Primary and Secondary Truth

"Redneck" Christianity
Much mischief is done in the church by a simple failure to distinguish between primary and secondary truths. Believers divide themselves into different groups, divisions open up and needless red ink is spilled.

This is how the mistake is made: Step 1: someone says "everything in the Bible is true", by which they mean "all of my interpretations of Scripture are the truth." Step 2: they draw a circle around those beliefs. Step 3: if anyone disagrees with those beliefs they are declared to be in error. Step 4:  the evangelical Christian world is divided into those "with us" and "those against us" or "carnal Christians" vs "true Christians" or even "true believers (us)" and "false Christians (them)".

The consequences of this process are pride, division and unnecessary strife. 

Let's call this, for want of a better title, "redneck Christianity" because it arises out of a failure - or refusal - to "get a life", to broaden one's experience base, to talk to other (true) Christians outside of one small tiny grouping, to read anything beyond the fixed or allowed texts of a narrow grouping or denomination.

Redneck Christianity  is isolated in a tiny theological and cultural ghetto.

There is something laudable about redneck Christianity, particularly in step 1a: its desire to be fundamental and faithful to Scripture. Where it strays: it draws a circle around what it thinks and neglects the opinion of the rest of the (true) body of Christ, both today and historically. Redneck Christians will typically be ignorant of church history and ignorant of the rest of Christian opinion in the world today.

Primary Truths and Secondary Truths
This ghetto mentality has never been the hallmark of historic Christianity. From the very first centuries Christians have recognised that there are truths upon which all believers can - and must - agree, and truths on which we can disagree. This was the reason for the ancient creeds: the attempt to establish and defend central or essential  truths, as opposed to secondary ones.

But how do we distinguish a primary truth? How do we establish what a primary, non-negotiable truth is?

Four helps...

(1) Is the truth repeated so many times in Scripture that to deny it is to deny Scripture? So the doctrine of creation, that God created the universe, is repeated so many times in the OT and the NT, that to deny it is to deny Scripture. Some 'truths' are presented only once in Scripture and then in such a way that certain or single interpretation has proved elusive. For example, Paul's teaching on head covering. The Holy Spirit must have his purposes in this 'ambiguity'  - perhaps His purpose is to humble us.

(2) Is the truth said to be fundamental and central? The apostle John, for example, says that someone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh is antichrist (1 John 4) and not from God; and the apostle Paul calls certain doctrines "of first importance" (1 Corinthians 15).

(3) Is the truth said to be central to salvation? For example, Paul says that if you don't believe in the resurrection your faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15).

(4) What has the church in history and today said about this doctrine? Have good Christians taken different sides? I am not here thinking of "liberal" Christians who don't take the Bible seriously, I am thinking only of the opinion of Bible-believing Christians.

Using this line of reasoning, we soon discover two interesting results

First, some 'truths' are relegated to secondary (by which we do not mean unimportant) because they are rarely mentioned in Scripture, or not said to be of first importance, and so on.

Second, and vitally, many of the primary doctrines have secondary aspects! So the return of Christ is primary, but exactly how he will return is secondary. The work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer is primary, but exactly how he works - for example what gifts are operating today - is disputed. So we end up with a pie chart  like the one shown where the primary doctrine (shown in red) "Jesus Christ will return" has an associated secondary doctrine (shown in yellow) which is about the millennium: "he will come before" / "he will come after" / "there is no" millennium.

Crucially, if we think in these terms, we will regard as true believers all those who hold to the primary doctrines even though they differ on matters of secondary importance. We'll love them, be able to work with them and serve with them.

When your son goes under the knife - a dad's experience

New experiences all the time
One reason we should remain 'completely humble' is this: we don't know very much, and we haven't experienced very much. Think of the vast number and range of human experiences possible, from bereavement to divorce, from blindness to Crohn's disease, from addiction to abandonment, and so on, ad infinitium.  And now ask: how many you have personally passed through?

What, 1%? 0.1%? How little we have experienced of human life.

For this reason, we also ought to refrain from judging one another, for we may not have a clue what  that person is passing through. I am reminded of the (Inuit?) saying, "Don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins."

We know all this, of course in our heads.....

A child under the knife

It is one thing to be in hospital for a personal operation as an adult, but quite a different experience as a parent of a child. As a general rule my family of six have enjoyed remarkably good health, for which we thank God. We had an early scare with our firstborn, who had pyloric stenosis as a baby and was only a shade away from death; but apart from the normal scrapes of family life the Lord has granted good health.

Two weeks ago our youngest son, eleven-year old Caleb, came home from school with a stomach ache and within 24 hours was admitted to hospital with a burst appendix. Then two weeks later he was re-admitted with complications and two additional times he had to go into theatre.

We who are ignorant about medicine can perhaps react to such events with 'fear of the unknown' but here are some of the new experiences Yvonne and I have passed through over the past few weeks.... 

The last kiss?
I remember when giving him a kiss as he left us for theatre wondering if that would be the last kiss. As much as we had prayed for a 'succesful operation', by which we meant 'returned to us in good health' we know that God is sovereign and we must always must say 'your will be done'.

Trust - placed Where?

When you take your loved one into hospital, and especially when you  deliver them to theatre, you entrust their lives into the hands of complete strangers. How trustworthy are they, you always think and ask yourself! One medic sensing our apprehension said something like, "Don't worry he's in good hands." At which point I thought (but did not say) "As good as any of these medics may be, I am not putting my trust in them, my trust is in God alone." We can sleep easy only when we say - and mean "My soul finds rest in God alone." (Psalm 62)

Why was the first operation not 'successful'?
I hate league tables, I hate the ridiculous statistics governments force upon schools and hospitals and police departments. Why? Because it turns the common man into more of a judge than he already is; it makes institutions more jumpy; turns teachers and clinicians into amateur lawyers more concerned with how others think they are doing their job than how they are actually doing it. There are 1000 other ways of encouraging standards (one: praise them for all the good stuff they do and encourage every patient, student, parent, etc., to do the same: we are planning to write a card of thanks). 

This judgemental spirit inculcated by successive governments has clearly worked on me, because I found myself, for a moment, asking "Why did he have to return to hospital? Did they 'fail' first time round?"

But why on earth should we think like that? Why should the first operation have removed everything? With a messy burst appendix spattering gunge all over the insides, it is amazing that the first surgeon - to whom we are very very grateful - got out as much as he did (he spent well over a hundred minutes cleaning up the mess). This is surely the only proper way to think. It's amazing that Caleb didn't die of peritonitis (the old-fashioned painful way of dying from a burst appendix - only 60 years ago, my own father almost died from this condition). I read on one medical website that until about 1900 appendicitis was non-operable.

How often and passionate do we pray the more important prayers?
Praying for Caleb's physical recovery has reminded me of the all together more important prayers for our children, that they might know God, trust in Christ and live for him all their earthly days. Do we pray for their spiritual wellbeing as much as their physical needs?

Why didn't God answer a little boy's  prayers?
When the surgeon told us that Caleb would have to go to theatre again he was heartbroken, because he had prayed three prayers (1) he would not have to go back to hospital, (2) he wouldn't be in the same bed if he did - for memory's sake, and (3) if he went back in, he wouldn't have an operation. (The main reason Caleb has become fearful of hospitals is that when the drain was removed first time round it was a very painful procedure, next week he'll have it removed in theatre. Here again, we could be judgemental about the nurses about the way they removed the drain, but who is to say they made a mistake? And even if they did, isn't that what we all do from time to time?). Prayer (2) was answered by a roof leak, but not prayer (1) nor (3).

I had to take Caleb aside and explain that the prayers we pray are always ones of ease and comfort - of course, none of us want to suffer. But in the infinite and good purposes of God, he does not always answer prayers in that direction. For some reason, in a broken world, the path to healing, the path to blessing is marked by suffering. The cross and the resurrection set up for us the model, or paradigm, for this way of thinking - no glory without suffering.

So I had to explain that whenever we ask God for things we must always add "if this is your will" - or else we are treating God as if he were our servant, and our plans as if they were the best plans.

Thank you for the medicine
With tiny insignificant niggles (such as car parking charges), the treatment we received was nothing short of wonderful. We plan to write and thank the ward and surgeons and staff, who from the highly skilled porters to the highly paid anaesthetists and surgeons did a magnificent job. Having been treated recently in an African hospital - wonderfully I might add, but basically too - we simply do not realise what wonderful care we have in the UK/West. If only as much breath was put into praise as it is in moaning, what even better places they would be.

And now that we have a new understanding of hospitals and operations and the like, God has given us a new sympathy and compassion for those who suffer in this way, and new prayers for the sick.

How to choose a (useful) bible commentary

What would Jesus say to....
I am working my way through a preaching series on five people from John's Gospel who Jesus met. I am asking the question, What would Jesus say to someone like them, should He meet them today?

And to prepare for these sermons I am using four commentaries. Three by pastor-teachers and one by a scholar-teacher (an evangelical though, of course -  who will remain nameless). 

Sadly, but inevitably, there is a world of difference between the Three and the One.

The limited usefulness of scholarly commentaries
The scholarly commentary is filled with technical details about the text which make little or no material difference either to understanding God's Word, or more importantly to applying it to our souls: it's all arid knowlegde stuff. The commentary is constantly interacting with the unbelieving scholarship of the day (which because the book is a decade old, is already irrelevant old hat). This commentary is a thick seam which has to mined hard for nuggets of useful gold. It's difficult work - and when time is limited....

Scholarly commentaries, in short, are generally of very limited usefulness. They may put you in touch with stuff that the world is thinking (the moment they were written), they might shed light on an odd fact here or there, but by and large, they are stuffy, dry and dated.

The real problem with them is that the author is often writing with his or her eye on the academy, not the church. What will his mates at the academy think of this fine new work? What will they think of the breadth of his learning?

Scholars seek the approval of  fellow scholars, not the approval - or worse still, not the edification - of the ordinary believer. 

The vast usefulness of the others
Commentaries written by experienced pastors or church leaders, on the other hand are of enduring worth. One of the Three I am using is by the 19th Century Bishop of London, J C Ryle. He was a bright fellow, but knowing he is there to edify the saints he places any technical stuff in sort of appendices and the useful spiritual food in the main body of the text.

Even though Two out of the Three are written decades ago, they speak today, because they address the enduring spiritual problems of mankind. 

The Church, not the Academy is the Pillar and Ground of Truth
All of this goes to illustrate 1 Timothy 3:15, that the church and not the academy is where truth is to be found. Tragically the academic commentaries - and very many of the modern ones are of this ilk - reveal how much the western conservative evangelical church is wowed and seduced by the academy.

So when you are buying a commentary to help you understand God's Word, avoid the ones written by scvholar-teachers. Don't let the long list of letters after the author's name spellbind you, or the list of quotes, "the finest commentary on John today" written by his mates entice you. Find ones written by  humble pastor-teachers, whose interest will be to feed your soul, not merely to stimulate your brain or impress the academy. It will save you time and money.

And should you write a commentary, if you want it to be of usefulness in a hundred years' time, make sure you write it with the church and the glory of Jesus in mind - not the passing fancies of the academy. 

Grieve for Steve

On remembering the past

CARE / Steve Chalke - late 80s

A few decades ago I admired Steve Chalke and the pioneering work he did among young people. He undertook a mission at our church and spent a whole day speaking to young people at Alexandra High School, Tipton, where my wife was a teacher. We used his video series Lessons in Love with our youth group (I have scanned this image from my own well-worn copy).

Back then Steve preached a faithful Gospel.

The two drifts
But over the years something has happened to Steve Chalke - and all of us need to take heed. First, he drifted theologically, enchanted by the New Gospel of the Kingdom, preached by the neo-orthodox NT Wright - a Gospel different from the one in the Scriptures, a gospel which says "The Kingdom has come, everyone join in". That's it. No repentance, no faith, just join in. The Kingdom is like a fair come to town, the moment you come through the entrance gate, your in.

Although Christ does welcome into his kingdom everyone - repentance and sanctification demand change both before and after conversion.

Steve Chalke

Having drifted theologically, he then naturally drifted morally.  I don't mean he has personally drifted morally, I mean he has now taken the view that practicing homosexual relationships are OK.

It is worth pausing here and pondering the connection between these two drifts and their order. If you drift theologically, you will always drift morally. Why? Because you have no moorings to pin your morality to anymore. The moment you question Scripture, you can go absolutely anywhere in your morality, fitting Scripture around your own thinking, or the thinking of the world.

Why the drift?
Why has Chalke drifted?  In one of his previous books, he said that many years ago he became fed up with doing missions at churches who did not really care for the outsider, but used missions as a means to salve their evangelistic consciences. Shame on those who do not really love, but evangelize only to salve a conscience. As a reaction, perhaps, he has set himself to meaningfully engage with the lost world and culture of our nation. This is laudable. But he has become so absorbed with the world, in my opinion he's become conformed to the thinking of that world. Words like "inclusion, reconciliation and justice", buzzwords in the world of charitable enterprises, have taken the place of "righteousness, repentance and faith".

At root Steve has allowed the world to squeeze him into its mould. Perhaps the motive was to get into the thinking of the world to help them, but instead of being just in the world, he has become a part of it.

Our response
I can think of four responses....

First, we must allow Christ and his Spirit through his Word to mould our thinking, our philosophy, our theology. Even though the world drifts, we must not drift with it. Interestingly enough Chalke draws a direct parallel with "the church" drifting towards women in ministry and accepting practicing homosexual relationships: if "the church" has abandoned men-only ministry views derived from Genesis, why not abandon man-woman only views of marriage drawn from Genesis?

But why should we be so enchanted with the passing thought forms of the world?  Did you know, for example,  that according to the atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel, it is likely that the whole of the scientific enterprise, which says that mind came from matter is wrong? (We believers already knew that this was impossible, but they didn't; but now they'll have to accept that mind can't come from matter.)  The point is this: the thinking of the world changes like the seasons. And anyway, who cares a monkeys what the world thinks? It is all passing away. Let us remain faithful to Christ and preach repentance and faith as the requirements to enter the kingdom of God.

Secondly, let us ensure we love and welcome all the lost, including those from the gay community - yes even the practicing gay community. Let there never be a hint of homophobia about us. We must do that old fashioned thing, love the sinner, but hate his sin.

Thirdly, we should grieve for a brother who has drifted so far from truth.

Fourthly, though, some would argue, grieving is the wrong response. Anger and rebuke is the right way now. Jesus responded to ignorant sin with gentleness (John 4) but to stubborn knowing arrogance with stinging rebuke (Matthew 23). Has Steve Chalke now become like the religious leaders of Jesus' day who need a stern rebuke, not a gentle warning? At what point do we recognise that a brother has passed from light into darkness? It's  a tough call.

By not exhorting practicing gay people to repent, Chalke has now become, to them, a hindrance to the Kingdom of Christ rather than a help. Because one of Christ's apostles said this (and remember, when an apostle writes, his Master speaks):

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (I Corinthians 6)

The Value (and danger) of the Early Church Fathers

Church Fathers - who are they?

The "Church Fathers", so called, are the first leaders of the church after the close of the New Testament apostolic era, so we are talking about from 100AD onwards. They lived in a heroic age where the church grew fast and was persecuted a lot.

(Don't be put off by the funny clothes or fanciful halos - these are artistic impressions - church fathers wore the Levi's and T-shirts of their age). 

Out of their warfare with pagan thinking and idolatry, they were pioneers of the faith, defending the teaching of Scripture and writing it down in short statements (creeds).

We think of names such as Ireneaus, Clement, Tertullian, and more. Many of their writings survive today (and may be read, for example in the 38-volume set called  "The Early Church Fathers").

Why we learn with caution from these greats

While we have much to learn from these great pioneers we must never follow them slavishly. And here is why:

• they were no more inspired than we are (i.e. they had no hotline to heaven, unlike the apostles)
• they had no-one to go before them in formulating truth and so they were writing "first drafts"  and sometimes made mistakes
• they did not yet have the blessings of a closed and finished New Testament (canon): they were still working this one out
• many of them converted from paganism had been taught pagan philosophy and frankly didn't shake it all off
• they shared in all the weaknesses of ordinary church life drift from Scripture

What they got right

They were filled with zeal. They were prepared to die for Christ - sometimes too eager to die for Christ! They defended truth with great gusto and exposed the wickedness of Roman/pagan religion.

We also learn from them - almost incidentally -  how God has preserved the Bible. Read their quotes and you think you are reading one of our own translations today! It's an amazing experience!

What they got wrong

There are a number of tendencies which every church is subject to, and which the first Christians were also prone:

1. the move from grace to law - so quickly and so easily these fathers introduced laws about what you should and should not do / go /eat / etc.
2. the move from body to hierarchy - so quickly we find that bishops and presidents and what-nots are doing all the leading, and the body of Christ takes back stage
3. the move from freedom in worship  to liturgy - so quickly the church moves from that freedom "each brings a word" to structure and liturgy, formalism.
4. the move from relationship to religion - we find even in the 100s Christians already introducing stuff not in the Bible: the sign of the cross, baptising three times followed by eating milk and honey, etc.

All four of these mistakes are signs of man-made religion, whether Islam, Hinduism or Christendom. Whenever true Christianity goes to seed, it begins to look like religion.

Two Big Lessons

 The Church Fathers teach us many things. Here are the two big ones:

1. Refer back to Scripture ALONE, not tradition or pagan thought  when shaping doctrine or practice
2. Beware of the four great errors they made above, errors which the natural mind imposes on Scripture, but errors which will kill the church by quenching the Spirit.

If we were to ask where the Roman Catholic Church goes wrong, one place would be here. They take the church fathers as authorities - virtually on par with Scripture. So the errors of these men pass into Roman Catholic doctrine uncorrected.  

AI Image

 paint a picture of the church fathers

One Day Football Supporter

Football Supporter for One Day

Celebration after one of Suarez's two goals

Recently I went with one of my sons to watch Liverpool beat Sunderland 3-0 at home (Anfield). I am not a football supporter - though being interested in all things makes me interested in football - that's my interest level (horrifying for a true fan, I know!).

Let me give you three reasons I (personally) refuse to be a football fan before telling you how much I enjoyed my One Day as One.

Reason 1: I fear football could all too easily become an idol to me
I grew up in a home largely free of idols (including the common idols of money, career, education, sport and family). I did not realise until much later that my father had been quite a skilled sportsman in his youth, with basketball as his chief interest. You would never have known it from his conversation in later life - for good reason. In his youth sport had become an idol - something that consumed his mind and time and energy. Though actively involved in the work of the Gospel in his church and community, this secret passion (in his heart) drained away much of his zeal. On the surface he was an eager believer, but beneath the surface it was a different matter.

One day he became seriously ill with peritonitis and close to death he promised God he would devote himself to God's work all the days of his life. He did recover and in fulfilling his promise realised that sport would have to go - it was the only way to deal with an idol of such power in his life.

He went out to North India an earnest missionary - as you can see from his prayer card (too earnest!?)

CT Studd, who founded the mission my father then joined (WEC) was once a famous cricketer: an 1879 report said "incomparably the best cricketer was Eton Captain CT Studd." He had to deal not only with the idol of sport but of material wealth in a similar way.

So I grew up in a home free of the idol of sport, for which I am very grateful. But I have seen it's hold on others and for that reason I fear supporting one team or one sport for that matter. It is not that sport is wrong, it is that sport can easily take hold of men (in my experience more than women) in such a way that it sits upon the throne of mind, heart - and pocket......

Reason 2: Scripture says that there are more important things to do with our short lives than be consumed with sport
I am not thinking of the calling to sport which God may place on someone's life (think: Eric Liddel) I am thinking of the sideline idolatry of sport which can so easily eat up the precious resources God grants to the rest of us:

                             "Physical training (the Greek word Paul uses becomes our 'gymnasium') is of 
                               some value but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for 
                               both the present life and the life to come." (1 Timothy 4:8)

These words were written to a young man, and it would not be wrong to read into this verse addressed to this young man a gentle correction to an over-emphasis on sport. Godliness has eternal significance is Paul's point, whereas sport is of "some" (this is a weak translation of the Greek word oligos which means small) benefit - and only for the short season of time. 

Reason 3: Scripture warns against idols

              "Dear children, keep yourselves from idols"

is how the apostle John ends his first little letter. It's a dramatic ending to a new covenant letter, revealing how easily idols in both Testaments and all ages can take root in our hearts and lives.

I would fear that supporting one particular team or one sport would turn my mind, and more importantly pollute my heart.

But after saying that, Yesterday was a great day.....

An enjoyable day at Anfield
...because it was spent with my son. Somehow, in spite of me, two of my sons have become avid football supporters. One is a faithful supporter of Liverpool; and this was a dad-son day out. I studied physics in Liverpool, so that enhanced my interest in returning there, though as proof I have never worshiped sport, this: for two student years I lived in Lothair Road which is literally next to Anfield, and not once did I watch a match or was even aware of the Temple next door (my son simply cannot fathom such behaviour!).

We sat at the opposite end of "The Kop" and watched two great goals from Suarez and Sterling in the first half. In the second half Suarez scored again. I even found myself standing up and clapping applause at the goals, but no worries, I am just as flat about football - or any sport - this morning as I was two days ago!

Signs of idolatry
Returning to the theme of idolatry, I was intrigued by the "religious atmosphere" of Anfield. None of the following signs indicate idolatry on their own, perhaps, but together they point in that direction:

• lots of money spent - football tickets are expensive, and when you add the food and drink people buy, the fanzines and match magazines, the travel and the time off work, you're talking serious money for the serious fan
• lots of time spent - I was amazed at how early some people come. The merchandise folk set up shop at 3.00pm (5 hours before the match starts) - and they are not disappointed by the fans' willingness to part with cash for scarfs, badges, hats, even hotdogs wrapped in LFC wrappings
• lots of noise - I have never seen grown men sing so loud or so lustily in my life. It makes an all-too-sharp contrast with their singing among the saints.
• lots of passion - above all else you feel the passion. The stinging (and often rude) rebukes when a player fails and the claps of applause when they succeed, the unpleasant attacks on the ref, all point to the earnest desire of the fans for their team to win.

Getting the balance right - is difficult
Dads need to spend quality-time with their children. I am not setting myself up as an example, because I know the demands of the Gospel have often conflicted with time spent with family. (I also know that many of those family sacrifices have been right and proper for Jesus promised:

"Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life." (Matthew 19:29) )

My own father made many family sacrifices too, and in his case, each one of his six children are today walking with the Lord - he put spiritual priorities first in his life and in family life and by the grace of God, it has "paid off". He never took me to Pink Floyd concerts, but he prayed with me and for me.

The most valuable time we spend with our kids in the end, is not in secular endeavors such as sport, but in spiritual conversation and encouragement. Asking them how their walk with the Lord is. Finding out if they pray and read the Scriptures. Encouraging them to seek God's will for their futures. These are far more important matters.

And we had a chance to talk about these things in the long journey to Liverpool and back.