God is at work in this age to bring about good things; that God is working all things out for an ultimate good—including final justice as well as eternal blessing of those who trust in Christ. But the Bible does not teach that this is absolutely the best of all possible worlds. It does not present a rational ‘theodicy’ which completely explains and justifies the origin of evil and the full extent of suffering throughout time. In its exploration of the problems of evil and suffering in books like Job and Ecclesiastes, the Bible recognises a degree of mystery and disorder in our experience of pain, suffering, evil and injustice.

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. (Romans 8:28–29)
A semi-regular editorial note I make on submissions to TGCA is related to pastoral application of the sovereignty of God. It is comforting to know that our lives are not ultimately in chaotic flux. Our loving heavenly Father is in control of all things, perfectly able to bring about all of his good purposes. This gives believers peace in uncertainty, contentment in suffering and great confidence in preaching and prayer.
But even great writers and preachers can claim too much of this truth, over-applying it in ways that go beyond the Scriptures. For example, in his Morning and Evening, Charles Spurgeon writes:
Remember this, had any condition been better for you than the one in which you are, divine love would have put you there.
And in Trusting God, Jerry Bridges writes:
He has a purpose in every pain He brings or allows in our lives. We can be sure that in some way He intends it for our profit and His glory.
At first glance, these seem like heart-warming applications of Romans 8:28–29. The difference lies in the additional rhetorical flourishes and theological claims they are making. Spurgeon explicitly claims that the circumstances a believer finds themselves in are the optimal circumstances for them. This is saying much more than Romans 8 or Ephesians 1: not simply that God is working through all things for good to bring about his purposes, but that each individual circumstance throughout time and space is the very best for each individual believer. And Bridges seems to be ascribing particular purpose for each individual pain: a kind of customised, bespoke program of education and sanctification.
“The Best of All Possible Worlds”
Such good-intentioned pastoral and devotional application has more in common with Voltaire’s Professor Pangloss than the biblical presentation of the sovereignty of God. In his book Candide, Voltaire mocks inadequate explanations of the presence of evil. The character of Pangloss is his mouthpiece of rationalist philosophy:
Pangloss taught metaphysico-theologico-cosmo-codology. He could prove wonderfully that there is no effect without a cause and that, in this best of all possible worlds, His Lordship the Baron’s castle was the most beautiful of castles and Madam the best of all baronesses.
Read More
Related Posts:

I don’t think the ideal or realistic scenario is for all Christian ministry to take place within local churches or be formally managed by denominational oversight. But this does not mean that parachurches are free to ignore to the special importance of local churches in God’s kingdom. If we proactively work together, we can hope for a better outcome not only for the local church and the parachurch, but for the advance of the kingdom of God.

“Stay in your lane!” is a popular phrase at the moment. It is a rebuke to those who presume to take on too much, step outside their proper role or expertise. Parachurches need to be regularly reminded to stay in their lane.
My recent article ‘Think Beyond Your Local Church in Ministry Training and Recruitment’ focussed on encouraging churches to work with one another and their denominations in raising up the next generation of leaders. The article’s headline and pull quote (“If your ministry training was entirely local-church-focussed, it’s more than likely that your mature leadership patterns will be similarly insular”) gave the wrong impression to many that the article was about the superior benefits of parachurches as a place for training and recruitment. It thus became something of a Rorschach test for people’s ministry experiences and complaints. A good reminder that much discussion of articles shared on social media revolves around what people who haven’t read the article think it is about!
The issues raised in these discussions around negative patterns of parachurch ministry were significant and relatable. So in this article I will address the very real issue of the presumptuous parachurch.[1] It is common for parachurches to gain more momentum, finances and enthusiastic support than surrounding churches. If they are not careful, they can leverage these advantages in a way that undermines rather than strengthens local churches and denominations—even other parachurches. There are both theologically principled as well as big-picture practical reasons why such presumption should be reined it.
Principled Commitment to the Local Church
A baseline commitment for my argument is the special importance of the local church. The local church is an earthly manifestation of the universal church, specially entrusted with the preaching of the gospel in word, baptism and Lord’s supper; and the discipleship and discipline of God’s people (Matt 18:15–17; 1Cor 5:4–5, 11:17–26, 12:14–31; Eph 4:1–16; 1 Tim 3:15).[2] I am assuming here that the local church is something more formal than simply any gathering of Christians around the word of Christ.[3] I am also assuming that however valuable the many kinds of ministry and good deeds that Christians engage in beyond the local church, that these activities are not best described as some equal and complementary ‘mode’ of church.[4]
If local churches have a special place in the outworking of God’s purposes then other Christian organisations, especially those which gather in regular local fellowship—organisations like chaplaincy, AFES, City Bible Forum, Christian Surfers, Navigators, Scripture Union and theological colleges—should affirm a commitment to the local church. They should find ways to uphold the special importance of local churches in practice. Parachurches should determine not to explicitly nor functionally take the place of local churches; not to double as quasi-crypto local churches.
Parachurches do well to articulate the value of the local church in their key strategic documents, such as their mission, strategy and values. They should consider where their policies and practices should express this commitment. But values which are only found in formal documents can easily become hollow ideals. They need to be diligently implemented.
Read More
Related Posts:

The insights of Christian tradition, and the discernment and critique of fellow believers today are both valuable safeguards for us as we seek to do theology and biblical interpretation. For we must go about the task with reverence, caution and diligence, so that even as we draw out the good and necessary consequences, we do not go beyond what is written and drift too far into mere human speculation.

The Scriptures are fully sufficient to guide us to salvation, the worship of God and the godly life. We do not need to supplement Scripture with human traditions or philosophy, as if it were incomplete. However, it is important to understand that Sola Scriptura does not demand a simple kind of biblicism—believing nothing but what individual texts explicitly teach—as if that were ever actually possible. As the Westminster Confession of Faith describes:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. (I.VI.)
In that sense, as we read Scripture, explain Scripture, synthesise the teachings of Scripture and apply Scripture, we go beyond the words of the individual texts. We need to pull together what is “expressly set down in scripture” and drawing out what may, “by good and necessary consequence…be deduced from scripture.” But there lies the risk. It is very easy, in the process of doing theology, to run afoul of one possible interpretation of the maxim “Do not go beyond what is written” (1Cor. 4:6).[1] For example, the Confession recognises that not all of Scripture is equally clear in its details (I.VII) and so those parts which are more mysterious should be understood in the light of those which are more plain (I.IX).
Biblical Language about God
This is especially true for language about God. The Scriptures use human language and human concepts to help us understand God. However, God the Father is neither biologically male nor is his relationship to God the Son anywhere near human procreation. This is the mistake that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints makes, teaching that Christ is the actual progeny of Father God. Or some discussions about the persons of the Trinity rely too heavily on human social relationships and so risk implying that each person of the Trinity were a god in community with the others. Even descriptions of God’s love or grief are distinct from the human experience of emotions which is tied to our uniquely human psycho-somatic existence. As we handle any part of God’s word, and especially those parts which speak about God himself, we need to be careful not to stray too far from that which God has said. We need to be very, very confident that we are proceeding from “good and necessary consequence”.
Read More
Related Posts:

If we tell ourselves we are not revivalists, then we won’t be self-aware enough to critique our own revivalism. In fact, each subsequent generation tends to adopt some of the ‘new measures’ that were controversial in a previous generation, as if they are an ordinary part of everyday ministry. 

People sometimes tell a story that begins with the truly spiritual and often Calvinistic ‘revivals’ of the Great Awakening and Evangelical Revival in the eighteenth century, to the increasingly emotionally manipulative, tightly-managed and often Arminian revivalism of the nineteenth century, which gave way to both the industrialised mass evangelism and the full-blown experientialism of Pentecostalism in the twentieth century. This story, and its distinction between (true) Revival and (counterfeit) revivalism, is one you are likely to be taught it in church history lectures, read in books and hear in discussions of mission and evangelism. 
However, I don’t think the distinction is a clear or effective one.
I believe it is much better to use the term ‘revival’ to describe an outcome: the phenomenon of massive growth in spiritual seriousness and evangelistic fruitfulness, whether it appears to be almost entirely spontaneous or not.[1] ‘Revivalism’ (and ‘revivalist’, ‘revivalistic’ and so on) should describe activities, ideas, people and organisations that aim at Revival, whether or not Revival takes place, whether or not the ideas or activities are considered biblically legitimate or not. That is, rather than speaking of Revival vs Revivalism, I think it is more helpful to speak of Biblical Revivalism vs Unbiblical Revivalism.[2]
Most Revivals Are Revivalistic
If you pay close enough attention, you will notice methods and techniques that played a part in even the most remarkable, miraculous and theologically Calvinistic of revivals. For example, the publication of sermons and accounts of revivals were common at the time of the Evangelical Revival. These served as a model to other ministers and sowed seeds of expectation in congregation members. Mark Noll describes various skills which contributed to the Evangelical Revival and Great Awakening:
They were, however, unusually gifted men: one of the greatest public orators of the century (Whitefield), one of the most effective organisers for one of the longest period of effectiveness (John Wesley), one of the pioneers in the management of publicity (William Seward), one of the most compelling popular troubadours (Charles Wesley), one of the most powerful thinkers (Edwards), several of the critical forerunners of printed mass communication (John Lewis, Thomas Prince, William McCulloch), and then scores of others who in their local spheres were sometimes even more memorable as preachers, networkers, hymnwriters, theologians and communicators.[3]
More, circumstances that aren’t deliberately engineered and practices that aren’t adopted with the intention of triggering a revival also usually play a part in revivals too. If we are to be critical of so-called revivals engineered by human effort, we should also show enough discernment to realise that less self-conscious forces can also bring about something which looks like revival. Just because it wasn’t deliberately planned doesn’t mean it is therefore of God!
To insist that a true revival must be almost entirely spontaneous and surprising is neither biblical nor historical.
Read More
Related Posts: