviour is taken as the model for one’s own, ‘representative’ may (and usually does) signify simply this: that one’s status is such that one involves others, for good or ill, in the consequences of what one does. In this sense, families are represented by fathers, nations by kings, presidents and government ministers, and humanity by Adam and Christ; and it was as our representative in this sense that Jesus became our substitute. Cf. pp. 33f below. </li><li style="COLOR: black">The Death of Christ, 304; cf. 307, ‘Union with Christ’ (i.e. personal, moral union, by faith) ‘. . . is not a presupposition of Christ’s work, it is its fruit.’ </li><li style="COLOR: black">Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament, Paternoster Press, Exeter (1965) 401. </li><li style="COLOR: black">Christus Victor, 175. etc. </li><li style="COLOR: black">G. W. H. Lampe, ‘The Atonement: Law and Love’, in Soundings, ed. A. R. Vidler, Cambridge University Press (1962) 187ff. </li><li style="COLOR: black">Denney, op. cit., 271f.; from The Atonement and the Modern Mind. Denney’s last sentence over-states; as J. S. Whale says, ‘the Christian religion has thought of Christ not only as Victor and as Victim, but also as “Criminal”’ and all three models (Whale calls them metaphors) have biblical justification (Victor and Victim, Cambridge University Press (1960) 70). </li><li style="COLOR: black">Denney, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, Hodder and Stoughton, London (1917) 187, 214, 208, 273. On pp. 262f. and elsewhere Denney rejects as unintelligible all notions of a quantitative equivalence between Christ’s actual sufferings and those which sinners would have to endure under ultimate judgment; to realise to the full the divine reaction against sin in the race’, whatever it meant, did not mean that. </li><li style="COLOR: black">Brunner, The Mediator, tr. O. Wyon, Lutterworth Press, London (1934) 443. </li><li style="COLOR: black">Two quotations give Luther’s viewpoint here. The first is from his exposition of Psalm 21 (22): ‘This is that mystery which is rich in divine grace to sinners: wherein by a wonderful exchange our sins are no longer ours but Christ’s: and the righteousness of Christ not Christ’s but ours. He has emptied himself of his righteousness that he might clothe us with it, and fill us with it: and he has taken our evils upon himself that he might deliver us from them . . . in the same manner as he grieved and suffered in our sins, and was confounded, in the same manner we rejoice and glory in his righteousness’ (Werke (Weimar, 1883) 5.608). The second is from a pastoral letter to George Spenlein: ‘Learn Christ and him crucified. Learn to pray to him and, despairing of yourself, say: “Thou, Lord Jesus, art my righteousness, but I am thy sin. Thou hast taken upon thyself what is mine and hast given to me what is thine. Thou hast taken upon thyself what thou wast not and hast given to me what I was not”’ (Letters of Spiritual Counsel, ed. Theodore C. Tappert (Library of Christian Classics) SCM Press, London (1955) 110. </li><li style="COLOR: black">Article in JTS 22 (1971) 349-361. </li><li style="COLOR: black">Luther puts this dramatically and exuberantly, as was always his way. ‘All the prophets did foresee in spirit, that Christ should become the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel, blasphemer, etc., that ever was . . . for he being made a sacrifice, for the sins of the whole world, is not now an innocent person and without sins . . . our most merciful Father . . . sent his only Son into the world and laid upon him the sins of all men, saying: Be thou Peter that denier; Paul that persecutor, blasphemer and cruel oppressor; David that adulterer; that sinner which did eat the apple in Paradise; that thief which hanged upon the cross; and, briefly, be thou the person which hath committed the sins of all men; see therefore that thou pay and satisfy for them. Here now cometh the law and saith: I find him a sinner . . . therefore let him die upon the cross . . .’ (Galatians, ed. Philip S. Watson, James Clarke, London (1953) 269-271; on Gal. 3:13). Aulén (Christus Victor, chapter VI) rightly stresses the dynamism of divine victory in Luther’s account of the cross and resurrection, but wrongly ignores the penal substitution in terms of which Christ’s victorious work is basically defined. The essence of Christ’s victory, according to Luther, is that on the cross as our substitute he effectively purged our sins so freeing us from Satin’s power by overcoming God’s curse; if Luther’s whole treatment of Gal. 3:13 (pp. 268-282) is read, this becomes very plain. The necessary supplement, and indeed correction, of the impression Aulén leaves is provided by Pannenberg’s statement (op. cit., 279): ‘Luther was probably the first since Paul and his school to have seen with full clarity that Jesus’ death in its genuine sense is to be understood as vicarious penal suffering.’ Calvin makes the same point in his more precise way, commenting on Jesus’ trial before Pilate. ‘When he was arraigned before a judgment-seat, accused and put under pressure by testimony, and sentenced to death by the words of a judge, we know by these records that he played the part (personam sustinuit) of a guilty wrongdoer . . . we see the role of sinner and criminal represented in Christ, yet from his shining innocence it becomes obvious that he was burdened with the misdoing of others rather than his own. . . . This is our acquittal, that the guilt which exposed us to punishment was transferred to the head of God’s Son. . . .’ ‘At every point he substituted himself in our place (in vicem nostram ubique se supposuerit) to pay the price of our redemption’ (Inst. II. XVI. 5, 7). It is inexplicable that Pannenberg (loc. cit.) should say that Calvin retreated from Luther’s insight into penal substitution. </li><li style="COLOR: black">For ‘representative’, cf. M. D. Hooker, art. cit., 358, and G. W. H. Lampe, Reconciliation in Christ, Longmans, London (1956) chapter 3; for ‘first-fruits’, cf. D. F. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul, Blackwell, Oxford (1964) 132ff. The preferred usage of these authors seems to reflect both awareness of solidarity between Christ and us and also failure to recognize that what forgiveness rests on is Christ’s vicarious sin-bearing, as distinct from the new obedience to which, in Dr. Hooker’s phrase, we are ‘lifted’ by Christ’s action. </li><li style="COLOR: black">Cf. pp. 22-25 above. </li><li style="COLOR: black">Is. 53:6. J. S. Whale observes that this Servant-song ‘makes twelve distinct and explicit statements that the Servant suffers the pena1ty of other men’s sins: not only vicarious suffering but penal substitution is the plain meaning of its fourth, fifth and sixth verses. These may not be precise statement of Western forensic ideas’ — and our earlier argument prompts the comment, a good job too! — ‘but they are clearly connected with penalty, inflicted through various forms of punishment which the Servant endured on other men’s behalf and in their stead, because the Lord so ordained. This legal or law-court metaphor of atonement may be stated positively or negatively: either as penalty which the Redeemer takes upon himself, or as acquittal which sets the prisoner free. But in either way of stating it the connotation is substitutionary: In my place condemned he stood; Scaled my pardon with his blood’ (op. cit., pp. 69f.) </li><li style="COLOR: black">Cf. Anglican Article XI: ‘We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings.’ </li><li style="COLOR: black">Cf. Rom. 1:6, 7, 8:28, 30, 9:11, 24; 1 Cor. 1:9, 24, 26; Gal. 1:15; Eph. 4:4; 1 Thess. 2:12, 5:24; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:9; John 1:12f., 3:3—15; 1 John 5:1. </li><li style="COLOR: black">‘Unless we believe in the final restoration of all mankind, we cannot have an unlimited atonement. On the premise that some perish eternally we are shut to one of two alternatives — a limited efficacy or a limited extent; there is no such thing as an unlimited atonement’ (John Murray, The Atonement, Presbyterian and Reformed, Philadelphia (1962) 27). </li><li style="COLOR: black">Cf. W. Cunningham, Historical Theology, Banner of Truth, London (1960) II. 337, 370; C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, Nelson, London (1974) II. 544-562. The classical anti-Arminian polemic on the atonement remains John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (1648: Work, ed. W. Goold, Banner of Truth, London (1968) X. 139ff.), on the argumentation of which J. McLeod Campbell commented: ‘As addressed to those who agreed with him as to the nature of the atonement, while differing with him as to the extent of its reference, this seems unanswerable’ (The Nature of the Atonement, 4th ed., Macmillan, London (1873) 51). </li><li style="COLOR: black">Thus, in The Atonement (1868) A. A. Hodge, while speaking freely, as his Reformed predecessors did, of Christ as our substitute in a strict sense under God’s penal law, complained that in theology the word ‘substitution’ had no fixed meaning, and organized his exposition round the idea of ‘satisfaction’, which he claimed was more precise than ‘atonement’ and was the word ‘habitually used by all the Reformers in all the creeds and great classical theological writings of the seventeenth century, both Lutheran and Reformed’ (31ff., 37f.). By contrast the I.V.F-U.C.C.F. Basis (1922) speaks of ‘redemption from the guilt, penalty and power of sin only through the sacrificial death (as our Representative and Substitute) of Jesus Christ’, not mentioning satisfaction at all, and L. Berkhof’s textbook presents Hodge’s view, which it accepts entirely, as ‘the penal substitutionary or satisfaction doctrine’ (Systematic Theology, 373). </li><li style="COLOR: black">Cf. Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14, 5:25-27; John 6:37-45, 10:11-16, 27-29; 17:6-26. </li><li style="COLOR: black">Works,, X. 269. To construe Owen’s statement of equivalence between what threatened us and what Christ endured in ‘quantitative’ terms, as if some calculus of penal pain was being applied, would be a misunderstanding, though admittedly one which Owen’s constant reliance on the model of payment invites, and against which he did not guard. But Denney’s statement expresses what Owen means. </li><li style="COLOR: black">Edwards, Works, ed. E. Hickman, Banner of Truth, London (1975) II. 575. Cf. Luther: ‘Christ himself suffered the dread and horror of a distressed conscience that tasted eternal wrath;’ ‘it was not a game, or a joke, or play-acting when he said, “Thou hast forsaken me”; for then he felt himself really forsaken in all things even as a sinner is forsaken” (Werke, 5. 602, 605); and Calvin: ‘he bore in his soul the dreadful torments of a condemned and lost man’ (Inst. 11. xvi. 10). Thus Calvin explained Christ’s descent into hell: hell means Godforsakenness, and the descent took place during the hours on the cross. Jesus’ cry of dereliction has been seriously explained as voicing (a) depressive delusion, (b) genuine perplexity, (c) an ‘as if’ feeling, (d) trust in God (because Jesus quotes the first words of Psalm 22, which ends with trust triumphant), (e) a repressed thought forcing its way into the open (so that the cry was a Freudian lapse), (f) a truth which Jesus wanted men to know. Surely only the last view can be taken seriously as either exegesis or theology. For a compelling discussion, cf. Leon Morris, op. cit., 41-49) </li><li style="COLOR: black">C. F. D. Moule is right to say that costly forgiving love which1 in the interests of the offender’s personhood, requires him to face and meet his responsibility evokes a burning desire to make reparation and to share the burdens of the one who forgave him. . . . The original self-concern which, in the process of repentance, is transformed into a concern for the one he has injured, makes the penitent eager to lavish on the one who forgives him all that he has and is.’ It is certainly right to replicate God’s forgiveness of our sins in terms of this model; though whether Moule is also right to dismiss God’s justice non-retributively and to eliminate penal satisfaction and to dismiss New Testament references to God’s wrath and punishment as atavistic survivals and ‘anomalies’ is quite another question (‘The Theology of Forgiveness’, in From Fear to Faith: Studies of Suffering and Wholeness, ed Norman Autton, SPCK, London (1971) 61-72; esp. 66f., 72). </li><li style="COLOR: black">Op. cit., 55. </li><li style="COLOR: black">Owen, Works, X. 284. </li><li style="COLOR: black">See on this Leon Morris, op. cit., ch. 10, 364-419. </li><li style="COLOR: black">A. M. Hunter, The Words and Works of Jesus, SCM, London (1950) 100. </li><li style="COLOR: black">A. M. Hunter, Interpreting Paul’s Gospel, SCM, London (1954) 31f. </li></ol><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align="center"><hr align="center" width="100%" size="2" /></div>Author J. I. Packer has had a long-standing passion for the Puritans. Their understanding of God and His ways with man has largely formed his own spirituality and theological outlook. Educated at Oxford University, Dr. James I. Packer has served as assistant minister at St. John's Church of England, Harborne, Birmingham and Senior Tutor and Principal at Tyndale Hall (an Anglican seminary in Bristol). He preaches and lectures widely in Great Britain and America and contributes frequently to theological periodicals. His writings include Fundamentalism and the Word of God, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, and Knowing God. Currently Dr. Packer was Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia.*Delivered at Tyndale House, Cambridge, on July 17th, 1973. This article was copied from <a href="http://www.the-highway.com/cross_Packer.html">here </a>for the people of Harvest London's use.91852http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/91852-thumbnail.jpg?0812040743Is the Bible Reliable? http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=84436&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=84436&ref_object=news_rssThu, 13 Dec 2007 06:00:00 GMTThis is a GREAT article by Pastor John MacArthur on the inspiration of Scripture. John is the president of The Master's Seminary (where Norm went to seminary) and is a gifted and well known pastor and Bible teacher. <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content.aspx?site_id=10194&content_id=84450&ref_object=highlight&referrer=%2fContent.aspx"><img style="WIDTH: 87px; HEIGHT: 105px" alt="Click to open PDF" src="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/macarthur.JPG" align="left" border="0" /></a> Click on picture to open the PDF84436http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/84436-thumbnail.jpg?0812040743Is all truth God's truth?http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=84465&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=84465&ref_object=news_rssThu, 13 Dec 2007 06:00:00 GMTThis is a great article from James MacDonald's blog site - <a href="http://www.jamesmacdonald.com/blog/">http://www.jamesmacdonald.com/blog/</a> Thought you would enjoy reading it. <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content.aspx?site_id=10194&content_id=84461&ref_object=highlight&referrer=%2fContent.aspx"><img style="WIDTH: 76px; HEIGHT: 84px" alt="Click on image for PDF" src="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/James_MacDonald.jpg" align="left" border="0" /></a>Click on image for PDF84465http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/84465-thumbnail.jpg?0812040743Why our youth ministry looks as it doeshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=83202&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=83202&ref_object=news_rssMon, 26 Nov 2007 06:00:00 GMT <h1>THE MYTH CALLED ADOLESCENCE</h1>Rick Holland (now Dr. Richard Holland) was a classmate of mine while in seminary at The Master's Seminary in LA. Rick has extensive experience in youth ministry and is recognized as an expert in this area. I thought this article by him was well worth putting on our site and gives a good explanation as to why our youth ministry functions as it does --- Norm Millar. Artilce by Rick Holland Associate Pastor, College and Student Ministries Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA The worldview of the fourteenth century included the assumption that the world was flat. Nautical horizons were presumed to be the parameters of the earth and few questioned that these were, indeed, the rims of reality. But when maritime trade and exploration demythologized the flat earth theory, progress was unleashed and the worldview of the masses was adjusted. Yet, incredibly, some continued to believe in a flat earth, even after such thinking was corrected by truth (a “Flat Earth Society” still exists today!). Unfortunately, there is an ironic parallel in the church. Our generation has assumed a perspective of teenagers that needs to be demythologized in the light of Scripture. This myth is called adolescence. The concept of adolescence has become so commonplace that the few have stopped to challenge its definition or legitimacy. Adolescence as a definite stage in human development has been accepted, almost universally, in secular thinking. But the church has swallowed the idea whole as well. So what’s the big deal? Isn’t the concept of adolescence true? And what would it matter if it were not? An honest interview with many youth pastors would reveal that of the students under their pastoral care, those who are exhibiting an independent dependence on Christ are a minority. Why are so few of our teens “walking in a manner worthy of the calling with which they have been called” (Eph 4: 1)?For the answer, we should note some misconceptions associated with the concept of adolescence that have yielded significant consequences in youth ministry. A brief observation of current trends in youth ministry reveals at least four assumptions prevalent among the philosophies of many, if not most, youth ministries in our generation. Unfortunately, these presuppositions find no biblical support. A quick examination of these trends will help reveal what is perhaps the single most devastating misconception in youth ministry. <h2> Four Wrong Assumptions in Youth Ministry</h2><h3>1. A youth ministry must entertain/amuse students to be effective.</h3>The 1970s, 80’s, and 90’s were replete with conferences, seminars, and conventions regarding youth ministry. A common thread running throughout these resources was an emphasis on what it takes to “draw” a student into ministry. The common questions seemed to be, “What will it take to get kids to come to church?” and/or “What will it take to keep the kids we have?” It is obvious that these are the significant questions, yet the way they have been answered for the last twenty years in youth ministry circles is astonishing! Everything from $100,000 sound systems to dances and contests have been used and promoted as legitimate means for drawing kids in. The all-important principle to remember is that whatever you use to “draw” a student into a ministry is what you’ll need to “keep” that student coming. It is easy to see how many youth pastors bum out trying to keep their students entertained and interested enough to start coming and keep coming. There must be more to youth ministry than entertaining and amusing students.<h3> 2. A youth ministry must be activity-centered.</h3>It is difficult to trace the development of youth activities as a focus in youth ministry. But no matter how it started most of us as youth pastors have inherited what could be called an “activities monster.” The most common question from students is, “What fun thing is next?” Holding youth activities is not necessarily the enemy, but when a youth pastor spends more time on planning hay-rides, afterglows, and fifth quarters than he does praying and studying the Word, something is out of balance! (Remember the emphasis of the Apostles in Acts 6:4.)<h3> 3. A youth ministry must be program-centered.</h3>Structure is good. But over-structure is exhausting. It seems as though when a youth pastor identifies a problem or has a new idea, often times a new program is instituted to meet the need. It is not long before the issue in the student’s mind becomes “what’s happening at church.” Again, it’s not that programs are bad, but when the focus in a student’s mind is what’s going on more than Christ Himself, there is a problem. There is a constant pressure on youth pastors to crank out a variety of programs and to view simplicity as naive. The tragedy in this fallacy is that for every program or aspect of a program added, the youth pastor’s focus becomes that much more dispersed. We must ask ourselves if “spinning plates” is prudent in youth ministry.<h3> 4. A youth ministry must be focused primarily on the “issues of being a teenager.”</h3>Again, we have been bombarded with “help” concerning running a youth ministry from a variety of sources and people. One over-arching theme coming from such literature and seminars is a perspective that to be effective in teen ministry one must consume himself with the needs of teens. To a certain extent, this perspective is true in that the Scriptures teach that a shepherd must know his sheep. However, the imbalance comes when the shepherds know the sheep better than they know the Great Shepherd. Though teens do have special needs, a constant focus on these needs points a ministry horizontally (to man) rather than vertically (to God). We must ask if our job as leaders is to meet needs or to present God!<h4> Why are These Wrong Assumptions Prevalent in Youth Ministry?</h4>All of these fallacies, and many others, may be traced to one tragic misconception. Ministry to youth has assumed a presupposition that is based on a cultural myth rather than the Word of God. The cultural idea that must be exposed as myth is commonly called adolescence.<h4> The Myth Called Adolescence</h4>The age group that youth ministry deals with is commonly known as adolescence. Our modern day society has been identified as unique in history for classifying teenagers as a group of people called adolescents. To label a teenager an adolescent is to say that he is no longer a child, but not yet an adult. Note Webster’s definition: “the state or process of growing up; the period of life from puberty to maturity terminating legally at the age of majority.” This is a fairly vague definition for such a pervasive philosophical ideology. Significant to note is that this state called adolescence is a twentieth-century, Western invention. Ours is the only culture in history to see three stages of development to maturity, namely childhood, adolescence, adulthood. All other cultures outside of Western culture and its influence, as well as history in general before the twentieth century, see only two stages in the development of maturity-childhood and adulthood. What we’ve done is to create an unnatural state called adolescence where a person is not a child, yet not an adult. From where did such an idea come? David Bakan identifies three developments in American society that propelled adolescence into public acceptance: compulsory education, child Labor laws, creation of a juvenile justice system.<a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> 1 This seems to be the ideological foundation that was laid in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But the articulation of adolescence didn’t find the printing press until early in the twentieth-century.In 1904 Dr. G. Stanley Hall published a book entitled, Adolescence: Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education. This is the first known treatise on adolescence as a stage in a person’s life. In it Hall argued that the stages in a child’s development parallel in mankind’s development in history. The thesis of his book is that the period between thirteen and eighteen is a crisis and stormy period in a young person’s life. Hall concluded that these years almost always include extreme inclinations for a young person to be very good or very bad. It was his book and these expectations that were the basis segregating school children by age for educational purposes. At this point adolescence was invented. What should be made of such an arbitrary assertion? Consider the history of Judaism. Since the days of the Pentateuch, the Jews have celebrated the passing of a boy from childhood to adulthood in their Bar Mitzvah Ceremony. In other words, the Jews have held for centuries that at around age thirteen a person should be fully accepted as an adult in the religious community. Jesus shows up in the synagogue as a twelve-year-old in Luke 2:41-47. It worth noting that no one seemed to be shocked by his presence there, rather it was the questions he was asking and the words he was saying. The thesis of this study is that the teens to whom we minister are not adolescents; they are adults. Granted, they are “young” adults, but adults nonetheless. Physically, emotionally, and volitionally they have capabilities commensurate to adulthood. Yet, of all places, the church (through youth ministry primarily) retards the young person’s spiritual development by not allowing or expecting him to be spiritually responsible or challenging him to the extent of biblical expectations or examples. We are not too different from Saul and the rest of the men of Israel who looked at a young teen named David as an insignificant youth (see 1 Samuel 17:33 and context) just before he leveled Goliath. If God put such stock in a “youth,” why don’t we? By creating this mythical state known as adolescence the teenager is in constant flux between childhood and adulthood since he is not fully accepted as either. This is a significant part of the teen problems in our society. It contributes greatly to the teen syndrome of seeking identity in peer groups, gangs, drugs, alcohol, and premarital sex. It also generates anger at parents and a general anti-establishment attitude. The problem is that in some contexts, the young person is patronized as a child, yet in others he is expected to act responsibly as an adult. And we wonder why teens are so confused! The tragedy is that this tension is propagated in youth ministry. We try to keep our feet on both sides of the fence between children’s ministry and adult ministry by implementing elements of both while at the same time neglecting elements of both. The current assumptions and expectations in youth ministry have problems that must be corrected if we are to raise up a generation for Christ.<h4> Problems With the Myth Called Adolescence</h4><h5>1. Adherence to the idea of adolescence promotes a low view of teens.</h5>The reason our teens are not living Spirit-filled lives is because we don’t expect them to. Our view of teens and their effectiveness in ministry is embarrassingly low compared to God’s view and expectation of them. As we consider Scripture, it is clear that the Bible does not recognize adolescence. Certainly no Greek or Hebrew term represents such a stage. And perhaps we need only consider the following brief list of the significance of teens not only as adults, but also as the heroes of our faith. Throughout the Bible we see God calling and putting teenagers at the cutting edge of His work and trust. Consider Daniel and his friends, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joseph, Hezekiah, Ruth, Mary and Joseph, David, Josiah, and Mark. If God Himself put such great stock in teens, why don’t we? Because we don’t really believe that teens can be significant for Christ. We must call our young people to the standard of following Christ that the Scriptures require and expect of any Christian. Maybe our whole discussion can be summarized by stating that God’s Word is not age-graded! Our goal must not only be to present Christ, but also to expect Christ-honoring lives out of our young people.<h5> 2. Adherence to the idea of adolescence promotes a low view of God.</h5>Following on the heels of this first point, low expectations for the spiritual maturity of teens reflects a low view of the heart and power of God. Colossians 1:28-29 reveals Paul’s passion for the maturity of the saints: “And we proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in Christ. And for this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me” (emphasis added). It is the heart of God that every man be made complete in Christ. The point needs to be underscored that the students in our ministry fall under the category of “every man.” To underestimate the spiritual capacities and capabilities of teens with regard to loving and serving Christ is to underestimate God. The Bible record is a testimony to the fact that God is quite pleased and capable to minister to and through teens. To back away from this emphasis is to back away from the heart of God. Either we believe God has the power to work through our teens or we don’t. The issue must be pressed to this point of trusting God at His Word. Buying into the cultural lie that adolescents cannot be spiritually responsible merely reveals a deeper problem, namely a belief that God cannot or will not use our teens to make an impact in our world. Other pragmatic problems or dangers associated with a belief in adolescence follow as well. Since the “adolescent” is confused about his identity (he is accepted neither as a child nor an adult), a host of consequences ensue. Low moral standards become accepted, expectations for maturity are confusing, and little responsibility is required. Maturity is left undefined, so sexual promiscuity and substance abuse become an easy ways to “grow up.” In the area of finances, a responsible work ethic is avoided and selfish spending habits begin an undertow of debt. In the spiritual realm, opportunities are wasted with a generation who needs to hear the gospel from its peers. Instead of organizing a army of “Christian soldiers, marching as to war,” we should be transforming our youth ministries into social alternatives for worldly options. Youth ministry is not to be the social alternative to the world-it is to be the staging arena for engaging the world with the gospel! So what can we draw from these observations? Consider the following implications. <h2> Implications for Student/Teen Ministry</h2><h3>1. Focus on becoming a “youth ministry” rather than a “youth group.”</h3>The first step to changing our focus from “adolescent” ministry to teen or student ministry must begin with checking our philosophy of what we are about. In other words, we must decide if we are going to have a youth group or a youth ministry. By definition, a youth group consists of students who group together, period. In contrast, however, a youth ministry consists of students who minister together. The subtle emphasis contained in what we call ourselves reveals much more than a title. We are either a group or ministry. The weight of the direction of a given ministry ultimately gravitates to the leader. For this reason, it is clear to see why understanding the assumptions, expectations, and philosophy involved in what we do and why must be carefully thought through by the youth pastor/leader.<h3> 2. Hold students accountable to the biblical standard.</h3>Just as a young Jewish boy was expected to obey the Torah after his Bar Mitzvah, we may expect that our teens can obey the truth of the Word of God. We can thus hold these young people responsible for how they deal with their time, money, and opportunities. This expectation also raises the bar for our study and teaching of the Scriptures. <h3> 3. Deal with students as adults.</h3>The church should be a leading influence in these young people’s lives to grant them both the responsibilities and privileges of adulthood. We should help them understand biblically how to make decisions, allow them to utilize their creative energies for the Lord, help them find a place of ministry in the body of Christ, include them in evangelistic and discipling efforts, and let them be examples of Christian virtue (1 Tim. 4:12). Could it be that the church has allowed the myth called adolescence go unchecked? Could it be that youth ministries have been operating with the wrong diagnosis? I am often asked what I think is unique about ministering to students. And I usually get look of shock when I answer, “nothing.”First John 2:16 reveals that there are only three problems (rather, sins) with all people, including teens: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. This diagnosis of man’s harmartiological hangover is not unique to any age group. And the sooner we apply this to our students, the sooner we will do youth ministry God’s way.<div> <hr align="left" width="33%" size="1" /><div id="ftn1"><a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1] </a>David Bakan, "Adolescence in America: From Idea to Social Fact," Daedalus 100 (1971),979-995, cited in David Alan Black, The Myth of Adolescence (Yorba Linda, Cal.: Davidson Press, 1999), 14-16.</div></div>83202http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/83202-thumbnail.jpg?0812040743Biblical Forgiveness http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=75254&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=75254&ref_object=news_rssTue, 14 Aug 2007 05:00:00 GMT <img align="left" src="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/News%20Images/Bible.jpg" style="width: 258px; height: 188px;" />We often struggle with forgiving those who have hurt us or violated our trust or friendship or love. We don’t feel like forgiving. We still hurt and the damage still surrounds us and lives within us from the sin. The last thing we feel like doing is to forgive. And ... you might say – I can’t forgive because I can’t trust the person. And our relationship is severely damaged so how can I forgive. And – it just seems like they can sin and get away with it because if I am called to forgive and reconcile it will seem like all is done and forgotten. It will seem like it is okay to sin – you get away with it if you just say a few words like ‘will you forgive me’. This just seems so wrong. They have to somehow know how hard this is on me. They have to earn my forgiveness. They have to prove they are worthy of forgiveness. Well folks let me say we have to sift through the feelings and understand what is cultural teaching, tradition or our own thoughts vs. Biblical teaching. Here is the bottom line about Biblical forgiveness – it is scandalous! Actually it was Philip Yancey who said ‘grace is scandalous’. To forgive in the Biblical sense is to pour out grace upon a sin and sinner. This is scandalous. They should have to pay for their sin. They should have to suffer for their sin – just as I have suffered because of their sin. If I forgive and reconcile it is like they got away with it. Well the Bible says this is not true – but so often we feel like this and thus struggle with forgiveness. I mean think about it – what if after murdering tens of thousands of people and being a terrible tyrant Saddam Hussein had repented and committed his life to Christ just seconds before being hanged. He would be in heaven – fully forgiven. Or think of it – a person who has murdered an innocent child could ask forgiveness of God and be declared fully righteous and without sin. This is scandalous! The Apostle Peter struggled with this when he asked Jesus how many times he had to forgive someone. We read about it in Matthew 18:21, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Now Peter was being very gracious for the Jews thought that to forgive someone three times was the maximum so Peter is over doubling that. Jesus response is shocking ... you could even say scandalous, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.” The phrase Jesus uses is a phrase that really means – there is no limit – just keep forgiving. What, we cry! You can’t ask me to forgive over and over – that’s unfair! Why is this an issue? Well Biblical forgiveness is one of the defining characteristics of a Christ-follower and of the church of Jesus Christ. After all what is a Christian but a forgiven one. We have life because God forgave us in Christ Jesus. And He says to us – if I have forgiven you should you not also forgive one another. But we say, ‘you don’t know what she/he did ... I can’t forgive that!’ God says to us – look what you have done to me – sins like murder (ever been angry at someone?) or adultery (ever lusted) or thievery (ever stolen anything) or idolatry (ever put anything before God). Hey we have sinned greatly and God does not rate sins like we do – but He forgives us fully and immediately. And remember what is scandalous – is that we are forgiven. What is scandalous is that Christ – an innocent and perfect man took my sin and paid for my sin being punished – put to death for my sin. That is scandalous. And all I have to do is ask for His forgiveness in faith believing in Him. That is scandalous. And on top of that – as if that is not enough – I also get His righteousness – His holiness – His goodness placed upon me marking and making me absolutely perfect – without sin. Now that is scandalous. So when we choose to forgive someone out of obedience to our Father and in accordance with His example we do not ask Him to ignore the sin which has hurt us so much, nor to excuse it, nor to turn a blind eye to it but rather we acknowledge that if the sinner is a Christ-follower that Jesus has already paid for that sin. Now that is scandalous! And remember to forgive is a choice of the will – an act of the will not a by- product of our feelings. Just as love is a choice not primarily a feeling so also forgiveness is a choice regardless of how we feel. And on top of that we are called to do the acts and actions of grace not just grant forgiveness. Meaning we are to work toward the good of the other – to seek to bless the sinner. All of this does NOT negate the consequences of their sin. I could forgive a person who attacked my family – full and complete forgiveness and even demonstrate love for them working for their good AND at the same time uphold them being sent to prison for their crime. Consequences are not always removed by God when forgiveness is granted (sometimes they are but that is a subsequent act of grace). Trust is not granted either with forgiveness – trust needs to be earned back over time by proven change and trustworthiness. And relationships may be permanently damaged by the sin. Now we are never to live with ongoing anger, bitterness, division, unkind words or actions, etc. Rather we are to love one another – even our enemies. Following are some thoughts from various writers and preachers about forgiveness which might help with this issue. Let’s be the body of Christ to one another and to show our lost world what the kingdom of heaven is like. Thoughts by John Piper: Matthew 6:7-15 For if you forgive men for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions. The greatest risk is that the church has is that we may lose heaven. Because one way to lose heaven is to hold fast to an unforgiving spirit and so prove that we have never been indwelt by the Spirit of Christ. If we hold fast to an unforgiving spirit, we will not be forgiven by God. If we continue on in that way, then we will not go to heaven, because heaven is the dwelling place of forgiven people. Then in Matthew 18 Jesus told a parable to illustrate this point. Peter asks the question in verse 21, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" And Jesus answers, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven." And then he tells the parable about the king who forgave his servant a million dollar debt. The servant went out from the king and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a relatively small amount, refused his desperate pleas for mercy and had him thrown in prison. When the king heard about it he called for the servant and said (in vv. 32-35), "You wicked servant, I forgave you all that debt because you entreated me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?" And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. So shall My heavenly Father also do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart. The point of Matthew 6:15 and 18:35 is that if we hold fast to an unforgiving spirit we will be handed over to the tormentors. We will lose heaven, and gain hell. The reason is not because we can earn heaven or merit heaven by forgiving others, but because holding fast to an unforgiving spirit proves that we do not trust Christ. If we trust him we will not spurn his way of life. If we trust him we will not be able to take forgiveness from his hand for our million dollar debt and withhold it from our ten dollar debtor. Paul said in Ephesians 4:32, "Forgive each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." In other words God's forgiveness is underneath ours and creates it and supports it. So that if we don't give it to others—if we go on in an unforgiving spirit—what we show is that God is not there in our lives. We are not trusting him. And not trusting him will keep us out of heaven. And cause us to be handed over to the tormentors. So if forgiveness is that serious – if it is such a stark marker of whether one has the Spirit of the living God dwelling in them then we need to carefully understand what forgiveness is Biblically and what it means to truly forgive one another. What is Forgiveness? When we strive against all thoughts of revenge; when we will not do our enemies mischief, but wish well to them, grieve at their calamities, pray for them, seek reconciliation with them, and show ourselves ready on all occasions to relieve them. (Thomas Watson, Body of Divinity, p. 581) I think this is a very Biblical definition of forgiveness. Each of its parts come from a passage of scripture. <ol><li>Resist thoughts of revenge: Romans 12:19, "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord."</li><li>Don't seek to do them mischief: 1 Thessalonians 5:15, "See that no one repays another with evil for evil.</li><li>Wish well to them: Luke 6:28 "Bless those who curse you."</li><li>Grieve at their calamities: Proverbs 24:17, "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles."</li><li>Pray for them: Matthew 5:44, "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."</li><li>Seek reconciliation with them: Romans 12:18, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men."</li><li>Be always willing to come to their relief: Exodus 23:4, "If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey wandering away, you shall surely return it to him." </li></ol> What forgiveness in not But now notice what is not there in this definition. Notice what forgiveness is not. <ol><li>Forgiveness is not the absence of anger at sin.</li><li>Forgiveness is not the absence of serious consequences for sin.</li><li>Forgiveness is not the granting of trust if it was broken. Trust is earned by a proven life change.</li><li>Forgiveness is not based on feeling good about what was bad – we don’t wait until we feel forgiving – we choose to forgive. </li></ol> Thoughts by Philip Yancey: Sometimes when you say a word like forgiveness, we think it is nice and sweet. It is like spraying perfume, but forgiveness isn't like that. It's hard; it's tough. It is one of the hardest things we ever have to do. As I thought about it, I realized that even when you forgive someone it is easy to still hurt, to still feel the sting. In a real sense, forgiveness just ain't fair. Why would God want us to do something that is so unlike what our instinct is, that is so unfair. I came up with three reasons that I want to share with you today. The first reason is that forgiveness is the only way to break the cycle. You are right. It is not fair. If you want a fair religion, I would suggest that you become a Hindu because the Hindus have a very clear way of taking care of everything. It is called incarnation. If you have done many things wrong, the Hindu scholars tell us, it may take as many 6,800,000 incarnations for those things to all work themselves out. You have to realize the punishment in this life is for something you did in a former life. Forgiveness is the ONLY way to break the chain that can go on and on and on. It's not fair, but it breaks that chain. There is a second reason why I believe God asks us to forgive and that is it breaks the stranglehold in you and in me, not just the stranglehold on the relationship, but the stranglehold in us. There is a third reason that I think God asks us to forgive and that is because God first forgave us. It is one thing to get into a tit-for-tat war with a wife, husband, a nation. It is another thing to get into one with God because we are going to lose every time. No one of us deserves forgiveness from God. When Jesus came to earth, He came and left a wonderful example of forgiveness. What I learned from that example was that forgiveness probably wasn't very easy for God. It was hard for Him. When Jesus was in the garden, he prayed "Lord, if there is any other way..." There was no other way but the hard way. At the cross some of His last words were, "Father, forgive them for they don't know what they do." The Roman soldiers, the mobs yelling, people all down through the chain of history including you and me, "Forgive them for they don't know what they do." I think in some ways the cross is God's way of saying, "It is pretty impressive that I forgive you for some of the dastardly things that you have done." Other Thoughts: REMORSE - may admit the wrongness of what was done, but does not necessarily imply any kind of change in heart attitude or lifestyle. REPENTANCE - involves a change in the way we think and act. It results in a change in lifestyle. God requires this change in us. (Acts 17:30) He also makes this change possible. (Romans 2:4). Therefore... <ol><li>We have no excuse, if we refuse to repent. (We know repentance is our obligation.)</li><li>We have no reason to boast, if we do repent. (Since God is the one who made it possible, our only proper response is to express gratitude and thanks to him for our repentance.) </li></ol> 2 Corinthians 7:9-11 “9 As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. 10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. 11 For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves innocent in the matter.” The seven fruit of repentance from verse 11 We must be able to identify the fruit of a person’s sorrow to discern if their repentance is genuine. Fruit matures from a blossom that dies to itself, not in a day, but rather over seasons. In 2 Corinthians 7:11 the 7 fruit of repentance are labeled. We have in one verse the 7 fruit of complete repentance, following with a praise of commendation. <ol><li>New carefulness: (what earnestness) We will now have diligence to be on our patrol so as not to have future sins in that area.</li><li>New confession: (what eagerness to clear yourselves) The word for clearing in Greek is apologia, which in English we derive apologize. We apologize for our sins, we don’t deny or justify or we have not truly owned up. We confess it before God.</li><li>New concern: (what indignation it caused in you) We will now be disgusted with our sin; we will have indignation for sin; we will see our sin as God sees it and it will grieve our hearts.</li><li>New conviction: (what fear) We will now have a new fear of God, we will honor God, we will be concerned what God thinks about our thoughts and actions.</li><li>New compulsion: (what longing) We will now have a heartfelt loving, as opposed to being cold and indifferent; we will have a passionate desire to love God and to love others.</li><li>New commitment: (what zeal) We once had selfish lethargy, and that led to getting pleasure off worldly things. Godly sorrow energizes us and gives us a new excitement to serve God. We want to redeem the time wisely for Him.</li><li>New conscience: (what punishment (of wrong) ... literally avenging of wrong) We now have a desire for justice; we want to stay in God’s presence and grow in holiness. We are quick to respond to the pricking of the Spirit when we step off the path.</li></ol>And what is the by product of this all-inclusive repentance? New commendation: In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter. We now live in such a godly way, that it becomes worthy of recognition by the body! Please take note: they had to PROVE themselves to be CLEAR in this matter through a COMPLETE repentance with FRUIT. Then comes restoration and praise. From news reports: An AMAZING example of Biblical forgiveness: The Amish of Lancaster County, often seen as living in an idyllic but archaic past, have given a powerful example for the future. Their actions since the school shootings that killed five Amish girls provide one of many ways to prevent such tragedies. Their faith in the power of forgiveness led them to invite the widow of the nonAmish killer, Charles Carl Roberts IV, to the funeral for four of the slain girls. One Amish woman told a reporter, "It's our Christian love to show to her we have not any grudges against her." After Monday's killings, the grandfather of one of the slain girls went to the home of Roberts's father, consoling and hugging him, pouring forth a love and innocence of the kind remembered of the girls in the school. "He extended the hope of forgiveness that we all need these days," said a Roberts family spokesman, the Rev. Dwight Lefever of Living Faith Church of God. "'God met us in that kitchen."75254http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/75254-thumbnail.jpg?0812040744How Much Should I Give?http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=75240&ref_object=news_rsshttp://www.harvestlondon.ca/Article.aspx?site_id=10194&article_id=75240&ref_object=news_rssTue, 14 Aug 2007 05:00:00 GMT <img align="left" src="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/News%20Images/Accounting.jpg" style="width: 258px; height: 188px;" />People often have good questions about church offerings and their own responsibility to give. Here are a few that I’ve heard and some answers straight from God’s Word. Why should I give offerings to the church? Mostly it is a demonstration of how we value God. Ask yourself, “Do I put God first in every aspect of my life?” God demands that we give Him first place in our lives (Exodus 20:3, Colossians 1:18). Giving is the principle of first fruits. To acknowledge that all of our income comes from God, we give the first portion to Him. Jesus also required full allegiance of those who would follow Him. (Matthew 10:37-38). Likewise, the Apostle Paul commends the Macedonians, for giving their support, and more—giving themselves first to the Lord (2 Cor. 8:5). What about giving to groups outside the church? The examples we have in the Scripture all point to the tithes and offerings coming into the Temple or Tabernacle (Old Testament) or being distributed in and by the Church (New Testament). We believe that the primary way that God is working is through the local churches which Christ established through the Apostles. While it is good to support other ministries which are building up God’s Kingdom, we would encourage regular giving to be given to the church you attend. Your giving supports the salaries of your pastors and staff, pays for facilities and provides ministry money. The benefits received set up a responsibility to supply for the need. How much should I give? The short answer is to give proportionate to your income. While much is said about tithing 10% of your income, we see that God leaves your offering amount up to you - His call is to give to Him first, generously and with a joyful heart. We all need to ask if we may in fact be robbing God with a lesser gift than we really should be giving (1 Corinthians 16:2). And so, your giving percentage is impacted by your earning capacity. There is no doubt that giving is a faith venture. The principle is easy, “One gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want” (Proverbs 11:24; cf. 2 Corinthians 9:6). Anyone can try this out and see it to be true. Bottom line . . . be generous. How often should I give? Once a person determines what they will give, there needs to be a plan for delivering on the desire. Giving an offering is an act of worship, therefore some people find weekly giving to be the best. Others who are paid biweekly, monthly or quarterly give according to those time frames. No matter what you decide to do, be faithful in that. When you have to miss one of your “giving Sundays” be sure to make it up the next time you are at church (1 Corinthians 16:2). Please remember that when you bring your offering, it is God who receives it and it is indeed an act of worship. It is not for the pastor or the church. Your gift is to the Lord. What else should I know about giving? God doesn’t want anyone doing this out of obligation or with a poor attitude. God’s heart is that we would give cheerfully. Paul wrote, “Each one must give as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7). That means that when I put my offering in the basket or write the cheque, I am happy to be doing it . . . to have a part in worshiping Him and helping the work of Christ go forward. If you have more questions, or would like information on how the finances are managed at Harvest Bible Chapel, you can contact the church office by clicking <a href="http://www.harvestlondon.ca/ContactUs">here</a>. 75240http://www.harvestlondon.ca/Content/10194/Thumbnails/75240-thumbnail.jpg?0812040744