A little more on free will...

From John Samson:

"...no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.
- 1 Corinthians 12:3

"[we were]...born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

- John 1:13

We must bring clarity when we declare that man has no “free will” because many persons confuse coercion with necessity. Some believe that when we say people have no free will we somehow mean that their will is coerced from the outside into acting a certain way. But this could not be further from the truth. Apart from the Holy Spirit no one comes to Christ because people are in bondage to a corruption of nature... so they sin, not due to coercion, but of a necessity of their fallen nature. In his very helpful book, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will John Calvin clarifies:

There are four expressions regarding the will which differ from one another “namely that the will is 1) free, 2) bound, 3) self-determined, or 4) coerced. People generally understand a free will to be one which has in its power to choose good or evil …[But] There can be no such thing as a coerced will, since the two ideas are contradictory. But our responsibility as teachers is to say what it means, so that it may be understood what coercion is. Therefore we describe [as coerced] the will which does not incline this way or that of its own accord or by an internal movement of decision, but is forcibly driven by an external impulse. We say that it is self-determined when of itself it directs itself in the direction in which it is led, when it is not taken by force or dragged unwillingly. A bound will, finally, is one which because of its corruptness is held captive under the authority of its evil desires, so that it can choose nothing but evil, even if it does so of its own accord and gladly, without being driven by any external impulse.

According to these definitions we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man’s innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined. (John Calvin, BLW pp 69, 70)

The Bondage and Liberation of the Will by John Calvin

On another similar topic, we must remember, since prior to salvation all are "in Adam" and void of the Holy Spirit, so there is no hope for us to be saved if left to ourselves. But God is merciful and He shows His mercy by doing something that is indeed against our fallen will, when He rescues us. To give you an illustration, if a parent saw their 3 year old child run out in the street, true love would not give them the "free will" to chose whether to be hit by a car or not, but would, rather, at the risk of their life, run out and scoop up the child making certain their child was not hit because the parent knows better than the child.

Which would be more loving? 1) for the parent to leave the final choice to be run over to the child's "free will" OR 2) For the parent to make certain that the job gets done, even at the expense of the child's so called "free will"? Similarly, the love God revealed in the Bible is one in which He makes certain his loved ones are delivered from His wrath, in spite of ourselves, for He always knows better than we. Frankly, I don't mind if He voilates my "free will" if it means that He is doing something for my good that I am blinded to in my stubborn, stiff-necked, fallen state. Remember, he does not reward us for faith, but gives us faith that we might be rewarded (John 6:63-65).

This is a bit better...

When bad music meets even worse theology...

God is so great He leaves everything up to us...

Has Science Buried God?

Dr. John Lennox (Professor of Mathmatics at the University of Oxford) delivered the following lectures at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Lennox has publically debated both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. He is also the author of the excellent God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?

The New Atheism and Morality, Part 1 from Southeastern Seminary on Vimeo.

The New Atheism and Morality, Part 2 from Southeastern Seminary on Vimeo.

John Piper - Grasping God's Love

Sunday's Sermon

Last Sunday I preached a message dealing with the primary motives for missions entitled "On Mission for the Glory of God". You can listen to or download the message HERE.

Thinking Biblically about Social Justice (2)

Kevin Deyoung continues his series on how we can think biblically about social justice. In his most recent post he addresses Isaiah 58 where God declares that he does not value religious ritual from those who neglect weightier matters of obedience.

God is not impressed with fastidious religious observance when the daily lives of his people are filled with negligence and oppression. God says, in effect, “Your fasting and sackcloth are meaningless to me so long as you continue in rank disobedience to more important commands.”

How were the Israelites sinful? They oppressed their workers, which usually meant defrauding them of agreed upon wages (v. 3; James 5:4). They quarreled and “hit with a wicked fist” (4). They conducted business and sought their own pleasure on the Sabbath (13).

What should God’s people have done? They should have loosed the bonds of injustice and let the oppressed go free (6). They should have shared bread with the hungry, clothed the naked, and welcomed in the homeless poor (7). God promised “your light [shall] break forth like the dawn and your healing shall spring up speedily” but only when the Israelites acted righteously and poured themselves out for the hungry and the afflicted (8-10).

Clearly, caring for the poor, the hungry, the afflicted is not a liberal thing to do. It is a biblical thing to do. We must allow this uncomfortable chapter to discomfort us a bit. Those of us in conservative circles can get all sorts of religious ritual right, but it counts for nothing and less than nothing if we do not love our neighbors as ourselves.

DeYoung goes on to explain that the application of these principles is not as easy as some would have us believe.

The implications of Isaiah 58 are straightforward: God’s people should hate oppression and love to help the poor.

Without wanting to mitigate this conclusion, let me offer two other comments.

1. Even though I’ve labeled this series with familiar phrase “social justice,” I don’t think that is best way to describe helping the poor. As I’ve pointed out before, “social justice” in its historical origins suggests a certain view of the world where disparity in wealth is considered de facto injustice. Therefore helping the poor is not a matter of kindness or mercy but a matter of justice. Everyone deserves their “fair share” of the society’s resources. Anything less is oppression.

But we see in Isaiah 58 that letting the oppressed go free is not the same as sharing your bread with the hungry. Granted, it could be. Perhaps the same people oppressing their workers were now being told to help them instead of harm them. But by definition, I would argue that pouring yourself out for the hungry is a matter of compassion for your fellow human being, not necessarily a matter of remedying an injustice.

2. While general principle–help the poor don’t harm them–is abundantly and repeatedly clear in Scripture, the application of this principle is less so. For example, does a passage like Isaiah 58 support state-sponsored redistribution efforts? Christians can and do argue for this, but this text certainly doesn’t require this solution to poverty.

And what should our priorities be in helping the poor? Are Christians responsible for everyone in the world? Everyone in society? I would argue there is an obligation first to our family (1 Tim. 5:8) and then to our brothers in the church (1 John 3:17; Gal. 6:10). Also, we should respond to urgent needs right in front of us when our assistance will be helpful (Luke 10:29-37). Finally, we should do good to everyone as we have opportunity as shaped by our vocation and calling (Gal. 6:10).

Other questions of application might include: What is the best way to help the poor in modern society? What about the poor overseas? To what degree is all of this the mission of the church and to what extent is this work simply the outgrowth of godly living in the world? Isaiah 58 doesn’t answer these and other questions. But it does lay the groundwork for caring about these questions and, more importantly, caring about the real people for whom questions about poverty and justice are not blog fodder but matters of life and death.

Believing is the evidence, not the cause of the new birth

Endangered Species?

Al Mohler comments on a stunning and tragic reality: the disproportionately high number of black babies aborted in America.

Catherine Davis is a woman with a message, and that message is getting harder to ignore. "Black children are an endangered species."

The Director of Minority Outreach for Georgia Right to Life, Davis is taking that message to the public, along with a massive public awareness campaign that has captured national and international attention. Drivers in the metro Atlanta area are seeing billboards that demand attention -- and are changing minds.

Her argument is simple and the statistics are irrefutable. She accuses abortion providers in general, and Planned Parenthood in particular, of targeting blacks for abortion. She told The New York Times, "The impact of abortion has become so great that it has begun to impact our fertility rate."

Consider the chilling facts documented in the data. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 57.4% of the abortions performed in Georgia in 2006 were performed on African-American women, but blacks make up only 30% of Georgia's population. Nationwide, the pattern is similarly stacked against black babies -- black women have approximately 37% of all abortions each year, while blacks make up only 13% of the national population.

You can see why Catherine Davis' message demands attention. She points also to the fact that, in Georgia, every single abortion clinic is located in areas of black concentration. She argues, quite pointedly, that this amounts to an intentional effort to reduce the black population in the United States.

Read the entire article HERE.

Preaching and the church's health

"A preaching ministry is absolutely essential to the health and prosperity of a visible church. The pulpit is the place where the chief victories of the Gospel have always been won, and no Church has ever done much for the advancement of true religion in which the pulpit has been neglected. Would we know whether a minister is a truly apostolical man?

"If he is, he will give the best of his attention to his sermons. He will labor and pray to make his preaching effective, and he will tell his congregation that he looks to preaching for the chief results on souls. The minister who exalts the sacraments, or forms of the Church, above preaching, may be a zealous, earnest, conscientious, and respectable minister; but his zeal is not according to knowledge. He is not a follower of the apostles."

- J.C. Ryle

What did you expect?

Paul Tripp from Crossway on Vimeo.

Trueman on Luther

Take time to listen to this excellent lecture and Q/A session from Dr. Carl Trueman on Martin Luther. You will be enriched.

The Gospel: Explained or Assumed?

From Matt Chandler at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary:

Matt Chandler - 20/20 2010 Session 1 from Southeastern Seminary on Vimeo.

HT: Justin Taylor

In God's School

Publisher's Description: In God's School (A L' Ecole de Dieu) is foundational Christian instruction. It follows the outline of John Calvin's Geneva Catechism along with the Heidelberg Catechism. According to the ancient practice of the church, In God's School instructs in doctrine, expounding the Apostles' Creed. It enriches common evangelical treatments of these subjects by including fine sections on the church and the ministry of Word and sacraments as means of grace. It lays out basic Christian ethics by expounding the Ten Commandments. It teaches Christian worship by explaining the Lord's Prayer.

This book may be used over the course of a school year. Students read a chapter each week. It also familiarizes students with the fine catechetical materials of the Protestant Reformation. Each chapter is divided into daily readings that include Scripture, so the student receives doctrinal teaching along with daily Bible study.

Perhaps the greatest strength of In God's School is the presentation of the Commandments and Prayer. John Calvin's stress on the grace of God shines through ethical exhortation. Maturity in Christ comes from a growing knowledge of God through the gospel of his Son, a clearer understanding of the life he calls us to walk before him, and the Spirit's love and strength. With spiritual wisdom and rigor, Pierre Marcel leads us in knowing God.

In God's School is an outstanding resource for grounding and training Christians in the foundations of the Christian life. None of us ever out grow our need for further instruction. Marcel's book is a great place to turn.

I have always been a huge fan of Luther and especially of his pastoral advice, especially the comment he made to the effect that no Christian should ever think they have so mastered the ABCs of the faith that they have no need of reading simple things like catechisms. And it is remarkable that, as age and the cares of the world close in on Christians, so often it is the basic elements and building blocks of the faith that come to the fore.

In this vein, I am delighted to be able to recommend Pierre Marcel's In God's School, translated by Howard Griffith of RTS. It is a fine read, loosely based around the Heidelberg Catechism and ideal for personal devotions or small group/Sunday School study. Each lesson contains catechetical questions and answers, suggested Bible readings, and short theological glosses. It is particularly fine on the importance of the Lord's Supper. Those familiar with Marcel's works on preaching and on baptism will not be disappointed.

- Carl Trueman

Learning to the read the Bible well

Dig Deeper: Tools for Understanding God's Word

Product Description: When it comes to reading and understanding the Bible, a dangerous phrase is used by non-Christians and even some believers: "Well, that's your interpretation." It is true that without some care in your interpretation, you can "make" the Bible say almost anything. Dig Deeper is written out of the conviction that there is a right way to understand the Bible and a wrong way, and the authors show us how to read it correctly.

Dig Deeper offers sixteen "tools" readers can use to get to the bottom of any Bible passage and discover its intended meaning. Examples show how each tool helps readers discover something exciting and relevant in a passage, and the "Dig deeper" exercises offer the opportunity to practice using the tools. The book's brevity and easy-to-read format make it ideal for Christians who want to get the most out of their Bible.

Endorsements:
"Nigel and Andrew have written a great work on knowing God better, learning his will for your life, and reading your Bible. I like it. In fact, I think we'll start using it at our church."
- Mark Dever, Pastor, Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Washington DC; President, 9Marks

"As a minister to college students, I am constantly on the lookout for resources for thoughtful, bright, and passionate young people who are hungry to know the Word of God and hungry to teach it to others. Finding a book that is both deep and yet approachable is not always that easy, but I have found Nigel Beynon's and Andrew Sach's book to be both. This is a great hermeneutics 101 text, but it is more—it also consistently drives home the authority of the truth once one has found it in Scripture. So, this book is deep, approachable, and pastoral. That is a recipe that teaches the principles of interpretation and also fans the flames of zeal for God's Word. I would gladly put it in the hands of one of my students."
- Jay Thomas, College Pastor, College Church, Wheaton, Illinois

Making Jonathan Edwards Accessible

Let's just admit it. It is not easy to read Jonathan Edwards. Every now and then we try having heard John Piper or others extol the virtues of reading Edwards. So we sit down with a copy of "The End for Which God Created the World" or we open up volume one of his collected works and after struggling through the first few paragraphs decide to lay the good reverend aside.

This is why I am excited about a new collection of works by Jonathan Edwards that have been edited by Strachan and Sweeney. If you would like to read one of the most important theologians since the Reformation then this new collection is the place to begin.

“Everyone says Jonathan Edwards is important. Quite frankly, however, his writing style is pretty dense by contemporary standards, so few pastors and other Christian leaders have invested much time reading him. Edwards is one of the “greats” of whom everyone has heard and whom relatively few have read. This new series tackles the problem. Here is the kernel of much of Edwards’s thought in eminently accessible form.”

—D. A. Carson

“In The Essential Edwards Collection, Owen Strachan and Doug Sweeney play the role of the good friend who pulls the book down off the shelf. With knowledge and excitement, they open the large and intimidating tomes, and point to some clear and searching section which illuminates God’s truth and searches our hearts. In this collection, Edwards is introduced to a new generation of readers. His concerns are made our concerns. This is a worthy effort and I pray that God will bless it.”

—Mark Dever

“Jonathan Edwards is surely one of the most influential theologians of the eighteenth century, yet until now a representative sample of his work has required the reader either to wade through poorly printed double-column editions or to purchase incredibly expensive scholarly editions. Now at last we have a wide-ranging and representative sample of his work published in an attractive, accessible and, most important of all, readable form. The authors are to be commended for the work they have put into this set and I hope it will become an important feature of the library of many pastors and students of the Christian faith.”

—Carl R. Trueman

HT: Justin Taylor

The Doctor

For those of you who may be wondering why some of us make a big deal about Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the following video is a brief biography on "the Doctor."


If you are interested in knowing more I highly recommend the two volume biography by Iain Murray (one of my favorite biographies):
The First Forty Years
Fight of Faith

A God-Centered Approach to Dealing with Anxiety

A new resource from Ed Welch of CCEF:

"When I Am Afraid"

You know how anxiety and fear feels—your stomach drops, your neck tightens, your whole body tenses—but do you know what to do when anxiety fills your days and troubles your nights? You’ve probably already tried a few strategies, like denial or working harder, and noticed that they aren’t a permanent solution. If you are tired of dealing with anxiety and worry on your own, then this guide is just for you. As you go through each set of meditations, anxiety will gradually yield to hope, peace, and rest. Of course, this is a lifelong process, but going through this devotional guide, either on your own or with a small group, will kick-start the process and bring lifelong change.

"These Last Days"

Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology

Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia
April 30 - May 2, 2010


For many Christians, the last days refers to the short period of intense activity immediately prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. But according to the apostles, the last days were inauguraged by the first coming of Christ and continue even today. The book of Hebrews thus begins by saying that while God formerly spoke by the prophets, "in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" (Heb. 1:2). Paul warned Timothy that "in the last days there will come times of difficulty," and then made plain that Timothy was living in these very last days (2 Tim. 3:1). According to Peter, the last days began with the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost. This fulfilled the ancient prophecy, which said, "In the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh" (Acts 2:17). Biblically, for us, the last days are these last days, as we are those, Paul said, "on whom the end of the ages has come" (1 Cor. 10:11).

How do we biblically understand our time as the final age of world history and what does it mean to our faith? This is the question that will be taken up by our 39th meeting of the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology. Reformed Christians have often shunned the field of eschatology, surrendering end times doctrine to more popular (but less biblical) schemes held by other believers. But eschatology is important! Paul describes the fulfillment of history as "our blessed hope" (Tit. 2:13), a hope made real ot us now through our faith. It was their Christian doctrine of history that thrilled the first Christian disciples: they realized that with the coming of the "last days" they had entered into the reign of the eschatological kingdom that dawned with the coming of Christ. Our faith will likewise be strengthened by a biblical view of eschatology and a right understanding of what it means to live in "this present evil age" (Gal. 1:4) by means of the "powers of the age to come" (Heb. 6:5).

We are excited to return with the PCRT to Sacramento, Grand Rapids, Greenville, and Philadelphia. Our plenary sessions will be offered by some of the most able preachers of our present moment in history: Sinclair Ferguson, Alistair Begg, D.A. Carson, Joel Beeke, Michael Horton, Cornelis Venema, Ligon Duncan, and Philip Ryken. Our preconference seminar this year will be provided by Dr. Venema, author of "The Promise of the Future" and one of the leading Reformed writers on eschatology, on the topic "Interpreting Biblical Eschatology". Through the pre-conference and the conference sessions, our aim is not only to provide biblical clarity on controversial matters, but even more importantly to strengthen believers for life in these last days by our understanding of the Bible's teaching on God's plan for all of history. We look forward to renewing our fellowship with old fiends and beginning new fellowship with those who will join us for the first time. May God bless us as we gather before the Scriptures to study the biblical doctrine of history and last things, all to the glory of the Lord of history, Jesus Christ.

Register HERE.

LACK of Doctrine Divides

Great post from Tim Challies...

Aileen and I were once members of a church that, after a few years of existence, began to de-emphasize doctrine. Some of the pastors seemed to reach the conclusion that “doctrine divides” and that the church really just needed to focus on evangelism and on “action.” They seemed to determine that a sound theological foundation held in common was unattainable and unrealistic. Therefore, doctrine should be laid aside and the church should rally around the things we had in common—a desire to reach others with the gospel and a desire to serve other people. It was a bit of a naive strategy, of course, and one that was bound to cause problems.

Soon the church began to fracture into camps—those with backgrounds in one Christian tradition began doing things in one way while people from a different Christian background began doing them a different way. For a time chaos reigned. In some small groups members of the church would serve the Lord’s Supper, in others they wouldn’t; in some small groups people were baptizing each other and serving Lord’s Supper to children. There was no standard and eventually the pastors had to step in and intervene. By then, though, it was too late and many of these small groups “defected.” Having created their own theological identity and one that was at odds with that of the pastors, some of these groups left en masse. It was an inevitable result, I think, and one that proved to me that critical importance of doctrine being held in common by members of a church. Though this happened many years ago, I still think about it quite often.

Recently I was flipping through Collin Hansen’s Young, Restless, Reformed. The book discusses some of the resurgence of Reformed theology in our day and does so, in large part, through interviews with some of the pivotal figures in this resurgence. The book contains a quote by Josh Harris that caught my attention: “Once you’re exposed to [doctrine], you see the richness in it for your own soul, and you’re ruined for anything else.”

Read the entire post HERE.

Thinking Biblically about Social Justice (1)

Kevin DeYoung is posting a series of articles on the major biblical texts that shape the current debate about social justice. Because it is a very important matter I will be linking to each of Kevin's articles.

It’s no secret that social justice is a hot topic in evangelicalism, a popular pursuit and also controversial. Some see the renewed emphasis on the poor as nothing less than a rediscovery of a whole gospel. Others worry that an emphasis on social justice distracts the church from the primary role of evangelism. I’m not going to propose a third way between these two poles. I think a concern for the poor is essential to Christianity. And I think saving people from eternal suffering is more important than saving people from temporal suffering. That’s where I stand (and most evangelicals, I believe; the disagreement is in the details).

But I don’t want to settle disputes, real or imaginary. Instead, I want to examine seven major “social justice” passages over the next few weeks. (I’ll try to be concise so you will actually read the posts.) My contention is that these passages say more and less than we think, more about God’s heart for justice than some realize, and less about contemporary “social justice” than many imagine.

The seven passages are: Isaiah 1; Isaiah 58; Jeremiah 22; Amos 5; Micah 6:8; Luke 4/Isaiah 61; and Matthew 25. I know this leaves a lot out, but these seem to be the most commonly referenced sections. If you want my take on Leviticus 19, Leviticus 25, the concept of moral proximity, and the term “social justice” follow the links in this sentence.

The first text Kevin deals with is Isaiah 1:

The first chapter of Isaiah begins with the Lord’s stinging rebuke of Judah and Jerusalem (1). They are rebellious children (2), lacking in understanding (3). Judah is a “sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity” (4). Because of their rebellion, God’s people have been struck down, bruised, bloodied, and besieged (5-8). Of course, God offers the hope of forgiveness and cleansing (10), but the dominant theme in the chapter is one of disappointment. God’s people have been wicked.

How so?

Well, their failure was not for lack of religious observance. They were meeting together for worship and keeping the festivals of the Lord. But the Lord was not impressed. He could no longer endure their iniquity and solemn assembly (13). He had come to hate their feasts and was burdened with their perfunctory obedience (14). The Lord would not even listen to their prayers (15).

Their problem was one that recurs often in prophetic literature: they were getting the details of religion right but not the heart of it. Outside of “church” the Israelites were doing evil, not good (16-17). In particular, they were guilty of injustice toward the fatherless and the widow, the basic categories in the Bible for the helpless and vulnerable (17).

What was the injustice? “Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not bring justice to the fatherless, and the widow’s cause does not come to them” (23). It seems the Lord was angry with his people because the leaders were oppressing the weak, taking bribes to side with the rich and powerful instead of treating fairly the orphan and the widow.

As we’ll see in most of these passages, Isaiah 1 is a great example of the Bible saying more and less about social justice than we think.

Read the entire article HERE.

What to do about false teaching in the church?

Martin Downes was recently interviewed on Issues Etc about dealing with heresy in the church. In an egalitarian age when all truth claims are leveled and a pragmatic age when all truth claims are reduced to what "works for you" the need for discernment is especially high. Check it out HERE.

No Accident

no accident from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.

Sunday's Sermon

Sunday's sermon was part 29 in our current series through Hebrews. It is entitled "We Have Need of Endurance" (Heb 10:26-39) and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

Their Blood Cries Out

The following video footage records the torture of murder of Christians in India. It is disturbing. I am convinced however that Christians in America need to know what is happening in various parts of the world to our brothers and sisters in Christ. Pray for those who are being handed over to death for the sake of the Lord Jesus.

Persecution in India: Unedited Footage from Cornerstone Church on Vimeo.

Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25)

Those who hate you will be clothed with shame, and the tent of the wicked will be no more.” (Job 8:22)

Oh, let the evil of the wicked come to an end, and may you establish the righteous— you who test the minds and hearts, O righteous God! (Psalm 7:9)

The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence. (Psalm 11:5)

Arise, O Lord! Confront him, subdue him! Deliver my soul from the wicked by your sword, (Psalm 17:13)

For the arms of the wicked shall be broken, but the Lord upholds the righteous. (Psalm 37:17)

For the Lord loves justice; he will not forsake his saints. They are preserved forever, but the children of the wicked shall be cut off. (Psalm 37:28)

The wicked lie in wait to destroy me, but I consider your testimonies. (Psalm 119:95)

I know that the Lord will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and will execute justice for the needy. (Psalm 140:12)

A heretic by any other name (8)...

Mike Witmer next deals with questions 8 and 9 of Brian McLaren's new book:

8) “Can we find a better way of viewing the future?”

9) “How should followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions?”

These two questions feed one another, and for time’s sake I will take them together. Brian’s “participatory eschatology” seems to be a version of postmillennialism. He criticizes postmillennialism for its “triumphalistic determinism” but thinks that the kingdom will ultimately “spread its influence gradually” as we labor on its behalf.

More interesting is Brian’s vision of the end, which he calls “un-doomed.” Unlike the traditional Christian view which asserts that God will determine the final destiny of the saved and the damned at the last judgment, Brian seems to hold to a universalism in which God’s grace does not relent until everyone ultimately is reconciled to him and to each other.

Brian says that the last judgment “is not merely retributive” but is “reconciling and restoring.” It “will not involve God…pulling down our pants to check for circumcision or scanning our brains for certain beliefs…. No, God will examine the story of our lives for signs of Christlikeness—for a cup of cold water or a plate of hot food given to one in need, for an atom of mercy shown to one who has been unkind or unthoughtful… These are the parts of a person’s life that will be deemed worthy of being saved, remembered, rewarded, and raised for a new beginning. All the unloving, unjust, non-Christlike parts of our lives…will be burned away, counted as unworthy, condemned (which means acknowledged for what they are), and forgotten forever.”

It’s not clear whether Brian sees the afterlife as a series of chances to repent until everyone comes around or whether everyone immediately endures a fiery judgment which burns away their bad stuff and preserves whatever remains. Either way, what’s left of us is ultimately reconciled, or perhaps absorbed into God (depending on whether Brian is a panentheist).

If everyone’s destiny is the same, then it follows that the last thing Brian thinks we should do is tell other religions that they are wrong. He says that we should not “insult other religions” by desiring that “all other religions would be abolished and only our own remain.” We must “learn to discover God in the other” in order to “discover a bigger ‘us,’ in which people of all faiths can be included.” Evangelism would then “cease to be a matter of saving souls from a bad ending” but instead “would invite people into lifelong spiritual formation as disciples of Jesus, in a community dedicated (as we’ve seen) to teaching the most excellent way of love, whatever the new disciple’s religious affiliation or lack thereof.” “This kind of evangelism would…[call] people to a way of life in a kingdom (or beautiful whole) that transcends and includes all religions.”

My initial thought is that it would be difficult to square this view with God’s command to Israel to destroy the idols of the false religions. Brian would probably respond that this is an immature OT God who is inferior to Jesus. But what about Jesus’ words in John 14:6? Brian knows that he must address this verse, and he spends seven pages telling us that this verse does not mean what we think. Apparently Jesus is not telling his disciples that he is the only way to the Father and everlasting life, but rather that none of them “can get to God or the kingdom of God on their own,” which is “not about the afterlife” but about how Jesus will live with them in a new way after his death. I’m sorry if that doesn’t make a lot of sense. I found Brian’s argument convoluted and at more than seven pages, working a little too hard to be taken seriously. Suffice to say that he thinks the traditional view of John 14:6 is a little too Greco and a little too Roman.

I think by now you can guess what I think of these chapters, so here’s an alternate experiment to try. Take Brian’s beliefs about the afterlife and other religions and see if they can make sense of the book of Acts. Look at what Paul said and did on his missionary journeys. Is it remotely plausible that Paul held anything like Brian’s views?

The Moonies learn from the Evangelicals...

Remember the Moonies? Well, they are still around and have learned from some of their mistakes and excesses of the past. Also, it looks like the Unification Church has learned a few things from modern evangelicals.

From an article posted at NPR:

In her first interview with a reporter since taking over the church, she tells NPR that a major challenge came from the Asian church elders, who were upset that a woman was selected to run the American church. Then, they balked at her vision: a national church, which she calls Lovin' Life Ministries, based in New York City, with smaller satellite churches.

In Jin Moon replaced the old holy songs with rock 'n' roll, and fluorescent lighting with concert lighting and a giant video screen...

So In Jin Moon did what the evangelicals do: She used music and technology to spark spiritual experiences. She says it is working.

"Some have called it 'electricity running through my body, feeling of warmth — just feeling as if they're engulfed in love,'" she says. "For those kids who come and have that conversion experience, then their belief system becomes theirs."

Read the entire article HERE.

R.C. Sproul's Study

R.C. Sproul - Study Video from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

"We really worshiped today!"

In this helpful edition of the Heidelcast Dr. Scott Clark addresses the problem with measuring our worship and spirituality by euphoric experience.

Phil Ryken's message at the Gospel Coalition

Phil Ryken Session 3 from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

Desiring what is right VS. Rising above all desire

Most of you are aware by now of Tiger Woods' press conference/confession that took place on Friday. To be sure, Tiger did some things right in his confession. He did not swerve away from his sole responsibility in pursuing adulterous relationships. But what breaks the heart is that he is still planning on seeking water in broken cisterns. Al Mohler offers some helpful insights into a key distinction between the Gospel of Jesus and Buddhism.

From an Evangelical perspective, the statement by Tiger Woods points to the radical distinction between Christianity and Buddhism -- between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the dharma of the Buddha.

Christianity speaks honestly of desire and affirm that wrongful desires can and do lead to sin, destruction, and death. Nevertheless, Christianity does not teach that all desire is wrong. Indeed, the Bible affirms that God made us to desire Him. Even in our sinful state, something within us cries out for our need -- and desire -- for divine forgiveness and redemption.

Christianity does not teach that we should (or could) empty ourselves of all desire, but rather that we should desire the salvation that Christ alone has accomplished for us -- the salvation that leads to divine forgiveness and the restoration of relationship we should surely desire. Once we know that salvation, our desire for God is only increased and pointed to eternity.

Tiger Woods made a remarkable statement of confession. Even as it was couched in the language of the recovery movement and coached by public relation professionals, it should be taken at face value. But the most remarkable aspect of his confession is its Buddhist shape. American Christians should look at those words with care.

A Christian looking at those words sees just how distant they are from the Gospel. The distinction between the Christian and Buddhist worldviews is laid bare for all to see. Tiger Woods should be taken at his word when he grounds his apology and confession in Buddhism. Evangelical Christians should see this as further reason to pray for Tiger Woods. We should respect the integrity and honesty of his statement, but hope and pray that he will one day come to know the salvation and forgiveness of sin that comes only through faith in Christ. We believe that he will not find salvation in renouncing all desire. We would hope instead that he might hear the Gospel and desire Christ.

Read the entire thing HERE.

A Statement from 10th Presbyterian and Dr. Ryken...

HERE

Please pray for the Rykens in the days ahead as they move their family to Wheaton. Pray also for Dr. Ryken as he takes on this monumental task. Of course, pray for 10th Presbyterian as they say farewell to their beloved pastor.

Phil Ryken named the next President of Wheaton

Congratulations to Wheaton College on a very wise decision to name Philip Ryken as their next President. But what is a gain for Wheaton is a loss for Philadelphia. Please pray for Tenth Presbyterian Church that God will send them a faithful man to carry on in the tradition of Barnhouse, Boice, and Ryken. For Wheaton College, one of the most influential forces in American evangelicalism, Dr. Ryken's appointment is a positive step in their theological identity.

The Impoverished Pulpit

From Al Mohler:

[Mark] Galli was told to cut down on the biblical references in his sermon. "You'll lose people," the staff member warned. In a Bible study session on creation, the teacher was requested to come back the next Sunday prepared to take questions at the expense of reading the relevant scriptural texts on the doctrine. Cutting down on the number of Bible verses "would save time and, it was strongly implied, would better hold people's interest."

As Galli reflected, "Anyone who's been in the preaching and teaching business knows these are not isolated examples but represent the larger reality."

Indeed, in many churches there is very little reading of the Bible in worship, and sermons are marked by attention to the congregation's concerns - not by an adequate attention to the biblical text. The exposition of the Bible has given way to the concerns, real or perceived, of the listeners. The authority of the Bible is swallowed up in the imposed authority of congregational concerns.

As Mark Galli notes:

"It has been said to the point of boredom that we live in a narcissistic age, where we are wont to fixate on our needs, our wants, our wishes, and our hopes—at the expense of others and certainly at the expense of God. We do not like it when a teacher uses up the whole class time presenting her material, even if it is material from the Word of God. We want to be able to ask our questions about our concerns, otherwise we feel talked down to, or we feel the class is not relevant to our lives.

"It is well and good for the preacher to base his sermon on the Bible, but he better get to something relevant pretty quickly, or we start mentally to check out. Don't spend a lot of time in the Bible, we tell our preachers, but be sure to get to personal illustrations, examples from daily life, and most importantly, an application that we can use."

In many churches, there is almost no public reading of the Word of God. Worship is filled with music, but congregations seem disinterested in listening to the reading of the Bible. We are called to sing in worship, but the congregation cannot live only on the portions of Scripture that are woven into songs and hymns. Christians need the ministry of the Word as the Bible is read before the congregation and God's people -- young and old, rich and poor, married and unmarried, sick and well -- hear it together. The sermon is to consist of the exposition of the Word of God, powerfully and faithfully read, explained, and applied. It is not enough that the sermon take a biblical text as its starting point.

How can so many of today's churches demonstrate what can only be described as an impatience with the Word of God? The biblical formula is clear -- the neglect of the Word can only lead to disaster, disobedience, and death. God rescues his church from error, preserves his church in truth, and propels his church in witness only by his Word -- not by congregational self-study.

In the end, an impatience with the Word of God can be explained only by an impatience with God. We -- both individually and congregationally -- neglect God's Word to our own ruin.

Read the entire post HERE.

What does the Bible say about politics?

That is the question Wayne Grudem will be addressing in a new book to be released in the Fall of 2010: Politics According to the Bible.

Is the Bible a Sure Word from God?

Carl Trueman on Tiger's Apology

From Ref21:

So the Tiger finally breaks his silence, and it's a truly great shame. Out of control he may have been, but that he has now publicly apologised "to each and every one" of us "simply and directly" for his "selfish and irresponsible behaviour" is rather sad. He betrayed his wife and children; but what has he done to the rest of us that requires apology? Nada, nowt, rien de rien. He never owed the public anything more than a good round of golf (yes, I despise golf as an old man's walk with a bag of sticks, but if you are in to that sort of thing....). I had actually found his silence strangely admirable, sending a signal to a voyeuristic public, which increasingly regards privacy as a crime, that he didn't care to play by the rules of the nosey and intrusively self-important Facebook generation, and that his family life was nobody's business but his and his wife's. I had thought his refusal to apologise to those he had not offended or hurt (how could he? he didn't even know most of the 'us', to whom he has apologised, in any meaningful way!) as preserving the value of that necessary apology which he needed to make in private to his wife and family. As one of his girlfriends might well be thinking to herself, I guess he's just like all the others......

My sentiments exactly.

McLarenism VS. Christianity

Some of you may be wondering why I am dedicating so many posts to Brian McLaren's new book. The reason is two-fold. First it is important to confront those who call themselves Christians but trash God and His Word. Secondly, Brian McLaren is one of the most influential "evangelicals" (according to Time). Therefore, Brian is influencing a lot of Christians. He is a classic wolf in sheep's clothing and the Bible is not agnostic about how those who lead God's people astray ought to be dealt with.

When you get a chance read Kevin DeYoung's excellent review of A New Kind of Christianity.

I do not write these words carelessly but I do not know any other conclusion but that McLaren is an apostate. What else can we conclude about one who writes that the God revealed in Scripture is "an idol, a damnable idol"? (p. 65).

A heretic by any other name (7)...

In question seven of A New Kind of Christianity, Brian McLaren turns his attention to the issue of sexuality. Of course, by this time it should be no surprise that Brian approves of homosexuality and thinks it's high time the church made peace with homosexuality as well. After all, those bits of Scripture that clearly forbid and condemn homosexuality are among the homophobic, retrograde, and just plain untrue parts of the Bible (and Brian loves the Bible).

Mike Witmer sums up Brian's points:

1. Male and female is a dualism which goes back to Plato, so if you oppose homosexual practice you are being Platonic. In Brian’s words, you are endorsing “the Platonic dualisms in which maleness and femaleness are two absolute, eternal categories of being into which all people fit.”

I covered this in an earlier post (“Interlude”), but let me say again that not all dualisms are Platonic and not all dualisms are wrong. Brian’s argument is also strange from a historical perspective, as Plato himself might have been gay. Plato said that you might remember the form of beauty when you look at a naked boy—an unfortunate statement which would have landed Plato on my state’s sex offender list.

2. Our experience should trump the authority of Scripture. He writes that “If a Christian today experiences gay friends, neighbors, colleagues, or relatives as healthy, sincere, and morally equal” then we must not “marginalize and discredit this experience” just because we think the Bible tells us “that they are rebellious and dangerous sinners, a twisted abomination, a…moral aberrance.”

Here I would appeal to Luther’s theology of the cross, which aptly reminds us to allow the Word of God to interpret what we see rather than the other way around. Brian is reading his Bible and experience from the wrong direction.

3. It is unchristian to say that homosexual practice is wrong for then we are condemning gays “simply for being who they are.”

I address this in chapter 5 of Don’t Stop Believing, so I’ll just say here that we must not allow homosexuals to define themselves by their homosexuality. They are essentially the image of God, not gay. We are actually defending who they are when we say that homosexual practice is not how an image bearer of God should behave. This may be difficult for some to hear, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t humbly and lovingly say it.

4. Brian says that “God demonstrates supreme solidarity…with the ones who are rejected and excluded…with the ones who are humiliated and shamed.” So we who “cast the first stone at the ‘sexually other’” are throwing rocks at God. Got it?

5. Biblically, if God accepted the Ethiopian eunuch (a marginalized sexual other) then we can expect God to be okay with other forms of sexual otherness, including homosexual practice.

Observe that Brian conflates loving a person and accepting what they do, as if bringing the gospel to a eunuch or homosexual connotes acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle. He also equates being a eunuch, which is a non-moral issue, with homosexual practice, which is a decidedly moral one.

6. Rather than criticize homosexual practice we should be thanking gay people, for “By coming out of the closet regarding their homosexuality, gay folks may help the rest of us come out of the closet regarding our sexuality” (emphasis his).

Read the entire post HERE.

A heretic by any other name (6)...

"What do we do about the church?" That is the sixth question Brian McLaren deals with in his new book. Of course now that Brian has rejected the authority and reliability of Scripture, the biblical vision of God, the doctrines of sin and the atonement, and has redefined the gospel it leaves one wondering why he is interested at all in the church. Nevertheless, he pushes on. Mike Witmer soldiers on as well in what has surely been an unpleasant task.

Brian’s shallow evaluation of our problem (no Fall, original sin, total depravity, or hell) produces a shallow understanding of salvation (love as much as you can and let God’s judgment burn your bad stuff away) which produces a shallow view of the church (it exists merely to stop people from wasting their lives).

But we already have that job covered. Several institutions already exist to stop people from wasting their lives. Colleges prepare people for life, the Army challenges them to “Be all they can be,” and the Peace Corps provides an outlet to serve others. So given Brian’s description of the church’s mission, why do we even need it? Hasn’t his quest to make the church relevant merely succeeded in making it redundant?

Tim Challies has written a review of A New Kind of Christianity and he pulls no punches. Tim is a nice guy but he recognizes that McLaren's reckless deconstruction of biblical faith combined with his unfortunate influence among evangelicals deserves a strong response.

The arrogance of it all is stunning. McLaren is angrier than he has been before and more scornful. Still, though, he presents his ideas coated with the veneer of a false humility. But, handily, he builds into the book the means he will use to answer his critics. He will simply accuse his detractors of having this old Greco-Roman understanding of the faith. We poor fundamentalists cannot be among the new kind of Christian until we have been enlightened to understand the Bible through an entirely new narrative structure. Only then will this all become clear. Until then, more to be pitied are we than any men.

Here, in A New Kind of Christianity it’s as if McLaren is screaming “I hate God!” at the top of his lungs. And swarms of Christians are looking at him with admiration and saying, “See how that guy loves God?” I don’t know what McLaren could do to make the situation more clear. In fact, his book is nearly indistinguishable from many of the de-conversion narratives that are all the rage today. Compare it with Bart Ehrman’s God’s Problem and you’ll see many of the same arguments and the same misgivings; you’ll find, though, that Ehrman is at least more honest. He at least has the integrity to walk away from faith altogether rather than reinventing God in his own image.

McLaren says he would prefer atheism over belief in the God so many of us see in Scripture. Well, he is not far off. This new kind of Extreme Makeover: God Edition Christianity is no Christianity at all. It is not a faith made in the image of Jesus Christ, but a faith made in the image of a man who despises God and who is hell-bent on dragging others along with him as he becomes his own god.

"Crucify Your Generosity"

Russell Moore

Crucify Your Charity: Generosity and the Triumph of Christ (2 Cor 9:1-15) from Russell Moore on Vimeo.

The Masculine Mandate

Richard Phillip's new book The Masculine Mandate is finally avaiable HERE.

There is a crying need in the church today for men to be men. But competing visions for what a man is to be some growing out of popular culture and others arising from flawed teaching in the church are exacerbating the problem. Richard Phillips believes it is possible to cut through all of this confusion by consulting the Bible. Only in the pages of Scripture, he asserts, can men find a clear explanation of their God-given roles as leaders, husbands, fathers, and churchmen.

Beginning in Genesis, Phillips shows that God commissioned Adam to work and tend the Garden of Eden. In these twin tasks, he perceives a template for manhood, one that, when carried out with diligence, provides dignity to men, service to mankind, and glory to God. He then goes on to show that men are called to lead, to love their wives, to discipline their children, and to serve the church of Jesus Christ. Here is biblical exposition of the most practical sort teaching that reveals not only what men are to think but what they are to be.

"Recovering Scripture"

"Recovering Scripture" is the theme for 2010 at The White Horse Inn. The programs have been outstanding. Take a listen HERE.

A Heretic by any other name (5)...

In his continuing review and interaction with Brian McLaren's new book Mike Witmer addresses the fifth of McLaren's questions: "What is the Gospel?" Since Brian rejects the biblical doctrines of the fall and sin he is also doomed to distort the gospel which he does with breathtaking hubris.

The gospel, according to McLaren, is not the announcement of salvation through Jesus' atoning work (McLaren rejects the doctrine of the atonement). Instead the gospel, so says McLaren, is a new way of life; a life of love. Well, I certainly will not argue that the Gospel, properly believed and apprehended by faith will lead to love for God and neighbor. But what Brian does is what theological liberals have always done. He abandons the substance of the gospel for the fruits of the gospel. In other words he denies what the gospel is and replaces it with one aspect of what the gospel produces within those who believe - a life of love.

Witmer addresses this issue in two posts (Here and Here).

In this section Brian reveals how liberalism grows in orthodox churches. He says that at the beginning of their movement, he and his friends were “peace-loving people” who didn’t “want to needlessly upset anyone,” so they thought, ‘Maybe this new understanding can simply be added to what we already have, gradually, gently, so people won’t even notice…Maybe we can simply add this kingdom-of-God stuff as fine print on the bottom of our existing theological contracts…without upsetting anyone.”

Brian writes that “Many are still working with this hope, and I wish them luck”—which should be a wake-up call to us all. Brian says that for his part he can no longer pretend, for “the cat is out of the bag” and it’s time to be honest about his new Christianity and admit that it can’t be crammed into the traditional way the church has believed in God...

Here’s the lesson: the easiest time to stop liberal theology is before it flowers and gains a following. If we make room for liberal questions it won’t be long before we’ll be asked to tolerate liberal answers. The little bit of liberalism that we tolerate today will eventually grow to become the dominant view. At least that’s the plan, according to Brian. We’ve been warned.

Postscript: some have asked why my reviews of A New Kind of Christianity have been critical. Isn’t there something positive to say about it? That’s a bit like asking, “Otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?” or “C’mon Paul, the Judaizers got something right, didn’t they?” (If you want to see negative, read Galatians 1, 1 Timothy 1, or anything in Jude).

Brian does rightly remind us to love each other, but this salient point is overwhelmed by his deconstruction of the Christian faith. As an evangelical elder statesman shared with me yesterday, “Brian fails every one of Machen’s tests.” This is my point in chapter 12 of Don’t Stop Believing, but you can see for yourself. Pick up a copy of Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism, written in 1923, and you’ll see that what Brian is saying isn’t exactly new, and according to Machen, it isn’t even Christian.

A heretic by any other name (4)...

Brian McLaren's problem with the Bible (which he loves, by the way) is that so much of it is just plain wrong. Among the many things that the Bible gets wrong is what it says about God. Don't misunderstand. The Bible records some things about God that are true (i.e. the things Brian likes). But the Bible leads us seriously astray in much of what it declares. Thankfully, Brian McLaren is here to help us discern the difference.

From Mike Witmer:

Is God violent?

Brian begins this section by admitting that he has a big problem. It helped his new kind of Christianity to assert that the Bible is our cultural library rather than authoritative constitution, but he still has to wrestle with the fact that this library contains many bloody books. In Brian’s words, he needs a way to deal with the numerous “violent images, cruel images, [and] un-Christlike images” of God that are found in the Bible.

Most troubling is the God who appears in the Noah narrative. Brian complains that “a god who mandates an intentional supernatural disaster leading to unparalleled genocide is hardly worthy of belief, much less worship. How can you ask your children—or nonchurch colleagues and neighbors—to honor a deity so uncreative, overreactive, and utterly capricious regarding life?”

Brian solves his problem by misusing the concept of progressive revelation. Everyone recognizes that God reveals more of himself as the Scripture narrative progresses. In the Old Testament God told the Israelites that he was one (Deut. 6:4), and then at the incarnation and Pentecost he revealed that he was also two and then three. But note that God’s future revelation expands rather than contradicts what came before. New Testament Christians still believe that God is one, as much as any OT Jew, but they now confess that God’s oneness also makes room for three persons.

Conversely, Brian asserts that future “revelations” supplant and correct earlier passages of Scripture. So while he cannot “defend the view of God in the Noah story as morally acceptable, ethically satisfying, and theologically mature,” he concedes that this early, immature view of God was at least a step up from the stories of God told by other religions of its day.

I put the term “revelation” in quotation marks above because Brian seems to think that the God we find in Scripture is merely what humans at the time thought of him. He writes: “when we ask why God appears so violent in some passages of the Bible, we can suggest this hypothesis: if the human beings who produced those passages were violent and genocidal in their own development, they would naturally see God through the lens of their experience. The fact that those disturbing descriptions are found in the Bible doesn’t mean that we are stuck with them….”

Read the entire post HERE.

Sunday's Sermon

Sunday's message was the second half of a 2 part series on biblical peacemaking. It was based on Jesus' words in Matthew 18:10-17 and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

Guarding the flock IS loving the flock

From Martin Downes:

One aspect of the demands of love is the guarding of the sheep from the danger of error. Heresy has a siren's voice and the devil uses its sweet sound to lure the Church away from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. A false Christ, who can never be the proper object of our affections, can never make the new Eve fruitful in the world (2 Cor. 11:24). That is why heresy is destructive, it cannot produce spiritual fruit, there is no power in it to bring a new creation.

Pastors, elders, the demands of love require you to protect the Church from heresies, even when people will call you unloving for criticizing the views of others. To do so, in our age, may well be called unloving, for our age has confused tolerance with love, but the insult is ill judged.

Protecting the Church from error is a loving act, and, therefore, it must be done with the appropriate affections. We are not to love a fight, we are to fight because we are motivated by love.

Read the entire post HERE.

Leading the Church

I'm looking forward to reading Tim Witmer's new book The Shepherd Leader.

"The Shepherd Leader is a book that strives to bring the importance of shepherding to the forefront of our thinking about what church leaders should do and, therefore, what they should be. Too many church leaders perceive of themselves as a "board of directors" when the Bible is clear that they are to know, feed, lead, and protect the flock entrusted to their care."




"Tim Witmer is the faithful shepherd of a growing, urban, multi-ethnic church. In this useful and important book, he explains a biblical, practical model for shepherding ministry in a local church. We plan to use The Shepherd Leader as a primary resource for all of our candidates, interns, elders, and pastors -- our shepherds and shepherds-in-training."
- Phillip Ryken

"The Shepherd Leader is just the kind of book that those who know Tim Witmer and his work have been hoping he would write—an intelligent, biblical, balanced, pastoral, sensitive and realistic exposition of the nature of true leadership in the Christian church. And there is a double bonus: this book is as readable as it is interesting."
- Sinclair B. Ferguson

"Tim Witmer ably guides us into rich pastures of writing on what it truly means to “shepherd” God’s people. For men called to love sheep, the results both compel and convict. For leaders who long to be faithful in the field, this book offers a wealth of theological and practical insight.ing about what church leaders should do and, therefore, what they should be. Too many church leaders perceive of themselves as a “board of directors” when the Bible is clear that they are to know, feed, lead, and protect the flock entrusted to their care."
- Dave Harvey, Sovereign Grace Ministries, Covenant Fellowship Church