I have often joked about my desire to write a book about Heaven entitled "Your Worst Life Now" with a picture of me frowning on the cover. As I study for Sunday's message on Jesus' transfiguration from Luke 9 I cannot help but think that we all have a little bit of Simon Peter in our hearts - We want the glory NOW. "Let's drop all the negative cross talk Jesus and just stay on this mountain!"
Check out this helpful post written by Dan Phillips over at Pyromaniacs.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Defining Evangelicalism?
One of my favorite magazines is First Things edited by Richard John Neuhaus. While I have some rather serious theological differences with Neuhaus, a Roman Catholic priest, I am nevertheless an admirer of his outstanding magazine. In the latest issue Neuhaus critiques the recently released An Evangelical Manifesto. I have already posted on the manifesto but Neuhaus’ article merits attention. His problems with the document very much reflect my own reservations.
Of particular interest to me was Neuhaus’ interaction with an article published in Christianity Today by Os Guinness entitled “A Gentle Plea for Civility.” Neuhaus writes:
“‘A Gentle Plea for Civility’ perhaps, although ‘A Poignant Plea for Acceptance’ might be more accurate. The posture is that of presumably more-sophisticated evangelicals coming hat in hand to their cultural betters, humbly requesting that they be exempted from the opprobrium heaped on their vulgar and unruly cousins, the ‘religious right’ and the ‘fundamentalists.’ To prove that they have earned an exemption, they eagerly join in the heaping of opprobrium on those in the evangelical family from whom they so desperately want to distinguish themselves. This is unseemly. It is also futile. The bid to be accepted as full participants in a ‘civil and cosmopolitan public square’ on the terms by which their secular betters define civility and cosmopolitanism is precluded by the very fact of being evangelicals.
“The document cannot plausibly present itself as evangelical without affirming the belief that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, that marriage is between a man and a woman, the homogenital sex is morally wrong, and a host of other things that Christians traditionally believe and that secularists condemn as narrow, fanatical, and dangerously bigoted. The affirmation of liberal political pieties will not earn the signers and exemption from the disdain in which evangelicals, along with other serious Christians, are held by those whose approval these evangelicals so earnestly seek…”
“There are many and complex dynamics involved in the production of something like ‘An Evangelical Manifesto.’ Its theological affirmations are largely unexceptionable. Its call for cultural engagement and the cultivation of honesty and civility in argument is admirable and is always needed in our typically raucous public life. Whatever the good intentions of many of its signers, however, the manifesto is finally an appeal for the good opinion of the cultural despisers of evangelicalism. It is an election-year invitation for evangelicals to demonstrate, by embracing what is depicted as a more comprehensive and nuanced political agenda, that they are not that kind of evangelical.
“I have no doubt that some who signed the statement simply wanted to affirm the important truth that evangelical Christianity is defined by the lordship of Christ and not by political partisanship. Issuing what is inevitably perceived as a politically partisan manifesto is an ill-chosen means for achieving that purpose. Only the naive or disingenuous among the signers will express surprise that the media depicted the manifesto as an election-year effort to drive a wedge between conservatives and what is portrayed as a more authentic evangelicalism. Whatever the good intentions of some signers, the reporters got the story right.”
One of the things that confounded me about the Manifesto was the author’s need to distant themselves from those mean ole fundamentalists. Don’t misunderstand. I will not be an apologist for some of the aberrations within fundamentalism. (Although, anyone who has ever gotten on the wrong side of a liberal can make an equally compelling case for mean ole liberals.) Nevertheless, I am puzzled as to why an manifesto that is presumably evangelical is so egregiously thin theologically speaking. My only conclusion is that it less about theology and more about politics and public relations. That is why An Evangelical Manifesto will disappear with the passage of time.
Of particular interest to me was Neuhaus’ interaction with an article published in Christianity Today by Os Guinness entitled “A Gentle Plea for Civility.” Neuhaus writes:
“‘A Gentle Plea for Civility’ perhaps, although ‘A Poignant Plea for Acceptance’ might be more accurate. The posture is that of presumably more-sophisticated evangelicals coming hat in hand to their cultural betters, humbly requesting that they be exempted from the opprobrium heaped on their vulgar and unruly cousins, the ‘religious right’ and the ‘fundamentalists.’ To prove that they have earned an exemption, they eagerly join in the heaping of opprobrium on those in the evangelical family from whom they so desperately want to distinguish themselves. This is unseemly. It is also futile. The bid to be accepted as full participants in a ‘civil and cosmopolitan public square’ on the terms by which their secular betters define civility and cosmopolitanism is precluded by the very fact of being evangelicals.
“The document cannot plausibly present itself as evangelical without affirming the belief that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, that marriage is between a man and a woman, the homogenital sex is morally wrong, and a host of other things that Christians traditionally believe and that secularists condemn as narrow, fanatical, and dangerously bigoted. The affirmation of liberal political pieties will not earn the signers and exemption from the disdain in which evangelicals, along with other serious Christians, are held by those whose approval these evangelicals so earnestly seek…”
“There are many and complex dynamics involved in the production of something like ‘An Evangelical Manifesto.’ Its theological affirmations are largely unexceptionable. Its call for cultural engagement and the cultivation of honesty and civility in argument is admirable and is always needed in our typically raucous public life. Whatever the good intentions of many of its signers, however, the manifesto is finally an appeal for the good opinion of the cultural despisers of evangelicalism. It is an election-year invitation for evangelicals to demonstrate, by embracing what is depicted as a more comprehensive and nuanced political agenda, that they are not that kind of evangelical.
“I have no doubt that some who signed the statement simply wanted to affirm the important truth that evangelical Christianity is defined by the lordship of Christ and not by political partisanship. Issuing what is inevitably perceived as a politically partisan manifesto is an ill-chosen means for achieving that purpose. Only the naive or disingenuous among the signers will express surprise that the media depicted the manifesto as an election-year effort to drive a wedge between conservatives and what is portrayed as a more authentic evangelicalism. Whatever the good intentions of some signers, the reporters got the story right.”
One of the things that confounded me about the Manifesto was the author’s need to distant themselves from those mean ole fundamentalists. Don’t misunderstand. I will not be an apologist for some of the aberrations within fundamentalism. (Although, anyone who has ever gotten on the wrong side of a liberal can make an equally compelling case for mean ole liberals.) Nevertheless, I am puzzled as to why an manifesto that is presumably evangelical is so egregiously thin theologically speaking. My only conclusion is that it less about theology and more about politics and public relations. That is why An Evangelical Manifesto will disappear with the passage of time.
Monday, July 28, 2008
When unity is too high a price to pay...
The World-wide Anglican Communion has been suffering in recent years from deep divisions. The Anglican communion of Africa, which is growing holds to the historic Christian (biblical) faith. The Anglican leaders of Africa have also stood firm in their opposition to the normalizing of homosexuality which has occured in the European and North American Anglican communions. For their faithfulness to biblical faith and moral standards, the Anglicans of Africa have been treated with a thinly veiled racism by their liberal and open-minded counter parts in the U.S. and U.K.
Check out this article by Al Mohler on the subject.
"The African bishops leading the charge for orthodoxy are indeed fighting a courageous battle. They are fighting for the soul of the Anglican Communion and for the integrity of the church and the Gospel. They refuse to bend the knee to modern idolatries and they understand the transforming power of the Gospel and the bedrock of biblical authority far better than those who oppose them."
- Al Mohler
Check out this article by Al Mohler on the subject.
"The African bishops leading the charge for orthodoxy are indeed fighting a courageous battle. They are fighting for the soul of the Anglican Communion and for the integrity of the church and the Gospel. They refuse to bend the knee to modern idolatries and they understand the transforming power of the Gospel and the bedrock of biblical authority far better than those who oppose them."
- Al Mohler
Who Needs The Church?
There is no small amount of anxiety in some evangelical circles concerning the continuing relevancy of the church. In a modification of Gandhi’s famous words we are told that people “like our Jesus but they don’t like our church.” In response to the current attitudes about the church within the culture there have been prescriptions for change and they are legion. I do not dispute the need for change within the church anymore than I dispute the need for change within my own life. I do however disagree with those who believe the church must be constantly reinvented in order to attain the ever elusive goal of cultural relevance. As Bill McSweeney of the University of York once wrote, “Who wants to belong to a church that has nothing to offer but a secular version of the gospels, that has lost its nerve to evangelize...?” The church will not find relevancy in aping the culture but in fidelity to the unchanging Gospel and the ordinary, God-given means by which the Gospel is to be advanced.
Pollster extraordinaire George Barna has for years tried to make the church more relevant. He has called pastors to see themselves as marketers even calling Jesus a master marketer. He has told pastors to place the “felt needs” of people at the forefront of their sermon preparation concluding that, as far as the sermon is concerned, “the audience is sovereign.”
Most recently, in his book Revolution Barna concludes that the days of the institutional church are nearing an end. Barna celebrates this reality, calling Christians who separate themselves from the church “Revolutionaries.” These Revolutionaries, according to Barna, “have moved beyond the established church and chosen to be the church instead.” Of course, this begs the question, “What’s the difference?” Throughout his writings, which have influenced many thousands of pastors, Barna demonstrates a deeply flawed doctrine of the church.
Barna writes: “Ours is not the business of organized religion, corporate worship, or Bible teaching. If we dedicate ourselves to such a business we will be left by the wayside as the culture moves forward. Those are fragments of a larger purpose to which we have been called by God’s Word. We are in the business of life transformation.” Barna believes that the only valid spiritual practices are those that can be done individually. But, as Michael Horton observes, this trajectory robs us of the great banquet that God has set before His church and places us instead at the self-serve buffet.
There is no salvation outside the church. That does not mean that the church saves. But when Jesus saves He grafts us into His body. We become a part of a community of people called the church made up of many local congregations around the world. This is the pattern set for God’s people since the apostolic period. The apostles did not plant local congregations in order to emphasize that the church was unimportant. They did not give themselves to build up local churches for the purpose of emphasizing the spiritual autonomy of the individual believer.
The church does not exist as a platform for my gifts and talents. The church does not exist primarily as a means for my own personal transformation. Certainly God gives gifts to the church and changes us deeply in the context of His church. But these are not ends in themselves. I am not placed in the Body of Christ so that I can merely become a better me.
In an article in the latest edition of Modern Reformation Michael Horton writes:
“Before long, it will be easy for churches to imagine that what happens on the Lord’s Day is less important than what happens in small groups or in the private lives of individual Christians. In fact, this is explicitly advocated today.
“In a fairly recent study, Willow Creek – a pioneer megachurch – discovered that its most active and mature members are the most likely to be dissatisfied with their own personal growth and the level of teaching and worship that they are receiving. From this, the leadership concluded that as people mature in their faith, they need the church less. After all, the main purpose of the church is to provide a platform for ministry and service opportunities to individuals rather than a means of grace. As people grow, therefore, they need the church less. We need to help believers to become ‘self-feeders,’ the study concluded…
“The individualistic emphasis of evangelicalism stands in sharp contrast to the covenantal paradigm that we find in Scripture. We are commanded not to become self-feeders who mature beyond the nurture of the church, but to submit ourselves to the preaching, teaching, and oversight of those shepherds whom God has placed over us in Christ.”
Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:23-25)
Pollster extraordinaire George Barna has for years tried to make the church more relevant. He has called pastors to see themselves as marketers even calling Jesus a master marketer. He has told pastors to place the “felt needs” of people at the forefront of their sermon preparation concluding that, as far as the sermon is concerned, “the audience is sovereign.”
Most recently, in his book Revolution Barna concludes that the days of the institutional church are nearing an end. Barna celebrates this reality, calling Christians who separate themselves from the church “Revolutionaries.” These Revolutionaries, according to Barna, “have moved beyond the established church and chosen to be the church instead.” Of course, this begs the question, “What’s the difference?” Throughout his writings, which have influenced many thousands of pastors, Barna demonstrates a deeply flawed doctrine of the church.
Barna writes: “Ours is not the business of organized religion, corporate worship, or Bible teaching. If we dedicate ourselves to such a business we will be left by the wayside as the culture moves forward. Those are fragments of a larger purpose to which we have been called by God’s Word. We are in the business of life transformation.” Barna believes that the only valid spiritual practices are those that can be done individually. But, as Michael Horton observes, this trajectory robs us of the great banquet that God has set before His church and places us instead at the self-serve buffet.
There is no salvation outside the church. That does not mean that the church saves. But when Jesus saves He grafts us into His body. We become a part of a community of people called the church made up of many local congregations around the world. This is the pattern set for God’s people since the apostolic period. The apostles did not plant local congregations in order to emphasize that the church was unimportant. They did not give themselves to build up local churches for the purpose of emphasizing the spiritual autonomy of the individual believer.
The church does not exist as a platform for my gifts and talents. The church does not exist primarily as a means for my own personal transformation. Certainly God gives gifts to the church and changes us deeply in the context of His church. But these are not ends in themselves. I am not placed in the Body of Christ so that I can merely become a better me.
In an article in the latest edition of Modern Reformation Michael Horton writes:
“Before long, it will be easy for churches to imagine that what happens on the Lord’s Day is less important than what happens in small groups or in the private lives of individual Christians. In fact, this is explicitly advocated today.
“In a fairly recent study, Willow Creek – a pioneer megachurch – discovered that its most active and mature members are the most likely to be dissatisfied with their own personal growth and the level of teaching and worship that they are receiving. From this, the leadership concluded that as people mature in their faith, they need the church less. After all, the main purpose of the church is to provide a platform for ministry and service opportunities to individuals rather than a means of grace. As people grow, therefore, they need the church less. We need to help believers to become ‘self-feeders,’ the study concluded…
“The individualistic emphasis of evangelicalism stands in sharp contrast to the covenantal paradigm that we find in Scripture. We are commanded not to become self-feeders who mature beyond the nurture of the church, but to submit ourselves to the preaching, teaching, and oversight of those shepherds whom God has placed over us in Christ.”
Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:23-25)
Friday, July 25, 2008
Good Books
Check out the Summer Sale at Westminster Seminary Book Store. There are some great deals available.
A few of my recommendations:
The Literary Study Bible
Things That Cannot Be Shaken
Engaging the Doctrine of God
The Devoted Life
Total Truth
Breaking The Idols of Your Heart
What Jesus Demands of the World
18 Words
Morning and Evening
A few of my recommendations:
The Literary Study Bible
Things That Cannot Be Shaken
Engaging the Doctrine of God
The Devoted Life
Total Truth
Breaking The Idols of Your Heart
What Jesus Demands of the World
18 Words
Morning and Evening
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Pastors, watch your stage props
Check out this story from Fox News:
Jeff Harlow, the senior pastor at Crossroads Community Church, broke his wrist when he lost control of the motorcycle at the start of Sunday's second service, driving off a 5-foot platform and into the vacant first row of seats. He underwent surgery on the wrist Monday.
"Jeff has already laughed a lot, so he's OK. I think his pride was bruised," said his wife, Becky.
Becky Harlow said her husband had recently attended a motorcycle race in Buchanan, Mich.
"He had this idea that he would bring this bike out onstage and show people how the rider would become one with the bike," she told the Kokomo Tribune. "He was going to just sit on it and drive it out. He was just walking the dirt bike out onstage and somehow it got away from him. It was not intended." No one else was hurt.
Jeff Harlow had performed the demonstration at earlier services Saturday night and Sunday morning without incident.
Jeff Harlow, the senior pastor at Crossroads Community Church, broke his wrist when he lost control of the motorcycle at the start of Sunday's second service, driving off a 5-foot platform and into the vacant first row of seats. He underwent surgery on the wrist Monday.
"Jeff has already laughed a lot, so he's OK. I think his pride was bruised," said his wife, Becky.
Becky Harlow said her husband had recently attended a motorcycle race in Buchanan, Mich.
"He had this idea that he would bring this bike out onstage and show people how the rider would become one with the bike," she told the Kokomo Tribune. "He was going to just sit on it and drive it out. He was just walking the dirt bike out onstage and somehow it got away from him. It was not intended." No one else was hurt.
Jeff Harlow had performed the demonstration at earlier services Saturday night and Sunday morning without incident.
One Great Predominant Affection
"The Gospel brings for admittance to the very door of our heart, an affection which once seated upon its throne, will either subordinate every previous inmate, or bid it away...In the Gospel we so behold God, as that we may love God. It is then, and then only, when God stands revealed as an object of confidence to sinners and when our desire after him is not chilled into apathy...It is when he stands dismantled of the terrors which belong to him as an offended lawgiver and when we are enabled by faith, which is his own gift, to see his glory in the face of Jesus Christ, and to hear his beseeching voice, as it protests good will to men, and entreats the return of all who will to a full pardon and a gracious acceptance...it is then, that a love paramount to the love of the world, and at length expulsive of it, first arises in the regenerated bosom. It is when released from the spirit of bondage with which love cannot dwell, and when admitted into the number of God's children through the faith that is in Christ Jesus, the spirit of adoption is poured upon us - it is then that the heart, brought under the mastery of one great predominant affection, is delivered from the tyranny of its former desires, in the only way in which deliverance is possible."
Thomas Chalmers
Thomas Chalmers
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Joel Osteen's Popularity
Over at Reformation 21 Sean Lucas has written an interesting post concerning Joel Osteen's massive popularity. Along the way Lucas helps us reflect on what we truly value about the Gospel.
Here is a portion:
I think the driving reason that Osteen is hugely popular is that he sells hope. Books like Your Best Life Now and Become a Better You provide a message of hope that my life does not have to be the way it is right now; that God is powerful and able to change my life; that God is profoundly interested in my life and is near to me. And while that message of hope is packaged in the code language of the prosperity Gospel and positive psychology (like the phenomenally successful book by Tal Ben-Shahar, Happier), at the end of the day, people leave Lakewood feeling as though there is a greater meaning and purpose for their lives.
As I thought about all this, though, I couldn't help but think about John Piper's question from God is the Gospel (and other places): do you delight more in the fact that God makes much of you in the Gospel or that the Gospel frees you to make much of God? The fault in Osteen's message is that it overplays and wrongly prioritizes the fact that God makes much of us (and God does make much of us: as I read in my morning worship today, God cried out to a wayward Israel, "How can I give you up, O Ephraim?...My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender" Hosea 11:8).
Read the entire post HERE.
Here is a portion:
I think the driving reason that Osteen is hugely popular is that he sells hope. Books like Your Best Life Now and Become a Better You provide a message of hope that my life does not have to be the way it is right now; that God is powerful and able to change my life; that God is profoundly interested in my life and is near to me. And while that message of hope is packaged in the code language of the prosperity Gospel and positive psychology (like the phenomenally successful book by Tal Ben-Shahar, Happier), at the end of the day, people leave Lakewood feeling as though there is a greater meaning and purpose for their lives.
As I thought about all this, though, I couldn't help but think about John Piper's question from God is the Gospel (and other places): do you delight more in the fact that God makes much of you in the Gospel or that the Gospel frees you to make much of God? The fault in Osteen's message is that it overplays and wrongly prioritizes the fact that God makes much of us (and God does make much of us: as I read in my morning worship today, God cried out to a wayward Israel, "How can I give you up, O Ephraim?...My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender" Hosea 11:8).
Read the entire post HERE.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Our Unity in Christ
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”
- John 17: 20-21a
Jesus makes it very clear that He is praying for all those who do and will believe in Him. This is important to remember because there is within evangelicalism a movement to downplay the importance of belief. What matters, we are told, is not doctrine or belief but ethics and action. I know of no one who disputes the importance of action. Faith without works, after all, is a dead faith. However, it is by grace through the means of faith (belief) that God saves His people. So belief is of supreme importance in the matter of our salvation. Jesus said in John 3, “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because He has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
So, Jesus is not praying for those who will merely find his ethics appealing or think highly of him as a teacher. He is praying for those who believe. Specifically, He is praying for those who will believe “their message” the message of the disciples – the Gospel. The ground of our unity, the only ground of true spiritual unity is faith in Christ; belief in Gospel.
I can and should be a friend and a good neighbor to a Buddhist or Muslim. I should work to be a blessing to them and make efforts to share with them to the Gospel of Christ. However, I cannot have spiritual fellowship with them in any way. We live in two different kingdoms. We have two entirely different allegiances. We follow different Lords.
Referring to the unity for which Jesus prayed, D.A. Carson writes, “It is a unity predicated on adherence to the revelation the Father mediated to the first disciples through His Son, the revelation they accepted and then passed on” (p. 568). The unity for which Jesus is praying is not achieved by our hunting around for the lowest common theological denominator. It comes about only after we have fully embraced the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is revealed in the Scriptures.
“Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am…” (v. 24). Jesus prays to the Father specifically for those that “You have given me.” In verses 2, 6, and 9 Jesus refers to those who are saved as those whom the Father has given Him. Everyone who believes is a gift from the Father to the Son. Jesus makes reference to this reality in John 6 when he says, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me. And whoever comes to Me I will never cast out” (v. 37). In chapter 10 Jesus is referring to His own sheep when he says, “No one is able to snatch them from out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from out of My Father’s hand” (vv. 28-29).
Four times in John 17 Jesus makes it clear that he is praying only for those that His Father has given Him. He is not praying for the world. He is not praying for the mass of humanity. He is praying for His own which, incidentally are those who will come to believe through the instrumentality of the disciples. Some way or another we have all come to know Christ through the means of another believer in Christ. Salvation is entirely God’s doing but He uses the means of people just like you and me. What a humbling thought that the Father gives to the Son His precious people through the instrumentality of you and me. What a privilege. God will use our faithful witness as the primary means by which He brings the lost to faith in Christ.
- John 17: 20-21a
Jesus makes it very clear that He is praying for all those who do and will believe in Him. This is important to remember because there is within evangelicalism a movement to downplay the importance of belief. What matters, we are told, is not doctrine or belief but ethics and action. I know of no one who disputes the importance of action. Faith without works, after all, is a dead faith. However, it is by grace through the means of faith (belief) that God saves His people. So belief is of supreme importance in the matter of our salvation. Jesus said in John 3, “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because He has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
So, Jesus is not praying for those who will merely find his ethics appealing or think highly of him as a teacher. He is praying for those who believe. Specifically, He is praying for those who will believe “their message” the message of the disciples – the Gospel. The ground of our unity, the only ground of true spiritual unity is faith in Christ; belief in Gospel.
I can and should be a friend and a good neighbor to a Buddhist or Muslim. I should work to be a blessing to them and make efforts to share with them to the Gospel of Christ. However, I cannot have spiritual fellowship with them in any way. We live in two different kingdoms. We have two entirely different allegiances. We follow different Lords.
Referring to the unity for which Jesus prayed, D.A. Carson writes, “It is a unity predicated on adherence to the revelation the Father mediated to the first disciples through His Son, the revelation they accepted and then passed on” (p. 568). The unity for which Jesus is praying is not achieved by our hunting around for the lowest common theological denominator. It comes about only after we have fully embraced the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is revealed in the Scriptures.
“Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am…” (v. 24). Jesus prays to the Father specifically for those that “You have given me.” In verses 2, 6, and 9 Jesus refers to those who are saved as those whom the Father has given Him. Everyone who believes is a gift from the Father to the Son. Jesus makes reference to this reality in John 6 when he says, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me. And whoever comes to Me I will never cast out” (v. 37). In chapter 10 Jesus is referring to His own sheep when he says, “No one is able to snatch them from out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from out of My Father’s hand” (vv. 28-29).
Four times in John 17 Jesus makes it clear that he is praying only for those that His Father has given Him. He is not praying for the world. He is not praying for the mass of humanity. He is praying for His own which, incidentally are those who will come to believe through the instrumentality of the disciples. Some way or another we have all come to know Christ through the means of another believer in Christ. Salvation is entirely God’s doing but He uses the means of people just like you and me. What a humbling thought that the Father gives to the Son His precious people through the instrumentality of you and me. What a privilege. God will use our faithful witness as the primary means by which He brings the lost to faith in Christ.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Books on Marriage
Check out this helfpul marriage book comparison chart produced by Nine Marks Ministries. It also includes reviews of the books. Good stuff.
The Echo and Insufficiency of Hell
The subject of Hell is often avoided in the church's pulpits. Evangelicals seem to be ashamed of the doctrine of Hell. Even those who profess to believe in the reality of Hell will often subvert or soften what the Bible actually teaches about the destiny of those outside of Christ. Take time to listen to this message by John Piper. It is an example of "preaching hell well."
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Packer & Nicole
Tullian Tchividjian has posted some moving thoughts on two of evangelicalism's most important theologians: J.I. Packer and Roger Nicole. Neither of these men are long for this world and so it is important for the church to recognize their impact and continue to be challenged by their lives. They have both fought the good fight. Tullian also links to his favorite Packer books as well as a classic essay that serves as the introduction to John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ." Do yourself a favor and read the essay. It is one of the most compelling defenses of God's sovereign grace in salvation that I have ever read.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Struggling to understand the emerging church?
If the whole emerging/emergent church movement seems to escape you then check out this article by Doug Brown over at Sharper Iron.
J.I. Packer on same sex unions
This is a fitting follow-up to the previous post. J.I. Packer, the dean of evangelical theologians in our day is also a life-long Anglican. He speaks with grace and clarity to the issue of homosexuality.
Gay US bishop heckled in UK
Gene Robinson the openly homosexual Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire was publically denounced recently in London. The slow clapping you hear in the background is not support for the protestor but a way to drown out his calls for repentance.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Problems That Test Priorities (3)
Acts 6:1-7 (Cont.)
3. The Principles
a) Issues of unity must be dealt with immediately and sensitively.
I love the fact that the apostles did not try to cover up the problem. Neither did they try to solve it behind closed doors. When the unity of the body of Christ is threatened it ought to be dealt with immediately. Notice also that the apostles are sensitive. They don’t immediately try to assign blame. In THIS case there was plenty of blame to go around. We must not sit idly by while the unity of Christ’s body is threatened.
b) The church’s shepherds must give priority to the ministries of God’s Word and prayer.
Those charged with the task of shepherding the church must not be taken away from their primary calling. The shepherd is not the church’s CEO. He is not the top manager. His job is to feed God’s flock; to intercede for God’s flock. When Jesus re-instituted Peter into service He asked him three times, “Do you love me.” Jesus’ response to Peter’s thrice affirmation was not to say, “Manage my sheep” or “Make a name for yourself.” Jesus’ charge to Peter was “feed my sheep.” It is the same call that all pastor’s must follow.
c) The church must follow Scripture’s guidelines in selecting its leaders and servants.
The church needs godly leaders and servants. Scripture tells us what is expected in both life and character from the church’s leaders and servants.
d) The church must not divide along cultural lines.
The vast majority of churches in our day seem to be unable to transcend cultural differences. There are churches that are predominantly blue collar, while others are predominantly white collar. There are white churches and black churches and Asian churches and Latino churches. There are urban churches and suburban churches. These are not legitimate theological lines being drawn. These are divisions based upon the fact that we simply want to be around people who are just like us.
The Jewish Christians that were Hebrew in cultural outlook didn’t want to mix much with the Hebrew Christians that were more Greek in cultural outlook. Perhaps we need to think of our corporate gatherings as times when we are learning to be comfortable being uncomfortable.
Ephesians 2:11-16
Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, “Christian brotherhood is not an ideal which we must realize; it is rather a reality created by God in Christ in which we may participate.”
4. The Result
Because the threat against the church’s unity was addressed…
Because the shepherds did not allow themselves to be distracted from their calling to be men of the Word and prayer…
Because the entire congregation was engaged to work together toward a God-honoring solution…
“The word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.”
Even Jewish priests were being converted to Christ. The unlikeliest of people were coming to Christ.
The church is a community formed around a message. That message is the Gospel. That is why the ministry of the Word of God is the primary responsibility for the church’s shepherds. It is through the proclamation of the Gospel that the church is formed and built up. We must continually preach the gospel to ourselves and each other because it is not only the message that saves but it is the message which continues to shape our lives a Christians.
Where there are divisions we must hear the Gospel – the message of how God, through Jesus has broken down the dividing wall between us.
Where there have been offense we must hear the Gospel – the message of how God, through Jesus has forgiven us of the offense of our sin and rebellion.
Where there is estrangement between brothers and sisters we must hear the Gospel – the message of how God, through Jesus has reconciled us to Himself.
3. The Principles
a) Issues of unity must be dealt with immediately and sensitively.
I love the fact that the apostles did not try to cover up the problem. Neither did they try to solve it behind closed doors. When the unity of the body of Christ is threatened it ought to be dealt with immediately. Notice also that the apostles are sensitive. They don’t immediately try to assign blame. In THIS case there was plenty of blame to go around. We must not sit idly by while the unity of Christ’s body is threatened.
b) The church’s shepherds must give priority to the ministries of God’s Word and prayer.
Those charged with the task of shepherding the church must not be taken away from their primary calling. The shepherd is not the church’s CEO. He is not the top manager. His job is to feed God’s flock; to intercede for God’s flock. When Jesus re-instituted Peter into service He asked him three times, “Do you love me.” Jesus’ response to Peter’s thrice affirmation was not to say, “Manage my sheep” or “Make a name for yourself.” Jesus’ charge to Peter was “feed my sheep.” It is the same call that all pastor’s must follow.
c) The church must follow Scripture’s guidelines in selecting its leaders and servants.
The church needs godly leaders and servants. Scripture tells us what is expected in both life and character from the church’s leaders and servants.
d) The church must not divide along cultural lines.
The vast majority of churches in our day seem to be unable to transcend cultural differences. There are churches that are predominantly blue collar, while others are predominantly white collar. There are white churches and black churches and Asian churches and Latino churches. There are urban churches and suburban churches. These are not legitimate theological lines being drawn. These are divisions based upon the fact that we simply want to be around people who are just like us.
The Jewish Christians that were Hebrew in cultural outlook didn’t want to mix much with the Hebrew Christians that were more Greek in cultural outlook. Perhaps we need to think of our corporate gatherings as times when we are learning to be comfortable being uncomfortable.
Ephesians 2:11-16
Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, “Christian brotherhood is not an ideal which we must realize; it is rather a reality created by God in Christ in which we may participate.”
4. The Result
Because the threat against the church’s unity was addressed…
Because the shepherds did not allow themselves to be distracted from their calling to be men of the Word and prayer…
Because the entire congregation was engaged to work together toward a God-honoring solution…
“The word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.”
Even Jewish priests were being converted to Christ. The unlikeliest of people were coming to Christ.
The church is a community formed around a message. That message is the Gospel. That is why the ministry of the Word of God is the primary responsibility for the church’s shepherds. It is through the proclamation of the Gospel that the church is formed and built up. We must continually preach the gospel to ourselves and each other because it is not only the message that saves but it is the message which continues to shape our lives a Christians.
Where there are divisions we must hear the Gospel – the message of how God, through Jesus has broken down the dividing wall between us.
Where there have been offense we must hear the Gospel – the message of how God, through Jesus has forgiven us of the offense of our sin and rebellion.
Where there is estrangement between brothers and sisters we must hear the Gospel – the message of how God, through Jesus has reconciled us to Himself.
Problems That Test Priorities (2)
Acts 6:1-7 (cont.)
2. The Solution
a) The apostles maintained their committment to their primary calling.
The apostles were very clear about their calling: “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.” Later they add, “We will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” The apostles are not asking permission. They are instructing the congregation that their primary tasks are preaching and prayer.
Wisely, the church agreed that the apostles must give the bulk of their attention to the ministries of prayer and the Word of God. There is no hint here that the apostles regarded meeting the physical needs of the community as somehow beneath them. It was, rather, a question of calling and priorities. The apostles were not at liberty to quit the primary task that God had called them to.
Commenting on these verses the great Puritan Matthew Henry writes:
“The apostles engage to addict themselves wholly to their work as ministers…What is the great business of gospel ministers—to give themselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word; they must still be either fitting and furnishing themselves for those services, or employing themselves in them; either publicly or privately…They must be God’s mouth to the people in the ministry of the word, and the people’s mouth to God in prayer. In order to the conviction and conversion of sinners, and the edification and consolation of saints, we must not only offer up our prayers for them, but we must minister the word to them, seconding our prayers with our endeavours, in the use of appointed means. Nor must we only minister the word to them, but we must pray for them, that it may be effectual; for God’s grace can do all without our preaching, but our preaching can do nothing without God’s grace.”
b) The church entrusted responsibility to godly men.
I don’t necessarily see the birth of the office of deacon in this text. The word diakonoi is used but I think in the more generic sense of “ministry” rather than office. I think that something very practical is going on. Seven men are selected on the basis of their godly character to oversee the meeting of some very specific needs.This is not a popularity contest. Look at how Luke describes these men: “men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.” It was not good business sense that made these men qualified. It was evident godliness.
These seven men are brought before the apostles who lay hands upon them and pray over them. This isn’t business. There is a weightiness and solemnity to the whole thing which bespeaks the seriousness of their ministry.
c) The church displayed cultural sensitivity.
The apostles did not select the men. The church did the choosing and they chose well. All seven of these men had Greek names. The church seemed to understand that there was an issue of trust. It is not only possible but likely that the Greek widows were being intentionally neglected. After all, these were saved sinners after all just like you and me. So by placing Greek men in this position of responsibility the church was demonstrating sensitivity to the “minority party” within the congregation.
2. The Solution
a) The apostles maintained their committment to their primary calling.
The apostles were very clear about their calling: “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.” Later they add, “We will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” The apostles are not asking permission. They are instructing the congregation that their primary tasks are preaching and prayer.
Wisely, the church agreed that the apostles must give the bulk of their attention to the ministries of prayer and the Word of God. There is no hint here that the apostles regarded meeting the physical needs of the community as somehow beneath them. It was, rather, a question of calling and priorities. The apostles were not at liberty to quit the primary task that God had called them to.
Commenting on these verses the great Puritan Matthew Henry writes:
“The apostles engage to addict themselves wholly to their work as ministers…What is the great business of gospel ministers—to give themselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word; they must still be either fitting and furnishing themselves for those services, or employing themselves in them; either publicly or privately…They must be God’s mouth to the people in the ministry of the word, and the people’s mouth to God in prayer. In order to the conviction and conversion of sinners, and the edification and consolation of saints, we must not only offer up our prayers for them, but we must minister the word to them, seconding our prayers with our endeavours, in the use of appointed means. Nor must we only minister the word to them, but we must pray for them, that it may be effectual; for God’s grace can do all without our preaching, but our preaching can do nothing without God’s grace.”
b) The church entrusted responsibility to godly men.
I don’t necessarily see the birth of the office of deacon in this text. The word diakonoi is used but I think in the more generic sense of “ministry” rather than office. I think that something very practical is going on. Seven men are selected on the basis of their godly character to oversee the meeting of some very specific needs.This is not a popularity contest. Look at how Luke describes these men: “men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.” It was not good business sense that made these men qualified. It was evident godliness.
These seven men are brought before the apostles who lay hands upon them and pray over them. This isn’t business. There is a weightiness and solemnity to the whole thing which bespeaks the seriousness of their ministry.
c) The church displayed cultural sensitivity.
The apostles did not select the men. The church did the choosing and they chose well. All seven of these men had Greek names. The church seemed to understand that there was an issue of trust. It is not only possible but likely that the Greek widows were being intentionally neglected. After all, these were saved sinners after all just like you and me. So by placing Greek men in this position of responsibility the church was demonstrating sensitivity to the “minority party” within the congregation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
