Written by T. M. Suffield |
Friday, May 12, 2023
Putting aside that it’s easier to understand a text when you read it all, it is how they were written. Paul expected his letters to be read as a whole and for the church to hear them like this. There’s nothing wrong with reading shorter passages and expounding them—the Bible itself does this frequently—but if we do so without ever catching the whole then we are missing something we’re supposed to have.

A couple of weeks ago I ran an event in Birmingham called ‘Reading 2 Timothy‘, where we did exactly that: read the book of 2 Timothy over the course of a Saturday morning.
It’s a Bible study, which probably doesn’t seem that revolutionary. It probably isn’t that revolutionary, to be honest, but I’ve not seen it done like this elsewhere.
The aim is to read all of the book, within the timeframe we’ve given ourselves so that we can read it in context.
There are six reasons why that’s a good idea:
Context
When we read a particular passage in the context of the surrounding sentences, we understand get insight into what that particular passage does or doesn’t mean.
We can widen the same principle out to the book as a whole: when we read a passage in the context of the whole book we get insight into what it means.
Thread
But, more importantly, when we read books of the Bible as a whole we start to understand the thread of the argument they’re making. Most people I know struggle to grasp a sense of a book as a book, there are multiple reasons here, but one of them is that we read in an atomistic way. When we read as a whole, we can follow the story that’s laid out for us.
Structure
We also then get to ask questions like, “why did the author put this paragraph here” assuming that the structure of the book itself will teach us.
It’s also difficult to notice the literary artistry of a book without being able to read it through in a sitting (or in four gulps across a morning in this specific case).
Read More
Related Posts:

We live in divided times—we live in polarized times. There are reflections worthy of making in this fractured relationship between two Puritan giants. Are all matters worth dividing over? Were the issues that Owen and Baxter divided over worthy of division? Are your divisions with your reformed and evangelical brother worth dividing over? Again, I will not answer the question for you but it is worth reflecting on in relationship to disagreements. 

When Christians Disagree: Lessons from the Fractured Relationship of John Owen and Richard Baxter by Tim Cooper is a 167 page book (including 20 pages of end material) recently published by Crossway. The book is a fast read, easily read in two or three short sittings. The volume is attractive—a signature of Crossway—with a wonderful little introduction by Dr. Michael AG Haykin, one of my favorite Baptists and one of my former church history professors. 
Before discussing the value of the book, there are the two areas of pause with the book that I have considered. The first is there is a repetition of information and stories related to Owen and Baxter. Although most likely purposeful in highlighting Cooper’s thesis, it occasionally comes across like an editing problem. The second concern is the question of anachronism. As Cooper wrestles through the question of conflict and resolution (or lack thereof), was this on the minds of Owen and Baxter, or is this our concern? Is the larger question of reconciliation over doctrinal differences a matter that is more of a concern to us rather than to them? A worthy question for meditation. 
Puritan Giants
When Christians Disagree introduces readers to an area of the life and ministries of Puritans John Owen and Richard Baxter. Both Owen and Baxter lived during a time of transition in England as the English Civil War raged on. Most of us know Owen and Baxter from their devotional material rather than for their interpersonal conflicts or disputes; much less their involvement in the English Civil War. Owen wrote Communion with God, The Holy Spirit, Mortification of Sin, The Glory of Christ, the Death of Death in the Death of Christ among many other theological and devotional works. Baxter is best known for his Directory, The Saints Everlasting Rest, The Reformed Pastor, and several other devotional works. Both Baxter and Owen stand on their own as theological and devotional giants as well as golden examples of the best of English Puritanism. But they had differences—and their differences were great—and worthy of discussing in writing. 
Differences and Disagreements
So what were the differences between Owen and Baxter in relationship to their disagreement and fractured relationship? Much of the disagreement between Baxter and Owen was related to their theological training and understanding, relationship to the English Civil War, personality and convictions concerning unity. 
Baxter was a largely self-taught pastor after attending “a few mediocre schools in his locality”  and sitting under private tutors. John Owen was given the best of university education available at the time, graduating with a Master of Arts from Queens College, Oxford and later with his Doctor of Divinity, also from Oxford. Owen’s greater understanding of nuances and theological precision largely led to difficulties between the two in their writings. 
Personality and relationship to the civil war led to further division between the two pastors. Owen saw the English Civil War as a “triumphant vindication of a glorious cause.”
Read More
Related Posts:

In a traditional marriage ceremony, the officiant addresses the congregation with, “If any man can show just cause why they may not lawfully be wedded, let him now declare it, or else hereafter forever hold his peace.” Even when those words aren’t uttered explicitly in the ceremony, they nevertheless indicate what attending a wedding means. That is why when you receive a wedding invitation, they are almost invariably an invitation to a “celebration” of some sort. Whether they realize it or not, the witnesses are not merely spectating. Unless they raise a verbal protest, the presence of witnesses implies their support of the union. Because our Lord has told us not to celebrate or approve sin, Christians must not attend “gay weddings” (Isa. 5:20; Rom. 1:32). 

I have been writing and speaking about gender and sexuality for over decade and a half. Whenever I talk about transgenderism, one of the first practical questions I hear concerns the use of pronouns. Whenever I talk about homosexuality, one of the first questions is about attending “gay weddings.” The answer to both questions is always “no.” While some Christians may have found difficulty arriving at those answers ten years ago, I have noticed that many Christians are far more prepared to give the right answer today. Bible-believing evangelicals seem to have moved toward a settled position against attending a gay wedding.
Or at least that is what I thought. Over the last couple weeks, controversy has erupted online about whether it is right for Christians to attend a so-called “gay wedding.” Two events in particular have precipitated this conversation. The first are some remarks by a prominent evangelical pastor advising a grandmother to attend what appears to be a gay wedding (and then the pastor’s subsequent doubling-down on his position). The second are some reported remarks to the same effect at the recent Mere Anglicanism conference.
I have no questions about what these teachers believe about marriage. Both of them affirm what the Bible teaches about marriage as the covenanted union of one man and one woman. Both of them also affirm that homosexuality is sinful and that “gay marriage” is therefore always wrong.
Nevertheless, both of them also seem to think that attending a “gay wedding” need not imply affirmation of homosexual immorality. They don’t offer a universal permission slip to attend “gay weddings.” Rather, they say that under certain circumstances it may be okay to attend. So long as the couple knows that you don’t approve of the “gay wedding” and so long as the wedding is not masquerading as a Christian ceremony, it could be okay to attend. Under those circumstances, attending the “wedding” could be a way to signal your love for a sinner who needs to be saved.
What are we to make of these arguments? The arguments fail because they misconstrue the public meaning of a wedding ceremony. Attending a wedding is not like attending a concert or a graduation where attendance suggests nothing about your own views on the proceedings. A wedding is a public recognition of a union at which the attendees are assembled as witnesses in order to solemnize the union. Those who attend are there to help celebrate and add their assent and witness to the union. That is the public meaning of attending a wedding ceremony no matter the intention of the one attending.
In this way, it is much like eating food sacrificed to idols and doing so in the context of a religious ritual dedicated to an idol. Yes, there may be a context in which it would be okay to eat the meat (1 Cor. 10:25-26), but Paul warns Christians that they must never eat that meat as a part of a feast dedicated to an idol (1 Cor. 8:10).
Read More
Related Posts: