We have moved to www.theprognosis.org

I ‘ve been thinking quite a lot about a key event in history recently. An event of such proportions that had it happened slightly differently, the modern world would be a vastly different place.

What got me going down this train of thought was a chance viewing of the BBC’s ‘Luther’ drama-documentary, concerning the life and times of Martin Luther, the man who stood up against the world. It was a fairly balanced documentary in some ways, and somehow managed to capture something of the spirit of the age in which Luther lived.

 Now if you’ve turned up on this page looking for the civil rights campagner, sorry. You’ve got the wrong guy, but keep reading, because the bravery of this Martin was possibly even greater than that of the political activist.

Anyway, to continue, one particular flash of brilliance which caught my eye in this man’s life, was that great showdown at the Diet of Worms, so often portrayed as the flashpoint of the reformation. (incidentally, for those MLK fans who are still perservering here, a Diet was a political council of rulers and dignitaries, and Worms is a place. this is not some obscure, New Age weight loss plan.)

One cannot quite imagine what was going through Luther’s mind as he determined whether to respond to Charles V’s demand that he attend.  A comparison with the Garden of Gethsemane would be inaccurate, as the two are beyond comparing, however the weight of responsibility which Luther bore, must have felt similar to him. To live or to die, was surely his dilemma. To stand up to kings, princes, authorities, an Emporer, a Pope, or to live a quiet life, were his only options. To speak the truth of the Word of God, or to ignore the Word of God, were perhaps the only two avenues he could see.

The most important and far reaching decision which Luther made, was not to say ‘I will not recant’, but that initial decision to attend the Diet. He knew what awaited him, he knew the church’s demand that he recant many of his writings, he was all to aware of the powers that would be at this Diet, some cruel, some fair. Yet still, against the advice of his friends, Luther set off on that long journey across Germany, knowing in his heart that he would not recant, that he would rather please God than man.

Here I stand, I can do no other. Those famous words attributed to Luther, were surely cast in stone long before the Diet. But what a stand to make, here I stand, on the truth and seeking the will of God. Here I stand, resisting the temptation of an easy life. Here I stand,  my life is not my own, it belongs to Jesus Christ, I can do no other.

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!

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.

In my research for an essay on what a preacher should wear, I happened to stumble across a guy who has now become my new favourite reformer (not that I had one before!) His full name is Andreas Bodenstein of Karlstadt, but most people just call him as Karlstadt. If you haven’t guessed from his name, he was German, and he was an Evangelical around at the same time as Martin Luther (who is usually credited with starting the reformation).

Interestingly Karlstadt is the person who gave Luther his PhD. And in fact, before Luther famously nailed his 95 theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Karlstadt had already nailed his 151 theses to the door of the church! Karlstadt and Luther had a bit of a falling out and up until recently, he’s been painted in a bad light because of that. One of the reason they fell out is what interests me.

On Christmas day, 1521, Luther was away (in prison I think) and Karlstadt was left in charge of the church they were both at. Being the radical reformer that he was, he decided to make a few changes. Karlstadt decided to preach in his normal clothing and since he was an academic that was his university gown. He also offered the Lord’s Supper to the normal people, a practice which had ceased, he held the service in German (the common language of Germany at that time) and didn’t do all those Catholic mass ritual stuff that was disputed at that time. He also taught that ministers can marry, and practiced his preaching by marrying in the January. When Luther came back, he was annoyed and changed everything back to how it was saying it was too much change. A few years later, though, Luther went on to wear the gown himself and Karlstadt decided that actually the gown wasn’t enough and went on to wear peasants clothing, the equivalent today of preaching in your trainers!

The thing Karlstadt is criticised for is that he moved too fast and was too much of a radical. (Luther is criticised for not moving fast enough!) And if I’ve learnt anything from chatting to my Grandma about my Grandpa, Hugh Morgan, (Minister of Malpas Road Evangelical Church for a number of years) it’s that you can’t move a church on unless you take the people with you. It’s that tension of going forward and doing what’s best and right but doing it at a pace that’s going to be helpful to those already in your church. I guess wisdom is the key, and I know I’m going to need plenty of that if and when the time comes!