Treating Terminally Ill Infants with Dignity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the entire article HERE.

"Emergent" Briefly Stated

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

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

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

Read the entire thing HERE.

Lane Tipton on Justification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of the article HERE.

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

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

Stein writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your thoughts?

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

Have we confused entertainment with the arts?

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

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

Sinclair Ferguson on the Prodigal Son

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

Pastors and the Lure of Popularity

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

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

Here are a few of my thoughts:

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

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

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

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

Puritan Picks

Check it out HERE.

Sunday's Sermon

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

John Frame's favorite books on Scripture

"Four Favorites on the Doctrine of Scripture"

by John Frame

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on Frame / Poythress

The New Testament's Use of the Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the entire interview HERE.

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

Q & A with R.C. Sproul

From Ligonier Ministries:

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

When did God decide to give us eternal life?

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

Does the Bible tell us what heaven will be like?

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

Bob Dylan's Christmas Album

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

Here's the story:

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

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

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

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

Check out the entire story HERE.

"When Helping Hurts" (1)

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

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

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

Here are a few examples:

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

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

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

- Joel Belz, Founder and writer, World Magazine

"Becoming more and more aware of the poverty in the world, the North American church is responding and ministering to the poor in unprecedented numbers. But this is easier said than done, as poverty is a complex problem. Good intentions are not enough, for faulty assumptions can result in strategies that do considerable harm. If churches truly want to help, this book is a must-read. It presents a biblically based framework for understanding poverty and its alleviation. The principles and strategies will help the church build an effective ministry for a hurting world, both at home and abroad."

- Dr. Paul Kooistra, Executive Director of Mission to the World

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

Health Care Reform and Abortion

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

From the Associated Press:

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

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

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

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

Read the entire article HERE.

A Praying Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White Horse Inn

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

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

If God is good...

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

Perseverance of the Saints

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

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

Louis Berkhof from Systematic Theology (pg. 546)

My own corruption and my only Hope

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

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

- John Owen