The whole Western world is going through a civilisational moment – as for example the Roman Empire did at the time of Augustine, or Europe did at the time of the Reformation. Scotland is going through a civilisational moment. The question is whether the Free Church just goes with the tide; or seeks to turn it back and is overwhelmed; or learns to surf the cultural waves and seek a renewed Scotland, through a renewed church.

After my recent posts assessing the situation in the Church of Scotland, some have been keen to know how the Free Church is going.  Not having been part of it for the past three years – and bearing in mind Thomas Chalmers statement “who cares for the Free Church compared with the Christian good of Scotland” – I thought it would be interesting to take a fresh look at where the Free Church is going.  I hope no one would be naïve enough to think that the Free Church is the answer for the dire needs of the Church in Scotland – but perhaps it could be part of the answer?
With the caveat that I was not at the General Assembly of the Free Church, and was only able to watch some of it online, nonetheless on the basis of that, reports of friends and written reports, it appears to me that there was much to give thanks for at the FC assembly.    The motto of “a healthy gospel church for every community in Scotland’ is a fine aspiration.
One minister wrote:  “I have loved this week. It’s been in person. There has been great fellowship. Friendships have been renewed & made. It’s been forward looking. There is a sense that the church of Jesus, the part of that of which we are, is in the hands of good people, by the grace of God. It’s been harmonious…I cherish our present unity of heart & purpose, our mutual respect, our love for each other. As Paul says: ‘let us strive to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace’.”
It was interesting to observe the new faces, increased diversity and general sense of unity.  I found the Missions report of particular encouragement.  What really struck me was a comment from Neil MacMillan suggesting that the Free Church had plateaued.   There are areas where the church is growing – and it is now significantly engaging in church planting – but there are also areas of decline. Only the Seventh day Adventists and the Free Church of the denominations that were founded pre 1900 are growing in the UK today.  See John Hayward’s fascinating research – https://churchmodel.org.uk/2022/05/15/growth-decline-and-extinction-of-uk-churches/
And yet this is not enough.  There are some major areas which the Free Church needs to address immediately, if it is to move on from just maintaining itself, to being a major force for the Kingdom of Christ in Scotland. The Free Church will not survive by planting 30 new churches by 2030.  Our vision should be much bigger than that.  We need to plant new churches, revitalise old ones and even close some.   We have to rethink our approach to education, the poor, the culture and other churches.  Unless we engage with these issues, I suspect that the plateau will soon turn to decline.
Evangelism
Some of our growth is coming from other churches – especially the Church of Scotland.  How many Free Church congregations are seeing growth through conversions – especially from ‘the world’?   There is no use training lots of chiefs if there are no Indians.
Neil MacMillian pointed out that in his 12 years in Edinburgh there had been such a fundamental shift in the culture that Edinburgh looks different and sounds different.    The question is what are we doing to reach the lost?
Read More
Related Posts:

The triune God has graciously revealed himself to us. Historically and on biblical grounds, Christians have held two affirmations about who and what God is—God is one God, and he exists as three persons. This identification of God as triune stands at the heart of the Christian faith, along with the confession that the second person of the Trinity, the Son, took on a human nature without ceasing to be God.

The Way We Talk about God
Imagine that you’re trying to describe what God did on the cross. What do you say? Here’s how we’ve heard it described (including, at times, by ourselves!):

The Father poured out his wrath on the Son.
The Father turned his face away.
The Father abandoned his Son.
The Son felt the pangs of hell because he was separated from the Father on the cross.

Notice that in describing the cross this way, we are saying that there are two primary actors, two distinct individuals, the Father and the Son, the first two persons of the Godhead, and that each is doing something different at the crucifixion. For now, notice also that the third person of God, the Spirit, is never mentioned in these statements.
Let’s use a different example. You’re asked to describe God’s providence. What do you say? Here’s how we’ve heard it described (again, at times, by ourselves!):

The Father chose this path for me because he cares for me.
When we talk about election, we’re talking about the plan of God the Father.
We have a good Father who has planned all things to work together for our good.

Notice that in describing providence this way, we’re attributing God’s “plan” specifically to God the Father, and sometimes it sounds as if it’s only God the Father who plans out providence. One last example will suffice. Imagine that you’re told to describe how a Christian receives and uses spiritual gifts. What do you say?

The Spirit gave me the gift of [X, Y, or Z].
I can [use gift X, Y, or Z] because the Spirit empowers me.
I’m gifted at [X, Y, or Z] because the Spirit chose to make me that way.

Are the Father and the Son involved in the spiritual gifts? Or just the Spirit?
In each of these examples, and even in the way we’ve asked the follow-up questions, what we’re trying to help you see is that we often think about God’s acts as divisible between the persons and distributed according to their roles. So in these scenarios, sometimes the actor is primarily the Father, as in the examples about providence; sometimes the actor is the Son, as in the examples about the crucifixion; and sometimes the actor is the Spirit, as in the examples about the spiritual gifts.
Let’s return to the examples related to the crucifixion. A question we often ask our students when talking about this subject, and after we’ve described the crucifixion in the ways we gave above, is, “What was the Spirit doing while the Father was forsaking the Son?” Was the Spirit just watching from the sidelines? Was he taking a break from his divine duties? Are the Son and the Spirit also wrathful toward sin? Returning next to providence, do the Son and the Spirit sit on the bench while the Father governs his creation? And with respect to the spiritual gifts, do the Father and the Son renounce their authority and hand it over to the Spirit to let him distribute gifts to whom he wills?
These questions, we hope, help us see that the way we talk about God’s acts often divides the persons of God in a way that is contrary to our confession that God is one God in three persons. If only one divine person, or in some cases two of the three, is acting on any given occasion, how is that consistent with the Christian confession of one God, or with its roots in Jewish monotheism? Aren’t there now three Gods, each of whom acts in different ways in different times? Or is there one God who is sometimes Father, sometimes Son, and sometimes Spirit?
Read More
Related Posts:

My writing of this article is, at least in part, to help encourage mature and godly women within Christendom to effectively work so that this passage is no longer blasphemed and so that the Kingdom of Christ grows in ways that please the Father. But I am also writing because I want everyone in Christ’s Church to see how vital these seven commands are to Him. He did not threaten mild divine annoyance, quenching of the Spirit, or even heresy if these commands were not obeyed and joyfully taught.

A TIME FOR A BIT OF BREVITY AND FRANKNESS
As I near my fortieth birthday and watch the collapse of the American empire, I am resolved to speak plainly about what the Bible says. No tricks. No gimmicks. No apologies. Just plain and honest truth from the Word of God frankly delivered.
I am resolved towards this because it is in such short supply these days. If honesty and truth were our nitrogen and oxygen, this entire country would be left suffocating. This is because the Church abandoned her post a long time ago. Pastors traded in their pulpits and posts for skinny jeans, pop psychology, and man buns. Being relevant has become more important than righteousness. The approval of carnal men has become more captivating than the approval of God. And, instead of heralding the unvarnished Word in a world bereft of truth, many have adopted a slimy sort of worm-tonguedness known as “winsomeness” that prefers to keep feelings intact while souls barrel on towards hell.
That kind of charade has run its course and has been found lacking. What the Church and society at large need are not more marble-mouthed, weak-kneed, spineless, jellyfish pastors who are more afraid of offending the congregation than they are of offending God. We need men with chests. Men who will wrestle with the text, pour over it with fear and trembling, and humbly declare it as the Father’s God-breathed revelation for a world lost in heresy and sin.
We need this today because God is good, and the Word He authored is also good. We may not always like what it says; in the same way, a child does not always like the taste of medicine, but what goes down bitter will produce something sweet.
That is certainly true of today’s passage, which not only communicates substantial hard-to-swallow-truth but also chafes and irritates the soul of the modern man worse than a week-long diaper rash without a tube of Bordeaux’s butt paste. What we will see, however, is that these texts are not only true but good for us, so that anyone who ignores what they are teaching does so at their great peril.
With that, let us dive into our text.
THE TEXT
The older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. – Titus 2:3-5 NKJV
A WORD ABOUT “BLASPHEMY”
According to Paul, the Word of God can be blasphemed, which is a word on the level of damnable cursing. In the Old Testament, when a fella or Felicia blasphemed God, they were immediately put to death by the community since blasphemy was not only considered a social poison but also an affront to the awesome holiness of God (See Leviticus 24:16).
When you blaspheme, you are violently cursing the name of God. You are shaking a middle finger at the heavens. You are looking out to your sovereign Lord with demonic disdain and malevolent boldness, saying: “may you be damned.” And in your hubris, you deserve to die. You deserve to die because, in your madness, you believed it possible to ascend the heights with Satan, asserting your stupid and unlearned opinion over and above the Most High. And if the most glorious and beautiful angel ever created will be decisively cast into the lake of fire for his act of pride, how much more will a worm like you? Like the smallest ant cursing the most prominent man, you deserve to be pressed into the ground, stoned by the mobs, buried beneath a crushing weight of earth because you believed you could bring an infinite, Holy, matchlessly pure, and maximal in all splendor and glory, God, (yeah that God) down to your pitiful and senseless level, putting him securely under your wretched feet. Death would be too good for a fool speaking this way to the Almighty.
Similarly, let us contemplate the fate awaiting the one who deliberately or even ignorantly blasphemes the Word of God. The Word is His divine revelation, representing all He loves and everything He has ordained for us to know. Indeed, to assail the Bible is to wage an assault on the very nature of God Himself. How so?
First, the Bible is the sacred repository of God’s divine revelation, carrying within its pages the timeless wisdom, divine truths, and majestic narratives inspired by the Creator Himself. Its words, divinely breathed, resound with the authority and essence of the Almighty.
When one launches an attack on the Bible, they seek to undermine the very foundation of God’s self-disclosure to humanity. They cast doubt upon the authenticity, reliability, and divine inspiration of the Scriptures. In doing so, they are questioning God’s character and integrity, for He is the ultimate author behind the written Word.
Second, Paul uses a common phrase for the “Word of God” that is often used to describe Jesus Christ (See John 1:1). With this in view, blaspheming the word not only communicates cursings towards the Bible but also toward God’s Son, the Word made flesh (John 1:14).
Wouldn’t you think that the same God who fiercely prohibits blasphemy of His holy name also responds with unbridled fury when His sacred Word is slandered so grievously? Wouldn’t a sin like that provoke his Holy ire? Could He ignore such dastardly crimes when He is a just and righteous God? Of course not!
If it were not for Christ’s pleasures and mercy, this passage would hang over nearly every pulpit in America as a death sentence on the man (or woman – God forbid) who does not teach such things. What do I mean? In this passage, there are seven truths that older women are to teach younger women, so they do not blaspheme the Word of God. This means not teaching these truths to younger women, or teaching younger women to live in opposition to them, would amount to nothing less than the charge of blasphemy.
And, perhaps you are wondering, why is God so intense about His designs for womanhood? Why does He call it blasphemy if an older woman does not teach a younger woman, or if a younger woman does not love her husband and submit to his leadership? Why is that in a very exceptional category of sin? And the answer of course is that God loves womanhood. He loves His design so tremendously, that to tamper with it, would be to blaspheme His Word and His vision.
Read More
Related Posts: