John Stott died two days ago in London. He was ninety years old.
More than any single person, he shaped the way I approached, interpreted, and taught Scripture.
Although Protestants don’t have a Pope, the British leader, author, theologian, and teacher was the next best thing for many of us.
A lifelong bachelor, Stott was the rector for many years at All Soul’s Church in Langham Place in London – right across from the BBC. Although I’ve been inside the church, I’ve never attended a service there. (If you look across the photo, you can see an exterior balcony at the BBC building. U2 did a brief concert there not too long ago.)
After his tenure at All Soul’s, Stott undertook a worldwide teaching ministry. I had the privilege of hearing him one time – at the Congress of Biblical Exposition in Anaheim in 1986. Although the conference featured such great preachers as Chuck Colson, Chuck Swindoll, J. I, Packer, Howard Hendricks, Stuart Briscoe, and many more preaching all-stars, Stott was invited to give the first message. During his talk, he referred to the perspicuity of Scripture, a term I had never heard before. It was the genius of Stott that he could use a word like that and help us to understand both its meaning and application for our ministries. (The word refers to the fact that the Bible is clear in its teaching. If a passage seems unclear in one place, it will be made clear in another place.)
Although he was a great teacher, for me, Stott was primarily an author. In the series The Bible Speaks Today, Stott wrote books on The Sermon on the Mount, Acts, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Stott’s analysis of each Bible book is accurate, clear, succinct and practical – and he can turn a phrase like nobody else. And while some popular Bible teachers skip the problems in Scripture, Stott fearlessly plows right into each one, a trait I greatly admire and have tried to emulate.
For some reason, I have always been attracted to British thinkers and theologians, like Stott, Packer, F. F. Bruce, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Alister McGrath, and the incomporable Charles Spurgeon, to name a few. Their scholarship, thinking, and writing styles have always resonated with me.
Let me recommend three books by John Stott to you. They are relatively inexpensive volumes:
First, Baptism & Fullness: The Work of the Holy Spirit Today. While I’ve owned as many as 30 books on the Holy Spirit, Stott’s 119-page paperback volume has long been my favorite. He deals biblically and sensibly with four topics: the baptism, fullness, fruit, and gifts of the Holy Spirit. When I first encountered this book 35 years ago, it challenged and then changed my thinking on the Holy Spirit.
For example, he writes “a word to those who may have been given some unusual visitation of the Spirit.” He goes on:
“It is understandable that you should want to bear witness to what God has done for you. But I beg you not to seek to stereotype everybody’s spiritual experience, or even to imagine that the Holy Spirit necessarily purposes to give others what he has given to you. It is spiritual graces which should be common to all Christians, not spiritual gifts or spiritual experiences. In a word, let your experience lead you to worship and praise; but let your exhortation to others be grounded not upon your experiences but upon Scripture.” Wow, that’s good!
Second, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today. Although the book is now 21 years old, Stott goes where most Christian teachers won’t go: headlong into controversies about social issues like the environment, human rights, racisim, feminism, abortion, and homosexual marriage. Stott interacts with secular authorities first (many of them British) so we can understand their positions, and then lets Scripture clarify and arbitrate. For example, here’s what he writes about gay sex:
“Christians should not therefore single out homosexual intercourse for special condemnation. The fact is that every kind of sexual relationship and activity which deviates from God’s revealed intention is ipso facto displeasing to him and under his judgment. This includes polygamy and polyandry … clandestine unions … casual encounters and temporary liaisons, adultery and many divorces … and homosexual partnerships…. In sum, the only ‘one flesh’ experience which God intends and Scripture contemplates is the sexual union of a man with his wife, whom he recognizes as ‘flesh of his flesh.'”
Finally, The Cross of Christ. Published in 1986, it may be Stott’s greatest book. It’s certainly my own favorite. I have turned to it over and over again over the past 25 years, always with great profit. Because Stott is always well-read, the book is penned with some theological depth, but is always richly rewarding. This passage about Pilate protesting his innocence before Jesus’ crucifixion makes us think:
“It is easy to condemn Pilate and overlook our own equally devious behavior. Anxious to avoid the pain of a whole-hearted commitment to Christ, we too search for convenient subterfuges. We either leave the decision to somebody else, or opt for a half-hearted compromise, or seek to honour Jesus for the wrong reason (e.g. as teacher instead of Lord), or even make a public affirmation of loyalty while at the same time denying him in our hearts.” Makes you think, doesn’t it?
Stott’s hobby was bird-watching, and I’ve read that he loved James Bond movies as well, so he wasn’t just a pie-in-the-sky leader. He was transparently human.
But even though the man’s body his left our planet, his writings live on. While he certainly wasn’t infallible, Stott was always gracious, willing to dialogue with his enemies and even chide his friends in the pursuit of truth.
Heaven is richer because of his departure from our planet. But I am eternally grateful to God that I not only own most of his books (some are about two feet behind my left shoulder), but that the truth of God as taught in those books has worked its way into my own heart and soul.
Long live John Stott!
Outgrowing Church? Part 2
Posted in Church Conflict, Current Church Issues, Please Comment! on July 27, 2011| 7 Comments »
When I was at Fuller Seminary a few years ago, I sat under a well-known professor who is also a prolific author. My guess is that he was in his late sixties when I took the class.
This Christian leader did not attend a traditional church, even though he’s been identified with a specific denomination nearly his whole life.
Instead, he attended a house church of about 35 people on Sunday evenings.
When I first heard him mention this, I thought he was being a bit rebellious. Weren’t there scores of already-existing churches within a few minutes’ drive of his home? Couldn’t they benefit from his worldwide teaching ministry?
At the time, I was probably at the apex of my own pastoral ministry. In fact, our church was ready to start construction on a new worship center.
Fast forward ahead a few years and matters are very different.
In my last article, I wondered if my wife and I have outgrown the local church. I certainly hope not. We need to continue to grow spiritually. We need to hear the Word of God preached. We need to use our spiritual gifts. We need to be a part of something bigger than ourselves.
As Joanna Hogg of the Irish group Iona sings in their song “Dancing on the Wall”: “I am part of something that is going to change things for the better.”
We’ll always be a part of the kingdom of God. And we’ll always be members of the Church Universal. But what about the local church?
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems that my wife and I have entered that season in our lives when some Christians decide to become part-time churchgoers rather than full-time ones.
Let me share two more concerns about the churches I’ve been visiting (the first three were presented in my last post):
Fourth, there are fewer invitations to receive Christ. I grew up in churches where the pastor gave an altar call at every service. He invited unbelievers to receive Christ by asking them to leave their seat and walk to the front of the worship center. Too many pastors back then used manipulative tactics to force people to “walk the aisle” and implied they couldn’t be saved unless they did. Although this practice is never mentioned in the New Testament, it was a third sacrament in many churches until baby boomers became pastors. I was so alarmed at what I saw in some churches that I wrote my thesis in seminary on this practice.
But now the pendulum seems to have swung in the other direction. I honestly cannot remember the last time I was in a church service and a pastor invited unbelievers to pray and receive Christ.
In the church we’ve been attending, many people are being converted, and although we haven’t gone to the membership class, my guess is that that’s the place where people are being won to Christ.
But what about those who choose not to attend the class?
Pastors have differing views on this issue. A decreasing number of pastors invite unbelievers to receive Christ after every message. Some rarely if ever do. In my case, I did so if (a) the passage called for it, or (b) the Holy Spirit prompted me to do so.
Decades after my own conversion, I’m still thrilled when I hear the gospel preached in a biblical and relevant way. But I’m hearing it preached less and less.
What have you been noticing along this line?
Finally, too many churches act like they constitute the kingdom of God. Six months after arriving in the Valley of the Sun (it’s only 104 degrees here today), I visited with a denominational executive. I asked him if there was any kind of annual convention or larger meeting of Christians in the greater Phoenix area, and he told me he didn’t know of any. (When I was a pastor in Silicon Valley, for example, the National Association of Evangelicals sponsored a monthly luncheon for pastors.) This leader told me that Phoenix has a Wild West mentality about it and that it tends to be “every man for himself” here.
And maybe “every church for itself” as well.
I’m a local Christian but a global Christian, too. I like knowing that there are churches and Christians in Western Europe and Eastern Africa as well as in California and Texas.
But it seems to me that more and more church leaders aren’t promoting much about Jesus’ worldwide kingdom outside the four walls of their own buildings. In the process, it’s easy for a church to give off the impression that “we are the kingdom of God” rather than “we are just a part of the kingdom of God.”
There are exceptions to this, of course, but this is the trend I’ve been seeing.
My favorite verse about the church is Ephesians 5:25 where Paul tells us that “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her …” If Jesus loves the church, then I need to love her as well. And if Jesus gave His life for His people, I need to do the same.
But Paul is talking in context about the Church Universal, not necessarily a local church.
I agree with Bill Hybels that “the Church is the hope of the world.”
But how does that play out in the 21st century? Must we all attend services in a church building in our community? If not, is a house church a legitimate biblical expression of the church in our culture?
And what if we choose not to participate in a local church at all? (Yes, I know about Hebrews 10:24-25!)
I’m not trying to be a heretic, but I am trying to be provocative.
What do you think about the future of the local church where you live?
Share this:
Like this:
Read Full Post »