Check out this video of our party Sunday evening in the home of our Burmese friends, after caroling (in the drizzle) through the Sailboat Bay Apartments. Featuring songs in Ciin (from Burma), Swahili, and Tamil.
(Note: You have to be logged in to Facebook to view the video).
Don’t miss this excellent video from Desiring God about the beginning of the DG internet ministry. The video features my friend Moe Bergeron, a bi-vocational pastor in New England. It is not far-fetched to say that were it not for Moe, there would be no Desiring God Community Church in Charlotte.
Moe began posting Pipers Notes on the fledgling internet in 1995. Very shortly thereafter I found the site via some early search engine. I had never read anything by John Piper before. My brother-in-law Ed, however, had been extolling Piper so I recognized the name. I found his sermons exceptionally helpful, and returned regularly to see if Piper had preached on passages I was about to tackle.
At the time, Moe organized the sermons only by date. There was no index by Scripture passage, limiting its usefulness to me. So I contacted Moe and asked him if someone was working on such an index. He said a few folks had approached him indicating they might produce one, but no one had actually done it. I completed it over the next couple of weeks. Moe was surprised and delighted. He and I continued a correspondence, and we met a few times in the late 90s at conferences in New England. We immediately clicked, finding a real kinship in the God-centered Gospel.
Then, in 2000, after becoming certain that our Lord was calling me into full-time ministry, I wrote Bethlehem Baptist, asking if I might spend 3 months at the church in preparation. No one at Bethlehem knew me; nevertheless, they said yes. I later learned that it was my work on the Pipers Notes Scripture index that proved I was not just some random person trying to get close to an increasingly well-known preacher, but already was part of this God-centered movement.
So I thank God for Moe Bergeron, his vision for free resources on the internet, his boldness in approaching Piper, and his faithfulness to his calling. And I stand amazed at our sovereign God who weaves our lives together into the tapestry of His Kingdom for the glory of His Name.
Should you read the Bible?
Jesus says, “Blessed . . . are those who hear the Word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:28)
How will reading the Bible bless you?
Paul writes, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
How then should you read God’s Word?
Those same verses from Paul imply that we should read all of it, since every part of it is profitable.
Surely also you should read it daily; in addition you should read it submissively. In Proverbs 8, personified Wisdom cries out:
“Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it. Blessed is the one who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors. For whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the LORD, but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death“ (Proverbs 8:33-36, emphasis added).
But what does this look like on a day to day and year to year basis?
If we are to read the Bible daily, with a goal of reading it in its entirety, we will need a plan. I first followed an annual, comprehensive Bible reading plan in 1984. This plan was purely chronological; I began reading with Genesis 1 on January 1 and finished with Revelation 22 on December 31, but in between the plan guided me through Scripture in the order in which events and prophecies occurred. This was eye-opening to me. Though I had grown up in church and in fact had read all of Scripture previously, I had never before seen the overall flow of God’s plan of redemption. In particular, the writings of prophets like Ezekiel and Jeremiah became much more meaningful to me as I read them in conjunction with the historical books. In addition, many psalms came to life as I read them in the context of surrounding events.
I followed chronological plans several more times in subsequent years. However, there are significant weaknesses in following such a plan repeatedly for your daily devotional reading. First of all, you read nothing from the New Testament for more than nine months of the year. Second, a strictly chronological plan jumps around in the four Gospels. The reader therefore misses what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John communicate through the way they each order and select from the events of Jesus’ life. Finally, following chronological plans requires a lot of page flipping.
So twelve years ago I developed the Bible Unity Reading Plan, which yields the benefits of a chronological approach while avoiding these weaknesses. The Bible Unity Plan has two tracks for each day. The longer track – the left hand column in each day’s reading – is chronological. The second track, in the right column, is a shorter reading from another part of Scripture. This second track includes Matthew, Mark, and John – read straight through – and several epistles while the chronological track makes its way through the Old Testament; it then focuses on Psalms and Proverbs while the chronological track takes you through the remaining books of the New Testament. And with only two passages to read most days, there is minimal page-flipping. The Plan also follows a helpful feature of the Discipleship Journal Bible Reading Plan, scheduling only 25 days of reading per month. This allows you to read something else on Sundays (which I like to do), or to catch up easily if you miss an occasional day.
I have used this plan (or a variant of it) every year from 2001 to the present. I enjoy beginning each New Year with Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1-3:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
I also enjoy the 14th reading in November, which pairs the message of Acts 15 – those from other nations need not become Jewish to be saved – with the foundation of that message in Psalm 67: “Let the peoples praise you, O God; let all the peoples praise you! Let the nations be glad and sing for joy!”
In 2001 – the first time I read through the Bible following the plan – I was astounded by God’s providence. Living in West Africa, on September 11 we did not hear about the destruction of the Twin Towers until late afternoon. That evening I turned to the 11th reading for September – and read three times of the heart-rending but long-prophesied destruction of Jerusalem from 2 Kings 25, Jeremiah 39, and Jeremiah 52.
Finally, every year I look forward to the final day’s readings, which sum up the entire storyline of the Bible:
“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” . . . The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. . . . He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! (Revelation 22:12-13, 17, 20)
Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all deeps, fire and hail, snow and mist, stormy wind fulfilling his word! Mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars! Beasts and all livestock, creeping things and flying birds! Kings of the earth and all peoples, princes and all rulers of the earth! Young men and maidens together, old men and children! Let them praise the name of the LORD, for his name alone is exalted; his majesty is above earth and heaven (Psalm 148:7-13).
I expect to follow this plan, and to finish each year reading those words, as long as I live. I encourage you to join me.
John Stott died Wednesday at the age of 90. He was a faithful expositor of the Word of God, a preacher and witness to the Gospel, and a teacher and advocate for pastors from poor countries around the world.
I met him in the early nineties when the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship at Williams College brought him to campus. In a Q and A with the few Christian faculty on campus, I asked him about his record of faithfulness over decades, and how we too might achieve that. I had not used the word “sin” in my question. His answer was direct; with eyes flashing, he said something like this: “The real question is: How do I overcome sin in my life? If we coddle ourselves and allow ourselves to fall into laziness and indiscipline, we will not be faithful. I face the same temptations and have the same sin nature that you have. Faithfulness results from confronting, battling, and, by God’s grace, overcoming those temptations on a daily, indeed hourly, basis.”
So that’s my first lesson to take away from John Stott: Be strong in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Fight sin. You are a child of light – live like it!
Second:
Stott was an expository preacher when many were teaching that such preaching was passé. My pastor in California, Ray Stedman, worked together with Stott in the seventies and eighties to advance expository preaching in the UK, the US, and around the world. At Stedman’s recommendation, one of the first books I read on preaching was Stott’s Between Two Worlds. This paragraph superbly encapsulates the biblical rationale for preaching:
How dare we speak, if God has not spoken? By ourselves we have nothing to say. To address a congregation without any assurance that we are bearers of a divine message would be the height of arrogance and folly. It is when we are convinced that God is light (and so wanting to be known), that God has acted (and thus made himself known), and that God has spoken (and thus explained his actions), that we must speak and cannot remain silent. As Amos expressed it, ‘The lion has roared; who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken; who can but prophesy?’ (3:8) . . . God has spoken. If we are not sure of this, it would be better to keep our mouth shut. Once we are persuaded that God has spoken, however, then we too must speak. A compulsion rests upon us. Nothing and nobody will be able to silence us. (1982 edition, p. 177).
So that is the second lesson from his life: Preach the Word! Don’t preach your opinions. Don’t preach cute stories about your children. You have nothing of eternal value to say except what He has said. God has spoken – and if you are called to be His herald, you must speak.
Third: At DGCC, we emphasize that preaching is not separate from worship but a necessary and integral component of worship. That emphasis comes to us from the Bible, via John Stott. He wrote in Between Two Worlds:
Word and worship belong indissolubly to each other. All worship is an intelligent and loving response to the revelation of God, because it is the adoration of his Name. Therefore acceptable worship is impossible without preaching. For preaching is making known the Name of the Lord, and worship is praising the name of the Lord made known. Far from being an alien intrusion into worship, the reading and preaching of the Word are actually indispensable to it. The two cannot be divorced. Indeed, it is their unnatural divorce which accounts for the low level of so much contemporary worship. Our worship is poor because our knowledge of God is poor, and our knowledge of God is poor because our preaching is poor. But when the Word of God is expounded in its fulness, and the congregation begin to glimpse the glory of the living God, they bow down in solemn awe and joyful wonder before his throne. It is preaching which accomplishes this, the proclamation of the Word of God in the power of the Spirit of God. That is why preaching is unique and irreplaceable. (1982 edition, p. 95-96).
So the third lesson: Fight tooth and nail against the prevalent attitude, “We have a time of worship, and then we have the sermon.” Pay attention to the public reading of Scripture. Pay attention to the lyrics of the songs, for they too constitute “making known the Name of the Lord.” Make the service a unity in which reading, singing, praying, and preaching all come together to edify and stir the people of God to express joy in the person of God.
Finally, like Francis Schaeffer, John Stott was an accomplished but humble man. This came out in part through his devoting the bulk of the last twenty years of his life to serving pastors in poor countries around the world. As the Sri Lankan Ajith Fernando writes:
Here was humility personified …. We are grateful that he gave so much time coming to the poorer nations not with some huge program which would impress the whole world, but simply to teach us the Bible.
That is my fourth lesson: Serve graciously, lovingly, humbly, not designing some grand program that bears my imprint, but opening up the Word here and around the world to those who hunger for such teaching, and who will in turn teach it faithfully to their friends, their families, their congregations, and the unreached around them. Teach the Word with all authority – knowing that there are children of God listening who far surpass me in godliness and Christlikeness.
So I thank God for the life of this servant of the church. May we imitate him as he imitated Christ. And may our Lord be pleased to raise up – from Charlotte, from Victoria, from Andhra Pradesh, from Mayasilla, from east Asia – the next generation of John Stotts, who will fight sin diligently, who will preach the Word faithfully, who will worship God biblically, and who will serve the Lord humbly.
A Review of
For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper,
edited by Sam Storms and Justin Taylor (Crossway, 2010).
Reviewed by Coty Pinckney, Desiring God Community Church, Charlotte NC
“God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.” This central truth of Christian Hedonism summarizes John Piper’s life and ministry. When we want to see how this truth is worked out in missions and preaching and marriage we turn to Let the Nations Be Glad! and The Supremacy of God in Preaching and This Momentary Marriage – or to Piper’s thirty years of sermons, all available online.
But John Piper is not alone in highlighting the biblical centrality of spreading a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples. In For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper – a book presented to Piper at the 2010 Desiring God National Conference – Justin Taylor and Sam Storms bring together more than two dozen scholars and pastors to write about Piper’s ministry and to extend his thought. The result is a helpful and challenging volume which displays both the great influence Piper has had, and the biblical moorings of Christian Hedonism.
The book has seven sections (after an initial note of apology to Piper for a book in his honor):
The result is a volume particularly valuable for both pastors and serious students of the Word. Those who are basically familiar with Piper will value the personal insights of his friends and colleagues, and will profit from the attempts to extend his thought by scholars. This book is not an introduction to Christian Hedonism – Desiring God and, even better, When I Don’t Desire God serve that purpose well – but rather an attempt to examine the implications of Christian Hedonism to theology, to the Christian life, and to pastoral ministry. With that understanding, it succeeds marvelously.
Highlights of the book include:
The heart of the gospel is what God has done in Jesus, supremely in his death and resurrection. Period. It is not personal testimony about our repentance; it is not a few words about our faith response; it is not obedience; it is not the cultural mandate or any other mandate. Repentance, faith, and obedience are of course essential, and must be rightly related in the light of Scripture, but they are not the good news. The gospel is the good news about what God has done (p. 162).
Worldly wisdom knows what distress and weakness and failure are, but it does not know the godlessness of man. And so it does not know that man is destroyed only by his sin and can be healed only by forgiveness. Only the Christian knows this. In the presence of a psychiatrist I can only be a sick man; in the presence of a Christian brother I can dare to be a sinner. . . . The psychiatrist views me as if there were no God. The brother views me as I am before the judging and merciful God in the Cross of Jesus Christ (p. 429, quoted from Life Together.)
How could this excellent volume have been even better? Here are four considerations:
First, we honor those whose ideas we take seriously – seriously enough to cause us to think deeply about the subject. That thinking may lead to areas of disagreement, yet that very disagreement honors the author. Other than Mark Talbot’s chapter, the book contains little of this type of analysis. More could have been included. For example, Justin Taylor and Thabiti Anyabwile, in their chapters on Piper’s preaching on the sanctity of life and racial harmony, could profitably have asked: If this type of preaching is exemplary, why do none of the other pastors who contributed to this volume follow Piper’s pattern of preaching one sermon on each of these topics annually? As editor, Taylor could have pursued this line of questioning – and the answers would have been informative.
Second, Scott Hafemann’s contribution is, in many ways, exceptionally helpful and deserving of inclusion in the list of highlights. He walks the reader through Scripture, looking at the concept of the Kingdom of God as manifested from creation to universal worship in the new heavens and new earth. But his definition of Kingdom is problematic – and this problem is especially curious in a volume that honors John Piper. Hafemann defines the central theme of Scripture as “The historical revelation of God’s glory as King through the obedience of his people” (p. 237, his emphasis). “Obedience” must be replaced with “joyful obedience.” Add that word, and this sentence is consistent with Piper and Scripture; leave it out, and the sentence is terribly misleading. Hafemann’s original sentence sounds as if God commands duty rather than delight. Indeed, many today understand obedience to God to be a teeth-clenched, nose-holding, checking-off-a-list rule-keeping that they must do, contrary to their own joy. Piper has shown that obedience of this sort – obedience a la the elder son – is not glorifying to God. Obedience a la the Pharisees is not a picture of the Kingdom. Hafemann could well argue that teeth-clenching obedience is not biblical, and thus not what he intends by the term. Fair enough. But his terminology too easily lends itself to this misinterpretation. Whether we like it or not, in our society the word “obedience” has these connotations of perfunctory rule-keeping. And that has never been God’s object.
Third, the book would have benefited from some interactions among the various authors. For example, Beale and Grudem both interact with texts on justification by faith and their relationship to the way God looks upon the obedience of His people. Hafemann also highlights the centrality of our (joyful!) obedience. Seeing how they would respond to each other would have been valuable. While the challenges of enabling such interaction are large in a book of this type (as opposed to a conference volume), the benefits also might have been high.
Finally, the lack of a chapter on missions to unreached peoples for the glory of God is glaring. Perhaps the editors asked Ralph Winter to write such a chapter, and that remained unfinished at his death. But Let the Nations Be Glad is one of Piper’s most powerful books; indeed, the increasingly influential course “Perspectives on the World Christian Movement” was turned upside down by the ideas of chapter 1 of that volume. Furthermore, one of the key distinctives of Bethlehem as a church is having missions at its core. This emphasis appears too rarely in a book devoted to honoring Piper’s influence. Should the Lord tarry for 100 years, I suspect Piper’s impact on the goal of missions and on reaching the unreached will be his greatest legacy. Furthermore, such a legacy would give him personally the greatest of all joys.
Nevertheless, this is an exceptionally valuable book. Many thanks to the editors and authors for their labors to produce this volume and to keep it secret from Piper until the presentation. Surely this too will serve to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ. Let the nations be glad!
[This is an excerpt from The God Who is There by D.A. Carson, Chapter 2, “The God Who Does Not Wipe Out Rebels.” – Coty]
According to the last book of the Bible, Satan himself stands behind this serpent in some sense (see Rev. 12). . . . Here we are also told that he was made by God: “the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made” (Gen. 3:1). In other words, the Bible does not set Satan or the serpent up as a kind of anti-God who stands over against God as his equal but polar opposite. . . . [Instead,] the picture painted by the first sentence of this chapter is that even Satan himself is a dependent being, a created being. . . .
We are told . . . that he was the most crafty of the wild animals that God had made. In many sectors of the English speaking world, the word crafty suggests surreptitiousness, sneakiness. . . . But the word that is used here in Hebrew can be either positive or negative, depending on the context. In many places it is rendered something like “prudence.” . . . I suspect that what is being said is that the serpent, Satan, was crowned with more prudence than all the other creatures but in his rebelling the prudence became craftiness; the very same virtue that was such a strength became twisted into a vice. . . .
The serpent approaches the woman (what the modes of communication were, I have no idea) and avoids offering her a straight denial or a direct temptation. He begins instead with a question: “Did God really say that? Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” Notice what he is doing. He expresses just the right amount of skepticism, a slightly incredulous “Can you really believe that God would say that?” – like an employee asking, “Can you believe what the boss has done this time?” The difference is that the person whose word is being questioned is the maker, the designer, God the sovereign. In some ways the question is both disturbing and flattering. It smuggles in the assumption that we have the ability, even the right, to stand in judgment of what God has said.
Then the devil offers exaggeration. God did forbid one fruit, but the way the serpent frames his question –“Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”- casts God as the cosmic party pooper: “God basically exists to spoil my fun. . . . ”
The woman replies with a certain amount of insight, wisdom, and grace – at least initially. She corrects him on his facts, on his exaggeration: “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,” she insists (3:2). Then she adds, still correctly, “But God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden’” (3:3, referring back to 2:17). His exaggeration is neatly set aside. But then she adds her own exaggeration. She adds, “and you must not touch it, or you will die” (3:3, emphasis added). God had not said anything about not touching it. It is almost as if the prohibition to eat has got under her skin, making her sufficiently riled up that she has to establish the meanness of the prohibition. The first sin is a sin against the goodness of God.
We gain a little insight into the terrible slippage going on in the woman’s mind if we conjure up what she should have said. Perhaps something like this: “Are you out of your skull? Look around! This is Eden; this is paradise! God knows exactly what he is doing. He made everything; he even made me. My husband loves me and I love him – and we are both intoxicated with the joy and holiness of our beloved Maker. My very being resonates with the desire to reflect something of his spectacular glory back to him. How could I possibly question his wisdom and love? He knows, in a way I never can, exactly what is best – and I trust him absolutely. And you want me to doubt him or question the purity of his motives and character? How idiotic is that? Besides, what possible good can come of a creature defying his Creator and Sovereign? Are you out of your skull?”
Instead, the woman flirts with the possibility that God is . . . bent on limiting the pleasure of his creatures.
Then comes the first overt contradiction of God. The serpent declares, “You will not certainly die” (3:4). The first doctrine to be denied, according to the Bible, is the doctrine of judgment. In many disputes about God and religion this pattern often repeats itself, because if you can get rid of that one teaching, then rebellion has no adverse consequences, and so you are free to do anything.
Far from recognizing the threat of judgment, the serpent holds out that rebellion offers special insight, even divine insight: “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (3:5). Here is the big ploy, the total temptation. The heart of the vicious deceitfulness central to what the serpent promises is that what he says is partly true and totally false. It is true, after all: her eyes will be opened, and in some sense she will see the difference between good and evil. She will determine it for herself. . . . (3:22).
And yet this is an entirely subversive promise. God knows good and evil with the knowledge of omniscience; he knows all that has been, all that is, all that will be, all that might be under different circumstances – he knows it all, including what evil is. But the woman is going to learn about evil by personal experience; she is going to learn about it by becoming evil. . . .
Indeed, the expression in Hebrew, “the knowledge of good and evil,” is often used in places where to have the knowledge of good and evil is to have the ability to pronounce what is good and pronounce what is evil. That’s what God had done. . . . (1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). Now this woman wants this God-like function. . . .
To be like God, to achieve this by defying him, perhaps even outwitting him – this is an intoxicating program. This means that God himself must from now on be regarded, consciously or not, as at least a rival and maybe an enemy: “I pronounce my own good, thank you very much, and I do not need you to tell me what I may or may not do.” . . .
We should not think that the serpent’s temptation is nothing more than an invitation to break a rule, arbitrary or otherwise. That is what a lot of people think that “sin” is: just breaking a rule. What is at stake here is something deeper, bigger, sadder, uglier, more heinous. It is a revolution. It makes me god and thus de-gods God.
From D.A. Carson, The God Who is There: Finding Your Place in God’s Story (Baker, 2010), p. 30-33.
[Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) was a German theologian and pastor who stood bravely against Hitler and the Nazis’ attempts to co-opt the church for political purposes. He was imprisoned and then, shortly before the Allies took Berlin, executed by the Nazi regime. In light of last Sunday’s sermon on the Sixth Commandment, Bonhoeffer’s clear teaching on loyalty to Christ above loyalty to state, his leanings toward pacifism, and his eventual involvement in a plot to assassinate Hitler are thought provoking. I highly recommend Eric Metaxas’ new biography, from which this quote is taken (p. 136-37). Bonhoeffer is writing in 1936 to his brother-in-law, who did not hold a high view of Scripture – Coty]
First of all I will confess quite simply – I believe that the Bible alone is the answer to all our questions, and that we need only to ask repeatedly and a little humbly, in order to receive this answer. One cannot simply read the Bible, like other books. One must be prepared really to enquire of it. Only thus will it reveal itself. Only if we expect from it the ultimate answer, shall we receive it. That is because in the bible God speaks to us. And one cannot simply think about God in one’s own strength, one has to enquire of him. Only if we seek him, will he answer us. Of course it is also possible to read the Bible like any other book, that is to say from the point of view of textual criticism, etc.; there is nothing to be said against that. Only that that is not the method which will reveal to us the heart of the Bible, but only the surface, just as we do not grasp the words of someone we love by taking them to bits, but by simply receiving them, so that for days they go on lingering in our minds, simply because they are the words of a person we love; and just as these words reveal more and more of the person who said them as we go on, like Mary, “pondering them in our heart,” so it will be with the words of the Bible. Only if we will venture to enter into the words of the Bible, as though in them this God were speaking to us who loves us and does not will to leave us alon[e] with our questions, only so shall we learn to rejoice in the Bible . . . .
If it is I who determine where God is to be found, then I shall always find a God who corresponds to me in some way, who is obliging, who is connected with my own nature. But if God determines where he is to be found, then it will be in a place which is not at all congenial to me. This place is the Cross of Christ. And whoever would find him must go to the foot of the Cross, as the Sermon on the Mount commands. This is not according to our nature at all, it is entirely contrary to it. But this is the message of the Bible, not only in the New but also in the Old Testament . . . .
And I would like to tell you now quite personally: since I have learnt to read the Bible in this way – and this has not been for so very long – it becomes every day more wonderful to me. I read it in the morning and the evening, often during the day as well, and every day I consider a text which I have chosen for the whole week, and try to sink deeply into it, so as really to hear what it is saying. I know that without this I could not live properly any longer.
It is indeed a most lamentable consequence of the practice of regarding religion as a compilation of statutes, and not as an internal principle, that it soon comes to be considered as being conversant about external actions, rather than about habits of mind. This sentiment sometimes has even the hardiness to insinuate and maintain itself under the guise of extraordinary concern for practical religion; but it soon discovers the falsehood of this pretension, and betrays its real nature. The expedient indeed of attaining to superiority in practice, by not wasting any of the attention on the internal principles from which alone practice can flow, is about as reasonable, and will answer about as well, as the economy of the architect who should account it mere prodigality to expend any of his materials in laying foundations, from an idea that they might be more usefully applied to the raising of the superstructure. We know what would be the fate of such an edifice.
It is indeed true, and a truth never to be forgotten, that all pretensions to internal principles of holiness are vain, when they are contradicted by the conduct; but it is no less true, that the only effectual way of improving the latter, is by a vigilant attention to the former. It was therefore our blessed Savior’s injunction, “Make the tree good” as the necessary means of obtaining good fruit; and the holy Scriptures abound in admonitions, to let it be our chief business to cultivate our hearts with all diligence, to examine into their state with impartiality, and watch over them with continual care. Indeed it is the heart which constitutes the man; and external actions derive their whole character and meaning from the motives and dispositions of which they are the indications. . . .
Yet though this be a truth so obvious, so established, that to have insisted on it may seem almost needless; it is a truth of which we are apt to lose sight in the review of our religious character, and with which the habit of considering religion as consisting rather in external actions than internal principles, is at direct and open war
Another excerpt from William Wilberforce, A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes of This Country Contrasted With Real Christianity (1797). The book is available in its entirety at the link. Here is a three-page pdf file of this excerpt, plus last week’s excerpt plus surrounding text. Note that, as was common in his day, when Wilberforce uses the word “religion,” he most often is referring solely to Christianity.
Justin Taylor is posting fifteen questions and answers excerpted from an excellent article by David Powlison, “I Am Motivated When I Feel Desire” (published in Seeing with New Eyes: Counseling and the Human Condition through the Lends of Scripture (P and R Publishing, 2003). The last three will be posted in the next couple of days. Here are the questions, with links for the first twelve. Highly recommended:
1. How does the New Testament commonly talk about what’s wrong with people?
2. Why do people do specific ungodly things?
3. But what’s wrong with wanting things that seem good?
4. Why don’t people see this as the problem?
5. Is the phrase “lusts of the flesh” useful in practical life and counseling?
6. Does each person have one “root sin”?
7. How can you tell if a desire is inordinate rather than natural?
8. Is it even right to talk about the heart, since the Bible teaches that the heart is unknowable to anyone but God? (1 Sam. 16:7; Jer. 17:9)
9. Doesn’t the word lusts properly apply only to bodily appetites: the pleasures and comforts of sex, food, drink, rest, exercise, health?
10. Can desires be habitual?
11. What about fears? They seem as important in human motivation as cravings.
12. Do people ever have conflicting motives?
13. How does thinking about lusts relate to other ways of talking about sin, such as “sin nature,” “self,” “pride,” “autonomy,” “unbelief,” and “self-centeredness”?
14. In counseling, do you just confront a person with his sinful cravings?
15. Can you change what you want?
God requires to set up his throne in the heart, and to reign in it without a rival: if he be kept out of his right, it matters not by what competitor. The revolt may be more avowed or more secret; it may be the treason of deliberate preference, or of inconsiderate levity; we may be the subjects of a more or of a less creditable master; we may be employed in services more gross or more refined; but whether the slaves of avarice, of sensuality, of dissipation, of sloth, or the votaries of ambition, of taste, or of fashion; whether supremely governed by vanity and self-love, by the desire of literary fame or of military glory, we are alike estranged from the dominion of our rightful Sovereign. Let not this seem a harsh position; it can appear so only from not adverting to what was shown to be the essential nature of true religion. He who bowed the knee to the god of medicine or of eloquence, was no less an idolater than the worshiper of the deified patrons of lewdness or of theft. In the several cases which have been specified, the external acts indeed are different, but in principle the disaffection is the same; and we must prepare to meet the punishment of rebels on that tremendous day, when all false colors shall be done away, and, there being no longer any room for the evasions of worldly sophistry, . . . “that which is often highly esteemed amongst men, shall appear to have been abomination in the sight of God.”
William Wilberforce, A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes of This Country Contrasted With Real Christianity (1797). The book is available in its entirety at the link. Here is a three-page pdf file of this excerpt plus surrounding text. Note that, as was common in his day, when Wilberforce uses the word “religion,” he most often is referring solely to Christianity.
Coty Pinckney