Eleven Resolutions for Revival from 1741 for 2012

In 1741 Phillip Doddridge and a few other ministers put together a few resolutions for the purpose of seeing a revival of religion.  Here are their eleven resolutions—modified, modernized, and shortened; but faithful to their original intention:

  1. Ministers agree to preach on family religion on one Sunday, and secret prayer the next
  2. Pastoral visiting is to be more solemnly attended to, and greater care in personal inspection should be given.  Each minister should take an exact survey of his flock—to know their spiritual state as best as possible.
  3. Visit every head of a family under our ministerial care at least once per year and solemnly charge them to believe and live out the gospel
  4. Set up the work of catechizing (diligently minister to the upcoming generation)
  5. Encourage those that are neglecting church attendance to return
  6. Practice biblical church discipline
  7. Create small groups for the purpose of “religious discourse and prayer” of no more than 6-8 people to meet once per week
  8. Select people from the congregation to head up these small groups.  Have all small group leaders meet together once per week and also with the ministers, “to join their counsels and their prayers for the public good”
  9. Form gospel associations with like-minded ministers so as to “strengthen the hands” of fellow laborers.  Have these associations meet together as often as is expedient
  10. Begin training young men for the ministry
  11. Consider how to take the gospel to unreached peoples

Looking back at this historically it is amazing how many things that we do now find their origin in these resolutions (and a few others like them).  Certainly the modern missions movement is indebted to #11.  The rise of small groups and little societies was a new idea at this time as well.  It is tremendous thinking about how much was accomplished by these simple resolutions.

I also love the simplicity.  It seems that these men had the wild notion that loving people, training children, studying Scripture together, praying together, and having meaningful fellowship with one another was enough to create a revival.  I like it.

What If You Couldn’t Read Your Bible?

I’m from Perry, Missouri.  Less than 1,000 people are housed in her city limits.  Few of them anything but White Anglo-Saxons.  Most of them perhaps not sure what an Anglo-Saxon is; that’s not to insult my hometown—merely to say that in an agrarian society, like Perry, knowing what an Anglo-Saxon is really doesn’t matter.

I share all of that to say that my exposure to people of different languages and nationalities for the first 18 years of my life was pretty minimal.  Then I went to college.  Even here “they” were not normal.  Most of my college was made up of white folk.  But my college was also attempting to have a good soccer team, so they turned to Argentina.  The basketball program turned to Croatia (I think it was Croatia). 

That was frustrating.  Having to converse with someone that only spoke broken English was frustrating.  Then there were those students that only spoke a few English words.  A language gap is ridiculously difficult to overcome.  It makes everyone involved feel a little stupid and a little embarrassed. 

Fast forward a few years and I am still struggling with foreign languages.  I still can’t speak much Spanish.  (Although my time working in the kitchen at the Chick-Fil-A helped me learn a few more Spanish words—though I’m certain they shouldn’t be repeated.)  I don’t know Italian, French, Russian, or any other language.  I can maybe speak Pig Latin.  And I’m presently trying to learn Greek and Hebrew. 

This semester I am learning Hebrew.  I do not know any of the letters.  I haven’t a clue of a single word.  As I look at a Hebrew Bible my mind cannot comprehend what I am about to learn.  And I’m getting a little anxious.  Then a though occurred to me, “wouldn’t it really stink to be a believer in England in the 1400s.”

They had never heard the Bible in their own tongue.  Before William Tyndale in 1526 these words were never on the tongues of the English peoples:

Behold the lamb of God
I am the way, the truth, and the life
For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory
Seek, and ye shall find
With God all things are possible
In him we live, move, and have our being
Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith
Behold, I stand at the door and knock
The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak
For my yoke is easy and my burden is light
Fight the good fight*

Unbelievable.  Thinking about this makes this video take on even greater weight.  I weeped the first time I watched it; slightly undone as I watch it again:

I’m thankful to have a Bible in my native tongue.  I’m encouraged to see this video and rejoice with these brothers and sisters in Christ, that they too have a Bible in their native tongue.  I’m also exhorted to continue the work.  There are still thousands of people groups—millions of people—that do not yet have a Bible in a language that they can see, hear, or speak. 

Tyndale, prayed that the Lord might open the King of England’s eyes so that he would get the Bible in English.  I’m praying that the Lord may open our eyes that we might not flit away our time and resources on non-eternals.  I’m praying that the Lord may open our eyes so that we spend less on dog food and more on missions (instead of the other way around). 

—

*I am indebted to David Teems for that list.  (I will review his biography on Tyndale in a few weeks). 

Review of Real Marriage by Mark and Grace Driscoll

If you have yet to hear of Mark Driscoll’s latest book Real Marriage you are a little late to the party.  There are countless reviews already (see here, and for some of the earlier ones see here).  Honestly if I was not contractually obligated (ala got the book for free in exchange for a review) and if I did not feel a pastoral obligation to read and review it, I would probably keep my mouth shut. 

Summary

The book is divided into three sections (really two).  One section on marriage that covers the first five chapters.  This section chronicles some of the Driscoll’s story and also has a chapter each devoted to men and to women.  Chapter 5 is given to the necessity of forgiveness.  The second section, and probably the most controversial, deal with sex.  First the Driscoll’s attempt to establish a theology of sex, then for a few chapters they tackle tough issues like abuse, pornography, and selfishness.  Chapter 10 is perhaps the most controversial as it is the “Can We ____?”  chapter.  The last section/chapter is a helpful tip for reverse-engineering your marriage.  There are also 5 appendices in some versions of the book.


My Thought

A good friend asked me if I liked the book.  My response was simple.  I like the book about as much as a thirsty man that just drank out of a toilet only to realize that there was a refreshingly (not to mention clean) glass of water right next to him. 

Let me explain.

Just like a thirsty man would have his thirst satiated by drinking toilet water, there are things in Real Marriage that may actually benefit your marriage.  (see Aaron Armstrong’s review for some of the good things in the book).  The only problem with drinking out of the toilet—wait, one of the problems with drinking out of the toilet—is that there is a pretty good chance you are going to get some sort of unhelpful bacteria that will make you sick.  You may even get away with it—but at the end of the day there is a reason that we usually relieve ourselves in a different location than we do our dishes or give our kids drinks of water. 


The Toilet

My response to my friend is only good if Driscoll’s book can actually be compared to drinking from a toilet.  There are a few places in the book that I would liken more to dropping an awesome donut on the floor, picking it back up and eating it.  Yeah, it’s probably not the best but it’s not a huge deal.  Love can cover over a multitude of sins.  But there are at least four spots that I would compare to drinking from a toilet. 


First, feel free to call me a prude or someone that is stuck in Victorian England.  I can take it.  But there were places in the book that I would not feel comfortable reading to members in our congregation.  There are even places I would not feel comfortable reading to my wife.  There are words and phrases in this book that are so blunt and juvenile that I hadn’t heard them since junior high.  Maybe I need to get out more and rub shoulders with more lost people, but I don’t really expect to feel dirty reading a book written by a pastor.  The fact that I’m not quoting any of these is evidence to my point.


Secondly, I will reference what I will call “the haircut comment”.  On page 109 Driscoll helpfully says this, “one of our culture’s powerful lies—fueled by pornography, sinful lust, and marketing—is that having a standard of beauty is in any way holy or helpful”.  This seems to contradict Driscoll’s earlier remarks concerning his own wife:

In this season we shifted into ministry-and-family mode, neglecting our intimacy and failing to work through our issues.  This became apparent to me when my pregnant wife came home from a hair appointment with her previously long hair (that I loved) chopped off and replaced with a short, mommish haircut.  She asked what I thought, and could tell from the look on my face.  She had put a mom’s need for convenience before being a wife.  She wept.  (11)

This is one example of several that highlights what seems to be a lack of tenderness towards Driscoll’s wife.  I could just be wrongly sensitive to things that others are not.  But it seems to me that Mark’s bluntness with men is sometimes even present in his relationship with his wife.  I could be wrong about this and will welcome any correction. 

I mention the “haircut comment” only to say that if I (or other men) began treating their wives with what seems to be a lack of tenderness then I don’t think marriages will be benefited. 


Thirdly, the book is extremely practical.  In fact it is often too practical or perhaps pragmatic may be the better word.  What ends up happening is that rather than applying principles and general concepts that can apply to all marriages this book ends up almost doling out a new law. 

Take chapter 10 as an example.  On page 101 the Driscoll’s decide not to share specific examples of redemptive stories.  Instead they say, “We are hoping that rather than admiring another couple’s redemptive story you will make your own by God’s grace and the Holy Spirit’s power.”  My thought with this was simple; why didn’t you do this in chapter 10?

In Chapter 10 they provide what some may consider a helpful way of thinking through “Can we ____” type of questions.  Personally, I even question the wisdom of the grid they apply—but that is another topic altogether.  So, let’s just say for the sake of argument that their grid is immensely helpful.  What we do not need then is to take a bunch of practices through this grid to see it in play.  Because what it ends up happening is that the readers are no longer applying an “is it beneficial” grid to their own marriage but instead they are being influenced by the Driscoll’s opinion.  It’s like laying down a new law with Driscoll being Moses and saying—these things are okay.  It seems to undercut what they were attempting to do. 
The marriage books that I have found most helpful are the ones that deal with big picture, gospel meta-narrative, idol-exposing, universal type principles that all of humanity deals with.  I have the Holy Spirit.  I can make personal application on my own.  I do not need a detailed description of ________ to determine whether that would be beneficial to my marriage. 

That’s not to say that marriage books shouldn’t be practical and only pie-in-the sky.  But that does mean that it is counterproductive to answer these “Can we ____” questions with specifics. 


Fourthly, this book is mostly unnecessary.  The main reason why I am not suggesting this book is because the positives—and as I mentioned earlier there are some helpful things—are not unique to this book.  You can find the positives elsewhere without having to endure the graphic and juvenile nature of this book.  It’s not blunt it’s vulgar and unnecessarily so. 


Conclusion

Go elsewhere.  I appreciate much that Mark Driscoll has done in the kingdom of Christ.  I appreciate that he preaches the gospel.  I appreciate a good amount of his theology.  But I do not appreciate this book.  I think it causes an unnecessary distraction.  I do not see this book as really applying the gospel (marriage as a picture of the gospel seems to take the back seat to pleasurable sex).  I’m saddened that those that dislike Driscoll will have lots of fodder for their down with Pastor Mark cannons.

But mostly I’m saddened that I cannot suggest this book.  I love Driscoll’s openness (to a degree) and their honesty.  I love that they share their brokenness.  I love their points of confession.  I actually thought chapter 3 was very helpful.  There are some things that I genuinely like about this book.  And I know that Driscoll understands the gospel and knows how to apply it in very helpful ways.  I just wish that a marriage book was one of those. 

Steer clear.  I’d suggest Tim Keller’s The Meaning of Marriage.  Paul Tripp’s What Did You Expect.  Dave Harvey’s When Sinners Say I Do.  Tim Challies Sexual Detox.  Redemption by Mike Wilkerson or Rid of My Disgrace by the Holcomb’s.  Read only one of these and you find far more benefit. 

Know How Much You Hurt Me?

Matthew Griffiths was a student at Bristol in 1799-1800.  He was a “promising young man” and one that John Newton strongly recommended to Samuel Pearce his attending the Bristol Academy.  The details are as of yet unknown to me but Newton refers to Griffiths “pre-marital fornication” and his having been dismissed from the Academy. 

In response to hearing of these events Newton asks John Ryland, Jr., to “read this part of my letter, it will suffice to inform him that his conduct has hurt me much, because I loved him much; I shall mourn and pray for him in secret”. 

Do you think that what Newton is asking Ryland to do is correct?  Should we help those trapped in sin see how much their sin is hurting others?  It seems to me that this practice is one that is not present in many faith communities today.  Should it be restored? 

Keep in mind that Newton is not being vindictive.  He does not want this young man to know how much he has hurt him so that he can unnecessarily punish him.  Newton follows this request with a prayer for Griffiths:

The Lord grant that he may be humbled by what is past, and get strength, by the proof of his own weakness.  I mean, may the Lord pardon him, and lead him to a more simple dependence upon Himself who alone is able to keep us from falling, or to raise us when we are down.  (Wise Counsel, 391)