Westminster Bookstore is currently making available their bestsellers of 2011 for 50% off.Thursday, January 5, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
"No frills, no spin, no soul patches"
Great piece by Carl Trueman on learning from reliable men:
Someone asked me recently why I seem so alienated from what appears to be the cutting edge in American conservative evangelicalism.Frankly, I have stopped regarding myself as an evangelical over here, in a way that I do back home. Why? Well, at a time when Christian leaders in the USA are apparently writing explicit sex books, when there are confused signals on the Trinity, when art and cultural transformation and social justice are increasingly the talking points and the kind of themes and priorities I learned from Drs. Packer and Lloyd-Jones are at best assumed, at worst eclipsed by such things - frankly, it is very hard not to feel alienated, and an alien, in such circumstances.Read the whole post HERE.
Re-reading Packer and Lloyd-Jones is a delight. Just basic Christian priorities laid out with no frills, no spin, no soul patches, no Barnum and Bailey pyrotechnics. For someone well into his forties, such reading perhaps provokes the occasional Charlie Kane 'Rosebud' moment; but it is a delight nonetheless. Almost thirty years on, I still have an awful lot to learn from these men, and my debt of gratitude can never be repaid.
As you age, starting to sound like your dad is bad enough; sounding like your grandad is even worse, but here goes: I am glad I am not young today. Who knows what I might be told to read?
A Plea to Mark Driscoll
There are things I truly appreciate about Mark Driscoll. I love that he knows and preaches the Gospel (the "matter of first importance" - 1 Cor 15). I love his zeal for evangelism and evident compassion for the lost. I love his desire to teach doctrine so that his church is not shallow and untrained. I love his desire to return to the church an understanding of and respect for biblical manhood.
But like all of us, Mark Driscoll is a bit of a mixed bag. He is a very public figure who has stirred up no small amount of controversy. Some of that controversy has been the result of his faithfulness to the Gospel, biblically prescribed gender roles, and biblical sexual ethics. However, much of the controversy has been due to some rather unfortunate behavior and statements on his part. All of us have said and done things that we would like to take back. But for an internationally known "rock star" pastor, author, and church network leader the margin for error is precariously thin.
With the release of Mark and Grace Driscoll's new book, Real Marriage, there is fresh conversation about the pastor's tendency to preach, teach, and write about sex in frank, and, some would argue, inappropriate ways. Others are weighing in on this matter helpfully (Carl Trueman [here and here], Denny Burk, Tim Challies). I hope that Driscoll will listen to and learn from these brothers. I won't, at least for now, seek to add to their comments.
But I offer a plea to Mark Driscoll. It is a plea that flows from concern over his repeated claims to receive direct revelations from God. It all began, according to Mark, when his conversion to Christ, his call to be a pastor, to be a mentor to men, and to marry Grace came to him via the audible voice of God. Specifically, my plea is for Mark Driscoll to stop making claims of direct revelation from God.
My concern is four-fold:
1. It seems arrogant.
History is somewhat spare of those to whom God spoke directly. There was Adam and Eve. There was Noah, Abraham and, later, Moses. There were the prophets that followed. Later, the apostles received direct revelation as they recorded the Scriptures we call the New Testament. But even in their case we do not have any evidence that God spoke to them in an audible voice (except of course through the incarnate Christ). And now we have...Mark Driscoll? Is it wise to repeatedly claim to have heard the audible voice of God? What purpose does this serve? Is it important to broadcast the reception of continued, direct revelation? Those few men who truly did receive revelation from God suffered on account of it. Paul points out that because of the revelations he received (the purpose of which was for the writing of Scripture) God gave to him a thorn in the flesh that he might not become proud (2 Corinthians 12:5-9). It seems arrogant for a preacher in our moment of redemptive history to repeatedly make claims to receive direct revelation from God. It places one in rarefied air indeed.
2. It is pastorally unwise.
It seems that every cult and man-made religion begins with someone claiming divine revelation: "God speaks to me," "I am a conduit of the divine," or "I found these golden tablets that only I can interpret!" I am not accusing Mark Driscoll with being a cult leader. I do not believe he is. Again, I am grateful that he proclaims the gospel. But his claims to direct revelation can easily lead to a cult-of-personality. Who can argue that this has not already happened?
Don't misunderstand. A pastor ought to be the best educated man in his congregation in regard to the Scriptures and doctrine. It is right to honor such a man (1 Timothy 5:17). However, claims to direct revelation and hearing the audible voice of God can easily lead to a kind of elitism that goes well beyond healthy honor. It can create a sort of hierarchy in which the pastor is placed on a super-spiritual plane the average parishioner will never reach.
On the other hand, a pastor's claims to direct revelation can create within parishioners an expectation to experience the same phenomena. We don't have to imagine the sorts of confusion and chaos this sort of expectation can cause. We need look no further than some of the titles being released by Christian publishers where the fanciful and fantastic is valued over that which is biblical. Or simply tune in to Trinity Broadcasting Network to see a whole motley parade of men and women who claim to speak for God.
The claim to direct revelation begs the question why? What is missing in the Bible that Mark Driscoll, or anyone esle for that matter, can provide? Given the contemporary church's notorious biblical illiteracy, why should we be seeking additional revelation or words from God? I fear that Driscoll's claims will seriously undermine his congregation's confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture.
3. It is, at least, potentially blasphemous.
As a preacher I know what it is like to have words placed in my mouth. People routinely "hear" me say things from the pulpit that I never said. The consequences are potentially severe of misquoting a person or, worse, fabricating statements that were never said. Even if the words are innocent or inconsequential, none of us want to be given credit for statements we never made.
It is bad enough when that happens to me or you or anyone else. But when God is misquoted or entire statements are mistakenly (or intentionally) attributed to Him then the consequences are grave. The Bible reserves some of its harshest condemnations for false prophets who do not speak God's words but their own vain imaginings cast as God's words. It is no small sin when we say, "God said," when God did not say.
Mark Driscoll has claimed from the pulpit of his church and in the pages of his new book on marriage that God reveals to him, in vivid detail, the sexual sins of others. Please understand, Driscoll's claim is not that God makes him aware of certain sinful patterns in other people's lives. That would be odd enough. Rather, his claim is that God runs in his mind, movie-like, graphic images of sexual sin that others have committed (including those of his wife in the days before they were married!). This is troubling, not least of all because it makes God responsible for projecting sexually graphic images in Driscoll's mind. But what if Mark is wrong? What if God is not running these disgusting images in his mind? Can it be anything less than blasphemy to falsely attribute these revelations to the work of God?
4. It is almost certainly not true.
Now, before anyone freaks out, let me explain. God is alive and powerful. He is a personal God who speaks to his people. And, no, I do not believe God spoke audibly to Mark Driscoll. Why? Because God no longer speaks to men in this way.
I can hear the protests. "Aha! You're just an anti-supernaturalist who is trying to put God in a box!" But this could not be further from the truth. I am not trying to limit God in any way. I am only suggesting that we believe what God himself has said about the way He speaks:
"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world" (Hebrews 1:1-2 ESV).
God has spoken supremely through the Son. And where do we find this word of the Son? In the Scriptures of course. All of the Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, points us to the Christ. Jesus himself taught the disciples to read the Bible this way (Luke 24:25-27).
The days of the prophets and apostles are over. Direct revelation is closed by God's own design. The Scriptures are complete. God's plan is on the move just according to His design. Rather than listening for a voice in our heart, from the sky, or along a river bed we are promised something far better. God promises to speak to us through His inscripturated Word which never goes forth without accomplishing His purpose. No need to rely upon mystical experience. No unclear impressions required or ever warranted; just God's clear, powerful, and sufficient Word faithfully and lovingly recorded for us through the Spirit's work of inspiration.
The newly united brothers and sisters whom God formed into the first church at Jerusalem were "devoted," not to mystical experience or discerning a voice (audible or otherwise), but to "the apostle's teaching" (Acts 2:42). It is that very same teaching that we have today in the form of the New Testament. This, along with what we know as the Old Testament, continues to be the blessed means by which God graciously speaks to His beloved people.
So, I plead with Mark Driscoll to stop relying on and proclaiming these extra-biblical revelations. It is pastorally unwise and could imperil the souls of the men and women with whom he has been entrusted.
But like all of us, Mark Driscoll is a bit of a mixed bag. He is a very public figure who has stirred up no small amount of controversy. Some of that controversy has been the result of his faithfulness to the Gospel, biblically prescribed gender roles, and biblical sexual ethics. However, much of the controversy has been due to some rather unfortunate behavior and statements on his part. All of us have said and done things that we would like to take back. But for an internationally known "rock star" pastor, author, and church network leader the margin for error is precariously thin.
With the release of Mark and Grace Driscoll's new book, Real Marriage, there is fresh conversation about the pastor's tendency to preach, teach, and write about sex in frank, and, some would argue, inappropriate ways. Others are weighing in on this matter helpfully (Carl Trueman [here and here], Denny Burk, Tim Challies). I hope that Driscoll will listen to and learn from these brothers. I won't, at least for now, seek to add to their comments.
But I offer a plea to Mark Driscoll. It is a plea that flows from concern over his repeated claims to receive direct revelations from God. It all began, according to Mark, when his conversion to Christ, his call to be a pastor, to be a mentor to men, and to marry Grace came to him via the audible voice of God. Specifically, my plea is for Mark Driscoll to stop making claims of direct revelation from God.
My concern is four-fold:
1. It seems arrogant.
History is somewhat spare of those to whom God spoke directly. There was Adam and Eve. There was Noah, Abraham and, later, Moses. There were the prophets that followed. Later, the apostles received direct revelation as they recorded the Scriptures we call the New Testament. But even in their case we do not have any evidence that God spoke to them in an audible voice (except of course through the incarnate Christ). And now we have...Mark Driscoll? Is it wise to repeatedly claim to have heard the audible voice of God? What purpose does this serve? Is it important to broadcast the reception of continued, direct revelation? Those few men who truly did receive revelation from God suffered on account of it. Paul points out that because of the revelations he received (the purpose of which was for the writing of Scripture) God gave to him a thorn in the flesh that he might not become proud (2 Corinthians 12:5-9). It seems arrogant for a preacher in our moment of redemptive history to repeatedly make claims to receive direct revelation from God. It places one in rarefied air indeed.
2. It is pastorally unwise.
It seems that every cult and man-made religion begins with someone claiming divine revelation: "God speaks to me," "I am a conduit of the divine," or "I found these golden tablets that only I can interpret!" I am not accusing Mark Driscoll with being a cult leader. I do not believe he is. Again, I am grateful that he proclaims the gospel. But his claims to direct revelation can easily lead to a cult-of-personality. Who can argue that this has not already happened?
Don't misunderstand. A pastor ought to be the best educated man in his congregation in regard to the Scriptures and doctrine. It is right to honor such a man (1 Timothy 5:17). However, claims to direct revelation and hearing the audible voice of God can easily lead to a kind of elitism that goes well beyond healthy honor. It can create a sort of hierarchy in which the pastor is placed on a super-spiritual plane the average parishioner will never reach.
On the other hand, a pastor's claims to direct revelation can create within parishioners an expectation to experience the same phenomena. We don't have to imagine the sorts of confusion and chaos this sort of expectation can cause. We need look no further than some of the titles being released by Christian publishers where the fanciful and fantastic is valued over that which is biblical. Or simply tune in to Trinity Broadcasting Network to see a whole motley parade of men and women who claim to speak for God.
The claim to direct revelation begs the question why? What is missing in the Bible that Mark Driscoll, or anyone esle for that matter, can provide? Given the contemporary church's notorious biblical illiteracy, why should we be seeking additional revelation or words from God? I fear that Driscoll's claims will seriously undermine his congregation's confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture.
3. It is, at least, potentially blasphemous.
As a preacher I know what it is like to have words placed in my mouth. People routinely "hear" me say things from the pulpit that I never said. The consequences are potentially severe of misquoting a person or, worse, fabricating statements that were never said. Even if the words are innocent or inconsequential, none of us want to be given credit for statements we never made.
It is bad enough when that happens to me or you or anyone else. But when God is misquoted or entire statements are mistakenly (or intentionally) attributed to Him then the consequences are grave. The Bible reserves some of its harshest condemnations for false prophets who do not speak God's words but their own vain imaginings cast as God's words. It is no small sin when we say, "God said," when God did not say.
Mark Driscoll has claimed from the pulpit of his church and in the pages of his new book on marriage that God reveals to him, in vivid detail, the sexual sins of others. Please understand, Driscoll's claim is not that God makes him aware of certain sinful patterns in other people's lives. That would be odd enough. Rather, his claim is that God runs in his mind, movie-like, graphic images of sexual sin that others have committed (including those of his wife in the days before they were married!). This is troubling, not least of all because it makes God responsible for projecting sexually graphic images in Driscoll's mind. But what if Mark is wrong? What if God is not running these disgusting images in his mind? Can it be anything less than blasphemy to falsely attribute these revelations to the work of God?
4. It is almost certainly not true.
Now, before anyone freaks out, let me explain. God is alive and powerful. He is a personal God who speaks to his people. And, no, I do not believe God spoke audibly to Mark Driscoll. Why? Because God no longer speaks to men in this way.
I can hear the protests. "Aha! You're just an anti-supernaturalist who is trying to put God in a box!" But this could not be further from the truth. I am not trying to limit God in any way. I am only suggesting that we believe what God himself has said about the way He speaks:
"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world" (Hebrews 1:1-2 ESV).
God has spoken supremely through the Son. And where do we find this word of the Son? In the Scriptures of course. All of the Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, points us to the Christ. Jesus himself taught the disciples to read the Bible this way (Luke 24:25-27).
The days of the prophets and apostles are over. Direct revelation is closed by God's own design. The Scriptures are complete. God's plan is on the move just according to His design. Rather than listening for a voice in our heart, from the sky, or along a river bed we are promised something far better. God promises to speak to us through His inscripturated Word which never goes forth without accomplishing His purpose. No need to rely upon mystical experience. No unclear impressions required or ever warranted; just God's clear, powerful, and sufficient Word faithfully and lovingly recorded for us through the Spirit's work of inspiration.
The newly united brothers and sisters whom God formed into the first church at Jerusalem were "devoted," not to mystical experience or discerning a voice (audible or otherwise), but to "the apostle's teaching" (Acts 2:42). It is that very same teaching that we have today in the form of the New Testament. This, along with what we know as the Old Testament, continues to be the blessed means by which God graciously speaks to His beloved people.
So, I plead with Mark Driscoll to stop relying on and proclaiming these extra-biblical revelations. It is pastorally unwise and could imperil the souls of the men and women with whom he has been entrusted.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Seeing, they do not see...
In a recent Hardball, Chris Matthews and his panel demonstrate a stunning lack of moral seriousness in a conversation about abortion. Of course, avoiding moral seriousness is necessary if one is to hold a "pro-choice" point of view. The entire abortion debate rests on the issue of personhood. But it is this issue that Matthews and his ilk, for obvious reasons, seek to avoid.
Denny Burk links to the Hardball episode and offers these comments:
Denny Burk links to the Hardball episode and offers these comments:
I have often observed that debates about abortion among political pundits tend to miss the point. There is no serious moral contemplation of the issue, but only crass calculations of how a particular point of view might help or hurt some politician.
That is why I was struck by this conversation on Chris Matthews’ program “Hardball” (see above). Matthews and his guests seem to have discovered for the first time that pro-lifers actually believe life to begin at conception. They are astonished and appalled by this revelation, and it is almost as if they have never even heard of this point of view before several GOP candidates signed the Personhood USA pledge. As a result, the panel lampoons the view as if it represented some extreme, unheard of ideology. They don’t seem to realize that the pro-life position consists precisely in the view that individual human life begins at conception. How could they not know this?
The entire pro-life debate hinges upon the status of the life that is taken in an abortion. If it’s just a blob of cells, then abortion on demand would be no problem. If it’s a person (as pro-lifers have been arguing all along), then that unborn person should be protected in law. I am happy to welcome Matthews to the national conversation now that he has discovered what it is really about.
I give you fair warning that what you are about to see is completely morally unserious. Matthews argues that the politics of abortion should be totally disconnected from “metaphysical” questions about personhood. The panel even suggests that the reality of miscarriages somehow constitute prima facie evidence against the personhood of the unborn. The arguments here are really weak, but they are precisely the kinds of opinions that proliferate among unthoughtful pro-choice advocates.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Journaling Through the Bible
Journibles look like a helpful tool for studying and meditating upon the Bible. I am looking forward to the release of the 1 & 2 Corinthians edition.
Journible Spot 1 from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
"Jesus Calling" A Review
Tim Challies reviews Sarah Young's enormously popular book Jesus Calling. In it, Young claims direct revelation from Jesus Christ. Oddly, while Young claims the entries in her book are the words of Jesus delivered to her, she cautions the reader to not regard them as authoritative as Scripture. But how can this be? If her book is Jesus speaking (which she explicitly claims) then how can those words be less authoritative or binding as the Scriptures? Indeed, if Mrs. Young has written down the words of Jesus that He spoke directly to her, then how can they not be Scripture? Unfortunately, her many admirers seem not to mind her troubling claim or incoherent contradiction.Challies writes:
James Montgomery Boice once said that the real battle in our times would not be the inerrancy or infallibility of Scripture, but its sufficiency—are we going to rely on the Bible or will we continually long for other revelation? In Jesus Calling we see this so clearly. Young teaches that though the Bible is inerrant and infallible, it is insufficient. It was not enough for her and, implicitly, she teaches that it cannot be enough for us. After all, it was not reading Scripture that proved her most important spiritual discipline, but this listening, this receiving of messages from the Lord. It is not Scripture she brings to us, not primarily anyway, but these messages from Jesus.Dr. Boice was right. Clearly, the battle over inerrancy continues. But more often it is the sufficiency of Scripture that is under constant attack in evangelical circles. "God told me," "God spoke this word in my heart," etc are frequent appeals to extra-biblical revelation. And yet such claims are ubiquitous among evangelicals. We make bestsellers out of fanciful tales of people's trips to heaven. How gullible have we become? We must ask, "When did God's Word become insufficient?" When did the Bible need the help of mystical experiences? extra words from God? or a little boy's trip to heaven and back?
On this basis alone this book is very suspect and needs to be treated with the utmost care. Young offers us words that she insists come straight from the Lord. But she gives no proof that we should expect the Lord to speak to us this way; all she offers is her own experience of it. At this point we are left with a few options. We can stop reading altogether, we can continue to read while rejecting her claims that these are words from the Lord, or we can read and take her at her word. Personally, unless reviewing the book, I would abandon it immediately. If she claims to be speaking Jesus’ words, I am no longer interested. However, for the sake of reviewing it, I continued to read.
Challies continues:
Read the entire review HEREIt is interesting that the majority of the devotionals are affirmations rather than commandments which means that the book tends to be more descriptive than prescriptive. It is less about Jesus telling how we are to live, but more about who he is, who we are, and how to enjoy his Presence. It is notable that these affirmations span only a very narrow range of the Christian experience. It is equally notable that many of Jesus’ words sound very little like what he says in the Bible. For example, “Let the Light of My Presence soak into you, as you focus your thoughts on Me.” And shortly after, “Learn to hide in the secret of My Presence, even as you carry out your duties in the world.” I do not even know what that means or how it might be applied. There is no clear command there for me to obey and no clear word about who Jesus is.
Conclusion
Jesus Calling is, in its own way, a very dangerous book. Though the theology is largely sound enough, my great concern is that it teaches that hearing words directly from Jesus and then sharing these words with others is the normal Christian experience. In fact, it elevates this experience over all others. And this is a dangerous precedent to set. I see no reason that I would ever recommend this book.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Like "priapistic teenage boys sniggering"
Ed Young Jr. is by no means the only pastor out there with a fondness for preaching and writing about sex. However, his latest project does prompt more than a few questions. Is all this "honesty" about sex truly helpful for the church? Does the presence of Song of Songs in the Bible justify this, this, or this?Carl weighs in with a dose of biblical sanity:
It is true: those who jump quickly to allegorise the Song of Songs bypass entirely the obvious fact that it is an erotic love poem. Nevertheless, it seems to me significant that the Bible reserves raw and explicit sexual references for passages like Ezk. 23:20. Yes, the Bible contains crudity but it never uses such language to describe a properly functioning marriage. Those who speak explicitly in their sermons about sex acts may be reflecting the fact that the Bible does refer to such things; but the form they use may actually be reflecting rather the pathologies of the wider culture. They are certainly not paying any respect to the form which scripture uses to speak of such things. There is a beauty to the Song of Songs which is connected to its poetic form. Telling the world it refers to this or that specific sex act misses the point on so many different levels and is an interesting and eloquent response which perhaps tells us much about the reader and little about the text; it reminds me of being in a gallery and seeing priapistic teenage boys sniggering at the naked breast of a woman in a painting by a Renaissance master.Read the entire post HERE.
I also wonder how helpful it is to deal in graphic detail with sexual acts from the pulpit for those struggling with addiction to internet pornography. Or even simply for single people. Or for those who have not heard of some of the sex acts mentioned. Or for those who are impotent. Or for those who are still children. Or for those who suffered sexual abuse. So many pastoral issues would seem to be exacerbated by explicit and indiscriminate teaching on this issue from the pulpit. Yes, there are obviously serious sexual dysfunctions in the church - many deriving directly from a wider culture which is so explicit about sex - but most if not all of these are best addressed in more individualized pastoral settings.
Further, the reduction of sex to a set of physical acts seems to play to the idolatries of the world around, and this reduction can be the result as much of the way we talk about sex as the content of what we say. I find it significant, for example, that we now routinely talk of `having sex' rather than `making love.' Perhaps the latter is somewhat archaic but it still carries with it emotional, relational and loving connotations which the former lacks entirely. A man can have sex with a prostitute; he can only make love to one to whom he is emotionally connected.
The Bible's refusal to reduce sex to physical acts is surely one of the reasons why it uses poetry to describe it. Poetry communicates meaning and significance which cannot be reduced simply to the reference; and the turning of the Song of Songs primarily into a sex manual is arguably a greater act of reductionism than jumping straight from the text to Christ and the church. This is important because reducing the importance of sex to the physical is one of the greatest moral errors of the spirit of this age, and the current penchant for explicit content in sermons seems rather to stand in continuity with this spirit than to be a prophetic sign against it. Paul's advice about it being better to marry than to burn is not reducible to 'if you struggle with lust, find a girl to marry and have sex with her.' That does not address the underlying problem. Everyone knows that nobody is ever addicted to one pornographic picture; thus lust is not eliminated by simply trying to set it in a monogamous context.
Finally, I wonder if the current passion for producing books and preaching sermons on sex also witnesses to the erosion of the boundary between public and private which is all too obvious in the world around us. Facebook, Twitter, reality TV and the rise of celebrity have each served to turn us all into exhibitionists and to make those who yearn for privacy look like weirdoes and losers. That this is impacting the church from the top down is obvious; and it is at least worth pausing to ask whether sex books and explicit sermons are part of this. It is surely hard to imagine Christian public figures of yesteryear such as Martyn Lloyd-Jones, J I Packer or Carl Henry setting up a website called the `sexperiment' or giving advice on sexual technique from the pulpit.
What you want in a pastor...
Good stuff from Jonathan Leeman:
AS IMPORTANT AS ANY OTHER QUALITY
I’m not talking about a man who simply checks the belief box on the “authority” or “sufficiency” or “power” of the Bible.
I’m talking about a man who whose conviction here runs so deep that it profoundly influences the way he works and lives. He plans his weekly schedule based on this conviction. He rests his daily mood upon this conviction. He even picks his clothes in the morning knowing that, it’s not how good he looks that will bring life to the dead, it’s the resurrection power of God’s Word and Spirit.
This is as important as any other quality a pastor could have. It’s as important as swimming is to a lifeguard, throwing is to a quarterback, or adding is to an accountant. It defines the very task of what a pastor does.
THE POWER OF THE WORD
Humans create with hands, shovels, and bulldozers. Not God. God creates with words. He says, “Be,” and it is. He says “Peace” to the riotous wind and waves, and they obey. He says “Come forth” to dead people and their eyes pop open.
Just as astonishing, God tells the light to shine in dark hearts, giving them the ability to see the glory of his Son (2 Cor. 4:6). His Word of power saves (Rom. 10:17). It fundamentally changes people (1 Thess. 1:5-7). It gives the new birth (1 Peter 1:23).
Now get this: God gives his faithful servants the ability to do the same things. “If anyone speaks, she should do it as one speaking the very words of God.” (1 Peter 4:11). This is why Don Carson calls preaching “rerevelation.” A preacher’s primary task is to say again what God has already said. Did you think life comes to the dead through the power of our intelligence or humor or charisma?
Picture Ezekiel standing in a valley of dry bones. He preaches God’s Word, God’s Spirit blows, and the bones come to life. Your church wants a pastor who believes—deep in his bones!—that the same supernatural power is available to him. POW! He doesn’t rely on “the weapons of the world” but on “divine power to demolish strongholds” (2 Cor. 10:4). KAZAMM!
WHY THIS IS CRITICAL
Why is this critical for who your church should look for in a pastor search?
1. It will keep him from manipulating. Paul said he “renounced secret and shameful ways” but instead “set forth the truth plainly” (2 Cor. 4:2). If a man believes that the Word alone is powerful to save, that’s what he’ll do—preach plainly and not try to emotionally manipulate.
2. It will keep him from building your church and your spiritual life on his personality. Paul wasn’t a “trained speaker” with an impressive resume, like the “super-apostles.” He just preached Jesus, the Spirit, and the gospel (2 Cor. 11:4-5). Likewise, you want a man who is a good steward of his gifts, doesn’t rely on or trust his gifts to give life. He plants and waters, but relies on God to give the growth (1 Cor. 3:6-7). Men who build on their personalities have churches filled with nominal Christians.
3. It will keep him happy. A man who trusts God to save by his Word and Spirit is a man who can sleep at night, because it doesn’t finally depend on him. This is a happy man who probably has a happy wife and children because he spends time with them. He doesn’t carry the weight of the world on his shoulders. This is a man who won’t burn out as easily and will serve your church for years.
4. It’s the primary means to your growth and your church’s growth. It’s through the words of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers that God’s people become prepared for works of service “so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-13).
5. It’s your best hope of reaching non-Christian neighbors. “Faith comes from hearing the message,” says Paul (Rom. 10:17). Can the message be proclaimed through special programs and events? Of course. But you want a man who recognizes that it’s the regular, weekly “in season, out of season” work of “great patience and careful instruction” that saves the lost and builds up the saints—you want a man who “does the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim. 4:2-5).Jonathan's book Reverberation was one of my favorite reads for 2011. I would love every church member to read it.
Secrets Pastors Keep
I can certainly identify with much that is in this following list. Perhaps this will serve as a helpful way to inform our prayers for our pastors.From Ron Edmondson:
1. Leading from this position is overwhelming at times. We know Christ is ultimately in charge, but we also know it often seems everyone looks to us to have all the answers.
2. People tell the senior pastor all kinds of things about what is happening in their life or in the lives of others…many we would rather not know sometimes…and sometimes the weight of others problems we carry is enormous.
3. Most pastors walk with a degree of uncertainty, which keeps us in prayer, but also makes us question our abilities at times. It makes depression common for many senior pastors. (Need a Biblical example…see 1 Kings 19)
4. Many senior pastors fear the possibility of failing in their role, so they thrive on the encouragement and prayers of others.
5. Sometimes we allow insecurity to cause us to become overprotective of our reputation and our position.
6. We face the same temptations and occasional spiritual dryness as everyone else. This means we need accountability, but are often afraid to seek it.
7. Our spouse is sometimes the loneliest person in the church and often feels extreme pressure to live up to unrealistic expectations.
8. Loneliness can exist for all leaders and many pastors suffer from it.
9. We seldom know who we can trust, which is why we become guarded and appear hard to get to know. Most senior pastors have been burned by someone they once trusted.
10. We suspect the staff, church leaders and congregation sometimes talks about us behind our back.
Read the whole thing HERE.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Cherishing what we still precariously hold
For those of us in church leadership who are always under pressure to innovate, the following words from P.D. James present a relevant challenge:
I believe it was C.S. Lewis who wrote about "chronological snobbery": the tendency to think that your time, your methods, your generation, etc are somehow worthy of greater esteem than that of the past. This has been tragically true within evangelicalism. The irony, of course, is that we are a people whose entire existence depends upon events 2,000 years ago and beyond. What is more, we have two millennia of church history from which to draw. Unfortunately, in our preaching, praise, and education we seem to prefer the cheap porridge of contemporary trends over the rich and thoughtful deposits of our forebears. The finest historians on the planet ought to be Christians. Our churches ought to be filled with historical referents. Not that our buildings would be museums and our gatherings exercises in nostalgia. A thousand times no! However it seems to me, to quote one of my co-laborers, "We are sowing the seeds of our own demise."
HT: Justin Taylor
We live in an age notable for a kind of fashionable silliness and imbued with a restless desire for change.
It sometimes seems that nothing old, nothing well-established, nothing which has evolved through centuries of experience and loving use escapes our urge to diminish, revise or abolish it.
Above all every organisation has to be relevant—a very fashionable word—to the needs of modern life, as if human beings in the twenty-first century are somehow fundamentally different in their needs and aspirations from all previous generations.
A country which ceases to value and learn from its history, neglects its language and literature, despises its traditions and is unified only by a common frenetic drive for getting and spending and for material wealth, will lose more than its nationhood; it will lose its soul.
Let us cherish and use what we still precariously hold.
Let us strive to ensure that what has been handed down to us is not lost to generations to come.
I believe it was C.S. Lewis who wrote about "chronological snobbery": the tendency to think that your time, your methods, your generation, etc are somehow worthy of greater esteem than that of the past. This has been tragically true within evangelicalism. The irony, of course, is that we are a people whose entire existence depends upon events 2,000 years ago and beyond. What is more, we have two millennia of church history from which to draw. Unfortunately, in our preaching, praise, and education we seem to prefer the cheap porridge of contemporary trends over the rich and thoughtful deposits of our forebears. The finest historians on the planet ought to be Christians. Our churches ought to be filled with historical referents. Not that our buildings would be museums and our gatherings exercises in nostalgia. A thousand times no! However it seems to me, to quote one of my co-laborers, "We are sowing the seeds of our own demise."
HT: Justin Taylor
Sunday's Sermon
On Sunday I preached from the messianic prophecy found in Isaiah 9. It is entitled "A Great Light" and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.
Christmas Everyday...
Good stuff from Carl: Read the entire article HERE.The irony of the Christian Christmas is that the Christ child comes not because of any need of his own or any desire to fulfill a selfish or inwardly directed want; this child, the child in the manger, considers it not robbery to be equal with God and yet humbles himself by taking the form of a servant in order to be obedient even to death on the cross. All of this is done for those who not only did not deserve it but who despise the very thought of grace. For the strong and the self-sufficient to be shown their need and to be delivered therefrom by a nobody who begins life in a manger and ends it on a cross is a profound insult to everything we hold dear. The world looks on - now as then - and see this all as so much childishness; the tragedy, of course, is that it is the unsuspecting world which is truly childish.
I wonder if it is coincidence that at the very moment when childhood - or, perhaps better, childishness - seems to be permeating society, atheism and the militant rejection of Christianity are becoming so trendy. There is nothing more childish than the repudiation of parental authority by those who are still dependent upon their parents for everything from food to shelter to clothing. As the fourteen year old kid with the body-piercing and mohawk is still utterly dependent on his parents' money to buy him the torn jeans and the tee-shirt with the anti-authoritarian slogan spray painted on it, so those dependent upon God for their lives take a perverse and childish pleasure in denying his claims over their lives. And as the fourteen year old punk looks like a serious adult role model to the twelve year old wannabe, so the angry atheism that sells so many books today looks like true maturity to the world at large. Yet it does not change the fact that, as Romans 1 tells us, such is really a move not towards maturity but towards a fundamental denial of our humanity.
This should put our need to engage with atheists in perspective. Atheists do appear scary to the church, as the foul-mouthed kid with the leather jacket and the tatttoo might well be an intimidating and alien presence in my neighbourhood late at night; but all the expletives in the world do not change the fact that he is just a kid with attitude, not a serious challenge to my safety or well-being. Yes, we sometimes need to refute atheists in the same way we need to check unruly teenagers; but we should not waste too much time on such matters. The church also has adult work to be doing and dealing with kids should not distract us from that. Atheists come and atheists go; as far as I can tell, Mt. 16:18 continues to prove to be true.
The message of Christmas is the message of the cross: all our human conceptions are turned upside down; greatness is found in a manger and on a cross; the most powerful autonomous aspirations of men and women are in comparison to the baby Jesus but childish acts of meaningless defiance; atheism pretends to maturity; but from the perspective of the Bethlehem stable, it is but so much juvenile posturing.
Monday, December 19, 2011
The "Dear Leader" Dies
We may never know the extent of Kim Jong Il's brutality and madness. We know that he tortured and murdered his people on a massive scale. Il the atheist insisted on being worshipped as a god. He routinely threatened the world. All the while the "Dear Leader" lived in luxury enjoying fine wine and American movies. Since the North Korean Communist dictatorship is a family enterprise, the reigns of leadership will go to one of Kim's sons. There is, so far, no indication that any of his sons will change the ever darkening course of this already dark country.Justin Taylor has posted a series of videos that give a glimpse into the wicked cruelty that was Kim Jong Il's North Korea.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
An obituary for Christopher Hitchens
Doug Wilson has written a moving but, thankfully, not sentimental memorial for Christopher Hitchens who died of cancer yesterday.
Read the whole thing HERE.G. K. Chesterton once pointed to the salutary effect that the great agnostics had on him—that effect being that of "arousing doubts deeper than their own." Christopher was an heir of the Enlightenment tradition, and would have felt right at home in the 18th-century salons of Paris. He wanted to carry on the grand tradition of doubting what had been inherited from Christendom, and to take great delight in doubting it. This worked well, or appeared to, for a time. But skepticism is a universal solvent, and once applied, it does not stop just because Christendom is gone. "I think, therefore I am. I think." We pulled out the stopper of faith, and the bathwater of reason appeared undisturbed for a time. But modernism slowly receded and now postmodernism is circling the drain.
Our intelligentsia needs to figure out how to do more than sit in an empty tub and reminisce about the days when Voltaire knew how to keep the water hot. Christopher knew that faithful Christians believe that it is appointed to man once to die, and after that the Judgment. He knew that we believe what Jesus taught about the reality of damnation. He also knew that we believe—for I told him—that in this life, the door of repentance is always open. A wise Puritan once noted what we learn from the last-minute conversion of the thief on the cross—one, that no one might despair, but only one, that no one might presume. We have no indication that Christopher ever called on the Lord before he died, and if he did not, then Scriptures plainly teach that he is lost forever. But we do have every indication that Christ died for sinners, men and women just like Christopher. We know that the Lord has more than once hired workers for his vineyard when the sun was almost down (Matt. 20:6).
We also know that Christopher was worried about this, and was afraid of letting down the infidel team. In a number of interviews during the course of his cancer treatments, he discussed the prospect of a "death bed" conversion, and it was clear that he was concerned about the prospect. But, he assured interviewers, if anything like that ever happened, we should all be certain that the cancer or the chemo or something had gotten to his brain. If he confessed faith, then he, the Christopher Hitchens that we all knew, should be counted as already dead. In short, he was preparing a narrative for us, just in case. But it is interesting that the narrative he prepped us with did not involve some ethically challenged evangelical nurses on the late shift who were ready to claim that they had heard him cry out to God, thus misrepresenting another great infidel into heaven. It has been done with Einstein, and with Darwin. Why not Hitchens? But Christopher actually prepared us by saying that if he said anything like this, then he did not know what he was saying.
This is interesting, not so much because of what it says about what he did or did not do as death approached him, and as he at the same time approached death. It is interesting because, when he gave these interviews, he was manifestly in his right mind, and the thought had clearly occurred to him that he might not feel in just a few months the way he did at present. The subject came up repeatedly, and was plainly a concern to him. Christopher Hitchens was baptized in his infancy, and his name means "Christ-bearer." This created an enormous burden that he tried to shake off his entire life. No creature can ever succeed in doing this. But sometimes, in the kindness of God, such failures can have a gracious twist at the end. We therefore commend Christopher to the Judge of the whole earth, who will certainly do right. Christopher Eric Hitchens (1949-2011). R.I.P.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Sunday's Sermon
On Sunday I preached the final message in our series focusing on the Great Commission. It is entitled "Sustained By Grace" and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.* On Sunday January 8th, I will begin preaching through Philippians.
My Favorite Reads for 2011
The following are books (not all published in 2011) that were either the most enjoyable or the most important books I read over the last 12 months.Theology / Biblical Studies:
Historical Theology by Gregg Allison
I have not read this book cover-to-cover. However, it is extremely helpful; a great "one stop shop" for the history of the development of Christian doctrine.
What is the Mission of the Church? by DeYoung and Gilbert
Excellent. Clarifying. Careful. Readable. Important. Need more?
Union With Christ by J. Todd Billings
I am thankful for what may be a renewed focus on a sadly neglected doctrine. Dr. Billings's volume is a great example of theology in service of doxology and the church.
Outstanding! Readable and doxological instruction.
The best single volume I have read on the doctrine of the Word of God. Man, does Frame love appendices!
Applied Christianity:
Good News for Anxious Christians by Phillip Cary
I love this book! Dr. Cary offers an important correction to the errors of what he calls "the new evangelicalism."
Excellent. Leeman helps the reader understand how God uses his Word to transform his people. This is one of those books I wish every church member would read.
A refreshing journey through Colossians with an eye toward the radical nature of the gospel.
A Gospel Primer for Christians by Milton Vincent
Read this book...now.
Non-Fiction / Biography:
Raven by Tim Reiterman
* Okay, I understand how some of you may be concerned about my seeming fascination with tyrants and cult leaders.
I confess that I have not completed this yet but so far it is excellent.
The Strange Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst by Tomalin and Hall
An amazing story but little known in the U.S. The story of Donald Crowhurst is a compelling mix of adventure, mystery and tragedy.
Fiction:
Hitler's Niece by Ron Hansen
The following are some books I have recently begun reading and are, so far, excellent:
Truman by David McCullough
Washington: The Indispensable Man by James Thomas Flexner
Feast Day For Fools by James Lee Burke
Salvation Accomplished by the Son by Robert Peterson
Authentic Church by Vaughan Roberts
The Christian Faith by Michael Horton
Friday, December 9, 2011
Simply Proclaim
Carl Trueman on the challenge and privilege of preaching (especially at Christmas):
The problem is not just metaphysical, not simply a question of how one can talk about infinite God entering finite human existence (`Our God contracted to a span, incomprehensibly made man', to use Wesley's beautiful phrase). In this it is akin to the cross as Paul articulates it in 1 Corinthians: it is foolishness and a stumbling block. Foolishness, because the very idea of the sovereign creator and ruler of the universe being born of a teenage virgin in a stable in a tiny nation of no account at the far end of the Mediterranean is utterly ridiculous. Indeed, one might say that it looks very much like proof that God cannot exist -- at least, that is, God built according to our specifications and requirements. An offence because I do not need salvation, especially salvation brought by a pre-modern peasant's child in some backward place nobody would otherwise ever have heard of.Read the whole thing HERE.
Yet this is where the glory of preaching and hearing the word of God comes into play. Preaching is proclamation, and proclaim we must, however inadequate we might think our words and our delivery are. Preaching is not a carefully worked-out philosophical defence of what God must be like if the advent of Christ is to be true. Nor is it an attempt to make Christianity look sophisticated or moral as the world understand these things. Least of all is it stand-up comedy designed to entertain those who might otherwise seek their fun elsewhere. Its agenda, especially at Christmas, is not to be determined by unbelief or what the hipsters in the Village will tolerate or what the brain's trust at MIT think is plausible. Preaching at Christmas is akin to Lk. 2:8-12. It is the announcement of what God has done, that he has come in Christ, and that thereby his grace has abounded and overflowed to those who deserve it not.. Our task as preachers is to do simply that: proclaim the advent of the Christ. Can there be a greater privilege, a more awesome responsibility, or a greater delight?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
