The Sad Legacy of Theological Liberalism

From Banner of Truth:

'How Liberal Theology Infected Scotland' is a deeply instructive short article written by R. A. Finlayson, the late professor of Systematic Theology in the Free Church College in Edinburgh.

Finlayson attributed the nineteenth century infiltration of Liberalism into a confessional Church to wrong priorities by the leaders. He wrote:

...not content with opening three colleges, in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen...her theological students would not deem their course complete, or their standing in the Church assured, without a postgraduate course of one or more years in one of the more famous Colleges in Germany.

From that folly, the product of spiritual pride, the Free Church was to reap a bitter harvest. Germany then was the nursery of Liberal theology, which was spreading like prairie fire through the Protestant Churches of Europe.

Reading this assessment reminded me of the words of Archibald Alexander to the young Charles Hodge. Hodge has been given leave by the Seminary to spend two years studying in Europe. As well as developing his linguistic skills, Hodge would become acquainted with biblical criticism. Alexander cautioned him:

Remember that you breathe a poisoned atmosphere. If you lose the lively and deep impression of Divine truth, if you fall into scepticism or even into coldness - you will lose more than you gain from all the German professors and libraries . . .

At the start of the twentieth century a similar situation was faced by the young Gresham Machen as he studied in Marburg, Germany, under the renowned Liberal scholar Wilhelm Herrmann. Machen said that Herrmann believed hardly anything essential to Christianity. Yet here was a man who at the same time exuded an incredibly impressive piety. Although he rarely spoke of the profound spiritual struggle that he went through in Germany, one of Machen's students recalled him saying that:

. . . the great Dr. Herrman presented his position with such power I would sometimes leave his presence wondering how I could ever retain my confidence in the historical accuracy of the Gospel narratives. Then I'd go to my room, take out the Gospel of Mark and read it from beginning to end in one sitting - and my doubts would fade. I realized that the document could not possibly be the invention of the mind of a mere man.

It was a remarkable act of mercy that kept the young Charles Hodge, and the young Gresham Machen, from capitulating to the errors of their teachers. Embracing orthodoxy, and remaining orthodox, cannot ultimately be attributed to our own powers. How different would the history of Princeton have been if the poison of Liberalism had infected the blood stream of Charles Hodge. Perhaps we can see what it would have looked like by observing the influence of a notable Hebrew scholar on the other side of the Atlantic.

It ought to be kept in mind that, more often than not, theological teachers who embrace errors remain convinced that they are still orthodox. In Scotland, A. B. Davidson, who was appointed in 1863 to the Chair of Hebrew Old Testament Literature in the New College, Edinburgh, had drunk deeply at the wells of German Liberal theology. He subtly began to introduce the new theology. Finlayson notes that Davidson gave this counsel to his students:

Be careful to give this to your congregations in small doses.

A. B. Bruce, professor at the Glasgow College, is a further tragic
example of the deleterious effects of Liberal theology:

Of some others in the forefront of the movement, it can only be said that there was a breakdown in character as well as in faith, over which the veil of charity must be drawn. As sad a case as any was, perhaps, that of A. B. Bruce, because of the early promise of his work on the teaching of Christ; and yet at the end of the day one of his closest friends commented sorrowfully: 'Sandy Bruce died without a single Christian conviction.'

Read the rest of this important article HERE.

"A Lover's Quarrel with the Evangelical Church"

From The White Horse Inn:

Is something wrong with the soil in the evangelical garden? According to Warren Cole Smith, author of A Lover's Quarrel with the Evangelical Church, the answer to that question, unfortunately, is yes. On this edition of the White Horse Inn, Michael Horton talks with Warren about his provocative new book and the current state of evangelical Christianity.

Listen to the program HERE.

How did we get the Bible?

If you're looking for a good introductory answer to this question (in 12 pages), here's a helpful presentation by Matt Harmon, delivered at the No Doubt Apologetics Conference in Indianapolis.

HT: Justin Taylor

Pastors take note

Actual Craigslist post:

washington, DC craigslist > district of columbia > for sale / wanted > items wanted please flag with care:

Wanted: Christian Church

Date: 2009-08-17, 9:12AM EDTReply to: sale-qkjuk-1327299219@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]

Looking for a church based on the teachings of the Bible. Recommendations?

*Please don't treat me like a customer at Starbucks.

*Please don't entertain me like I'm at a concert or manipulate my emotions like I'm watching a movie.

Please just open the Bible, explain what it says and what it means for my life.

it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests PostingID: 1327299219

HT: Church Matters

John MacArthur in The Washington Post

Here is yet another reason why I like John MacArthur:

Let's be brutally honest: most of Jesus' teaching is completely out of sync with the mores that dominate our culture.

I'm talking, of course, about the Jesus we encounter in Scripture, not the always-gentle, never-stern, über-lenient coloring-book character who exists only in the popular imagination. The real Jesus was no domesticated clergyman with a starched collar and genteel manners; he was a bold, uncompromising Prophet who regularly challenged the canons of political correctness.

Consider the account of Jesus' public ministry given in the New Testament. The first word of his first sermon was "Repent!"--a theme that was no more welcome and no less strident-sounding than it is today. The first act of his public ministry touched off a small riot. He made a whip of cords and chased money-changers and animal merchants off the Temple grounds. That initiated a three-year-long conflict with society's most distinguished religious leaders. They ultimately handed him over to Roman authorities for crucifixion while crowds of lay people cheered them on.

Jesus was pointedly, deliberately, and dogmatically counter-cultural in almost every way. No wonder the religious and academic aristocracy of his generation were so hostile to him.

Read the entire article HERE.

This is what I call "Pro Life"!

From 11 Alive News:

METRO ATLANTA, Ga. -- Last weekend an Atlanta pastor made a promise that stunned his congregation and most of the people who heard it.In a speech that discussed abortion, the President, and the sanctity of life, the most provocative statement from Pastor Vic Pentz of Peachtree Presbyterian Church came towards sermon's end:"I make a promise to you now and I don't want you to keep this a secret," the pastor pronounced, "the Peachtree Presbyterian Church will care for any newborn baby you bring to this church."We will be the family to find a home for that child, and there's no limit on this. You can tell your friends, you can tell your family, you can tell the whole world ..."Reflected Pentz a week later, "I seem to have touched a nerve by saying that to the congregation."It's a speech he repeated this past Sunday, and it can be found on the church's web site under the sermon title, "Ethics of Life".

HT: Tim Challies

The Workers are Few

HT: Justin Taylor

Sunday's Sermon

Sunday's sermon was part 13 of the series through Hebrews - "Since we have a Great High Priest" (Heb. 4:14-16). You can lisen to or download it HERE.

David Powlison on Calvin and Biblical Counseling

"Pray the Bible"

I have posted a link to a great resource for prayer under the "devotions" section in the right-hand column. It is called "Pray the Bible" and is based upon Matthew Henry's classic Method for Prayer.

Being offended by the right things

As a follow up to my last post take time to read Erik Raymond's thoughts about Michael Vick. He wonders what is wrong with a culture that is more scandalized by the death of some dogs than it is by over one million abortions each year.

Why is it that abortion is relegated to a controversial taboo and Vick’s dog fighting is not? Why are we united in condemning Vick and not condemning abortion? Why is our flame of righteousness burn so bright in the face of Vick but is flickering in the face of 50 million abortions? What is wrong with the American conscience?

There are lots of things in common between the two issues. In both cases you have the willful disregard for life, the deaths are both accomplished by humans, there is plenty of merciless brutality toward the victim, and there is a self-sovereign decision to end the life.

However, there is one significant difference: you get time in a federal prison for killing dogs but you get federal funding for killing babies.

Redeeming Michael Vick

"Two things you need to understand about WASP's: They love animals but they hate people."

- Gordon Gekko from the movie Wall Street

Initially I greeted the news about Michael Vick becoming a Philadelphia Eagle with a measure of cynicism. Certainly his participation in dogfighting was wrong, foolish, and, as he found out, illegal. Vick went from being the highest paid player in the NFL to being a resident in a federal prison after being convicted of conspiracy and running a dogfighting operation. That's enough for even PETA to seriously consider capital punishment.

But should his behavior, bad as it was, be the final chapter on Michael Vick? Should it disqualify him from ever again playing football professionally? Some reply with an unqualified "yes!" I agreed at one time. Now however I have had to reconsider my position. It's not that I don't think his crime should be without consequences. Indeed, Michael Vick has paid a steep price for what he did. When he steps out onto the field and is greeted by booing Philly fans he will be reminded that when he left the federal prison the consequences of his behavior did not come to a close.

The question for those of us who call ourselves Christians is whether or not we believe that someone who has offended our sensibilities so deeply can be redeemed. Do we believe that Michael Vick can be redeemed to the extent that he is allowed to return to that which he does so well? Make no mistake. Even if his talents are resurrected and he becomes once again a great football player he will for the rest of his career be known as the guy who killed dogs.

What I hope does not happen is for his first season with the Eagles to turn into the Michael Vick 'I Love Animals' Tour. I don't want him to wear 'I (heart) Puppies' t-shirts. He has done his time. His name is permanently tarnished. His redemption, if it is to occur, will not consist of words designed to assure us of how miserable he feels. The reality of his redemption will be revealed over time by the quality of his life. We ought to give him the time, and yes, our prayers toward that end.

Baby Talk

New and Notable Books

Bryan Chapell's commentary on Ephesians is the latest installment in the wonderful Reformed Expository Commentary series. Right now you can get it from WTS Bookstore for only $9.99 (67% off!).

Also, "The Cradle, The Cross, and the Crown" promises to be an outstanding contribution to New Testament studies. It is currently 37% off.

The Two Natures of Jesus Christ

This Sunday, Lord willing, I will be preaching from Hebrews 4:14-16 which deals with both the divinity and humanity of Jesus. As a word of comfort for struggling saints the inspired writer emphasizes Christ's identification with us through his humanity. "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (v. 15).

In his wonderful little book Concise Theology, J.I. Packer writes of Jesus' dual nature:

Jesus was a man who convinced those closest to him that he was also God; his humanness is not therefore in doubt. John’s condemnation of those who denied that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 7) was aimed at Docetists, who replaced the Incarnation with the idea that Jesus was a supernatural visitant (not God) who seemed human but was really a kind of phantom, a teacher who did not really die for sins.

The Gospels show Jesus experiencing human limitations (hunger, Matt. 4:2; weariness, John 4:6; ignorance of fact, Luke 8:45-47) and human pain (weeping at Lazarus’ grave, John 11:35, 38; agonizing in Gethsemane, Mark 14:32-42; cf. Luke 12:50; Hebrews 5:7-10; and suffering on the cross). Hebrews stresses that had he not thus experienced human pressures—weakness, temptation, pain—he would not be qualified to help us as we go through these things (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:15-16; 5:2, 7-9). As it is, his human experience is such as to guarantee that in every moment of demand and pressure in our relationship and walk with God we may go to him, confident that in some sense he has been there before us and so is the helper we need.

Christians, focusing on Jesus’ deity, have sometimes thought that it honors Jesus to minimize his humanness. The early heresy of Monophysitism (the idea that Jesus had only one nature) expressed this supposition, as do modern suggestions that he only pretended to be ignorant of facts (on the supposition that he always actualized his omniscience and therefore was aware of everything) and to be hungry and weary (on the supposition that his divinity supernaturally energized his humanity all the time, raising it above the demands of ordinary existence). But Incarnation means, rather, that the Son of God lived his divine-human life in and through his human mind and body at every point, maximizing his identification and empathy with those he had come to save, and drawing on divine resources to transcend human limits of knowledge and energy only when particular requirements of the Father’s will so dictated.

The idea that Jesus’ two natures were like alternating electrical circuits, so that sometimes he acted in his humanity and sometimes in his divinity, is also mistaken. He did and endured everything, including his sufferings on the cross, in the unity of his divine-human person (i.e., as the Son of God who had taken to himself all human powers of acting, reacting, and experiencing, in their unfallen form). Saying this does not contradict divine impassibility, for impassibility means not that God never experiences distress but that what he experiences, distress included, is experienced at his own will and by his own foreordaining decision.

Jesus, being divine, was impeccable (could not sin), but this does not mean he could not be tempted. Satan tempted him to disobey the Father by self-gratification, self-display, and self-aggrandizement (Matt. 4:1-11), and the temptation to retreat from the cross was constant (Luke 22:28, where the Greek for “trials” can be translated “temptations”; Matt. 16:23; and Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane). Being human, Jesus could not conquer temptation without a struggle, but being divine it was his nature to do his Father’s will (John 5:19, 30), and therefore to resist and fight temptation until he had overcome it. From Gethsemane we may infer that his struggles were sometimes more acute and agonizing than any we ever know. The happy end-result is that “because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (Heb. 2:18).

* Packer, J. I. (1995, c1993). Concise theology : A guide to historic Christian beliefs. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.

Blunting The Truth

"We have to deal with a spirit, I know not how to denominate it, unless I call it a spirit of moderatism in the pulpits of protestant churches. Men have begun to rub off the rough edges of truth, to give up the doctrines of Luther and Zwingle, and Calvin, and to endeavour to accommodate them to polished tastes. You might go into a Roman Catholic chapel now-a-days, and hear as good a sermon from a Popish priest as you hear in many cases from a Protestant minister, because he does not touch disputed points, or bring out the angular parts of our Protestant religion. Mark, too, in the great majority of our books what a dislike there is to sound doctrine! the writers seem to fancy that truth is of no more value than error; that as for the doctrines we preach, it cannot matter what they are; still holding that 'He can't be wrong whose life is in the right.' There is creeping into the pulpits of Baptists and every other denomination, a lethargy and coldness, and with that a sort of nullification of all truth. While they for the most part preach but little notable error, yet the truth itself is uttered in so minute a form that no one detects it, and in so ambiguous a style, that no one is struck with it. So far as man can do it, God's arrows are blunted, and the edge of his sword is turned in the day of battle. Men do not hear the truth as they used to."

- Charles Spurgeon

"When Helping Hurts" (2)

Okay, I said my next post would be a review of the book "When Helping Hurts." However, I found this interview with the authors and thought it would be beneficial. I'll begin going into detail on this important book in the next post.

Worship Carefully Considered

It seems that worship is too often limited to the topic of music. Since music is an emotional issue (in the church at least) this narrowing is probably why discussions concerning worship often generate more heat than light. There is also a tendency to assume that the forms of worship are completely up to the worshipper. It is said that we should be as creative as we like and use whatever elements we like so long as our "heart is in the right place." Now, I could go on about the issue of our hearts being in the right place. What exactly does that mean? But I digress.

Josh and Nick over at Reformed Forum discuss the Regulative Principle of worship with Dr. Derek Thomas (one of my favorite preachers). Check it out HERE.

Treating Terminally Ill Infants with Dignity

While serving as a pastor in Wichita, Kansas I had the honor of being connected with Choices Medical Clinic (a pro-life) medical clinic. They have had an awesome ministry. One of the creatively compassionate things that Choices provided for parents who discovered that their yet unborn child had a fatal anomaly was perinatal hospice. I was able to participate directly with several families who went through the perinatal hospice program and was deeply moved by seeing how blessed these hurting families were by the opportunity afforded them by Choices. Was it less convenient than an abortion? I would suppose so. But these parents were able to look at themselves in the mirror knowing they had treated their little one with dignity. That is infinitely more valuable than convenience.

Writing for World Magazine, Matt Anderson reports on the alternative of perinatal hospice.

When a pregnant woman clearly understands the primary purpose of genetic testing—abortion of a handicapped baby—a majority decline testing in my experience and almost all pro-life women decline testing. Nearly every problem now identified by prenatal diagnosis has no treatment. David Grimes, a well-known OB/GYN, professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, and a strong abortion advocate, spoke truth in a rare moment of public clarity when he said prenatal diagnosis would disappear if abortion were not available.

But what happens when a routine 20-week ultrasound shows a baby with a profound abnormality, possibly an abnormality that will certainly result in the death of the baby prior to or shortly after birth? Or when a genetic test is done and shows similar results and the patient then decides against abortion? What then?

Enter perinatal hospice, the brain child of Byron Calhoun, a pro-life maternal-fetal medicine specialist.

Perinatal hospice honors life. The woman carrying the disabled child receives extensive counseling and birth preparation involving the combined efforts of MFM specialists, OB/GYN doctors, neonatologists, anesthesia services, chaplains, pastors, social workers, labor and delivery nurses, and neonatal nurses. She carries the pregnancy to its natural conclusion. She and her husband are allowed to grieve and prepare for the short time God may grant them with their child while their baby lives inside or outside the womb. Such a process obviates the grief caused by elective abortion, killing the child before it could be born.

Read the entire article HERE.

"Emergent" Briefly Stated

Even as the emergent movement begins to slip into obscurity where it will eventually end up on the trash heap of other unhelpful fads that have harmed the church I am still frequently asked about it. Emergent is a notoriously slippery little bugger but there are nevertheless some things about it that are generally true across the board.

Monergism has a very helpful and brief discription of "emergent".

Emerging Churches usually define themselves as those who like to take the life of Jesus as a model way to live, welcome those who are outside, share generously, participate, create, lead without control and function together in spiritual activities or communities who practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures. While all of these activities may be good, please notice that all of the above emerging principles are not about what Christ has done for us, but what we do for him. So the the very central core of Christianity is left out. The true gospel, rather, is news about what Christ has already done for us as a Savior, rather than instruction and advice about what we are to do for God. The primacy of His accomplishment, not ours, is the essence of our faith. The gospel of Christ above all brings news, rather than instruction.

Read the entire thing HERE.

Lane Tipton on Justification

"We're conservative right up until the moment that it costs us"

I know about Judd Apatow. I know about his movies. I've seen almost half of "40 Year Old Virgin" but have not seen "Knocked Up." I have heard the buzz about his movies being a strange new brand of raunchy social conservatism - the South Park phenomenon as it were. His movies have been extremely successful which is why Apatow is one of Hollywood's newest "it" guys. But his newest movie "Funny People" has not been received with the same enthusiasm.

Russ Douthat has some thoughts as to why that may be:

It’s been a melancholy summer for social conservatives. Their movement is fighting a rearguard battle in Barack Obama’s Washington. A cluster of family-values politicians — some of whom bunked down in the same Christian-sponsored D.C. townhouse — have spent the last few months confessing to extramarital affairs. And Sarah Palin ... well, you know how that’s turned out so far.

Worst of all, nobody likes Judd Apatow’s new movie.

Don’t laugh. No contemporary figure has done more than Apatow, the 41-year-old auteur of gross-out comedies, to rebrand social conservatism for a younger generation that associates it primarily with priggishness and puritanism. No recent movie has made the case for abortion look as self-evidently awful as “Knocked Up,” Apatow’s 2007 keep-the-baby farce. No movie has made saving — and saving, and saving — your virginity seem as enviable as “The 40-Year Old Virgin,” whose closing segue into connubial bliss played like an infomercial for True Love Waits.

“We make extremely right-wing movies with extremely filthy dialogue,” Seth Rogen, Apatow’s favorite leading man, told an interviewer during the promotional blitz for “Knocked Up.” He was half-joking, of course, and it’s safe to say that you won’t see Apatow and his merry men at the next Christian Coalition fundraiser. But the one-liner got something important right. By marrying raunch and moralism, Apatow’s movies have done the near impossible: They’ve made an effectively conservative message about relationships and reproduction seem relatable, funny, down-to-earth and even sexy.

Read the rest of the article HERE.

Should the church try to entertain? OR Christians aren't that funny

Joel Stein who writes for Time Magazine certainly comes across as smug and condescending. He is also no fan of Christians who take their confession seriously. In an article he wrote for Time.com in July he puts these "qualities" on display. However, he also stumbles upon some truth. What is more, his article prompted me to ask again what the church is thinking when it seeks to entertain. Stein writes about a visit he made to Saddleback Community Church, specifically to their improv group.

Stein writes:

There are many things Evangelical Christians are good at, such as bake sales and talking to me on planes. They're less adept at other things, such as comedy and fighting lions. Christians aren't funny because they tend to be literal-minded. Also because they're sad about having had sex with only one person. So when Kevin Roose, author of the excellent new book The Unlikely Disciple, told me that Rick Warren's giant Saddleback Church has its own improv group, for the first time in my life, I felt my calling. I may not be the Woody Allen or Jon Stewart of the secular world, but in the land of the unfunny Christian, the one-joked Jew is king.

I called improv-troupe leader Ron Ruhman and asked if I could perform with the group at one of their monthly Saturday-night shows. He graciously invited me out. And then graciously asked me to try not to curse onstage. I arrived at the college-campus-size Orange County church on a Saturday afternoon. After being taught various improv games with the five members of the troupe, none of which involved the Bible or moral lessons, I asked them what the difference was between secular and Christian improv. "We're dirtier," said Jeremy Bryan Barnes. Then he explained why they weren't doing Christian comedy. "When we started, we'd get requests from groups to do jokes about Noah. But it wasn't fun. We'd work too hard to work in Noah. It's our job to entertain." Their goal, Barnes explained, was to give people a way to get friends to the church who have turned down an invitation to a service. This made sense until I thought about the kind of person who would say, "I'm not interested in eternal salvation, but I'd love to spend a Saturday night in a small conference room watching Christian improvisational comedy!"

Wow! I don't even know where to begin. Perhaps churches that are under the impression that lost people are waiting on pins and needles for the church to become more entertaining ought to rethink their assumptions.

Here is what goes through your mind during 90 minutes of Christian improv: "No, no, can't say that, nope, maybe if ... no." In response to a game in which we had to communicate a murder scenario to one another in gibberish, our audience shouted its increasingly bland ideas with fervor: "Turtle!" "Balloon!" "IHOP!" "Bowling!"

When one sinner yelled "Uranus!" our troupe member repeated it as "Urahnus." We even had to change the classic "guy walks into a bar, and the bartender says" scenario into "guy walks into a restaurant, and the manager says." This was one tight ahnus-ed group.

That said, Christian audiences will laugh at anything, since they are either so nice or so unaware of any entertainment other than Seventh Heaven. Puns proved to be a big hit, as was anything involving eating or pooping. My troupe mates were impressively funny within those boundaries, but after a while, I couldn't take the comedy shackles. During a version of the game Jeopardy!, someone shouted the answer "Milk!" to which I nervously buzzed in with "What is a movie they'd never play at this church?" To my relief, this got a laugh. So when we had to make up rhyming greeting cards for imaginary events and an audience member yelled out "Going to an improv show!" I said, "Improv is scary to do/ Especially when the whole audience wants to convert you."

Afterward, lots of supernice Christian people complimented my Christian-bashing jokes, including Tony Guerrero, Saddleback's director of creative arts, who also throws a jazz and Shakespeare festival at the church. I asked him what exactly the point of all this was, and he said, "If you look back in history, most of the arts were done for the church. All the music of Bach and Mozart was written for the church. We'd like it to be a hub for the arts again." Even back in the Renaissance, for every Michelangelo, there were probably five guys on a stage desperately trying to come up with poop jokes.

And while Saddleback gets criticized for being plush — with its on-campus sand volleyball courts, skateboard park and concert theater — and straying from its central missions of proselytizing and charity, I think it's great that the congregation is branching out. I want there to be more kinds of comedy and music and art. I'm just glad I'm not one of the poor Evangelicals who let themselves see only Christian versions of those things. Because I can't be there every month to save the show.

It seems to me that the contemporary church often has a hard time distinguishing between entertainment and art between kitch and the transcendent. In recent decades the church has had a very troubled relationship with the arts. The days of Reubens, Bach, and Watts are over. Now we have Kincaid, Tomlin, and LeHaye. Nothing against those later mentioned. I would not want to be compared, for instance, to Charles Spurgeon. This does however demonstrate how far we've come (or fallen).

Your thoughts?

What ought to be the church's relationship with entertainment?

Have we confused entertainment with the arts?

What do you believe are the expectations of the typical lost person that agrees to visit a church service?

How might those expectations differ from or resemble the expectations of the average church-goer?

Sinclair Ferguson on the Prodigal Son

When you get a chance listen to Sinclair Ferguson's wonderful sermon on Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son - "Slavery or Sonship".

Pastors and the Lure of Popularity

Steve Camp posted some thoughts on a wonderful quote from the good bishop of Liverpool J.C. Ryle:

"Young men, I want you all to be free from this bondage. I want each of you to care nothing about man's opinion, when the path of duty is clear."

Here are a few of my thoughts:

I'll be honest. I am a degenerate people pleaser. That is, I love the approval of man. Lest you think I am trying to compliment myself in an underhanded way like saying that my greatest weakness is I care too much and work too hard then think again. People pleasing is nothing less than idolatry. It places the approval of man above the approval of God.

One of the symtoms of this sin is a tendancy to lack courage and the inability to say "NO". I think about this a lot because being a pastor lends itself to this kind of fear. It is hard to forget that those a pastor is called to lead are the very ones who employ him. I am often given the wise counsel, "Todd, you can't please everyone so don't try," and, "Sometimes you just have to say 'no'". And, of course I can't help but think in those moments, "Yeah, until you are the one I say 'no' to."

I hope this does not sound cynical. Experience however has taught me that the cost to pastors of disappointing someone is extremely high. Pastors face a decision: do they lead with courage or do they do what is safe? For a pastor with a wife, children, and a mortgage it is very tempting to go the safe route.

But in spite of the cost of caring more about God's approval than that of man it is always the "safer" thing to act against our impulse toward self-preservation. This does not mean that we ought to have a careless disregard for the feelings of people. Far from it. But loving people well always involves telling them the truth. Sometimes this means telling them "no." It always means proclaiming God's Word in all its fullness and leading according to that Word even when (perhaps especially when) the direction is unpopular.

Puritan Picks

Check it out HERE.

Sunday's Sermon

Today's message was part 12 in our series through Hebrews - "Consider the Power of God's Word" (Heb. 4:12-13). You can listen to or download it HERE.

John Frame's favorite books on Scripture

"Four Favorites on the Doctrine of Scripture"

by John Frame

1. B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (new edition: Kessinger Publishing, 2008). Virtually the same as Revelation and Inspiration (Baker, 2000).

These essays are the most influential in forming the evangelical and Reformed view of Scripture in the twentieth century. They are around 100 years old, but the exegetical arguments still hold up. The book is a formidable work of godly scholarship. It is the starting point for most current discussions of biblical authority and inerrancy. Warfield’s view was not original, though some have claimed that it was. His was the traditional position of orthodox Christianity. But he was creative in his powerful defense of that position.

2. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, volume one of four, on “Prolegomena.” English translation (Baker, 2003).

Bavinck’s theology is the most important work of Reformed systematic theology in the past century. The section on Scripture is marvelously comprehensive and nuanced. In my judgment, there is no difference between his position and that of Warfield, but his vocabulary and emphasis are different. He and Warfield give us “two witnesses,” coming from different cultures, testifying to the truth of Scripture as God’s word.

3. Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Eerdmans, 1972).

This is the most important breakthrough in the doctrine of Scripture since Warfield. Shows that Scripture has the character of a written treaty, of which God is the author, and to which believers must be committed without reservation. I have disagreed with Kline on some other matters, but I believe this book contains a powerful argument. Kline shows that the idea of a written, authoritative word of God is essential to God’s plan of redemption.

4. Ned Stonehouse and Paul Woolley, eds., The Infallible Word (P&R, 2003).

These are cogent articles by the old (around 1946) Westminster Seminary faculty, dealing with various aspects of biblical authority. I keep coming back especially to John Murray’s “The Attestation of Scripture” and Cornelius Van Til’s “Nature and Scripture.” Murray gives a concise, definitive exposition of Scripture’s self-witness. Van Til shows that both general and special revelation are necessary, authoritative, clear, and sufficient for their respective purposes, and that they stand opposed to the worldviews of non-Christian philosophies.

Posted on Frame / Poythress

The New Testament's Use of the Old Testament

I have been preaching through Hebrews which makes frequent use of the Old Testament. Some critical scholars both past and present quite confidently declare that the writer of Hebrews, along with other New Testament writers, simply misuses and misinterprets the Old Testament. But I find this argument to be terribly hubristic and built upon an insufficient doctrine of Scripture. These scholars begin with the assumption that God's Word errs. Therefore, they reason, if the writer of Hebrews uses an Old Testament text in a way that they would not then this is jst one more example of an error in the Bible.

Greg Beale and D.A. Carson are examples of two biblical scholars which begin by affirming that what the Bible declares about itself is true. They are also among the scholars who have done outstanding work in studying the New Testament's use of the Old Testament.

Last year Carson and Beale were interviewed by Christianity Today on this particular issues. It's worth reading.

What might surprise readers about how the New Testament writers used the Old Testament?

Beale: It's evident in our book that the New Testament writers use the Old Testament with the context of the Old Testament in mind. That's a real debate between evangelicals and non-evangelicals, but it's also an in-house debate. Some evangelicals would say Jesus and the apostles preached the right Old Testament doctrine but from the wrong Old Testament texts. They believe that what the New Testament writers wrote was inspired, but their interpretative method was not inspired, that it was just as wild and crazy as the Jewish method at the time. Our book proceeds on the presupposition that of course their conclusions are inspired. But we also show that Jesus was not a wild and crazy Jewish interpreter like those at Qumran or elsewhere, but he interpreted the Old Testament in a very viable way.

If you want a good example of someone who would disagree with our method, there's a recent book by Peter Enns called Inspiration and Incarnation. In one of the concluding chapters, he contends that Jesus and the apostles preached the right doctrine from the wrong texts and that we should do the same. I have written a lengthy review of that chapter in the periodical Themelios. Enns responded, and then I wrote a surrejoinder just on this very issue.

Read the entire interview HERE.

Check out The Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament

Q & A with R.C. Sproul

From Ligonier Ministries:

Is God concerned with the material well-being of Christians?

When did God decide to give us eternal life?

How are we to keep the Sabbath in today's society?

Does the Bible tell us what heaven will be like?

How can we as Christians ascertain when God's Word was applicable only to a certain culture and therefore may not be applicable to us today?

Bob Dylan's Christmas Album

Bob Dylan likes to surprise. Now he is doing so by recording his first Christmas album.

Here's the story:

Prominent media expert and best-selling author Michael Levine said the move by Dylan was "completely consistent with his longstanding tradition of doing the unexpected. Concerning Bob Dylan literally nothing would surprise me which of course is part of his lasting appeal. He confounds like no other pop artist ever.

"The inclusion of “O Little Town of Bethlehem," written by an Episcopal priest named Phillips Brooks in 1867 after a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, is likely to fuel speculation about Dylan's religious beliefs that have swirled ever since he publicly converted to Christianity in 1979, recorded explicitly religious material on three subsequent albums and for a time refused to play his old songs. Religious references on subsequent recordings became less overt after 1981's "Shot of Love."

The other three songs, “Must Be Santa” by Hal Moore and Bill Fredricks, “Here Comes Santa Claus” by Gene Autry and Oakley Haldeman and “I’ll Be Home for Christmas” by Buck Ram, Kim Gannon and Walter Kent were all written between 1943 and 1960.

"A Christmas album by Bob Dylan in the pipeline doesn't really shock me," said Scott Marshall, author of a forthcoming book on the singer, "God and Bob Dylan: A Spiritual Life". "At first glance it may sound bizarre, but I don't think Dylan cares much about what his detractors might make of it. Dylan still sings songs from "Slow Train Coming" to this day and he's both never renounced being Jewish or renounced his experience with Jesus some three decades ago. He remains enigmatic and this will probably be talked about for years to come."

Check out the entire story HERE.

"When Helping Hurts" (1)

As I mentioned in a previous post the good folks at Westminster Bookstore were kind enough to give me a copy of When Helping Hurts by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert. I have read it and can say with confidence that it is the best book on giving meaningful help to the impoverished that I have ever read. This week I will be engaging the book with a series of posts that will serve as something of a review.

Brian Fikkert is an associate professor of economics and the founder and executive director of the Chalmers Center for Economic Development at Covenant College. Steve Corbett is an associate professor in the department of economics and development at Covenant College. He also serves as the community development specialist at the Chalmers Center.

The first thing I noticed about When Helping Hurts is the impressive endorsements. There are evangelicals who are reformed and those who are not, those who lean to the left and those who lean to the right politically speaking who have found this book to be profoundly helpful.

Here are a few examples:

"What an opportunity evangelicals have to make a difference in our world through the church as we move deeper into the third millenium! Corbett and Fikkert build on the growing momentum of holistic witness that's sweeping our country and globe. Given their work nationally and internationally both personally and through the Chalmers Center, Corbett and Fikkert are eminently qualified and positioned to take motivated kingdom citizens on a Christ-centered and comprehensive journey that will pay huge dividends for impoverished people and for Christians in our broken world. When Helping Hurts will help the hurting - and us as well."

- Dr. Ronald Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social Action

"From the early pages, where the authors promptly and humbly confess how they have 'messed up' in their own efforts to alleviate poverty, to the last chapters where their vast experience and on-the-street wisdom show through so helpfully, this is a book that wonderfully combines heavy-duty thinking with practical tools. As a journalist, I appreciate the authors' story-telling and descriptive abilities. As a churchman, I appreciate their zeal to root all strategies in the institution God has ordained to bring about His goals. No donor should invest another dollar in any kind of relief effort before digesting the last page of this important book."

- Joel Belz, Founder and writer, World Magazine

"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

In the next post I will begin dealing with the structure and content of When Helping Hurts.

Health Care Reform and Abortion

One of the concerns that have been expressed by those of us opposed to abortion is whether or not abortions would be funded under government provided health care coverage. This of course would mean that tax payers would be forced to pay for abortions.

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

Advocates on both sides are preparing for a renewed battle over abortion, which could jeopardize political support for President Barack Obama's health care initiative aimed at covering nearly 50 million uninsured and restraining medical costs. The dispute could come to a head with House and Senate floor votes on abortion this fall, a prospect that many lawmakers would like to avoid.

Read the entire article HERE.

A Praying Life

A Praying Life by Paul Miller is an outstanding new book. Instead of writing my own review I will show you what Sean Lucas over at Ref21 has written:

One of the best books that I've read recently is Paul Miller's A Praying Life. I had quoted from it a few days ago, but that does not sum up the impact the book made on me. I've read a lot of books on prayer, but I've not read one as practical and thought provoking, realistic and hopeful.

In 32 short chapters, Miller draws the reader into his praying life, which means drawing us into his life. In so many books on prayer, I feel like the prayer expected is formal, orderly, technique-driven (i.e. the acronym ACTS). I can pray like that--in fact, I often do each morning as part of my morning worship. But at least for me, such prayer often feels divorced from my life once I leave my study. Miller freely describes the messiness of his life, especially connected with his physically challenged daughter Kim, and helps the reader envision how praying happens in the midst of a real, messy life.

But even more, Miller shows us that praying means come to a Father who loves us, his own blood-bought children. And since we are children, we are helpless--which is why we come to our Father: we recognize that we can do nothing without him. But since we are children, we should beunrestrained--like my children, who constantly burst into my conversations with my wife expecting me to care for their immediate needs. My kids don't wait for an appointment; rather, they rush into my presence with their needs and requests. Why don't I live that way with God my Father?

There is a great deal else I took from this book--most notably, because I can't change my kids but because God can change my kids, rather than trying to change my kids through the force of my words, I'm taking my concerns to God and asking him to change my kids through the power of his Spirit. Specifically, I've begun praying Scripture for my children in the areas in which I perceive their greatest needs--"Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others (Phil 2:4)"; "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me (Phil 4:13)"; "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger (Prov 15:1)." It is part of praying through my life and hopefully by God's grace develop a praying life.

I can't recommend this book highly enough. There are few books that are life-changing; this is one of them.

I echo Lucas' words. A Praying Life is not only a good book on prayer it is an important book. The only thing I would add is that Miller quotes from a wide range of Christian writers and theologians. Among those he refers to are Roman Catholic mystics which should not be taken as an endorsement of their theology. Other than that I strongly encourage you to read A Praying Life.

White Horse Inn

My favorite radio program has a new design for their website. Check it out HERE.

They (particularly Dr. Horton) are also responsible for my favorite magazine, Modern Reformation. Do yourself a favor and subscribe.

If God is good...

Over at Between Two Worlds, Andy Naselli has posted an interesting interview with Randy Alcorn. Among the things discussed is Alcorn's new book, If God Is So Good... It's definitely worth the read. I highly recommend Alcorn's book Money, Possessions, and Eternity.

Perseverance of the Saints

I have been preaching through the book of Hebrews in recent weeks. Thus far we are about half way through chapter four. With its warning passages Hebrews gives ample opportunity to reflect on the nature of apostasy and the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. Monergism provides links to some very helpful articles and sermons on this blessed and biblical doctrine.

Perseverance may be defined as that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit in the believer, by which the work of divine grace that is begun in the heart is continued and brought to competition. It is because God never forsakes His work that believers continue to stand to the very end.

Louis Berkhof from Systematic Theology (pg. 546)

My own corruption and my only Hope

Let our hearts admit, "I am poor and weak. Satan is too subtle, too cunning, too powerful; he watches constantly for advantages over my soul. The world presses in upon me with all sorts of pressures, pleas, and pretences. My own corruption is violent, tumultuous, enticing, and entangling. As it conceives sin, it wars within me and against me. Occasions and opportunities for temptation are innumerable. No wonder I do not know how deeply involved I have been with sin. Therefore, on God alone will I rely for my keeping. I will continually look to Him...

If we do not abide in prayer, we will abide in temptation. Let this be one aspect of our daily intercession: "God, preserve my soul, and keep my heart and all its ways so that I will not be entangled." When this is true in our lives, a passing temptation will not overcome us. We will remain free while others lie in bondage.

- John Owen

Monergism

One of my favorite sites on the web is Monergism.com. It is an outstanding resource for study and devotion. Monergism has a wealth of theological resources ranging from articles, audio, a bookstore, a blog, and more. Check out their bookstore for great prices on great books. Also, if you have any teaching responsibilities in your church you will find a vast number of resources to enrich your study. If you simply have questions about the Bible or a theological issue then Monergism will prove to be very helpful to your search.

Monergism is in the process of updating their site. Great looking design!

"To Lead is to Choose"

Carl Trueman's latest entry over at Ref21 deals with our "cult of options" and the lonliness and even hostility that is experienced by the leader who dares to make choices.

Certainly, much of the culture surrounding Christianity at the moment militates against the kind of commitment that making a choice, rather than merely having a choice, demands. The language of conversation, so popular in certain quarters, has a certain open-ended quality to it. Once upon a time, arguments and debates were designed for the express purpose of reaching a conclusion, of deciding which, if any, of two or more positions was the best or the strongest or the most true. Conversation has more of a `I'll hear what you say; you hear what I say and we can all agree to differ while remaining friends' feel...

All of this is sad in a tragicomical way; and it is perhaps not surprising that as adolescence creeps into middle age, so does the fear of making choices and closing down options; but I wonder if most lethal of all will prove to be not the lack of commitment and stability that characterises Marks' [Dever] `cult of options'. Rather the worst of it may well be that a generation is growing up that is happy to sneer and snipe at the decisions of others, but for whom making decisions that bind is something they themselves are incapable of doing, an alien concept no less; and that means not only, as I suspect Mark Dever fears, that a generation will grow up with no real commitments other than to themselves as individuals but also with no real leadership potential.

One of the striking things about great leaders in history is the strong passions they have aroused. Churchill is surely a great hero to many on both sides of the Atlantic, but, interestingly enough, my grandfather hated him with a passion because in the 1920s he had set the troops on striking miners. Lloyd George was the other great war leader Britain produced in the twentieth century, a brilliant orator and political strategist, but he was hated and reviled as much as he was praised and adored. The same is true in America: think of a significant leader in any sphere and you find someone who polarizes opinion, whether it is Franklin D. Roosevelt, General MacArthur, or Martin Luther King, Jr. Why? Because great leaders make tough choices and, in so doing, commit themselves to courses of action that can bring praise but also excoriation. They do not sit on the fence; they do not nor do they sit on the sidelines, throwing potshots at those who have to make the decisions; they do not enjoy the luxury of always knowing what should be done but never actually having to take responsibility for doing it. And they understand that, sometimes, it is better to make a decision that proves to be wrong than to make no decision at all...

This leads to one other concern about future leadership. It is what I call the emergence of the professional statesman. The professional statesman is the person who thinks and acts as if they can rise above the fray and speak to issue in a way that transcends the typical struggles involved in any leadership situation. I have witnessed this so often over the last few years, both in observing the wider political scene and in the church which seems to me to be increasingly marked by such men: they are those who try to defuse theological conflict by playing the moral equivalence card whereby they argue that the struggle is really petty and personal, a moral conflict between lesser men above which they and they alone can stand and see the way forward. My suspicion is that too often this simply reflects the problematic patterns in wider society: a need to be liked; a need to avoid making divisive decisions; and a desire to have the perks of leadership with none of the responsibilities and pain involved.

Read the entire article HERE. Very helpful!

Gracia's Story

I was blessed to be Gracia's pastor in Wichita. She's a great woman and a good friend. Find out more about her ministry HERE.

"Christ in a Post-Christian Culture"

Recently the White Horse Inn broadcast two very helpful discussions on "Paul's missional approach in the first century." Michael Horton and the panel appeal to Colossians for insight into how Christians engage a culture that is increasingly post-Christian.

Listen HERE and HERE.

D.A. Carson on Inerrancy

Sunday's Sermon

Yesterday's message was part 11 in the series through Hebrews - "Strive to Enter God's Rest" (Heb. 4:6-11). You can download or listen to it HERE.

Why so many pastors give up

Let me begin with a disclaimer. This post does not reflect my own state of mind. I am one of those fortunate pastors who has served two churches who have cared for and loved me. Of course it is possible that there is right now a contingent of people who want my head on a platter but so far ignorance is bliss.

I have been the teaching pastor at Church of the Saviour in Wayne, Pennsylvania since November of 2008. They have done a wonderful job of encouraging me and supporting my family. Likewise, my nine years as pastor of Metro East Baptist Church in Wichita, Kansas were a blessing. I loved being their pastor. Neither of these churches are perfect by any means and I am even less so. Indeed during my tenure at Metro East I sustained some deep wounds. And while I am still new at Church of the Saviour I have had a few shots fired at me. But in both churches the encouragement has far outweighed the pain.

In the last few days however I have been reminded once again of just how many pastors do not last in the ministry. They do not finish well. They drop out before the race is done or they spend their lives on the treadmill of moving from church to church every few years.

Why does this happen?

Some pastors should not be pastors.

No pastors are equal to the task of shepherding the flock of God. It is a calling that transcends personal qualifications. Pastors are called to do the impossible. That said, there are certain ways that some pastors disqualify themselves from this high calling. Some are not well studied and therefore not qualified to preach and teach and lead by God's Word. Some disqualify themselves morally. Many churches have been deeply wounded by the moral and ethical failings of their pastors.

Some churches do not deserve a pastor.

I know this sounds harsh but it is true. There are churches that have a reputation for eating their pastors for lunch. They cannot seem to keep pastors for long which has caused them to be even more cynical and as a result nearly impossible to serve and lead.

Unrealistic Expectations

Some pastors are much like Jonah fleeing to Tarshish. They are convinced that somewhere there is a situation far more pleasing than where they are currently called to serve. They have witnessed the fame, popularity, and financial success of some pastors and believe they can have the same. Others dream of serving a church where revival breaks out, everyone loves God and each other as they should, and numeric growth explodes only to find out that they are constantly having to plow fallow ground. This later expectation is not wrong per se. All pastors should pray for those ends. However, it is not realistic to expect them in all cases. God calls most pastors to serve small churches (that will remain small); churches where encouragement comes rarely. Because of these expectations many pastors send out resumes with the same frequency as a new college graduate never staying in one church long enough to earn enough trust in order to lead well.

Churches on the other hand often expect the impossible from their pastor. He must be a gifted communicator, a skilled administrator, and a kind shepherd. He must be a strong leader but not pushy, well dressed but not proud, well educated but not arrogant, always available (to me), and an excellent husband and father. He must never get frustrated, must never offend (me), must return every phone call and email, and he must never ask for a raise. Under his leadership the church should grow numerically, financially, and spiritually. And some churches still believe that man exists. These churches are unable to keep a pastor for long amid their crushing demands.

God's Providence

It pleases God and suits His good purposes for those who shepherd His flock to be wounded healers. Being a pastor is not difficult by accident. The wounds pastors and churches receive are not arbitrary or the result of some cosmic joke. Our wounds are God's gracious means to make us more like our wounded Shepherd and Savior. If you have a pastor who you are not necessarily thrilled with ask yourself, "How have I loved and encouraged him? Have my expectations been urealistic? If he were my son or brother how would I want him to be treated by his church?" If you are a pastor of a difficult church have you truly loved them as they are? Have you placed unrealistic demands upon them? Do you find yourself scolding instead of preaching, pushing instead of leading?

In his good and wise providence God has paired the two of you. Will it be an occasion for God's glory to be magnified? Will the pairing result in the joy of God's people? Happy pastors are a blessing to any church. Loving churches are the joy of a God called pastor. It is a beautiful thing when the two meet. But this does not just happen. It is the result of God's grace through the means of joyful and disciplined obedience on the part of both churches and pastors.