Friday, July 24, 2009

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Well done Tebow!



It's good to know that there are still some role models in sports.

Update:

Great cover article in Sports Illustrated on Tim Tebow.

MacArthur on Spurgeon

A former President's troubled relationship with his own denomination

Al Mohler provides historical and biblical perspective to former President Carter's public denunciation of his own denomination:

In his article, President Carter reiterated his decision to sever public ties with the Southern Baptist Convention. In his words:

So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. This was in conflict with my belief - confirmed in the holy scriptures - that we are all equal in the eyes of God.

To his credit, President Carter apparently did not claim that this was a new decision or a fresh announcement. Though some media sources jumped on the announcement as "news," others were careful to put his statement in an appropriate historical context. Furthermore, President Carter's reference to the Southern Baptist Convention was not the main point of this article. Instead, his reference to the Southern Baptist Convention introduced his argument that any religious teaching that denies what he construes as full equality for women "is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God."

That, suffice it to say, is a mouthful. This is not a new argument for the former President. But in his article in The Observer he does make some interesting assertions. While acknowledging that he has not been trained "in religion or theology," he went on to argue that "the carefully selected verses found in the holy scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths."

All this fits a pattern for which Mr. Carter is now well known. He simply rejects the texts in the Bible that clearly establish different roles for men and women in the church and the home. He dismisses these verses for the simple reason that he also rejects the inerrancy of the Bible.

He may well be the world's most famous Sunday School teacher, but over just the last several years he has publicly expressed his rejection of the belief that persons must come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. He has also stated that his faith would not be shaken if Jesus did not perform some of the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament. His denial of biblical inerrancy is not merely theoretical -- he actually operates on the assumption that at least some texts of the Bible are false, untruthful, malignantly oppressive, and thus untrustworthy.


Read the entire article HERE.

Parenting Resources


Justin Taylor has posted the following links to parenting seminars from Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland:


Parenting Ages Infant to 5 (by Brian Chesemore)
Training, Discipline, and the Rod Outline (PDF)
Biblical Principles of Parenting Outline (PDF)


Additional Resources:
“Sowing Plan” (PDF)
Plan to Overcome Complaining (PDF)






Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Doctrine Matters


One of my favorite books on the church is 9 Marks of a Healthy Church by one of my favorite pastors Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C. Dever identifies biblical theology as one of the "marks" of a healthy church.


Dever writes about an incident which illustrates the importance of conforming our thoughts about God to what He has revealed about Himself in His Word.

I had made a statement in a doctoral seminar about God... [Dever attended a liberal seminary]. Bill responded politely but firmly that he liked to think of God rather differently. For several minutes Bill painted a picture for us of a friendly deity. He liked to think of God as being wise, but not meddling; compassionate, but not overpowering; ever so resourceful, but never interrupting. ―This,‖ said Bill in conclusion, ―is how I like to think about God.

My reply was perhaps something sharper than it should have been. ―Thank you, Bill, for telling us so much about yourself, but we‘re here to study God. We want to know what He‘s really like, and not simply about our own desires.‖ The seminar was silent for a moment, as they took in this potential breach of politeness on my part, but they were taking in the point. I made some appreciative noises towards Bill, and we got on with our discussion about the nature and character of God as revealed in the Bible.

What do you think God is like? Not what do you like to think God is like, but how do you put together the God of Christmas with the God of the great Judgment of the final Day? What is your understanding of God and what He is like? To some of you, that whole discussion may sound nonsensical. Why expend any energy at all over what various people believe about an invisible being? I can understand that kind of skepticism over the importance of this topic. Regardless of our religious confession these days, who can dispute that in many ways religious beliefs seem irrelevant to our world. On television we see Roman Catholics fawning over the pope in his visit to St. Louis, while ignoring his teachings about contraception and abortion. Southern Baptists, who used to be known for decrying illicit sex, drugs, and rock and roll music (lest they lead to dancing, drinking, and playing cards) are now portrayed in a national magazine as antinomian Christians who have made peace with an anything goes morality.

This inattention to belief fits our culture‘s impatience with detail. In society today beliefs have been domesticated. We no longer fight about them. We don‘t really argue about them. We may not even care about them any more. After all, we think so many beliefs are merely passing fashions, or momentary expressions of individual wants or desires. Americans create designer religions and smorgasbord faiths – ―Oh, I‘ll take a little of this from Hinduism, and a little of this from Christianity, and a little of this from my grandmother (I don‘t remember what she was), and put it all together – as our own individual unique religion. Today people believe to be true simply what they desire to be true. Long held Christian beliefs about everything from the nature of God to morality have been reshaped, and have become unimportant to many people. They have been jettisoned in the name of making Christianity more relevant, more palatable, more acceptable to today‘s hearers.

How relevant are your own beliefs to your daily life? When you last sat in church, how much did you examine the words of the prayers you heard? How much did you think about the words of the songs you sang? Or how about the words that you heard from Scripture? Does it really matter to you if what you said or sang in church was true? How much does it really matter anyway? If I attend church and I‘m friendly, and I feel encouraged, and if I give my time to being there and even give my money, how much does it really matter if in my heart of hearts I really don‘t believe all this stuff that people around me say? Or maybe even that I say? How important are religious beliefs?

He Died in Our Place


Martin Downes has posted two excellent articles on the doctrine of Christ's Substitutionary Atonement. Specifically he defends the doctrine from the claims that it is 1) inconsistent with Jesus' command to turn the other cheek and 2) that it is akin to child abuse on the part of the Father.


Check out the posts Here and Here.

Terry Eagleton on the New Atheists

“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.”

- Terry Eagleton on "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

Check out this article on Eagleton from "The New Humanist."

The NEA takes its stand

From a post by Gene Veith:
The National Education Association, the country’s major teachers’ union, had more than education on its mind at its annual convention:

The National Education Association has thrown its full support behind homosexual “marriage.”

The NEA recently held its annual convention in San Diego, California, where members voted on two issues of importance to those involved in the culture war. One of those issues was whether the union would support same-gender marriage. According to Jeralee Smith, co-founder of the Conservative Educators Caucus, the resolution passed by roughly a two-thirds majority.

“There are quite a few items where the NEA absolutely puts its political muscle behind taking down any legislation in any state that they consider to be discriminatory to homosexuals,” says Smith. “And some of the language in the resolution also hints that the NEA will try to take down the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] on the federal level.”

Smith told Baptist Press that when a representative of the Conservative Caucus spoke against the resolution and mentioned the words “marriage should be between a man and a woman,” the speaker was booed.

Also up for a vote was a resolution for the NEA to take a “no position” stance on the issue of abortion. That proposal was voted down 61 percent to 39 percent.

How about voting on improving math instruction? Or passing resolutions about homework?

And yet, the voice of the union must be emblematic of where our nation’s public school teachers stand on these political, moral, and cultural issues.

Information Overload Syndrome

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Take and Read


John Piper has recently said that David Daniell's biograpy of William Tyndale is one of the best books he has ever read. That's a pretty good endorsement. Anyway, if you are not in the habit of reading biography I encourage you to take it up.

Will we believe God's Word?


From Al Mohler:

Tom Krattenmaker, a Portland, Oregon based member of the paper's Board of Contributors, levels a broadside attack on the unity, inspiration, and veracity of the Bible as the Word of God in his column, "Fightin' Words".

Krattenmaker first celebrates what he describes as "a year of retreat and retrench" for conservative Christianity. Now, he says, "here come more challenges to traditionalist views of the Bible and Christian faith from a lineup of big-name, liberal-leaning scholars and theologians."

First up on Krattenmaker's list is Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina. As Krattenmaker explains, Ehrman "mounts evidence against literalist conceptions of the Bible as factual history and a divinely transmitted testament to an afterlife-focused religion called Christianity."...

Bart Ehrman has established himself as the media's go-to professor in terms of denying the truthfulness and unity of the Bible, especially the New Testament. Ehrman, who has written several best-selling books seeking to debunk and discredit the New Testament and classical Christianity, is a popularizer for many accusations long alleged against the Bible. He takes passages (such as the passion passages from Mark and Luke) and sees contradictions where the church has always seen complimentary accounts. Christ did indeed utter the cry of God-forsakenness recounted by Mark, but this was itself a citation of the Psalms that points to a much different purpose and meaning than Ehrman implies. Which is the true account, Mark or Luke? It takes very little imagination to understand that, in the crucible of the crucifixion event, Jesus experienced both the agony of the God-forsakenness he experienced (and knew He was meant to experience on behalf of sinners) and the serenity that He also experienced, given his faith in the Father's purposes and power to raise him from the dead.

Of course, if you are coming to the Bible from the perspective of one who has rejected Christianity, you are likely to see the kind of pattern Ehrman alleges. Of course, if he did see the Bible as the perfect and completely truthful Word of God, he would not remain a rejecter of the Christian Gospel.

No one comes to the Bible without presuppositions and a basic intellectual disposition. That is true for Bart Ehrman, and it is no less true for the evangelical believer. In both cases, the presuppositions assign the way each will read the Bible. Krattenmaker simplistically cites Ehrman as his authority for suggesting that Jesus spoke of himself as God in John's gospel but not in Matthew. But this facile assertion, offered without any supporting argument, does not take in to account that throughout the Gospel of Matthew Jesus speaks and acts as God. When Jesus delivers the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, He cites Scripture with the formula, "you have heard it said." When Jesus then continues by saying, "but I say unto you," He speaks as God in a way that any first-century Jewish person would have readily understood. Nature obeys his command, and he performs miracles (even bringing the dead back to life) that show his providential control over the created order.

Read the entire post HERE.

For further reading:
Misquoting Truth by Timothy Paul Jones
The Erosion of Inerrancy by Greg Beale
The God-Breathed Scripture by E.J. Young
The Infallable Word ed. by Stonehouse & Woolley
The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible by B.B. Warfield
Fundamentalism and the Word of God by J.I. Packer


Inventing Crimes

It looks like the U.S. Senate is creating more crimes and potentially more criminals by expanding hate crimes legislation. Preachers, or anyone else for that matter, who proclaim the truth of God's Word concerning homosexuality and sex outside of marriage will likely be exposed to the possibility of prosecution.

Baptist Press reports:
The U.S. Senate passed legislation July 16 to expand hate crimes protections to include homosexuals and transgendered people.

The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act gained approval as an amendment to a Department of Defense authorization bill, which is expected to be voted on the week of July 20-24. The amendment would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the current categories -- such as religion and national origin -- protected from hate crimes. "Sexual orientation" includes homosexuality and bisexuality, while "gender identity," or transgendered status, takes in transsexuals and cross-dressers...

The House of Representatives passed a similar measure -- the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1913 -- with a 249-175 vote in late April.

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) and others oppose such efforts to expand hate crimes protection based not only on their inclusion of categories defined by sexual behavior or identity but also concerns about the potential impact on religious freedom.

They fear the measure, combined with existing law, could expose to prosecution Christians and others who proclaim the Bible's teaching that homosexual behavior and other sexual relations outside marriage are sinful. For example, if a person commits a violent act based on a victim's "sexual orientation" after hearing biblical teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the preacher or teacher could be open to a charge of inducing the person to commit the crime, some foes say.
Read the entire article HERE.

I wonder about the consequences of tyring to legislate thoughts and motives. The irony of naming hate crimes legislation after Matthew Shepherd is that his murderers were sentenced to the fullest extent of the law and rightfully so. But this happened without the help of hate crimes laws. Shouldn't it be enough to denounce murder equally, regardless of the status or behavior of the victim? I am concerned by laws that communicate that it is worse to murder someone because you hate homosexuals than it is to murder someone simply because you are evil.

Anyway, Canada and Scandanavia have attacked free speech through hate crimes legislation and preachers have been put on notice - don't preach against homosexuality.

Of course, in His good providence God may well be moving His people in America into a time of testing. We certainly know that God has and does use the persecution of the state to purify and strengthen His church. We certainly do not know what persecution is in this country. Perhaps in our lifetime we will.

Knowing Abortion Laws


I assume most of us would agree that any person serving as a justice on the United States Supreme Court ought to know the laws in our country concerning abortion. It appears however that this may not be the case, at least with Judge Sonia Sotomayor who will in all likelihood be overwhelmingly approved. But if she is indeed not fully aware of the laws relating to abortion then she is not much different than the average American.


Writing for Public Discourse Matthew J. Franck considers the Sotomayor hearings and what they tell us about her, and perhaps our knowlege of our nation's abortion laws.


Franck writes:


Does Judge Sonia Sotomayor know the law as well as a future Supreme Court justice ought to know it? If a discussion during her confirmation hearings with
Senator Tom Coburn (who is not a lawyer, but rather an experienced obstetrician) is any indication, it would seem not.

Sen. Coburn: You’ve been asked a lot of questions about abortion. And you’ve said that Roe v. Wade is settled law. Where are we today? What is the settled law in America about abortion?

Judge Sotomayor: I can speak to what the court has said in its precedent. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade, that a woman has a constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy in certain circumstances. In Casey, the court announced that in reviewing state regulations that may apply to that right, that the court considers whether that regulation has an undue burden on the woman’s constitutional right. That’s my understanding of what the state of the law is.

Sen. Coburn: So let me give you a couple of cases. Let’s say I’m 38 weeks pregnant and we discover a small spina bifida sac on the lower sacrum, the lower part of the back, on my baby, and I feel like I just can’t handle a child with that. Would it be legal in this country to terminate that child’s life?

Judge Sotomayor: I can’t answer that question in the abstract, because I would have to look at what the state of the state’s law was on that question and what the state said with respect to that issue. I can say that the question of the number of weeks that a woman is pregnant has been—that approach to looking at a woman’s act has—was changed by Casey. The question is, is the state regulation regulating what a woman does an undue burden? And so I can’t answer your hypothetical, because I can’t look at it as an abstract without knowing what state laws exist on this issue or not. . . .

The judge’s answer to the senator’s question was miles wide of the mark, and indicated either that she does not know the truth about the constitutional law of abortion in our country, or that she is willing—for whatever reason—to mischaracterize the matter before a national audience. Senator Coburn had an opening here that cried out for exploitation, but he passed it by for the moment.

The next day, however, he returned to this subject, taking Judge Sotomayor through another brief exchange and pointing out to her that “the truth is, ever since January 22nd, 1973 [the day Roe was decided], you can have an abortion for any reason you want in this country,” and that the stage of one’s pregnancy at the time does not matter at all. The senator was perhaps too kind to the judge, when he might have leaned in and said with quiet intensity, “Why don’t you know this?”
Read the entire article HERE.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Sunday's Sermon


This week's message was part 9 in our series on Hebrews - "The Faithless Shall Fall" (Heb. 3:7-19). You can listen to or download it HERE.

Capitol Hill Podcasts

Capitol Hill Baptist Church, one of my favorite churches, has a new podcast page. Lot's of stuff well worth listening to. Check it out HERE.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

You MUST listen to this!

I posted a link to this back in 07 and just had to revisit this incredible story...

Stop whatever you are doing and check it out HERE.

A Good Perspective on the New Perspective


Kevin DeYoung provides a very helpful annalysis of N.T. Wrights perspective on the doctrine of justification.


Check it out HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

What Makes Church Boring



Church isn't boring because we're not showing enough film clips, or because we play an organ instead of guitar. It's boring because we neuter it of its importance. Too often we treat our spiritual lives like the round of golf used to open George Barna's Revolution. At the end of my life, I want my friends and family to remember me as someone who battled for the Gospel, who tried to mortify sin in my life, who fought hard for life, and who contended earnestly for the faith. Not just a nice guy who occasionally noticed the splendor of the mountains God created, while otherwise just trying to enjoy myself, manage my schedule, and work on my short game...

We all have different callings. Some may be drawn to pro-life issues, and others to addressing global hunger, but let's make sure as Christians that our missional concerns go father than those shared by Brangelina and the United Way.

What makes the church unique is its commitment, above all else, to knowing and making known Christ and Him crucified. True, the biblical story line is creation, fall, redemption and recreation. But the overwhelming majority of Scripture is about our redemption, how God saves lawbreakers, how sin can be atoned for, how rebels can be made right with God.

From "Why We Love the Church" by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Just for Fun

Bathtub IV from Keith Loutit on Vimeo.

This is not annimation or stop-motion. This is real photography. It's called "tilt shift."

“Tilt-shift lenses sit off-center of the film (or sensor) plane of your camera to produce photos with extremely limited depth of field, giving the effect of a macro shot of a tiny scene. When the effect is matched with the surreal speed boost of many stills strung together into a time-lapse movie, we get the other-worldly privilege of seeing real Australian beach goers as an elaborate Playmobil scape. Or Sydney Harbor in a bath tub.” (Gizmodo)

She actually said it!


"Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong."

- United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg


Eugenics anyone?

Inside the weird world of the pastor's mind


I saw the following post over at LeadingChurch.org. There is a lot of unsettling truth in this post:



I have a friend who is a pastor and his father is a doctor. He told his son “I feel sorry for you. I don’t have to be friends with all of my patients.”

When someone comes to a pastor the pastor can’t say “you’re a jerk, I don’t feel like talking to you today” or “your problems are a result of your sinfulness and stupidity so stop whining and do something about your life…” A pastor can’t say “I realize that you’ve got a lot of pain but I’m increasingly uncomfortable with how you and I are relating so why don’t you go to another church.”

Ken said it well, pastors are isolated and they are often trapped too. Those are two very scary dynamics. Our calling system makes it tough for pastors to leave or to transition for other jobs easily. For most pastors a change of jobs requires a move to a different part of North America. That’s tough on families.

I think pastors (including myself here) often are in a lot of emotional denial. Sometimes we just want to tell people off but pastors can’t do that. Sometimes we’re tired but pastors can’t be that either. As Ken noted pastors are supposed to stand in for God but pastors can’t handle the job and the temptation to play-act the God role is more dangerous still.


You can be a jerk and an engineer and people will still tolerate you. If you’re a jerk and a pastor you’re pretty much going to be without a job. Studies on job stress regularly indicated the highest amount of job stress is with people who have to stifle their natural emotional responses, customer service reps, receptionists, airline employees, etc. You can have someone standing there publically splaying your guts before the congregation and you just stand there and let it all run out onto the floor with a smile. One slip up, one show of anger, and your ministry reputation is never the same. You’ve got a recipe here for a lot of repressed anger and depression, a lot of needs that become opportunities for indulging in deeper brokenness.


My father regularly notes that the job a pastor is called to do is radically different
than it was 40 years ago. The CRC has a majority of churches that are “at risk” and in most cases it is the pastor who is held responsible for the impossible.

I can’t let pastors off the hook here. We’ve let ourselves be put into this box. We’ve got to let ourselves out of it, and be willing to pay the price when we do. There are more resources available for pastors today and there is a greater understanding that pastors need friends besides their spouses. Pastors need safe places to talk, to vent their frustrations, to be encouraged, to be accountable. Pastors need all those things.

For the most part churches don’t really know much about the care and feeding of a pastor. Things are improving but there is more work to be done.

Pastors have to also spend more time in self-leadership. Bill Hybels on the subject said that he thought a pastor should spend 70% of his time on self-leadership. When I heard that number I almost hit the floor!

What is self-leadership? Praying, being in community with those on the journey (again the isolation weighs here), reading, studying Scripture, writing, care for your own soul so you can lead others in the care of theirs.

Christianity is the religion of the wounded healer. Christianity has as a matter of profession Jesus’ revelation to Paul that Jesus’ power is made perfect in weakness. Instead of seeing imperfect pastors as the deviation from the norm, perhaps we should see them as resources in learning how to live by faith, lean into grace, and be emblematic of forgiveness in the face of brokenness.

"Why Christian Institutions Are So Easily Lost"

Listen to an excellent discussion on the Al Mohler radio program of why so many institutions that were once evangelical have become liberal or completely secular.

This is one of the reasons why I am thankful for the leadership of Drs. Trueman and Lillback at Westminster Seminary in insisting that WTS remain faithful to her confessional identity. In the Philadelphia area there are abounding examples of seminaries, universities, colleges, and churches that once held to biblical orthodoxy that are now either drifting away or have become truly apostate.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Just for Fun


Taco Bell's New Green Menu Takes No Ingredients From Nature

"Broken-Down House"


The Discerning Reader has posted a helpful review and recommendation of Paul Tripp's new book "Broken-Down House."


Paul David Tripp, whom I readily disclose as one of my favorite Christian authors alongside John Piper, puts the Christian-life-as-a-house metaphor to effective service in his newest book, Broken-Down House: Living Productively in a World Gone Bad. Special mention ought also to go to editor Kevin Meath, who strengthened the manuscript for publication...

Whereas many Christian books focus in on a single aspect of the Christian life as though it were a separate compartment, Broken-Down House is comprehensive in its scope. A biblical theology of the Christian life, if you like. I cannot do better than to quote Tripp sketching out the architecture of this book:

Well, sin has ravaged the beautiful house that God created. This world bears only the faintest resemblance to what it was built to be. It sits in slumped and disheveled pain, groaning for the restoration that can only be accomplished by the hands of him who built it in the first place. The Bible clearly tells us that the divine Builder cannot and will not leave his house in its present pitiful condition. He has instituted a plan of restoration, and he will not relent until everything about His house is made totally new again. That is the good news.

The bad news is that you and I are a living right in the middle of the restoration. We live each day in a house that is terribly broken, where nothing works exactly as intended. But we do not live in the house by ourselves. Emmanuel lives here as well, and he is at work returning his house to its former beauty. Often it doesn’t look like any real restoration is going on at all. Things seem to get messier, uglier, and less functional all the time. But that’s the way it is with restoration; things generally get worse before they get better...

Broken-Down House is a book for everyone and everything. Everyone in that no one is exempt from its message, and everything in that there is not a single aspect of the human condition (that I could think of) absent from this book. Even more importantly, it is a piece of work whose cornerstone is Christ, and whose chief architect is God himself. Read it and weep, read it and rejoice.

Read the entire review HERE.

The Deceitfulness of Sin


"Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin."

- Hebrews 3:12-13


It is rightly called the deceitfulness of sin because it deceives under the appearance of the good. This phrase "the deceitfulness of sin" ought to be understood in a much wider sense, so that the term includes even one's own righteousness and wisdom. For more than anything else one's own righteousness and wisdom deceive one one and work against faith in Christ, since we love the flesh and the sensations of the flesh and also riches and possessions, but we love nothing more ardently than our own feelings, judgment, purpose, and will, especially when they seem to be good. For the same reason Christ said, when he healed the paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda, that it was impossible for such people to be able to believe: "How can you believe who receive glory from one another?" (John 5:44). Why are they not able to believe? Because the "deceitfulness of sin," that is, the love of their own righteousness, blinds them and hardens their heart. Yet at the same time they think it a good thing to glory in their own righteousness and be pleased with it, though that indeed is the very worst of all vices, the extreme antithesis of faith. Faith rejoices and glories in the righteousness of God alone, that is, in Christ himself.
- Martin Luther

I can relate disturbingly well with what Luther writes. As much as I don't like to think of myself in these terms, there is too much of the Pharisee in me. It is often times subtle. But pride in good behavior is an ugly thing. As much as my theology tells me the opposite and as much as I resist it I still see the snake of self-righteousness slither into my heart and mind. It's not that we should be uninterested in works of righteousness. Quite the opposite. Our lives ought to abound in good works. The problem however, at least in my own heart, is that those works can easily become an occasion for boasting. And by boasting I do not mean open braggadocio. The boasting takes the form of a kind of faith; faith that I am okay with God because of my good behavior; faith that so long as I am more well behaved than others then I am doing well.


To the untrained mind that may not sound nearly as bad as certain other sins. But to the God who sent His Son to be my subsitute; to cover my sinfulness with His righteousness, it is a particularly noxious kind of wickedness for it tramples on the very grace by which I am saved.


"Wretched man that I am. Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

- Romans 7:24-25a

Monday, July 13, 2009

Recommended Reading


You can subscribe to my book recommendations at Westminster Bookstore by 1) clicking HERE 2) click on the first book 3) click on "pastor/elder review" 4) click on "Todd Pruitt" 5) click on "subscribe" under my name. You'll receive updates when new books are added to my list of recommendations.


Also, the good folks at Westminster Bookstore were kind enough to give me a copy of the new book "When Helping Hurts". My plan is to read it over the next two days and then post a review. It looks like a very interesting and perhaps important read.


From the publisher:


Churches and individual Christians typically have faulty assumptions about the causes of poverty, resulting in the use of strategies that do considerable harm to poor people and themselves. When Helping Hurts provides foundational concepts, clearly articulated general principles and relevant applications. The result is an effective and holistic ministry to the poor, not a truncated gospel.

A situation is assessed for whether relief, rehabilitation, or development is the best response to a situation. Efforts are characterized by an "asset based" approach rather than a "needs based" approach. Short term mission efforts are addressed and microenterprise development (MED) is explored.

Endorsements:


"Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert are zealous to make sure that we honor the gospel not only in word but also in deed by caring for "the least of these" as Christ instructed. But how can a local church make a difference, and how do individual Christians meaningfully reflect Christ's grace, when the disparities of wealth and power in our world are so great? And how do we show material care without drifting into a social gospel devoid of spiritual priorities? When Helping Hurts explores biblical principles in terms of real-life situations to offer real help and grace-filled answers for such questions."
- Dr. Bryan Chapell, President, Covenant Theological Seminary

"Becoming more and more aware of the poverty in the world, the North American church is responding and ministering to the poor in unprecedented numbers. But this is easier said than done, as poverty is a complex problem. Good intentions are not enough, for faulty assumptions can result in strategies that do considerable harm. If churches truly want to help, this book is a must-read. It presents a biblically based framework for understanding poverty and its alleviation. The principles and strategies will help the church build an effective ministry for a hurting world, both at home and abroad.
- Dr. Paul Kooistra, Executive Director of Mission to the World

"Christianity and Liberalism"


From Al Mohler:


On November 3, 1921, J. Gresham Machen presented an address entitled, "Liberalism or Christianity?" In that famous address, later expanded into the book, Christianity & Liberalism, Machen argued that evangelical Christianity and its liberal rival were, in effect, two very different religions.

Machen's argument became one of the issues of controversy in the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversies of the 1920s and beyond. By any measure,
Machen was absolutely right--the movement that styled itself as liberal Christianity was eviscerating the central doctrines of the Christian faith while continuing to claim Christianity as "a way of life" and a system of meaning.

"The chief modern rival of Christianity is 'liberalism,'" Machen asserted. "Modern liberalism, then, has lost sight of the two great presuppositions of the Christian message--the living God and the fact of sin," he argued. "The liberal doctrine of God and the liberal doctrine of man are both diametrically opposite to the Christian view. But the divergence concerns not only the presuppositions of the message, but also the message itself."

Howard P. Kainz, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Marquette University, offers a similar argument--warning that it is now modern secular liberalism which poses as the great rival to orthodox Christianity.

Observing the basic divide in the American culture, Kainz notes: "Most of the heat of battle occurs where traditional religious believers clash with certain liberals who are religiously committed to secular liberalism."

Read the entire post HERE


Order "Christianity and Liberalism" HERE.

Trying to Figure Out Francis Collins


From Justin Barnard at Public Discourse:


Many are pointing to Obama’s pick of an Evangelical to head the National Institutes of Health as a sign of the president's willingness to reach out to those with differing viewpoints. But his pick holds conflicted views about the human embryo and will oversee a department that, under new rules, is outsourcing the destruction of human life.

On July 8th, President Obama announced his intent to nominate Dr. Francis Collins as head of the National Institutes of Health. In addition to being a world-class geneticist, Collins also has gained notoriety for his public profile as an unapologetic evangelical Christian. In 2006, Collins published, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. In addition to offering various scientific arguments for the existence of God, the book also makes a case for the compatibility of Christian faith and science based on a model that Collins termed “BioLogos.” (Incidentally, Collins’s conception of Biologos bears a striking resemblance to Steven Jay Gould’s earlier articulation of NOMA—“non-overlapping magisteria.”) Since then, Collins has lauched a major philosophy of science education initiative through his BioLogos Foundation. The BioLogos Foundation promotes “the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms seeking harmony between these different perspectives.” Even a cursory review of the foundation’s website reveals Collins’s uncompromising commitment to evangelicalism’s characteristic Biblicism and to the truth of the Christian faith.

This is precisely what makes Collins’s likely appointment to be head of the NIH so troubling. Just prior to the announcement about Collins, the NIH published its final guidelines for the use of federal funds in human embryonic stem cell research. While the Dickey Amendment prohibits NIH funds from being used to derive stems cells from human embryos (hence destroying them), the newly published guidelines do permit the use of federal tax dollars for research on stem cell lines already derived from human embryos, provided that (within the restrictions outlined in the guidelines) the embryos have already been destroyed. In effect, the new guidelines provide an incentive to private research entities to obtain so-called
“leftover” embryos from fertility clinics and derive stem cell lines from them in order to obtain NIH research dollars to study the derived lines.

Given his professed faith, one might naturally wonder how Collins can, in good conscience, oversee a government agency that is effectively outsourcing the destruction of human life. At a recent event sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Collins was asked about the new NIH guidelines.
Read the entire article HERE.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Sunday's Sermon


This week's sermon was part 8 in the series on Hebrews: "Fix Your Thoughts on Jesus" (3:1-6). You can listen to or download it HERE.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Comfort from God's love


Martin Luther struggled many years to believe that God loved him. As he considered his sin he concluded that a righteous God could not possibly love him. After his discovery of the Gospel of God's grace he would still struggle mightily against the temptations and accusations of Satan. Luther, famous for his battles with the ancient foe once wrote:



Because you say I am a sinner, I will be righteous and saved...I fly to Christ who has given himself for my sins. Therefore, Satan, you will not prevail against me when you try to terrify me by telling me how great my sins are... On the contrary, when you say I am a sinner, you give me armor and a weapon against yourself... for Christ died for sinners... You do not terrify me but comfort me immeasurably.

The Pope's Dangerous Prescription for The World


First Things is one of my favorite magazines. It is conservative and, yes, Catholic. Joseph Bottum, editor of First Things offers a helpful analysis of Pope Benedict's new encyclical on economic and social justice. "Carnitas in Veritate" has been causing quite a stir. It is even being discussed widely on cable business networks. For the most part Bottum is sympathetic to what the Pope has written. However the Pope's call for a "world political authority," as Mr. Bottum points out seems very close to an old Roman Catholic concept of "universal empire." It is, I believe a very dangerous prescription for the world.


Bottum writes:

The call for a “true world political authority” appears in paragraph 67: “a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.”

To understand this, I think, we have to read it in the light of a call for universal empire, which has been in the Catholic lexicon for a long, long time. The counter-theme of individual sovereign states has been in the Catholic lexicon for a while, too, and the encyclical might have entered here into an interesting discussion of that disagreement in modern Catholic thought. But, as things stand, I can’t imagine a worse time simply to demand universal empire without explanation, or a worse body than the United Nations to entrust with it.

The first naiveté, in Benedict’s version, is the notion that the UN could somehow be “regulated by law” when it itself would be the law, once it had eliminated the individual states (against which the encyclical sets itself when it complains of the UN weakened by “the balance of power among the strongest nations”).

The second naiveté is about the Church, which, in medieval and Renaissance calls for empire, stood as the extra-governmental institution that balanced the state. Now and for the foreseeable future, the Church is detested by the bureaucrats of the UN empire. It’s crazy of Benedict to think that international organization won’t move, with its power, to abolish as much of the Church as it can.

Let’s see, how about a universal right to abortion? How about hate laws that count against Catholics but somehow few others? Here’s a simple and, in fact, quite likely one: How about the great cathedrals all declared “Artistic Property of Mankind,” with ownership and “use oversight” given to UNESCO?

Does Benedict really think that world government would give us “the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order”? Perhaps so.


Discipleship for Men


I saw this posted over at Provocations and Panting:


"Jonathan Dodson, pastor of Austin City Life, recently announced that he has completed his new booklet, “Fight Club: Gospel-Centered Discipleship” which will be e-published for free first The Resurgence, with a print on demand option. Dodson also mentioned that they are working on a website that will expand the booklet through interaction, blogs, and articles. and ultimately have it published as a hard copy."


From the Introduction:



Chapter One lays out a biblical case for fighting the fight of faith, which I hope stirs you up to fight the fight of faith. Once the fighting begins, it is easy to slide into fighting people instead of sin. We start beating one another up with judgment, fighting the wrong things with the wrong motives. We fight against the church instead of with her.

Chapter Two explores where we go wrong in our fighting by uncovering legalistic and licentious patterns in discipleship.

In turn, Chapter Three calls us away from these extremes into a gospel-centered discipleship. With the gospel at the center of discipleship, we can live as Jesus intended—fighting the good fight of faith which leads to true change. However, if weren’t not careful we’ll start to fight on our own. Failure to grasp the community focus of the gospel can cut us off from the grace God gives through his people, the church.

Chapter Four reminds us that discipleship is a community project because the gospel is community focused. Jesus created and redeemed us as people in relationship, people who need one another in the fight of faith. Instead of fighting against the church, we can fight with her, to live a life that is motivated by all that God is for us in the Spirit and the Son.

In conclusion, Chapter Five offers a practical way to apply the gospel to everyday life. It is a call for Fight Clubs—small, simple, biblical, reproducible groups of people who meet together regularly help one another keep the gospel at the center of their discipleship.

Fight Clubs have been crucial in my life and my church. I hope and pray that you’ll find them helpful too, that you’ll form a Fight Club and start fighting with the church, in the gospel, on mission, for the glory of God.

Free Shipping from Monergism

Monergism is offering free shipping for orders of $25 or more during the month of July.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Prayer and the Name of Jesus


That we approach God in the name and by the merit of Jesus is good news for sinners. As for me, a cheif among sinners it is profoundly good news. I have no merits to plead. My name is wholly unimpressive. Even my best works bear the stink of selfish motives. If not for the active obedience, atoning death, and present intercession of Jesus then all hope for me would be lost.


Imagine that your prayer is a poorly dressed beggar reeking of alcohol and body odor, stumbling toward the palace of the great king. You have become your prayer. As you shuffle toward the barred gate, the guards stiffen. Your smell has preceded you. You stammer out a message for the great king: ‘I want to see the king.’

Your words are barely intelligible, but you whisper one final word, ‘Jesus, I come in the name of Jesus.’ At the name of Jesus, as if by magic, the palace comes alive. The guards snap to attention, bowing low in front of you. Lights come on, and the door flies open. You are ushered into the palace and down a long hallway into the throne room of the great king, who comes running to you and wraps you in his arms.

The name of Jesus gives my prayers royal access. They get through. Jesus isn’t just the Savior of my soul. He’s also the Savior of my prayers. My prayers come before the throne of God as the prayers of Jesus. ‘Asking in Jesus’ name’ isn’t another thing I have to get right so my prayers are perfect. Is it one more gift of God because my prayers are so imperfect.

From A Praying Life by Paul Miller

Calvin as Preacher and Teacher

Check out THIS Audio of Al Mohler on John Calvin as a preacher and teacher.

Patriotism and the Pulpit


Check out THIS edition of the Albert Mohler radio program.

No Comfort Apart from a Sovereign God

From Tim Challies:
On September 28, 2008, I was shocked to read these words on the blog of Terry Stauffer, a man I had met at a couple of conferences and who has long been a reader and commenter at my blog: “Last night at about 4:45 our precious 14 year-old daughter Emily was attacked and killed as she was out for a walk. We don’t know a lot of details, but we know that two young men came upon the scene right away, but it was too late for Emily. I will write more as more details come available. Please pray for us, for our church family who are meeting without us right now, and for family that is travelling. We are realizing from the inside the value of good, Gospel theology right now. ”

Terry is pastor of Edson Baptist Church in the small town of Edson, Alberta. Emily’s murder shocked this small town of less than 10,000 people—the kind of town where this crime is unheard of. I continued to follow Terry’s blog as he dealt with the aftermath—Emily’s funeral, national media attention, the arrest of a suspect and life following the loss of a child. Through it all, Terry’s faith strengthened me from afar. I recently asked Terry if he would be kind enough to participate in an interview and I am grateful that he was willing and able to do so. I offer this interview in the hope that it encourages you in the Lord who promises (and delivers) strength as strength is needed.

Read Tim's moving interview with Emily's father HERE.

What Calvin can teach us about relevance


Kevin Deyoung has posted some great thoughts on what we can learn from John Calvin about being relevant. Since the contemporary American church has been obsessed with relevance for some time now it would be good reflect on DeYoung's words.


Whatever lasting impact John Calvin has had on the church of Jesus Christ, and on the whole world for that matter, is owing to his commitment to understanding and explaining the word of God. From sermons to lectures to letters to tracts to treatises to confessions to catechisms to books, his adult life was consumed with one thing: the word of God–the word as a summons to obedience, the word as a blueprint for reform, the word as the foundation for all truth.

Calvin’s confidence was not in the world of technology and progress. He would have scoffed at Bultmann’s now laughable line from several generations ago that “it is impossible to use electric light and the wireless [radio] and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time believe in the New Testament world of demons and spirits.”

Calvin’s confidence was not in man’s potential or the triumph of the human spirit. He would have equally scoffed and been frankly embarrassed by the well-known Reformed Church pastor, Robert Schuller who argued that self-esteem was the New Reformation and that “Christians should hold to these truths: I affirm that I will never be defeated, because I will never quit...I affirm that if I’m totally dedicated I’ll eventually win.”

Calvin’s confidence was in the Word of God, and that’s why his theology and vision of the world continues to capture the minds and hearts of people in the 21st century. That’s why five hundred years later we remember his birth. That’s why Calvin the preacher and expositor has millions more spiritual children than Erasmus the scholar and hermeneutical skeptic. Strive for relevance in your day, and you’ll may make a difference for a few years. Anchor yourself in what is eternal and you may influence the world for another five centuries.
Read the entire post HERE. Seriously!

Calvin's 500th


Today, July 10, 2009 marks the 500th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin.


Allow me to suggest a little reading to mark the occassion:

The Institutes of the Christian Religion - Simply the most beautiful, the finest, and most important theological text ever written outside the Holy Spirit's inspiration. You would do well to read the Institutes.




The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin - Excellent survey of Calvin's life and thought by top Calvin scholars.








For a fuller list of great resources click HERE.







Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Thinking rightly about God


Martin Downes over at Against Heresies posted a link to a helpful response from Douglas Kelley to the book "The Openness of God."


Dr. Kelly writes:


The reason the five authors of The Openness of God deny the infinitude of nearly all the attributes of God is their failure to have heard what Hilary (and the whole orthodox Christian tradition) could have said to them. That is, we must not attempt to project our creaturely limitations onto the God who made us (as though we had made him). That would be a violation of the second commandment. Rather, with Saint Paul, let us understand that the analogy (and glorious reality) of God as our Father makes sense because fatherhood is from God (Eph. 3:14-15), as the incarnate Christ and outpoured Spirit have shown us. Hence, as Athanasius says, "God does not make man his pattern, but rather, since God alone is properly and truly Father, we men are called fathers of our own children, for of him every fatherhood in heaven and earth is named" (Contra Arianos 1:23).

Human reason, therefore, must adjust itself to God's being and not the reverse. Repeatedly in this volume, the authors univocally limit the infinite God by what they are able to understand (see, for example, the definition of divine omniscience on p. 136). This short-sighted procedure causes them throughout the book to deny one side of clear biblical teaching (such as God's sovereignty) in order to affirm the other side (such as human responsibility). Sadly, all too little that they write in this volume can be taken seriously either by scholars or by ordinary Christian layfolk until its authors rethink their basic approach. May they be blessed in doing so!

Read the entire article HERE.