We have moved to www.theprognosis.org

This afternoon I went on the radio to talk about sex, or rather no sex. Following an article that appeared in the Independent last week which stated that the Bush government's drive to promote sexual abstinence was coming to an end due to it simply not having any effect, the BBC's Welsh language station Radio Cymru rang asking if I'd be willing to make a comment about it. The column in question said

"Last week came the "shocking" news that President Bush's $1bn abstinence campaign has failed. Despite its shaming slogans like, "Would you eat a cookie that already had a bite out of it?", the Department of Health found no evidence that programmes such as the Silver Ring Thing affected rates of sexual abstinence."

And it isn't just on the American side of the pond. Another article, also in the Independent, talked about findings in this country on the same topic - "A new report from Ofsted, the education watchdog, concludes: "There is no evidence that abstinence-only programmes as the only education reduce teenage pregnancies or improve sexual health."

So what have we gathered? That young people like sex - love it. Hardly worth spending a billion finding that one out, was it? No matter how much they try, people just can't stop wanting sex, and doing it. No matter how intense the campaign to promote abstinence, young people, just can't do it.

And that's pretty much what I said on the show. Sex is good and fun and natural - why would people not do it?

Now, of course, as a Christian, I have some pretty clear opinions on the subject - Sex is good, but for the person that you marry. If you don't have those bits, don't think about them. Until that person is your spouse, they are your sibling in Christ, and doing stuff with a relative is beyond wrong. So keep all the bits kids play 'you show me yours and I'll show you mine' with covered up until God says that you are one flesh.

'One flesh' is the Bible's way of saying, married. Sex is the reward for promising to love and honour and care for a person from the day you're married until the day God calls one of you to glory. Between these two (fairly) massive events in your life, sex is to be enjoyed. God's even dedicated a book in the Bible to the subject of enjoying sex. What I was hoping to get across on the show this afternoon was not that the Bible (and therefore Christians) is anti-sex, God is very much pro-sex, but only when it's done on his terms.

As a Christian, it doesn't surprise me to read that the Abstinence programme that Bush's government implemented and funded didn't work. What did surprise me is the way that the news was reported. "Success of abstinence in cutting teen pregnancies is a 'myth'" was one headline that I read (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/01/nsex01.xml).

Hang on a minute... 'Success of abstinence in cutting teen pregnancies is a 'myth'' - am I reading that properly? Is the paper honestly telling me that it's a myth that teenagers can avoid getting pregnant by abstaining from sex? Isn't the best way to not get pregnant by not doing the sex thing? Whilst we're on the subject, surely the best way to not catch an STD is to not T the D by S?

Of course, this is not what the paper is saying. The 'myth' is that the teenagers are abstaining from sex in the first place. No matter how much money is spent on encouraging them to not do it - why should they not, when they find out how good it is?

You see, it's a question of motivation. Sex is too powerful to simply give up, too good. When you refrain from sex for no other reason other than 'your own well being', you simply ain't going to be able to do it. Instead what's needed is a motivation that's bigger than even the fear of catching a baby or a very nasty itch. And the only thing that's big enough is God. When He's your motivation, you can.

As I've been writing, I've been thinking about why people want sex on their terms. Now the good old fashioned reformed answer would be 'because we are all depraved sinners', but I don't think it's as simple as that. What is it about sex that makes sinners want it on their terms, and not God's?

Might it be a longing for the high you get from love, but without all the faff of 'is this the one?'? I'm sure that for a lot of people it would be - they know that love will satisfy them, and they (rightly) see sex as the physical sign of the love that people desire so much.

And of course, we live in a world where we 'get' instantly, and we're used to taking the short cut if there's one available. So if you want coffee, but without having to wait to grind the beans - instant coffee. 'You want credit but without all the form filling? Et viola! Internet instant credit!'

You want love but without the wait? Sex. The only problem is, no matter how much you get, it will never satisfy you. And you know what? The bit that's really going to get you is that even if you find that one partner that you remain totally monogamous with, you'll still not be satisfied. Deep down, there'll be a part of the satisfaction that'll be missing.

Do you want real love? Even when you've been at your most deplorable, God has loved you. Even when you have told him that you make the decision in the life that he gave you, God has loved you, and has given himself for you. No matter how broken or dirty your heart is, Christ died to let you experience love that satisfies. His love is instant, and eternal, sustaining and satisfying.

As an undergraduate I loved studying church history. As an assistant Pastor I was mentored by Kevin Adams who also loved church history and encouraged me to read and apply it to my ministry. I love church history.

But I also love thinking about how people will look at our generation in the years to come. What will the students of WEST be taught about Western Evangelicalism at the turn of the Millennium in 2207?? What would their study of source materials (Blogs more than books) tell them about our passions and struggles? What heresies will they be able to see that snuck into our church under the cover of night?

10 years ago I thought they would have a module in historic pneumatology called ‘The Toronto Blessing: Laughter, Lying or Lord?'.

Five years ago I was convinced there would have been a module in the Doctrine of God called ‘The omission of ‘omni': the day God lost His mind in the openness of God debate.' At the same time I was worried that we would have a module called ‘The rise of fusion and the fall of united and effective witness on Campus'.

However, all three issues: the Toronto blessing (so-called), open theism, and the alleged rise of Fusion have come and gone (even if a handful of die-hards try to keep the flames alive).

But I believe with all my heart - and wish it were not so - that there will be a module called ‘the atonement controversy at the turn of the millennium'. In fact, there may even be a module called ‘the split of Evangelicalism and the rise of neo-liberal Evangelicalism' which will be marked by a rejection of penal substitution and therefore a necessary rejection of the authority of Scripture, the character of God, Biblical counselling, and mission.

I truly believe that the ultimate defining moment of our generation is not our embrace of new songs, the rise of house churches, our pneumatology, or even our search for a biblical model of social action. No, the one thing that our generation will be known for and held accountable for is our handling of the debate over penal substitution. EA have dropped the ball, so has Spring Harvest and Christianity magazine. EA have debated and made a statement - but they have not made a clear and defining stand. They have not led us as our forefathers have. Spring Harvest and Christianity magazine (probably the biggest influence on the more left field evangelicals) have embraced Britain's popularist of the rejection of penal substitution (Steve Chalke) and given him a legitimacy and platform.

A bit of church history: Let me quote a very academic source (Wikipedia!);

‘In the summer term of 1910 an evangelical student called Norman Grubb of Trinity College, Cambridge and a friend, met with ten representatives of the Student Christian Movement to discuss their concerns that SCM was promoting an overly liberal view of Christianity in the British universities. Grubb posed the direct question, "Does the Student Christian Movement put the atoning blood of Christ central in its teaching?" After a little deliberation the answer came, "We acknowledge it, but it is not central."

Grubb and his friends at Cambridge decided that they could no longer work in partnership with the SCM saying that it had divorced a biblically-based, cross-centred emphasis. They began the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union (CICCU). Soon, their contemporaries at Oxford did the same, and new Christian Unions (CUs) began to spring up in a number of universities over country.'

That was the start of UCCF.

They took a stand on the Cross. They did what we and every generation must do;

-Define the Cross - make sure we have a full and Biblical view.

-Declare the Cross - ensure that all have the opportunity to embrace and love it.

-Defend the Cross - this is our non negotiable. It is not an optional or secondary doctrine.

Men and women, we MUST make sure that we understand the Cross (Define), we must then share it with non Christians for their salvation and with Christians for their sanctification and joy (Declare), we must also make sure that our generation and the generation to come are not taken captive by the heresy that is circulating contemporary evangelicalism (Defend).

Please meditate on the following:

Isaiah 52:13-53:12

2 Corinthians 5:21

1 Peter 2:21-25

1 Corinthians 15:1-8

Galatians 1:6-9 - With a heavy heart I say that this undermining of penal substitution is another gospel. And Paul is clear on how we are to respond to it.

Let us do all we can to make sure that the students of WEST look at our generation with admiration as we stand against this tide of heresy. Is there a new Norman Grubb out there? Will someone stand as Luther did?

This is our defining moment.

Stand!

A few days ago, Jonny Raine and I ended up in Bridgend, specifically Bryntirion. Jonny had picked up some information about a day conference on ‘The Call’. So off we trotted down the M4 heading WESTwards.

Now I use the word conference rather generously, as when we arrived, there were 6 of us…and 4 of them we’re speaking at the ‘conference’. This was most definitely an intimate gig. But it was great to be there and learn from 4 experienced pastors. We kicked off with a session on the theology of the call, and then moved onto a week in the life of a pastor. After lunch we looked at things they don’t tell you in Bible College and my first year of ministry surprisingly led by a guy who’s just completed his first year of ministry. It was a good day with plenty of opportunity to discuss and ask questions. A shame more didn’t turn up. I was encouraged by the guy who had just completed his first year of ministry and is seeking to reach out to the local community he’s in. He was rightly excited about it.

While we chatted about the difficulties faced in Christian ministry, there was a comment ‘what often keeps me going is a reassurance that I’m called to this work’. This got me thinking about what is our motivation for doing anything. If that’s what keeps some pastor’s going, then what keeps Steve working down at spar going? Surely something bigger than reassurance of our situation we’re called into keeps us going?

It’s the gospel keeps us going in the face of difficulties. Fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith keeps us pressing on. There are many aspects of the gospel that keep us going; here are just a few tasty ones:

Knowing that the gospel has saved me, free of charge, all by grace. And so too, it can save others, and it’s so powerful it can even save the hardest nutcase in the east end.

Knowing that our great high priest has gone before us into heaven. So we can freely and boldly approach a holy God and never be turned away.

Knowing that I’m seen as pure and righteousness because I’m clothed in Jesus’ purity and righteousness, all because of him.

Knowing that God remembers my sins no more, they’re totally forgotten.

Knowing that the message of the gospel is true and is relevant for everyone whether they think that or not.

Knowing that one day I’ll be home with Jesus in heaven and all the struggles I faced in here on planet earth will be nothing compared to the glory that’s coming. It’ll all be worth it.

The gospel is so rich and so deep and yet we so often want to be driven by anything else. But whatever our situation is, whether we’re pastoring a church, or beeping through items on the checkout in spar, it’s the gospel that should keeps us going, shape our actions and our attitudes and its Jesus we need to fix our eyes on. We’re called to be gospel driven people.

By Dave Walker

Not that long ago actually, if your talking about the anniversary of the event. An event that is maybe one of the most hotly debated in history. You hear that, IN HISTORY!?

All in all it's a pretty convincing case. I hope it's going to be useful, even if only for me.

So Word Alive is coming to Wales in 2008 with a genius new name: “New Word Alive”! And personally I think it’s great! Word Alive previously ran one very good week at Spring Harvest in Skegness. Now they are holding a week long conference at Pwllheli in North Wales .

I think the funny thing is that the previously called FIEC Pwllheli Conference has gone to Cheltenham and now New Word Alive has taken its place. I heard a rumour that the site in Pwllheli weren’t happy because the FIEC people weren’t buying enough booze, so if that’s the case then they obviously think UCCF/Keswick people are more likely to booze it up – students huh?!

It’s pretty awesome that since Wales lost a conference, it gained a conference. And the list of speakers lined up, including Don Carson and John Piper, is pretty darn enticing! I’ve been to Word Alive a few times and I think they were the best week-long conferences I’ve been on, so it’s great that something of that quality is coming to Wales .

As for the controversy, I don’t think there’s much to say that hasn’t already been blogged elsewhere. Word Alive won’t have Steve Chalke to speak, because of his views that reject penal substitution. The leaders of Spring Harvest have upheld (at least to an extent) penal substitution but aren’t happy about Word Alive not allowing Steve Chalke to speak. If you want more detail about this look at the article on Adrian Warnock’s blog “Word Alive and Spring Harvest to Separate After 15 Years Because of the Atonement”.

As for penal substitution, I most definitely uphold it, as I’m certain all the other authors on this blog would. Penal substitution, simply put, is the belief that on the cross Christ was punished in man’s place. I don’t think it is the only explanation of the cross, the Bible also speaks of the cross being a ransom and a victory. The cross is also transference of Christ’s righteousness and an example of love and obedience. And I don’t think penal substitution is the complete explanation of what happened at the cross but it is one of the main Biblical explanations of what was going on at the cross. Christ has suffered the wrath of the Father that was deserved by me.

It may seem suprising, but there is meaning behind this seemingly odd title. There is a profound link between truth and melons.

In the last blog, John mentioned the Truth of God reaching his mind and the heart, something deeper than merely knowing or understanding. That’s what the melon is all about; truth that isn’t merely cerebral, belief that is based in the heart, ideas that are more than abstract theories but are grasped with faith and in real hope.

Confused?

The second century church leader, Irenaeus, had a bit of a problem with people who loved ideas. People who were crazy about leaping from one exciting and gargantuan theory to the next, consistency and integrity were nothing, all that mattered was philosophy and intellectualism: people whose minds were buzzing but whose hearts were silent. What was his response? Well, naturally he made up a story about melons, gourds and cucumbers!

There exists a power which I term a Gourd; and along with this Gourd there exists a power which again I term Utter-Emptiness. This Gourd and Emptiness, since they are one, produced (and yet did not simply produce, so as to be apart from themselves) a fruit, everywhere visible, eatable, and delicious, which fruit-language calls a Cucumber. Along with this Cucumber exists a power of the same essence, which again I call a Melon. These powers, the Gourd, Utter-Emptiness, the Cucumber, and the Melon, brought forth the remaining multitude of the delirious melons of Valentinus.

This was his attempt, brimming with irony, to show that to live by changeable ideas and theories is entirely subjective. His point was that truth that is made up is not truth, any meaningful truth that can be gained about God, must come from God!

We live in a world that loves to speculate, it loves the unknowable and the mysterious. Irenaeus’ melon set out to show that speculation is pointless, God can neither be known by mysterious speculation nor by scientific research. The melon was an attempt to reveal some eternal truth about God and his self revelation, in a relevant and comprehensible way.

There is an important lesson to learn here. The truth about God was never meant to find its resting place in our minds, it was never meant to stop there. Christians, students, Sunday school teachers, parents, lecturers, pastors…the truth is intended for the heart not merely the mind! If it is left in the mind alone then it will become at best forgotten, and at worst, theorised, rationalised and critiqued.

The truth God has revealed about himself in the Bible, is an eternal, glorious and powerful thing. How are we getting this across in a way that does not solely encourage its dissection in the mind? How are we encouraging others to grasp this truth in their hearts? And how are we putting it across so that it can be understood? I guess it comes down to that old chestnut again – eternal truth for a contemporary world; the progressive practice of the one unchanging truth.

So where do melons fit into your way of thinking? What are you doing to make the revealed truth of God known in a way that goes beyond intellectualism? Clearly I am not against rational thought, discussion and theorising, but surely our greatest need in relation to God’s truth, is to embrace it, grasp it firmly by faith and live by it in our hearts.