3 Types of Sermons

I have been reading again one of my oldest and dearest books on preaching entitled "Preaching & Preachers" by the London pastor, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981). The book is actually a series of lectures he gave to theological students of Westminster Seminary. Although I first bought this book when I thought I myself might be heading toward the ministry, I have found it to offer much valuable information, encouragement, and instruction to myself as a non-preacher as well.  I highly recommend it to anyone who listens to preaching. 

Lloyd-Jones, by the way, was a medical physician who left that profession to enter the ministry in 1927. He is known, affectionately to many, as just "the Doctor." 

What has struck me in this re-reading are his thoughts on what he calls 3 types of sermons. He suggests that a balanced ministry will include all 3 types, and that the preacher should organize his ministry in a way that all 3 types are being regularly preached. These 3 types of sermons are:

Type 1: Evangelistic

Type 2: Experimental (focus on issues, problems, life in general)

Type 3: Instructional, doctrine, theological

To put it in the words of the doctor himself:

"In other words, every Preacher should be, as it were, at least three types or kinds of Preacher. There is the preaching which is primarily evangelistic. This should take place at least once a week. There is the preaching which is instructional teaching but mainly experimental. That I generally did on Sunday morning. There is a more purely instructional type of preaching which I personally did on a week-night." (Preaching & Preachers, p. 63).

Now, Lloyd-Jones himself would emphasize that these distinctions "should not be pressed in too absolute a sense." In other words, good preaching will probably have at least something of all 3 types in every sermon. 

That being said, I think Lloyd-Jones is right. Most sermons I have heard could probably, overall, be put into one of those three categories. 

And here is the problem - it is possible (and I think fairly common) for preachers and churches today to get into a habit of only preaching just ONE type of sermon week after week. 

THE TYPE 2 CHURCH:

For example, I believe that vast majority of preaching that goes on in our Protestant churches today is the type 2 sermon above. It is a type of experimental preaching. The focus is generally on problem-solving and dealing with issues Christian's face. Look through the sermon list of many church websites and what you find are sermons about marriage, divorce, suffering, grief, parenting, living strong, being a better Christian, life in the church...

For the most part, these are all type-two sermons. They focus on the Christian and how he or she experiences life both inside and outside the church. And the sermon gives instruction on how to live that life. 

Absent are sermons entitled something like "Christ's Divinity - Defined and defended" or "modern heresies" or "The Trinity" or "Justification by Faith Alone" or "God's eternal decrees" or "limited atonement explained" or "the second coming" or "implications of the virgin birth" or "God's holiness explained." Doctrine is absent. 

Absent are also the more truly evangelistic sermons - in the truest sense of the word. I'm not talking about the "give Jesus a try" kind of talks. This is not Biblical evangelism. True evangelistic preaching exposes the real danger mankind is in due to sin, the consequences of sin, the remedy for sin and the only way to obtain that remedy - which is by faith in Christ.

THE TYPE 3 CHURCH:

On the other hand, there are other circles in which the type-two sermon almost never happens. For this church it is all about type-three: Doctrine. The preaching relies heavily on systematic theology, the confessions and foundational instruction. Maybe the Reformed circles are more prone to falling into this trap than any other. This is just an observation from a layman. So I admit my perspective may be skewed. 

However, if there is any truth to the fact that "type-three" churches exist, then the result could be Christians who are well instructed in the foundational doctrines of the Bible but very ill-equipped to live out that faith in their lives. The preacher may say things like "this is very important" but in reality the people in the pew have no idea why it should be so important to them. It makes no difference in their everyday life when they have to go home to a bitter spouse, rebellious children, chronic pain, an ungodly workplace, loneliness, personal addictions or any number of other real problems. 

THE TYPE 1 CHURCH:

Finally, I suppose that there are also type-one churches out there. They preach the gospel to sinners every week. Maybe this includes an altar call (no comment on that practice at the moment). I think this type of church probably existed more in the past than it does today. Maybe I'm wrong. But my own little and limited perspective on our evangelical situation is that true Gospel-preaching is a rare exception, a special-occasion-only event, and not the week to week menu in most churches.

APPLICATION:

So what? A couple closing thoughts come to mind.

1) Preaching a balance of these 3 different types of sermons is, it seems to me, especially unlikely today because most churches rarely have "preaching" more than once a week. This, we have to admit, is a failure of the modern church. I'm guessing I could get a lot of "preacher" friends upset at me for such a comment. But frankly, I think preaching once a week (or less than that for some places) is at least a very strange (historically speaking) way to do ministry. Lloyd-Jones said "I contest very strongly and urge that there should always be one evangelistic service in connection with each church every week. I would make this an absolute rule without any hesitation whatsoever." (Preaching & Preachers, p. 151).  But with only one sermon per week...this is impossible if you wish to maintain a balanced ministry.

2) Hearing a balance of these 3 types of sermons is unlikely today because we "hearers" are now accustomed to only listening to 1 sermon a week (at best). Maybe this habit could be changed if hearers got used to knowing that an evening or week-night sermon was going to be of a different "type" and therefore understood it to be part of a "balanced spiritual diet." I don't know. But it is worth thinking about at least. Here is what the Doctor says in this book "We must convince them [church goers] of the importance of being present at every service of the church. Every service! Why? If they are not present at every service they may well find one day that they were not present when something really remarkable took place." (Preaching & Preachers, p. 153).  

3) I think we need reminding that Christians need to hear evangelistic preaching too. Every true believer loves to hear the gospel faithfully preached. It is the message that saved us. And a preacher makes a grave mistake in thinking ALL his congregation is saved, so he doesn't need to preach the gospel like that anymore. Not to mention the fact that our churches are probably filled with "professing" Christians who are not actually believers at all. To put it in Lloyd-Jones words "There is something essentially wrong with a man who calls himself a Christian and who can listen  to a truly evangelistic sermon without coming under conviction again, without feeling something of his own unworthiness, and rejoicing when he hears the Gospel remedy being presented." (Preaching & Preachers, p. 150).

4) Finally, for any preacher who is either offended or discouraged by this post, I highly recommend picking up Preaching & Preachers and reading it (again). You have been called to the highest and most important work that goes on in this world. Businessmen build companies that will one day be sold or collapse. Doctors and medical professionals (like myself) help treat illnesses, but everyone is ultimately going to die anyway. Every job is, in some sense, just killing time. But preaching is an eternity-focused endeavor. The grass withers and the flower fades, but God's Word endures forever. 

In the words of the Doctor "To me the work of preaching is the highest and greatest and most glorious calling to which anyone can ever be called." 

R.C. Sproul Goes Home at the Age of 78

"And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; and their works do follow them." Revelation 14:13.

Dr. R.C. Sproul (2/13/39 - 12/14/17) passed away today at the age of 78 from complications related to COPD.

When I became a Christian in 1989 the first theologian I began reading was Dr. R.C. Sproul. Actually, it is more appropriate to say that I began "listening" to R.C. Sproul. His teaching ministry was available on tape cassettes. I ordered just about every teaching series he produced and listened to them while I drove back and forth to college for 5 years. I also bought his books and fell in love with his style of teaching and his way of understanding the Bible.

It is no exaggeration to say that his ministry has impacted me more than any other theologian, past or present. While I love the Puritans and still have so much to learn from the likes of Calvin, Warfield, Hodge, Dabney, Edwards, Turretin, and many others...R.C. taught me the Reformed faith. 

But he did more than teach me the Reformed faith. In a sense, he taught me how to think. He had a rigorous mind. He was never afraid of the hard questions about God, life, truth, evil, death, eternity, Christ, faith and so much more. And he never settled for the easy answer. He taught me how to make distinctions. How to be careful with our definitions. He believed that words were meaningful, and when listening to him you always had the feeling you were listening to a man who took life and truth seriously.

He also taught me how to teach. I make no apologies for the fact that I have tried to imitate his style of teaching over the years. He was effective. He was interesting. He understood his subject deeply but made sure his teaching was accessible to the average Christian in the pew. He could take very deep subjects and simplify them...without making them simplistic. He approached every subject he taught on with a deep sense of awe, humility, and grace. 

I had the great privilege of meeting R.C. in person once. I will always remember what I said to him. With gratitude welling up in my heart I said to R.C. at a conference "R.C., thank you for teaching me the Reformed faith.  Would you mind if my wife took my picture with you?"

He smiled widely. He said, "of course not." He welcomed me around to the other side of the table where he was sitting and he put his arm around my shoulder as if he had known me for years. This was the first and only time I saw R.C. in person. But I will never forget that day the rest of my life.

Dr. Sproul will be missed. His legacy, in the form of Ligonier Ministries, will remember his contribution to the promotion of the Christian gospel for many years to come. He was a man who loved Christ, served Christ and has now gone home to be with Christ. But more than Ligonier ministries, his life's work will echo in the lives of the tens of thousands of Christians like myself who were helped along our way to heaven by this precious servant of the Lord.

R.C. - you will be greatly missed. My heart goes out for your family and close friends. But, like Able, "he, being dead, still speaks." His teaching ministry echoes on. His works will follow him. He has entered his rest from his labors. And may the Lord be pleased to raise up more voices like his for this and future generations. 

Marshmallows and Making Good Choices

“Do not let your heart envy sinners, but be zealous for the fear of the Lord all the day; for surely there is an end; and your expectation will not be cut off.”

Proverbs 23:17-18

What is your capacity for delayed gratification? 

An interesting study was done on children in the early 1970's that has been called the “Stanford Marshmallow Experiment.” The test offered children an immediate treat (like a marshmallow) with the option to eat it now, or of waiting a short time (like 15 minutes) to get a larger treat.  The children were followed up on in years to come and it was found that those who could wait for the larger reward were generally more successful academically and in other ways.

The point is clear enough. Delayed gratification, though hard, is better in the end. And what makes it so hard is that all around us everyone seems to be eating their marshmallows now. 

Let’s be honest. Most of us are doing the same. Zig Ziglar once put it this way “Be careful not to compromise what you want most for what you want now.”

But it’s hard. It is hard to watch people eating their "marshmallows" while you wait. It goes against the grain of our nature. Socrates was asked what the most troublesome thing was to good men. He replied “the prosperity of the wicked.” I think Socrates knew the doubts and fears that assault the soul that says “no” to the instant pleasure in exchange for a lasting one.

Almost every day we are presented with choices which give us the option for immediate pleasure, or a more distant, long-term benefit. We have the choice between spending and saving. We choose be eating the cheese fries or the salad. We play the video game or we work out. We hit the snooze button or we wake up and go to church.

The Bible presents the Christian life as a daily commitment to delayed gratification. That is what this Proverb is talking about. Don’t envy those who are eating their marshmallows now. Rather, choose “the fear of the Lord all the day.”

There are many aspects to the Christian life that do not bring the immediate pleasure which is offered by sin. Reading your Bible may not provide the immediate thrill of a video game. Prayer doesn’t satisfy our craving for amusement like Facebook does. Honoring the Lord’s Day doesn’t instantly satisfy like a day at the beach or amusement park. Note, these alternative enjoyments are not sinful in themselves. But when they are substituted for things that would benefit our souls, they are dangerous.

I don’t think Solomon had any one particular “sin” in mind when he advised against the envy of sinners. The Proverb does go on to talk about “drunkenness.” But this, it seems, is simply an illustration of a larger principle. The unbeliever simply doesn’t think in terms of “sin” or “holiness.” As long as no one else is hurt, anything (for the most part), goes. But the Christian is concerned with offending God. That is what the “fear of the Lord” is all about.

Sometimes concern for the fear of the Lord brings about tangible persecution, ridicule or pain. It was said of Moses that he chose “rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin [Hebrews 11:25].” In this case it was not merely delayed gratification, but the embracing of present suffering that Moses was called to endure.

How do we make better spiritual choices? Solomon suggests thinking about future: “for surely there is an end; and your expectation will not be cut off.” The Hebrew seems to be saying something like “Be patient. This life is a marathon, not a short sprint. The real winners can only be determined at the finish line. Don’t try to pick who has made the best choice by their present circumstances. Godliness pays off in the end.”

He says "do not LET your heart" do this. In other words, we have the personal responsibility to master our thoughts. You can decide what you want to dwell on. You can either think about what you are "missing out on" or you can think about the end reward. Your thoughts don't wander anywhere that you don't let them. You can choose what to consider and what to ignore. 

This is a big theme in the Bible. 

For example, the whole of Psalm 37 seems devoted to this theme: pleasure now, or pleasure later. You choose. But the Psalmist advises to “not be envious of the workers of iniquity” because, even though now they seem to be having fun, “they shall soon be cut down like the grass [Psalm 37:1-2].” The Psalmist tells the believer to “rest in the Lord” and to “wait” and not get discouraged because others are prospering right now (vs. 7).  Though it doesn’t look that way, he says, remember that “the meek will inherit the earth (vs. 11).”

Christ modeled this. He chose obedience over pleasure. Every day. He chose affliction rather than comfort. “Who, for the joy that was set before Him, endured the cross (Heb 12:2).” Not for present pleasure, but future joy. “He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Phil 2:8).”

So which are you choosing today? Is it immediate pleasure, gratification, happiness, satisfaction and pride? Or will you do something for your long-term good? One hundred years from now the only thing that will matter is how you cared for your soul. Paul warns that “in the last days” men “will be lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God (2 Tim 3:4).”

May the Lord bless your good choices today my friends. 

Bernie, Christianity and the Death of Truth

Bernie Sanders appears to have stirred up quite the hubbub over his conversation this past week with Russell Vought. Mr. Sanders questioned Vought's Christian beliefs and specifically suggested they should disqualify him for public service. He didn't like the fact that Vought believed that the adherents of other religions were "condemned." 

Christians across the country have responded with outrage. They didn't like Mr. Sanders'  opinion that Vought's views are incompatible with what this "country is supposed to be about."  Fox News reporter Todd Starnes called it a "viscous attack." Others have quoted the Constitution Article VI about "no religious test" being required for public service in office. 

Frankly, I think all these responses have utterly missed the point.

Please.

Calm down.

Take a breath.

We need to step back for a moment and realize what was really going on in that conversation.

Mr. Sanders was NOT attacking Christians or Christianity. Someone please pick up a copy of Fox's Book of Martyrs. Or visit the Christian Martyr's website. Or read the Gospels and Acts. You will find plenty of examples of attacks upon our faith. This wasn't one of them.

But Mr. Sanders was attacking something. 

Mr. Sanders was attacking truth.

You see, what Mr. Sanders fails to realize is something which ALL Christians and Muslims BOTH know: we can't both be right. 

Bernie said “In my view, the statement made by Mr. Vought is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world.” 

But the hilarious irony of Mr. Sanders statements is that Christians, Jews, Muslims, and even Atheists all get something that Bernie does not.  We ALL know that we can't ALL be right. 

This principle isn't fundamental to Christianity.  This principle is fundamental to truth itself.

If Christianity is true, then Muslims are condemned. If Islam is true, then Christians are condemned. If Atheists are right then we are ALL condemned for the foolishness of our faiths. This is a plain and incontrovertible fact which the sacred texts of all religions assert.

And, with all due respect to Russell Vought, he missed an opportunity to explain this.

When Bernie Sanders asked him if he thought all Muslims and Jews were condemned, he should have answered with an enthusiastic, unmistakable, loud and clear "YES! Of course! Just as they think that I'm condemned!"

Vought could have quoted the Quran if he liked:  "But those who disobey Allah and His Messenger and transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a humiliating punishment."

Or he could have quoted the Bible "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him will not PERISH but have everlasting life." 

Religion assumes the existence of truth. 

Thus Christianity, as nearly ALL of the major world religions, is an exclusive religion. 

This is because truth, all truth, is exclusive.

If anything is true, then something is false. And things cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same relationship. 

So when Mr. Sanders balked at the idea that anyone could hold to a faith that claims exclusivity, he was actually taking his aim at a far more fundamental idea than Christian doctrine. He was questioning the very possibility of truth itself. 

And, my friends, when we reject the idea of truth, we reject hope.  Where there is no truth, there can be no true comfort.

C.S. Lewis said it well "If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair."

PoC Chpt III - On Marriage - Part 1

From Principles of Conduct by John Murray.  Chapter 3: The Marriage Ordinance. Part 1.

What causes the most pain, disappointment, frustration, sorrow, anger, anxiety and aggravation in the lives of individuals today? I suppose someone might say "illness" and that is certainly a problem of no small nature. Others might suggest finances, and no doubt money problems impact huge numbers. But it would be hard to argue against the idea that "relationships" and in particular "marriage" problems constitute a significant portion of the pain and problems people experience in life.

Think of the circle of people around you. If you were asked to think of some who have either "marriage" or "relationship" issues that are really causing serious problems in their life, do you have any trouble coming up with some names? These problems are all around us. If nothing else, think about how many movies and songs are produced that have relationship issues at the core of them.

My point is simply this: there is enough evidence that our culture is frustrated with our modern approach to marriage and relationships. Something is broken. It's at least worth a look at what the Bible says about marriage to evaluate if maybe...just maybe...we are doing something wrong. I'm not suggesting that following certain "rules" will ensure a perfect marriage. But on the whole, it is at least possible that God's plan for marriage has been twisted and obscured, and that this is behind many of the troubles we experience.

John Murray spends about 40 pages in his book, Principles of Conduct, covering many of the Biblical principles related to God's plan for marriage. We might think it strange that a book on "ethics" starts with marriage. What does marriage have to do with ethics? But this approach reminds us that, from a Biblical perspective, marriage was God's idea. Therefore, to approach it in any way that is contrary to His design, is an unethical way to live. When we take an institution of God's and re-design it for our own purposes, then we are in violation of His pattern for life, which is the very definition of unethical.

PART 1

In Murray's review of Scripture about marriage, he starts with a few episodes found very early in the history of the world as recorded in the Bible. Scholars call it the "patriarchal" period. And he shows that we find hints that certain ethical standards for marriage were understood by people from the very beginning.

For example...

Digamy or Polygamy (Genesis 4:19). The Scriptures record that a man named Lamech "took 2 wives." This fact is recorded along side the fact of his boastful murder of another man. Murray concludes, I think rightly, that "the desecration of marriage is complementary to the vice of violence and oppression [p. 46]."

Mixed Marriage (i.e. believers marrying unbelievers) from Genesis 6:1-3. Murray offers insight on a passage which has confused many. It is the text which speaks of "the sons of God saw the daughters of men" and they married them. Some have thought this referred to some sort of strange marriage between angels and mankind. But Murray argues it is simply an expression to indicate marriages between the Godly and the ungodly. He concludes "When the interests of godliness do not govern the people of God in the choice of marital partners, irreparable confusion is the result and the interests, not only of spirituality, but also of morality, are destroyed [p. 46]."

Murray shows that the natural, healthy and God-given desire for sex is to be managed within certain boundaries established by God.

Other episodes from this period in Biblical history also highlight certain well-understood principles of marriage.

Joseph and Marriage Integrity (Genesis 39:9) - Joseph refused to sleep with his master's wife, even though she urged him. He understood that this would be a sin in God's eyes, saying "how can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?"

The rape of Dinah (Genesis 34) - The sons of Jacob took vengeance (not that this act was condoned) on those who raped their sister. The point is that it was clear, even then, that such a violent act forced upon another, was inconsistent with sexual purity.

The king of Gerar (Genesis 20:2-18) - The foreign king understood that taking another man's wife was improper. It is an ironical passage. Here Abraham was to blame, for saying that Sarah was his "sister" and not his "wife." But this goes to show that the sanctity of the marriage relationship was not something merely understood by God's people. In fact, in this case, the ungodly actually understood that principle better than Abraham himself.

Parent's concern for the marriages of their children - Murray points to the lengths that Abraham went to help secure a godly wife for Jacob, and he mentions how Rebecca was burdened by the "mixed" marriage of her son Esau to Hittite women. These passages just further illustrate that these parents understood the difference between a "good" marriage and one that was in violation of God's design.

CONCLUSION

Murray's review of the marriage ordinance is far from over. But he lays down some basics here which are important. At the very least I think his teaching is a necessary restraint upon our concept that "all we need is love." The Biblical account suggests that "ethical" behavior requires that we engage our minds, and not just our hearts, when it comes to thinking about relationships and marriage.

PoC Chpt II - Work is God's Idea

For many people the very concept of "work" conjures up distasteful thoughts. Ugghhh...Monday! Our culture seems to have taught us to live for the weekends, and just muddle through the other 5 days. In addition to that, work, and our attitude towards work, has been subjected to numerous stereotypes. Those who have done financially "well" are assumed to be workaholics who have their priorities misaligned and who only care about profit not people. On the other hand, those living at or near the poverty level are assumed to have a poor work ethic, and if only they worked harder they would be in a different position in life.

Think of how much political debate and social discussion revolves around the issue of work! What should be the minimum wage? How many hours per week should we have to work? We have labor unions and a Department of Labor and calls for labor reform. Work-issues surround us every day.

Is there, however, a Biblical view of work? Is there such a thing as a Biblical work-ethic? Does our very concept of what work is need a sort of modern reformation?

In John Murray's Principles of Conduct (PoC) he introduces the subject of "labor" as a Creation Ordinance.  Work, along with the institutions of Marriage and the Sabbath, were part of God's initial design and plan for mankind. God created humans to be working, laboring beings.

THE INSTITUTION OF LABOR

Murray argues that the institution of labor is inseparable from the Sabbath institution. You can't have a day of "rest" apart from a concept of "labor." If we were meant to rest one day, then we were obviously meant to work the other 6 days. Additionally, Murray reminds us that God gave Adam and Eve a very specific type of labor to be involved in when we are told in Genesis 2:15 that "the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it."

THE DIGNITY OF MANUAL LABOR

Murray draws an immediate conclusion from the above text which he suggests we have sadly lost sight of today. His conclusion is that there is a fundamental dignity to what we might call "manual labor."  He calls the work of gardening (we might extrapolate and say 'farming') "highly worthy of man's dignity as created after the divine image [p. 35]."  He speaks of the "nobility of manual labor [p. 36]."

Murray suggests that we as a society have suffered by disparaging the dignity of such tasks. He suggests our automatic insistence on and pursuit of "professional" employment may reflect "an unwholesome ambition which is the fruit of impiety [p. 36]." He reminds us that "culture" can be developed in conjunction with tasks which are not professional in nature such as those of the farmer, the tradesman and the laborer. And the fact that we do not assign sufficient nobility and dignity to such types of work, in Murray's view, simply displays how far we have fallen.

THE VARIETY OF WORK

Murray reminds us that mankind's call to work would eventually have involved a variety of tasks since he was commanded to "replenish the earth and subdue it (Genesis 1:28)." This, he says, "must imply the expenditure of thought and skill and energy in bringing the earth and its resources under such control..." [p. 37]

Murray also points out the way in which the earth itself "is fashioned and equipped to meet and gratify the diverse nature and endowments of man" and that man in pursuing such things would "magnify God's glory" through the "discovery and exhibition of the manifold wisdom and power of God [p. 37-38]." Murray imagines man investigating and discovering the wonders of this planet while ascribing all the glory to our Creator.  He quotes Psalm 104:24 as reflective of this where the Psalmist says "O Lord, how manifold are they works...the earth is full of Thy wisdom!" This puts "work" on a much higher level than we are accustomed to doing. There was no sense of drudgery in God's original design.

WORK AS COMMAND AND DELIGHT

Finally, Murray points out that this work that man was called to do was a command. We are, however, too apt to think of anything "commanded" as being burdensome. We equate "duty" with "displeasure." But Murray suggests that "duty" was intended to go hand-in-hand with "delight." Man, prior to sin entering the world, would have found no disconnect between our calling to work and our enjoyment of it. In the absence of sin, there would be "the perfect complementation of duty and pleasure [p. 39]."

APPLICATION

As with the subject of marriage, Murray is going to devote a whole chapter to the concept of work. It is central to man's ethic. But here in this chapter he just shows that work was part of God's original creation-plan.

I do wonder what our places of employment would look like if we all, each and every one of us, began to look at work as a divine calling, sanctified by God's blessing and endorsed by His very command. We have this twisted view that God Himself only smiles on us on Sundays while we are in church. But what if we imagined God watching us work with the same delight He watches us worship?

What if every job was approached with this sort of heavenly dignity and delight? What if we saw our jobs as part of our fulfillment of the "subduing" the earth mandate? What if I thought of my employer as God Himself? Would the quality of my work and attitude about work improve?

Principles of Conduct - Creation Ordinances - The Sabbath

Everyone loves a special day. Maybe your favorite special day is Christmas. Or maybe your birthday. Or maybe your anniversary. Or maybe ANY day off from work! So many of our culture's industries and businesses exist solely because of special days; feasts, gifts, cards and gatherings all seem to be typically rooted in the observance of special days. 

In his book on Christian ethics entitled Principles of Conduct, professor John Murray (1898-1975) starts with mankind in Eden, prior to any sin entering the world, and focuses on several "Creation Ordinances" which he explains were a part of God's plan for man from the start. In other words, behaving "ethically" demands that we at least consider what the original plan for man looked like.

GOD CREATED A SPECIAL DAY FOR MAN

And, according to Murray, this plan involved a "special" day every week. He builds his case for this from Genesis 2:2 and 2:3, and he explains that each verse has a slightly different perspective.

Genesis 2:2 "And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done."

Genesis 2:3 "Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made."

Murray explains that Genesis 2:2 is NOT specifically about man's weekly cycle. Rather, he says this is about God ENDING His work of creation and ALL of which follows is His rest. In other words, God created for six days...then, and ever since then, has rested from that work. He's not "creating" today. That work was done. 

Genesis 2:3 however is relevant to man's weekly cycle. This is based, he teaches, on Exodus 20:11 in which the 4th commandment ("honor the Sabbath day") makes reference to this specific verse in Genesis.  Why should man have this 1 special day in 7? Exodus 20:11 answers: "For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

In other words, God's creation-pattern was meant to be a type of pattern for man also. God's template for our weekly cycle included a special day, a different day, every week.

THE PRINCIPLES OF THIS SPECIAL DAY

Murray then draws some important principles to consider from the fact that the Lord created man with a weekly rest-day in mind.

1. Mankind, even before we sinned and ruined everything, needed this cycle of 1 different day every week. In other words, the "Sabbath" wasn't added to help restrain sin or correct our defects. Adam, had he never sinned, would still have observed this weekly cycle and it would have, according to Murray, "continued to condition and regulate his life and activity (p. 32)." Murray further points to the fact that Genesis 1:14 refers to God's creation of light and darkness to regulate "seasons..and days and years." In other words, all of creation was made to provide cycles for man, which included this weekly cycle of a special day.

2. This "special" day, or day of rest, was not a "do nothing" day. It wasn't so for God. The word "rested" might imply, in our minds, "inactivity." But Murray shows the text of Scripture is more about a shift from one kind of activity to another. The Lord's "resting" was just a "rest" from "creation" but not a stopping of His activity altogether.  In like manner the weekly "rest" day for man has another type of activity in mind. Specifically, it would highlight the "God-centered character of the ethic which would have governed Adam's behavior" (p. 33)."

Really? How?  How does this weekly cycle of a special day of rest facilitate this "God-centered" life?

First, it would be a regular reminder to man that his days have a Divine pattern. God's creation pattern of 6 days followed by 1 day of rest would follow man through all his days.  Murray seems to be saying that even now, as we think about what day it is, we should reflect that our days are patterned on God's work of creation and rest. Every day it is like we are (and these are my words not his) putting on a garment which was woven for us when the universe was made.

Second, and more specifically, Murray shows that this "special" day of rest was intended to be a special day for worship. He makes a strong statement worth pondering:  "Even in innocence [i.e. before sin] man would have required time for specific worship. We are too ready to entertain the notion that religion in a state of sinless or confirmed integrity would have required no institutions as the medium of expression.  Our conception of the piety of paradise becomes one of abstract, etherealized mysticism. This conception is not the conception which the data will bear out (p. 34)."

I love that phrase "the piety of paradise." Murray is of course referring to man's behavior in Eden, prior to the Fall. And while we cannot "live in the past" there is something to be said for striving to live according to the model originally set for us at the start. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Murray winds up this section by pointing out a common mistake about the observance of a "Sabbath" day, or day of rest. Many assume it had its beginning with Moses as it is referred to in the 4th commandment (Exodus 20). As such, it is often dismissed as irrelevant to modern man, a part of the "ceremonial" character of the Israelite nation which has now been done away in Christ.

But linking this institution to Creation and it's institution in Eden throws the whole idea in a new light. Though it might have been quickly forgotten, as was God's pattern for marriage [see previous post], it nevertheless was always intended as a "binding obligation (p. 35)."

APPLICATION

Several years ago an emergency room physician wrote a book entitled "24/6" in which he argued that we would be healthier, both physically and mentally, if we took a 6-day approach to work, committing to intentionally rest for a full day every week. 

In an interview with CNN Dr. Sleeth elaborated:

"For almost 2,000 years, Western culture stopped -- primarily on Sunday -- for about 24 hours. Even when I was a child, you couldn't buy gasoline, you couldn't buy milk. The drugstores weren't open. The only thing that was open was a hospital. Even in dairy farming country, we would milk cows, but we wouldn't bring in hay.  And so society just had a day where they put it in park. (That) was Sunday... until the last 30 years or so.  We go 24/7 now, and I think it's having health consequences. I think more and more, there's a consensus that it leads to depression and anxiety."

It is interesting to hear a physician say this. I have often thought this was the case as well. I'm guessing the Lord knew what He was up to when He designed this pattern for man.  Maybe we should listen?

Principles of Conduct - Creation Ordinances: Procreation & Marriage

If you had to write a basic job description for humanity, what would you write?

I have been working in management for nearly all of my career. When a business wants to hire someone, one of the first things that management is called upon to do is to write a job description. What will be the responsibilities of this new hire? What will the scope of their job involve? What duties will they be expected to perform?

Mankind, if you will, also had an original "job description." These are the things we were made for. And while these original requirements are not comprehensive of the entire Christian ethic, they are at least an appropriate place to start any study of this kind.

John Murray's second chapter in Principles of Conduct is entitled "Creation Ordinances." Specifically, he is looking closely at Genesis chapters 1 & 2, and asking "what is our purpose?" His assumption, and I would agree, is that ethics begins where mankind begins.  And while there are a number of specific commands to mankind in Genesis 1 & 2, he basically narrows down the "Creation Ordinances" into 3: 

• Procreation & Marriage
• The Sabbath
• Labor

In this chapter Murray just touches on those mandates that have their origin in Creation itself. He doesn't extensively discuss their ethical character and demands, as that will be addressed in subsequent chapters.  Here he just shows how the roots of some of these very important principles of conduct are grounded in Creation itself.

In this post I'll quickly review what he says about procreation and marriage.

PROCREATION AND MARRIAGE

The first of these "Creation Ordinances" he addresses is procreation and marriage. The texts in which these mandates are found are:

Genesis 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply..." [i.e. Have kids!]

Genesis 2:23-24 "23. And Adam said 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of man.  24. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall be one flesh." [i.e. Get Married!]

When is the last time you heard a sermon entitled "Get Married & Have Kids!" I suspect you haven't. And while there are additional factors to consider respecting these commands (i.e. they are NOT necessarily for everyone) - there is nevertheless something fundamental here related to God's purpose for mankind. 

Murray points out that the language of 2:24 ("therefore a man shall leave...") leaves open the question whether Adam said these words, or were they added by the inspired author (Moses). If not spoken by Adam, the question then is whether or not Adam understood the implication of his words to the marriage institution. 

Murray then takes on the role of a theologian and professor and makes the following 2 points:

THEOLOGICAL POINTS

Point #1: Adam, in Murray's opinion, understood the marriage institution in the Garden of Eden

Murray argues that Adam would have known that his statement in vs. 23 ("bone of my bone...") implied the marriage institution of vs 24, since 24 is a conclusion built on the statement made in verse 23. Also, add to that the fact that Jesus refers to Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:8 when he says "from the beginning it was not so." The logic is that if the implication of verse 24 was not known to Adam, how could Jesus say, referring to this verse, that "from the beginning it was not so?"

Point #2: Marriage, as instituted in Creation, was intended as a monogamous ordinance

Murray sees the language of the text of "two becoming one flesh" as allowing for only a monogamous option for marriage. But he adds to that several New Testament passages which clearly indicate the monogamous expectation of marriage (Matt 19:3-9, Mark 10:3-9, Eph 5:31), and that the authors of these statements (Jesus and Paul) both point to Genesis 2:24 as the origin of the marriage institution.

CONCLUSION

I should point out again that Murray is NOT saying that the Bible tells EVERY person to get married and have kids. Christian ethics involves looking at the WHOLE Bible, and in the chapter on marriage there will be some important references made to individuals who should NOT get married.

Nevertheless, mankind had a job description in Creation which included the marriage of a man to a woman, and procreation within this context. This is not Murray's final word on marriage, as he will devote his next entire chapter to "The Marriage Ordinance," but here he just shows that the roots of marriage began at the very beginning of history and was part of God's design.

APPLICATION

It is not hard to see how the culture of fallen mankind has opposed this concept of marriage from the beginning. Polygamy is just one example. Society has sought many substitutes for it, delayed it, denied its necessity, corrupted its purpose and mocked its importance. Marriage, however, is God's idea, not ours. As such, love to God and love to others will seek to maintain God's ideal and purpose for this institution. The forthcoming chapter on marriage will focus on some of the specific ethical expectations are with respect to marriage.

Principles of Conduct - Introductory Questions: All We Need is Love?

The Beatles said "all you need is love." Could they be right?

I mean, given the high praise assigned to love in the Scriptures, such a suggestion isn't so far fetched. Before we get ourselves all concerned about various ethical issues, rules of conduct, principles, laws and behavior, maybe we could save ourselves a lot of time by just saying what Paul says in Colossians, "Most of all, let love guide your life [Col. 3:14]."

Could Murray's whole 265 page book be tossed aside and substituted with 5 little words: Love is all you need?

John Murray was a good teacher.  And the greatest teachers, in my opinion, have always been the ones who anticipate the objections raised in the minds of their students, and address them. Jesus often did this.  The apostle Paul did this. Great preaching, I believe, will always do this to some extent. Politicians, on the other hand, almost never do this. One of the most disappointing experiences I have had as a reader is when I read a book and the author seems unwilling to address the most obvious objections to his/her position.  Sorry.  I'm on a soap box.  Returning to earth now.

So, as I said, Murray deals with the idea that a renewed heart is really all we need. It is as if he imagines a student raising his hand and saying that a true believer has "an intuitive sense of what is right and good [p. 19]." Case closed.  Class dismissed. Everyone gets an "A" just by writing "LOVE" across the pages of every ethical exam planned for the semester. 

Now, that  might sound a little silly.  But, he argues that we may not easily dismiss this suggestion, for it has, as he puts it, "an important stratum of truth [p. 20]." And he then goes on to show the force and strength of this line of thinking, quoting from various Scriptures about how the law is "written on the heart" and how "love is the fulfilling of the law." He approaches this subject as one who has thought it through deeply, and suggests that we are here approaching the very "cardinal issues of the biblical ethic [p. 22]"

In other words - Murray begins by taking time to put an opposing perspective in the best possible light, giving it the strongest possible arguments, and making it appear very plausible and logical.

Then he begins to gently, carefully and thoughtfully dismantle it.

At this point he demands his readers put on their thinking caps. He seems to almost apologize for what he calls a "rather extended discussion [p. 22]." He is going to take us through 6 steps and each one follows necessarily and logically on the other. The following is my abbreviated version of each step.

1. First, he affirms that love is, in fact, the fulfilling of the law. He shows that this means that apart from love, no fulfilling of the law is of any value. There must be love in the heart that drives the obedience. Without it, law-keeping is hypocrisy at best. He affirms that "from start to finish it is love that fulfills the law [p. 23]."  Love, he says, is both "feeling" and "action." It constrains and compels. A "love" that does not find its fulfillment in law-keeping is not the sort of love spoken of in Scripture.

2. Love, he point out however, is itself a command. "We are commanded to love God and our neighbor [p.23]." Murray points out that we must beware the view of love that sees it as automatic or merely emotional. He says "We must resist the perverse conception of the nature of love that we cannot be commanded to love, that love must be spontaneous and cannot be evoked by demand [p. 23]." Here Murray argues that if we suggest Christianity now has "no commandments" and only "love" that we miss the very fact that love, itself, is a command.  

3. Next, Murray shows that a careful look at Scripture teaches us that "law" and "love" are not interchangeable words. The Bible doesn't say that "love" IS the law. Love, rather, fulfills the law. Love moves the person to keep the law. He says "we may not speak of the law of love if we mean that love is itself the law." Love is not the law.  Love keeps the law, fulfills the law, embraces the law. 

4. Then, Murray looks at Scripture and shows that love has never been a sort of "autonomous" principle that worked apart from any law or commandments. He makes a strong point when he says "Even man in his innocence was not permitted to carve for himself the path of life; it was charted for him from the outset [p. 24]." If ever there was a time in human history where we could imagine that the only law was "love" it would have been in Eden.  But we actually see that God gave Adam and Eve precepts and commands in Eden.

5. In fact, Murray shows, the idea of love working in an autonomous fashion would create all sorts of problems. What actions would this love take? What would love do? Would everyone's concept of love be considered equally valid? Throughout the history of God's dealing with His people, love was never expected to be a law to itself. Rather, Murray says that this love "has always existed and been operative in the context of revelation from God respecting His will [p.25]."

6. Finally, Murray argues that the meaning of the "law written upon the heart" is that a principle of love for God's law, and a desire to keep it from the heart, occurs within the redeemed. It is not that the demands of the law are suddenly inscribed on the heart, but the heart is changed to want to do the will of God. 

Thus Murray brings this part of his introduction to a close. He suggests it is inconceivable that mankind in his original sinless state would need specific commands for behavior (which we know Adam and Eve were given), but that now we only need a general inclination to "love." 

In typical John Murray fashion he makes his view of the matter crystal clear.  He says that the "notion...that love is its own law...is a fantasy which has no warrant from Scripture and runs counter to the witness of the biblical teaching [p. 26]."

With all due respect to John Lennon, I guess it isn't quite true that all we need is love.  

APPLICATION

What Murray is arguing for in this part of the book is something I believe we all recognize, but don't equally apply in the spiritual realm as we do in the natural realm. 

For example, if a husband says he "loves" his wife, but never tells her so, never does the things that please her, in fact is most often mean, selfish and cruel, then we all recognize there is something defective with his love.  If an employee says that they "love" their job, but actually are very careless in how they work, sloppy, moody, show up late, and are rude to customers...we again perceive a somewhat inadequate type of love going on. A physician may say she loves her patients, but if she does nothing to study medicine and stay current on treating disease, her love is at best a lazy shortcut for the type of love that could heal the sick.

Do I love God?  Then I'll do what He wants, as expressed by Him in His Word. I'll seek to understand the Bible and the patterns of behavior He approves of. We will, as Paul said to the Corinthians, "...make it our aim to please Him (2 Cor. 5:9)." 

What type of behavior pleases God? That is the subject of Christian ethics.  That is the content of this book, Principles of Conduct. Murray is going to begin to unpack this in the chapters ahead. 

Principles of Conduct - Introductory Questions: What about Polygamy and Divorce?

I am still working through the first chapter of Murray's work entitled Principles of Conduct. The first chapter is entitled "Introductory Questions" and he appears to be managing some potential objections or problems prior to diving into his main subject.

On pages 14-19 he tackles a tough question. 

Here is the issue: Does the Bible really have ONE ethical standard for mankind from beginning to end? Is there not, possibly, one ethic that was expected for Old Testament believers and a different ethic for New Testament believers?

In answering this question he addresses the apparent inconsistency between the Testaments on the subjects of polygamy and divorce. 

I appreciate Murray's willingness to not step around a hard issue.  He goes right at it.  

Polygamy and Divorce

He says "Monogamy is surely a principle of the Christian ethic.  Old Testament saints practiced polygamy." [p. 14]

He says even more bluntly "polygamy and divorce were practiced without overt disapprobation...in the Old Testament period." [p. 14]

He says "The polygamy and divorce with which we are now concerned would meet with the severest reproof and condemnation in the New Testament; but in the Old Testament there appears to be no overt pronouncement of condemnation and no infliction of disciplinary judgment." [p. 15]

In answering this problem, Murray turns to the New Testament text in which Jesus, when speaking on the subject of divorce, tells the Pharisees that "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so [Matt 19:8]."

Murray extracts from this text a principle, which he also applies to polygamy, that God may "permit" or "tolerate" certain behaviors which He does not necessarily "legitimate." 

To put it in Murray's own words "Men were permitted to take more wives than one, but from the beginning it was not so. Sufferance there indeed was, but no legitimation or sanction of the practice [p. 17]."

Murray admits this is not a comfortable or easy conclusion. It is hard to wrap our minds around the fact that God deals very severely in both Testaments with many sins, many which we might view as "small" matters, but when it comes to this big issue of polygamy and divorce, there appears to be a strange permissiveness.

Again, Murray addresses this and says simply "It is not ours to resolve all difficulties in our understanding of God's ways with men. It is not ours to understand some of the patent facts of God's providence."

Murray also reminds his readers that believers under the Old Testament did not have all the privileges which we enjoy in the New Testament era, particularly the fuller and complete revelation of the Bible and the extent of the gracious influences of the Holy Spirit. 

Murray concludes this section of this chapter by pointing out that the issues of polygamy and divorce do not, therefore, suggest a fundamental difference in ethics between the two testaments. Rather, "the underlying premiss is that there is a basic agreement between the Old Testament and the New on the norms or standards of behavior..." [p. 19].

APPLICATION

This section made me wonder about what sorts of cultural sins might be going on among the people of God today which the Lord is "tolerating" but not "legitimizing." While we do have the privilege of a completed Bible, we are nevertheless still suffering from various degrees of "hardness" of heart. We are not fully sanctified. And we live in a culture that must make many practices appear "normal" which God Himself would not approve of. 

Our study of Biblical ethics may actually discover some of these areas, and suggest that our lives need to change. Will we be prepared to do so? Will we change the way we live to match the standards set in Scripture, or will we argue that "everyone else" (including most Christians) are doing it...so it must be okay? 

Principles of Conduct by John Murray - Introductory Questions: What is Ethics?

Chapter 1 of Murray's book Principles of Conduct is entitled "Introductory Questions."

There is always a temptation in reading books like this to jump ahead to the "issues" he will tackle in later chapters. But in a book like this one, if we miss the introduction, we may miss some important pieces of the foundation of biblical ethics. 

This chapter requires the reader to pay attention. It could probably be improved with some formatting so as to break it up into several organized chunks. The actual "introductory questions" flow with only the smallest break in the text to show he is moving on to a new question. For the sake of this blog, I'm going to tackle each of the questions as an individual post.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTORY QUESTION 1

The first question he deals with is "What is ethics?" Alongside this question is a second one: What is biblical ethics? Or, to put it another way, "What is the study of biblical ethics?"

Murray examines the Greek words used in the New Testament for "ethics" or words similar to that. He shows that, at the root, ethics is concerned with a "way of life" or "manner of life" or "conduct" or "behavior." 

That said, he makes several qualifying statements to be sure we are clear about what is meant by ethics and the study of biblical ethics. For example, he says that:

1) Biblical ethics is about more than outward behavior. Rather, "biblical ethics has paramount concern with the heart out of which are the issues of life [p.13]." In other words, ethical behavior, according to the standard of God's Word, is not only a matter of what we DO, but WHY we do it. 

2) Biblical ethics is not simply concerned with isolated actions of individuals, but the relationship of all those actions together. I guess I would compare this to keys on a piano. Each key may be in tune. But ethics is concerned about how all those keys work together to play a song.

3) Biblical ethics also looks at the relationship of individuals to society itself. Murray calls it "individuals in their corporate relationships." Again, I would now compare this to a piano playing as part of an orchestra.

4) Finally, he reminds us that biblical ethics cannot simply be about the sum total of behaviors in society, because individuals are imperfect.  He says "we find inconsistency and contradiction in the holiest of men in the most sanctified society."

Having gone through these qualifications, an examination of the words themselves, and several references to Scriptures in which the relevant words are used, Murray concludes with this definition:

"The biblical ethic is that manner of life which is consonant with, and demanded by, the biblical revelation."

Here, then, is his starting point for this book. The "ethics" he has in mind is not what people actually DO per se, but what we OUGHT to do. He is looking not at behavior (which is faulty) but "standards of behavior which are enunciated in the Bible for the creation, direction, and regulation of thought, life, and behavior consonant with the will of God [p. 14]."

Personal Application: We live in a society that places much value on the concept of a "role model." We talk about public figures as being good or bad role models. We talk about parents as role models. We talk about being a good role model for others. But if people are faulty (and we know that we are) then the practice of continually comparing ourselves to others, over generations, will likely take us further and further from the real pattern we should be following, which is the Word of God. 

I suggest that one of the greatest dangers among Christians is that we look merely to the patterns of behavior established by our most popular public figures (pastors, authors, conference speakers). They may be good men and women. They may have much knowledge, many degrees, significant accomplishments and a seemingly spotless public record. But they (like us) are flawed. And we don't necessarily know in what areas of life they are most unlike the original pattern found in God's Word. 

Murray's definition of ethics reminds me that I'm not to draw my sense of "ethics" by comparing myself to others, but by comparing myself to Scripture. 

Principles of Conduct by John Murray - The Preface

Does the Bible have a different ethic for humanity in the Old Testament vs. the New Testament? Was there a different ethic at work in the Garden of Eden before sin entered our world? Has the Lord modified and adjusted His ethical demands over the years so that what was good and proper in one era might no longer be good now?

The question we are asking is fundamentally this:  Have the rules changed over time? And, if so, might we rightly conclude that the rules are continuing to change.  Maybe the ethic with which we were brought up isn't in operation now. Could it be maintained that something was evil for one generation, but could be good for another generation? 

Though the specific questions above are not asked in Murray's preface, it is clear that this is what he is trying to address. He puts his cards on the table in his opening words:  "One of the main purposes of the lectures and of this volume is to seek to show the basic unity and continuity of the biblical ethic [p. 7]."  Unity and continuity. In other words, fundamentally the same throughout history.

He explains that, while the Bible unfolds God's revelation in an historical, linear fashion; that does not mean that the underlying ethic is changing or developing. He argues for, what he calls, "the organic unity and continuity of divine revelation [p. 7]."

A case in point are the 10 commandments. He calls them the "core of the biblical ethic." But he points out that these commandments did not pop into existence at Sinai with Moses.  Rather, they were "relevant from the beginning." And as such, "do not cease to have relevance" today. 

For some this may be considered a radical thought. The concept that the 10 commandments have any relevance today is not frequently taught in our churches. Murray will deal with this throughout the volume, but especially later in the book in a chapter about The Law and the Gospel.

Murray also points out the fact that in studying the ethics of the Bible, we are not talking about studying how people lived in response to God's declared ethic.  The Bible does expose us to much history and biography. But we are not specifically concerned with the individual responses to God's revelation, but rather with the revelation itself. He says "we must not gauge the content or intent of revelation by the measure of the response given by men [p. 8]."

I would point out that this fact is one that skeptics of the Bible often miss. They allude to various behaviors of the characters of the Bible and thus argue that God is not good. But they are missing the point. In fact, one of the strongest arguments for the inspiration of Scripture is that the Bible does not seek to cover up the unethical behavior of its heroes. Rather, their failings prove the pronouncements of God's Word that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Finally, in his preface, Murray addressed what some have called the "mythological character" of the opening chapters of Genesis (the creation story). Liberal scholars have asserted that Genesis 2-3 do not tell us true history. They say it is allegory, or myth, or just illustration - but not to be believed as a true historical account. Murray makes it clear that this perspective "the present writer does not believe." 

In fact, Murray states boldly that "it is the conviction of the present writer that a mythological interpretation is not compatible with the total perspective which the biblical witness furnishes. To state the case positively, the concreteness of Genesis 2 and 3, as historically interpreted, is thoroughly consonant with the concreteness which characterizes the subsequent history of Old Testament revelation." 

In other words, Murray believes in a literal "Garden of Eden."  He believes in a historical man and woman named "Adam" and "Eve." He believes the information they were given in the garden to be true. If we throw out Genesis 2 and 3 as historical, then we may equally dismiss the rest of Bible history as allegory, story or fiction as well. 

This conviction is one upon which Murray will build in the following chapter.  He believes, and I think he is right, that within the Creation account we can discover certain "Creation Ordinances" which God revealed right at the beginning about how man is to live in this world. The whole question of how we ought to live can be traced back to the Creation account. 

Thus Murray lays the groundwork for his study. Those who wish to argue with some of his positions on ethics in subsequent chapters will need to start here. He is following a logical line of thought. He tells us where he is starting. 

This is a refreshing change from the "meme" argument culture we live in.  By that I mean that we think by posting a random quote, opinion or idea...that we are arguing for our cause.  I would suggest this is a mistake. This is nothing but short-cut philosophy, an easy escape from real thinking and merely a way to avoid the hard work of intelligent discussion.  

Henry Ford once said that "thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it."

Ethics requires thinking. And Murray seems prepared at the outset to help us do this work. 

Principles of Conduct - by John Murray: A Study

You've heard it.  You've probably said it.

"That's SO wrong!"

"What is the matter with people these days?"

"My life is so messed up!"

"Our world has gone crazy."

Sometimes the world we live in feels like a broken machine.

But what if the problem ISN'T SIMPLY the world we live in.  What if...just maybe...we are doing this thing called "life" wrong. What if the very things we are doing, the choices we are making, the priorities we have embraced and the values we accept are, in fact, the main problem with our lives? What if we are living wrong?

That is a question worth asking, and it is a question that Professor John Murray is essentially asking in his classic treatment of the subject of ethics in Principles of Conduct.

I have decided to take up this book again and work through it.  I say "work" through it because it is not an easy read.  I agree with the assessment of one of the reviewers of this book who called it "Not a light book, not an easy book, it is an important book."

That being said, the Southern Presbyterian Journal called it "...one of the most outstanding contributions in the field of Christian ethics that we have come across in a long time."

Professor John Murray (1898 - 1975) was a native of Scotland, studied theology under men such as J. Gresham Machen and Geerhardus Vos at Princeton, and taught at Westminster Theological Seminary for over 30 years.

Principles of Conduct began as a series of 5 lectures given at Fuller Theological Seminary in California in 1955.  It was first published in 1957.  I believe it is still in print and can be bought on Amazon.

What I appreciate most about Murray's style in this book is that he is not afraid to tackle the tough questions about the ethics of the Bible. He does not gloss over textual difficulties. He is rigorous in his commitment to a consistent Biblical Ethic.

He goes where many modern preachers are not willing to go because such a deliberate statement of Biblical truth would step on the toes of too many churchgoers today.

Topics he addresses include:

• Marriage
• Labor
• The Sanctity of Life
• Truth
• And several more

My plan is to take each section and chapter and think through them again. As Murray brings us back to a Biblical ethic, it will demand that I look at my life afresh. Rather than blaming others or circumstances for my problems, maybe (just maybe) it is the way I have been living. These thoughts, therefore, are mostly for the good of my own soul. I'm happy, however, for others to come along for the ride.

The book is 265 pages long and divided into a preface, 10 chapters and 5 appendices. Some chapters are longer, and will probably require multiple blog posts to cover them.

When I look at what is going on around us in our culture. When I hear what people are saying about their lives and about "life" in general. When I observe the methods being used to communicate political and moral ideas. All these things tell me we NEED to hear what this book has to say.

Christians need to hear what this book says. I'm convinced that churches, in general, are not teaching the fundamentals of living found in this work.  Or if they are teaching them...they are not being heeded. If nothing else, I believe I need to hear them again myself.