If the internal atmosphere of the EMA is a little alien to someone coming from Northern Ireland, then the external world of the City of London and high finance is even more removed from normal everyday reality. There’s a certain delightful sense of subversion to be derived from walking through the financial region of London as a non-employee of any of the big organisations. St. Helen’s is right at the heart of the capital’s business world, with the ubiquitous gherkin directly behind the church. On the way to conference from the Tube there are all kinds of city-slickers making their way to the markets or the office, and it was fascinating just to watch a world with its own rules, ideas, and priorities. A world whose lifestyle is as alien to me, as mine would be to it. Strangers in a strange environment was to be a dominant feature of the rest of Wednesday morning at the EMA, both in terms of what was shared from the Word, and the experience of attending the conference.
Between session one and two of the EMA there was a coffee break. Beautiful Danish pastries were available, and I ate mine while walking to Starbucks – I fancied a decaf (to avoid the need for a ‘comfort break’ halfway through session two) and a read at the paper rather than feeling the awkward sense of not knowing anyone around me.
Session two started at 1215pm, with Vaughan Roberts (St. Ebbe’s Oxford) bringing a stirring message from Daniel. My only prior exposure to Vaughan’s ministry has been through his excellent little book ‘God’s Big Picture’ and so I was looking forward to what he had to share. We sang another hymn (this time with more musical accompaniment and less feeling), the Word of God was read, prayer followed and then Vaughan spoke. The pulpit in St. Helen’s is outrageously high, and while this is advantageous at such a large gathering – in that the speaker can be seen by all – it is rather removed from the congregation. Vaughan’s message did not suffer any ill effects from the altitude.
The message was introduced by a general contextual setting. The book of Daniel, along with the rest of Scripture, is a tale of two cities – Jerusalem and Babylon. For Daniel life was lived in Babylon with all of its attendant alien features, and hostile attitudes – but it was a life lived with a focus and aspiration for Jerusalem. This is always the experience of the believer.
Daniel is also a book of two halves: chapters 1-6 depict Daniel in public and are written in 3rd person narrative; chapters 7-12 portray Daniel in private and are conveyed via 1st person visions. The plan for the two expositions to be given over the three days was to focus on each of these sections.
What, then, can be learned from the first part of Daniel?
1. Don’t Withdraw
When the first section of this book is presented and preached on there is often an imbalance present – only the abstinence of Daniel and his friends is emphasised. A more careful reading of the text, however, shows just how much Daniel and others were willing to accept as necessary features of living in Babylon.
They said:
YES to a pagan education (1:3-5)
YES to a change of name (1:6-7)
YES to a political career (1:5b; 19b)
Clearly, Daniel shows us how to live whilst in Babylon. We are not to withdraw, but to engage the alien culture in which we are located. The speaker related how that St.Ebbes had recently purchased a new centre for outreach in Oxford which had previously belonged to the Exclusive Brethren. The building had no windows in its walls, but had windows in the ceiling. The architecture itself was betraying the perspective of these sincere, if misguided, Christians, in that they felt it more incumbent to look to the heavens, that to see the world around them as well. Such an approach contradicts the experience of Daniel.
2. Don’t Compromise
The above issues notwithstanding, there is still a need for a stand to be taken, and for compromise to be avoided whilst living in Babylon. We are reminded in 1:8 that ‘Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine’. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. Could this have been because of food laws? Or because the food had been offered to idols? Or because to have eaten from the king’s table would have implied too strong a relationship and identification with the throne and the prevailing power of Babylon? In any case it is clear that lines had to be drawn and honoured.
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego also exemplified this kind of godly separation through their unwillingness to commit idolatry – ‘we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up’ (3:18) – even when it was on pain of burning in the fiery furnace.
Daniel had a similar experience when confronted with horror of the lion’s den.
All of these episodes and experiences point to the crucially important need to be separate and to make a distinction in our behaviour as believer whilst in Babylon.
3. Don’t be afraid
Through all of this, Daniel and his companions learned more and more that ‘the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’. God’s sovereignty is evidenced by the repetition of the phrase ‘God gave’ in 1:2,9,17. Chapters 2 and 7 reinforce the fact that God’s kingdom is eternal and universal.
This is shown by the nature of God’s rule – He knows the future because He controls the future (2:20b-22,47) and His kingdom lasts forever (2:44).
Chapters 3 and 6 prove God’s power in the rescue of His people. Both, the three friends’ experience in the furnace, and Daniel’s in the den, prompt certain conclusions to be drawn about God – ‘No other god can save in this way’ (3:29); ‘He is the living God and He endures for ever…He rescues and He saves’ (6:26-27).
This sense of God’s sovereignty is shown in chapters 4-5 as He exercises judgement over proud rulers. Nebuchadnezzar is humbled. The point is proven that human kingdoms are derived and finite (2:21, 37-38; 4:17, 25,32; 5:21) and that God’s kingdom lasts forever (2:44; 4:3,34). Belshazzar is judged later (5:30) and shown the majesty and sovereign disposing power of God.
The upshot of all of this is that we learn that the Lord reigns, reveals and rescues, and that it makes sense to serve Him at all times.
In exegetical and expositional terms Vaughan’s message was superb, and tremendously encouraging. I suppose the sense of cultural difference felt in the City of London is also felt through the ministry of God’s word. As someone from Ulster I am used to a much heftier injection of passion when God’s Word is preached, and much greater engagement of the personality of the preacher. Vaughan’s approach is much more Anglican ,composed, detached. I suppose both styles of delivery are simply ways in which God allows treasure to shine through vessels of clay. It can just take a moment or two to tune one’s ear and heart to this different presentational style. I remember at last year’s Banner of Truth conference listening to Edward Donnelly’s Tuesday evening message on Jeremiah and feeling incapable of speech afterwards, so strong was the sense that God was gloriously present in His Word. That sense of heart engagement was absent in this message, and yet my love for the Lord was still greatly increased, and my worship more rich, for having listened to God’s Word expounded.