Moral guidance

Packer on an often underestimated aspect of God's work in our lives:

The bottom line, then, is that there are moral conditions of spiritual discernment. We shall not achieve clarity about God's will for us, either through the clamor of well-meant advisors or through the working of our own thoughtful hearts in times of quiet withdrawal, unless our hearts are set first and foremost on following, obeying, and pleasing the Father and the Son. Basic to true wisdom is an unending quest for holiness - purity of heart and perfection of love to God and men. The writer to the Hebrews warns us that without holiness no one will see the Lord (Heb 12:14), and we are saying that without holiness no one, however well advised and faithfully admonished, will adequately discern the will of God at any point in his or her life. Holiness, which is fundamental to prudence, must always come first.

How to be guided (and how to say it)

One of the books I'm (very slowly) working through is Packer's latest, Guard Us, Guide Us. (image: buzzardblog.com) A very helpful, rounded and robust little book on guidance, it sets forth a clear picture of God's guidance and integrates it into the whole of the Christian life. One summary section about halfway through the book is brilliant:

Many Christians are still haunted by the fancy that real guidance from God for the making of each day's decisions is a direct ministry of the Holy Spirit in one's heart that entirely transcends the mental disciplines of analysing alternative, applying principles, calculating consequences, weighing priorities, balancing pros and cons, taking and weighing advice, estimating your own capacities and limitations, and engaging in whatever other forms of brainwork prudence in self-commitment is held to require. We emphatically agree that leading us to the best decision is a ministry of the Holy Spirit, first to last, but with equal emphasis we deny that under ordinary circumstances his ministry short-circuits or circumvents any of these sometimes laborious intellectual procedures. On the contrary, they are precisely the means by which the Holy Spirit of God leads us into seeing clearly what it is right and good to decide and do in each situation.

Not only is the content of Packer's statement spot on, notice how he articulates it. He sets forth the counter position (that God doesn't guide through 'brainwork' etc.) in such a way that he is actually reinforcing his point. He then agrees with what he can (We emphatically agree...) but then contrasts this with his negative statement, before turning to reinforce what he wants to affirm. Your 'yes' is only as good as your 'no', and your 'no' is only as good as your 'yes'. Both of Packer's are brilliant.

Packer and the Canadian Situation

Justin Taylor (Between Two Worlds) has provided a very helpful overview of where things are at with the Packer/Short situation in Canada. Read about it here. Please do remember to pray for these guys, for faith and humility and perseverance in the face of opposition. Pray too that their conduct would commend the gospel and make clear the significance of what they are doing.

Guard Us, Guide Us - Prologue

Packer and Nystrom (P&N) set out very helpfully the heart of the issue in the prologue. Christians have always believed that:

God in his omniscient wisdom and grace is working out his plan for our lives and that he helps us in our decision making and strengthens us and strengthens us to do what obedience to his revealed will required of us (p10)

However, they identify that it is now widely held that getting and following guidance from God (over and above ‘making commonsense decisions in Christian terms’) is ‘a matter of great importance in the Christian life’, and note that many think that God’s plan is ‘thought of like a travel itinerary' – if you miss a turn (or, in their language, a connection), God’s plan A has to turn into plan B.

P&N note that this thinking was originally grounded in teaching which sought to urge people to follow plan A – to become a missionary, a minister, a teacher etc. This in itself was incredibly unhelpful - intimating a class A Christian and then the rest. To put it in language many of us might be aware of, the thinking was that if you weren't a bloke worth watching, you really hadn't made it - you weren't worth watching!

The present situation, P&N suggest, is one of fear. Fear that major decisions can’t be made without an immediate and direct sign from God, and fear that a wrong decision will ruin ones life. P&N conclude – 'it is to try and help in this area of tense sensitivity that the present book has been written'.

Clearly these issues are alive and well - they seem to have become part of evangelical culture. While Jensen and Payne's Guidance and the Voice of God has been incredibly helpful to many, I wonder if it hasn't had the wide readership that the topic it addresses deserves.

On a personal note, I have known this second aspect for many years. A family friend is convinced that s/he made a ‘bad’ decision in marrying the person they did, and this has played out in the partner’s sexual unfaithfulness. The friend thinks that s/he has been sentenced to a second-class life – God’s plan B (or C, or D, or E…) because the wrong decision was made. This fear and regret is deep-seated amongst many God fearing, Bible believing brothers and sisters.

It is crippling, demoralising, and depressing. It grows Christians who not only live in fear before God, but live with a constant sense of guilt, of ‘what-if’, or ‘if-only’. Their ‘sin’ (for that is how many see it) cannot be forgiven, and certainly cannot be forgotten, for they must live, (so they think) with the consequences of it every day.

Theologically, and I’m sure P&N will come to this, it is grounded in deficient thinking about God’s sovereignty, about the nature of the ‘new man’ and the affect of the gospel on the mind (Eph 4, Rom 12), and about eschatology. Theologically, it is at times little more than superstition.

If this book does nothing else than clearly and carefully put an end to such thinking about 'God's plan for your life' (usually justified with reference to Jer 29:11), it will be invaluable. But I have the feeling it will do much more!

Liber-Pento Angli-Costals

Having more to do in recent months with both Pentecostals and Liberals than in the last four years, a strange similarity has been observed. Strange, maybe, because I hadn't thought about it, but, then again, in thinking about it I wonder if it actually goes to the heart of what it means to be evangelical (and, therefore, what it means to be non-evangelical). The similarity is this - both place a great deal of stress on the present, immediate, contemporary revelation of God. Of course there are massive differences in their approaches (particularly towards Scripture) - but the similarity remains. Indeed, in the space of a few days I have heard (or read) representatives from both groups utter the words "I just feel that God is telling me...". In sweepingly broad terms, Liberals feel that God is leading them, through science, culture, etc. to see that it is wrong to 'discriminate' (to marriage or ordination) on the basis of homosexual practice (essentially the acting out of a 'God-given' attraction). Pentecostals rely on God's immediate leading for all manner of issues - from the direction a church should take to what the message should be this Sunday - often through words or visions, but also through feelings and inclinations. Clearly Pentecostals approach and regard Scripture differently from Liberals, but God's most powerful, and therefore most important revelation - his word or message - seems to be the one most recently received.

An evangelical (or, let's say - my) position would be that God certainly is at work in the world, but for the 'big' decisions (and I would include in this the homosexual issue, the direction a church should take, and what the message should be this Sunday), we turn to the Bible as God's present and immediate revelation. Through God's work in us by his Spirit, we read his Word as living and active - present and immediate - and therefore it takes precedence. I realise that there are all sorts of hermeneutical issues here, but the basic tenet is, I hope, clear.

Here's the question, though. Are evangelicals (or, let's say - me) 'closed' to God's extra-biblical revelation. In no way suggesting that this revelation would contradict his written word, nor, indeed, that it should be taken as as authoritative as the Bible, but have we closed ourselves off from God's living and active work in all creation (all creation being us as created beings as well as in the world around us)? Clearly I'm moving towards the Pentecostal end of things (I'm way too 17th century to become 19th century), and realise the potential difficulties with exploring these issues. But still - maybe we should ask the question - are we as evangelicals too closed off (if indeed that is the right phrase) to God's work and word to us today?

And here's the really interesting thing. As I am writing this Packer's 'Gourd us, Guide us' has turned up on my doorstep (not really that miraculous – I ordered it through Amazon 6 weeks ago). Nevertheless, taking this as a bit of a prompt, I'll endeavour to read a chapter every couple of days and post my thoughts. We’ll let the great Rev. Dr. JIP settle this (while he’s still Rev.)!