Pilgrimage: Addition by Subtraction!

Joseph's name truly represents the Christian pilgrimage in microcosm. How often have we read the story of Joseph without really plumbing the redemptive beauty of his name? Rachel's recovered broken heart paves the way for the identity of her first biological son. Distraught over God's apparent favoritism toward her older sister and wifely competitor, Leah, Rachel cries out to God for a son of her own. And only after Leah and her handmaid had been graced by God with eight sons, we read that God remembered Rachel, listened to her pleas and opened her womb (Gen. 30:22). Exhilarated, Rachel names the boy, Joseph, which has a double meaning: "may he add," and, it sounds like the Hebrew for "taken away." At first, one might wonder that such opposite meanings could describe one name. It's kind of like saying, "addition" means "subtraction!" What? A paradox at best. And therein lies it's beauty. Indeed, God did take away Rachel's reproach since she herself now had a son. But further, she prophetically pronounces that by this God will add to her another son. This God did in blessing Rachel with Jacob's twelfth son, Benjamin (Gen. 35). 

A. W. Pink draws a prophetic parallel between the meanings of all 12 sons and the history of Israel. From their "affliction" in Egypt (Reuben) down to Rachel's last son, Benjamin who's double name found fulfillment in Solomon, who was both "so bright, and so dark," each name carried a further meaning. (Gleanings in Genesis, pp. 262ff)

But it is Joseph's name that intrigues me. 

First, his birth represented the removal of past shame, a sort of separation or forgetting by God. Everyone else was having sons, but not Rachel! Is this not the lot of every true believer? For we all come to the cross of Christ shameful, separated from God, yes, even enemies. The new birth exudes exaggerated exultation in stark contrast to the bloody wrestling against sin that precedes it. A-h-h, . . . finally!  Release from sin's grip and burden and control! God removes it.

Second, Joseph's birth name actually entails a future aspect, meaning "may he add," which in Rachel's view meant God would give her yet another son. But for the believer, the removal of past shame and sin's horror prepares the way for the adding of unending grace borne out in his new life and continued growth under the watchful and loving eye of God. It's not just that the removal leads to the addition, but it colors it, painting it brightly so that all might exult in such grace as well. There's great celebration over one lost sheep, one lost coin, or one lost son. God gets glory in the subtraction, yes, but multiple glory in his endless addition! Salvation is not just about God's wondrously conquering sin, but further it is in the eternally bright future we enjoy in the walk of faith. 

A third consideration involves the relative importance of these two meanings. Joseph means, "may he add," with the secondary application of "taken away." This seems to  infer that what God is currently doing (and will do) takes precedence over what he has done. It is not that what God has saved us from is trivial, rather through his "taking away" our Lord has "set the table" for us to relish present salvation as well as the future feast of his glory! This makes me just a little bit leery of those testimonies that place more emphasis on what God saved them from than what he saved them to!

Joseph. That's quite a name, quite a legacy, and for us, quite the inheritance! 

What's Up with the Invitation System? Part 3

The following are the last four points of Martyn Lloyd-Jones' reasons against calling people forward in an invitation. The two previous posts deal with the previous 6 points minus the 2nd (so 5 points). I introduce the subject there. Consider these:

7. "[By inviting people forward] you are encouraging people to think that their act of going forward somehow saved them. This is something that must be done there and then, and it is this act that really saves them." 

Even when the evangelist tries to dissuade inquirers from believing this, it is still difficult to separate the physical connection of going forward from trusting Christ.

8. This practice of inviting people to the front is "based ultimately on a distrust of the Holy Spirit and His power and His work. Does it not imply that the Holy Spirit needs to be helped and aided and supplemented, the the work has to be hastened, that we cannot leave it in the hands of the Spirit?" 

More importantly,

9. "Does it not raise the whole question of the doctrine of Regeneration? This, to me, is the most serious thing of all. What I mean is this, and it covers this point and the previous one, that as this work is the work of the Holy Spirit, and His work alone, no one else can do it. The true work of conviction of sin, and regeneration, and the giving of the gift of faith and new life is solely the work of the Holy Spirit. And if it is His work it is always a thorough work; and it is always a work that will show itself." [emphasis mine] Peter gave no invitation at Pentecost, but when he finished the people blurted out, "What must we do." This was the work of the Spirit. Again, when there is a work of the Spirit going on, "it invariably shows itself."

Lastly,

10.  "No sinner ever really 'decides' for Christ. That term 'decide' has always seemed to me to be quite wrong. I have often heard people use the expressions which have disturbed me, and made me feel very unhappy. They have generally done so in ignorance and with the best intentions. I can think of an old man who used to use the following expression: 'You know, friends, I decided for Christ forty years ago, and I have never regretted it.' What a terrible thing to say! 'Never regretted it!" But this is the kind of thing people say who have been brought up under this teaching and approach. The sinner does not 'decide' for Christ; the sinner 'flies' to Christ in utter helplessness and despair saying--

Foul, I to the fountain fly,

Wash me, Saviour, or I die.

Thank you for walking us through your thinking, Doctor. Lord, help us to examine how we do evangelism. Appeal to sinners, yes. Call for them to turn and repent, to see, or to hear God, yes! But know that if and until the Holy Spirit calls the sinner, he cannot do any of these things. God grant us wisdom to know the difference.

What's Up with the Invitation System? Part 2

Yesterday, I began a short series on the invitation system, using D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' chapter, "Calling for Decisions," in his book Preaching and Preachers. I want to continue from yesterday by including under Lloyd-Jones' sixth point another illustration in his life. I do this because I think, as will become evident, the objection the man raises in this situation is so common to today's thinking, that it has been the cause of many an evangelical sell-out. He writes: 

In the church where I ministered in South Wales I used to stand at the main door of the church at the close of the service on Sunday night, and shake hands with people as they went out. . . . [There was] a man who used to come to our service every Sunday night. He was a tradesman but also a heavy drinker. He got drunk every Saturday night, but he was also regularly seated in the gallery of our church every Sunday night. On [this] particular night . . . I happened to notice while preaching that this man was obviously being affected. I could see that he was weeping copiously, and I was anxious to know what was happening to him. At the end of the service I went and stood at the door. After a while I saw this man coming, and immediately I was in a real mental conflict. Should I, in view of what I had seen, say a word to him and ask him to make his decision that night, or should I not? Would I be interfering with the work of the Spirit if I did so? Hurriedly I decided that I would not ask him to stay behind, so I just greeted him as usual and he went out. His face revealed that he had been crying copiously, and he could scarcely look at me. 

The following evening I was walking to the prayer meeting in the church, and, going over a railway bridge, I saw this man coming to meet me. He came across the road to me and said, 

"You know, doctor, if you had asked me to stay behind last night I would have done so." 

"Well," I said, "I am asking you now, come with me now." 

"Oh no," he replied, "but if you had asked me last night I would have done so." 

"My dear friend," I said, "if what happened to you last night does not last for twenty-four hours I am not interested in it. If you are not as ready to come with me now as you were last night you have not got the right, the true thing. Whatever affected you last night was only temporary and passing, you still do not see your real need of Christ."

Here, then, Lloyd-Jones makes his point. 

[This kind of thing] "may happen even when an appeal is not made. But when an appeal is made it is greatly exaggerated and so you get spurious conversions. As I reminded you even John Wesley, the great Arminian, did not make appeals to people to "come forward." What you find so often in his Journals is something like this: "Preached at such and such a place. many seemed to be deeply affected, but God alone knows how deeply." Surely that is very significant and important. He had spiritual understanding and knew that many factors can affect us. What he was concerned about was not immediate visible results but the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. A knowledge of the human heart, of psychology, should teach us to avoid anything that increases the possibility of spurious results."

I've quoted Lloyd-Jones at length because the whole story brings out a vital truth, viz., that we must trust the inner working of the Holy Spirit to bring to fruition the work which He must surely begin. One might argue, "Well, surely you should strike while the iron is hot! Act while the Spirit is moving." But this is not necessarily the case. Numerous would-be disciples walked away from Christ when they later understood his stringent demands. The tendency to deception is pervasive, so care should be taken. We must with Paul seek the kind of conversions that rest, not in the wisdom of men but in the power of God (1 Cor. 2:5).

More tomorrow . . .

What's Up with the Invitation System? Part 1

Having grown up in the fundamental/evangelical camp, a goodly number of the sermons I heard concluded with an invitation. In fact, many looked askance upon any service for NOT having one! I no longer practice the system. Now, it cannot be disputed that inviting people to turn to Christ is biblical and important! The contention is rather with the system of doing so. (See Iain Murray's wonderful pamphlet-The Invitation System) It is not Murray's but Lloyd-Jones' presentation with which I am concerned today. In his wonderful book, Preaching and Preachers, Lloyd-Jones includes a chapter entitled: "Calling for Decisions." After presenting the history of the invitation system's origin (which is really rather recent), he provides ten reasons why he himself did not practice it, and in no particular order. I include only a few, but use his numbers:

1. It is wrong to put direct pressure on the will. "The will should always be approached primarily through the mind, the intellect, and then through the affections." After citing Romans 6:17, he adds, "As the mind grasps it [viz., the truth], and understands it, the affections are kindled and moved, and so in turn the will is persuaded and obedience is the outcome. In other words the obedience is not the result of direct pressure on the will, it is the result of an enlightened mind and a softened heart. To me this is a crucial point."

3. There should be no separation between the preaching of the Word and the call for decision. He cites an occasion when at a meeting, the invitation to come forward was given, but to Lloyd-Jones, the gospel "had not been really preached." Still, many flocked to the front, to which one man remarked that their coming was not related to the preaching. Lloyd-Jones writes, "My contention is that there should be no such disjunction between the 'appeal' and the preaching . . ."

4. The invitation system implies "that sinners have an inherent power of decision and of self-conversion. But that cannot be reconciled with scriptural teaching such as 1 Corinthians 2:14, The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

5. Another implication is that "the evangelist somehow is in a position to manipulate the Holy Spirit and His work. The evangelist has but to appear and to make his appeal and the results follow inevitably."  

6. This method tends to produce a superficial conviction of sin, if any at all. "People often respond because they have the impression that by doing so they will receive certain benefits." Lloyd-Jones goes on to explain, "I remember hearing of a man who was regarded as on e of the 'star converts' of a campaign. He was interviewed and asked why he had gone forward in the campaign the previous year. His answer was that the evangelist had said, 'If you do not want to "miss the boat" you had better come forward.' He said that he did not want to 'miss the boat' so he had gone forward; and all the interviewer could get out of him was that he somehow felt that he was now 'on the boat'. He was not clear about what this meant, nor what it was, and nothing had seemed to happen to him during the subsequent year. But there it was: it can be as superficial as that."

(Part 2 Tomorrow) 

"Unfashionable" Attracts Sinners!

As it turns out, two of my blog brothers provide quotations from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Both relate to our view of the Church and the world and how the two interact. There is confusion over this today. Lloyd-Jones manages to open our minds and remind us that the Gospel while it comes from our mouths does not require our help. Where some rightly point out the ineffectiveness of the church to reach our culture today, their solutions often reveal a weak view of man's depravity and of the Holy Spirit's exclusive power to convict sinners.

The first quotation comes from Tullian Tchividjian--On Earth As It Is In Heaven:

The glory of the gospel is that when the Church is absolutely different from the world, she invariably attracts it. It is then that the world is made to listen to her message, though it may hate it at first. That is how revival comes. That must also be true of us as individuals. It should not be our ambition to be as much like everybody else as we can, though we happen to be Christian, but rather to be as different from everybody who is not a Christian as we can possibly be. Our ambition should be to be like Christ, the more like Him the better. And the more like Him we become, the more useful to the world we will be. 

The second quotation comes from Paul Edwards (new to me) at The God & Culture Blog:

Our Lord attracted sinners because He was different. They drew near to Him because they felt that there was something different about Him…And the world always expects us to be different. This idea that you are going to win people to the Christian faith by showing them that after all you are remarkably like them, is theologically and psychologically a profound blunder.

I do not have the locations of these two quotations. The first one comes from Preaching and Preachers, but I do not have the page number. Tchividjian's book, Unfashionable, on this subject, comes out in April.  

Keep an eye out for a later blog which deals with the invitation system where evangelists have made a practice of calling for decisions. Is this biblical? I'll be drawing from Lloyd-Jones.

  

Happiness in Drawing Near to God

One of my favorite Puritans is Thomas Watson. His sermon, "Happiness in Drawing Near to God" is based on Psalm 73:28, "It is good for me to draw near to God." The following is from his conclusion.

How shall we do to draw near to God?

Let us contemplate the excellencies of God. He is the ‘God of glory,’ (Psalm 29:3), full of orient [glowing, luster] beauty: in comparison of whom both angels and men are but as the ‘small dust of the balance.’ He is the ‘God of love,’ (2 Cor. 13:11), who triumphs in acts of mercy. Well may this encourage us in our approaches to him who delights to display the banner of free grace to sinners. If we should hear of a person of honour who was of a lovely disposition, obliging all that came to him by acts of kindness and civility, it would make us ambitiously desirous to ingratiate ourselves with him and to obtain his acquaintance. God is the most sovereign good, the wonder of love, ready to diffuse the silver streams of his bounty to indigent [destitute] creatures. This, if anything, will make us willing to draw near to him and acquiesce [passively agree] in him as the centre of felicity.

If we would draw near to God, let us study our own wants. Let us consider in what need we stand for God and that we cannot be happy without him. The prodigal never drew near to his father, until he ‘began to be in want,’ (Luke 15). A proud sinner, who was never convinced of his want, minds not to come near God; he hath a stock of his own to live upon . We are lords; we will come no more unto thee (Jer 2:31). -- A full stomach despises the honey-comb. -- It is the sense of want which brings us near to God. Why did so many lame and paralytical resort to Christ, but because they wanted a cure. Why doth the thirsty man draw near to a fountain but because he wants water. Why doth a condemned man draw near his prince but because he wants a pardon. -- When a poor soul reviews its wants; I want grace; I want the favour of God, I am damned without Christ; this makes him draw near to God, and be an earnest supplicant for mercy.

If we would draw near to God, let us be careful to clear our interest in God. Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith (Heb. 10:22). When we know him to be our God, then we draw near to him. The spouse, by virtue of the conjugal union, draws near to her husband, Psalm 48:14, This God is our God.

Let us beg the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God hath a magnetical virtue. Corruption draws the heart from God; the Spirit draws it to him . . . Song of Solomon 1:4, Draw me, we will run after thee. The Spirit, by his omnipotent grace, draws the heart to God not only sweetly, but powerfully.

Let us get our hearts fired with love to God: whichever way love goes, that way the heart is drawn. If God be the treasure delighted in, our hearts will be drawn to him. Servile fear makes the soul fly from God; sacred love makes it fly to him.

God Stops Us From Sinning

In that quite familiar story in Genesis 20, Abraham lies to the king of Gerar in order to protect his life. His wife Sarah, apparently even at an advanced age is quite striking to look upon, or this is Abimelech's attempt at a friendly alliance. Either way, Abraham not knowing his intentions, feels it necessary to tell a half-truth in order to keep the king of the land from taking his wife into his harem and possibly killing him. At least two things are wrong here, 1) Abraham assumed the king had no conscience in these matters, and 2) he assumed God had no control. If he had bothered to ask God (who evidently talked with him frequently) he might have discovered the truth and avoided this whole debacle. 

 ⁴ Now Abimelech had not approached her. So he said, “Lord, will you kill an innocent people? ⁵ Did he not himself say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And she herself said, ‘He is my brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this.” ⁶ Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her. 

We hone in on Abimelech's argument with God--"I did this based on Abraham's word and in the integrity of my heart." And God--"Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning." Two thoughts:

1) God prevents his people from sinning. What a blessing it is when God interposes some preventative to our breaking his law against HIM! Who of us knows how many times God actually prevents us from sinning by interrupting our thoughts or deeds with a phone call, a song or an emergency that diverts us? "Deliver us from temptation" carries a new meaning! God indeed knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations (2 Pet 2:9). And God makes a way of escape that we may be able to bear it (1 Cor. 10:13). 

2) God knows our motives. Of course God knew what was Abimelech's motive. God knows everything! That, we would affirm, is a truism, something that is "openly accepted as true," but according to the dictionary, "says nothing new or interesting." Ah, well, maybe that's the problem. It should say something interesting! But some things we know about God may simply be accepted without either acting on them or, certainly, appreciating them. Truths may amass in the collective pool of the believer's heart, but tend nevertheless to stagnate, easily overlooked and left to disintegrate due to neglect. Here is a truth worth stirring up, a thought that brought comfort to the Psalmist when he said, 

     ² You know when I sit down and when I rise up; 

you discern my thoughts from afar. 

³ You search out my path and my lying down 

and are acquainted with all my ways. 

⁴ Even before a word is on my tongue, 

behold, O Lord, you know it altogether. 

⁶  Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; 

it is high; I cannot attain it (Ps. 139). 

Our Lord does not just know our motives, but hedges us about with his grace. That's cause for rejoicing! I want to stop sinning, and it cheers me to think God is sovereignly busy helping me do it.