http://katekomen.gpts.edu/2012/01/divinity-in-media.html

Also, if you’re into reading on the late 17thC controversy over neonomianism and antinomianism, D. Patrick Ramsey has posted his WTS M.Th thesis online for all to read.

I recently had an article published in the excellent international theology journal Churchman. It is a review of a whole bunch of recent books on church history, called “The Lessons of History.”

It can be downloaded from http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_125_3_Gatiss.pdf.

In it, I encourage pastors to have a go at teaching Church history to their congregations. Is that a good idea?

As I mentioned last week, I’ve been speaking here in Cambridge about church history, for an organisation called Christian Heritage. Last month I lectured on the Puritans.

My first talk was on “who were the Puritans.” My second talk was on the Puritan love of preaching. Often with talks on this subject you get an exposition of a particular preacher or theme. So just to be different, I decided (after a look at Grindal, Perkins, Owen, and Thomas Horton on the importance of preaching) to focus on a particular church: the grand nursery of Puritanism itself, St. Antholin’s in London (see picture, from a print I have up on the wall at home).

If you’d like to listen in, the audio mp3 is available to download via this link (right click & “save as”): http://www.christianheritageuk.org.uk/Media/PlayMedia.aspx?download=file&media_id=79764&file_id=88469

Enjoy!

I read somewhere that to be a bishop in the early church you were required to know the Psalms off by heart. All of them. 150 of them. Without cheating! I think the Puritans were into such feats of memory too. It may even be encouraged by Psalm 119 itself of course (see verse 11, if you – tut tut – don’t remember what it is from memory).

I like memorising things (I once memorised a whole book of the Bible… I’ll let you guess which one!). But this always sounded hard to me. Until a friend recommended Jamie Soles, who has produced three albums of straightforward Psalms (from the ESV mostly, as far as I can work out) to great, mostly modern, music. He has a website (you can read the lyrics… though they look strangely familiar, obviously), but I downloaded my two albums from Amazon.co.uk fairly cheaply and easily.

So now, I listen to and sing the Psalms every day.  I know, you’re shocked that I didn’t do that much before. They used to do it every day for an hour (starting at 5am) at St Antholin’s church in London during the 16th and 17th centuries. Good on ‘em. No wonder they called it “the grand nursery of Puritanism.”  But I could never really follow Anglican chanting when we did that at St. Edmund’s, Warkton where I used to minister. I tried. I liked the drawn-out “Amens.” That was fun.  But I couldn’t do it at home without the organist and the choir, and they wouldn’t have been keen to accompany me while I was singing in the shower.

But now, all that has changed.  (I don’t mean that the choir of Warkton have come to visit Cambridge – read on!)  I’m pretty sure that without looking, I could recite Psalms 1-16 without too many mistakes, and probably all the Songs of Ascent. I don’t know Jamie Soles personally. Wouldn’t recognise him in the street, don’t know if he’s a 5 point Calvinist, a raving Arminian, or a charismatic anti-liturgical mid-trib premillennial dispensationalist credobaptist. But I am very grateful to him for helping me learn the Bible better, and especially for “lifting my head” with Psalm 3 (my new favourite – it’s very catchy).

Most of these probably wouldn’t work as congregational songs. But you can listen to them while cycling around Cambridge without any bother, and kids have picked the tunes up easily enough (“Daddy’s singing again” said 3 year old Lucy…). So I wanted to share that with y’all, especially those of you who aspire to become early church bishops. (You know I’m looking at you…).

I think those Puritans, pictured above on our blog at the Westminster Assembly, had the right idea. Teach children a catechism! Not just the doctrine, but the Bible texts that the doctrines are built from. I still remember the first time I came across the Westminster Shorter Catechism, thinking what a great thing it would have been if I had imbibed such clear and heart-warming Reformed doctrine from my youth. Sadly, I didn’t. But my own kids do – thanks to Dana Dirksen and Songs for Saplings.

They produce 3 “Questions with Answers” CDs (volume 4 is out very soon!) and they are a treat for Christian children and their families alike. Based on a children’s version of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, each song has a question, an answer, and at least one Bible verse. So very quickly the whole family is singing about how to glorify God and enjoy him forever by loving him and doing what he commands while reciting (and effortlessly learning) Micah 6:8.

Because the catechism is not just doctrine but also anchored in the plot-line of the Bible we also learn, for example, the story and text of Genesis 1-3 at the start of the first CD as well as its theological ramifications. The songs are short (about 1-2 minutes each) and in a variety of interesting genres produced to a high musical standard with catchy and memorable tunes.

Musically it is less eccentric than many kids CDs, which means it will suit a wider range of temperaments. On the other hand, its American origin should not put a British audience off, because it is far from schmaltzy or trite (I’m sorry guys, but that is what Brits expect from American Christian music very often!). Good meaty theology that kids will want to sing again and again, and adults will enjoy learning from in the car on long journeys too. They would make excellent Sunday school songtimes and help a new generation to hide God’s word in their hearts. You can listen to some samples on their website: http://www.songsforsaplings.com/index.php.

Another perfect grandparent or godparent gift are the other Songs for Saplings CDs which have a series of very short songs (c. 1 minute) from A-Z or 123  each based on a single memory verse. Singer-songwriter Dana Dirksen has a bit of fun with snappy tunes or lilting bedtime melodies to teach verses from all over the Bible (Gospels, Epistles, Psalms, Proverbs, even Zephaniah and Habakkuk!) in a memorable way. There are also verses to sing at the beach, camping, harvest time, on Valentine’s day, Father’s day and other occasions in order to redeem the time and make the most of every opportunity. Great for last thing at night or first thing in the morning before school.

Kids will soon learn “The word of the Lord endures forever 1 Peter 1:25” (track 5) and that “Happy are the people whose God is the Lord, Psalm 144:15” (track 8). Parents will particularly appreciate the reminder of track 16, “Be patient with everyone, 1 Thess 5:14” when the kids want to listen to it all over again!

Allegedly, there are even some YouTube clips of me and Dana jamming our way through “What is Sanctification?” if you want to try and find those. But I fear that my attempts to play guitar along with her may have distracted the poor woman a little (sorry sister!).

“What matters in reforming the Church? Puritan grievances under Elizabeth I” was the title for this year’s St Antholin Lecture here in the UK. It was given by Andrew Cinnamond, an Anglican minister, who has just successfully defended his PhD on the subject of the 1572 Admonition to Parliament. (Well done Dr. Cinnamond!).

It was a great lecture – an excellent example of how to use Church history to inspire, warn, and provoke people to greater thought and engagement today. The written up version of the lecture, including footnotes and more detail, is available from Latimer Trust over at http://www.latimertrust.org/index.php/component/content/article/147-sa2011 at a very reasonable price (even with international shipping).  Here’s the blurb from that, to encourage you to go take a look:

Puritanism as a reform movement emerged slowly during the reign of Elizabeth I, but the early stages of the struggle to purify the Church of England from every last vestige of Antichrist are not well known.  Using the Admonition Controversy (1572-77) as a lens to view early Puritanism, Andrew Cinnamond shows that the tension between Puritans and conformists must be seen within a shared Reformed theological framework, a ‘Calvinist Consensus’.

This shared heritage began to unravel as the opposing parties developed different perspectives on Scripture and tradition, the normative role of the Primitive Church, the correct interpretation of the Old Testament, and the continuing validity of the Mosaic Law. These disputes weakened the common bond of Anti-popery which existed between English Protestants and would ultimately inflame the divisions that precipitated civil war in the next century.

Congrats, Ryan!

A new book full of Puritan goodies has just been published. It’s called Preachers, Pastors, and  Ambassadors: Puritan Wisdom for Today’s Church. See here. It is the second compilation of the modern St Antholin Lectures and features a stellar cast of contributors. It is edited by some guy called Lee Gatiss.  Here’s the blurb from the back cover, and the contents:

Puritan ministers saw themselves as ambassadors for God, called to proclaim his word and shepherd his people. They sought to pastor and lead people through the word clearly preached and the sacraments rightly administered, and by means of a godly church discipline. In this second compilation of recent St. Antholin’s Lectures we see and hear the Puritans in action, and are encouraged to apply their godly wisdom in our own day.

Introduction:
Lee Gatiss, The Grand Nursery of Puritanism: St. Antholin’s as a Strategic Centre for Gospel Ministry. (This is all about the wonderfully named “Feoffees for the Purchase of Impropriations,” a clever but failed Puritan plot to take over the Church of England!)

Then the lectures in the order in which they were delivered (2001-2010):
Peter Adam, Word and Spirit: The Puritan-Quaker Debate.

Wallace Benn, Usher on Bishops: A Reforming Ecclesiology.  (We’ve also included the text of Ussher’s Reduced Episcopacy as an appendix)

Peter Ackroyd, Strangers to Correction: Christian Discipline and the English Reformation.

David Field, “Decalogue” Dod and his Seventeenth Century Bestseller: A Four Hundredth Anniversary Appreciation.

Chad B. Van Dixhoorn, A Puritan Theology of Preaching.

Peter Adam, ‘To Bring Men to Heaven by Preaching’ – John Donne’s Evangelistic Sermons.

Tony Baker, John Newton and the Twenty-first Century 1807-2007.

Lee Gatiss, From Life’s First Cry: John Owen on Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation.

Andrew Atherstone, Evangelical Mission and Anglican Church Order: Charles Simeon Reconsidered.

David Holloway, Re-establishing the Christian Faith – and the Public Theology Deficit.

Volume 1 was called Pilgrims, Warriors,and Servants: Puritan Wisdom for Today’s Church and as well as my introduction To Satisfy the People’s Hunger for the Word: St Antholin’s as the Prototype Puritan Lectureship it also contained excellent chapters by the likes of Jim Packer, Alister McGrath, Peter Jensen, and Peter Adam. Both volumes are available from Latimer Trust.

Calvinism may have been used as a term of abuse for some in the 16th century, and for many today, but that does not mean it needs to be quickly abandoned. People have scoffed at followers of Jesus for being “Christians”, “Evangelicals,” “Methodists”, “Enthusiasts”, and even “Puritans.” But must we abandon all these labels because they were used by opponents and can be misunderstood? I think people hate Calvinism very often (but not always) because they hate Jesus.

Calvin obviously isn’t the only source of authentic and authoritative teaching in the Reformed tradition. We know that. The opponents of Reformed theology from Elizabethan England down to today know that. For example, in the 1590s, William Barrett, a fellow of Caius College Cambridge preached a virulent sermon against Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Zanchius for their doctrine of election (which is what elicited the excellent Lambeth Articles in response, from the solidly Reformed Anglican establishment). This was a recognised “tradition” of thought; and everybody knew when you said “Calvinist” that this is what you were referring to, without at all implying that Calvin was the fountain of all truth and wisdom.

Many post-Restoration Reformed Anglicans didn’t like the term Calvinist. It was too French and foreign and seemed not to sufficiently value the native Reformed tradition (we’re twitchy like that, especially about the French!). But let’s not underplay Calvin’s significance or brilliance. He was huge, and there is a reason that people keep harping on about him but they have forgotten who those other contemporary Reformed fellas were. There’s a reason why Reformed theology is not referred to in headline form as “Zanchyism” or “Vermiglism.” (We’d do better in Scrabble if it was.)

Some people in the Reformed tradition have always been happy to self-identify as “Calvinists.” The first one that springs to my mind (since I’ve written on him) is Augustus Montague Toplady. Just see his classic Historic Proof of the Doctrinal Calvinism of the Church of England (1774). Every word of the title is significant of course (e.g. Doctrinal Calvinism, not Calvinist, i.e. Presbyterian, church order!). But despite his high admiration for Calvin and happy association with his name, Toplady cannot be said to be ignorant of the wider Reformed movement on the continent. After all, he is the one who – as a teenager! – gave the world an English translation of Jerome Zanchius on predestination.

Finally, there is another danger we need to watch out for, in my humble opinion. I think we should admit that although the R. T. Kendall’s of this world have got it massively wrong with their “Calvin against the Calvinists” thesis, that does not mean that there is no scope for a study of the discontinuities or developments between Calvin and the later Reformed folks. Just because
someone else swung the pendulum way over here, doesn’t mean we have to be equally extreme this way.

Might there be something in what they are trying to get at, even if they have formulated it all wrong? I am attracted to the idea, for example, that Reformed theology post-Calvin (and his contemporaries) defended the same gospel of grace but using more scholastic methods than Calvin ever did. There are many good, defensible reasons for it! (And I don’t consider “scholastic” to be, of necessity, a swear word.) There is substantial continuity of substance. But the theological systems developed are not precisely identical, and neither is their form. We can freely confess it.

So, sure, let’s remember that Calvin wasn’t infallible, or the sole unerring founder of his own denomination. He wasn’t. But that doesn’t mean we can’t rejoice to be counted “Calvinists” (1 Corinthians 1:12-13 notwithstanding).