1517

The elephant that went unnamed...

2012-01-28T13:22:00.003-06:00

As the video posted below demonstrates, James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll have been faithful to point out the heresy of prosperity teaching. T.D. Jakes is a great popularizer of this heresy. And yet, at Elephant Room 2 T.D. Jakes was received as a brother and never confronted on his continued propagation of this false gospel.

"Bishop took two pawns"

2012-01-27T22:07:00.004-06:00

Thanks to Carl Trueman for posting a link to a fascinating interview with a former Oneness Pentecostal.

RB: Assuming the best and that Jakes now affirms the orthodox view of the Trinity, if you were Mark Driscoll would you have asked him if he was going to publically recant for teaching damning heresy for so long?

JD: Yes. If he truly affirms an orthodox view of the Trinity, he must repent of his former teaching. The two views are totally incompatible.

RB: Elaborate on the practical implications of moving from modalism to the orthodox view in terms of Jakes’ church and world-wide impact. In other words, what would you do if you were T. D. Jakes and you now hold to the orthodox view of the Trinity after confusing so many people for such a long time?

JD: If I were Jakes, I would start to teach the Bible. That may sound like an oversimplification but men like Jakes may use the Bible every Sunday but don’t really teach it. I would start there.

RB: Comment on the following tweet I saw the other day: “The way Jakes played MacDonald & Driscoll, you could say Bishop took two pawns.” Why do you think the tweeter said that?

JD: Jakes quickly neutralized their objective questions with a bit of reverse psychology. MacDonald and Driscoll, who came to ER2 thinking the issue was doctrine, were very quickly routed by the Bishop, and before long they were talking about unity. It is always tempting to abandon our pursuit of doctrinal purity for church unity.

RB: On your Face Book page, you said, “Jakes’ chair was certainly no hot seat for he is an expert in vagueness and unfortunately they were charmed by his charisma.” Explain what you mean.

JD: He has capitalized on his cult of personality. His speaking skills, social diplomacy, and celebrity status can be overwhelming. He is a master at saying a lot without saying a lot. He is also a very likable fellow and the 30,000 Texans who make up his congregation are proof that theological ambiguity can fill a church building. I have been to conventions where he was the main speaker and have seen multitudes swoon over him. Driscoll and MacDonald were easy pickings.

RB: What would you say to folks who may be confused about ER2 and the discussion with Jakes?

JD: It may come as a surprise but men like T. D. Jakes are not epistemologically self-conscious. By that I mean that they spend so much time on motivating speech and platitudes that they’ve given very little time or thought to expound why they believe what they believe. They have reduced their doctrinal expressions to harmless sound-bytes intended to offend the least amount of people possible, and this is why he could neither call himself a Trinitarian nor fully renounce Oneness.

Read the entire interview HERE.

I must say that I am very concerned about the consequences of the Elephant Room. Driscoll, MacDonald and the other participants now affirm T.D. Jakes as orthodox. It is clear from Jakes' own words that he now desires to identify himself as Trinitarian while still holding on to modalist language. Driscoll and MacDonald should have called him on this. By failing to do so they diminished the importance of this central doctrine of biblical Christianity. By failing to mention, much less confront Jakes on his prosperity preaching, they failed further.

The clean bill of doctrinal health given to Jakes by Driscoll and MacDonald will only mean greater confusion within the church. It will mean pastors such as myself will need to be increasingly vigilant. Of course pastors expect this. What we do not expect is for false teachers to be given entree by influential evangelicals.

Borrowed Logic

2012-01-27T16:07:00.005-06:00

In 1985 Christian philosopher Greg Bahnsen debated atheist Gordon Stein. It has since become known as The Great Debate. Dr. Stein was caught flatfooted as Dr. Bahnsen, rather than defending traditional arguments for the existence of God, effectively demonstrated that Stein's appeal to logic, science, and morality presuppose a Christian worldview. It is a brilliant display of Presuppositional Apologetics.

Take time to the listen to (or read) the debate that the atheists would rather forget.

AUDIO

Transcript in PDF

Resources on Presuppositional Apologetics:

The Great Debate (CD/DVD) - Bahnsen & Stein

Presuppositional Apologetics by Greg Bahnsen

Always Ready by Greg Bahnsen

Apologetics for the Glory of God by John Frame

Every Thought Captive by Richard Pratt

HT: The Resurgence

The Elephant Room did not do pastors any favors...

2012-01-27T12:47:00.006-06:00

As I stated in an earlier post, the endorsement of T.D. Jakes (and it was an endorsement!) from the folks at the Elephant Room will only lead to more confusion among evangelicals who already struggle with discernment. Because of this, pastors who care about historic Christianity will have more work to do to guard their congregations from the likes of Jakes.

Carl Trueman affirms this reality:

Thanks to the great and the good (both the vocal and, more worryingly, the strangely silent), I am sure many pastors of churches will now have to waste a lot of valuable time reading the works of T D Jakes in order to help their congregations understand why there is concern not simply about his doctrine of God but also his understanding of how the Lord blesses his people. You can probably skip the diet book; his nutritional advice is not, as far as I know, a matter of heated debate

Justin Taylor has brought my attention to a very helpful survey of his writings at 9 Marks. This may well help to save some time which could then be spent on other things, like pastoral care and preparing sermons.

One thing in all this is very puzzling: few evangelical leaders have hesitated to warn in the past against Joel Osteen. Jakes' theology of prosperity seems little different yet there is comparative silence in those same quarters on this man. Is Osteen simply a soft-target? Or is it just that he does not hang in the right crowd these days? There is no doubt who is going to be being read in more evangelical congregations in the coming weeks and months.

I have, on a number of occasions, warned my congregation about the dangers of prosperity teaching. In response, several have voiced to me their dismay. From their perspective, "We don't struggle with that." What these good brothers and sisters have not understood however is that there are renewed efforts to "mainstream" these false teachers. The most recent Elephant Room proves the point. Whose more "mainstream" than James MacDonald? Even Southern Baptists like Ed Young Jr. and Stephen Furtick have enthusiastically endorsed and partnered with T.D. Jakes.

What is more, these errors regarding the nature of God, the nature of faith and how God blesses his people snake their way into the church in ways more subtle than the vaudevillian antics of Creflo Dollar and Kenneth Copeland.

A resting, restless faith...

2012-01-26T20:19:00.003-06:00

Ultimately, in the deepest sense, for Paul “our good works” are not ours, but God’s. They are his work begun and continuing in us, his being “at work in us, both to will and to do what please him” (Phil. 2:13). That is why, without any tension, a faith that rests in God the Savior is a faith that is restless to do his will.

In 1 Corinthians 4:7 Paul puts to the church those searching rhetorical questions, “Who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?” (NIV). These questions, we should be sure, have the same answer for sanctification as for justification, for our good works as well as for our faith. Both, faith and good works, are God’s gift, his work in us. The deepest motive for our sanctification, for holy living and good works, is not our psychology, not how I “feel” about God and Jesus. Nor is it even our faith. Rather, that profoundest of motives is the resurrection power of Christ, the new creation we are and have already been made a part of in Christ by his Spirit.

Richard Gaffin from By Faith, Not By Sight

On asking better questions...

2012-01-26T18:26:00.006-06:00

The latest gathering of the Elephant Room is now history. It stirred up no small amount of controversy. James MacDonald's decision to host prosperity preacher T.D. Jakes, whose views on the Trinity have been murky at best, was greeted with concern from a number of quarters. The concern was due to the fact that the stated purpose of the Elephant Room was to gather brothers who differed on issues not central to the gospel or Christian orthodoxy for the purpose of promoting greater understanding. A worthwhile goal, I would say. But that little detail about the discussion being among brothers who differ on secondary matters is a substantial detail. Promoting understanding and unity is really only possible when brothers agree on the essentials of Christian orthodoxy. It seemed, and seems to many that T.D. Jakes certainly did not fit the bill.

Concern was voiced by some of MacDonald's fellow council members at the Gospel Coalition. Mark Dever, who was involved in the first Elephant Room discussion, withdrew from further involvement. Thabiti Anyabwile, another Gospel Coalition council member, wrote a moving and eloquent article explaining how the inclusion of Jakes in such a forum would undermine those black pastors who, seeing the damage done by prosperity preachers, have labored to build churches on sound doctrine. Even some pastors from within the Harvest network of churches expressed their deep concern over the inclusion of Jakes.

But now the event is over and nothing has changed. Not really. Jakes was asked about his beliefs regarding the Trinity. His answers, while satisfying to those in the Elephant Room, we actually not nearly as clear as some claim. Glaringly absent were any questions about Jakes' continued propagation of the abhorrent prosperity and word/faith heresies. These are every bit as troublesome as his ambiguity on the Trinity.

Carl Trueman and Frank Turk have both written worthwhile posts on this whole affair.

This request that we ask hard questions in the right venue, and consider the ER to have signally failed in this regard, will no doubt evince cries of `Hey, hater!' from some quarters. That is apparently the standard reaction now when anyone questions the actions of a successful pastor of a large church. If, however, we take true doctrine seriously, then surely we will see false teaching for what it is: soul destroying. Reflect on a parallel situation for a moment: let us say that, week after week, I see a congregant's wife with a black eye and an arm covered in cuts and bruises; eventually I ask her husband, `Did you do that?' to which he says `No, I abhor violence and despise the sort of people who beat their wives'; in such circumstances, is it unloving, Pharisaical or hateful of me to press the question a little further? I think not. Indeed, failure so to do would be moral delinquency of the highest order. To press the matter is actually responsible pastoring. The same thing applies with those whose public teaching seems to be deviant. It is not hateful to press the hard questions, and to do so with appropriate competence and in a suitable context; rather, it is right and necessary.

- Carl Trueman

Pro-Life Resources

2012-01-23T18:56:00.004-06:00

The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf

Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue by R.C. Sproul

Abortion: Open Your Mouth for the Dumb by Peter Barnes

Healing After Abortion by David Powlison

Resources from Randy Alcorn

Resources from Desiring God

180 Movie

Sunday's Sermon

2012-01-23T18:29:00.002-06:00

On Sunday I preached part 3 of our current series through Philippians. The title of the sermon is Gospel Partnership (pt 2) and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

A dread anniversary

2012-01-23T08:41:00.005-06:00

It was 39 years ago today that the Supreme Court of the United States passed the inconceivably bad and immoral decision in the case of Roe V. Wade. Since that day over 50 million babies have been ruthlessly slaughtered in the wombs of their mothers. Abortion is undiluted evil. It is not a pragmatic necessity. President Obama's recent remarks celebrating the passage of Roe put on vivid display the moral blindness one must adopt in order to approve of such wickedness. Last year at least 500,000 African American babies were killed in the womb. Where are the social justice advocates? Where are the prominent evangelical pastors who are so gifted at contextualization and reaching hip urbanites? They preach and write about justice. But is there a graver injustice than the slaughter of our most vulnerable? What about the pastors, like myself, who lead large churches but are often afraid to mention abortion because of the wrath they will face from some of their congregants? Shame on us, truly.

Endangered

2012-01-20T19:36:00.000-06:00

Free eBook from John Piper

2012-01-20T16:36:00.002-06:00

Desiring God is providing a free eBook by John Piper concerning abortion. Read it HERE.

If the foundations be destroyed...

2012-01-20T16:23:00.003-06:00

Thanks to Derek Thomas for reading Peter Enns' newest book. It deals with the historicity of God's special creation of a first man (Adam). Dr. Enns, formerly of Westminster Seminary, now denies an historical Adam.

Enns concludes:

"...the scientific evidence we have for human origins and the literary evidence we have for the nature of ancient stories of origins are so overwhelmingly persuasive that belief in a first human, such as Paul understood him, is not a viable option." (P.122).

"Admitting the historical and scientific problems with Paul's Adam does not mean in the least that the gospel message is therefore undermined. A literal Adam may not be the first man and cause of sin and death, as Paul understood it, but what remains of Paul's theology are three core elements of the gospel: 1. The universal and self-evident problem of death 2. The universal and self-evident problem of sin 3. The historical event of the death and resurrection of Christ. These three remain; what is lost is Paul's culturally assumed explanation for what a primordial man had to do with causing the reign of sin and death in the world." (123-124).

I am stunned by the arrogance that casts aside the very clear teachings of Scripture. I have to wonder where else Dr. Enns believes Paul leads us astray. Of course the unavoidable conclusion is that Jesus also erred in his conclusion that man was the special creation of God and not the outcome of natural selection from a common ancestor. Enns is simply wrong to say that denying an historical Adam has no implications regarding the gospel. Unless, of course, he is planning on re-writing Romans.

You may want to check out Dr. Jack Collins' book Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?

HT: Ref21

Preaching the truth when the truth is not popular...

2012-01-18T20:14:00.005-06:00

Matt Chandler preached at Elevation Church this month and told the truth. As a result his sermon was pulled from the Elevation site. Thank God for men like Chandler who preach the God-centered revelation of Scripture rather than the "narcissistic eisegesis" so common today.

Getting some help with Revelation

2012-01-18T18:26:00.003-06:00

The book of Revelation has caused no small amount of debate over the years. Various approaches to interpreting Revelation and understanding the last days have generated untold divisions, confusion, and outright lunacy. So, I appreciate those careful, well-studied, and sane voices who help us understand this beautiful book.

Kevin DeYoung recently posted a helpful article on the identity of the 144,000 mentioned in chapter seven of Revelation. DeYoung offers a model of sound biblical interpretaion.

And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel. (Rev. 7:4)

Many sincere Bible-believing Christians would understand the 144,000 like this: The church is raptured prior to the great tribulation. During the time when the church is gone, a remnant of 144,000 ethnic Jews is converted (12,000 from each tribe). These Jewish converts, in turn, evangelize the Gentiles who make up the great multitude in white robes in v. 9. That’s one understanding of Revelation 7. A lot of godly people hold that understanding. Let me explain why I understand the 144,000 differently.

The 144,000 are not an ethnic Jewish remnant, and certainly not an Anointed Class of saints who became Jehovah’s Witnesses before 1935. The 144,000 represent the entire community of the redeemed. Let me give you several reasons for making this claim.

First, in chapter 13 we read that Satan seals all of his followers, so it makes sense that God would seal all of his people, not just the Jewish ones.

Second, the image of sealing comes from Ezekiel 9 where the seal on the forehead marks out two groups of people: idolaters and non-idolaters. It would seem that the sealing of the 144,000 makes a similar distinction based on who worships God not who among the Jewish remnant worships God.

Third, the 144,000 are called the servants of our God (Rev. 7:3). There is no reason to make the 144,000 any more restricted than that. If you are a servant of the living God, you are one of the 144,000 mentioned here. In Revelation, the phrase “servants of God” always refers to all of God’s redeemed people, not just an ethnic Jewish remnant (see 1:1; 2:20; 19:2; 19:5; 22:3).

Fourth, the 144,000 mentioned later in chapter 14 are those who have been “redeemed from the earth” and those who were “purchased from among men.” This is generic everybody kind of language. The 144,000 is a symbolic number of redeemed drawn from all peoples, not simply the Jews. Besides, if the number is not symbolic then what do we do with Revelation 14:4 which describes the 144,000 as those “who have not defiled themselves with women”? Are we to think that the 144,000 refers to a chosen group of celibate Jewish men? It makes more sense to realize that 144,000 is a symbolic number that is described as celibate men to highlight the group’s moral purity and set-apartness for spiritual battle.

Fifth, the last reason for thinking that the 144,000 is the entire community of the redeemed is because of the highly stylized list of tribes in verses 5-8. The number itself is stylized. It’s not to be taken literally. It’s 12 x 12 x 1000—12 being the number of completion for God’s people (representing the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles of the Lamb) and 1000 being a generic number suggesting a great multitude. So 144,000 is a way of saying all of God’s people under the old and new covenant.

And then look at the list of the tribes. There are over a dozen different arrangements of the twelve tribes in the Bible. This one is unique among all of those. Judah is listed first because Jesus was from there as a lion of the tribe of Judah. All twelve of Jacob’s sons are listed—including Levi who usually wasn’t because he didn’t inherit any land-except for one. Manasseh, Joseph’s son (Jacob’s grandson), is listed in place of Dan. So why not Dan? Dan was left out in order to point to the purity of the redeemed church. From early in Israel’s history, Dan was the center of idolatry for the kingdom (Judges 18:30-31). During the days of the divided kingdom, Dan was one of two centers for idolatry (1 Kings 12:28-30). And there is recorded in some non-Biblical Jewish writings that the Jews thought the anti-Christ would come out of Dan based on Genesis 49:17. The bottom line is that the number and the list and the order of the tribes are all stylized to depict the totality of God’s pure and perfectly redeemed servants from all time over all the earth. That’s what Revelation means by the 144,000.

Science and Faith Conference

2012-01-17T18:56:00.005-06:00

Does modern biology support or undercut human uniqueness? Are the discoveries of brain research compatible with personal responsibility? What does it really mean to be “created in the image of God?” And what are the social and ethical implications of our view of the human person? Explore these vital questions and more at the third annual Westminster Conference on Science and Faith to be held on April 14, 2012 at the ACE Conference Center in the greater Philadelphia area. Conference sessions will run from 8:45 am-5:15 pm and examine scientific evidence for human uniqueness, evolutionary claims about human origins, theological views of the image of God, the “blame it on the brain” mentality, and current conflicts over animal rights, euthanasia, and abortion.

Speakers will include psychologist Edward Welch, author of Blame It on the Brain; physician Michael Emlet, author of CrossTalk: Where Life and Scripture Meet; biologists Richard Sternberg and Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute; biologist Ray Bohlin of Discovery Institute; Discovery Institute bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, author of A Rat Is A Pig Is A Dog Is A Boy; Biblical scholar C. John Collins, author of Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?; theologians Vern Poythress, K. Scott Oliphint, William Edgar, and David Garner of Westminster Theological Seminary; and social scientist John West of Discovery Institute, author of Darwin Day in America.

This event will be of special interest to seminary students, college students, and pastors and other church leaders. The conference is sponsored by Westminster Theological Seminary and Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

Sunday's Sermon

2012-01-17T18:44:00.002-06:00

On Sunday I preached part 2 of our current series through Philippians called Partners in the Gospel. It is entitled "Gospel Partnership" (pt. 1) and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

Pastors Beware

2012-01-17T18:40:00.001-06:00

Publicity stunts can be dangerous.

But is it true?

2012-01-13T13:09:00.004-06:00

Kevin DeYoung weighs in on the "Jesus Hates Religion" video that is all the rage.

Before I say anything else, let me say Jefferson Bethke seems like a sincere young man who wants people to know God’s scandalous grace. I’m sure he’s telling the truth when he says on his Facebook page: “I love Jesus, I’m addicted to grace, and I’m just a messed up dude trying to make Him famous.” If I met him face to face, I bet I’d like Jefferson and his honesty and passion. I bet I’d be encouraged by his story and his desire to free people from the snares of self-help, self-righteous religion.

And yet (you knew it was coming), amidst a lot of true things in this poem there is a lot that is unhelpful and misleading.

This video is the sort of thing that many younger Christians love. It sounds good, looks good, and feels good. But is it true? That’s the question we must always ask. And to answer that question, I want to go through this poem slowly, verse by verse. Not because I think this is the worst thing ever. It’s certainly not. Nor because I think this video will launch a worldwide revolution. I want to spend some time on this because Bethke perfectly captures the mood, and in my mind the confusion, of a lot of earnest, young Christians.

Read the whole post HERE.

Update:
"Are Christians Religious?" by Burk Parsons

Resources on Philippians

2012-01-12T18:44:00.004-06:00

On Sunday I began preaching through Philippians. I have had a number of requests to post my schedule for the series so that individuals and families can prepare before each Sunday by reading (even memorizing!) the text I will be preaching. Needless to say, I love those sorts of requests.

1 – Servants, Saints, and the Savior (1:1-2)
2 – Gospel Partnership (1:3-8)
3 – A Knowing and Discerning Love (1:9-11)
4 – Capturing Calamity for Christ (1:12-14)
5 – So Long as Christ is Preached (1:15-18)
6 – How to Live When Dying is Gain (1:18b-26)
7 – Living Worthy of the Gospel (1:27-30)
8 – Have This Mind (2:1-11)
9 – The Song of the Savior (2:5-11)
10 – Of Working and Willing (2:12-13)
11 – The Fruit of Paul’s Labors (2:14-18)
12 – Worthy Ministers (2:19-30)
13 – Rejoice in the Lord (3:1)
14 – When Loss is Gain (3:2-11)
15 – Restful Striving (3:12-16)
16 – Following the Right Example (3:17-4:1)
17 – The Agreement That Trumps Division (4:2-3)
18 – Living in Light of the Nearness of God (4:4-7)
19 – What Do You Think? (4:8-9)
20 – Strengthened for Contentment (4:10-13)
21 – Gospel-Driven Giving (4:14-23)

The following are some excellent resources for those of you who may want to study further:

Frank Thielman's commentary on Philippians in the NIV Application series is outstanding. Thielman is a noted New Testament scholar but this commentary is quite accessible.

For a more scholarly commentary, Gordon Fee's volume in the NICNT is excellent. Another commentary that fits the scholarly (but not ridiculously inaccessible) sort is Moises Silva's volume in the Baker Exegetical series.

I love the IVP series The Bible Speaks Today. They are written for a popular audience but are grounded in solid scholarship. Alec Motyer's volume on Philippians is excellent for individual or group study.

Sinclair Ferguson is the author of the Philippians volume from the Let's Study series from Banner of Truth. This is perfect for small group study.

Top Three

2012-01-12T09:31:00.003-06:00

Justin Taylor has posted some lists of top three articles, sermons, etc. chosen by some sharp dudes:

Bryan Chapell:
•J.I. Packer, “What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution“
•Francis Schaeffer, “A Day of Sober Rejoicing“
•Thomas Chalmers, “The Expulsive Power of a New Affection“

Carl Trueman:
•R. V. G. Tasker, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Wrath of God“
•Martin Luther, “Two Kinds of Righteousness“
•George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”

Stephen Nichols:
•J. Gresham Machen, “The Good Fight of Faith"
•Jonathan Edwards, “The Most High, A Prayer-Hearing God"
•John Chrysostom, “Homily 21, On Ephesians 6:1-4"

The Best of Apologetics

2012-01-11T19:24:00.004-06:00

I continue to be concerned by the number of Christians I meet who seem unable to offer a defense of the faith.

The following books are outstanding resources to help equip Christians wanting to know why they believe and offer those reasons to others.

Defending the Faith:

Every Thought Captive by Richard Pratt

Apologetics to the Glory of God by John Frame

Presuppositional Apologetics by Greg Bahnsen

Always Ready by Greg Bahnsen

The Battle Belongs to the Lord by K. Scott Oliphint

Science & Philosophy:

Who Made God? by Edgar Andrews

The Reason for God by Tim Keller

God's Undertaker by John Lennox

God and Stephen Hawking by John Lennox

The Dawkins Letters by David Robertson

God Is: How Christianity Explains Everything by Doug Wilson

The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski

Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Should Christians Embrace Evolution? ed. by Norman Nevin

DVD's:

Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?

Does God Exist?

The Reason for God by Tim Keller

The Christ Files: A Search for the Real Jesus by John Dickson

Life of Jesus by John Dickson

Websites:

The Discovery Institute

Centre for Public Christianity

Simple Apologetics

Ehrman Project

John Dickson

The Christ Files

"Counterfeit Spiritualities"

2012-01-10T20:51:00.003-06:00

Idolatry is all manner of seeming holiness and worshipping, let these counterfeit spiritualities shine outwardly as glorious and fair as they may; in a word, all manner of devotion in those that we would serve God without Christ the Mediator, his Word and command.

In popedom it was held a work of the greatest sanctity for the monks to sit in their cells and meditate of God, [solitude] and of his wonderful works; to be kindled with zeal, kneeling on their knees, praying, and having their imaginary contemplations of celestial objects [meditation], with such supposed devotion, that they wept for joy.

In these their conceits, they banished all desires and thoughts of women, and what else is temporal and evanescent. They seemed to meditate only of God, and of his wonderful works.

Yet all these seeming holy actions of devotion, which the wit and wisdom of man holds to be angelical sanctity, are nothing else but works of the flesh. All manner of religion, where people serve God without his Word and command, is simply idolatry, and the more holy and spiritual such a religion seems, the more hurtful and venomous it is; for it leads people away from the faith of Christ, and makes them rely and depend upon their own strength, works, and righteousness.

Martin Luther from his Table Talk

Thinking biblically about homosexuality

2012-01-10T11:48:00.004-06:00

David Peterson is a terrific New Testament scholar. I have benefited much from his work. Dr. Peterson recently wrote three essays on the homosexuality as understood through the grid of of the Bible's teaching on holiness.

1. Holiness and God’s Creation Purpose
2. Holiness and Sexuality in the Pauline Writings
3. Same-sex Unions and Romans 3

Take time to read these helpful essays.

HT: Justin Taylor

Sermon Audio

2012-01-10T11:45:00.003-06:00

On Sunday I began a series of messages through Philippians called Partners in the Gospel. The first sermon is entitled Sinners, Saints, and the Savior. You can listen to or download it HERE.

Who is the Bible about?

2012-01-09T12:39:00.000-06:00

The Pastor as Exhibitionist

2012-01-09T08:23:00.002-06:00

From a timely post by Phil Johnson:

The notion that evangelicals are naïve and squeamish about sex and don't discuss it openly enough is a myth. Evangelical sex manuals have been all the rage as long as I have been a believer, going back to the early 1970s. You had Marabel Morgan's The Total Woman in 1972, which generated tons of evangelical sex-talk. (Marabel was known for—among other things—a kinky suggestion involving the use of Saran Wrap as a dressing gown.) You had Ed Wheat's book Intended for Pleasure: Sex Technique and Sexual Fulfillment just five years later. It has sold multiple millions of copies. Even Tim Lahaye wrote a surprisingly candid sex manual, The Act of Marriage in the mid-1970s. Having sold more than two and a half million copies, that book is still in print.

Yet evangelicals have been complaining for decades that we don't talk enough or hear enough teaching about sex. From the point of view of many non-evangelicals, sex is about the only thing evangelicals have demonstrated a serious and sustained interest in for the past 40 years. As early as 1977, Martin Marty, a liberal religious scholar, referred to the trend as "Fundies in their Undies."

So the premise that evangelical churches are in desperate need of more and more explicit instruction on sex techniques is a risible falsehood.

But evangelical leaders who aspire to be at the vanguard in this trend have to keep looking for even kinkier ways to contextualize their Kama Sutras and their "sexperimentation." Ed Young, Jr., for instance, announced this weekend that he and his wife "will spend 24 hours in bed on the church roof next week and stream themselves live on the Internet to encourage married couples to see firsthand the power of a healthy sex life"...

This trend toward increasingly explicit sex-talk and more deviant practices is a bad one for the church. The ease and speed with which evangelicals have embraced the trend is troubling. Just a couple of decades ago (and in every era of church history prior to that), shenanigans like Ed Young's rooftop exhibition would have been roundly and universally condemned by evangelical leaders. The silence (or weak, accommodating response) of most Christian leaders today in the face of such an obvious sea-change is deeply troubling.

It's yet another sign of evangelicalism's growing conformity to worldly values and worldly behavior. The various evangelical coalitions and young Reformed movements that looked so encouraging five years ago have done more to encourage and enable this kind of exhibitionism than to challenge it. These things ought not to be.

How bad will it have to get before true leaders in the church and in the various gospel-centered movements find their voices and start calling the church—and some of these out-of-control exhibitionist preachers—to repentance? I for one hope we get an answer to that question before very long. I pray for it every day.

Read the entire post HERE.

Why I am preaching through Philippians

2012-01-07T17:25:00.005-06:00

In the morning I will begin a new series of sermons through Philippians. Some months ago I wrestled through what to preach next. I had decided to preach Genesis. It’s an amazing book with much to teach us about God, ourselves, sin, and salvation. Then for various reasons I decided I would preach through the Gospel of Mark first. But finally, just over a month ago, while taking a few days away to plan and pray, I decided to preach through Philippians.

There are at least 6 reasons why I believe that Philippians is the right book for Church of the Saviour in these days.
1. Philippians is Christ-saturated.
This letter drips Jesus. Specifically, it focuses on Christ’s redemptive work on the cross – the message we call “the gospel.” As always, Paul’s overarching concern in this letter is the gospel of Jesus. In fact, Paul uses the word gospel more times in Philippians than in any other letter. Paul never thought it appropriate to “move on” from the gospel. He never saw the gospel as something we “get” and then may assume from that point on. Even to this congregation of faithful, maturing believers who brought Paul deep joy, he deems it necessary to refer repeatedly to the gospel of Jesus Christ; to ground everything in the Gospel.

2. Philippians is filled with expressions of love.
There is a high concentration of loving, friendship language in this letter. The Philippian church was Paul beloved friends. He loved all the congregations he minister to but there is a kind of joy in his relationship with the Philippian church that seems to be unique. We know there were times when Paul, as a faithful pastor, had to rebuke those he loved. Read 1 and 2 Corinthians. Read Galatians. Read Romans. Paul loved them but he had to rebuke them for sin and doctrinal error. But not so with the Philippian church. They were faithful to Christ and the gospel. And they were faithful friends to Paul. They were his partners in the gospel. And they made him very joyful.

3. Philippians is a model of and call to joy in the midst of great difficulty.
What a model Paul is! He is writing from prison and yet he radiates joy. And he calls his readers to the same kind of joy in the midst of suffering. Philippians is a letter to Christians in the midst of a hostile community under a threatening regime and yet Paul is not shy about calling these brothers and sisters to be full of joy. Paul uses the word joy or one of its derivatives more in Philippians than any other letter and he is in prison writing to Christians under the fist of pagan Rome. Surely we have much to learn from this.

4. Philippians is the overflow of a man for whom the world had lost all fascination.
The world had lost its grip on Paul. Everything he had accomplished (and he had accomplished much) was rubbish to him. He saw his worldly achievements as a net loss. He no longer loved the world and its offers of status. He was not impressed with anything he had done. He was not impressed with the world’s power and wealth. And this was no doubt important to model for the church in Philippi.

The city of Philippi had a proud heritage. It was captured in 360 BC by Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great. Later it was where the forces of Mark Antony defeated the forces of Brutus and Cassius who had murdered Julius Caesar. To mark the significance of that battle, Rome adopted Philippi as a colony, which was a high honor. It was like being “Rome in miniature.” To be in Philippi was to be on Roman soil. It’s citizens were now given the full rights and privileges of Roman citizens. So it would have been no small thing to live in this city, this extension of Rome.

The closest thing I can compare it to is what it is like to be from Texas. Of course, many of you have not had the privilege. Just take it from me. Or, perhaps it like being in “a Mainline church.” A citizen of Philippi would have had reason for boasting in their day. They were an expression of Rome in Northern Macedonia. And so when Paul reviews his achievements in the flesh and then classifies them as so much rubbish he is reminding these potentially proud Philippians to invest no confidence in such things.

Alec Motyer writes, “Thus a city with a famous past and a privileged and proud present was about to hear the good news of a status conferred not by man but by God, proclaimed by a man who had come to see all human and inherited dignities as so much rubbish in contrast with the surpassing worth of knowing the Lord Jesus Christ” (TBST, 15).

What mattered to Paul more than anything else was Christ. “If I live then I live for the sake of God’s people. If I die then I go home to Jesus which is better by far.” The world has no power to charm a man with that attitude. And Philippians is the overflow of a heart that believed it!

5. Philippians is a call for gospel-centered unity.
Philippians is a call for brothers and sisters in Christ to agree; to avoid quarrelling. Repeatedly Paul grounds us in Christ’s work on the cross to not only assure of us of our salvation but to give us a pattern to follow of humility and service to one another. We are united Christ and therefore to one another. It is the cross which has accomplished this. This is not sentiment. It is a call for robust, Christ-purchased, Gospel-centered unity.

So, Paul does not just say, “Get along. Agree. Be nice. Have unity!” He says, “Remember what Jesus did? Remember how he humbled himself even to the point of death on a cross? Now, you humble yourselves. You serve each other. Don’t lift yourself up. Get low. Down further…”
This is how the message of Christ’s death creates unity between brothers and sisters – not by enforcing unity but by creating servants.

6. Philippians is a call to remain undiluted from outward threats and doctrinal confusion.
Paul warns the Philippians, not about errors currently happening within their church, but about threats and doctrinal confusion that were sure to come. They would be threatened by Roman authorities. They would be threatened by Pagan religionists. And they would be threatened by doctrinal error from within. So Paul urges them to be on guard.

Specifically it seems from what Paul writes that he was concerned about the almost certain influence of Judaizers. Judaizers is a term attached to Jewish and Gentile Christians who had come to believe that Christians must submit to the Old Testament ceremonial laws (circumcision, dietary laws, and observing Old Covenant feasts and celebrations). Paul was scandalized by these attempts to keep the Old Covenant ceremonial laws alive. He knew those ceremonies and dietary laws, just like the entire sacrificial system, were fulfilled in Christ. This is precisely why he took the Galatians to the woodshed.

It seems Paul may also have been concerned about anti-nomians. An anti-nomian is sort of the exact opposite of the Judaizer. The anti-nomian (lit. “against the law”) believed that Christians were no longer constrained by the moral law of God spelled out in the 10 Commandments. They believed that since grace abounded where sin abounded, why not increase sin? In the Corinthian church they repeated the anti-nomian motto: “All things are lawful for me.”

So it seems, as we will come to find, that Paul was warning the Philippian church about both of these errors – Judaizing and anti-nomianism. In both case it is the gospel which is attacked. The Judaizer denies the gospel by adding to it – Jesus + the regulations & ceremonies. The anti-nomian denies the gospel by rejecting its life-changing implications – why not keep sinning? So Paul is telling them, as he told all the churches, to be watchful, to be on guard against distortions of sound doctrine, distortions of the gospel.

What is Inerrancy?

2012-01-06T17:47:00.003-06:00

One of my favorite new sites on the web is CREDO. It is an on-line magazine, blog, media and book review site. The inaugural edition of Credo Magazine is dedicated to the doctrine of Scripture. In it, Matthew Barrett addresses the doctrine of the Scripture's inerrancy. In defining inerrancy, Barrett writes:

The inerrancy of Scripture simply means that all of the Bible, in its original manuscripts, never asserts anything that is contrary to fact or in error, but always speaks the truth on every matter it discusses. Scripture, and all of Scripture, is free from falsehood, fraud, and deceit. While the Bible does not inform us of every fact on any particular subject, nevertheless, in what it does address on any subject it is true and without fabrication (2 Pet 1:21). One of the best definitions of inerrancy comes from Paul Feinberg when he writes, “Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences” (Inerrancy, 294).

Unfortunately, many opponents of inerrancy grossly misunderstand its meaning. Feinberg, whose work dates back to 1980, outlines several misunderstandings of inerrancy (299). However, many, if not most, of these misunderstandings of inerrancy prevail today.

1. Inerrancy does not demand strict adherence to the rules of grammar.
2. Inerrancy does not exclude the use either of figures of speech or of a given literary genre.
3. Inerrancy does not demand historical or semantic precision.
4. Inerrancy does not demand the technical language of modern science.
5. Inerrancy does not require verbal exactness in the citation of the Old Testament by the New.
6. Inerrancy does not demand that the Logia Jesu (the sayings of Jesus) contain the ipsissima verba (the exact words) of Jesus, only the ipsissima vox (the exact voice).
7. Inerrancy does not guarantee the exhaustive comprehensiveness of any single account or of combined accounts where those are involved.
8. Inerrancy does not demand the infallibility or inerrancy of the noninspired sources used by biblical writers.

Each of these is worth further investigation, but for our purposes I only wish to highlight one, which crops its head up relentlessly in every generation. Inerrancy does not mean that there must always be semantic and historical precision. One can be truthful without being totally precise. If someone asks where I was born, I would likely answer California. Have I been untruthful since, to be precise, I was born in Southern California, and not just Southern California but Glendale, California, which is a city within Los Angeles, and not just in Glendale but in a hospital, room 452 to be exact? It should be obvious that my original answer was adequate, and therefore truthful in every way. No error was committed. Similarly, the Bible is not in error should it estimate, round up, give an average, or speak in generalities at times. The authors of Scripture are situated culturally and utilize simile, parables, hyperbole, metaphor, and many other forms of speech just as we do. None of these preclude the Bible’s ability to speak truthfully. Too often we impose our assumption that to be truthful there must be absolute technicality, when in reality we live in a world where reliability does not necessarily require meticulous exactitude. As The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy observes, “Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.”

Read the entire issue HERE. Read it in PDF form HERE.

Be Discerning!

2012-01-05T20:15:00.004-06:00

I recently posted some comments and a review of the Christian bestseller Jesus Calling. It is a book that has enjoyed a wide readership. The fans of Jesus Calling are deeply enthusiastic. It is, however, a troubling book in that the author Sarah Young claims that the words of the book were given to her directly from Jesus (or, "The Presence"). Interestingly, Young claims that only the Bible is inerrant and that the words that Jesus gave her are not as authoritative as those found in Scripture. But this begs the question: Why are the words Jesus gave directly to Sarah Young less authoritative, binding, or inerrant than those words given directly to Moses, the prophets, or the apostles?

Have evangelicals lost their discernment? Have they lost the stomach to ask critical questions? Are they able to ask, "Is this biblical?" and back it up with adequate knowledge from the Scriptures?

Last week while I was minding my own business in Barnes and Noble I was visually assaulted by the latest edition of Heaven Is For Real. This one was extra big and entitled Heaven Is For Real For Kids! What's amazing is that the first edition does not qualify as being "for kids." But I digress. Anyway, as I maneuvered around the case of books I noticed yet another "I went to Heaven but God sent me back because I'm too important for his purposes" book.

As I have pointed out before (here and here) one of the reasons I am so troubled by these books, and others like them, is that they undermine confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture. Why do we need Sarah Young's less inspired and potentially errant words directly from Jesus when the Bible gives us the fully inspired and inerrant Word of God? Why do we need Todd Burpo to assure us that Heaven is for real when the Bible already does?

Someone with whom I am close recently had a conversation with a precious saint. This wonderful person has been a Christian for many years. And yet, having been so captivated by Heaven Is Real she assured my friend that we will have wings in Heaven because the Burpo kid says so.

Brothers and sisters, we can do better than this. We must do better than this. It does not honor God, who gave us His Word and two thousand years of faithful witnesses, when we gather to ourselves tellers of tall tales and mystic guides. For God's sake and our own good let us do better.

Great sale at wtsbooks!

2012-01-05T14:56:00.004-06:00

Westminster Bookstore is currently making available their bestsellers of 2011 for 50% off.

Check it out HERE.

"No frills, no spin, no soul patches"

2012-01-04T16:24:00.002-06:00

Great piece by Carl Trueman on learning from reliable men:

Someone asked me recently why I seem so alienated from what appears to be the cutting edge in American conservative evangelicalism.Frankly, I have stopped regarding myself as an evangelical over here, in a way that I do back home. Why? Well, at a time when Christian leaders in the USA are apparently writing explicit sex books, when there are confused signals on the Trinity, when art and cultural transformation and social justice are increasingly the talking points and the kind of themes and priorities I learned from Drs. Packer and Lloyd-Jones are at best assumed, at worst eclipsed by such things - frankly, it is very hard not to feel alienated, and an alien, in such circumstances.

Re-reading Packer and Lloyd-Jones is a delight. Just basic Christian priorities laid out with no frills, no spin, no soul patches, no Barnum and Bailey pyrotechnics. For someone well into his forties, such reading perhaps provokes the occasional Charlie Kane 'Rosebud' moment; but it is a delight nonetheless. Almost thirty years on, I still have an awful lot to learn from these men, and my debt of gratitude can never be repaid.

As you age, starting to sound like your dad is bad enough; sounding like your grandad is even worse, but here goes: I am glad I am not young today. Who knows what I might be told to read?

Read the whole post HERE.

A Plea to Mark Driscoll

2012-01-04T09:26:00.010-06:00

There are things I truly appreciate about Mark Driscoll. I love that he knows and preaches the Gospel (the "matter of first importance" - 1 Cor 15). I love his zeal for evangelism and evident compassion for the lost. I love his desire to teach doctrine so that his church is not shallow and untrained. I love his desire to return to the church an understanding of and respect for biblical manhood.

But like all of us, Mark Driscoll is a bit of a mixed bag. He is a very public figure who has stirred up no small amount of controversy. Some of that controversy has been the result of his faithfulness to the Gospel, biblically prescribed gender roles, and biblical sexual ethics. However, much of the controversy has been due to some rather unfortunate behavior and statements on his part. All of us have said and done things that we would like to take back. But for an internationally known "rock star" pastor, author, and church network leader the margin for error is precariously thin.

With the release of Mark and Grace Driscoll's new book, Real Marriage, there is fresh conversation about the pastor's tendency to preach, teach, and write about sex in frank, and, some would argue, inappropriate ways. Others are weighing in on this matter helpfully (Carl Trueman [here and here], Denny Burk, Tim Challies). I hope that Driscoll will listen to and learn from these brothers. I won't, at least for now, seek to add to their comments.

But I offer a plea to Mark Driscoll. It is a plea that flows from concern over his repeated claims to receive direct revelations from God. It all began, according to Mark, when his conversion to Christ, his call to be a pastor, to be a mentor to men, and to marry Grace came to him via the audible voice of God. Specifically, my plea is for Mark Driscoll to stop making claims of direct revelation from God.

My concern is four-fold:
1. It seems arrogant.
History is somewhat spare of those to whom God spoke directly. There was Adam and Eve. There was Noah, Abraham and, later, Moses. There were the prophets that followed. Later, the apostles received direct revelation as they recorded the Scriptures we call the New Testament. But even in their case we do not have any evidence that God spoke to them in an audible voice (except of course through the incarnate Christ). And now we have...Mark Driscoll? Is it wise to repeatedly claim to have heard the audible voice of God? What purpose does this serve? Is it important to broadcast the reception of continued, direct revelation? Those few men who truly did receive revelation from God suffered on account of it. Paul points out that because of the revelations he received (the purpose of which was for the writing of Scripture) God gave to him a thorn in the flesh that he might not become proud (2 Corinthians 12:5-9). It seems arrogant for a preacher in our moment of redemptive history to repeatedly make claims to receive direct revelation from God. It places one in rarefied air indeed.

2. It is pastorally unwise.
It seems that every cult and man-made religion begins with someone claiming divine revelation: "God speaks to me," "I am a conduit of the divine," or "I found these golden tablets that only I can interpret!" I am not accusing Mark Driscoll with being a cult leader. I do not believe he is. Again, I am grateful that he proclaims the gospel. But his claims to direct revelation can easily lead to a cult-of-personality. Who can argue that this has not already happened?

Don't misunderstand. A pastor ought to be the best educated man in his congregation in regard to the Scriptures and doctrine. It is right to honor such a man (1 Timothy 5:17). However, claims to direct revelation and hearing the audible voice of God can easily lead to a kind of elitism that goes well beyond healthy honor. It can create a sort of hierarchy in which the pastor is placed on a super-spiritual plane the average parishioner will never reach.

On the other hand, a pastor's claims to direct revelation can create within parishioners an expectation to experience the same phenomena. We don't have to imagine the sorts of confusion and chaos this sort of expectation can cause. We need look no further than some of the titles being released by Christian publishers where the fanciful and fantastic is valued over that which is biblical. Or simply tune in to Trinity Broadcasting Network to see a whole motley parade of men and women who claim to speak for God.

The claim to direct revelation begs the question why? What is missing in the Bible that Mark Driscoll, or anyone esle for that matter, can provide? Given the contemporary church's notorious biblical illiteracy, why should we be seeking additional revelation or words from God? I fear that Driscoll's claims will seriously undermine his congregation's confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture.

3. It is, at least, potentially blasphemous.
As a preacher I know what it is like to have words placed in my mouth. People routinely "hear" me say things from the pulpit that I never said. The consequences are potentially severe of misquoting a person or, worse, fabricating statements that were never said. Even if the words are innocent or inconsequential, none of us want to be given credit for statements we never made.

It is bad enough when that happens to me or you or anyone else. But when God is misquoted or entire statements are mistakenly (or intentionally) attributed to Him then the consequences are grave. The Bible reserves some of its harshest condemnations for false prophets who do not speak God's words but their own vain imaginings cast as God's words. It is no small sin when we say, "God said," when God did not say.

Mark Driscoll has claimed from the pulpit of his church and in the pages of his new book on marriage that God reveals to him, in vivid detail, the sexual sins of others. Please understand, Driscoll's claim is not that God makes him aware of certain sinful patterns in other people's lives. That would be odd enough. Rather, his claim is that God runs in his mind, movie-like, graphic images of sexual sin that others have committed (including those of his wife in the days before they were married!). This is troubling, not least of all because it makes God responsible for projecting sexually graphic images in Driscoll's mind. But what if Mark is wrong? What if God is not running these disgusting images in his mind? Can it be anything less than blasphemy to falsely attribute these revelations to the work of God?

4. It is almost certainly not true.
Now, before anyone freaks out, let me explain. God is alive and powerful. He is a personal God who speaks to his people. And, no, I do not believe God spoke audibly to Mark Driscoll. Why? Because God no longer speaks to men in this way.

I can hear the protests. "Aha! You're just an anti-supernaturalist who is trying to put God in a box!" But this could not be further from the truth. I am not trying to limit God in any way. I am only suggesting that we believe what God himself has said about the way He speaks:
"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world" (Hebrews 1:1-2 ESV).
God has spoken supremely through the Son. And where do we find this word of the Son? In the Scriptures of course. All of the Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, points us to the Christ. Jesus himself taught the disciples to read the Bible this way (Luke 24:25-27).

The days of the prophets and apostles are over. Direct revelation is closed by God's own design. The Scriptures are complete. God's plan is on the move just according to His design. Rather than listening for a voice in our heart, from the sky, or along a river bed we are promised something far better. God promises to speak to us through His inscripturated Word which never goes forth without accomplishing His purpose. No need to rely upon mystical experience. No unclear impressions required or ever warranted; just God's clear, powerful, and sufficient Word faithfully and lovingly recorded for us through the Spirit's work of inspiration.
The newly united brothers and sisters whom God formed into the first church at Jerusalem were "devoted," not to mystical experience or discerning a voice (audible or otherwise), but to "the apostle's teaching" (Acts 2:42). It is that very same teaching that we have today in the form of the New Testament. This, along with what we know as the Old Testament, continues to be the blessed means by which God graciously speaks to His beloved people.

So, I plead with Mark Driscoll to stop relying on and proclaiming these extra-biblical revelations. It is pastorally unwise and could imperil the souls of the men and women with whom he has been entrusted.

Seeing, they do not see...

2011-12-30T12:01:00.003-06:00

In a recent Hardball, Chris Matthews and his panel demonstrate a stunning lack of moral seriousness in a conversation about abortion. Of course, avoiding moral seriousness is necessary if one is to hold a "pro-choice" point of view. The entire abortion debate rests on the issue of personhood. But it is this issue that Matthews and his ilk, for obvious reasons, seek to avoid.

Denny Burk links to the Hardball episode and offers these comments:

I have often observed that debates about abortion among political pundits tend to miss the point. There is no serious moral contemplation of the issue, but only crass calculations of how a particular point of view might help or hurt some politician.

That is why I was struck by this conversation on Chris Matthews’ program “Hardball” (see above). Matthews and his guests seem to have discovered for the first time that pro-lifers actually believe life to begin at conception. They are astonished and appalled by this revelation, and it is almost as if they have never even heard of this point of view before several GOP candidates signed the Personhood USA pledge. As a result, the panel lampoons the view as if it represented some extreme, unheard of ideology. They don’t seem to realize that the pro-life position consists precisely in the view that individual human life begins at conception. How could they not know this?

The entire pro-life debate hinges upon the status of the life that is taken in an abortion. If it’s just a blob of cells, then abortion on demand would be no problem. If it’s a person (as pro-lifers have been arguing all along), then that unborn person should be protected in law. I am happy to welcome Matthews to the national conversation now that he has discovered what it is really about.

I give you fair warning that what you are about to see is completely morally unserious. Matthews argues that the politics of abortion should be totally disconnected from “metaphysical” questions about personhood. The panel even suggests that the reality of miscarriages somehow constitute prima facie evidence against the personhood of the unborn. The arguments here are really weak, but they are precisely the kinds of opinions that proliferate among unthoughtful pro-choice advocates.

Journaling Through the Bible

2011-12-23T18:29:00.003-06:00

Journibles look like a helpful tool for studying and meditating upon the Bible. I am looking forward to the release of the 1 & 2 Corinthians edition.

Journible Spot 1 from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.

"Jesus Calling" A Review

2011-12-22T18:01:00.005-06:00

Tim Challies reviews Sarah Young's enormously popular book Jesus Calling. In it, Young claims direct revelation from Jesus Christ. Oddly, while Young claims the entries in her book are the words of Jesus delivered to her, she cautions the reader to not regard them as authoritative as Scripture. But how can this be? If her book is Jesus speaking (which she explicitly claims) then how can those words be less authoritative or binding as the Scriptures? Indeed, if Mrs. Young has written down the words of Jesus that He spoke directly to her, then how can they not be Scripture? Unfortunately, her many admirers seem not to mind her troubling claim or incoherent contradiction.

Challies writes:

James Montgomery Boice once said that the real battle in our times would not be the inerrancy or infallibility of Scripture, but its sufficiency—are we going to rely on the Bible or will we continually long for other revelation? In Jesus Calling we see this so clearly. Young teaches that though the Bible is inerrant and infallible, it is insufficient. It was not enough for her and, implicitly, she teaches that it cannot be enough for us. After all, it was not reading Scripture that proved her most important spiritual discipline, but this listening, this receiving of messages from the Lord. It is not Scripture she brings to us, not primarily anyway, but these messages from Jesus.

On this basis alone this book is very suspect and needs to be treated with the utmost care. Young offers us words that she insists come straight from the Lord. But she gives no proof that we should expect the Lord to speak to us this way; all she offers is her own experience of it. At this point we are left with a few options. We can stop reading altogether, we can continue to read while rejecting her claims that these are words from the Lord, or we can read and take her at her word. Personally, unless reviewing the book, I would abandon it immediately. If she claims to be speaking Jesus’ words, I am no longer interested. However, for the sake of reviewing it, I continued to read.

Dr. Boice was right. Clearly, the battle over inerrancy continues. But more often it is the sufficiency of Scripture that is under constant attack in evangelical circles. "God told me," "God spoke this word in my heart," etc are frequent appeals to extra-biblical revelation. And yet such claims are ubiquitous among evangelicals. We make bestsellers out of fanciful tales of people's trips to heaven. How gullible have we become? We must ask, "When did God's Word become insufficient?" When did the Bible need the help of mystical experiences? extra words from God? or a little boy's trip to heaven and back?

Challies continues:

It is interesting that the majority of the devotionals are affirmations rather than commandments which means that the book tends to be more descriptive than prescriptive. It is less about Jesus telling how we are to live, but more about who he is, who we are, and how to enjoy his Presence. It is notable that these affirmations span only a very narrow range of the Christian experience. It is equally notable that many of Jesus’ words sound very little like what he says in the Bible. For example, “Let the Light of My Presence soak into you, as you focus your thoughts on Me.” And shortly after, “Learn to hide in the secret of My Presence, even as you carry out your duties in the world.” I do not even know what that means or how it might be applied. There is no clear command there for me to obey and no clear word about who Jesus is.

Conclusion
Jesus Calling is, in its own way, a very dangerous book. Though the theology is largely sound enough, my great concern is that it teaches that hearing words directly from Jesus and then sharing these words with others is the normal Christian experience. In fact, it elevates this experience over all others. And this is a dangerous precedent to set. I see no reason that I would ever recommend this book.

Read the entire review HERE

Like "priapistic teenage boys sniggering"

2011-12-21T21:48:00.003-06:00

Ed Young Jr. is by no means the only pastor out there with a fondness for preaching and writing about sex. However, his latest project does prompt more than a few questions. Is all this "honesty" about sex truly helpful for the church? Does the presence of Song of Songs in the Bible justify this, this, or this?

Carl weighs in with a dose of biblical sanity:

It is true: those who jump quickly to allegorise the Song of Songs bypass entirely the obvious fact that it is an erotic love poem. Nevertheless, it seems to me significant that the Bible reserves raw and explicit sexual references for passages like Ezk. 23:20. Yes, the Bible contains crudity but it never uses such language to describe a properly functioning marriage. Those who speak explicitly in their sermons about sex acts may be reflecting the fact that the Bible does refer to such things; but the form they use may actually be reflecting rather the pathologies of the wider culture. They are certainly not paying any respect to the form which scripture uses to speak of such things. There is a beauty to the Song of Songs which is connected to its poetic form. Telling the world it refers to this or that specific sex act misses the point on so many different levels and is an interesting and eloquent response which perhaps tells us much about the reader and little about the text; it reminds me of being in a gallery and seeing priapistic teenage boys sniggering at the naked breast of a woman in a painting by a Renaissance master.

I also wonder how helpful it is to deal in graphic detail with sexual acts from the pulpit for those struggling with addiction to internet pornography. Or even simply for single people. Or for those who have not heard of some of the sex acts mentioned. Or for those who are impotent. Or for those who are still children. Or for those who suffered sexual abuse. So many pastoral issues would seem to be exacerbated by explicit and indiscriminate teaching on this issue from the pulpit. Yes, there are obviously serious sexual dysfunctions in the church - many deriving directly from a wider culture which is so explicit about sex - but most if not all of these are best addressed in more individualized pastoral settings.

Further, the reduction of sex to a set of physical acts seems to play to the idolatries of the world around, and this reduction can be the result as much of the way we talk about sex as the content of what we say. I find it significant, for example, that we now routinely talk of `having sex' rather than `making love.' Perhaps the latter is somewhat archaic but it still carries with it emotional, relational and loving connotations which the former lacks entirely. A man can have sex with a prostitute; he can only make love to one to whom he is emotionally connected.

The Bible's refusal to reduce sex to physical acts is surely one of the reasons why it uses poetry to describe it. Poetry communicates meaning and significance which cannot be reduced simply to the reference; and the turning of the Song of Songs primarily into a sex manual is arguably a greater act of reductionism than jumping straight from the text to Christ and the church. This is important because reducing the importance of sex to the physical is one of the greatest moral errors of the spirit of this age, and the current penchant for explicit content in sermons seems rather to stand in continuity with this spirit than to be a prophetic sign against it. Paul's advice about it being better to marry than to burn is not reducible to 'if you struggle with lust, find a girl to marry and have sex with her.' That does not address the underlying problem. Everyone knows that nobody is ever addicted to one pornographic picture; thus lust is not eliminated by simply trying to set it in a monogamous context.

Finally, I wonder if the current passion for producing books and preaching sermons on sex also witnesses to the erosion of the boundary between public and private which is all too obvious in the world around us. Facebook, Twitter, reality TV and the rise of celebrity have each served to turn us all into exhibitionists and to make those who yearn for privacy look like weirdoes and losers. That this is impacting the church from the top down is obvious; and it is at least worth pausing to ask whether sex books and explicit sermons are part of this. It is surely hard to imagine Christian public figures of yesteryear such as Martyn Lloyd-Jones, J I Packer or Carl Henry setting up a website called the `sexperiment' or giving advice on sexual technique from the pulpit.

Read the entire post HERE.

What you want in a pastor...

2011-12-21T18:05:00.005-06:00

Good stuff from Jonathan Leeman:

AS IMPORTANT AS ANY OTHER QUALITY
I’m not talking about a man who simply checks the belief box on the “authority” or “sufficiency” or “power” of the Bible.

I’m talking about a man who whose conviction here runs so deep that it profoundly influences the way he works and lives. He plans his weekly schedule based on this conviction. He rests his daily mood upon this conviction. He even picks his clothes in the morning knowing that, it’s not how good he looks that will bring life to the dead, it’s the resurrection power of God’s Word and Spirit.

This is as important as any other quality a pastor could have. It’s as important as swimming is to a lifeguard, throwing is to a quarterback, or adding is to an accountant. It defines the very task of what a pastor does.

THE POWER OF THE WORD
Humans create with hands, shovels, and bulldozers. Not God. God creates with words. He says, “Be,” and it is. He says “Peace” to the riotous wind and waves, and they obey. He says “Come forth” to dead people and their eyes pop open.

Just as astonishing, God tells the light to shine in dark hearts, giving them the ability to see the glory of his Son (2 Cor. 4:6). His Word of power saves (Rom. 10:17). It fundamentally changes people (1 Thess. 1:5-7). It gives the new birth (1 Peter 1:23).

Now get this: God gives his faithful servants the ability to do the same things. “If anyone speaks, she should do it as one speaking the very words of God.” (1 Peter 4:11). This is why Don Carson calls preaching “rerevelation.” A preacher’s primary task is to say again what God has already said. Did you think life comes to the dead through the power of our intelligence or humor or charisma?
Picture Ezekiel standing in a valley of dry bones. He preaches God’s Word, God’s Spirit blows, and the bones come to life. Your church wants a pastor who believes—deep in his bones!—that the same supernatural power is available to him. POW! He doesn’t rely on “the weapons of the world” but on “divine power to demolish strongholds” (2 Cor. 10:4). KAZAMM!

WHY THIS IS CRITICAL
Why is this critical for who your church should look for in a pastor search?

1. It will keep him from manipulating. Paul said he “renounced secret and shameful ways” but instead “set forth the truth plainly” (2 Cor. 4:2). If a man believes that the Word alone is powerful to save, that’s what he’ll do—preach plainly and not try to emotionally manipulate.

2. It will keep him from building your church and your spiritual life on his personality. Paul wasn’t a “trained speaker” with an impressive resume, like the “super-apostles.” He just preached Jesus, the Spirit, and the gospel (2 Cor. 11:4-5). Likewise, you want a man who is a good steward of his gifts, doesn’t rely on or trust his gifts to give life. He plants and waters, but relies on God to give the growth (1 Cor. 3:6-7). Men who build on their personalities have churches filled with nominal Christians.

3. It will keep him happy. A man who trusts God to save by his Word and Spirit is a man who can sleep at night, because it doesn’t finally depend on him. This is a happy man who probably has a happy wife and children because he spends time with them. He doesn’t carry the weight of the world on his shoulders. This is a man who won’t burn out as easily and will serve your church for years.

4. It’s the primary means to your growth and your church’s growth. It’s through the words of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers that God’s people become prepared for works of service “so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-13).

5. It’s your best hope of reaching non-Christian neighbors. “Faith comes from hearing the message,” says Paul (Rom. 10:17). Can the message be proclaimed through special programs and events? Of course. But you want a man who recognizes that it’s the regular, weekly “in season, out of season” work of “great patience and careful instruction” that saves the lost and builds up the saints—you want a man who “does the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim. 4:2-5).

Jonathan's book Reverberation was one of my favorite reads for 2011. I would love every church member to read it.

Secrets Pastors Keep

2011-12-21T14:41:00.006-06:00

I can certainly identify with much that is in this following list. Perhaps this will serve as a helpful way to inform our prayers for our pastors.

From Ron Edmondson:

1. Leading from this position is overwhelming at times. We know Christ is ultimately in charge, but we also know it often seems everyone looks to us to have all the answers.

2. People tell the senior pastor all kinds of things about what is happening in their life or in the lives of others…many we would rather not know sometimes…and sometimes the weight of others problems we carry is enormous.

3. Most pastors walk with a degree of uncertainty, which keeps us in prayer, but also makes us question our abilities at times. It makes depression common for many senior pastors. (Need a Biblical example…see 1 Kings 19)

4. Many senior pastors fear the possibility of failing in their role, so they thrive on the encouragement and prayers of others.

5. Sometimes we allow insecurity to cause us to become overprotective of our reputation and our position.

6. We face the same temptations and occasional spiritual dryness as everyone else. This means we need accountability, but are often afraid to seek it.

7. Our spouse is sometimes the loneliest person in the church and often feels extreme pressure to live up to unrealistic expectations.

8. Loneliness can exist for all leaders and many pastors suffer from it.

9. We seldom know who we can trust, which is why we become guarded and appear hard to get to know. Most senior pastors have been burned by someone they once trusted.

10. We suspect the staff, church leaders and congregation sometimes talks about us behind our back.

Read the whole thing HERE.

Cherishing what we still precariously hold

2011-12-20T18:54:00.002-06:00

For those of us in church leadership who are always under pressure to innovate, the following words from P.D. James present a relevant challenge:

We live in an age notable for a kind of fashionable silliness and imbued with a restless desire for change.

It sometimes seems that nothing old, nothing well-established, nothing which has evolved through centuries of experience and loving use escapes our urge to diminish, revise or abolish it.

Above all every organisation has to be relevant—a very fashionable word—to the needs of modern life, as if human beings in the twenty-first century are somehow fundamentally different in their needs and aspirations from all previous generations.

A country which ceases to value and learn from its history, neglects its language and literature, despises its traditions and is unified only by a common frenetic drive for getting and spending and for material wealth, will lose more than its nationhood; it will lose its soul.

Let us cherish and use what we still precariously hold.

Let us strive to ensure that what has been handed down to us is not lost to generations to come.

I believe it was C.S. Lewis who wrote about "chronological snobbery": the tendency to think that your time, your methods, your generation, etc are somehow worthy of greater esteem than that of the past. This has been tragically true within evangelicalism. The irony, of course, is that we are a people whose entire existence depends upon events 2,000 years ago and beyond. What is more, we have two millennia of church history from which to draw. Unfortunately, in our preaching, praise, and education we seem to prefer the cheap porridge of contemporary trends over the rich and thoughtful deposits of our forebears. The finest historians on the planet ought to be Christians. Our churches ought to be filled with historical referents. Not that our buildings would be museums and our gatherings exercises in nostalgia. A thousand times no! However it seems to me, to quote one of my co-laborers, "We are sowing the seeds of our own demise."

HT: Justin Taylor

Sunday's Sermon

2011-12-20T18:44:00.002-06:00

On Sunday I preached from the messianic prophecy found in Isaiah 9. It is entitled "A Great Light" and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

Christmas Everyday...

2011-12-20T18:24:00.005-06:00

Good stuff from Carl:

The irony of the Christian Christmas is that the Christ child comes not because of any need of his own or any desire to fulfill a selfish or inwardly directed want; this child, the child in the manger, considers it not robbery to be equal with God and yet humbles himself by taking the form of a servant in order to be obedient even to death on the cross. All of this is done for those who not only did not deserve it but who despise the very thought of grace. For the strong and the self-sufficient to be shown their need and to be delivered therefrom by a nobody who begins life in a manger and ends it on a cross is a profound insult to everything we hold dear. The world looks on - now as then - and see this all as so much childishness; the tragedy, of course, is that it is the unsuspecting world which is truly childish.

I wonder if it is coincidence that at the very moment when childhood - or, perhaps better, childishness - seems to be permeating society, atheism and the militant rejection of Christianity are becoming so trendy. There is nothing more childish than the repudiation of parental authority by those who are still dependent upon their parents for everything from food to shelter to clothing. As the fourteen year old kid with the body-piercing and mohawk is still utterly dependent on his parents' money to buy him the torn jeans and the tee-shirt with the anti-authoritarian slogan spray painted on it, so those dependent upon God for their lives take a perverse and childish pleasure in denying his claims over their lives. And as the fourteen year old punk looks like a serious adult role model to the twelve year old wannabe, so the angry atheism that sells so many books today looks like true maturity to the world at large. Yet it does not change the fact that, as Romans 1 tells us, such is really a move not towards maturity but towards a fundamental denial of our humanity.

This should put our need to engage with atheists in perspective. Atheists do appear scary to the church, as the foul-mouthed kid with the leather jacket and the tatttoo might well be an intimidating and alien presence in my neighbourhood late at night; but all the expletives in the world do not change the fact that he is just a kid with attitude, not a serious challenge to my safety or well-being. Yes, we sometimes need to refute atheists in the same way we need to check unruly teenagers; but we should not waste too much time on such matters. The church also has adult work to be doing and dealing with kids should not distract us from that. Atheists come and atheists go; as far as I can tell, Mt. 16:18 continues to prove to be true.

The message of Christmas is the message of the cross: all our human conceptions are turned upside down; greatness is found in a manger and on a cross; the most powerful autonomous aspirations of men and women are in comparison to the baby Jesus but childish acts of meaningless defiance; atheism pretends to maturity; but from the perspective of the Bethlehem stable, it is but so much juvenile posturing.

Read the entire article HERE.

The "Dear Leader" Dies

2011-12-19T08:50:00.003-06:00

We may never know the extent of Kim Jong Il's brutality and madness. We know that he tortured and murdered his people on a massive scale. Il the atheist insisted on being worshipped as a god. He routinely threatened the world. All the while the "Dear Leader" lived in luxury enjoying fine wine and American movies. Since the North Korean Communist dictatorship is a family enterprise, the reigns of leadership will go to one of Kim's sons. There is, so far, no indication that any of his sons will change the ever darkening course of this already dark country.

Justin Taylor has posted a series of videos that give a glimpse into the wicked cruelty that was Kim Jong Il's North Korea.

Jesus, Joy of the Highest Heaven

2011-12-17T14:15:00.001-06:00

A yearning for justice or banal, wicked envy?

2011-12-16T14:38:00.002-06:00

Try this challenging thought experiment from Doug Wilson.

Would Christopher Hitchens rid the world of theists?

2011-12-16T09:40:00.000-06:00

An obituary for Christopher Hitchens

2011-12-16T09:23:00.002-06:00

Doug Wilson has written a moving but, thankfully, not sentimental memorial for Christopher Hitchens who died of cancer yesterday.

G. K. Chesterton once pointed to the salutary effect that the great agnostics had on him—that effect being that of "arousing doubts deeper than their own." Christopher was an heir of the Enlightenment tradition, and would have felt right at home in the 18th-century salons of Paris. He wanted to carry on the grand tradition of doubting what had been inherited from Christendom, and to take great delight in doubting it. This worked well, or appeared to, for a time. But skepticism is a universal solvent, and once applied, it does not stop just because Christendom is gone. "I think, therefore I am. I think." We pulled out the stopper of faith, and the bathwater of reason appeared undisturbed for a time. But modernism slowly receded and now postmodernism is circling the drain.

Our intelligentsia needs to figure out how to do more than sit in an empty tub and reminisce about the days when Voltaire knew how to keep the water hot. Christopher knew that faithful Christians believe that it is appointed to man once to die, and after that the Judgment. He knew that we believe what Jesus taught about the reality of damnation. He also knew that we believe—for I told him—that in this life, the door of repentance is always open. A wise Puritan once noted what we learn from the last-minute conversion of the thief on the cross—one, that no one might despair, but only one, that no one might presume. We have no indication that Christopher ever called on the Lord before he died, and if he did not, then Scriptures plainly teach that he is lost forever. But we do have every indication that Christ died for sinners, men and women just like Christopher. We know that the Lord has more than once hired workers for his vineyard when the sun was almost down (Matt. 20:6).

We also know that Christopher was worried about this, and was afraid of letting down the infidel team. In a number of interviews during the course of his cancer treatments, he discussed the prospect of a "death bed" conversion, and it was clear that he was concerned about the prospect. But, he assured interviewers, if anything like that ever happened, we should all be certain that the cancer or the chemo or something had gotten to his brain. If he confessed faith, then he, the Christopher Hitchens that we all knew, should be counted as already dead. In short, he was preparing a narrative for us, just in case. But it is interesting that the narrative he prepped us with did not involve some ethically challenged evangelical nurses on the late shift who were ready to claim that they had heard him cry out to God, thus misrepresenting another great infidel into heaven. It has been done with Einstein, and with Darwin. Why not Hitchens? But Christopher actually prepared us by saying that if he said anything like this, then he did not know what he was saying.

This is interesting, not so much because of what it says about what he did or did not do as death approached him, and as he at the same time approached death. It is interesting because, when he gave these interviews, he was manifestly in his right mind, and the thought had clearly occurred to him that he might not feel in just a few months the way he did at present. The subject came up repeatedly, and was plainly a concern to him. Christopher Hitchens was baptized in his infancy, and his name means "Christ-bearer." This created an enormous burden that he tried to shake off his entire life. No creature can ever succeed in doing this. But sometimes, in the kindness of God, such failures can have a gracious twist at the end. We therefore commend Christopher to the Judge of the whole earth, who will certainly do right. Christopher Eric Hitchens (1949-2011). R.I.P.

Read the whole thing HERE.

Sunday's Sermon

2011-12-12T20:36:00.003-06:00

On Sunday I preached the final message in our series focusing on the Great Commission. It is entitled "Sustained By Grace" and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

* On Sunday January 8th, I will begin preaching through Philippians.

My Favorite Reads for 2011

2011-12-12T18:48:00.006-06:00

The following are books (not all published in 2011) that were either the most enjoyable or the most important books I read over the last 12 months.

Theology / Biblical Studies:

Historical Theology by Gregg Allison

I have not read this book cover-to-cover. However, it is extremely helpful; a great "one stop shop" for the history of the development of Christian doctrine.

What is the Mission of the Church? by DeYoung and Gilbert

Excellent. Clarifying. Careful. Readable. Important. Need more?

Union With Christ by J. Todd Billings

I am thankful for what may be a renewed focus on a sadly neglected doctrine. Dr. Billings's volume is a great example of theology in service of doxology and the church.

The Deity of Christ, Morgan and Peterson ed.

Outstanding! Readable and doxological instruction.

The Doctrine of the Word of God by John Frame

The best single volume I have read on the doctrine of the Word of God. Man, does Frame love appendices!

Applied Christianity:

Good News for Anxious Christians by Phillip Cary

I love this book! Dr. Cary offers an important correction to the errors of what he calls "the new evangelicalism."

Reverberation by Jonathan Leeman

Excellent. Leeman helps the reader understand how God uses his Word to transform his people. This is one of those books I wish every church member would read.

Jesus + Nothing = Everything by Tullian Tchividjian

A refreshing journey through Colossians with an eye toward the radical nature of the gospel.

A Gospel Primer for Christians by Milton Vincent

Read this book...now.

Non-Fiction / Biography:

Young Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore
Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore

Raven by Tim Reiterman

* Okay, I understand how some of you may be concerned about my seeming fascination with tyrants and cult leaders.

Charles Hodge: Guardian of American Orthodoxy by Paul C. Gutjahr

I confess that I have not completed this yet but so far it is excellent.

The Strange Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst by Tomalin and Hall

An amazing story but little known in the U.S. The story of Donald Crowhurst is a compelling mix of adventure, mystery and tragedy.

Fiction:

Billy Bathgate by E.L. Doctorow

Hitler's Niece by Ron Hansen

The following are some books I have recently begun reading and are, so far, excellent:

Truman by David McCullough

Washington: The Indispensable Man by James Thomas Flexner

Feast Day For Fools by James Lee Burke

Salvation Accomplished by the Son by Robert Peterson

Authentic Church by Vaughan Roberts

The Christian Faith by Michael Horton

Simply Proclaim

2011-12-09T08:40:00.002-06:00

Carl Trueman on the challenge and privilege of preaching (especially at Christmas):

The problem is not just metaphysical, not simply a question of how one can talk about infinite God entering finite human existence (`Our God contracted to a span, incomprehensibly made man', to use Wesley's beautiful phrase). In this it is akin to the cross as Paul articulates it in 1 Corinthians: it is foolishness and a stumbling block. Foolishness, because the very idea of the sovereign creator and ruler of the universe being born of a teenage virgin in a stable in a tiny nation of no account at the far end of the Mediterranean is utterly ridiculous. Indeed, one might say that it looks very much like proof that God cannot exist -- at least, that is, God built according to our specifications and requirements. An offence because I do not need salvation, especially salvation brought by a pre-modern peasant's child in some backward place nobody would otherwise ever have heard of.

Yet this is where the glory of preaching and hearing the word of God comes into play. Preaching is proclamation, and proclaim we must, however inadequate we might think our words and our delivery are. Preaching is not a carefully worked-out philosophical defence of what God must be like if the advent of Christ is to be true. Nor is it an attempt to make Christianity look sophisticated or moral as the world understand these things. Least of all is it stand-up comedy designed to entertain those who might otherwise seek their fun elsewhere. Its agenda, especially at Christmas, is not to be determined by unbelief or what the hipsters in the Village will tolerate or what the brain's trust at MIT think is plausible. Preaching at Christmas is akin to Lk. 2:8-12. It is the announcement of what God has done, that he has come in Christ, and that thereby his grace has abounded and overflowed to those who deserve it not.. Our task as preachers is to do simply that: proclaim the advent of the Christ. Can there be a greater privilege, a more awesome responsibility, or a greater delight?

Read the whole thing HERE.

Some light reading for Christmas...

2011-12-06T19:26:00.004-06:00

Carl Trueman has posted some recomendations for Christmas reading:

Gregory K. Beale, A Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Baker). Monumental work. My students know I have a thing about people who use `eschatological' every other sentence (the Reformed equivalent of quoting Bono among trendies) but in Greg's case, I'll forgive him. The book has already changed the way I think about New Testament teaching on eldership. It is self-contained (good job at over 1 000 pages) but familiarity with Greg's work on the Temple is useful.

J. Todd Billings, Union with Christ (Baker Academic). Those who have enjoyed Dr Billings' work on Calvin and on scriptural interpretation will know what to expect. Thought-provoking treatment of a hot topic. To be read alongside Robert Letham's book with the same title. Both of these books are both theological and doxological. Letham also has one of the most concise and brilliant summaries of Cyrilline Christology to be found anywhere.

James Dolezal, God Without Parts (Pickwick). An important elaboration and defence of divine simplicity, a doctrine frequently rejected today but rather less frequently understood.The Reformed Orthodox would have regarded divine simplicity as one of -- if not the most -- important element of their doctrine of God.

Derek Prime, Charles Simeon: An Ordinary Pastor of Extraordinary Influence (Day One). OK, I have not read this yet; but the combination of author and subject is irresistible. Mine is on the way from the UK but some Christian bookshop in the USA needs to take this on.

Finally, guilty pleasure for anyone with a (British) sense of humour: Adam Macqueen, Private Eye: The First Fifty Years (Private Eye). Nothing Christian about this one. I became an avid Eye reader at age 13 and it inspired me to go on to be part of the team that put together the semi-underground satirical magazine for my school (greatest achievement: getting it banned from the girl's school next door because of `unacceptably subversive' material). My role was writing parodies written in the style of the local newspaper and in the manner of various schoolmasters. All the inspiration came from the Eye. If you are suspicious of establishments, the self-important, Rupert Murdoch, celebrities of any stripe and have never grown up, this is the book to read. And Craig Brown is one of the few living geniuses.

I have just begun Dr. Beale's massive new volume on biblical theology. I'm still in the introduction! I just received in the mail today Dr. Billings' book on union with Christ. It looks like it will be an excellent read. I will certainly try to get hold of Derek Prime's book on Charles Simeon.

Learning from Herman Cain

2011-12-06T10:00:00.003-06:00

Albert Mohler has written a thoughtful challenge for Christian men in light of the news swirling around Herman Cain.

Mohler points out five lessons to be learned:
1. The Christian man must realize that credible accusations of sexual misconduct or immorality are fatal to credibility and ruinous to Christian witness.

2. The Christian man cannot dismiss any charge of sexual immorality as being a private matter of no public concern.

3. The Christian man must plan his life in order to assure moral accountability and protections.

4. The Christian man must depend upon his church, the congregation that is so essential to his Christian vitality and faithfulness, as a bulwark against sin.

5. A Christian man knows that his wife is his best defense against sexual immorality and sexual vulnerability - and his most important witness to character.

Read the entire article HERE.

Sunday's Sermon

2011-12-06T09:50:00.002-06:00

Sunday's sermon was part 7 in our series focusing on the Great Commission. It is entitled "How Disciples Are Made" and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

The fanaticism of amorality

2011-12-05T08:50:00.003-06:00

"A revolution without a firing squads," Lenin is meant to have said, "is meaningless." He spent his career praising the Terror of the French Revolution because his Bolshevism was a unique creed, "a social system based on blood-letting." The Bolsheviks were atheists but they were hardly secular politicians in the conventional sense: they stooped to kill from the smugness of the highest moral eminence. Bolshevism may not have been a religion, but it was close enough. Stalin told Beria [one of the most sadistic members of Stalin's inner court] the Bolsheviks were "a sort of military-religious order"...Stalin's "order of sword-bearers" resembled the Knights Templars, or even the theocracy of the Iranian Ayatollahs, more than any traditional secular movement. They would die and kill for their faith in the inevitable progress towards human betterment, making sacrifices of their own families, with a fervor seen only in the religious slaughters and martyrdoms of the Middle Ages - and the Middle East...

The "sword-bearers" had to believe with Messianic faith, in order to act with the correct ruthlessness, and so convince others they were right to do so. Stalin's "quasi-Islamic" fanaticism was typical of the Bolshevik magnates: Mikoyan's son called his father "a Bolshevik fanatic." Most came from devoutly religious backgrounds. They hated Judaeo-Christianity--but the orthodoxy of their parents was replaced by something even more rigid, a system of amorality: "This religion--or science, as it was modestly called by its adepts--invests man with a godlike authority...In the Twenties, a good many people drew a parallel to the victory of Christianity and thought this new religion would last a thousand years," wrote Nadezhda Mandelstam. "All were agreed on the superiority of the new creed that promised heaven on earth instead of other worldly rewards."

From Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore

On the fate of those who have never heard the gospel...

2011-12-05T08:41:00.003-06:00

An illustration from Francis Schaeffer:

If every little baby that was ever born anywhere in the world had a tape recorder hung about its neck, and if this tape recorder only recorded the moral judgments with which this child as he grew bound other men, the moral precepts might be much lower than the biblical law, but they would still be moral judgments.

Eventually each person comes to that great moment when he stands before God as judge. Suppose, then, that God simply touched the tape recorder button and each man heard played out in his own words all those statements by which he had bound other men in moral judgment. He could hear it going on for years—thousands and thousands of moral judgments made against other men, not aesthetic judgments, but moral judgments.

Then God would simply say to the man, though he had never head the Bible, now where do you stand in the light of your own moral judgments? The Bible points out . . . that every voice would be stilled. All men would have to acknowledge that they have deliberately done those things which they knew to be wrong. Nobody could deny it.

We sin two kinds of sin. We sin one kind as though we trip off the curb, and it overtakes us by surprise. We sin a second kind of sin when we deliberately set ourselves up to fall. And no one can say he does not sin in the latter sense. Paul’s comment is not just theoretical and abstract, but addressed to the individual—”O man”—any man without the Bible, as well as the man with the Bible.

. . . God is completely just. A man is judged and found wanting on the same basis on which he has tried to bind others.

—Francis Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century, 2d ed. (Crossway, 1985), pp. 49-50.

Romans 2:1-3; 14-16:

1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? . . .

14 . . . When Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

HT: Justin Taylor

"Theology is getting more of God."

2011-12-01T09:58:00.002-06:00

Kevin DeYoung on "why we must be unapologetically theological."

Sunday's Sermons

2011-11-28T12:15:00.005-06:00

On Sunday we were pleased to welcome Mike McKinley to the pulpit of Church of the Saviour. Mike's sermon, The Disciple's Marathon can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

Mike is the author of two helpful books:

Church Planting is for Wimps

Am I Really a Christian?

Mike writes regularly for the 9 Marks Ministries blog Church Matters.

On Sunday evening I preached a message from 2 Corinthians 2:12-17 entitled Conquered By Christ.

Ravi Zacharias reponds to a Muslim's question...

2011-11-26T12:40:00.000-06:00

Jesus Saves

2011-11-26T09:31:00.007-06:00

Unequivocally, Scripture highlights Jesus' death and resurrection when it speaks of his saving accomplishment. It does, however, paint a fuller picture and mentions seven additional aspects of Christ's saving work.

incarnation
sinless life
death
resurrection
ascension
session
Pentecost
intercession
second coming

Brief definitions are in order. The incarnation is the Son of God's becoming a human being by a supernatural conception in Mary's womb. Christ's sinless life is his living from birth to death without sinning in thought, word, or deed. His ascension is his public return to the Father by 'going up' from the Mount of Olives. His session is his sitting down at God the Father's right hand after his ascension. Pentecost, as much Christ's saving work as any other event on the list, is his pouring out the Holy Spirit on the church in newness and power. His intercession includes his perpetual presentation in heaven of his finished cross work and his prayers on behalf of his saints. His second coming is his return in glory at the end of the age to bless his people and judge his enemies.

From Salvation Accomplished by the Son by Robert Peterson

The Gospel of Pragmatism

2011-11-25T20:59:00.004-06:00

Check out this edition of the White Horse Inn.

Why do so many contemporary churches or best-selling Christian books focus almost exclusively on practical application rather than doctrinal truth? Why do most Christians prefer to talk about their own testimonies or changed lives, rather than arguing for the truth of the Christian faith?On this edition of White Horse Inn, the hosts take a look at the philosophy of pragmatism and its effects on contemporary Christian thought and practice.

Thanksgiving Parades

2011-11-25T20:50:00.003-06:00

Take time to read this excellent article by Michael Horton.

“Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required; Then I said, ‘Here I am; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart’” (Ps 40:6-8, emphasis added; cf Ps 51:16). Mediating God’s dispute with his people, the prophets repeat the psalmist’s refrain against those who dare to bring their sacrifices while violating his covenant (Hos 6:6; Am 4:4; Mal 1:8). Jesus takes up the theme as well (Mt 9:13). Obedience is better than sacrifice, because thanksgiving is even greater than forgiveness.

Far from downplaying the importance of the sacrifices, the psalmist is pointing to Christ, the one who is not only a guilt offering, but actually renders at last the thank-offering: the covenantal faithfulness that humanity in Adam has failed to yield. That is how the writer to the Hebrews interprets it. No New Testament writer is more eager to highlight the significance of Christ’s sacrifice of atonement—the guilt offering. Yet his point (consistent with the psalmist’s), is that something greater is needed. Not only is a greater guilt-offering required, since the old covenant sacrifices could never take away sins but only cover them over in typological anticipation of Christ; something more than a guilt-offering itself is envisioned. The writer points out that the burnt offering always reminded worshippers, as well as God, of their guilt. Although it made temporary provision, it always highlighted the negative breach that required satisfaction. In other words, we might say, it never transcended the debt-economy. If these sacrifices would have actually remitted all of their guilt for the course of their entire lives, the worshiper would not have to return home after the Day of Atonement still burdened by “any consciousness of sin” (Heb 10:2). “But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (v 4).

This, I maintain, is what the psalmist had in mind when he recognized the weakness of the old covenant sacrificial system. Forgiveness is good, but obedience is better. God delights in forgiving debts, but his deepest joy—in fact, his requirement—is the faithful love and obedience of the covenant servant whom he created in his own image, with the mission of entering into the sabbath day with the whole creation in toe. The old covenant sacrifices did not absolve transgressors of guilt once and for all, so their negative function (forgiveness) was temporary, and furthermore, such sacrifices could not offer to God the positive obedience (justification) that God required of his covenant partner.

In Christ, however, both types of sacrifices converge: not only is he the only qualified substitute for the guilt of sinners; he is the only one capable of rendering the life of thankful obedience in which God truly delights.

That voice you are hearing in your heart is not God...

2011-11-25T11:16:00.004-06:00

That little voice in your heart is not God speaking. He does not speak in your heart. He speaks outside of us from His own word. That means the pressure is off! You don't have to strain to hear God's voice in your heart and hope that you're hearing the right voice. God has already spoken outside of us. And that is how God still speaks - through his own perfect and holy word.

In his outstanding new book Good News for Anxious Christians, Phillip Cary has an excellent chapter entitled "Why You Don't Have to Hear God's Voice in Your Heart OR, How God Really Speaks Today. Dr. Cary writes:

[The] place to look for God's word is not in your heart but in the gathering of God's people for worship, prayer, preaching, and teaching.

That is why the apostle says, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Col. 3:16)...This happens when the people of God gather together as a congregation in the name of Christ, teaching and admonishing and singing God's word to one another...

[Nothing] has changed in this regard since biblical times. The Spirit has always spoken through external words. Biblical prophets, for instance, never talk about hearing God in their own hearts. That's just not what they say about their own experience. They often tell us about their dreams and visions, but they know nothing of the practice we have been taught today where you try to quiet yourself and hear God's voice in your heart.

That's not how the Spirit speaks, because that's not why the Spirit speaks. He does not come to give people private instructions - that's not what prophecy was ever for - but to join them to the community of God's people. So the best place to hear him now is in a gathered congregation of the Body of Christ, where he is present to teach, comfort, warn, and guide all who believe. His speaking is not an inner experience but a shared event, just like the teaching and admonishing that happened when the New Testament church was filled with the Spirit...

When I talk about this biblical view of the Spirit with my students, they often ask, "But are you saying God doesn't speak today?" Now you know my answer. Of course God speaks today! His speaking today in the word of Christ is what saves us and makes us Christians, and that is what the Holy Spirit is all about. He speaks when the words of the prophets and apostles found in Scripture are preached and taught and sung and prayed, especially in the gathering of his people for worship. He speaks whenever the gospel of Jesus Christ dwells in us richly.

What my students' question shows is that they have never thought of this as God speaking. For them, the only way God can speak today is in the privacy of their own hearts. That's the only way they have ever heard of God's speaking - the only way they have ever heard it talked about, even in church. They have literally not been taught to hear the gospel as God's word.

Do Your Shopping at Home...

2011-11-25T10:29:00.004-06:00

Excellent deals from...

Ligonier Ministries

WTSBooks

Monergism Books

CBD Reformed

S. Lewis Johnson

2011-11-24T21:16:00.002-06:00

Your one-stop shop for S. Lewis Johnson resources HERE.

Books for Pastors...

2011-11-18T20:43:00.003-06:00

Pastoring and pain go together. If you are involved in pastoral leadership then you will experience the barbs of criticism, the grief of your own sin, and the loneliness of leadership. Biblical counsel from wise brothers, therefore, is essential.

If you are a pastor then you ought to have the following books on regular rotation for your yearly reading:

New Life in the Wasteland by Douglas Kelly

The Cross and Christian Ministry by D.A. Carson

Pastors Under Pressure by James Taylor

The Roots of Endurance by John Piper

The Call to Joy and Pain by Ajith Fernando

Under the Unpredictable Plant by Eugene Peterson

Keeping Snakes out of the Garden

2011-11-18T18:50:00.005-06:00

Typically good stuff from Carl Trueman on the vital role of elders:

Greg Beale has a fascinating section on elders in his new A New Testament Biblical Theology, pp. 819-23. Here he underscores the importance of the office for protecting the church from false teachers, especially those who arise within her ranks. It is this internal struggle which is part, a significant part, of the tribulation of the church since the inauguration of the last days. This is one reason why elders are necessary: they are the bodyguards of the flock; and the flock more often than not needs to be protected from the wolves in sheep's clothing who have sneaked in under the fence.

Two questions flow from this. First, what implications does this have for those who play with false teaching or false teachers within a churchly context, be it a church conference, a Sunday service or a presbytery meeting? I do not mean those who appear on seminar panels with atheists and heretics outside of the ecclesiastical realm. I mean those who bring these people into things such meetings of the church as the church or platforms where all are proposed as believers. It surely means that they have failed to fulfill their role as elders and have become part of the problem, not part of the solution. Alleged open-mindedness, curiosity or outward-looking geniality are no excuse. The office of the elder is to keep the serpent out of the garden. It is that simple. And if you cannot stand the social stigma and cultural marginalisation that goes with the task -- inevitably goes with the task, one might stress -- that is OK; you simply need to step down from your position and do something for which you are better equipped.

Second, why do evangelicals, who claim to be people of the Bible, so often try to solve the problems of the church by looking to non-ecclesiastical confederations as the primary platforms to make their stands for the truth? Faced with blasphemy and false teaching in Ephesus, Paul does not develop a strategy of setting up parallel organisations above and beyond the church to solve the problem; rather he instructs Timothy to appoint qualified men as elders. Not a perfect solution -- these men were presumably fallible and sinful like the rest of us -- but it is the biblical solution. That should surely count for a lot in any context where the Bible is taken with appropriate seriousness.

Upcoming Sermon Series...

2011-11-18T18:36:00.003-06:00

Beginning in January (Lord willing) will I will launch a series of sermons through the book of Philippians. I have been spending some time outlining the epistle and the following is what I have come up with:

Partners in the Gospel
A Study of Philippians
1 - Servants, Saints, and the Savior (1:1-2)
2 - Gospel Partnership (1:3-8)
3 - A Knowing, Discerning Love (1:9-11)
4 - Capturing Calamity for Christ (1:12-14)
5 - So Long as Christ is Preached (1:15-18)
6 - How to Live When Dying is Gain (1:18b-26)
7 - Living Worthy of the Gospel (1:27-30)
8 - Have This Mind (2:1-11)
9 - The Song of the Savior (2:5-11)
10 - Of Working and Willing (2:12-13)
11 - The Fruit of Paul's Labors (2:14-18)
12 - Worthy Ministers (2:19-30)
13 - Rejoice in the Lord (3:1)
14 - When Loss is Gain (3:2-11)
15 - Restful Striving (3:12-16)
16 - Following The Right Example (3:17-4:1)
17 - The Agreement that Trumps Differences (4:2-3)
18 - Living in Light of the Nearness of God (4:4-7)
19 - What Do You Think? (4:8-9)
20 - Strengthened for Contentment (4:10-13)
21 - Gospel-Driven Giving (4:14-23)

Sunday's Sermon

2011-11-14T17:29:00.002-06:00

On Sunday I preached part 5 in our current series on the Great Commission, The Mission. It is entitled "For All The World" and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

The Power of God

2011-11-11T08:55:00.001-06:00

Outside of heaven, the power of God in its highest density is found inside the gospel. This must be so, for the Bible twice describes the gospel as "the power of God" [Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:18]. Nothing else in all of Scripture is ever described in this way, except for the Person of Jesus Christ. Such a description indicates that the gospel is not only powerful, but that it is the ultimate entity which God's power resides and does its greatest work.

Indeed, God's power is seen in erupting volcanoes, in the unimaginably hot boil of our massive sun, and in the lightening speed of a recently discovered star seen streaking through the heavens at 1.5 million miles per hour. Yet in Scripture such wonders are never labeled "the power of God." How powerful, then, must the gospel be that it would merit such a title! And how great is the salvation it could accomplish in my life, if I would only embrace it by faith and give it a central place in my thoughts each day!

From A Gospel Primer by Milton Vincent

Church Revitalization: Costly but Worth It...

2011-11-08T18:47:00.004-06:00

I have been deeply encouraged and challenged by Pastor Andrew Davis' testimony of God's faithfulness to reform First Baptist Church of Durham, N.C. Leading a church from unhealthy to healthy is a costly endeavor. The stress can be overwhelming. The attacks from the enemy can feel unrelenting. And certainly, apart from God's grace, church revitalization is impossible.

Take time to read the story of First Baptist Durham. It is a harrowing story but profoundly encouraging.

Rehearsing the Gospel

2011-11-08T17:36:00.005-06:00

There is simply no other way to compete with the forebodings of my conscience, the condemnings of my heart, and the lies of the world and the Devil than to overwhelm such things with daily rehearsings of the gospel.

Milton Vincent from A Gospel Primer (p. 14)

Adam and the Gospel

2011-11-08T14:35:00.002-06:00

Al Mohler led a helpful discussion on the importance of an historical Adam to the Gospel narrative. In addition to Dr. Mohler, the panelists were Jim Hamilton, Tom Schreiner, Chad Brand, and Steve Wellum. Download it audio HERE and video HERE.

On saying "No."

2011-11-08T07:33:00.002-06:00

The Church of our day needs above all else men who can say "No"; for it is only men who can say "No," men who are brave enough to take a stand against sin and error in the Church—it is only such men who can really say "Yea and amen" to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

- J. Gresham Machen

HT: Dan Phillips

Sunday's Sermon

2011-11-08T06:58:00.002-06:00

On Sunday I preached part 4 in our current series The Mission. The sermon is entitled "Our Gospel Imperative" and is based on Matthew 28:16-19a. You can listen to or download it HERE.

Enns, Evolution, and Al Mohler

2011-11-04T14:07:00.002-06:00

Dr. Jim Hamilton has written two helpful posts (here and here) responding to some recent comments from Peter Enns on evolution and the reliability of the Bible. Along the way Dr. Enns takes issue with Al Mohler's commitment to the reliability of the biblical record of origins.

Luther and the Word

2011-11-04T12:52:00.002-06:00

An outstanding address from Dr. Timothy George (a Southern Baptist) on Martin Luther's life and legacy. Excellent...

HT: Justin Taylor

Nine Marks Journal

2011-11-03T10:49:00.005-06:00

The latest edition of the Nine Marks Journal is outstanding. The theme is church revitalization and will be particularly helpful for those who help to lead churches struggling with a significant need for greater health or even reform.

on-line version

PDF

Sunday's Sermon

2011-11-02T07:51:00.002-06:00

October 30 was Reformation Sunday. In light of that I preached a message entitled "Justified" which explores the doctrine of justification by faith from Romans 1:16-17. You can listen to or download it HERE.

A Cup of Joy and Sorrow

2011-10-31T12:18:00.004-06:00

I have started re-reading Douglas Kelley's wonderful exposition of 2 Corinthians, New Life in the Wasteland. Dr. Kelley pays special attention to Paul's insights on the pains and joys of Christian ministry.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. 5 For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. 6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. 7 Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort.

8 For we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. 9 Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead. 10 He delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we have set our hope that he will deliver us again. 11 You also must help us by prayer, so that many will give thanks on our behalf for the blessing granted us through the prayers of many.

- 2 Corinthians 1:3-11

Dr. Kelley writes:

Paul writes about the value of difficulties, pain, and suffering that God may call us to endure from time to time in our Christian service. The Lord mingles our cup very tenderly and graciously with joy and sorrow, testing and pleasure. But from time to time he does call every true servant of his to go through dark places; it is especially this situation that seems to be in view in 2 Corinthians...

Normally the apostle dwells on God's blessing to the church, as he does in 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians; here he does not dwell on what God has done in the lives of the Corinthians, but on what God had done in his own life. Now why does he take this tack in the introduction? The reason is that in verses 3-7 Paul is giving thanks for what God has done in his life in precise connection with the pain that these Corinthians had caused him. He is saying, "You've hurt me but I can even thank God for the hurt that you caused me because good has come out of it." It is a word of grace and forgiveness to this church; it takes a generous and big-hearted man to utter such a word. "You hurt me but God enlarged me through this and further blessings will come to the church through this." (p. 24)

The Gospel is for Pastors Too...

2011-10-31T08:18:00.005-06:00

I am looking forward to reading Tullian's new book Jesus + Nothing = Everything. In it he tells of the tumultuous first years of his ministry [beginning in 2009] as the new pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. Following D. James Kennedy's death, Coral Ridge began pursuing Tchividjian to become their new senior pastor. Tullian however was committed to the church he had planted. After much prayer and planning the decision was made to merge the two churches. And then the proverbial shoe dropped.

With the merger and the leadership transition, a small but vocal group of long-time Coral Ridge members immediately began voicing opposition to practically any and every change we initiated or even considered at the church. Blogs were posted, notes and letters were circulated—some anonymously—with false accusations about me. Just three months after I arrived, a vigorous petition drive was started to get me removed, and it gained steam. Some people began lamenting the huge mistake they’d made in agreeing to the merger, and they grumbled that the whole thing had turned into a “hostile takeover.” Their tone was frequently heated and vicious. Battle lines were drawn, rumors raced, and the spirits of those who supported me sagged. There was a crescendo of misunderstandings, frustration, and pain.

I continued in my determination to bring about what we believed were needed changes at the church, but the virulence of the opposition to them was almost more than I could bear. I was undergoing the shelling of my life—and I was plenty ready to quit and escape elsewhere. I was informed of possible other job offers from around the country, and believe me, they were tempting. It would have been so easy just to walk away from the turmoil I was in and never look back (pp. 21-22).

Church leadership is dangerous. In our context, the danger is usually not physical. Rather, it is dangerous spiritually and emotionally. It is dangerous for a pastor's wife who must help her husband to carry the load. She feels the sting of criticisms leveled against her beloved. In some unfortunate cases, the pastor's wife will be treated poorly by those who oppose her husband's leadership. It is dangerous for a pastor's children who, depending on their age, are able to see their father struggling. Imagine what it must do to a child's love for the body of Christ when they perceive it to be the very thing that makes their father sad.

This is why pastors must regularly, daily, even moment-by-moment declare to themselves gospel truth. Because of the nature of pastoral leadership, the pastor will regularly face the disapproval and even anger of those he is called to lead. There are times when he will respond sinfully which will add the weight of guilt to his already burdened heart. In those times (and many others) the pastor needs the liberating truth of the free grace of God mediated through the Lord Jesus. He needs to learn to take comfort in the acceptance of his crucified Savior, the love of his Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. This the pastor needs, for there will be many days when the costly acceptance of Jesus will be the only acceptance he knows.

Yes, the Reformation still matters

2011-10-31T08:01:00.004-06:00

From an article entitled "Abandon the Reformation, Abandon the Gospel" Matthew Barrett:

Does Reformation theology matter today? Absolutely. It is tempting to think of the Reformation as a mere political or social movement. In reality, however, the Reformation was a fight over the gospel itself. The reformers argued that God's free and gracious acceptance of guilty sinners on the basis of the work of Christ alone is at the heart of the gospel. While the political and social context has changed since the 16th century, nevertheless, this issue remains at the forefront. Much could be said as to why, but here are two reasons as to why the Reformation matters today.

First, for Luther justification by faith alone is the article by which the church stands or falls. Today, however, many question and outright reject the centrality of justification. Take the late Clark Pinnock, for example, who attributes Luther and subsequent Protestants' hangup with justification to fear of a wrathful God. Consequently, Pinnock says, "the legal dimension has dominated our thinking about salvation" (Flame of Love, 155). While the legal dimension is important, it is "not necessarily the central motif." Justification is just one step on the way to transformation. Therefore, it "is not the principal article of all Christian doctrine, as Luther claimed."

What is Pinnock's alternative proposal then? "Being saved is more like falling in love with God." In fact, Pinnock says, "legal thinking and the doctrine of justification are not as prominent in the Bible as we have made them." And here is the kicker: "Luther's rediscovery of justification was important for himself and for 16th-century reforms, but it is not as central for us, and not even for an astute interpretation of Paul's theology."

But God's justification of the ungodly is at the very center of Paul theology (Rom. 4:5). This is why the gospel is such good news! The news is so good because not only has Christ died and risen again (Acts 2:22-36), but now we have the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). No wonder Paul can say that the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek, for "in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith.'" Therefore, Luther's awakening after reading Romans 1:17 was essentially a gospel awakening. To divorce justification from the gospel is to ignore our basic human predicament: how are we, as guilty sinners, to find favor before a holy God? Clearly this was the question in Paul's mind when he concluded, "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1).

Second, there is a strong push in our present day either to return or join with Rome. The most notable example of returning in our present day is Francis J. Beckwith, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, who resigned from his presidency in 2007. While stating that he hopes his Catholic brothers will resist triumphalism, he unequivocally stated, "I, of course, believe that Catholicism is in fact true in all its dogmatic theology, including its views of scripture, ethics, church authority, ecumenical councils, etc." (Return to Rome, 12).

Others argue that evangelicals and Catholics, while remaining distinct, can now join together in light of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, the Lutheran World Federation, the World Communion of Reformed Churches, and the Joint Declaration on Justification. Many believe the rift between Protestants and Catholics has been at least substantially resolved. Hence Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom's book, Is the Reformation Over?. (See Scott M. Mantesch, "Is the Reformation Over? John Calvin, Roman Catholicism, and Contemporary Ecumenical Conversations" Themelios, August 2011.)

But as Michael Horton has recently argued (and R. C. Sproul before him), the Reformation is far from over. "There has been no material change in the Roman Catholic position on the issues that led to the excommunication of the Reformers. Even the Joint Declaration overcame the central doctrine of controversy only by embracing a Roman Catholic definition of justification as forgiveness and actual transformation (i.e., sanctification)." Rome continues to reject the evangelical affirmation of justification by grace alone through faith alone. I agree with Horton when he states that it is not about Luther; it is about the gospel.

While many other challenges to Reformation theology could be identified, these two examples sufficiently demonstrate that Reformation theology continues to be at the center of discussion. Many younger evangelicals are embracing Reformation theology today. But the challenge we will face lies in how to defend Reformation theology to light of new ideologies that seek to undermine its credibility. I believe that the linchpin in the effort to defend and apply Reformation theology today can be found in the simple truth made so clear by Luther himself---namely, that the gospel itself is at stake, just as it was in the 16th century. To abandon Reformation theology is to abandon the gospel.

DeYoung on preaching...

2011-10-29T18:47:00.002-05:00

Kevin DeYoung was the keynote speaker this year at Westminster's annual preaching conference. The addresses were excellent.

Tuesday, October 25:
Burnt to a Crisp - Rev. Kevin DeYoung

Wednesday, October 26:
How Can a Biblical Sermon Be So Boring? The Case for Clarity, Specificity, and Authenticity - Rev. Kevin DeYoung

How Can a Biblical Sermon Be So Boring?: The Case for Ingenuity, Spontaneity, and Authority - Rev. Kevin DeYoung

Does the Trinity Change the Way We Preach? - Rev. Dr. Carl Trueman

I.C.B.I. Again? The Living Word and the Lively Pulpit - Rev. Dr. David B. Garner

The King's Speech: Seeing Preaching as Kingdom Leadership - Rev. John Currie

Bearing our Shame - Rev. Kevin DeYoung

Also, if you attend Church of the Saviour, you will recognize some of the attendees from the pictures.

Church discipline is the gospel in action...

2011-10-27T18:17:00.003-05:00

From an article by Bobby Jamieson:

Church discipline is not a dirty chore—it’s an imitation of the Father’s own relentless pursuit of us. It’s the gospel in action.

The Father did not leave us in our sin, but came to us, and through the gospel rebuked our sin and freely forgave us. So we should not leave others to fester and ultimately perish in their sin, but instead search them out, chase them down, and do everything in our power to bring them back to God’s grace and forgiveness.

When we confront a sinning brother, we should have in hand not only a rebuke but also a blank check of forgiveness. If the brother repents, the check gets quickly written and handed over, and we’ve both won (v. 15).

Without church discipline, sin wins. It fractures fellowship. It sows bitterness and division. It chokes the life out of churches. But God, in the gospel, doesn’t let sin win. He forgives its penalty. He breaks its power. He restores what it stole and heals what it broke.

To rebuke sin and extend forgiveness is to push back the darkness that threatens to extinguish the light of the gospel in someone’s heart. It’s to hack at the roots of evil which try to strangle the life out of the church.

Read the whole thing HERE.

Jesus Plus Nothing...

2011-10-27T17:42:00.004-05:00

Tullian Tchividjian's new book, "Jesus + Nothing = Everything" is now available.

He was recently interviewed about the stormy first few years of his ministry at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. I identified with much of what he said although I have never had to face things like petitions for my dismissal and vandalism to my car. Of course, there is still time. I was also moved by his comments regarding the toll those trials took on his wife. But through it all it was the indellible beauty of the Gospel that sustained him.

I’d never realized how dependent I’d become on human approval and acceptance until so much of it was taken away in the roiling controversy at Coral Ridge. In every church I’d been a part of, I was widely accepted and approved and appreciated. I’d always felt loved in church. Now, for the first time, I found myself in the uncomfortable position of being deeply disliked and distrusted, and by more than a few people. Now I realized just how much I’d been relying on something other than the approval and acceptance and love that were already mine in Jesus. I was realizing in a fresh way the now-power of the gospel—that the gospel doesn’t simply rescue us from the past and rescue us for the future; it also rescues us in the present from being enslaved to things like fear, insecurity, anger, self-reliance, bitterness, entitlement, and insignificance. Through my pain, I was being convinced all over again that the power of the gospel is just as necessary and relevant after you become a Christian as it is before.

Love and Discipline Within The Church

2011-10-24T21:09:00.003-05:00

The following are excellent resources on the meaning of membership and discipline within the church.

Sermons by Jonathan Leeman:

Church Membership and Love

Church Discipline and Love

Jonathan's outstanding book The Surprising Offense of God's Love.

Video - A Biblical Understanding of Church Membership

Video - A Biblical Understanding of Church Discipline

HT: 9Marks

This book has me interested...

2011-10-24T18:24:00.007-05:00

Phillip Carey, professor of philosophy and director of the philosophy program at Eastern University, has written a book that has peaked my interest. This is not a recommendation yet because I have just started reading it. But so far I like what I am reading.

The book is entitled Good News for Anxious Christians: 10 Practical Things You Don't Have to Do. I must admit, I love the subtitle.

In the preface (the only part I have read so far) Dr. Carey writes:

[It] is Christ who redeems us, makes us new, and transforms us. Our practical efforts to transform ourselves - our good works - are just not relevant to this task. Our good works are for our neighbors and provide various outward disciplines that are needed to give order to our lives. The inward transformation of our hearts, however, happens not through anything we try to do but through faith in the gospel, because that's how we receive Christ. He is the One who really changes us.

"The new evangelical theology," which I criticize at length in this book, is my name for a set of supposedly practical ideas about transforming your life that get in the way of believing the gospel. They are the result of a long history of trying to be "practical" in evangelical theology, which has now thoroughly adapted itself to consumer society...

[The new evangelical theology] is essentially a set of interconnected techniques or ritual practices for making God real in your life, establishing a relationship with God, and so on - as if all that kind of thing really depended on you. The techniques all have the characteristic that they turn you away from external things like the word of God, Christ in the flesh, and the life of the church, in order to seek God in your heart, your life, and your experience. Underneath a lot of talk about being personal with God, it's a spirituality that actually leaves you alone with yourself...

[The] best way to change our lives is to hear Christ preached, learn who he is, and put our whole trust in him. The alternative not only leads us away from Christian faith over time, but in the present it has the drawback that it's really boring. Here I think is where pastors have been most seriously misled by the new evangelical theology. Of course, they want to be "practical," to change people and transform their lives, but they preach all about our lives, our experiences, and our hearts - as if the only reason we came to church was to hear about ourselves. The secret about this, which would be really liberating for pastors to learn, is that hearing about ourselves rather Christ all the time is dreary and disheartening.

The table of contents also gets me interested:
1. Why you don't have to hear God's voice in your heart
Or, How God really speaks today

2. Why you don't have to believe your intuitions are the Holy Spirit
Or, How the Spirit shapes our hearts

3. Why you don't have to 'Let God take control"
Or, How obedience is for responsible adults

4. Why you don't have to 'find God's will for your life'
Or, How faith seeks wisdom

5. Why you don't have to be sure you have the right motivations
Or, How love seeks the good

6. Why you don't have to worry about splitting head from heart
Or, How thinking welcomes feeling

7. Why you don't have to keep getting transformed all the time
Or, How virtues make a lasting change in us

8. Why you don't always have to experience joy
Or, How God vindicates the afflicted

9. Why "applying it to your life" is boring
Or, How the gospel is beautiful

10. Why basing faith on experience leads to a post-Christian future
Or, How Christian faith needs Christian teaching

If you know me at all, or ever listen to me preach then you will not be surprised that I was refreshed and delighted just by reading those chapter headings. This evening I will read chapter one and let you know what I think.

Church, Change, and Conflict

2011-10-24T12:53:00.003-05:00

In 2009 Tullian Tchividjian was called to be the senior pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. It made headlines not only because Tullian is the grandson of Billy Graham but because Coral Ridge had been led by only one pastor during her history: D. James Kennedy. Another dynamic made the situation unique. Tchividjian's church would merge with Coral Ridge. The opportunity raised exciting possibilities but also myriad problems. And the problems came. And they came quickly.

Recently, Tullian was interviewed by Christianity Today about the challenges, wounds, and heartbreaks he experienced as the new pastor of Coral Ridge. While the situation is unique, the things Tullian experienced are, sadly, not unusual for a pastor called to lead change.

Some of the reasons you were opposed seem trivial. You didn't wear a robe, like Dr. Kennedy did. You weren't political enough from the pulpit. Was there something beneath those objections?

Not preaching politics was a big one. But yes, I'm sure there was something underlying those complaints. Part of it may have been an old-fashioned power struggle. There were people who had been in places of power under Kennedy who felt that this was their church, and they should be in charge of running it. I think some of them probably saw in me a young guy who would be wide-eyed by coming here and would basically do whatever they said. What they underestimated was that we had prayed and thought hard about what God wanted this church to be, and we were very determined to get there.

What was your initial reaction to the resistance?

Well, we expected it. But it's one thing to talk about war and another to be a soldier on the ground when the bullets are flying. It was hard. It was the first time in my life where I was leading a church where I knew many people didn't like me.

Things started blowing up pretty quickly because there were things that had to change immediately. There were issues on staff that had to be addressed immediately, dangerous things. Yet if you're not in the know, all you see are these changes taking place. To some it looked like we were just being disrespectful, that we were bulls in a china shop. We were coming in as the guest and taking over. So there were a lot of those kinds of accusations. They weren't accurate, but we couldn't disclose all the reasons we had to make the changes.

It was tremendously uncomfortable coming to worship every Sunday morning during that time not knowing who liked you and who hated you. There were people in the choir who, when I would stand up to preach, would get up and walk out. People would sit in the front row and just stare me down as I preached. It was extremely uncomfortable. People would grab me in the hallway between services and say, "You're ruining this church, and I'm going to do everything I can to stop you." I would come out to my car and it would be keyed. Some people would stop at nothing to intimidate.

They put petitions on car windows during the worship service. They started an anonymous blog, which was very painful. Here we were trying to build consensus and there's this anonymous blog fueling rumors and lies. The blog almost ruined my wife's life. Anonymous letters were sent out to the entire congregation with accusations and character assassinations. It was absolutely terrible.

Did you ever question yourself and think, Was I really called here?

Oh, definitely. The shelling got so bad I thought to myself this was a huge mistake. Two churches are ruined now. I could hardly eat, had trouble sleeping, and was continually battling nausea. I felt at the absolute end of myself. In the summer of 2009 when we were in the midst of this, my family and I left to go on vacation. On the first day of vacation, I went out on the balcony of a cabin we rent, looking over the Gulf of Mexico. And I finally just unleashed all of my fury on God. What have you done? I've been trying to keep a stiff upper lip and play the role of martyr for truth. But bottom line is, I'm mad. I've done everything you asked me to do. I put my baby, the church that I planted, on the altar. I didn't want to do this in the first place but I submitted and did it. And this is the payment I get from you?

But then I started thinking, why does this bother me so much? Yes, I have people writing nasty things about me, lying about me, spreading rumors about my team. They're after power. And they're not getting it, and these are the tactics they're using. But why does that bother me so much? I remember saying to God in that moment, "Just give me my old life back." And he said, "It's not your old life you want back. It's your old idols you want back. And I love you too much to give them to you."

I opened up my Bible. In the reading plan I was following, it so happened that the day's passages included the first chapter of Colossians. As I read those verses, my eyes were opened. My true situation came into focus. I'd never realized how dependent I'd become on human approval and acceptance until so much of it was taken away in the roiling controversy at Coral Ridge.

In every church I'd been a part of, I was widely accepted and approved and appreciated. I'd always felt loved in church. Now, for the first time, I found myself in the uncomfortable position of being deeply disliked and distrusted, and by more than a few people. Now I realized just how much I'd been relying on something other than the approval and acceptance and love that were already mine in Jesus.

I was realizing in a fresh way the now-power of the gospel—that the gospel doesn't simply rescue us from the past and rescue us for the future; it also rescues us in the present from being enslaved to things like fear, insecurity, anger, self-reliance, bitterness, entitlement, and insignificance. Through my pain, I was being convinced all over again that the power of the gospel is just as necessary and relevant after you become a Christian as it is before.

When that biblical reality gripped my heart, I was free like I had never felt before in my life. It gives you the backbone to walk into a room full of church leaders and say "this is what we're going to do and this is why we're going to do it, even if it gets me thrown into the street."

There is a fresh I-don't-care-ness that accompanies belief in the gospel. Whether you like me or not doesn't matter, because my worth and my dignity and my identity are anchored in God's approval. Christ won all of the approval and acceptance I need.

Read the whole interview HERE.

On becoming less...

2011-10-19T19:20:00.002-05:00

"Rejoice in the good of others, though it eclipses your light, though it makes your parts, your abilities, and your excellencies dimmer in the eyes of others. Were it not for the eminence of some above you, your parts perhaps would shine more brightly and be of high esteem. Yet to rejoice in this from the heart, to bless God from the soul for His gifts and graces in others, that His name may be glorified more by others than I can glorify it myself; to be able to truly say, ‘Though I can do little, yet blessed be God there are some who can do more for God than I, and in this I do and will rejoice’—this is indeed to be able to do much more than others. This shows a great eminence of spirit."
- Jeremiah Burroughs from Excellency of a Gracious Spirit

Lessons from and questions for the seeker church

2011-10-19T18:57:00.005-05:00

Kevin DeYoung has written a thoughtful reflection on James Emory White's new book, What They Didn't Teach You In Seminary. Dr. White is a mega-church pastor who happens to be in sympathy with seeker church movement. He is certainly an intelligent man who no doubt cares deeply about the church of Jesus Christ. DeYoung lists a number of lessons that we can learn from the seeker church. He also includes some vital questions for those within the seeker movement to ask themselves.

In his conclusion, DeYoung writes:

I’m not sure how to move forward with the impasse between the YRR [Young, Restless, and Reformed] world and the church growth world. No doubt, there are unfortunate stereotypes on both sides. For our part, we could learn from our seeker church brethren when it comes to administration, strategy, being honest about stagnation and lack of evangelism, and being sensitive to the way we are perceived by outsiders. We can be intellectually snobbish and blissfully unconcerned about whether the church grows, reproduces, or multiplies.

As for those on the seeker church side: I encourage you to read ten theological books for every business book. I encourage you trust in the word of God to do the work of God. I encourage you to listen not just to this culture of Christians, but to the centuries of Christians that have come before. I encourage you to explicitly, unapologetically love theology and teach your people to do the same. I encourage you to worship in such a way that it won’t be out of date in five years. I encourage you to use the language of Zion instead of the language of Collins. I encourage you to proclaim, not just to communicate.

And lastly, I encourage all of us to take a hard look at all the deep theological things we learned in seminary (or should have learned) and consider whether their seeming irrelevance is owing to the them, to our people, or to us.

New Christmas Music

2011-10-19T18:50:00.003-05:00

Keith and Kristyn Getty have released a Christmas CD - Joy: An Irish Christmas.

Throw the book at them

2011-10-19T17:52:00.003-05:00

2011 is the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Bible. The impact, both religious and cultural, of this event would be difficult to hyperbolize.

Please take time to listen to Carl Trueman's excellent lecture "Throwing the Book at his Enemies: King James I and his Bible."

Sunday's Sermon

2011-10-18T20:31:00.002-05:00

On Sunday I preached part 3 of our current series The Mission. It is entitled "One Lord" is taken from Matthew 28:16-18. You can listen to or download it HERE.

No Compromise with the World

2011-10-17T09:57:00.002-05:00

Thanks to Carl Trueman at Ref21 for posting the following words from B.B. Warfield:

We see, then, that the Apostle's urgency here [“2 Cor. 6:11 - 7:1”] is against not association with the world, but compromise with the worldly. Compromise! In that one word is expressed a very large part of a Christian's danger in the world. We see it on all sides of us and in every sphere of life. We must be all things to all men, we say, perverting the Apostle's prescription for a working ministry; for there was one thing he would on no account and in no way have us be, even that we may, as we foolishly fancy, win the more; and that is, evil. From evil in all its forms and in all its manifestations he would have us absolutely to separate ourselves; the unclean thing is the thing he would in no circumstances have us handle. Associate with the world, yes! There is no man in it so vile that he has not claims upon us for our association and for our aid. But adopt the standards of the world? No! Not in the least particular. Here our motto must be and that unfailingly: No compromise!

The very thing which the Apostle here presses upon our apprehension is the absolute conflict between the standards of the world and the standards of Christians; and the precise thing which he requires of us is that in our association with the world we shall not take on our necks the alien yoke of an unbeliever's point of view, of an unbeliever's judgment of things, of an unbeliever's estimate of the right and wrong, the proper and improper. In all our association with unbelievers, we, as Christian men, are to furnish the standard; and we are to stand by our Christian standard, in the smallest particular, unswervingly. Any departure from that standard, however small or however desirable it may seem, is treason to our Christianity. We must not, in any case, take the alien yoke of an unbeliever's scheme of life upon our necks.

"Bring the books"

2011-10-14T13:53:00.001-05:00

When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.
2 Timothy 4:13

"We do not know what the books were about, and we can only form some guess as to what the parchments were. Paul had a few books which were left, perhaps wrapped up in the cloak, and Timothy was to be careful to bring them. Even an apostle must read. Some of our very ultra Calvinistic brethren think that a minister who reads books and studies his sermon must be a very deplorable specimen of a preacher. A man who comes up into the pulpit, professes to take his text on the spot, and talks any quantity of nonsense, is the idol of many. If he will speak without premeditation, or pretend to do so, and never produce what they call a dish of dead men's brains—oh! that is the preacher. How rebuked are they by the apostle! He is inspired, and yet he wants books! He has been preaching at least for thirty years, and yet he wants books! He had seen the Lord, and yet he wants books! He had had a wider experience than most men, and yet he wants books! He had been caught up into the third heaven, and had heard things which it was unlawful for a men to utter, yet he wants books! He had written the major part of the New Testament, and yet he wants books! The apostle says to Timothy and so he says to every preacher, "Give thyself unto reading." The man who never reads will never be read; he who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains, proves that he has no brains of his own. Brethren, what is true of ministers is true of all our people. You need to read. Renounce as much as you will all light literature, but study as much as possible sound theological works, especially the Puritanic writers, and expositions of the Bible. We are quite persuaded that the very best way for you to be spending your leisure, is to be either reading or praying. You may get much instruction from books which afterwards you may use as a true weapon in your Lord and Master's service. Paul cries, "Bring the books"—join in the cry."

- Charles Spurgeon

Lay your convictions bare

2011-10-13T17:54:00.003-05:00

“When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin; you must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith.”

- Abraham Kuyper

On Guard

2011-10-13T08:33:00.003-05:00

To be an elder is a high and sober calling. Scripture makes clear what that calling requires from the man who fills that office. I am fortunate to serve in a church whose elders I am able to honor with a clear conscience. If you are part of a church with faithful elders give thanks to God. They are a blessing.

Carl Trueman writes well of the distinictive qualification for elders:

Last week, I posted a note on Ref21 concerning the importance of guarding the teaching office in the church. As a result of that, I was asked what the implications of such might be for those often called 'ruling elders' in Presbyterianism, men who are called to leadership roles within the church which involve significant doctrinal responsibility but who are not regularly engaged in preaching or the administration of the sacraments.

Such elders are, according to Paul, to be competent to teach (1 Tim. 3:2) and doctrinally sound and trustworthy (Tit. 1:9), in addition to being competent managers of their own lives, above reproach and respected in the wider community outside the church. Needless to say, the vows they take are as serious and as binding as those who preach (incidentally, membership vows are just as solemnly binding; a vow is, after all, a vow). And they do need to take such vows -- accountability is critical for all involved in any way in the public teaching of God's word.

Doctrinal competence is non-negotiable. It is the one major difference between qualifications for being a deacon and being an elder and it speaks clearly to the nature of the office. Elders have responsibility for the doctrinal integrity of the congregations in which they are placed. They are to be sound in life and doctrine and be able to teach. This does not necessarily mean pulpit ministry; but it does mean the ability to instruct others in the faith in some church context, as, for example Sunday school or pastoral visitation or in so

This means that the elders are have a responsibility to make sure that the minister's teaching each week is orthodox. If it is not so, and if they then fail to act, they are as culpable for the propagation of error as the minister himself.

It also means that the elders are to help ensure an environment conducive to the sound teaching of the word. This may take many forms. Most significant, I believe, is the consistent protection of the minister from hypercritical members of the congregation. This is not because the minister is above criticism but because he is always vulnerable to discouragement at the hands of cranks with assorted axes to grind. Elders should function as his bodyguard, weeding out unfair criticism and rebuking crackpots.

Because of the huge responsibility towards the church which elders carry, they are also to continue to study diligently and thus to make sure that their knowledge of theology is constantly being strengthened.

Finally, elders find their place in a structure of accountability which connects
congregation to eldership to presbytery, at least if one is a Presbyterian. The call comes from the congregation. There is no self-appointment to this role any more than there is with ministers. Public accountability to the church is the name of the game. After all, when it comes to the public teaching of the Word and the promotion of that teaching, there are no biblical structures of accountability which are not simultaneously churchly structures of accountability.

Clear thinking on Mormonism

2011-10-11T20:03:00.005-05:00

With the presidential campaign in full swing, Mitt Romney's candidacy has brought the issue of Mormonism into the public debate. Mormonism is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. It is not longer the backwoods little cult struggling to survive in northwest Missouri. But while there is more public acceptance of Mormonism than there was in the mid 19th century, it is still as far from Christianity as any other false religion.

Al Mohler writes:

Mormonism does not claim to be just another denomination of Christianity. To the contrary, the central claim of Mormonism is that Christianity was corrupt and incomplete until the restoration of the faith with the advent of the Latter-Day Saints and their scripture, The Book of Mormon. Thus, it is just a matter of intellectual honesty to take Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, at his word when he claimed that true Christianity did not exist from the time of the Apostles until the reestablishment of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods on May 15, 1829.

From a Christian perspective, Mormonism is a new religion, complete with its own scripture, its own priesthood, its own rituals, and its own teachings. Most importantly, those teachings are a repudiation of historic Christian orthodoxy — and were claimed to be so from the moment of Mormonism’s founding forward. Mormonism rejects orthodox Christianity as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.

Mormonism starts with an understanding of God that rejects both monotheism and the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Mormon concept of God includes many gods, not one. Furthermore, Mormonism teaches that we are now what God once was and are becoming what He now is. This is in direct conflict with historic Christianity.

Mormonism rejects the Bible as the sole and sufficient authority for the faith, and insists that The Book of Mormon and other authoritative Latter-Day Saints writings constitute God’s final revelation. Furthermore, the authority in Mormonism is mediated through a human priesthood, through whom God is claimed to speak directly and authoritatively to the church. Nothing makes the distinction between Mormonism and historic Christianity more clear than the experience of reading The Book of Mormon. The very subtitle of The Book of Mormon — Another Testament of Jesus Christ — makes one of Mormonism’s central claims directly and candidly: That we need another authority to provide what is lacking in the New Testament...

It is neither slander nor condescension to state clearly that Mormonism is not Christianity. Taking Mormonism on its own terms, one finds a comprehensive set of teachings and doctrines that are self-consciously set against historic Christianity. The larger world may be confused about this, but biblical Christians cannot make this error, for we are certain that the consequences are eternal.

Next, Dr. Mohler addresses whether or not Christians should vote for a Mormon:

It is on this question that Evangelicals must think forcefully, faithfully . . . and fast. We need to recognize that we are asking this question from a privileged historical and political context. For most of our nation’s history, voters have chosen among presidential candidates who were identified, to one degree or another, with some form of Protestant Christianity. To date, for example, America has had only one Roman Catholic president and one Jewish candidate for vice president as a major party nominee.

It can be argued that our contemporary political context puts greater emphasis on the religious identity of candidates at all levels than has ever been experienced in American history. Both major political parties have sought various elements of the religious electorate and have developed strategies accordingly.

Read on HERE.

Sunday's Sermon

2011-10-11T19:53:00.002-05:00

On Sunday I preached a sermon from Matthew 16:13-20 entitled "Christ Builds His Church." You can listen to or download the sermon HERE.

Indelible Grace

2011-10-11T19:12:00.002-05:00

This Sunday (October 15) Indelible Grace will be leading worship in all three morning services at Church of the Saviour.

Indelible Grace Music grew out of ministering to college students, primarily through Reformed University Fellowship (RUF). We saw many touched by the gospel, and gripped by the rich theology and great poetry of the hymns of the Church. As these students began to taste more of the depth of the gospel and the richness of the hymn tradition, many began to join the music of their culture with the words of our forefathers (and mothers!), and a movement was born.

Our goal is not change for change's sake, but to rekindle a love of hymns and to invite many who would never associate rich passion with hymns to actually read the words. We believe that we are impoverished if we cut off our ties with the saints of the past, and that we fail to be faithful to God in our own moment of history if we don't attempt to praise Him in forms that are authentic to who we are.

We believe that the words of a hymn actually have more emotional nuance than one piece of music can adequately capture. Thus singing even familiar hymns with different music can bring out shades of meaning that had remained unnoticed. For instance, while the traditional music for Toplady's "Rock of Ages" conveys the power and strength of the words, James Ward's more recent tune brings out the sweetness and tenderness that is also part of the emotion in the lyric.

Many wonderful hymns have unfortunately fallen out of use and part of our love is searching old hymnals for hymns and hymnwriters that have been forgotten. How many today have heard of Anne Steele? She was the first female hymnwriter, the first to write hymns of lament without happy endings, and the first to meditate on the inadequacy of human language to express our love to God. Her hymns are incredibly relevant to what we often consider very modern issues and yet most hymnals include almost nothing by her. But when students read her words, now set to music that connects to them, they are blown away. They are able to have the incredible experience of communing spiritually with a saint who lived and suffered 300 years ago in a little town in the English countryside. All of the sudden, the kingdom of God grows bigger for them. They see that the Body of Christ is huge! We hope that you too can experience the "mystic sweet communion" with those who have gone before us.

But our true goal is even more ambitious. We want to be a voice calling our generation back to something rich and solid and beyond the fluff and the trendy. We want to remind God's people that thinking and worship are not mutually exclusive, and that not everything worth knowing happened in the last three years. We want to invite the Church to appreciate her heritage without idolizing it. We want to open up a world of passion and truth and make it more that just an archaic curiosity for the religiously sentimental. We believe worship is formative, and that it does matter what we think. So, we hope this site will prove helpful in encouraging and nurturing a growing movement. We want to provide resources such as chord charts, CDs, and useful links. But we also want to share with you the stories behind the authors of the hymns, and in many cases the stories behind the writing of the hymns themselves, as well as theological reflections upon the hymns. We believe that this theological poetry is supremely suited for expressing the seeming paradoxes of the faith that drive us to worship. Our prayer is that Jesus would be made more beautiful and believable, and we have found few things better suited for this than hymns.

"O Love incomprehensible, That made Thee bleed for me The Judge of all hath suffered death, To set His prisoner free!"

Soli Deo Gloria, Rev. Kevin Twit
Campus Minister, Reformed University Fellowship at Belmont University

Hazardous

2011-10-07T19:17:00.002-05:00

From a disturbing article published by the Schaeffer Institute:

When I was with another church growth consulting firm, we did a major study of pastors and came up with some astounding statistics. We found that 90% of pastors work more than 50 hours a week. One out of three pastors state that being in the ministry is clearly hazardous for their families. One out of three pastors felt totally burned out within the first five years of ministry. Over 70% of pastors do not have anyone they would consider to be a friend, and hardly any pastors had any close friends. Ninety percent (90%) of pastors feel they were not adequately trained to cope with ministry coordination and the demands of the congregation. Seventy-five percent (75%) of pastors experience a significant crisis that they faced due to stress in the ministry (Fuller Institute, 1989-1992). We at the FASICLD retested that data by various means starting in 1998 and also retested the results in an internet survey form several times over the last eight years. We found it has slightly worsened. Most pastors now work up to and more than 60 hours a week. Hence, why the divorce rate among pastors is rising and pastor’s children rarely stay in the church or keep their faith. In both studies, over 40% of the pastors reported serious conflicts with their parishioners every month. This leaves pastors physically tired, spiritually weary, and even distant from God! Thus, they cannot properly minister or connect with their flock.

Repenting of Ministry

2011-10-07T13:11:00.006-05:00

A story from Reuters records the following sad words concerning Steve Jobs' decision to authorize a biography on his life:

Steve Jobs, in pain and too weak to climb stairs a few weeks before his death, wanted his children to understand why he wasn’t always there for them, according to the author of his highly anticipated biography.

“I wanted my kids to know me,” Jobs was quoted as saying by Pulitzer Prize nominee Walter Isaacson, when he asked the Apple Inc co-founder why he authorized a tell-all biography after living a private, almost ascetic life.

“I wasn’t always there for them, and I wanted them to know why and to understand what I did,” Jobs told Isaacson in their final interview at Jobs’ home in Palo Alto, California.

I was not shocked by Jobs' acknowledgement that his vision for Apple took priority over his children. This does not, after all, seem to be the exception but the rule for many corporate leaders and visionaries. What struck me is that he seems to lack remorse for this reality. Clearly, I do not know what was going through Jobs' mind. I certainly am not his judge. But taking his words at face value it seems that he is justifying the fact that his children do not really know him but that once they read his biography perhaps they will understand why. I wonder what solace that will provide his children?

Of course, I'm no better than Jobs. I've never invented anything, although I was pretty creative with Legos as a child. I'll never be wealthy unless there is something about my family that I do not yet know. People will never hail me as a game changer or genius. No, really, they won't. And yet this I have in common with Jobs: my tendency to sacrifice my children (and my wife, for that matter) to my calling.

A few nights ago my wife had, what we like to call down south, "a come to Jesus meeting" with me. For not one moment did I like the things she said to me. For what seemed like an agonizingly long time I heard that I was not available or responsive. I heard that I was not encouraging or even loving. This was no run-of-the-mill, "honey could you do a little better" talk. All this one needed was a woodshed and willow switch. I resisted what she said. I denied it. It seemed so unfair. It was a Sunday. It was late. I was exhausted. Didn't she know the kinds of pressures I have been under the last several months? But she was absolutely right.

It has become increasingly clear that my commitments to pastoring a church have cost my wife and children far too much. Don't panic. We are not falling apart. My children do not hate me and my wife, by God's grace, is long suffering. But if I keep doing things the way I have been doing things, then a day will come when I will be looking for a biographer to tell my story so my children will know who I was.

It is sad, but my experience is not unique. Even worse, the experience of my wife and children is not unique. Pastoral ministry is a beautiful calling and I am grateful beyond words to be among those whom God has called into such a noble task. But being a pastor is often about as pleasant as having a molar with an exposed nerve. It can even land one in an emergency room.

I hope I don't sound like I'm whining. Self-pity is one of the ugly side effects of trying to be a martyr for the ministry. But there is something desperately wrong with American church culture. There is something desperately wrong with the way pastors are pastoring. And it is our fault; all of us. Parishoners have expectations that cannot possibly be met. Pastors have made promises they cannot possibly keep. Any man in that position will end up in divorce court, the loony bin, the emergency room, or all three.

Therefore, I repent of ministry. I repent of trying to be the pastor I cannot be. I repent of bringing sadness and stress into my home. I repent of laughing too little and worrying too much. I repent of saying "yes" too often to ministry commitments and "no" too often to family responsibilities. I repent of allowing the way I pastor to rob me of the joy of being a pastor.