Gilgal

I gave a talk in meeting yesterday, on Solomon's going up to Gibeon to sacrifice (2 Kings 1:1--4). I've already written about this. I didn't go into as much detail in the talk as I did on this blog: I try to keep a talk to 35 minutes or less, and on my blog I can go as long as I like. But the main point I was trying to make was, if we mingle true faith with man's religion, we'll end up leaving the Lord's presence out. This is precisely what Solomon did. The ark of the covenant was in Jerusalem, the Lord had chosen Jerusalem to put His Name there (Psalm 78:60--69): He Himself had promised to meet the people between the cherubim on the mercy seat (Exodus 25:22). But Solomon left Jerusalem to worship at the altar in Gibeon (2 Chronicles 1:3--6).

I started out by giving a brief history of the ark's location from Kadesh-Barnea to Jerusalem. The first camp of the children of Israel in Canaan was at Gilgal (Joshua 5). It was at Gilgal that the Lord commanded Joshua to make stone knives and circumcise the Israelites, because they hadn't been practicing circumcision the whole time they were in the wilderness (Joshua 5:1--7).

2 At that time Jehovah said to Joshua, Make thee stone-knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time. 8 And it came to pass when the whole nation had finished being circumcised, that they abode in their place in the camp, till they were whole. 9 And Jehovah said to Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. And the name of the place was called Gilgal to this day. (Joshua 5:2, 8--9, JND)

Now, I realize I probably sound really "brethren" here, but we notice when the children of Israel went out to conquer the land, Gilgal was their base camp. When they finished a campaign, they'd return to Gilgal before their next campaign. Well, they didn't always return to Gilgal. When they'd taken Jericho, they went straight from Jericho to Ai (Joshua 7:2--4). The battle at Ai didn't go so well. When Joshua asked the Lord about it, the Lord answered,

11 Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them, and they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it among their stuff. 12 And the children of Israel shall not be able to stand before their enemies: they shall turn their backs before their enemies, for they have made themselves accursed. I will no more be with you, except ye destroy the accursed thing from your midst. (Joshua 7:11--12, JND)

This passage was a real hot topic for a while among some of the "brethren" I was in fellowship with. A lot of the discussion about it seemed to me to have missed the most salient point: Joshua sent spies from Jericho to Ai without ever consulting the Lord. It wasn't until they were pummelled at Ai that Joshua asked the Lord about it.

There was another time Joshua acted without consulting the Lord, when the Gibeonites came to Gilgal to sue for peace (Joshua 9:1--15). The Scripture specifically tells us that Joshua didn't ask the Lord before acting (v. 14). Again, the decision made regarding Gibeon turned into a permanent problem for the Israelites. Adonai-Zedek attacked Gibeon, drawing the Israelites into a fight on his terms (Joshua 10:1--6).

When the Angel of the Lord came from Gigal to Bochim, He referenced the failure at Gibeon:

1 And the Angel of Jehovah came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you to the land which I swore unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you; and as for you, 2 ye shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not hearkened unto my voice. Why have ye done this? 3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be scourges in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you. 4 And it came to pass, when the Angel of Jehovah spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voice and wept. 5 And they called the name of that place Bochim; and they sacrificed there to Jehovah. 6 And Joshua dismissed the people, and the children of Israel went every man to his inheritance to possess the land. (Joshua 2:1--6, JND)

They'd made a covenant with the people of the land, and the people of the land were scourges in their sides.

We might notice a principle here in passing: they weren't to make a covenant with the people of the land, but when they did, the Lord didn't tell them to break the covenant. Sometimes we might find that we've made a covenant (as it were) with the "people in the land". We sometimes think the solution is to break our covenant and declare war on them anyway, but that's not what the Scripture teaches. Joshua and his people had sworn to the Gibeonites they wouldn't attack them, and the Lord held them to their oath. He chides them for making the oath, but He never tells them to break it. In fact, when Saul broke the covenant with the Gibeonites, the Lord punished Israel (2 Samuel 21:1--14).

Joshua's failure at Jericho was that he didn't inquire of the Lord before going up against Ai. This is illustrated geographically in his going straight from Jericho to Ai, without coming back to Gilgal. Now, coming to Gilgal wasn't enough: the story of the Gibeonites tells us that even at Gilgal, he still failed to consult the Lord before acting. But the point remains that there is a lesson for us in Joshua's failure.

Gilgal was where the Lord rolled away the reproach of Egypt. Colossians 2:9--12 connects circumcision with the "putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of the Christ" (v. 11, JND). So we might see in the story of Gilgal an application to us. And I have to admit I see a lot of my own failure here.

There are times when things seem to be going well. I don't mean that my bills are getting paid and I've got plenty to eat: I mean there are times when it seems like maybe I'm getting the hang of this whole Christian life thing. It's been something like 35 years, I ought to be figuring it out! But there are times when we get the smell of victory: the smell of smoke and destruction and blood. There are times when it seems like we're doing the right things and walking with the Lord. And it's at those times that we need to return to Gilgal. But in my personal experience, those are the times I say, "I've got this, Lord. Don't worry about me. I'll just go ahead and send some spies up to Ai...".

What's the result? It's not good.

I noticed a couple years ago that there is a sort of progression through Romans 6--8:

1. Romans 6 is "Know... reckon... yield". It's about deliberate sin.
2. Romans 7 is "Who shall deliver me?". The point here is not that we ought not to continue in sin, but that we have this thing in us called "the flesh" and we're powerless over it.
3. Romans 8 is "put to death the deeds of the body"

Romans 8 is different from 6 & 7: they have the sense of a crisis. The man in Romans 7 is anything but calm: the flesh is beating him down and he knows it. But when we got to Romans 8 things are calmer. And yet, even in the calm, there is the responsibility to be on the offensive. See, there's a sense where it's not too hard to rely on the Lord in the thick of the battle. When the flesh is dominating, when temptation seems just insurmountable, when we find in ourselves no good thing and we find ourselves doing what we don't want to do... those times it's relatively easy to look for the Deliverer (notice I said relatively). But when there's a respite, when we're celebrating on a field of victory, it can be really, really hard to go on the offensive. It can be really hard to remember what Romans 8 says, we need to "mortify".

Once again, Scripture doesn't teach asceticism, it doesn't teach works as the answer. That's the whole point of Romans 7, right? But it doesn't teach abandon either, that's the whole point of Romans 6. So what's "mortifying"?

There is an answer in the story of Gilgal, and it's answered in 2 Corinthians 3. When the children of Israel were in Gigal, they didn't only circumcise with stone knives: they also ate the old corn of the land (Joshua 5:11). What's the old corn of the land? It's Christ in resurrection (cf. Leviticus 2:12--16; 1 Corinthians 15:20--28). So it's not only that we put off the flesh, we also feed on Christ. Now, 2 Corinthians 3:18 tells us the same thing, maybe in less mystical terms:

But *we* all, looking on the glory of the Lord, with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit. (JND)

Want to be Christ-like? The scriptural path to Christ-likeness is to look at Him in glory.

But we can't come to Gilgal (as it were) in any sort of pride. We might come back flushed with victory, but Gilgal isn't only the place to feed, it's the place of circumcision. There's a cutting that happened at Gilgal, and 2 Corinthians 4 tells us about that too:

6 Because it is the God who spoke that out of darkness light should shine who has shone in our hearts for the shining forth of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassingness of the power may be of God, and not from us: 8 every way afflicted, but not straitened; seeing no apparent issue, but our way not entirely shut up; 9 persecuted, but not abandoned; cast down, but not destroyed; 10 always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body; 11 for we who live are always delivered unto death on account of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh; 12 so that death works in us, but life in you. (2 Corinthians 4:6--12, JND)

The life of Jesus is manifested in our mortal bodies as death works in us. That's not to say that we work death in ourselves: it should be obvious that's impossible. But the Lord uses death to work in us so that His life is manifested in us. But the point is, the whole idea of coming to Gilgal with any sort of pride is the very opposite to the working of death in us that happens there.

So that's what I've been thinking about for the last couple days: I didn't set out to talk about Gilgal yesterday; but as I was speaking about Gibeon, I was struck that there's been a real failure on my part to appreciate (and practice) the lesson of Gilgal. And I thought it might be worthwhile to share that.

Ritual and Faith

I was in the mall with my kids. A man approached me and asked if he could share the gospel with me. I agreed. He clearly explained that we are all sinners, that Christ Jesus came into the world, died for us, was raised again, and we can be forgiven because of His sacrifice for us. In short, he did a good job of sharing the gospel with me.

But then he wanted me to repeat a prayer with him. I declined, saying, "It would be in appropriate for someone who is already a believer."

He countered, "It can't hurt."

"But that's not faith!" I said.

He argued with me, and finally left. I felt bad, I really wasn't trying to ruin this guy's day. In fact, I admire that he's in a shopping mall sharing the Gospel with random strangers. I really do.

But God isn't looking for a ritual: He's not looking for someone to repeat a prayer. He's looking for people to believe (John 5:24, Romans 4:5). And if I believe God, there's no room for "it can't hurt." "It can't hurt" isn't the language of faith: it's the language of hedging my bets. It's the language of not being sure what I believe, and clutching at anything that looks like it might float.

God is looking for faith. Faith is believing what God says, because God said it. That is what pleases God. That is what God has said He counts as righteousness.

I didn't want to stumble the guy. I sure didn't want to discourage him from sharing Christ with strangers in the mall. I quoted John 5:24 to him: there's no "it can't hurt" in the Gospel. Those who believe are passed from death into life, and they won't come into judgment.

In the end, he was offering a ritual--- not a very fancy ritual, but a ritual nonetheless--- as a means to salvation. This isn't what the Scripture teaches: it teaches justification by faith (Acts 13:38 & 39; Romans 5:1), not justification by ritual.

I can't remember his name: I'm not sure he even offered it. But we need to pray for the guy that was sharing the Gospel in the mall. I'd like to think he was just having trouble coping with something that wasn't in the script. I hope he doesn't really believe the difference between heaven and hell is reciting the prayer in his tracts. I don't know; God knows, and God loves him.

Eternal Occupation

A few weeks ago I was giving a talk in meeting. I made the statement that our eternal occupation will be to learn about the Father and the Son. A brother in the meeting called me on that: he wanted a chapter and verse to support my claim.

Let's point out that this is exactly how the assembly is supposed to function. When someone makes a statement, it is imperative that the other people in the gathering should be willing to challenge it. Now, this brother didn't come out swinging, he didn't tell me I was an heretic, he cast no aspersion on my family. He simply challenged me on my statement and asked me to prove it from Scripture. This is what 1 Corinthians 14 specifically commands: the prophets are to speak, and the rest are to judge. That's not to say I consider myself a prophet, but the idea is that the assembly is a place where we judge what's said.

So this brother brought up a legitimate point, and I'm ashamed to say I didn't have an immediate answer. So I told him I'd get back to him. It's taken me longer than it ought to have, but I've been trying to piece together a reply. I thought this would be a good place to do that; so you get to read my rough draft, so to speak.

Probably the best place to start is with the Lord Jesus' statement at the start of John 17:3, "this is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent". So according to the Lord Jesus, eternal life is knowing the only true God, and Jesus Christ. This, I suppose, almost completely answers the question. Knowing Him is eternal life.

It's no stretch to say that if knowing Him is eternal life, then it will be at least a huge part of what we're living for in eternity.

Scripture doesn't tell us a whole lot about what eternity will be like. Scripture isn't, after all, written to satisfy our curiosity. But there are some positive statements made that touch on our question. One is in Ephesians 2:

but God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love wherewith he loved us, (we too being dead in offences,) has quickened us with the Christ, (ye are saved by grace,) and has raised [us] up together, and has made [us] sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, that he might display in the coming ages the surpassing riches of his grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:4--7, JND)

I find this statement interesting, it says one of God's purposes is to use the Church as a display of His grace in the coming ages. It doesn't say who's looking at the display, it merely says the Church will be on display.

This seems to support the notion that eternity will be all about getting to know God better. Not in the sense of a classroom, but in the sense of getting to know Him. As we look at the Church in Heaven, we'll see His grace on display. And the more we look at it, the more we'll see of His grace.

Ephesians makes another statement about eternity:

To me, less than the least of all saints, has this grace been given, to announce among the nations the glad tidings of the unsearchable riches of the Christ, and to enlighten all [with the knowledge of] what is the administration of the mystery hidden throughout the ages in God, who has created all things, in order that now to the principalities and authorities in the heavenlies might be made known through the assembly the all-various wisdom of God, according to [the] purpose of the ages, which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access in confidence by the faith of him. (Ephesians 3:8--12, JND)

This one is a little different, it says God will use the assembly to demonstrate His wisdom to the principalities and authorities in the heavenlies. Here we have an audience named for the display, but once again the whole point of the display isn't the Church itself, it's the character of God that will be seen as they look on the Church.

So the two eternal purposes of God in the Church in Ephesians are certainly centered on getting to know God better. In the Church we'll see His grace and His wisdom. And that means we'll have an eternal job to do (if I can say it that way): we'll be on display to show Him off.

1 Thessalonians 4 says the whole point of His coming to get us is for us to "ever be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:17). That was the apostle's encouragement to the Thessalonians, it should encourage us too. He's coming to get us so that we can always be with Him. Notice the Lord said almost exactly the same thing to Peter, "if I go and shall prepare you a place, I am coming again and shall receive you to myself, that where I am ye also may be" (John 14:3, JND). So this is, in a sense, the promise of eternity: there'll come a time when we'll be with the Lord Jesus forever. It's the thought of Scripture that we would be excited by this prospect, that it would be something to keep us moving forward.

Paul said something similar in Philippians 3: "that I may know Him" (Philippians 3:10). This is a striking passage, because Philippians was written late in his life. He'd already learned more than I'll ever know about the Lord, but his goal was to know Him. This suggests to me that we'll never come to know the Lord Jesus completely. I'm not saying He is completely unknowable, but He's definitely not completely knowable. We'll still be knowing Him better for all eternity: even with all eternity, the infinite God will be a mystery to our finite minds.

Having said that, I think I dropped the ball when I was giving that talk. I think I probably talked about knowing about Christ, as opposed to knowing Him. There is a huge difference between the two, although they're not entirely unrelated. I wouldn't say I know a person if I know absolutely nothing about him; on the other hand, knowing all about someone isn't the same as knowing him. It's possible to know a great deal about the Lord Jesus without actually knowing Him. That's not eternal life.

So no, our eternal occupation's not going to be classes in theology. But we will spend eternity getting to know God better. We'll spend it getting to know Christ better.

Law and Grace (again?)

I've gone on about Law and Grace many, many times. But at the risk of beating a dead horse; I was reading the other day and came across this:

It is to be noted that, while the people are distinctly put under law, the principle of the second tables was law after present forgiveness and mercy. This is exactly the ground Christians want to be upon now -- to bring in law after grace and mercy. But this it is Paul calls the ministration of death and condemnation. (J. N. Darby, Synopsis, Exodus, Chapters 35 to 40)

Grace and Government

I've gotten several comments over the years about not losing sight of the whole principle of human responsibility when I talk about Divine sovereignty. That's a fair criticism in one sense, we are absolutely responsible in our behaviour down here, and we all will be manifest at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

On the other hand, I've been very aware that the Gospel is a message of pure grace. God, who justifies the ungodly, freely justifies all who believe from all things (Acts 13:38--39, Romans 4:5). Our Christian life begins and ends with God's sovereign grace. He acts toward us the way He wants to, with no consideration for what we earn. This is, after all, pretty much the definition of grace.

In my experience, there is a real fear of grace among Christians. It's almost like they're afraid that if we give the Gospel as Scripture gives it, people will see that as a license to sin. And I suppose that's true in some sense: Romans 6 begins with the question, if we really believe that grace over-abounds where sin abounds, why not just live in sin and get more grace? (Romans 6:1).

But if we don't teach the Gospel as Scripture teaches it, we're not doing anyone any favours. The danger that someone might see the Gospel as license to sin (and it's not really hypothetical: there are plenty of people who do just that) doesn't give us the right to fall short on giving God the glory for who He is. We're really casting aspersion on the Person and Work of Christ if we don't teach a complete, full, free, and abounding forgiveness of all our sins.

But Scripture goes on from the Gospel to teach a human responsibility as well. Yes, we can just go out and sin, but we shouldn't. Why not? Well, there are a few reasons:

• because we're dead to sin (Romans 6)
• because the one who sins becomes a slave to sin (Romans 6:15--18)
• because we weren't saved from sin just to dive back into it (Colossians 3:1--17, 1 Thessalonians 4:1--7)
• because we're to walk worthy of our high calling (Ephesians 4:1--3)
• because we're to represent Christ on earth (John 17:13--21)
• because we're called to come into God's presence as worshipers, and sin can't come in there with us (Hebrews 10:19--22)
• because we all must appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ to give an account for the deeds done in our bodies (2 Corinthians 5:9--11)
• because we are subject to the discipline of our Father (Hebrews 12:5--13), and the discipline of the assembly (1 Corinthians 5)

As much as we don't believe it, God's desire for us to walk free from sin is for our own good. Sin has a corrosive affect on us: it rots our souls. When we play fast and loose with sin, we're not escaping the consequence it has on us. When we sin, we become a slave to sin. Sin damages the one sinning as much as it damages the one(s) sinned against. But this is not always easy to believe: it seems pretty abstract.

But there's more than just the Father's desire for the best for His children: there is also the principle of God's government.

The whole issue of government is that God has created the heavens, the earth, and everything in them. He asserts His rights as Creator to be honoured in and by His creatures. And it's important to understand the God's government is quite a distinct thing from His saving sinners. I don't mean to say they're quite separate, but they're certainly not the same thing. God saves individual sinners, and has in all ages. He came and found Adam when he sinned, He saved Abel, and He is still saving sinners. And He's going to be saving sinners right up until the end.

And God only saves sinners on the principle of grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8--9). That's the plain teaching of Romans 4. Neither Abraham (without Law) nor David (under Law) were justified by works: they were both justified by faith (Romans 5:1). Sinners from Adam until the end are justified by faith on the principle of grace. This is the only saving principle: the principle of God's giving freely, looking for nothing to recommend us to Him. There is no other way a sinner could possibly be justified. If God were to act on any other principle, there would be no one justified, because we are all hopelessly lost. Only God acting in His own character and on the principle of what He is, with no regard to what we are, can possibly reach someone as lost as we all are.

But the other, parallel truth is that God will be vindicated in His creation. He will eventually have all creation bow to Him (Philippians 2:9--11; 1 Corinthians 15:20--28; Hebrews 2:5--9). So a day will come when there will be judgment, when God will judge the world through Christ Jesus (Acts 17:30--32).

When Paul preached judgment to the Athenians, he spoke in general terms of one day; but if we're to examine Scripture on the subject, we find that there are several judgments that are coming:

• the judgment of the dead at the Great White Throne (Revelation 20:11--15)
• the judgment of believers at Christ's seat (2 Corinthians 5:9--11)
• the judgment of the nations (Matthew 25:31--46)
• the judgment of the Church (Revelation 2--3)
• the judgment of Babylon (Revelation 18)

There are others, but these demonstrate that there is not a single Judgment Day coming. In fact, Scripture teaches that judgment will happen in several stages, as God brings His Son to the head of the Kingdom, and the Son subdues all things, then hands them over to God (1 Corinthians 15:24).

So when the Lord Jesus said that the one who doesn't believe will not come into judgment (John 5:24), we understand that He was talking about a specific judgment; because Scripture teaches that even "we" (that is, believers) will appear before Christ on His judgment seat. In fact, the Lord Jesus was specifically talking about the judgment of condemnation. There is no condemnation to the one who believes (Romans 8:1). But there is a judgment not to condemnation: this is the judgment of His servants. This isn't a criminal judgment, it's the assessment of the Christian life. As I understand it, there is no possibility of our sins coming up at that judgment, because Christ has taken them away. They're gone forever from God's sight. The one who believes is one to whom God does not at all reckon sin (Romans 4:6--8). If God does not at all reckon sin to me, then they certainly won't be brought up at Christ's judgment seat. But He will judge the life I've lived: there will be a judgment of the deeds done in the body. As someone else has said, it's very possible to have a saved soul and a lost life. It's possible to be justified once-for-all, with no fear of condemnation, but then to squander our life, having nothing to show for it when we are manifested before Christ.

So there is a sense where all will meet Christ in judgment. Those who believe will meet Him at the judgment seat of Christ, those who don't will meet Him in the second resurrection (Revelation 20:11--15).

Now, God's purpose is to see all men honour the Son (John 5:21--23), and then the Son will subject all things to God. The subjection of all to the Son is inevitable: either you can bow now, or you can bow then. If we don't bow now, when we have a choice; then we'll be made to bow then, when we won't.

But aside even from every creature bowing, there is the whole purpose of God in human government over the earth. It is not the God deals with men only as individuals, He also deals with groups. This is really the whole point of Revelation 18: God is judging not the individuals, but the system they set up. Similarly, there is a judgment of the Church in Revelation 2--3. This isn't the judgment seat of Christ, this is the judgment of the Church in her responsibility as the habitation of God on earth. It's not individual, it's corporate.

Where God has put His creatures in a place of responsibility, He will judge them with respect to that responsibility. This isn't a matter of eternal salvation only, but a matter of God's character. God is Judge of all the earth (Genesis 18:25), and He must be seen to be just. So He will come and require an account of His creatures in the responsibilities He has given them.

Notice, this is all quite aside from the consequences of our sins. In addition to the governmental issues of God, there is the very real fact that our actions (and words and thoughts) matter: they produce effects. If a true believer were to go out and murder someone, he or she is justified freely from it: God won't hold that sin against him or her. But the murder victim is still dead. Similarly, if a true believer were to go out and fornicate, he or she might end up with some gnarly disease. This isn't God's punishment for that sin, it's just the way the world works. God has created this world to be an orderly machine: when you push something it generally moves; when you drop something it falls. Our actions have consequences: those aren't God's judgment, they're just the rules of this creation.

Sadly, a lot of Christians have used the term "consequence" as a euphemism for "punishment", and that has led to some heretical and even blasphemous teachings. Consequences aren't imposed by God, they're just what happen as a result of our actions.

Now, in addition to consequences, there is God's discipline (Hebrews 12:5--13). We notice the Scripture doesn't teach that there is discipline for our sins: Christ has born the punishment for our sins, and God doesn't at all reckon sin to those He has justified. Discipline is what God does because of what we are, not what we have done. Consider Job: the Scripture insists that Job didn't sin (Job 1:22), even when Satan attacked him. It wasn't that Job was sinning, it was that Job was a sinner. So when God came and spoke to Job, Job began to understand who God is, " I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee: Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:5--6, JND). God's discipline on Job wasn't a result of Job sinning, it was a result of His desire to reveal Himself to Job, and a desire to reveal Job's own faults (not sins, faults) to himself.

It is a frequent misunderstanding that God disciplines us for a specific sin we've committed. That is really a denial of the Gospel. Discipline isn't about our sins but our sin. It's about God molding us, shaping us, and making us into what He wants us to be.

There's a whole lot more we could say about God's government in our lives, just like we could say more about His grace: I've already written a lot more than I'd intended. But when we consider God's ways with us, it's helpful not to conflate ideas that are really distinct. The principles on which God acts aren't always revealed the same way: there are different aspects to God's dealings. And the consequences of our confounding them can be much greater than we realize.

The Judge of all the earth does what's right. We ought not to lose sight of that as we bask in His grace. Indeed, it's because we recognize what He is, and what we are, that we understand something of His grace.

Updates

I've been meaning to share some updates, but I've been very, very busy--- too busy to post on my blog.

Weekend before last (November 10 & 11), we had a sort of mini-conference at the meeting hall. It was really the outgrowth of some conversations some of us had been having about perhaps having some sort of classes on foundational doctrine. The target audience was middle school children and older, but we didn't want to exclude anyone.

Well, with one thing and another, we ended up with a little more complicated deal than I (for one) had envisioned. But there were a lot of people who jumped in and made things work. If it weren't for Ames (and several others), it would have been a disaster. But it actually worked out rather well.

One thing I hadn't planned on was taking some of the sessions. We'd hoped to get others in to give the talks, but we couldn't get anyone on such short notice, and we ended up a giving the talks ourselves. It wasn't what I had in mind, but it seems to have worked.

I gave two talks, one on the Gospel, another on the Church. We also planned a couple Q&A sessions where the kids could ask questions, make comments, etc. on the talks we'd had. I ended up being more involved in that than I'd planned.

My buddy gave a talk on Christ as King, Priest, and Bridegroom. He gave another talk on an overview of dispensationalism. I enjoyed both of them. Another brother gave two talks, one was a sort of lexicon on doctrinal terms (What is the difference between "sin" and "sins"? What is "redemption"?) and the other was an overview of Romans. They, too, were excellent.

For the two sessions I took, I prepared handouts and gave them to the kids. I promised to share them online, so they're here: The Gospel and The Church.

We learned some lessons for next time. I suppose the main take-away lesson is that there ought to be a next time. Everyone seemed to enjoy it, and everyone seems to think it was worth the weekend. But there were some challenges, and lessons for next time. We ordered lunch from Subway Catering, and it was great. We also ordered pizza from a delivery place a mile or so from the meeting hall, and they got our order wrong. Oops. We also realized we tend to be last-minute people, and most people require more advanced notice than we gave. So here are some logistical considerations we need to take next time:

• We need to start praying about the next one now.
• We need to plan further in advance: a month isn't long enough. Next time we'll try three.
• People will show up to help, even if we don't ask and don't expect them to. Next time we need a list of things for helpers to do: they'll be there.
• We need to publicize our plans better, and included more schedule details. We did send them 'round, but people still asked what the plans were. Next time we'll inundate people with email notices, on Facebook, etc.
• People don't RSVP. We just need to accept that.
• Catering is absolutely worth the cost. Subway Catering in particular is good food, reasonably priced. It's a life-saver.
• Next time we'll choose a closer pizza place, and call an hour in advance to confirm the order before pickup. We called both Subway and the pizza place 24 hours in advance, but Subway called back to confirm order details, the pizza place didn't.
• People were confused about who was invited: we'd mentioned the idea that we were targeting middle schoolers and up, and people thought we only wanted kids there. Next time we'll not say anything about a target audience.

So it wasn't perfect, but it went well. Everyone I've talked with was pleased with the results, and we're looking to have another go in the Spring. All in all, I'm very pleased.

More Reading

We're having some "special meetings" this weekend to cover some foundational doctrines. It wasn't my intention to do any actual speaking in them, merely to organize, facilitate, cook, etc. But I've ended up having two lectures, so I'm preparing for those. If you think of it, I'd really appreciate prayer for this weekend.

But I've got writer's block (speaker's block?) right at the moment, so I thought I'd blog a minute or two.

I've a friend who's read Darby's Synopsis cover-to-cover. Another friend has commented that Synopsis is one of his go-to resources for Bible study. Well, I've never been able to get into the Synopsis: every time I've opened it, I've found it doesn't really say anything that's not completely obvious. It's not much of a commentary. It's not that I'm not a fan of Johnny D., it's just that Synopsis hasn't ever really grabbed me.

But still, when two friends highly recommend a book, there might be something there.

So this last week I decided to give Synopsis another try, but this time I decided to start reading at the beginning rather than flipping it open to a given passage. I was wrong and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I completely missed the point of the book(s). Synopsis really is worthwhile reading, but I had to start at the beginning to get it.

I'm not going to try and review the book here, I've only read through the commentary on Genesis and the first ten or so chapters of Exodus: it's too early for a review. But I have to say I'm a convert.

Here's why: Synopsis isn't really a verse-by-verse commentary on the Bible, and if you think of it that way, you'll wonder why anyone actually published it. I did exactly that for years, and I always wondered why anyone bothered to read it. I was thinking of it as a commentary; it's not. It's an "Old and New Testament Survey" written into a set of books. It's like sitting in a Sunday School class taught by JND.

I told my dyed-in-the-wool Synopsis friend I had finally started reading it from the beginning. He was very polite and didn't point out I had been an idiot. But he concurred with my description of the set, and explained it this way: "If you want to know what Darby thought about John 4, you can't just read the chapter on John 4. You need to read the whole section on John." That's exactly what I'm realizing. Synopsis develops themes over whole books, and indeed over the whole Bible. You need to read it all to really get what Johnny's saying in context.

So I have several weeks of reading before me, but I have to say it's been really good reading so far. So all those times I referred to Synopsis as "Darby Lite", I was wrong. It's certainly the most approachable of Darby's writing, but it's not a lightweight read. I was just missing the point.