The most important words in the world

Another way in which a minister's wife is ‘powerful’ is in the impact she has on her husband's ministry. She can halve or double his ministry. Three ways to double it:

1. Pray for him—especially for his godliness.
2. Be available and energetic enough to talk with him about his work: encourage him, strategise with him, analyse with him, vision-set with him and pray with him.
3. Don't compete with him or be envious of any ‘glory’ he may be getting. Remember, our aim is the glory of Jesus Christ.

Emma Pfahlert of Beverly Hills NSW, AUS (03/01/2008)

I've watched this discussion with great interest, of course. I've watched it being moved and shaken and shifted—by those who clearly do not have hope as their closest companion (having just read GC's CHN). I grew up in a boozing home but I'm not qualified to pass judgement on anyone who drinks or who doesn't. Where there is Jesus, there is hope

Jesus went into those places to seek and to save and to offer real hope—and he was put to death, not by drug dealers and publicans, no. He was arrested, tried and found guilty by the indignant movers, shakers and shifters—the respected members of the church of which he is the head.

My guess is that Jesus didn't drink alcohol, but who knows? It was obviously not very high on his list of concerns. My guess is that many possessed by the curse of alcohol in Jesus' time were healed by him, and told to ‘sin no more’ but I'm very sure that there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one of them who repents than over 99 righteous persons who do not need to repent. The brilliant irony in that statement is mind-blowing.

Pat Alexander of Wagga Wagga NSW, AUS (06/01/2008)

In the letters generated by Braddon Upex's article on alcohol it seems that most correspondents subscribe to the view that total abstention from alcohol is the only possibility for those who have been damaged by alcoholism in the past. It was a real shock to me to discover recently that this view, largely springing from Alcoholics Anonymous and the 12 Steps programmes, is not substantiated by the best available medical evidence, and that a return to moderate alcohol consumption is considered by many medical professionals working in this area to be much more likely to prove a successful ‘treatment’. Here in Liverpool, our local university teaching hospital's ‘Think Drink’ course is run on the basis of helping people with alcohol issues to return to moderate drinking—that is, less than 14 units for women and 21 for men per week.

The most interesting thing about this for me, as a pastor, is the way in which the AA dogma, having no foundation at all in Scripture and, it seems, a very questionable scientific pedigree, has become such a huge cultural assumption both in the world and in the church. For those wanting to know more about this, William Playfair's The Useful Lie (Timeless Texts, 1991) is a very interesting read. Archie Hart (Healing life's hidden addictions, Servant Publications, 1990) also touches on this area.

Andrew Evans of Christ Church Liverpool, UK (06/01/2008)

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed two very different definitions of what it means to have ‘faith in Jesus’ in recent articles in the Briefing?

If we go back to the April 2007 article by DB Knox (‘What is the Gospel?’), faith in Jesus seemed to be defined as acknowledging that the crucified Jesus has been raised from the dead and as such has been shown to be Lord and Christ. So as Knox said, “Not the saviourhood of Jesus but the lordship of Jesus is what the enquirer is invited to believe in for salvation.” Or again “Faith in Jesus, expressed in repentance or acknowledgement of him as the divine Lord, King and judge, is the way of obtaining this salvation.”

But if we look at the January 2008 article by Woodhouse and Cheng (‘The most important words in the world’), faith in Jesus seemed to be defined quite differently as trusting in the work of Jesus on our behalf to secure our salvation, as opposed to our own efforts: “It is for ‘all who believe’—that is all who receive this gift from God with the empty hands of simple trust”. Or again: “The question is, do you understand that you will not be justified before God by anything you have done?”

In isolation, both these definitions sound great, but my problem is that they seem to be two quite different definitions of what it means to have faith in Jesus, and, depending on which one you pick, you can end up with a fairly different understanding of who is justified/saved. For example, if I were to read Romans 3:21-26 in light of the Knox definition of faith, I would seem to end up with having to conclude that Roman Catholics are, in fact, justified before God because of their faith in Jesus (their acknowledgement of him as having been raised from the dead and now ruling as Lord). One of the ironies of this would seem to be that for me to vigorously defend the doctrine of justification by faith alone, I would have to be equally as vigorous in my defence of Roman Catholics as having been justified through their faith in Jesus, even though their doctrine of justification itself is wrong. To do anything else would seem to imply that I believe that faith in Jesus is not enough in itself to be justified. But on the other hand, if I stick with the Woodhouse/Cheng definition, Roman Catholics are quite clearly excluded from being justified before God because they lack the required faith in Jesus. And so, in order, to defend the doctrine of justification by faith alone, I must argue that Roman Catholics are not, in fact, justified as they do not trust in Jesus alone for their standing before God.

Maybe I've missed something, but this does seem to be an important definition to get right, and so I guess I was surprised and disappointed by the way in which Woodhouse/Cheng defended their understanding of who the benefits of the justification spoken of in Romans 3:21-26 applies to, especially when compared to the rigour shown in the Knox article. As best as I could see, Woodhouse/Cheng offered no biblical support for their understanding of what it means to have faith in Jesus other than to re-state Romans 3:22/26 in their own words with their understanding applied. Don't misunderstand me; I'm not suggesting for a moment I think they are wrong, just that I didn't see their understanding defended. And, as far as I can understand things, their definition needs to be defended especially in the light of Knox's article and, more importantly, the many passages referred to by Knox which seem to suggest a very different definition of what it means to have faith in Jesus. So why should the justified who have ‘faith in Jesus’ (Rom 3:26) or the all who believe (Rom 3:22) be understood as those “who receive this gift from God with the empty hands of simple trust” and not understood as those who have “faith in Jesus, expressed in repentance or acknowledgement of him as the divine Lord, King and judge”? After all, whenever Paul (or anyone else for that matter) gives more ‘flesh’ to what it means to ‘believe’ or to what it means to have ‘faith in Jesus’ (e.g. Rom 10:9-10), his definition seems to square perfectly well with the Knox definition but the Woodhouse/Cheng definition seems to be absent.

It would be great to see this question of what it means to have faith in Jesus and its relationship to justification taken up in a future issue. It was a shame, I think, not to address it more thoroughly in the most recent issue as it seems hard to defend ‘justification by faith alone’ if we aren't even clear on what the faith through which justification comes consists of.

Stephen Bott of Birmingham Gardens, NSW, AUS (22/01/2008)

I've just (for whatever reason) read Tony Payne's response to Chapple and Carson regarding the ESV.

I know it was a while ago, but I just wanted you to know that the way you wrote was both erudite and gracious. You made me laugh out loud as I read it and I was nodding with you.

If it were me, I'm pretty sure that I would have been far less conciliatory. I've just returned from a camp where the idea of following in Christ's footsteps came up: the idea of suffering for what is right.

My message for when you get back to work on Tuesday: Keep at it. Well done.

Roger Fitzhardinge of Newtown, NSW, AUS (28/01/2008)

Christopher Ash's article in The Briefing January 2008 was one of the best and clearest articles I have read on the subject of justification by faith, and I agree completely with Ash's concern that we be careful in how we use the language of justification and faith. However, can I suggest that in just one respect he is not careful enough? In section 3, Christopher says: “Obedience is not a second stage added on to faith (in which we first ‘trust’ and then later learn to ‘trust and obey’). No, real faith actually consists in loving obedience”. I share Christopher's concern here that there should be no question of someone ‘believing’ without ‘obeying’, but I think that the way he puts things might lead to a very dangerous misunderstanding. In The Doctrine of Justification by Faith (Works, Volume 5, Banner of Truth, pp. 103-106, 111-113), the great Puritan theologian John Owen deals with the question of why it is faith that justifies: does it do so either because it is, because it leads to obedience, or because it lays hold of and receives Christ and his righteousness? Owen's answer is the latter, which is exactly the point that Christopher makes so well in the first part if his article: “faith is laying hold of Jesus Christ with empty, open hands”, not something that has any value in itself. However, by saying that faith “consists in loving obedience”, Christopher is in danger of undermining his own point: we might well conclude that faith justifies because it is “loving obedience”, and come back to the justification by our own works that Christopher rightly warns us against.

It would be much better to say that faith always leads to obedience, (because, as Christopher says, faith is always faith in God and not in idols). This is a point that is explained very well by John Piper in Future Grace, and it makes good sense of Hebrews 11 (those mentioned acted by faith, but their acting is not said to be faith) and James, and is certainly a possible interpretation of Romans 1:5. But in this case, while faith is “inseparable from repentance, loving obedience, and patient waiting”, it is also distinct from them, and it is extremely important that we maintain the distinction.

I hope that this letter is not taken as an attack on Christopher, or his article. I thoroughly agree with the other 99% of it, and I am very grateful for it. It is, rather, an attempt to build on the foundation that he has laid.

Stephen Walton of Marbury, Cheshire, UK (24/02/2008)

Congratulations to Philip Cooney for his article about Larry Norman. He'll be interested to read that just last week, I pulled out Norman's ‘The Outlaw’ (about the only thing I can play on the guitar) and used it as the centrepiece of a kids' talk to 8-10-year-olds at St James, Croydon.

Why did Jesus come?

Some say he was an outlaw ...

Some say he was a poet ...

Some say a politician who spoke of being free ...

Some say he was a sorcerer ...

Some say he was the Son of God, a man above all men,
That he came to be a servant and to set us free from sin,
And that's who I believe he is cause that's what I believe,
And I think we should get ready cause it's time for us to leave.

(View full lyrics.)

Simple. Eloquent. As fresh today as in 1970 (or the first century).

One of my 20-year-old colleagues asked, “Did you write that?”

I wish!

Darryl Anderson of St Leonards, NSW, AUS (24/02/2008)

Thank you for reprinting DB Knox's ever timely article on the hows and whys of blasphemy (‘Language Pollution’, Briefing #352 Jan 2008). Unfortunately it seems that blasphemy is a phenomenon that we are subjected to—and all the more increasingly, it seems, through every different form of media. I especially appreciated his insight into to why we actually do it:

Men and women, down in the bottom of their hearts, hate God, and they like to shake their fist in his face, and this shows itself in the form of blasphemy. It gives satisfaction, and it is therefore a reflection of our human nature, which is in rebellion against God and refuses to acknowledge his claim on our lives.

What a great insight into why we're so tempted to and prone to commit this particular sin!

Just before this statement, though, Knox makes the comment that by comparison, the expletive “By Jove!” doesn't provide the same level of carnal satisfaction as blasphemous outbursts do because it is not directed against God. However, I understood the term “By Jove” to actually be a reference to ‘Jehovah’. (It could also be an old-fashioned reference to the Roman god Jupiter but it seems that, historically, it did refer to both deities—a problem in and of itself [cf. Isa 42:8]!)

Regardless of the particularities, it is alarming to see how many seemingly innocuous phrases—especially in Aussie slang—actually have a blasphemous heritage. For example, ‘Crikey’ is no less than a reference to Christ himself, and ‘Streuth’ is a statement regarding ‘God's Truth’. And these are just some of the tamer ones.

I guess the question that remains is should we as Christians still use these expressions? The question is even more difficult when you consider how popular some of them have become through ‘celebrities’ such as Steve Irwin. However, if we are going to truly honour our Lord, then, even though these terms are seemingly ‘innocent’, maybe we should refrain from them.

Mark Powell of Strathfield, NSW, AUS (24/02/2008)

I could not help but notice that Tony Payne (CHN Freighting in the Meaning, 26th Feb, 2008) made some very interesting comments. I believe that we often fall into the trap of applying a meaning to a word in one context, when the meaning belongs to another context. I could not help but comment that Tony Payne fell guilty of his own charge within his own comments! Tony said, “Christians perpetrate this fallacy quite often—usually out of a commendable desire to read Scripture in line with other Scripture, and to understand God's word more clearly.”

I assume from the context that Tony considers Scripture to be God's word. I prefer the Westminster Confession's definition of Scripture—the ‘Word of God written’. I find it interesting how we interpret the ‘Word’ of God in both OT and NT as being more often than not Scripture. I have heard Hebrews 4:12 interpreted as a reference to Scripture many times, and yet the definition the NT gives for the Word of God appears to be Jesus (1 John 1:1-2), the Holy Spirit (John 5:38), and God himself (John 1:1). I have even heard 1 Peter 1:23 quoted as how we are saved (born again) through Scripture.

I was brought up in the Anglican Church, and I am now a Presbyterian minister but I have noticed this fundamental flaw in all denominations. I am aware that understanding the Word of God in relation to Scripture is a complex issue but would still want to say the following.

• Scripture is very important, it is breathed by God and is an accurate account of the Living Word of God.
• The Gospel and the Bible are two different things. The Gospel is Jesus. The Bible is an accurate account of Jesus.

When we fail to find the balance of the two points above we can fall into the trap of legalism or liberalism. We need to find the balance of knowing about the important relationship the Bible points us to, without thinking the Bible is the relationship.

I want to thank Tony for pointing out an important part of interpreting Scripture, and I would like to encourage us all to be mindful of our definition of the word of God written!

(I am in the middle of writing an article on the subject of the Word of God that I hope to submit for publication when completed if you are interested.)

Dave Woolcott of Ryde, Sydney. Australia (27/02/2008)