Justin Taylor's Blog, page 118

T4G Guys Talk Evangelism + a New Book on Evangelism

John Piper, Mark Dever, Albert Mohler, Matt Chandler, David Platt, Thabiti Anyabwile, and Ligon Duncan sit down at length for a very stimulating and edifying conversation about evangelism through the local church:

The conference will be April 8-10, 2014, in Louisville.

Mack Stiles’ Evangelism: How the Whole Church Speaks of Jesus new book on evangelism will be out in time for the T4G conference.

“Anyone who knows Mack Stiles knows he would find it difficult to be boring, even if he decided to be. The book you are holding incites Christians, not least pastors, to burn to see evangelism become part of the local church’s culture, a driving component of its spiritual DNA. This book is rich in practical implications, not despite its incessant focus on Jesus and the gospel, but precisely because of such focus. It deserves to be read, pondered, and implemented.”

—D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

“The best book on evangelism would be a book that gets right to the heart of the issue and that is written by one who is himself an evangelist. In other words, it would be this book. Mack Stiles is one of the most natural, effective, determined, indefatigable evangelists that I know. I would want to know what he thinks about evangelism, whether it comes in a conversation, a letter, or an entire book. In this short volume, Mack conducts a clear and biblical exploration of how church fellowship multiplies individual evangelism. Every reader will be inspired, encouraged, and equipped to be a congregational evangelist. For the sake of the church, the gospel, and the world, this book belongs at the top of your reading list.”

—R. Albert Mohler Jr., President and Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Christian Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

“God gifted Mack Stiles as an evangelist, and this book is the overflow of that gift. I know of few works that combine the theological rigor, pastoral wisdom, and personal experience that Mack packs into this short book. In places I was encouraged, in others challenged. I loved reading this book and recommend it heartily.”

—J. D. Greear, Lead Pastor, The Summit Church, Durham, North Carolina; author, Stop Asking Jesus into Your Heart: How to Know for Sure You Are Saved

“Mack Stiles writes about developing a culture of evangelism in a way that allows the reader to see it! We not only read the truth in this book, we drink in a vision for how our church families can live in a rich, dynamic way. This may be the shortest but most important book you ever read for the life of your church and the spread of the gospel.”

—Thabiti M. Anyabwile, Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman; author, What Is a Healthy Church Member?

“The church’s ancient mission to make disciples of all nations is still our top priority today. Our need to be equipped in sharing our faith is undeniably urgent. This is a book about real people learning to share the good news about a real Messiah. It is instructive, encouraging, and compelling—you won’t want to wait to apply what you learn in these pages. And if anyone knows how to equip people to speak of Jesus, it’s Mack Stiles!”

—Gloria Furman, Pastor’s wife, Redeemer Church of Dubai; mother of four; author, Glimpses of Grace and Treasuring Christ When Your Hands Are Full

“I am genuinely excited about this book. Stiles’ books on evangelism are terrific because they combine practical help with theological maturity. And he actually practices what he prescribes.”

—Kevin DeYoung, Senior Pastor, University Reformed Church, East Lansing, Michigan

“Mack Stiles has written an outstanding book not just about sharing the gospel (though it is about that) or about being a personal evangelist (though it’s that, too). He’s written a book about how the local church actually helps us share the gospel—eases the burden, instructs, excites, cooperates. Read this little book and be encouraged!”

—Mark Dever, Senior Pastor, Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Washington DC; President, 9Marks

“I read this engaging book in a single sitting because I was so taken by its content and spirit. Evangelism is a primer on how the Bible addresses the crucial subject of sharing the gospel. I anticipate its wide and enthusiastic reception.”

—Daniel L. Akin, President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

“Plenty of books discuss individual evangelism. This one, however, zeroes in on an entire culture. Not methods or programs, but an ethos. Spread this book through your church and see what happens.”

—John Folmar, Senior Pastor, The United Church of Dubai

“This is a Christ-exalting, gospel-saturated book on evangelism unlike any other. Rather than giving you a personal methodology, it deeply motivates you to proclaim and bear the fruit of the revolutionary news of Jesus as a church body. And what makes it even more valuable is that I have seen Mack Stiles model the attitudinal culture he writes about on several continents to the glory of God. He is the most gifted evangelist I have seen God use (so far), bar none. Evangelism is a must read for every pastor and church member.”

—Richard Chin, National Director, Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students; South Pacific Regional Secretary, International Fellowship of Evangelical Students

“I love Mack Stiles’ vision of ‘a culture of evangelism’ permeating our churches. May God work powerfully to bring this vision to reality. This book both encourages and challenges, and, like Mack’s previous books, is a great gift and blessing to God’s people.”

—Randy Newman, Teaching Fellow, C. S. Lewis Institute; author, Questioning Evangelism, Corner Conversations, and Bringing the Gospel Home

“It did not take long for this book to become my favorite book on evangelism—in part because I could not put it down! The gospel is so clear and the help I received is so tangible. But let the reader count the cost. It may stir something within you that you cannot shake. I will now never be satisfied with anything less than cultivating a culture of evangelism in the church I pastor. I praise God for what he gave me through this book and I pray for more.”

—Jason C. Meyer, Pastor for Preaching and Vision, Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota

“Imagine a local church where every member knows the gospel and walks in step with it, where all are concerned for unbelieving people, where it is natural for leaders and members to talk about evangelistic opportunities, and where members are regularly inviting unbelievers to read the Bible together or to attend small group Bible studies or Sunday services. If that sounds encouraging to you, then you’ll want to read this book and let Mack guide you step by step toward a culture of evangelism where evangelism is simply a natural outflow of the gospel life.”

—Juan R. Sanchez, Jr., Pastor, High Pointe Baptist Church, Austin, Texas

Was Abraham Lincoln a Christian?

Over at the First Thoughts blog, Mark Movsesian offers a brief note on the question of whether Abraham Lincoln was a Christian, or even claimed a religious affiliation at all.

In April of 2000, Brian Lamb of C-SPAN’s Booknotes asked about this when interviewing Allen Guellzo, author of the intellectual biography Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President, which goes into detail about Lincoln’s views on religion): 

Prof. GUELZO:  . . . Many religious people, many Christian believers who read this book experience a sense of disappointment, because they may have read in a number of other places or heard from a number of other quarters that Abraham Lincoln was a Christian.

Well, the truth of the matter is that, no, he was not. He was exposed to Christian influences all through his life. He knew Christian people. He worked with Christian people, worked with Christian ideas. But Lincoln never joined a church, never was actively involved in any kind of Christian organization; in fact, really had only the most minimal religious profile in his own day.

What has happened, though, is that after Lincoln’s death, there was no shortage of people who wanted to claim Lincoln as being one of their own. They could do this because Lincoln was a very private person. He was often described as being shut-mouthed and reticent, and he really was. He did not like to talk about himself or his inner life.

His law partner, Herndon, who knew him probably as well as anybody could know someone not being part of the immediate family—Herndon said of Lincoln that Lincoln kept half of himself secret, away from the general public, and then he kept half of what was left even from his closest friends. People have rushed into that vacuum and tried to suggest, well, Lincoln was really heading in this direction or Lincoln made some kind of secret statement about this direction.

There was a very famous story that suggests that Lincoln was about to join the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church on Easter Sunday 1865.

LAMB: In Washington.

Prof. GUELZO: In—right here in Washington. And, of course, he’s assassinated on Good Friday. And the line of reasoning is that had not Lincoln been shot, he would have joined. He would have made a public Christian association of himself with the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church the following Sunday. It’s a very famous story. I’ve bumped into it any number of times, and there is not a single shred of evidence that it’s true.

LAMB: You say he was a deist?

Prof. GUELZO: He was something close to a deist.

LAMB: What is that?

Prof. GUELZO: He believed in a very general sense that there was a God, or at least there was a force that gave order and shape and predictability to the world and to the universe. But he would not move beyond anything more than that, anything more explicit than that. He believed there was some kind of God. But whether this God was a personal God, whether this God gave active direction and intervention to human affairs, that was a subject which, over years, he tended to shift his position on a good deal.

LAMB: I’m going to mention different things that you write about and–and just tell us what impact they had on his life. The Baptists.

Prof. GUELZO: Well, he was born into a Baptist family—in fact, a Baptist group who were very sectarian, very come-outerish. They were radical predestinarians. In other words, they believed that God ordained every event, whatever comes to pass. For that reason, this particular Baptist group, sometimes known as the Separate Baptists, would not sponsor missionaries. If the heathen were going to be converted, God would do it. You did not put yourself into a place where you were going to accomplish it. They did not have a professional paid clergy. They did not have Sunday schools. They even frowned on involvement in reform movements.

Lincoln grows up in that environment, and, in fact, he is so good at understanding that environment that, in his youth, he would get on top of tree stumps and deliver sermons that he had heard from the Sunday previous almost word for word, because his memory was so good. But this was acting; this was not being part of something. He never joined a Baptist church, never committed himself to a religious organization that way.

But he does carry with him—and this is the interesting thing—he does carry with him the stamp of that belief in predestination. He secularizes it into a belief in necessity or determinism. But like those folks that he grew up with, he does not believe that human beings have free will. He does not believe that human choices come from within ourselves. And he often described himself all through his life as a fatalist and would speak to people, “I do not believe that human beings make their own choices.”

LAMB: The Methodists.

Prof. GUELZO: The Methodists he knew because so many of the Methodists were so aggressive on the frontier in building churches, and sometimes not only building churches, but building public profile. One of his most famous political opponents in Illinois was a Methodist circuit-riding preacher, Peter Cartwright, and it was Cartwright, first of all, who was his opponent for the congressional seat that he ran for in the 1840s. Cartwright was running as a Democrat; Lincoln as a Whig. But Cartwright also started what Lincoln called a whispering campaign through the Seventh Electoral District, which suggested that people should not vote for this man, Lincoln, because he was an unbeliever and an infidel and, therefore, could not be trusted.

That accusation provoked the single-most important statement Lincoln ever made about his own personal religious beliefs, and that came in the form of a handbill, which was printed and circulated throughout the district prior to the election, in which Lincoln said, “It’s true that I do not belong to a Christian church, and it’s true that I have never made any profession of Christian belief, but I’ve never scorned Christians. I’ve never criticized Christian churches. I’ve never been an open scoffer at Christianity. And what’s more, I believe in this doctrine of necessity. But isn’t it true that there are some religious denominations that also believe in a doctrine of necessity?”

And he’s, of course, thinking about the Separate Baptists and a number of other denominations, like the old-school Presbyterians. And he defends himself by saying, “It’s true I believe in this doctrine of necessity, but, look, there are other religious people who believe in it, too. Therefore, the accusations that Cartwright is making against me really fall to the ground because you could just as easily make them about religious people.”

LAMB: Presbyterians.

Prof. GUELZO: He came to Springfield in 1837, and for many years did not associate himself with a church. In fact, he wrote back to New Salem at one point saying that he’d been in Springfield now this period of time and hadn’t gone to church because he was afraid he wouldn’t know how to behave there. I think that there’s some truth to his statement about his anxiety about behavior, but I think lying behind that is the fact that he really did not have anything in the way of religious beliefs. In fact, people who knew him in those early years in Springfield said that he would gather around him a number of his friends and he would take up the Bible and he would read parts of it aloud and criticize it, scoff at it, say that this couldn’t possibly be true, sometimes to the point where a number of his friends thought he was an atheist.

When he married Mary Todd, she was kind of religiously chilly herself, and for a number of years, neither of them went to church. But then in 1850, Lincoln’s second oldest son, Edward, dies and this provokes a crisis in the Lincoln household. It’s a crisis that is met by the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Springfield, a Scotsman named James Smith. He ministers to Mary Todd and has a very effective ministry to her, counseling her in her bereavement, and Lincoln goes to him–to Smith–with his perplexity, his questions. `Why did God take my son? I’m perplexed about predestination and providence.’ And from that point on, the Lincoln family affiliates with the First Presbyterian Church and Lincoln rents a pew there. He doesn’t join the church. In fact, sometimes he doesn’t even come, but he does take this step of associating his family, if not himself personally, with the First Presbyterian Church.

And he comes to like First Presbyterian because among the Presbyterian Churches, First Presbyterian is an old school church. It’s an old school church meaning that it was very loyal to the old traditional standard teachings about predestination. It was a very Calvinist church. And not only will Lincoln feel comfortable with that, because he is a fatalist, but when he comes to Washington as president, the church that he will affiliate his family with here, the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, is also an old school Presbyterian Church. If he is going to feel comfortable with any kind of formal religion, it will be the old school Presbyterians.

Christians Get Depressed Too

From David Murray, author of Christians Get Depressed Too:

This series of films from HeadHeartHand Media presents five Christians with five very different stories of depression and of how God gave them hope and help to recover. Each 35-40 minute episode tells the story of one such Christian. Their reflections are intercut with interview footage from six counselors representing a wide range of Christian knowledge and experience. While the pain of depression is evident, the overall tone is hopeful and practical.

We’re convinced that this holistic and biblical approach to depression will equip churches to minister to depressed Christians with greater understanding, compassion, and effectiveness. The unique combination of narrative and teaching will be a great resource for any individual, family, congregation, or small group, and will serve as a helpful supplement to the book, Christians Get Depressed Too. A new film will be released every couple of weeks and we start this week with Jeni’s story.

Here is the first film:

Here are some more resources on battling depression and ministering to those who do:

David Murray, Christians Get Depressed Too
Edward T. Welch, Depression: Looking Up from the Stubborn Darkness
Edward T. Welch, Depression: The Way Up When You Are Down (booklet)
Jeffrey Black, Suicide: Understanding and Intervening (booklet)
John Piper, When the Darkness Will Not Lift: Doing What We Can While We Wait for God—and Joy
John Piper, “Battling the Unbelief of Despondency” (sermon)
Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Cure
“Depression and the Ministry” (blog series by the Biblical Counseling Coalition and the Gospel Coalition)

For those in ministry, the writings by and about Charles Spurgeon on depression may be particularly valuable:

Charles Spurgeon, “The Minister’s Fainting Fits” in Lectures to My Students
Darrel W. Amundsen, “The Anguish and Agonies of Charles Spurgeon“
John Piper, “Charles Spurgeon: Preaching through Adversity“
Randy Alcorn on how Spurgeon’s writings on depression helped him go through his own depression in 2007 (part 1, part 2, part 3)

You can find more information on the rest of the series here.

Peter Kreeft on Christian Themes in “The Lord of the Rings”

In  Kreeft’s The Philosophy of Tolkien: The Worldview Behind The Lord of the Rings (Ignatius, 2005), he works through 50 of the great questions using four tools:

an explanation of the meaning and importance of the question;
a key quotation from The Lord of the Rings showing how Tolkien answered the question (many more passages are given in the Concordance to The Lord of the Rings in the Appendix);
a quotation from Tolkien’s other writings (usually a letter) that explains or comments on the theme in The Lord of the Rings;
a quotation from C. S. Lewis, Tolkien’s closest friend, showing the same philosophy directly stated.

Here’s the outline of worldview issues addressed (at least in part) by The Lord of the Rings.

1. Metaphysics

1.1 How big is reality?

1.2 Is the supernatural real?

1.3 Are Platonic Ideas real?

2. Philosophical Theology

2.1 Does God exist?

2.2 Is life subject to divine providence?

2.3 Are we both fated and free?

2.4 Can we relate to God by “religion”?

3. Angelology

3.1 Are angels real?

3.2 Do we have guardian angels?

3.3 Could there be creatures between men and angels, such as Elves?

4. Cosmology

4.1 Is nature really beautiful?

4.2 Do things have personalities?

4.3 Is there real magic?

5. Anthropology

5.1 Is death good or bad?

5.2 Is romance more thrilling than sex?

5.3 Why do humans have identity crises?

5.4 What do we most deeply desire?

6. Epistemology

6.1 Is knowledge always good?

6.2 Is intuition a form of knowledge?

6.3 Is faith (trust) wisdom or ignorance?

6.4 What is truth?

7. Philosophy of History

7.1 Is history a story?

7.2 Is the past (tradition) a prison or a lighthouse?

7.3 Is history predictable?

7.4 Is there devolution as well as evolution?

7.5 Is human life a tragedy or a comedy?

8. Aesthetics

8.1 Why do we no longer love glory or splendor?

8.2 Is beauty always good?

9. Philosophy of Language

9.1 How can words be alive?

9.2 The metaphysics of words: Can words have real power?

9.3 Are there right and wrong words?

9.4 Is there an original, universal, natural language?

9.5 Why is music so powerful?

10. Political Philosophy

10.1 Is small beautiful?

10.2 Can war be noble?

11. Ethics: The War of Good and Evil

11.1 Is evil real?

11.2 How powerful is evil?

11.3 How weak is evil?

11.4 How does evil work?

12. Ethics: The “Hard” Virtues

12.1 Do principles or consequences make an act good?

12.2 Why must we be heroes?

12.3 Can one go on without hope?

12.4 Is authority oppressive and obedience demeaning?

12.5 Are promises sacred?

13. Ethics: The “Soft” Virtues

13.1 What is the power of friendship?

13.2 Is humility humiliating?

13.3 What should you give away?

13.4 Does mercy trump justice?

13.5 Is charity a waste?

14. Conclusion

Can any one man incarnate every truth and virtue?

Below is the outline for his philosophical concordance of The Lord of the Rings:.

1. Metaphysics

1.1. Metaphysical realism: that reality is more than appearance, more than our consciousness, and more than our expectations

1.2. Supernaturalism: that reality is more than the natural (matter, time, and space)

1.3. Platonism: archetypes

2. Philosophical Theology

2.1. God

2.2. Divine providence (especially providential timings and “coincidences”)

2.3. Fate (or predestination, or destiny) and free will

2.4. Religion

3. Angelology

3.1. The reality of angels

3.2. The task of angels: guardians

3.3. Elves as halfway between the human and the angelic

4. Cosmology

4.1. The beauty of the cosmos

4.2. The personality of things in the world

4.3. Magic in the world and man

5. Anthropology

5.1. Death

5.2. Romance

5.3. The perilous status of selfhood; the flexibility of the self

5.4. Sehnsucht, longing (especially for the sea)

6. Epistemology

6.1. Knowledge is not always good

6.2. Knowledge by intuition

6.3. Knowledge by faith (trust)

6.4. Truth

7. Philosophy of History

7.1. Teleology, story, purpose, “road”

7.2. Tradition, collective memory, legends

7.3. The freedom and unpredictability of history

7.4. Devolution, pessimism

7.5. Eucatastrophe, optimism

8. Aesthetics

8.1. Formality, “glory,” height

8.2. Beauty and goodness

9. Philosophy of Language

9.1. Names and language in general

9.2. Proper names

9.3. The magical power of words

9.4. Music

10. Political Philosophy

10.1. Populism, “small is beautiful”

10.2. Peace and war

11. Ethics

11.1. Spiritual warfare

11.2. The power of evil and the evil of power

11.3. The weakness of evil

11.4. The strategy of evil; the mechanism of temptation (especially the Ring)

12. Ethics: The Hard Virtues

12.1. Duty versus utility

12.2. Courage

12.3. Hope versus despair

12.4. Obedience to authority

12.5. Honesty, truthfulness, keeping promises

13. Ethics: The Soft Virtues

13.1. Friendship, fellowship

13.2. Humility, “hobbitry”

13.3. Gifts

13.4. Pity

13.5. Charity; the gift of self

14. The Fulfillment of All the Points: Christ

Are Camels in Genesis Archaeologically Anachronistic?

Christianity Today has an excellent round-up of some evangelical scholars reacting to the work of two researchers at Tel Aviv University who used radiocarbon dating on the bones of camels found in ancient copper mines south of the Dead Sea to suggest dating near the end of the 10th century BC (centuries after the patriarchs). The New York Times reported the alleged implication: “Camels probably had little or no role in the lives of such early Jewish patriarchs as Abraham, Jacob and Joseph, who lived in the first half of the second millennium B.C., and yet stories about them mention these domesticated pack animals more than 20 times.”

Here is an excerpt from CT‘s piece:

Two recent academic papers written by evangelical scholars—Konrad Martin Heide, a lecturer at Philipps University of Marburg, Germany; and Titus Kennedy, an adjunct professor at Biola University—both refer to earlier depictions of men riding or leading camels, some that date to the early second millenium BC.

Among other evidence, Kennedy notes that a camel is mentioned in a list of domesticated animals from Ugarit, dating to the Old Babylonian period (1950-1600 BC).

He concludes, “For those who adhere to a 12th century BC or later theory of domestic camel use in the ancient Near East, a great deal of archaeological and textual evidence must be either ignored or explained away.”

In an interview with Christianity Today, Kennedy said that he noticed archaeologists who work in Israel and Jordan seem to date camel domestication later than those who work in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

“[Israel] doesn’t have much writing from before the Iron Age, 1000 BC,” he said. “So there aren’t as many sources to look at. Whereas in Egypt, you have writing all the way back to 3000 BC and in Mesopotamia the same thing.” Based on Egyptian and Mesopotamian accounts, Kennedy believes domestication probably occurred as early as the third millennium BC.

He also believes the TAU researchers not only ignored evidence from outside Israel, they also assumed too much about their own research. “All they really tell us is that at that particular place where they were working they found some camel bones that they interpreted as in a domesticated context between the ninth and 11th centuries BC,” Kennedy said. “It doesn’t tell us that camels couldn’t have been used in other nearby areas earlier than that.”

Archaeologists usually remember that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” The absence of evidence for Hittites once fueled some 19th-century debates over the Bible—until the vast Hittite empire was discovered in Anatolia. Questions about the Book of Daniel once focused on the absence of the prominently featured Belshazzar from Babylonian king lists—until it was discovered that Belshazzar was actually the son of Nabonidus, and co-regent.

You can read the whole thing here.

Rosaria Butterfield After Wheaton: Three Unbiblical Positions on Christianity and Homosexuality

Rosaria Butterfield—a lesbian English professor who hated Christianity and later became a Reformed pastor’s wife and told of the story in her book, Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor’s Journey into Christian Faith—is fresh off of her return from Wheaton College, where 100 students protested her invitation to speak as implying that her testimony should be seen as normative. (You can read President Phil Ryken’s response here. You can also read an interview with Dr. Butterfield about her interactions with the students.)

Today, writing for the Gospel Coalition, she highlights three views that Christians should avoid on homosexuality:

As I write and speak today, 14 years have elapsed since my queer activist days. I’m a new creature in Christ, and my testimony is still like iodine on starch. I’m sensitive to three unbiblical points of view Christian communities harbor when they address the issue of Christianity and homosexuality. Everywhere I go, I confront all three.

1. The Freudian position. This position states same-sex attraction is a morally neutral and fixed part of the personal makeup and identity of some, that some are “gay Christians” and others are not. It’s true that temptation isn’t sin (though what you do with it may be); but that doesn’t give us biblical license to create an identity out of a temptation pattern. To do so is a recipe for disaster. This position comes directly from Sigmund Freud, who effectually replaced the soul with sexual identity as the singular defining characteristic of humanity. God wants our whole identities, not partitioned ones.

2. The revisionist heresy. This position declares that the Bible’s witness against homosexuality, replete throughout the Old and New Testaments, results from misreadings, mistranslations, and misapplications, and that Scripture doesn’t prohibit monogamous homosexual sexual relations, thereby embracing antinomianism and affirming gay marriage.

3. The reparative therapy heresy. This position contends a primary goal of Christianity is to resolve homosexuality through heterosexuality, thus failing to see that repentance and victory over sin are God’s gifts and failing to remember that sons and daughters of the King can be full members of Christ’s body and still struggle with sexual temptation. This heresy is a modern version of the prosperity gospel. Name it. Claim it. Pray the gay away.

Indeed, if you only read modern (post 19th-century) texts, it would rightly seem these are three viable options, not heresies. But I beg to differ.

Worldview matters. And if we don’t reach back before the 19th century, back to the Bible itself, the Westminster divines, and the Puritans, we will limp along, defeated. Yes, the Holy Spirit gives you a heart of flesh and the mind to understand and love the Lord and his Word. But without good reading practices even this redeemed heart grows flabby, weak, shaky, and ill. You cannot lose your salvation, but you can lose everything else.

Enter John Owen. Thomas Watson. Richard Baxter. Thomas Brooks. Jeremiah Burroughs. William Gurnall. The Puritans. They didn’t live in a world more pure than ours, but they helped create one that valued biblical literacy. Owen’s work on indwelling sin is the most liberating balm to someone who feels owned by sexual sin. You are what (and how) you read. J. C. Ryle said it takes the whole Bible to make a whole Christian. Why does sin lurk in the minds of believers as a law, demanding to be obeyed? How do we have victory if sin’s tentacles go so deep, if Satan knows our names and addresses? We stand on the ordinary means of grace: Scripture reading, prayer, worship, and the sacraments. We embrace the covenant of church membership for real accountability and community, knowing that left to our own devices we’ll either be led astray or become a danger to those we love most. We read our Bibles daily and in great chunks. We surround ourselves with a great cloud of witnesses who don’t fall prey to the same worldview snares we and our post-19th century cohorts do.

You can read the whole thing here. (Dr. Butterfield will be giving two workshops at The Gospel Coalition Women’s Conference (June 27 to 29 in Orlando).

For more on her story, you can watch this interview she did with Marvin Olasky:

You can read a sample from her book here.

And here is her testimony—followed by a lengthy Q&A—given at Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church (Tampa, Florida) on February 8, 2013:

Paul Miller on Living “A Loving Life”

Paul Miller, author of A Loving Life: In a World of Broken Relationships (Crossway, 2014):

You can find out more about the book (with sample material) here.

Some Questions from David Berlinksi about Scientism

David Berlinski—a secular Jew who is a philosopher and mathematician and is agnostic about God—asks and answers some questions in The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (2011):

Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?

Not even close.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?

Not even close.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?

Not even close.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?

Close enough.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?

Not close enough.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?

Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?

Close enough.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?

Not even ballpark.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?

Dead on.

Here is an interview with him:

The Execution of Lady Jane Grey: 460 Years Ago Today

Lady Jane Grey (1536/7-1554) is a daughter of the Reformation whose story of faithfulness and grace deserves to be better known.

To explain why this 18-year-old girl was beheaded after a 9-day reign as Queen of England, we first have to offer an all-too-brief primer on the political background of Tudor England up to this point.

Jane Grey’s grandmother was Mary Tudor, Queen of France and younger sister of England’s King Henry VIII.

Henry’s first wife, Catherine of Aragon, did not bear him a surviving son but only a daughter, Mary, born in 1516 (the year before Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Castle door). When the Pope would not sanction an annulment of the marriage between Henry and Catherine, Henry rejected papal jurisdiction over ecclesiastical affairs in England and founded the Church of England.

In 1537, King Henry’s third wife, Jane Seymour, gave birth to a son, Edward. Upon his father’s death in 1547, the 9-year-old boy became King Edward VI. His Regency Council, designed to help him rule at a young age, was sympathetic to the emerging English Reformation.

Shortly before King Edward died on July 6, 1553, he and the Council amended his will (a “Devise for the Succession”) to prevent England from returning to Catholic rule under his older half-sister, Princess Mary. Edward nominated Lady Jane (his first cousin, once removed) to be the next Queen of England.

Mary, however, believed she was the rightful queen and was able to garner the popular and military support of England.

Jane’s nine-day reign as queen thus ended on July 19, 1553. Mary entered London two weeks later, in early August.

On November 13, 1553, a legal court determined she was guilty of high treason, sentencing her and Guildford to death.

Queen Mary—later known by Protestant opponents as “Bloody Mary”—actually stayed the execution in the belief that Jane was a victim of her father-in-law, John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland, along with others. It is possible that if Wyatt’s Rebellion against the queen had not taken place in late January 1554, Jane and Guildford may have remained in custody indefinitely.

Mary even allowed one of her Catholic advisers to visit Jane, who sought to persuade her of the Catholic faith in order to save her soul (even if a conversion would not have saved her earthly life).

You can get a sense of Jane’s theology and piety from reading a letter she wrote to her 14-year-old sister Katherine a day or two before her death. In it she writes:

Live to die, that by death you may enter into eternal life, and then enjoy the life that Christ has gained for you by His death. Don’t think that just because you are now young your life will be long, because young and old as God wills.

I am thankful for historian Dr. J. Stephan Edwards, who though he does not share my religious beliefs, took some time to help answer some questions on Lady Jane Grey and her execution on February 12, 1554. Dr. Edwards’s doctoral dissertation was on “‘Jane the Quene’: A New Consideration of Lady Jane Grey, England’s Nine-Days Queen,” and he runs the informative Some Grey Matter website, where he is happy to answer questions. (Note to historians: more sites like this, please!)

What led you to do your doctoral research and to focus so much of your professional interest on Lady Jane Grey?

I was drawn to her originally by the nature of the existing biographies and accounts of her life and times, virtually all of which were obviously tainted by legend and myth-building, even hero-worship. My research focuses on recovering a historical narrative based on original surviving evidence and freed of as much legend and myth as possible.

You have done extensive research on the portraits that claim to represent Lady Jane. Even though we do not have a reliably genuine portrait, if you had to choose one that comes closest to what she actually looked like, which would you choose?

I am of the opinion that the Syon House Portrait [pictured at the top of this post] is quite probably the closest we can presently come to an authentic depiction of Jane Grey. Even though it was painted in the 1610s, sixty or more years after Jane’s death, it was commissioned by the Seymour family, who were sons and grandsons of Jane’s sister Katherine Grey Seymour. At least one senior member of that family had known Jane personally and was still living when the portrait was created. Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford (son of Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset and Lord Protector to King Edward VI) had known Jane quite well, and was even considered (before 1551) as a possible future husband for her. He lived until 1621, and may well have advised the artist on Jane’s appearance. Alternatively, the Syon Portrait may have been copied from a miniature (now lost) already in the possession of the Seymours, much like the large portrait at Syon of Jane’s sister Katherine.

Let’s focus here on her final days. Was beheading with an axe the usual punishment for treason?

Those of noble or royal status who were convicted of treason were often beheaded, whereas men of lower birth were hung, drawn, and quartered and women of lower birth were often burned at the stake (considered more “humane” for the “weaker sex” than hanging, drawing, and quartering). The monarch’s consent was required for beheading, but it was seldom withheld. Thus Mary consented to Jane being executed by beheading with an axe.

What would she have worn to her execution? Paul Delaroche’s famous 1833 painting has her dressed in a flowing white gown. Is that accurate?

No, the angelically virginal white gown depicted in that painting is unhistorical. She would have dressed appropriately in a simple gown of somber color, usually gray or black.

Could those who were to be executed bring anything with them?

Many carried some type of religious text with them to the place of execution, often a Missal or Book of Hours (for Catholics) or a New Testament or copies of the Four Gospels (for Protestants).

Do we know what Jane carried?

She carried a book of prayers copied from the works of Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine, each a fourth-century church father. Tudor-era Protestants recognized the value of the writings of these men though they denied their status as saints and intercessors in heaven.

What did she do with the book once she got there?

That morning, she carefully inscribed the book to her jailer in preparation for presenting it to him in her last moments. Small gifts to jailers, and even to executioners, were considered signs of humility and Christian forgiveness.

Was her execution out in the open?

Jane was executed within the relatively private walls of the Tower of London rather than in the full glare of the crowds outside the walls on Tower Hill. Executions were large public spectacles that often drew huge audiences, so a private execution was considered a great favor to the condemned.

Did the Tower of London contain a permanent execution scaffold?

No, scaffolds were built specifically for each execution, then immediately dismantled. The eyewitness accounts indicate that the scaffold for Jane’s execution was built against the wall of the central White Tower, at its northwest corner (the corner closest to the Chapel of St Peter-ad-Vincula).

Since Jane was housed in the upper story of the Gentleman Gaoler’s (Jailer’s) quarters, which still stands today, she would have seen the scaffold being built just a few yards across Tower Green. She would also have had a very short walk from her quarters to the scaffold, though she would have been in full view of the many permanent residents, workers, and official visitors within the Tower that busy Monday morning. She is said by eyewitnesses to have made the walk with great dignity and without any outward signs of distress.

Did anyone accompany her to the scaffold?

Jane was accompanied by at least two of her ladies-in-waiting and by John de Feckenham.

Who was Feckenham?

Feckenham was John Howman (c. 1515-1584), a member of the Benedictine Order of Roman Catholic monks. He had been born in the town of Feckingham in the county of Worcester, and it was customary at the time for monks to drop their family surname and to use instead only their forename and the name of the town where they had been born—thus “John de (or “of”) Feckenham.”

At the time of Jane’s execution in February 1554, Feckenham was one of Queen Mary’s personal chaplains and confessors. He was, in effect, one of the Queen’s personal spiritual advisers. He famously convinced Mary to allow him to attempt to convert Jane to Roman Catholicism over the course of three days before the execution, and to have engaged in a semi-public debate with Jane on theological issues. Their debate was witnessed and transcribed and published shortly after Jane’s death, becoming known as the Feckenham Debate.

What purpose did Feckenham serve at the execution?

He was there for two reasons.

First, he was available should Jane wish to convert to Roman Catholicism in her final moments, and to offer whatever spiritual comfort he could should she chose not to convert. No Protestant preacher or pastor was allowed.

Second, Feckenham served as the personal representative of Queen Mary, ready to witness the proceedings and to recount them to her.

What did Jane do upon reaching the scaffold?

Jane, like all those condemned to die, was allowed to make a final speech. Such speeches were customarily written and memorized in advance with great care, as it was common practice for the witnesses present to write down the dying person’s last words. Scaffold speeches were often published within days of the execution and circulated widely, sometimes as political propaganda, sometimes as educational tools or warnings to others, and sometimes simply as “news of the day.” Jane would have been well aware of this practice, and her final speech, as it was published barely more than a month later, reflects a careful choice of words.

What did she say in her final speech?

Here are her words:

Good people, I am come hither to die, and by a law I am condemned to the same. The fact against the queen’s Highness was unlawful, and the consenting thereunto by me: but, touching the procurement and desire thereof by me, or on my behalf, I do wash my hands thereof in innocency before God, and the face of you, good Christian people, this day.

In other words, she stated that she was guilty of having broken the law by accepting the crown, but that she was innocent of having sought it. She acknowledged the justice of her execution, as all condemned were expected to do. Protestations of innocence at the moment of execution were paradoxically considered signs of guilt, of lack of humility, and transgressions of God’s will.

Did she ask for prayer as well?

Yes, she asked those there:

I pray you all, good Christian people, to bear me witness that I die a true Christian woman, and that I do look to be saved by no other mean, but only by the mercy of God, in the blood of his only Son Jesus Christ: and I confess, that when I did know the word of God, I neglected the same, loved myself and the world; and therefore this plague and punishment is happily and worthily happened unto me for my sins; and yet I thank God, that of his goodness he hath thus given me a time and respite to repent. And now, good people, while I am alive, I pray you assist me with your prayers.

When she asked the small audience to pray for her soul “while yet I live,” her choice of words reflected her disagreement with the Catholic practice of saying masses for the dead.

She then knelt and asked the audience to recite along with her as she spoke the words of Psalm 51, the Miserere, which begins, “Have mercy upon me, O God.”

What did she do next?

Following her recitation of Psalm 51, Jane stood again to make final preparations to meet the axe.

She handed her gloves and handkerchief to one of her ladies, and she gave her small prayer-book to Thomas Bridges, the brother of the Lieutenant of the Tower. ( The prayerbook, pictured below, has survived and is sometimes displayed as part of the permanent “Treasures of the Library” exhibition at the British Library in London.)

After her attendants assisted her to loosen the neck of her gown, the executioner knelt in the customary request for forgiveness from the condemned. The executioner then asked her to stand upon the straw spread around the block to soak up the blood.

As she began to kneel, she asked the executioner whether he would take her by surprise and strike before she was ready. Assured that he would not, she tied a cloth around her head to block her eyesight.

Is it true that she couldn’t find the block where she was to lay her head for the executioner’s axe?

Yes. She felt blindly for the block, and not finding it because of the cloth over her eyes, she asked, “What shall I do? Where is it?”

It was against custom to assist the condemned to find the block, lest the person offering aid be accused of having an unjust part in a death. However, someone—usually reported as Feckenham—apparently did reach down and guide her hands to the block.

Finally finding the block, she laid her neck upon it.

What were her final words?

She repeated Jesus’s words on the cross, “Lord, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” The executioner swung his axe, and she was dead.

* * *

Here are a few biographies at different levels and from different perspectives that you may want to explore:

Faith Cook, The Nine Day Queen of England: Lady Jane Grey (Evangelical Press, 2005)
Eric Ives, Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Mystery (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009)
Leanda de Lisle, The Sisters Who Would be Queen: Mary, Katherine, and Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Tragedy (Ballantine Books, 2009)
Simonetta Carr, Lady Jane Grey ; Christian Biographies for Young Readers (Reformation Heritage Books, 2012); illustrations by Matt Abraxas

For audio talks delivered to churches on Lady Jane Grey, see these by Michael Haykin and Paul Martin (+ PDF).

And here is execution scene as depicted in the 1986 film, Lady Jane, starring Helena Bonham Carter:

A Wide-Ranging Discussion on Culture and Theology

Here is an important and substantive conversation on cultural and theology, hosted by Southeastern Seminary (December 5, 2013).

In the first hour, J.D. Greear, Danny Akin, and Andy Davis ask Russell Moore question on how the church should think about politics and the public square—including issues of immigration, religious liberty, gay marriage, abortion, and race.

In the second hour, Andy Davis moderates as the group discusses theology in the local church, the nature of gospel-centered ministry, which theologian from the past they’d want to study under and their blindspots, Calvinism, eschatology, church polity, and evangelism.