The Roots of Endurance

The Roots of Endurance: Invincible Perseverance in the Lives of John Newton, Charles Simeon, and William Wilberforce.
By John Piper.

Review (Part 1 of N, where N is approximately the equal to the number of chapters).

I thought for this book I might blog as I read through it, as I find helpful and interesting ideas.

The setting for Piper's book:

Our time is marked by emotional fragility. We shatter easily when misfortune comes our way. In the face of sustained contention, we have little ability to withstand the onslaught, let alone surmount it with joy.

So Piper goes in search of the "root" of endurance. What is it that gives Christians endurance in the life of Godliness, and endurance in the face of opposition:

In his search Piper finds Newton, Simeon and Wilberforce as:

Men who rose to the challenges before them. Men who endured trial after trial, year after year. Men who weathered life-long opposition with joy in Christ.

Newton was a slave trader who found "Amazing grace", and later became a pastor and authored that well-known hymn.
Simeon was a pastor who endured much opposition. For his first 12 years out of 54 at the same place, his "pewholding" parishioners boycotted his services.
Wilberforce is well known for his battle to first abolish the slave trade, and then slavery itself from Britain and its colonies - but what gave him the power to endure what became a very long battle?

In his introductory chapter, what I find very interesting, and indeed Piper was surprised by this - justification by faith is the root of endurance for these three warriors of the faith, especially for Wilberforce:

The deepest root of endurance for Wilberforce - and Newton and Simeon shared this view entirely - was the precious and powerful experience of the justification of the ungodly by faith alone (Romans 4:5) - leading necessarily to a life of glorious freedom in the never-ending battle against sin and injustice.

Piper (and I) knew somewhat of Newton's finding of "Amazing grace", but new little of the cause of Wilberforce's and Simeon's endurance.

I did not realize that both of these men would make the cross of Christ so vital to the root of their endurance, and that Wilberforce in particular would focus on the very nature of justification as the linchpin of endurance in righteous living.

Another reason why it makes sense for Christians to be pro life.

In the US it seems that being a Christian doesn't mean that you are pro-life.

To argue the case from the Bible, I thought a key passage to point to was Psalm 139.
Recently I saw the title of a message by John Piper which refered to John the Baptist. Hmmm.
John the Baptist in-utero leaps for joy at the sound of Mary (and Jesus in-utero).

Luke 1:39-45 (ESV)
In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord."

http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1604_The_Baby_in_My_Womb_Leaped_for_Joy/

Tony Abbott's opinions

Tony is entitled to his own opinions (about sex) -here. I think I agree with his "rules", but not his apparent idolising of virginity.

it is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving and don't give it to someone lightly

Of course I maybe taking him out of context - like some other people.
It's also possible for people who weren't virgins to have a God honouring marriage.

I think my thinking and theology relating to this topic may well differ.
Of course, marriage is pointing to the greater reality of Christ and his bride, something much greater. And its our behaviour within marriage that helps point to this greater reality. (There is also the wedding dress if you catch my meaning - See Rev)
Well, back on Earth, I think our main problem with our attitude to sex is our selfishness -the other stuff are the symptoms.
For Christians its also trusting God's design for marriage.

Turning the other cheek

Here is an interesting article on The Age website exploring Jesus and Violence.

I'm not sure if I agree with him using Jesus as a model for non-Christians and non-violence, but I think he gets most things right. Maybe also how the resurrection connects with living as important aspects missing. The resurrection also means that Jesus will return to judge and hold people accountable (and also us for whether we turn the other cheek or not).

It remains clear that those who claim to follow Jesus cannot do so while ignoring his commands, let alone the way he lived. As my friend Jarrod often says, ''killing for Jesus makes about as much sense as shagging for celibacy.''

It seem to imply that true "fundamentalist" Christians are not the sort to be worried about. Its the ones how don't take him seriously enough who are the problem.

Book Review: The Reason for God

The Reason for God: Belief in an age of scepticism.
by Timothy Keller

You've got to love the quote on the introduction: '"I find your lack of faith - disturbing", Darth Vader'. It started well, and didn't disappoint, what's more, it far exceeded my expectations, even those given by another positive review.

His book is aimed at the "postmodern" sceptic, not so much the "modern" sceptic of a generation or two ago, though his answers will generally be good for the "modern" sceptic as well. He does also consider the "New Atheism" of Dawkins, Hitchens etc. In his experience of outreach he probably encounters a wide range of sceptics.

I read my father’s copy, and was so impressed I bought my own copy to lend to others.

I think he is gentle and engaging. He also gives some of his own history and testimony which helps to see how he was struggled with different issues in coming to firm faith in Christ and answering his doubts. This, along with his own humility and self-examination, have helped him in to present in this book sincere and clear yet powerful arguments that can engage both the sceptic and seeker. He is well equipped for such a book, from his own life experiences, his church planting of an inner-city church New York City, which has grown to 5000 members and planted many subsequent churches - he has the heart of a pastor, the passion of an evangelist, as well as being Biblically faithful and well read. Many of his arguments in the book have come from his own experience at reaching out to post modern New Yorkers and so he knows how to engage and address the intellectual and spiritual questions they ask. Showing as the scope of his reading, he refers to Kiekegard, C S Lewis, N T Wright, A Plantinga, Bonhoeffer, Dorothy Sayers, just to name a few, as well as secular thinkers and philosophers.

The book is divided into two halves. The first dealing with common questions raised against Christianity over seven Chapters. e.g. "There Can't Be just One True Religion", "How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?". On all these he argues powerfully and convincingly, yet drawing the readers in, for his goal is not to knock down their arguments but to draw them into examining their own unstated beliefs for themselves, and at least becoming a better thought-out atheist for example.
Primarily in this section, though throughout the book, he is very clear yet gentle in bring the sceptic when criticising the "unproven" faith to see they also have their own unproven faith. And further that those who reject absolute truth, or the idea there is only truth or true religion, are really just ascribing belief in another "preferred" absolute truth.

He then has a powerful "intermission" chapter where he invites the reader to seriously consider "Christianity", not in the sense as consider a "proof" for it - he argues against "strong rationalism" where one expects to have some “absolute proof” for anything, but argues for "critical rationality" where essentially we can test and justify our belief and argues with C S Lewis, that Hamlet to find out about the author, needs the author Shakespeare to write himself into the story. In fact that's how we see Jesus.
The second section he introduces both reasons for belief and introduces important aspects of the gospel and why they make sense themselves and of reality. He deals with topics such as sin, grace, the cross, resurrection.
I was a little confused with his chapter title "The knowledge of God". I think I was thinking in terms of "Special Revelation" though he is pointing to what might be term "General Revelation" in terms of our knowledge of right and wrong ("morality") that God gives everyone, though he argues it convincingly for a postmodern audience.
He does defend sacrificial substitutionary atonement, but not quite propitiation. He does defend Hell, and doesn't seem to have a problem with it being eternal, unlike some other Evangelicals. He does take a lot from C S Lewis. He does give the hint he is defending propitiation, which I will treat as that God’s wrath, his personal anger against us for our rebellion and sin, is appeased by Jesus death, who as our substitution faces it instead and thus God is satisfied. He does quote antagonists who object to the idea "of a wrathful God who needs pacifying", and see that the cross is "divine child abuse". I think he lays the foundation in this chapter and others for propitiation but might not be explicit in his defence as I was expecting as a reader from his intro to the chapter. I might be wrong on this but that's what I got from it. Maybe he is leaving that detail until the readers have laid the ground work, in developing a biblical world view. These are small issues, and I expect he is being more apologetic than just purely preaching the gospel. He does help even those readers who do understand propitiation to think more about the cost.

My favourite chapter of the book is the last one in this section "The dance of God" where he uses the ideas of Jonathan Edwards, C S Lewis and others. He builds on the work of previous chapters for a God of love and shows why the Trinity is the reason there can be both a loving and personal God. The main reason that non-trinity God can't be personal or loving, is because they never could love or relate until creation happened, and therefore it wouldn't be in their nature. On the other hand the Trinity shows that a "divine dance" between the members of the trinity has been going on for all eternity which is in its nature personal and is filled with love. What's more, God has created us to draw us into this dance which will continue for all eternity. For this reason we were redeemed.

He ends with a "Where to ..." chapter which among other things helps the reading to see what might be stopping them moving forward in faith or further enquiry. But he ends with the conclusion that we don't find God but it is he who finds us, this being out of his grace.

I don't think my review can quite do the book justice. Some of his arguments I have quoted or summarised are stronger still in the book. This is a very good book.
I haven't given this to any non-Christians yet, but will be praying for opportunities. As the book covers indicate, I'm not the only one with this goal.