‘Prophetic Untimeliness’ by Os Guiness
November 5th, 2007
(Review by Nathan Williams)
Some books simply need to be read. This is one of those books. It is a couple of years old, but when I read it through for the second time I was amazed again at the impact it had on my thinking. It speaks volumes to our Christian culture and helps us understand the stance we need to take toward our culture. Guiness possesses the amazing ability to analyze our current situation and express it in ways that are memorable and easy to understand. This book is a treasure chest of great quotes so reading it must be done with a highlighter at hand.
Guiness understands the heart of the problem the church faces today. “…an unprecedented Christian pursuit of relevance has led directly to an unprecedented Christian irrelevance” (p. 45). He describes this statement as the central concern of the book. The irony is astounding. The Church today wants nothing more than to be relevant to the culture. Many in the church feel relevance is the only way to reach the culture with the gospel. Guiness says this pursuit of relevance is precisely the reason the Christian church today has never been more irrelevant. It’s an impossibly frustrating cycle to find ourselves caught in. The harder we push to be culturally relevant, the more behind the times we fall.
If you wanted to boil this book down to the most basic level, it would be a book about worldliness. Guiness explains how the church has become like the world in one specific area. Prophetic Untimeliness divides into three sections, with two chapters making up each section.
The first section is entitled, “The Tool That Turned into a Tyrant.” This tool is time and Guiness spends the first two chapters explaining the features of our modern understanding of time that have affected our faith. Most of us are so caught up in the modern understanding of time that we never consider that our culture has affected the way we view time itself. “But it is impossible to stop the world today even if you want to get off — and this manic speed is affecting our faith as much as our blood pressure” (p. 36). One specific result of the modern view of time discussed in these chapters is our bias for change. “Any kind of change is enough to qualify as progress” (p. 42).
The second section of Prophetic Untimeliness is entitled “Shorn of Our Secret Strength” and deals with the relationship of the church to the world. Guiness explains that the church has always possessed the ability to be “against the world, for the world” (p. 49). Taking this phrase from C. S. Lewis he goes on to explain how our ability to maintain this position is harder in the modern world than it has ever been. The modern view of time has infiltrated our way of thinking to the point that we value relevance so much that we are willing to sacrifice faithfulness to obtain it.
The closing section of Prophetic Untimeliness is entitled “Restoring the Archimedean Point.” In this section Guiness explains that we must have some point outside of the world with which to judge the world. To remain faithful and ultimately to gain relevance, we must maintain an eternal perspective.
Early on in this book, Guiness explains that relevance is not the problem. In fact, he claims that relevance is more needed than ever! The problem is that to be truly relevant, we must not float along with the spirit of the age, but we must push against the current that would drag us down. I wanted to finish this review, not by explaining why I think this book would be valuable to read, but by letting Guiness speak for himself. Here are a few memorable quotes from Prophetic Untimeliness.
“Never have Christians pursued relevance more strenuously; never have Christians been more irrelevant” (p. 12).
“If relevance is properly understood — the quality of relating to a matter in hand with pertinence and appropriateness — we who define ourselves and our lives by the good news of Jesus Christ should be, of all people, most relevant” (p. 12).
Speaking of the Churches’ stance, “against the world, for the world” . . .
“When the church is weak or careless in maintaining this dual stance, it leads directly to cowardice and corruption, decadence and decline. But when the church is faithful, it lies at the core of her power to transform and renew culture” (p. 49).
“Thinking and acting Christianly in the blizzard of modern information and change requires the courage of a prophet, the wisdom of a sage, and the character of a saint — not to speak of the patience of Job and the longevity of Methuselah” (p. 56).
“The fact is that nothing is finally relevant except in relation to the true and the eternal” (p. 106).
Thanks for the great reminder of the need for balance as well as the boldness to be different! Plus, yet another book you’ve added to my must read list.
Man, these reviews are so helpful! Thanks for all of your careful reading and writing. The church needs to read good books and you are pointing us to them.
A superb book . Guiness is right in reminding us of the futility in being relevant without the timeless truth of the “living and abiding” word of God.
Where’s the picture? Usually you show a picture with the article.
Is it possible that you have forgotten or see it as unimportant that Guinness was a signatory of the ECT (Evangelicals and Catholic Together) documents. I know this fact has not escaped Dr. MacArthur.
Please address why someone in such error about the Catholic church should be thought to have wisdom to share with evangelicals.
Shane,
J.I. Packer also signed the ECT. Do you think he has no wisdom to share with evangelicals? Does the fact that a Christian errs in some matter exclude him from wisdom in any matter?
P.S. to Shane,
Whitfield was asked this question, “Do you expect to see John Wesley in Heaven?”
“No,” was his reply.
But then Whitfield continued, “John Wesley will be so close to the Throne of Glory, and I will be so far away, I will hardly get a glimpse of him.”
Shane,
I have not forgotten, nor is it unimportant that Os Guiness signed ECT. I believe this was a huge mistake and you recognize what Dr. Macarthur has written and spoken on this subject. Despite this, I don’t believe it is a problem to recommend helpful resources from men like J.I. Packer or Os Guiness. They have much that is valuable to say to the church but I wish they would have been more aggressive in their defense of the gospel in this instance.
Nathan Williams
Shane,
It’s unfortunate that most evangelicals don’t care at all about ECT and if you take an obedient stand against it, most folks won’t care for you to be around……..you are stiring up too much trouble.
Don’t expect anyone here to agree with your sentiments, but I do……..your comment is much needed and I agree with you wholeheartedly. Frankly, the men who signed ECT left their “convictions” (whatever that is) and their so called “wisdom” at home in their “studies”.
Oh, and J.I. Packer is their hero, no matter what he does. They will always have an excuse for him and they will always justify those who did endorse and sign ECT!
I think Dr. MacArthur and R.C. Sproul said on the John Ankerberg Show that those signing the ECT documents basically compromised the Gospel. I am reminded of what Galatians 1:6-9
6I am astonished that you are(A) so quickly deserting(B) him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to(C) a different gospel— 7(D) not that there is another one, but(E) there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or(F) an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you,(G) let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received,(H) let him be accursed.
Is it not how we finish that is important. What is it that we start out strong in the faith if we waiver in the end. J. I. Packer, Guinness, Colson, etc. have waivered, there is no way around it.
In light of Galatians 1:6-9, why would we point people to these men. Let’s learn from the faithful and renounce the heretic, not promote their books, etc.
Sorry Sky Dunn I don’t think the issues between Whitfield and Wesley even remotely approach the heresy found in the Catholic Church compared to orthodox Protestant doctrine. Dr. MacArthur is on record as saying the Roman Catholic Church is in a state of apostacy.
By the way, is Sky Dunn your name?
Shane,
Roman Catholicism is glaring error, Arminianism is subtle. Tell me which you think has had more negative doctrinal influence in the body of Christ? I agree with MacArthur wholeheartedly. And I’m not too excited about the state of the so-called Christian churches either.
BTW, I’d be interested to know of any works from Packer or Guiness that constitute heresy. If you know of none, then please be more careful about branding them as heretics.
And yes, that’s my name.
Sky,
Well, first of all, I suppose all of us carry one form of heresy or another. That includes me and every other person I know.
However, since you want me to be specific, the ECT document is a work of Packer and Guinness. Their signature makes the ECT document their work. Their signature says they agree with the doctrine communicated in the document and the ECT document is full of heresy. It’s that simple. Not something I like to point out, but a true statement.
To your question on what has had more negative influence, Catholicism or Arminianism, I would say at first glance, Catholicism. To be fair however, we would need to include Calvinism and other ‘Christian’ isms when making this kind of assessment.
Personally, if a so called Arminian can affirm that justification is by faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone, not through works, then what is the rub.
Check this out: http://adrianwarnock.com/2006/11/piper-friday-charles-simeon-and-john.htm
God Bless,
Shane Trammel
If Packer can write a book “Knowing God” and then sign ECT, then exactly what about God does he really know? If I had an affair while claiming to “know God”, you would call me deceived, not understanding the text, and so on. Mmmmm.
Shane,
I agree that Packer should not have signed the ECT, but when you say that his signature makes the ECT his work, you become subtle for the sake of argument. You know full well that Packer and Guinness stand four square behind salvation by grace through faith, in spite of their confusing action.
Very nice link. Thank you! I will have to peruse it more closely when time permits.
Blessings on you, brother.
Sky
Until one repents of a clearly sinful action, how are we to continue looking to them as a spiritual leader and guide?
“For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within”?…….I Corinthians 5:12
Exercising our right to judge these men who signed ECT is not designed to rub their sin in their faces and degrade them, but rather it is designed to promote and protect the TRUTH not error. (Galatians 1:6-9)
It’s unfortunate and sad to see that the whole state of the church has clearly gone down hill and why? Because of all the compromise and then the justification of that compromise. The True church has lost it’s saltiness and distinctness and as a result has merged with the world.
anti-ECT,
I like your way of thinking. Keep coming back.
Shane
Shane and anti-ECT,
Just to be clear, judging someone’s actions is different from calling them heretics and declaring that they have no wisdom to share with the church, right?
Sky Dunn,
Let me be clear so you can understand my position on all this. Packer, Colson, Guinness, and others who have signed ECT and have not repented of their participation will not be getting any recommendations from me.
If these guys were wise, then they would not have signed ECT. It’s that simple.
Read their stuff if you like, tell others about their stuff if you must, just don’t expect me to make much of these men.
There are plenty of other men of God in this world we can learn from who have not compromised the Gospel.
The almost humble Shane:
“Well, first of all, I suppose all of us carry one form of heresy or another. That includes me and every other person I know.”
The not so humble Shane:
“Read their stuff if you like, tell others about their stuff if you must, just don’t expect me to make much of these men.”
Will the real Shane please stand up?
“Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.” 1 Cor. 10:12
Sky Dunn……….
Your typical natural fleshly response………shifting blame and making excuses, rather than excepting full responsibility for sin and disobedience……..goes on all the time, in fact since the garden of Eden. Eve blamed the serpent, Adam blamed Eve, the woman God gave him.
How is anybody ever going to move forward in greater holiness if we are not encouraged to do so by repenting of wrong actions and lucid disobedience? The more we condone disobedience or just wink at something that doesn’t seem so bad, the more immune to compromise we become. And the worse part is that many unassumming sheep just follow right in line. Those who know better have the responsibility to stand up for what is Biblically righteous, that is, if you care at all about loyalty to Christ Jesus……which will always be the “narrow” road!
anti-ECT,
What examples of blame-shifting and excusing did you find in my reply? I quoted Shane twice and the Bible once.
On the other hand, I asked a simple question and in response I got a lot of words, but no answer.
Let me try again. Does judging the actions of a brother in Christ include publicly calling him a heretic and declaring that he has no wisdom to share with the church? If not, then doesn’t that judge have something to repent of?
“Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one >>in a spirit of gentleness…
My reply was cut off. Here is the end of it…
My question was simple. Let your answer be simple. And in a spirit of gentleness please.
Sorry, Sky but there is nothing gentle about sin and disobedience. It the truth that you find offensive, because it attacks the pride in man’s heart.
There was nothing gentle in Nathan’s words to David when David clearly needed to repent. If calling sin what it is is not gentle, then I suppose we should just let sin run rampant and never confront it, lest we offend someone and appear to others as being judgemental. The unbelieving world calls God judgemental and unkind when you boldly claim that people will go to Hell if they refuse to repent and obey God and submit to His Gospel.
Please refer back to my comment on Nov 8 @ 3:25am. At least David had a teachable heart because he took ownership of his sin and repented (Psalm 51).
Still no answer to my question.
Okay, let me try to respond to what you did say.
“Sorry, Sky” You don’t owe me an appology. Paul wrote Galatians 6:1, not me. And if you don’t confront with gentleness, you broke God’s command, not mine.
“It the truth that you find offensive” I don’t find the truth offensive at all.
“There was nothing gentle in Nathan’s words to David” I couldn’t disagree with you more. Personally I can’t think of a gentler way to tell someone he is an adulterer and a murderer. Did you notice that Nathan didn’t resort to any name calling?
“At least David had a teachable heart because he took ownership of his sin and repented” I wish you and Shane had David’s heart. Galations 6:1 is very clear about how sin is to be confronted…with gentleness.
And do you imagine you are confronting Packer and Guinness by calling them heretics on an internet blog? Since they will never read your words, you aren’t confronting them all. You’re just engaging in name calling and justifying it by imagining that your confronting sin and sinners.
So one last time, does judging the actions of a brother in Christ include publicly calling him a heretic and declaring that he has no wisdom to share with the church? If not, then shouldn’t you and Shane repent and appologize for doing it?
Sky,
The Bible is clear that sin is to be confronted with gentleness (I do not think that Shane and anti-ECT would disagree with this), but it is also clear that Christians are to avoid and expose error (which I think is what they are trying to do). They are not in a position to reprove Os Guiness personally for his error, but they are warning others of his error. If someone is teaching error, it is the job of every Christian to warn other believers of this error. I also think that just because a man holds to erroneous beliefs in one area, doesn’t mean that all his beliefs are such, but it should serve as a caution not to blindly accept his teaching (which should already be the case).
You said, “So one last time, does judging the actions of a brother in Christ include publicly calling him a heretic and declaring that he has no wisdom to share with the church?” If a man is a heretic (and, knowing very little about him, I am not in a position to say that) shouldn’t he be called such? It is what it is, isn’t it?
Thank you Daniel!
You are exactly right, and that is the response I would have liked to have heard from our two friends.
As far as I know, there is no evidence of heresy on the part of either Packer or Guinness. If they were heretics, it would be right to say so, but all their works speak for them, and I know of no one who has discovered any heresy in them.
Thank you again. Here’s hoping our two friends haven’t flown the coup! They would both benefit from your careful response.
I just finished reading Lloyd-Jones: Messenger of Grace and it opened my eyes even more to the ecumenical thought of J. I. Paker.
I don’t have the book with me but I will follow up with some quotes in the future.