My Favorite App

These days there is little else playing in my car than Ref Net, the online radio of Ligonier Ministries. It is an outstanding mix of preaching, music, conference messages, audio books, news, and Scripture reading. Among the preachers and teachers featured are R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, Alistair Begg, John Piper, Ravi Zacharias and others.

On preaching and preachers

The latest edition of Mortification of Spin is up and running.

What role does preaching play in today's church? The Rev. Dr. Jonathan Master joins Carl Trueman and Todd Pruitt to talk about the importance and gravity of preaching. Through the book "Preaching & Preachers" by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, they show the necessity and primacy of the proper preaching of the all-sufficient Word of God. Listen the Mortification of Spin to learn more about this imperative and perennial topic.

Sunday's Sermon

On Sunday I preached from Matthew 11:25-30. The sermon is entitled "Accepted by God" and can be listened to HERE.

A great model for pastors...

Mark Dever has had a great impact on my life and ministry. When I was a Southern Baptist pastor who had come to embrace the Doctrines of Grace I felt incredibly isolated until I stumbled across 9 Marks Ministries around 2000 or 2001. I have also had occasion to visit Capitol Hill Baptist Church on several occasions and been blessed by once dying, now thriving congregation.

Jonathan Leeman, a long-time associate of Mark and editorial director of 9 Marks has written a very helpful piece on Mark's style of leadership. Particularly, Leeman highlights the ways in which Dever shares authority. If you are a pastor, you would do well to carefully read and re-read the piece. Share it with your elders and associate pastors. Find ways to begin implementing at least some of these practices.

Are we prepared to send our daughters into battle?

The combination of male cowardice and political correctness is a deadly one. Now comes news that President Obama has lifted the restrictions from women serving in combat.

Please take time to Read John Piper's clear article on this regrettable decision.

Piper writes:

A year ago President Obama praised lifting restrictions from women in combat: “Today, by moving to open more military positions — including ground combat units — to women, our armed forces have taken another historic step toward harnessing the talents and skills of all our citizens.”

His argument was that “many [women] have made the ultimate sacrifice, including 150 women who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Therefore, “valor knows no gender.”

For thousands of years of military wisdom and noble instincts that reasoning would have been unintelligible. Of course, there are women of valor. But for a male commander-in-chief to say that since they are willing to die in combat, therefore we should arm them for it, is a non-sequitur, and a shame on the president’s manhood.

It’s a non-sequitur because more factors than valor go into fitting a person for combat, and it’s a shame because true manhood inclines a man to fight to protect women; it does not incline him to arm women for the frontline of combat to defend him.

That’s the main issue, not pull-ups. The main issue is: how God has designed manhood and womanhood to honor each other and to create a cultural choreography where men and women flourish.

Read the entire article HERE.

Calvinism in the NY Times

You read that right.

Check it out HERE.

Reading for the new year

If you are looking for something highly profitable to read for the new year you ought to give serious consideration to Resisting Gossip by Matthew Mitchell.


"Resisting Gossip" [extended] Book Trailer from Third Brother Films on Vimeo.

Defending the Faith

Over at The White Horse Inn Michael Horton continues his helpful video series on answering challenges to the faith.

Why Is There So Much Evil in the World?

How Can Anyone Know About Life After Death?

On Hell

Over at Ref21, I have posted the following list of resources on the doctrine of Hell.

Articles:
The Importance of Hell by Tim Keller
Paul On Hell (pdf) by Douglas Moo
Francis Turretin on the doctrine of Hell 
Hell by Thomas Boston
Hell and Annihilationism by Sam Storms
Speaking Seriously and Sensitively About Hell by Ligon Duncan
A Review of Rob Bell's "Love Wins" by Kevin DeYoung
Hell: Remembering the Aweful Reality (Various Authors) 9 Marks Journal

Audio:
What Happens to Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel? by John Piper
Universalism and the Reality of Eternal Punishment Sinclair Ferguson (Conference Messages)
The Echo and Insufficiency of Hell by John Piper
How Could a Loving God Send Someone to Hell? by Al Mohler

Books:
Hell Under Fire, Morgan & Peterson (ed.)
What Is Hell? by Morgan & Peterson
Heaven & Hell by Edward Donnelly
Is Hell For Real? by Christopher Morgan
The Other Side of the Good News by Larry Dixon

I know that Hell is an unpleasant subject for many. Some Christians struggle with the idea of Hell, wondering if it is truly just. Some prominent evangelicals have openly questioned and even dismissed entirely the Bible's teaching on Hell. Even the late John Stott opted for Annihilationism over the historic Christian understanding of Hell. The resources above will help you not only understand what the Bible teaches about the coming judgment but also to appreciate what the doctrine of Hell teaches us about the perfections of God.

Mortification of Spin

The latest edition of Mortification of Spin: Bully Pulpit is now posted. This time Carl and Aimee took the lead in my absence.

How can Christians appropriately, firmly but sensitively talk about the Bibles teaching on sexuality. Our sexuality is for the glory of God and not a means to its own end. There is so much that can be said about our sexual identity so listen now to Carl and Aimee on the Bully Pulpit as they touch this important subject.

"Where the battle rages"

"If I profess, with the loudest voice and clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battle field besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

- Martin Luther

Attraction, Temptation, and Lust

Desiring God has published an article by Nick Roen entitled "Is It Sin to Experience Same-Sex Attraction?" Roen believes there is a distinction between experiencing temptation and engaging in sin. I believe this is a helpful and, most importantly, biblical distinction. Our Lord was tempted in every way as are we yet without sin. Certainly, since we are fallen and "groaning" (Rom 8) we know what it is for temptation to give way to lust which then gives birth to evil deeds. But this does not change the fact that being tempted is not the same thing as being carried away by our lusts. Indeed, to equate the experience of temptation with sinful lusts and evil deeds is to place a burden upon our brothers and sisters that Scripture does not.

If are interested in reading more about Same Sex Attraction and homosexuality from a distinctively Biblical/Christian perspective, the following resources are helpful:

Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert by Rosaria Champaign Butterfield
Is God Anti-Gay? by Sam Allberry
Love Into Light: The Gospel, The Homosexual, and the Church by Peter Hubbard
Out of a Far Country by Yuan & Yuan

"The Heart Wants What the Heart Wants"

So said Woody Allen as he sought to justify his sexual relationship with his step-daughter. In one sense it is easy to dismiss Allen's behavior as isolated albeit disgusting. Recently, however, David Espstein, a political scientist from Columbia University, has been charged with incest for carrying on a sexual relationship with his adult daughter. Most of us have a reflexive response of disgust concerning such behavior. It is sinful. It is gross. But based upon what the left has told us for years about homosexuality must we now embrace incest so long as it is "consensual"?

Over at Slate, William Saletan asks, "If gay sex is okay, how can incest be wrong?"

Nowadays, when we talk about incest, we tend to think of child sexual abuse. That's how we use the term in the repressed-memory debate and in abortion legislation. When politicians such as President Obama make exceptions in abortion laws for "rape and incest," they're using the terms synonymously, except that in the incest scenario, the rapist is your dad.

But you can't prosecute Epstein under that theory. According to news reports, his daughter is 24, and their affair began in 2006. That makes her an adult. Furthermore, police say the sex appears to have been consensual. Four years ago, Ohio's Supreme Court upheld the incest conviction of Paul Lowe, a former sheriff's deputy, for what the court called "consensual sex with his 22-year-old stepdaughter." And last month, a 27-year-old Florida woman was sentenced to five years of probation for sex with her father. Clearly, we're prosecuting people for incest regardless of age or consent.

At this point, liberals tend to throw up their hands. If both parties are consenting adults and the genetic rationale is bogus, why should the law get involved? Incest may seem icky, but that's what people said about homosexuality, too. It's all private conduct. To which conservatives reply: We told you so. We warned you that if laws against homosexuality were struck down, laws against polygamy and incest would follow. And now you're proving us right.

Read the entire article HERE.

Commenting on the Slate article Al Mohler wrote:

This article is a very interesting window into the sexual confusions that lie at the heart of our age. To his credit, Saletan gets the conservative argument basically right:

The conservative view is that all sexual deviance—homosexuality, polyamory, adultery, bestiality, incest—violates the natural order. Families depend on moral structure: Mom, Dad, kids. When you confound that structure—when Dad sleeps with a man, Dad sleeps with another woman, or Mom sleeps with Grandpa—the family falls apart. Kids need clear roles and relationships. Without this, they get disoriented. Mess with the family, and you mess up the kids.

That’s a pretty fair summary. Of course, the Christian argument goes much deeper than the merely conservative argument, affirming the fact that, with exacting precision, God has spoken to the sinfulness of such behaviors — specifically condemning both homosexuality and incest. In other words, Christians move the question from mere wrongfulness to sinfulness and place all issues of sin within the biblical account of sin and redemption.

It is extremely revealing that, for many of our fellow citizens, incest may merely “seem icky.” And yet, all around us are folks who, with a straight face, deny the inevitability of this slippery slope.

Read Mohler's entire article HERE.   

Let's Try Something...

Is there a difference between being tempted and lusting?

Is it sin to be tempted to commit gluttony?

Is it a sin to be tempted to not be generous?

Is it a sin to be tempted to disobey your parents?

You get the picture.

I'm in the zone!

Now I'm getting pegged as being too unclear on sin for drawing a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual acts. How about that! I'm too nuanced, too sensitive to the spirit of the age. This is truly a first. Someone is calling me out for being too nice, too vague, too liberal. So, for the same post I'm both ungracious and too permissive. I'm in the sweet spot people!

It still surprises me

Martin Luther identified a theologian of the cross as one who calls a thing what it is.

That sort of clarity seems to be in short supply in the church today. Love for God's truth seems to have been replaced by love for a certain aesthetic of niceness. Indeed, speaking with clarity is downright mean-spirited and ungracious. Our standards for evangelical politeness would keep the prophets, the apostles, and Jesus himself from being welcomed into many of our churches. They simply spoke too clearly, too directly. They identified sin with un-nuanced language. They pointed their fingers directly at transgressors and called them to account. There were prophets who openly mocked the gods of the pagans. They named the sins of God's people and warned them of coming judgment. Jesus described some of his opponents with terms like "vipers" and "white washed tombs full of dead men's bones." He warned of hell more than anyone else in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul named men whom the church should avoid and even remove from fellowship. He used quite colorful language at times. He once invited the Judaizers in Galatia to castrate themselves. Such clarity and sanctified anger is all but absent from the contemporary church.

I'm certainly not pointing this out because I want to tell people to do what Paul told the Judaizers to do. I'm not itching to call anyone a viper. And yet, see what happens when a pastor writes a simple blog post calling for grace and shelter for those who struggle with same sex attraction but clarity on the sinfulness of homosexual acts. He is excoriated by some for being ungracious. Perhaps I am naïve but that sort of thing surprises me when it comes from fellow Christians. Being criticized for affirming what the Bible says by unbelievers? Sure. But to be called ungracious by Christians for affirming the testimony of God's Word and that which Christians have believed for 2,000 years? It still surprises me.

I believe Michael Horton explains well the prevailing sentiment which guides much of American evangelicalism...

The Right Men

In the most recent edition of Mortification of Spin, Carl and I discuss the role and importance of
elders in the local church.

It is clear in Scripture that the church is to be led by a plurality of godly men who meet a very specific list of requirements. The requirements themselves (found in 1 Timothy and Titus 1) are not unique to elders save one: the ability to teach the Bible and sound doctrine. What this tells us, among other things, is that an elder is called to be an ordinary Christian who nevertheless has an above average understanding of Scripture and the ability to instruct in sound doctrine. A church must never make the mistake of appointing as elders men who, although nice, do not possess that quality that makes an elder, an elder in the first place. The consequences for the church that fails at this are disastrous.

Phil Robertson, Elitism, and the Yuck Factor

I've written a post over at Ref21 concerning the Phil Robertson flap. Specifically I seek to distinguish between our reactions to same sex attraction and homosexual acts. I also seek to defend the "yuck factor" as a legitimate response to homosexual acts.

As I have read the many commentaries offered by various evangelicals on the Phil Robertson flap I cannot help but wonder if some of the discussion confuses categories. Some, while in sympathy with Robertson's view that homosexuality is sin, are scandalized by his, shall we say, "earthy language." Same sex attraction requires more sensitivity and nuance, we are told. It is a complicated matter. And indeed it is. But same sex attraction is not what Mr. Robertson was addressing. He was addressing the specific sin of homosexual acts which is a related but different category from same sex attraction. We have brothers and sisters in Christ who, while struggling with same sex attraction, persevere faithfully in God-honoring chastity recognizing that homosexuality is a sin. The church ought to be a place where these saints can be honest about their particular area of temptation so that they can be spurred on toward love and good deeds. You know, just like those saints who struggle with lustful thoughts, dishonesty, pride, disobedience to parents, greed, anger, gluttony, etc.

Homosexual acts, however, do not merit such sensitivity and nuance (nor does lying, coveting, murder, etc). The Scripture's condemnation of such acts is clear. But God's book of nature is just as clear. Paul appeals to natural revelation in Romans one where homosexual acts are described as self-evidently unnatural. We live among people who reject outright the Biblical prohibition against such acts. That much is clear. But, as Paul points out, these same folks have exchanged in favor of a lie God's truth revealed in the natural world as well. It is a knowledge that is clear enough to render them without excuse. Is this not what Phil Robertson was pointing out? Could it be that his words were just too clear for the more sophisticated among us?

There is an inescapable "yuck factor" to homosexual acts that ought not be diminished by Christians. I'm not talking about juvenile snickering. I'm talking about a mature disgust generated by acts that have gone desperately awry of what is natural. Any medical doctor worth his salt will tell you the sorts of destruction done to the bodies of homosexuals. I would suggest that the greater ignorance is to be silent to such physical realities rather than pointing them out.

It seems to me that some of the condemnation of Phil Robertson coming from evangelicals has the aroma of cultural elitism. That is, a faith that is expressed in very ordinary and "un-nuanced" ways tends be sneered at by those Christians who prefer their cappuccinos be crafted by free range baristas (Okay, that was just a little cheap shot but I've got to keep your interest). My point is that those of us who have attended seminary and enjoy coffee from independent coffee shops need to remember that the Faith we embrace goes to the unschooled and uncouth. It is a faith for duck hunters, children, stock brokers, middle school dropouts, physicists and those who love the pancakes at Cracker Barrel. If that is embarrassing to some of my fellow evangelicals then perhaps Christian Science may provide a bit more insulation from the ruffians of Munroe, Louisiana.

Upcoming Sermon Series

On January 19 I will begin preaching a series through Acts. The series will begin with a few sermons focusing on the identity and mission of the church. I'm still in the midst of outlining Acts so I'm not sure yet how long the series will be. However, it looks like Acts is going to be one of those series that will have to be broken up into a few large sections. I have wanted to preach through Acts for some time but have not had the right opportunity. I am grateful to be walking through this portion of God's Word with the saints at Covenant Presbyterian Church.

So, here is what I am reading on this cold Christmas Eve morning - A Theology of Luke & Acts by Darrell Bock.

Can you trust the Bible?

The following are some excellent resources addressing the doctrine of the Scripture's inerrancy:

Articles/Audio:
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics

The Inerrancy of Scripture part 1 (audio) - Wayne Grudem
The Inerrancy of Scripture part 2 (audio) - Wayne Grudem
The Inerrancy of Scripture part 3 (audio) - Wayne Grudem

Evangelical Self-Identity and the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy by John Woodbridge

Why We Believe The Bible (video/audio) from John Piper and Bethlehem Baptist Church

Books:
God Has Spoken by J.I. Packer
Taking The Bible At Its Word by Paul Wells
Inspiration And Authority of the Bible by B.B. Warfield
Thy Word Is Truth by E.J. Young
The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism by G.K. Beale
Christ And The Bible by John Wenham
Do Historical Matters Matter To Faith?  Hoffmeier & Magary (ed.)
Inerrancy and Worldview by Vern Poythress