Bible Study Help

I posted on Biblearc.com a while back. Seeing Justin Taylor's post on it today prompted me to give another opportunity to check out this very helpful approach to studying the Bible.

Tom Steller recently wrote about the wonderful tool that's been developed, Biblearc.com:

It is a crucial tool in our discipleship of those preparing for a vocational ministry of the Word and for hungry men and women and teens who simply want to see more clearly the beauty of biblical truth in its scriptural context. Biblearc.com has made the method so much easier to learn, to teach, to use, and to share insights with others.

It was developed by a graduate of The Bethlehem Institute, who is currently preparing to go to the Middle East to spread a passion for the supremacy of Christ among unreached peoples there. He is in process of donating Biblearc.com to Bethlehem College and Seminary, who will pay him to maintain and further develop the site, which in turn will contribute toward his missionary support.

Tom writes:
Though the site is free for anyone in the world to use, a growing number have chosen to subscribe to a service which allows you to store your arcs on line and share them easily with others. This $10 yearly subscription will allow us to contribute toward the support of this couple serving in the Middle East. Like a lot of things we do, this subscription fee is a “whatever you can afford” fee. So if you can afford only $5 a year, that’s ok. If you can afford $50 a year and want to support this missionary couple that would be great as well.

Here are a few improvements that have been recently made to Biblearc.com:

• a "Share" section by which you can view others' work, with Email Alerts
• ability to Email Your Arc from the site
• Instant Parsing of Greek words
• the Old Testament in both English and Hebrew
• LBLA (Spanish translation) added
• Auto-Save option
• Translucent Sticky Notes
• new Tabs for easier viewing of your arc, notes, and comments
• Rich Text Editor for propositions, sticky notes, and notes tab
• Instant Search of your arcs
• new Arc Graphics (for Chrome, Firefox, and Safari) that are 10x faster and
  much more attractive

The voice of Jesus in the book of James

Over at Ref21 there is an excellent article by Anthony Selvaggio on the nature of James' epistle.

James D.G. Dunn once referred to the epistle of James as "the most Jewish, the most undistinctively Christian document in the New Testament." [1] We all know that Martin Luther had serious concerns about the content of the epistle of James referring to it as "an epistle of straw" and noting that it contained "nothing of the nature of the gospel." [2] The epistle of James has been saddled with accusations of being "sub-Christian" and bereft of Jesus. On top of all this, the epistle has to be continually defended against charges that it conflicts with the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Clearly, the epistle of James is much maligned and, in my opinion, these charges have resulted in a paucity of preaching Christ from the epistle of James. While it does require some additional exegetical effort, the voice of Jesus can be heard among the verses of this grand epistle. In fact, the voice of Jesus can be heard in the epistle of James in ways it is heard no where else in the New Testament epistolary corpus. This article will explore three ways in which the voice of Christ resounds in the epistle of James.

Read the entire article HERE.

Just for Fun

It's Official: PETA is Insane!

Check out this story.

The Disappearing Pulpit

“In Reformed churches, the tradition has been to put the Pulpit in the center because of the centrality of preaching and the Word as a means of grace. The Pulpit is not just a utility stand for the preacher to use to hold his notes, but a weighty visual anchor to point to the significance of the proclaimed Word itself (which is why some churches have favored massive pulpits). In fact, some churches have a big pulpit (with Bible) in the center that is used only for preaching, with a smaller lectern to the side used for other readings and worship leading.

In contemporary times, we’ve seen a reduction of pulpit size generally because of our culture’s increasing emphasis on the person doing the preaching. We don’t want our preachers hiding behind a wall. We want to see them, and connect with them as people, not just with their spoken ideas. That emphasis has its pastor-as-rock-star dangers of course, but it’s also an expression of the incarnated Word. God comes to us not as an idea, but as a person who empties himself of greatness and loves and suffers and dies along side us and in our place. The preacher does the same in trying to bear witness with their whole being.

So I think the way we’ve reduced the pulpit is entirely appropriate, though I’d rather not see the pulpit disappear altogether. The Word is still central. And even more than the Pulpit, we should find a place for the Bible as a visual reminder.”
- Steven Koster

Check out the entire post HERE.

Why I must still protest

This month's issue of Modern Reformation (my favorite magazine) focuses on the lasting relevance of John Calvin (2009 is the 500 anniversary of Calvin's birth). In his article "Is Calvin Still Relevant after 500 Years" Michael Horton explains clearly why I am a deliberate Protestant and why Protestants must continue to point out our differences with Rome.

Horton writes:

Not out of any relish for the five-century split, but out of concern for the only source of the church's existence, unity, and mission, a couple of fairly recent news items are worth bearing in mind when we ask whether John Calvin is still relevant after five centuries.

U.S. newspapers have recently been running stories on the Vatican's 'Year of St. Paul.' The focus of most articles is teh pope's decision to offer indulgences to celebrate the 2000th anniversary of the apostle's birth. Best known for his rich proclamation of free grace and severe condemnation of any church that would preach a different gospel, Paul's birth being celebrated with indulgences is ironic in the extreme. The special year is to last unitl June 2009. According to the Vatican website:

"The gift of Indulgences which the Roman Pontiff offers to the universal Church, truly smoothes the way to attaining a supreme degree of inner purification which, while honouring the Blessed Apostle Paul, exalts the supernatural life in the hearts of the faithful and gently encourages them to do good deeds...[Supplicants who do this] will be granted the Plenary [full] Indulgence from temporal punishment for his/her sins, once sacramental forgiveness and pardon for any shortcomings has been obtained...The Christian faithful may benefit from the Plenary Indulgence both for themselves and for the deceased, as many times as they fulfill the required conditions but without prejudice to the norm stipulating that the Plenary Indulgence may be obtained only once a day."

The conditions of the indulgence are also clearly stipulated. Absolution will be granted to the soul that does penance, receives Communion, makes a pilgrimage to the Papal Basilica of St. Paul in Rome, 'devoutly recites the Our Father adn the Creed, adding pious invocations in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Paul...and who prays for the Supreme Pontiff's intentions.' If they do this 'in a spirit of total detachment from any inclination to sin' and also 'take part devoutly in a sacred function or in a pious public exercise in honour of the Apostle to the Gentiles' during this 'Pauline Year,' they may receive time off in purgatory up to full (plenary) exoneration.

For anyone who might not recall, the sale of indulgences built St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and provoked Luther's Ninety-Five Theses. Since the mid-nineteenth century, direct payment of money is forbidden, but charitable contributions are part of the penance that contributes to the indulgence. Like Luther, Calvin criticized indulgences not merely for overarching for salvation, but because of the grotesque distortion of the gospel that could make such a travesty possible...

[In] mid-celebration, the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity issued a caution. The statement began by praising the consensus announced in the Joint Declaration, but then added, 'The Catholic Church is, however, of the opinion that we cannot yet speak of a consensus such as would eliminate every difference between Catholics and Lutherans in the understanding of justificaiton.' Citing the Council of Trent, the Pontifical Council reminded Roman Catholics that they must hold as dogma that 'eternal life, is, at one and the same time, grace and the reward given by God for good works and merits.'

Understanding Pastors

Andy Naselli posted the following:

Dan Burrell, a former pastor, offers what he calls “some things that I’m guessing your pastor wishes you knew about him” (part 1 / part 2).

He lists ten main points:
1. Bible college and seminary weren’t enough.
2. Good sermon preparation takes time.
3. His family is important too.
4. Be kind if you have a criticism.
5. Give your pastor time to grow.
6. Your pastor probably views you differently than you view him.
7. Pastors sometimes find it difficult to have friendships.
8. Your pastor may well be different out of the pulpit than when he’s in the pulpit and that doesn’t necessarily make him a hypocrite.
9. Your pastor has bills too.
10. Your pastor loves the work of the ministry.

I really resonate with these words. I must confess that we pastors can tend toward self-pity. I think that is born chiefly in the fact that we often times feel as if no one understands us. Boo Hoo! Right? Whether right or wrong I think Dan Burrell's post gives some valuable insight into why we pastors are the way we are.

"Shaping God's People with the Word"

I found the following helpful post over at Justin Taylor's place:

This weekend I started reading the new book, Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word: A Model of Faith and Thought (IVP, 2009), by Doug Sweeney, Professor of Church History and the History of Christian Thought at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Director of the Carl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding.

Just in reading the Preface and the Introduction: The Word in Edwards'World (both available free on the IVP site), I found myself resonating with Sam Storms' blurb, who wrote, "I love this book! . . . I highly recommend it!" (Read the full blurbs here.)

The book closes with seven theses for discussion. Sweeney writes, it is naive to think that we should try to replicate his ministry. His world was different from ours. We face new challenges today. The question is not how we might clone him. Rather, the question is how to live in our own, twenty-first-century world, loving the people whom we serve, but using insights and examples gleaned from Edwards' life and ministry to enhance our Christian faith and fortify our gospel witness. (p.197)

Here are the seven theses (the book contains an explanation of each):
1. Edwards shows us the importance of working to help people gain a vivid sense, an urgent impression, of God's activity in our world.
2. Edwards shows us that true religion is primarily a matter of holy affections.
3. Edwards shows us the advantages of keeping an eschatological perspective on our lives.
4. Edwards shows us how God uses those who lose their lives for Christ.

5. Edwards shows us that theology can and should be done primarily in the church, by pastors, for the sake of the people of God.
6. Edwards shows us that even the strongest Christians need support from others.
7. Edwards shows us the necessity of remaining in God's Word.

I want to draw attention to one of Sweeney's theses in particular (see the previous post): #5, namely, that "theology can and should be done primarily in the church, by pastors, for the sake of the people of God" (p. 199). Sweeney writes:

In the early twenty-first century, when many pastors have abdicated their responsibilities as theologians, and many theologians do their work in a way that is lost on the people of God, we need to recover Edwards' model of Christian ministry. Most of the best theologians in the history of the church were parish pastors. Obviously, however, this is not the case today. Is it any wonder, then, that many struggle to think about their daily lives theologically, and often fail to understand the basics of the faith? I want to be realistic here. A certain amount of specialization is inevitable in complex, market-driven economies. And the specialization of roles within God's kingdom can enhance our Christian ministries. But when our pastors spend the bulk of their time on organizational matters, and professors spend the bulk of their time on intramural academics, no one is left to do the crucial work of shaping God's people with the Word. Perhaps our pastors and professors, Christian activists and thinkers, need to collaborate more regularly in ministry. Perhaps the laity need to give their pastors time to think and write--for their local congregations and the larger kingdom of God. [my emphasis]

It looks like I have another book to work into my summer reading.

Interview with Stephen Nichols

I love Steve Nichols' books. He seems incapable of making the history of the church and theology boring. I highly recommend that you add his books to your reading list.

I was pleased to have lunch with Steve and Carl Trueman from Westminster last week. God willing COS will be blessed to host these two men sometime next year for a special event.

Check out this interview with Steve Nichols:

Our Times are in His Hands

World events (here and here) could easily be an occassion for despair. Quite honestly, it's getting ugly out there. It is in times like these that God's people must remember who is ultimately in control. Certainly God uses means to accomplish His purposes. He has used good men and wicked men. He has used times of prosperity and times of depression. God has used diplomacy and war to bring about His sovreign will.

It is good to have godly people serving in politics and the military. But may we never forget that our times are not ultimately determined by any president, congressman, judge, or general. What is more, our lives do not, in the end, rest in the wicked designes of dictators and jihadists.

"The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will."

- Proverbs 21:1

"Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases."

- Psalm 115:3

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place..."

- Acts 17:24-26

"In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will."

- Ephesians 1:11

God's Sovereignty in Times of Crisis (audio with Derek Thomas)

Providence by J.I. Packer

God's Sovereignty Defined by A.W. Pink

Boasting Removed by God's Sovereignty by Charles Spurgeon

Good and Angry

David Powlison has written an article that addresses the question, "Is anger morally neutral?"

The anger of people toward genuine wrongs is usually mixed. Anger is a just and justified response to true evils, an expression of the image of God. The fact that we see a wrong as wrong is a good thing; the fact that we care enough to be troubled is a good thing. But human beings tend to return evil for evil, expressing the image of the evil one. For example, a person can get angry for good reasons, but express the anger in many wrong ways. The mix can be tipped significantly towards either end of the spectrum. Sometimes it is barely good, quickly returning evil for evil. Sometimes it is significantly good in patiently and firmly facing down evil (though who of us is immune to the infiltration of self-righteousness?).

Read the entire article HERE.

Any thoughts?

Quotable

"In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair. . . . the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die."

Dorothy Sayers, quoted in D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God, page 53.

Take and Read

Genesis in Space and Time by Francis Schaeffer.

Publisher Review: Genesis is a book of orgins--the orgin of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of man. It places man in his cosmic setting, shows his particular uniquness, explains his wonder and his flaw, and begins to trace the flow of human history through space and time.Many today, however, view this book as a collection of myths, useful for understanding the Hebrew mind, perhaps, but certainly not a record of what really happened. Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer challenges that view and shows how the first eleven chapters of Genesis stand as a solid, space-time basis for answering the tough questions posed by modern man.

Buy it HERE.

I'm thinking about getting one of these...

Check it out HERE.

Resolved Conference

Check it out HERE. Live streaming available.

"O wretched man that I am!"

It is well frequently to weigh ourselves in the scale of God's Word. You will find it a holy exercise to read some psalm of David, and, as you meditate upon each verse, to ask yourself, "Can I say this? Have I felt as David felt? Has my heart ever been broken on account of sin, as his was when he penned his penitential psalms? Has my soul been full of true confidence in the hour of difficulty as his was when he sang of God's mercies in the cave of Adullam, or in the holds of Engedi? Do I take the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord?" Then turn to the life of Christ, and as you read, ask yourselves how far you are conformed to His likeness. Endeavour to discover whether you have the meekness, the humility, the lovely spirit which He constantly inculcated and displayed. Take, then, the epistles, and see whether you can go with the apostle in what he said of his experience. Have you ever cried out as he did—"O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death"? Have you ever felt his self-abasement? Have you seemed to yourself the chief of sinners, and less than the least of all saints? Have you known anything of his devotion? Could you join with him and say, "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain"? If we thus read God's Word as a test of our spiritual condition, we shall have good reason to stop many a time and say, "Lord, I feel I have never yet been here, O bring me here! give me true penitence, such as this I read of. Give me real faith; give me warmer zeal; inflame me with more fervent love; grant me the grace of meekness; make me more like Jesus. Let me no longer be 'found wanting,' when weighed in the balances of the sanctuary, lest I be found wanting in the scales of judgment." "Judge yourselves that ye be not judged."

- Charles Spurgeon from this morning's entry in Morning and Evening

I don't mean to sound morbid but the longer I serve in pastoral ministry the more necessary I find it to expose the ugliness of my own sin. It's too easy for me to be proud. I am blessed by many kind friends who say many kind things to me. That is a blessing that goes beyond my ability to offer adequate gratitude. But I know the deceitfulness of my own heart. I know my tendency to take good gifts from God and use them as an occasion for sin.

Thank God for his grace whereby He continually tethers my wandering heart to Himself. If it were not for this I would surely be lost. It is not a stretch for me to confess of myself: "the chief of sinners." Truly I am the worst sinner I know. Not because my crimes would be deemed most foul by the state but because the duplicity in my own heart reveals not only my appetite for sin but my ability to rationalize it.

One of the challenges I am presenting myself is to always take my own sin more seriously than I take the sin of anyone else; to consider my sin worse; to be offended more by sin than that of anyone else.

If this all sounds depressing please understand that there is something deeply liberating about honesty with oneself. It is a relief to name what those who know me best see in me. It keeps me dependent upon daily mercies and makes me thankful for grace received.

What God permits He wills

I am often asked about those texts of Scripture that tell of God "willing" a wicked thing (Acts 4:27-28) or "sending" a wicked spirit (1 Sam 16:14) or using wicked men to accomplish His purpose (Acts 2:23). These are deep mysteries and reveal the distance between our minds and the mind of God.

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! 

How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
“For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?”

“Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?”

Romans 11:33-35

Time and again the Scriptures assert God's sovereign control over all that comes to pass. But how then do we guard the notion that God is not the author of sin? How do we hold up the truth that God is not guilty of the sins of His subordinate creatures? It must be acknowleged from the start that unless we embrace a certain level of mystery then we will surely wander into error. But that is not to say that God has left us entirely ignorant on this matter.

Calvin writes:

God so Uses the Works of the Ungodly, and So Bends
Their Minds to Carry Out His Judgments, That He Remains Pure from Every Stain

1. No mere "permission"!

From other passages, where God is said to bend or draw Satan himself and all the wicked to His will, there emerges a more difficult question. For carnal sense can hardly comprehend how in acting through them he does not contract some defilement from their transgression, and even in a common undertaking can be free of all blame, and indeed can justly condemn his ministers. Hence the distinction was devised between doing and permitting because to many this difficulty seemed inexplicable, that Satan all the impious are so under God's hand and power that he directs their malice to whatever end seems good to Him, and uses theire wicked deeds to carry out his judgments. And perhaps the moderation of those whom the appearance of absurdity alarms would be excusable, except that they wrongly try to clear God's justice of every sinister mark by upholding falsehood. It seems absurd to them for man, who will soon be punished for his blindness, to be blinded by God's will and command. Therefore they escape by the shift that this is done only with God's permission, not also by His will; but He, openly declaring that He is the doer, repudiates that evasion. However, that men can accomplish nothing except by God's secret command, that they cannot by delibeating accomplish anything except what he has already decreed with himself and determines by His secret direction, is before from the psalm, that God does whatever he wills [Ps. 115:3], certainly pertains to all the actions of men...

God's will is not therefore at war with itself, nor does it change, nor does it pretend not to will what He wills. But even though His will is one and simple in Him, it appears manifold to us because, on account of our mental incapacity, we do not grasp how in divers ways it wills and does not will something to take place...

"There is a great difference between what is fitting for man to will and what is fitting for God, and to what end the will of each is directed, so that it be either approved or disapproved. For through the bad wills of evil men God fulfills what he righteously wills" [quoting Augustine].

I have been blessed in reading once again Calvin's Institutes. If you have never read the Institutes then I encourage you to do so. In my opinion, outside of Scripture, there is no other theological writings that compare in depth of insight, devotional wisdom, and doxological affection.

Wright on Justification

Over at Ref21 Guy Waters reviews N.T. Wrights recently published Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision. Many of you are aware of the controversy surrounding this issue. N.T. Wright departs from the classic understanding of justification. John Piper recently published a thorough response to Wright's view of justification entitled The Future of Justification.

Read Dr. Waters' review HERE.

Is God an Evolutionist?

Gene Veith has an interesting post on the idea of theistic evolution - the idea that God used the means of evolution to bring about the world that is. I have expressed the opinion that the theory of man having descended from lower life forms is not consistent with the biblical record. I still hold to that. I don't care about the age of the earth so let's not get off on that tangent. I am unconvinced by much that has come out of the "creation science" groups such as "Answers in Genesis". I have however found much of the work from the Intelligent Design folks like Dembski to be helpful.

As stated, I do not find the evolution of mankind from bacteria and lemurs to be consistent with the biblical record. But I do not break fellowship with those who believe that it is in harmony with the biblical witness. I would like them to change their minds but I by no means despise them. I have brothers and sisters in Christ who differ with me on this issue.

That said, Dr. Veith quotes from an article in the Washington Post by John G. West:

The real sticking point is Darwin’s claim that all of life–human beings included–developed through a blind and undirected process of natural selection acting on random variations. In the words of late Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”

There are ways to try to reconcile Darwinism’s undirected process with theism, but they involve throwing overboard some long-cherished beliefs about God.

The first idea to go is the belief that God directed the development of life toward specific ends. According to biologist Kenneth Miller, one of the most prominent proponents of “theistic” evolution, God did not plan the specific outcomes of evolution–including the development of human beings. Miller describes humans as “an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.” While God knew that undirected evolution was so wonderful it would create some kind of creature capable of praising Him, that creature could have been “a big-brained dinosaur” or “a mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities” rather than us.

Seeking to lessen the discomfort such arguments pose for most religious believers, Francis Collins suggests that God “could” have known the specific outcomes of evolution beforehand even though He made evolution appear “a random and undirected process.” In other words, God is a cosmic trickster who misleads people into thinking that nature is blind and purposeless, even though it isn’t.

One need not be a religious fundamentalist to find such arguments less than satisfying. Indeed, one need not be religious at all. Media coverage notwithstanding, theistic evolution has been shunned by leading evolutionary biologists, 87 percent of whom deny the existence of God and 90 percent of whom reject the idea that evolution is directed toward an “ultimate purpose” according to a 2003 survey.

While theistic evolutionists are mired in the past trying to defend Darwin’s nineteenth-century mechanistic process, other scientists and scholars are suggesting that twenty-first century science is fast making Darwin obsolete. Experiments with bacteria, where evolution can be tested in real time, are showing just how little undirected processes like natural selection can actually accomplish. Experiments with protein sequences are revealing how astonishingly fine-tuned protein sequences must be to work at all. And the DNA inside each of us is disclosing massive amounts of genetic information that points to mind, not chance and necessity, as the ultimate source of biological innovations.

Such discoveries do not “prove” God’s existence, but they do provide tantalizing evidence that life was produced by an intelligent process rather than a mindless one, a finding that certainly has positive implications for faith.

Read the entire post HERE.

Are "Chick Flicks" Good for Us?

Over at the web page for Capitol Hill Baptist Church I found the following article by Beth Spraul:

I have quite the extensive movie collection. Actually, my husband says I have an extensive “chick-flick” collection. I remember in college when my girlfriends and I would try to borrow each other’s movies. It was often a useless exercise because we would discover we already had all the same titles. The women will know some of the ones I speak of . . . “Pride & Prejudice,” “Sense & Sensibility,” “You’ve Got Mail,” “Ever After,” “Sleepless in Seattle,” . . . you can likely name your own list of must-have romantic classics. But why does Hollywood know how to make a movie that most women will not only love, but want to own -- and then (this is the part that perplexes my husband) be willing to watch countless times, sighing or tearing each time at the same sappy endings? Could it be that these movies strike an emotional nerve -- a nerve that longs for the bliss of falling in love with the perfect man or the rush of romance that will replace our emptiness and loneliness?

Whether we realize it or not, as we munch our popcorn, films communicate underlying emotional messages to us. What are these messages teaching us about life, love, and romance? Better yet, what do these films teach us about the nature of true masculinity and femininity? Does watching such movies actually affect our understanding of romance or shape how we go about looking for this ideal husband?

I think the answer is yes...

In this article, I’d like to discuss briefly what I think are three powerful lies communicated to and believed by women through this genre of “chick-flicks” as well as “chick-lit” (literature).

Read the entire article HERE.

Bruce Waltke on "Inspiration and Incarnation"

The Spring 2009 issue of The Westminster Theological Journal includes some excellent articles on the issues of biblical inerrancy and interpretation. Of particular interest is the interaction between Bruce Waltke and Pete Enns. Dr. Waltke critiques Dr. Enns' book Inspiration and Incarnation. Enns then responds to Waltke to which Waltke offers a response to the response. Follow that?

Waltke writes:

Professor Enns invites evangelicals to interact with his provocative ideas for sharpening theological discussion about the nature of Scripture. Upon my first reading I was struck with his commendable, unflinching honesty. Not allowing dogma to overwhelm data, he attempts pastorally to assist students who think the Reformed doctrine of Scripture is not viable. Enns holds with conviction the concept that both the Word of God as Scripture, and the Word of God as Jesus Christ, become incarnate: fully divine and fully human, as Warfield propounded in his concursive theory of inspiration.

Upon my second reading and more reflection, however, I questioned whether Enns’s answer helped doubters to keep the faith. This forced me to reflect more deeply upon the theologically disturbing cache of texts that Enns so helpfully collected, categorized, and then sought to resolve by his ‘‘incarnation’’ model of thinking about Scripture. A model, however, that represents the Mosaic Law as flexible, the inspired religion of Israel in its early stage as somewhat doctrinally misleading, the Chronicler’s harmonization as incredible,NTteachings as based on questionable historical data, and an apologetic for Jesus of Nazareth’s Messianic claim as arbitrary,would not be helpful to me inmy theological education. Nevertheless, I owe Enns a tremendous amount of gratitude for challenging me to think honestly and soberly about these texts that are troubling to all who hold Reformed convictions about the inspiration of holy Scripture.

Waltke then goes on to critique Enns' handling of texts of Scripture he considers problematic. For example, in Inspiration and Incarnation Enns writes:

Job
If disobedience leads to God’s curse (Deut. 28:15-68), then it is not too hard to reason back the other way: if you are cursed, you must have done something to deserve it. This is the assumption [of Job’s friends]. . . . Anyone well versed in Old Testament teaching would likely have drawn the same conclusion [as Job’s three friends]. (p. 81)

Waltke's response is as follows:

But this statement is not accurate or helpful to me. Is it true that anyone well versed in theOT would draw the conclusion that it teaches that a person who is cursed—I take it that Enns uses the word loosely, for the friends never use it of Job—must have done wrong? A person well-versed in Scripture—so it seems to me—certainly knows that righteous Abel ismurdered by Cain and, while Abel’s blood cries out for justice, themurderer lives out a normal life-span. After Abraham by faith arrived in the Promised Land, God inflicted a famine on the land, a drought so severe that Abraham felt compelled to leave the Promised Land. Innocent Joseph was sold into slavery where he suffered hard iron. Job points to numerous situations where the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper within the divine scheme of things, and that surely his friends also knew. (A person less well-versed in the OT literature may not be aware that in the book of Proverbs the father’s first lecture represents the wicked as dispatching the innocent to a premature death while the wicked fill their house with plunder taken from him [Prov 1: 11-14].)Moreover, one does not have to be well-versed in theOT literature to know from the NT that the righteous Son of God was nailed to the cross and that his apostleswere martyrs for their faith in Jesus Christ. In sum, the three friends illogically drew a conclusion that did not square with the teachings of Proverbs, which is also well aware that the wicked are full while the righteous hunger (cf. Prov 16:8)—but that is not the whole story.

I found this format to be very helpful. Again and again Dr. Waltke demonstrates why he is considered one of the foremost Old Testament exegetes in the world. It also demonstrates why Dr. Enns' book was met with a great deal of dismay among many in the scholarly community.

Read the entire article HERE.

A "Key" to U.S. Foreign Policy

In a speech at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Awards Gala, Hillary Clinton said:

"I want to assure you that reproductive rights… will be a key to the foreign policy of this Administration… I was very proud when President Obama repealed the Mexico City policy. (Applause.) As a result, nongovernmental organizations overseas can once again use U.S. funding to provide the full range of family planning services so that women and their families can get access to the healthcare that they need.”

Read the entire speech HERE.

"A Liberating Approach to Finding God's Will"

Kevin DeYoung's new book "Just Do Something" is getting some outstanding reviews. With all the novel approaches in the church to "finding God's will" a truly good book on the subject is needful.

Dan Phillips over at Pyromaniacs has posted a review:

DeYoung sounds a Biblical wake-up-grow-up-and-get-moving call to an over-introspective, hyper-spiritualized, omen-seeking, vapor-locked, pseudo-spiritual, choice-overloaded generation. He rightly exposes the mania to seek, know, and do "God's personal will for me" as un-Biblical, and opposes it with the Bible's vision of a God who has given a sufficient, full, written revelation of Himself, has every detail in our lives (and everything else) under His sovereign control, and wants us to get moving in the path of obedience and wisdom.

It's theologically solid, and packed with Biblical grounding from start to finish.

Read the entire post HERE.

From Josh Harris' endorsement:

Kevin DeYoung is a skilled pastor, theologically astute and a clear communicator. He gives you content but makes it easy to absorb and understand.

In this book he will show you what trips you up from moving forward in decisions. He'll talk about how God speaks to us and what it means be guided by wisdom. In a gentle and loving way he will challenge you. There's a good chance that you've picked up some faulty ways of thinking about this issue. I love the way no-nonsense way Kevin pulls us back to truth: "God is not a magic eight ball we shake up and peer into whenever we have a decision to make. He is a good God who gives us brains, shows us the way of obedience, and invites us to take risks for him."

I'm a pastor. And the highest praise I can give this book is that it is my "go to" book on decision making and "finding God's will." If you were in my church and you came to be and said, "I have a big decision to make (marriage, job, house, etc), and I need to know what God wants me to do!" I would put this book in your hands.

Order "Just Do Something" HERE.

Life and Death in Wichita

The Chicago Tribune ran an article by Al Mohler on the murder of George Tiller in Wichita. Mohler addresses the moral reasoning of those who would use violence to dispatch an abortionist.

Mohler writes:

The murder of Dr. Tiller was a grotesque denial of the sanctity of human life. This is not a cause that can be served by violence in any form. The abortion procedures employed by Dr. Tiller are horribly violent. Proponents of abortion want to keep the nation’s attention diverted from what abortion really means—and especially from what happens in a late-term abortion.

That violence is what we desperately want to see end. For this reason, the violence that was murderously deployed in Wichita requires us to be first in line to make clear that violence in the womb will never be overcome by means of violence outside the womb. Dr. Tiller’s murderer has blood on his hands, and he has bloodied the cause of human life and human dignity...

In 1943, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was arrested for his opposition to the Nazi regime. The Lutheran pastor, a prominent leader in the anti-Nazi Confessing Church, had been involved in espionage and an attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler. This pastor and theologian sought to defy the regime that was murdering the Jewish people and destroying human life with homicide on an unprecedented scale. Bonhoeffer acted in defense of human life, and for this he was executed in the Flossenburg prison camp in the final days of World War II.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer opposed abortion with full force. In his Ethics he explained: “The simple fact is that God had certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.”

Read the entire article HERE.

The Case Against R-Rated Church

Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs has made many a compelling argument against the trend in some evangelical circles toward scatological language and graphic discussion of sex from the pulpit. I have posted on this trend in the past.

Johnson writes:

Today I'll be in the studio with John MacArthur, taping an interview about the contemporary evangelical obsession with sex. "The Case Against the R-Rated Church" is the working title, but the interview is unscripted, so we'll see where it goes.

Anyway, I was looking up facts and various news items on the subject and three things struck me.

One: This is a huge and widespread problem. The "Christian" districts of the World Wide Web are filled with places that aren't safe for family viewing—everything from "Christian" sex shops to lurid advice columns.

Two: Modesty is all but gone from the evangelical movement. Not only have today's evangelicals cast aside innocence as if it were something to be ashamed of; they are proud to have done so. They are keen to show a comfortable familiarity with the very things Scripture says it is shameful to speak of in public (Ephesians 5:12), and they would be embarrassed to be thought squeamish about such things.

Three: Sermons with graphic sexual themes and church-wide sex challenges are merely symptoms of a much bigger problem. In short, the church is fornicating with the world and intoxicated with the spirit of the age. Some of neo-evangelicalism's favorite jargon—missional, contextualization, authenticity—has been tortured and misappropriated in order to justify and institutionalize gross worldliness.

Read the entire post HERE.

When Christians Blog

David Garner of Westminster Seminary has written a very thoughtful article on blogging. He opens with a purposefully tongue-in-cheek assurance that blogging is not in and of itself a sin. But he also points out that "Real Christians really blog, but sad to say, much of this blogging doesn’t look really Christian." This is certainly true. It is also true that not all of my own blogging has always looked "really Christian."

Dr. Garner warns that one of the challenges for Christians is that the blogosphere, "a planet of sixties-like digital freedoms, without the conscious and deliberate application of Christian ethics, fosters a sense of anonymity, impunity, and self-expression dreadfully un-Christian."

He then goes on, quite accurately I believe, to outline the "moral and relational rules" of "Planet Blog." They are:

1. There are no rules.

2. Anonymity produces impunity.

3. Freedom is all-sufficient grounds for expression.

4. Courage is shown by public venting.

5. Blogging is the tool for relationship managment.

Much of Garner's attention is appropriately given to the tendency of bloging to transgress the biblical injunctions for how Christians are to deal with conflict. According to the "Blogospheric Bible":

If your brother acts in a way disagreeable to you, blog about him cleverly and inferentially. If he refuses to listen to you, blog again more viciously, and encourage one or two of your friends to blog too. The cumulative effect of two or three bloggers maligning a brother’s character should move him to sufficient shame. If he stubbornly continues in his displeasing trajectory, create a unique blogging site that enables all your virtual friends to join in a frenzied harassment. Surely this level of abuse will win your brother, and if not, you will at least have tainted his reputation for life.

I believe blogging can be a very effective tool for communication, teaching, resourcing, etc. Clearly it can also be very damaging. Dr. Garner has given me (and anyone who blogs) some very important instructions to consider. More than that, anyone who cares to communicate in a way that honors Christ and edifies the body of Christ can profit from his words.

Check out the entire article HERE.

Sunday's Sermon

You can listen to or download Sunday's sermon "Do What You Did at First" by clicking HERE. It was Vision Day at COS. What a great day we had! We were blessed by a report from our Thailand team, the commissioning of our summer mission teams, and a moving testimony from one who has recently come to know Christ. God has been so kind to COS over the years and He continues to bless us in ways that humble me.

"Smooth Talk and Flattery"

In Romans 16 the apostle Paul warns against those preachers who use "smooth talk and flattery" to deceive God's people. Often times these flattering preachers were motivated by a desire to enrich themselves. Little has changed. The health, wealth, and prosperity preachers of our day (Copeland, Dollar, Hinn, Meyer, etc) have enriched themselves on the backs of those who can scarce afford to give. But those who give are not entirely innocent. They have eagerly gathered such flatterers to be told what they want to hear.

Listen to the latest discussion from the guys at The White Horse Inn HERE.

If Calvinists Ran America

I spotted THIS over at Riddleblog. Enjoy!

The U.S. a Muslim Nation?

First we were told that America is not a Christian nation.

Now, there is a sense in which I agree. Certainly we are a majority Christian nation and our laws and national identity were shaped through the lens of a basically Christian worldview. But in a strict sense the U.S. is not a Christian nation (nor is any nation for that matter). Under the Old Covenant Israel was God's nation, God's people in anticipation of a people who would be formed by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ. God's people are citizens of another country, a better city with foundations whose architect and builder is God. That said, the vast majority of Americans identify themselves as Christian. So I suppose that while demographically, the U.S. is a Christian nation, theologically this is not the case.

Now Muslim nations are being told that America is one of the world's largest Muslim nations.

I must admit that language begins to fail me. Indeed, coherant thought begins to fail me at this point. First of all it's patently false from a numeric point of view. The U.S. has fewer than 1% of the world's Muslims. Secondly, the culture of the U.S. is far from Islamic. So I am left wondering why go to Saudi Arabia and make such comments? This is not a rhetorical question. I genuinely want to know. If anyone can provide an answer without tooth or claw then I would love to hear it.

Doctrine and Doxology

I remember a meeting several years ago with the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches. He told me that the old WCC slogan, "Doctrine Divides, Service Unites," had proven unworkable. "Actually," he said, "it's the other way around. Even when we reach agreement on the meaning of the Apostles' Creed, unanimity falls apart when we talk about political, social, economic, and cultural issues." We know where the WCC has ended up, although it began as a transdenominational, evangelical missionary movement attempting to wed evangelism to social concern. Along the way, it began to think that the gospel was about deeds, not creeds. Despite its good intentions, the assumption that continually makes Evangelicalism a seedbed for liberalism is that doctrine is secondary to life. Today, Evangelicalism is far less divided by doctrine, which is generally treated with indifference, than by the particular ideology that cultural transformation should take. "Deeds, not creeds" has already been tried-many times, and has simply led to ungodly strife and divisions in Christ's body even over matters that are not clearly addressed in Scripture. While church history (and contemporary experience) exhibits evidence of wrangles over doctrinal precision that do not lead to the peace and purity of the church in its mission, the church has demonstrated that it can find plenty of other things to fight about when it looks away from Christ.

It might seem controversial to identify doctrine with "gospel" and deeds with "law," especially since these days we often hear calls to "live the gospel." However, the gospel is not an imperative, but an indicative; not a program to follow, but an announcement to welcome for our own salvation and to herald for the salvation of the world. Does that mean that we do not have imperatives or that we do not follow Christ? As Paul would say, "May it never be!" It simply means that we have to distinguish indicatives and imperatives. The law gives us something to do, and the gospel gives us something to believe. Christians are no less obligated to obey God's commands in the New Testament than they were in the Old Testament, but they are commands, not promises. The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only Savior, and then the imperatives become the "reasonable service" of believers "in view of God's mercies." There is a lot of wisdom to the order of the Heidelberg Catechism: Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. The commands tell us what we are to do; the gospel tells us what God has done. "Deeds, not creeds" leaves the sinner with the tattered garment of fig leaves rather than robed in the righteousness of Christ.

From Michael Horton's article "Creeds and Deeds" in Modern Reformation

Read the entire article HERE.

Pravda on U.S. Marxism

For many years Pravada was the primary propaganda tool of the Soviet Union. Now it is a cheerleader for Russian nationalism. It seems that Pravda has some observations about and scoldings for the U.S.

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their “right” to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our “democracy”. Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different “branches and denominations” were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the “winning” side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the “winning” side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe. . . .

Nice to see Pravda so concerned about freedom and their "Holy Orthodox churches." They have always been such stalwart champions of freedom and the church.

Read the whole thing HERE.
* Warning - I noticed that the Pravda sight has a few racy pictures in some of the adds.

The New Car from the New GM?

* Thanks to Riddleblog for the picture.

I am worse than you think

Carl Trueman is Professor of Church History and Vice President of Academic Affairs at Westminster Seminary. He also has forgotten more about being attacked and criticized than most of us will ever know. Over at Ref21 Dr. Trueman, one of my favorite writers, addresses the web attacks he has received over the last few years in reference to his leadership at WTS. I laughed out loud a few times as I read the post. But I was moved almost to the point of tears at the final two paragraphs. That's all I will say. Check it out HERE.

Interview with Greg Beale

Carl Trueman and David Garner recently interviewed Greg Beale. In the Fall of 2010 Dr. Beale will be coming to Westminster to teach New Testament. In the interview Dr. Beale comments on his theological heritage, his writings, postmodernism, the direction of biblical studies at WTS, and current issues in biblical studies. You can watch the interview HERE.

My Book Recommendations

Westminster Seminary Bookstore is posting my book recommendations HERE. Just scroll to "non-denominational" on the "choose denomination" bar. For some reason it is not keyed to my name yet. Anyway it is still a work in progress but there's around 50 books so far.

How to think about Jon & Kate

American Christians love their fads and celebrities. The ascendency of Jon and Kate Gosselin are a perfect example. Evangelicals are largely responsible for the Gosselin's popularity. Admirably, the Gosselins refused "selective reduction" when they discovered that Kate was pregnant with sextuplets. They are church members, their website features devotions, and they are known for their Isaiah 40:31 t-shirts. The evangelical mega-press Zondervan even published their bestseller. But the fact is we did not then nor do we now truly know Jon and Kate. But Christians were all too eager to contribute to their celebrity. Now, sadly as their marriage is falling apart on the national stage we should learn a lesson on the dangers of fame, materialism, and exploitation.

Julie Vermeer Elliot has written an insightful piece for Christianity Today concerning all the attention surrounding Jon and Kate Gosselin.

As fellow Christians, we should have reminded the Gosselins that life is a gift to be received in gratitude, not something to be grasped, purchased, or sold. In many ways, the last four seasons of Jon & Kate Plus Eight is the story of a family that seemed to progressively lose sight of this truth. Of course, they had help along the way from TLC, from the show's producers, and not least of all, from their Christian viewers.

When the first few episodes revealed the earning potential of this "everyday family," Jon & Kate Plus Eight became a brand name that was packaged and sold. And many Christians were happy to comply by opening up their wallets and their fellowship halls. When the network and the couple were not satisfied with the money generated through high ratings and book sales, the Gosselin home was filled with product placements and the children were filmed for long hours each week. All the while many (though not all) evangelicals watched with undiscerning eyes. Somewhere along the line we, like Jon and Kate, seemed to forget the warnings of 1 Timothy 6:9-10:
But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains. (NRSV)

It was not until the recent allegations of sexual impropriety arose that a significant number of Christians began to question whether Jon and Kate were indeed the examples of faithful living that we had imagined. Somehow most of us missed the long trajectory that was, day by day, moving them farther from a life of Christian virtue. Sexual immorality—whether actual or merely suspected—caught our attention, but the materialism, narcissism, and exploitation of children that preceded it was largely overlooked.

As such, the breakdown of Jon and Kate's marriage is but a symptom of the larger weaknesses of ethics in the evangelical community. We are easily seduced by wealth and fame. We are easily contented by the shallow rhetoric of hot-button issues. In short, we are easily deceived by cultural values painted in Christian veneers (or clothed in Isaiah 40:31 T-shirts).

Read the entire article HERE.
And let's agree to be more discerning in the future.

"Why We Believe The Bible"

Beginning this month "Why We Believe the Bible," a course taught by John Piper, is available on DVD. You can order it HERE.

"Humility"

If you have read or are planning to read Humility by C.J. Mahaney (recommended) then you may also want to check out a study guide written by Michael Haykin that would make a great addition to your application of the book. Download the study guide free by clicking HERE.

More on the Tiller Murder

From Al Mohler:

For many years, Dr. George Tiller has represented the horrific reality of the abortion industry in this nation. Infamously known to the pro-life movement in America, Tiller was known as "Tiller the Killer" because of his well-known willingness to perform late-term abortions almost no other doctor in the nation would perform. Because of Dr. George Tiller, Wichita became the destination of choice for women seeking abortions in the late third trimester...

Proponents of abortion rights often charge that the rhetoric of the pro-life movement leads to violence. After all, we describe abortion as murder and point to the business of abortion as the murder of the unborn. We make clear that abortion is the taking of innocent human life and that what goes on in abortion clinics is the business of death.

We make these arguments because we know they are true. Abortion is murder. What goes on in those clinics is institutionalized homicide, often for financial profit. Abortion is a moral scandal and a national tragedy and a blight upon the American conscience.

But violence in the name of protesting abortion is immoral, unjustified, and horribly harmful to the pro-life cause. Now, the premeditated murder of Dr. George Tiller in the foyer of his church is the headline scandal -- not the abortions he performed and the cause he represented.

We have no right to take the law into our own hands in an act of criminal violence. We are not given the right to take this power into our own hands, for God has granted this power to governing authorities. The horror of abortion cannot be rightly confronted, much less corrected, by means of violence and acts outside the law and lawful means of remedy. This is not merely a legal technicality -- it is a vital test of the morality of the pro-life movement.

Read the entire post HERE.

Sunday's Sermon

You can listen to or download Sunday's sermon "Pentecost: Babel Undone" by clicking HERE.

Lane Tipton on Calvin's view of justification

Quotable

“Having absorbed the world’s values, Christianity in our society is now dying. Subtly but surely worldliness and self-indulgence are eating away the heart of the church. The gospel we proclaim is so convoluted that it offers believing in Christ as nothing more than a means to contentment and prosperity. The offense of the cross (cf. Gal. 5:11) has been systematically removed so that the message might be made more acceptable to unbelievers. The church somehow got the idea it could declare peace with the enemies of God.”

- John MacArthur

George Tiller Shot to Death

This morning the well known late-term abortionist George Tiller was shot to deat at his church in Wichita, Kansas.

Here's the story from The Wichita Eagle:

George Tiller, the Wichita doctor who became a national lightning rod in the debate over abortion, was shot to death this morning as he walked into church services.

Tiller, 67, was shot just after 10 a.m. at Reformation Lutheran Church at 7601 E. 13th, where he was a member of the congregation. Witnesses and a police source confirmed Tiller was the victim...

Members of the congregation who were inside the sanctuary at the time of the shooting were being kept inside the church by police, and those arriving were being ushered into the parking lot. Witnesses are being transported downtown for interviews and other members of the congregation are slowly being released from inside the sanctuary.

Tiller has long been a focal point of protest by abortion opponents because his clinic, Women's Health Care Services at 5701 E. Kellogg, is one of the few in the country where late-term abortions are performed.

Read the entire story HERE.

This is a tragedy. It is a tragedy that Dr. Tiller was murdered. It is a double tragedy that Dr. Tiller chose to use his medical credentials and training to perform abortions.

If you are pro-life remember that killing is not the way to advance the cause. I understand the moral outrage over abortion. I understand that it is the taking of innocent life. Unfortunately however it is still the law of our country and Christians are not called to be vigilantes who kill wrongdoers.

Unfortunately many in the media and many of our politicians will gladly lump all pro-lifers in the camp of crazed, violent lunatics.

It's Official: Greg Beale is coming to WTS

Beginning in the Fall of 201o Dr. G.K. Beale will leave his post as Chair of Biblical Studies at Wheaton to become Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. This is great news for WTS which has experienced some controversy over the issue of inerrancy for the last few years. Dr. Beale is not only a world class scholar but one of the most effective advocates for the doctrine of Scripture's inerrancy. He will be an important addition to the WTS faculty. Congratulations to Peter Lillback and Carl Trueman for their leadership in this matter.

On the necessity of humiliations

To preach is a fearful privilege. It's a privilege because of the honor to proclaim God's Word to God's people. It's a privilege because of the opportunity for in-depth study every week. But preaching is fearful because of the risk of getting it wrong. Also, it is fearful because of the pontential for pride to grow. I am blessed to be in a church with many people who say a lot of very kind things to me every week. There are many preachers who cannot say that. But because of the kindness I am so graciously shown there is perhaps an even greater need for humiliations - things that remind me that I am just a sinful, flawed man. If God chooses to bless anything that I am a part of then it is certainly not because of anything meritorious in me.

I once heard it said that humility comes only through humiliations. That's the tough part about humility. We never willfully go the way of humility. It always has to be forced upon us. Our natural trajectory is toward pride. It's so insidious that we even become proud of our humility.

Each week it seems God works to kill something ugly in me. As He prepares me for Sunday He confronts my sin. I ran across these words recently which resonated with me:

The struggle to make much of Christ rather than self is a struggle for every preacher; we’re all prone to say “Behold me telling you to behold the Lamb of God.”

Everything God does to kill this tendency in me is a good thing. God is even pleased to use people whose intentions are not noble and whose words are not kind to graciously kill what is ugly in me.

So I am learning to rejoice in those necessary humiliations that God sends my way. I need them.