On Sunday I began a series of messages through Philippians called Partners in the Gospel. The first sermon is entitled Sinners, Saints, and the Savior. You can listen to or download it HERE.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Sermon Audio
On Sunday I began a series of messages through Philippians called Partners in the Gospel. The first sermon is entitled Sinners, Saints, and the Savior. You can listen to or download it HERE.
Monday, January 9, 2012
The Pastor as Exhibitionist
From a timely post by Phil Johnson: The notion that evangelicals are naïve and squeamish about sex and don't discuss it openly enough is a myth. Evangelical sex manuals have been all the rage as long as I have been a believer, going back to the early 1970s. You had Marabel Morgan's The Total Woman in 1972, which generated tons of evangelical sex-talk. (Marabel was known for—among other things—a kinky suggestion involving the use of Saran Wrap as a dressing gown.) You had Ed Wheat's book Intended for Pleasure: Sex Technique and Sexual Fulfillment just five years later. It has sold multiple millions of copies. Even Tim Lahaye wrote a surprisingly candid sex manual, The Act of Marriage in the mid-1970s. Having sold more than two and a half million copies, that book is still in print.Read the entire post HERE.
Yet evangelicals have been complaining for decades that we don't talk enough or hear enough teaching about sex. From the point of view of many non-evangelicals, sex is about the only thing evangelicals have demonstrated a serious and sustained interest in for the past 40 years. As early as 1977, Martin Marty, a liberal religious scholar, referred to the trend as "Fundies in their Undies."
So the premise that evangelical churches are in desperate need of more and more explicit instruction on sex techniques is a risible falsehood.
But evangelical leaders who aspire to be at the vanguard in this trend have to keep looking for even kinkier ways to contextualize their Kama Sutras and their "sexperimentation." Ed Young, Jr., for instance, announced this weekend that he and his wife "will spend 24 hours in bed on the church roof next week and stream themselves live on the Internet to encourage married couples to see firsthand the power of a healthy sex life"...
This trend toward increasingly explicit sex-talk and more deviant practices is a bad one for the church. The ease and speed with which evangelicals have embraced the trend is troubling. Just a couple of decades ago (and in every era of church history prior to that), shenanigans like Ed Young's rooftop exhibition would have been roundly and universally condemned by evangelical leaders. The silence (or weak, accommodating response) of most Christian leaders today in the face of such an obvious sea-change is deeply troubling.
It's yet another sign of evangelicalism's growing conformity to worldly values and worldly behavior. The various evangelical coalitions and young Reformed movements that looked so encouraging five years ago have done more to encourage and enable this kind of exhibitionism than to challenge it. These things ought not to be.
How bad will it have to get before true leaders in the church and in the various gospel-centered movements find their voices and start calling the church—and some of these out-of-control exhibitionist preachers—to repentance? I for one hope we get an answer to that question before very long. I pray for it every day.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Why I am preaching through Philippians
In the morning I will begin a new series of sermons through Philippians. Some months ago I wrestled through what to preach next. I had decided to preach Genesis. It’s an amazing book with much to teach us about God, ourselves, sin, and salvation. Then for various reasons I decided I would preach through the Gospel of Mark first. But finally, just over a month ago, while taking a few days away to plan and pray, I decided to preach through Philippians.There are at least 6 reasons why I believe that Philippians is the right book for Church of the Saviour in these days.
1. Philippians is Christ-saturated.
This letter drips Jesus. Specifically, it focuses on Christ’s redemptive work on the cross – the message we call “the gospel.” As always, Paul’s overarching concern in this letter is the gospel of Jesus. In fact, Paul uses the word gospel more times in Philippians than in any other letter. Paul never thought it appropriate to “move on” from the gospel. He never saw the gospel as something we “get” and then may assume from that point on. Even to this congregation of faithful, maturing believers who brought Paul deep joy, he deems it necessary to refer repeatedly to the gospel of Jesus Christ; to ground everything in the Gospel.
2. Philippians is filled with expressions of love.
There is a high concentration of loving, friendship language in this letter. The Philippian church was Paul beloved friends. He loved all the congregations he minister to but there is a kind of joy in his relationship with the Philippian church that seems to be unique. We know there were times when Paul, as a faithful pastor, had to rebuke those he loved. Read 1 and 2 Corinthians. Read Galatians. Read Romans. Paul loved them but he had to rebuke them for sin and doctrinal error. But not so with the Philippian church. They were faithful to Christ and the gospel. And they were faithful friends to Paul. They were his partners in the gospel. And they made him very joyful.
3. Philippians is a model of and call to joy in the midst of great difficulty.
What a model Paul is! He is writing from prison and yet he radiates joy. And he calls his readers to the same kind of joy in the midst of suffering. Philippians is a letter to Christians in the midst of a hostile community under a threatening regime and yet Paul is not shy about calling these brothers and sisters to be full of joy. Paul uses the word joy or one of its derivatives more in Philippians than any other letter and he is in prison writing to Christians under the fist of pagan Rome. Surely we have much to learn from this.
4. Philippians is the overflow of a man for whom the world had lost all fascination.
The world had lost its grip on Paul. Everything he had accomplished (and he had accomplished much) was rubbish to him. He saw his worldly achievements as a net loss. He no longer loved the world and its offers of status. He was not impressed with anything he had done. He was not impressed with the world’s power and wealth. And this was no doubt important to model for the church in Philippi.
1. Philippians is Christ-saturated.
This letter drips Jesus. Specifically, it focuses on Christ’s redemptive work on the cross – the message we call “the gospel.” As always, Paul’s overarching concern in this letter is the gospel of Jesus. In fact, Paul uses the word gospel more times in Philippians than in any other letter. Paul never thought it appropriate to “move on” from the gospel. He never saw the gospel as something we “get” and then may assume from that point on. Even to this congregation of faithful, maturing believers who brought Paul deep joy, he deems it necessary to refer repeatedly to the gospel of Jesus Christ; to ground everything in the Gospel.
2. Philippians is filled with expressions of love.
There is a high concentration of loving, friendship language in this letter. The Philippian church was Paul beloved friends. He loved all the congregations he minister to but there is a kind of joy in his relationship with the Philippian church that seems to be unique. We know there were times when Paul, as a faithful pastor, had to rebuke those he loved. Read 1 and 2 Corinthians. Read Galatians. Read Romans. Paul loved them but he had to rebuke them for sin and doctrinal error. But not so with the Philippian church. They were faithful to Christ and the gospel. And they were faithful friends to Paul. They were his partners in the gospel. And they made him very joyful.
3. Philippians is a model of and call to joy in the midst of great difficulty.
What a model Paul is! He is writing from prison and yet he radiates joy. And he calls his readers to the same kind of joy in the midst of suffering. Philippians is a letter to Christians in the midst of a hostile community under a threatening regime and yet Paul is not shy about calling these brothers and sisters to be full of joy. Paul uses the word joy or one of its derivatives more in Philippians than any other letter and he is in prison writing to Christians under the fist of pagan Rome. Surely we have much to learn from this.
4. Philippians is the overflow of a man for whom the world had lost all fascination.
The world had lost its grip on Paul. Everything he had accomplished (and he had accomplished much) was rubbish to him. He saw his worldly achievements as a net loss. He no longer loved the world and its offers of status. He was not impressed with anything he had done. He was not impressed with the world’s power and wealth. And this was no doubt important to model for the church in Philippi.
The city of Philippi had a proud heritage. It was captured in 360 BC by Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great. Later it was where the forces of Mark Antony defeated the forces of Brutus and Cassius who had murdered Julius Caesar. To mark the significance of that battle, Rome adopted Philippi as a colony, which was a high honor. It was like being “Rome in miniature.” To be in Philippi was to be on Roman soil. It’s citizens were now given the full rights and privileges of Roman citizens. So it would have been no small thing to live in this city, this extension of Rome.
The closest thing I can compare it to is what it is like to be from Texas. Of course, many of you have not had the privilege. Just take it from me. Or, perhaps it like being in “a Mainline church.” A citizen of Philippi would have had reason for boasting in their day. They were an expression of Rome in Northern Macedonia. And so when Paul reviews his achievements in the flesh and then classifies them as so much rubbish he is reminding these potentially proud Philippians to invest no confidence in such things.
Alec Motyer writes, “Thus a city with a famous past and a privileged and proud present was about to hear the good news of a status conferred not by man but by God, proclaimed by a man who had come to see all human and inherited dignities as so much rubbish in contrast with the surpassing worth of knowing the Lord Jesus Christ” (TBST, 15).
What mattered to Paul more than anything else was Christ. “If I live then I live for the sake of God’s people. If I die then I go home to Jesus which is better by far.” The world has no power to charm a man with that attitude. And Philippians is the overflow of a heart that believed it!
5. Philippians is a call for gospel-centered unity.
Philippians is a call for brothers and sisters in Christ to agree; to avoid quarrelling. Repeatedly Paul grounds us in Christ’s work on the cross to not only assure of us of our salvation but to give us a pattern to follow of humility and service to one another. We are united Christ and therefore to one another. It is the cross which has accomplished this. This is not sentiment. It is a call for robust, Christ-purchased, Gospel-centered unity.
5. Philippians is a call for gospel-centered unity.
Philippians is a call for brothers and sisters in Christ to agree; to avoid quarrelling. Repeatedly Paul grounds us in Christ’s work on the cross to not only assure of us of our salvation but to give us a pattern to follow of humility and service to one another. We are united Christ and therefore to one another. It is the cross which has accomplished this. This is not sentiment. It is a call for robust, Christ-purchased, Gospel-centered unity.
So, Paul does not just say, “Get along. Agree. Be nice. Have unity!” He says, “Remember what Jesus did? Remember how he humbled himself even to the point of death on a cross? Now, you humble yourselves. You serve each other. Don’t lift yourself up. Get low. Down further…”
This is how the message of Christ’s death creates unity between brothers and sisters – not by enforcing unity but by creating servants.
6. Philippians is a call to remain undiluted from outward threats and doctrinal confusion.
Paul warns the Philippians, not about errors currently happening within their church, but about threats and doctrinal confusion that were sure to come. They would be threatened by Roman authorities. They would be threatened by Pagan religionists. And they would be threatened by doctrinal error from within. So Paul urges them to be on guard.
This is how the message of Christ’s death creates unity between brothers and sisters – not by enforcing unity but by creating servants.
6. Philippians is a call to remain undiluted from outward threats and doctrinal confusion.
Paul warns the Philippians, not about errors currently happening within their church, but about threats and doctrinal confusion that were sure to come. They would be threatened by Roman authorities. They would be threatened by Pagan religionists. And they would be threatened by doctrinal error from within. So Paul urges them to be on guard.
Specifically it seems from what Paul writes that he was concerned about the almost certain influence of Judaizers. Judaizers is a term attached to Jewish and Gentile Christians who had come to believe that Christians must submit to the Old Testament ceremonial laws (circumcision, dietary laws, and observing Old Covenant feasts and celebrations). Paul was scandalized by these attempts to keep the Old Covenant ceremonial laws alive. He knew those ceremonies and dietary laws, just like the entire sacrificial system, were fulfilled in Christ. This is precisely why he took the Galatians to the woodshed.
It seems Paul may also have been concerned about anti-nomians. An anti-nomian is sort of the exact opposite of the Judaizer. The anti-nomian (lit. “against the law”) believed that Christians were no longer constrained by the moral law of God spelled out in the 10 Commandments. They believed that since grace abounded where sin abounded, why not increase sin? In the Corinthian church they repeated the anti-nomian motto: “All things are lawful for me.”
So it seems, as we will come to find, that Paul was warning the Philippian church about both of these errors – Judaizing and anti-nomianism. In both case it is the gospel which is attacked. The Judaizer denies the gospel by adding to it – Jesus + the regulations & ceremonies. The anti-nomian denies the gospel by rejecting its life-changing implications – why not keep sinning? So Paul is telling them, as he told all the churches, to be watchful, to be on guard against distortions of sound doctrine, distortions of the gospel.
Friday, January 6, 2012
What is Inerrancy?
One of my favorite new sites on the web is CREDO. It is an on-line magazine, blog, media and book review site. The inaugural edition of Credo Magazine is dedicated to the doctrine of Scripture. In it, Matthew Barrett addresses the doctrine of the Scripture's inerrancy. In defining inerrancy, Barrett writes:The inerrancy of Scripture simply means that all of the Bible, in its original manuscripts, never asserts anything that is contrary to fact or in error, but always speaks the truth on every matter it discusses. Scripture, and all of Scripture, is free from falsehood, fraud, and deceit. While the Bible does not inform us of every fact on any particular subject, nevertheless, in what it does address on any subject it is true and without fabrication (2 Pet 1:21). One of the best definitions of inerrancy comes from Paul Feinberg when he writes, “Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences” (Inerrancy, 294).Read the entire issue HERE. Read it in PDF form HERE.
Unfortunately, many opponents of inerrancy grossly misunderstand its meaning. Feinberg, whose work dates back to 1980, outlines several misunderstandings of inerrancy (299). However, many, if not most, of these misunderstandings of inerrancy prevail today.
1. Inerrancy does not demand strict adherence to the rules of grammar.
2. Inerrancy does not exclude the use either of figures of speech or of a given literary genre.
3. Inerrancy does not demand historical or semantic precision.
4. Inerrancy does not demand the technical language of modern science.
5. Inerrancy does not require verbal exactness in the citation of the Old Testament by the New.
6. Inerrancy does not demand that the Logia Jesu (the sayings of Jesus) contain the ipsissima verba (the exact words) of Jesus, only the ipsissima vox (the exact voice).
7. Inerrancy does not guarantee the exhaustive comprehensiveness of any single account or of combined accounts where those are involved.
8. Inerrancy does not demand the infallibility or inerrancy of the noninspired sources used by biblical writers.
Each of these is worth further investigation, but for our purposes I only wish to highlight one, which crops its head up relentlessly in every generation. Inerrancy does not mean that there must always be semantic and historical precision. One can be truthful without being totally precise. If someone asks where I was born, I would likely answer California. Have I been untruthful since, to be precise, I was born in Southern California, and not just Southern California but Glendale, California, which is a city within Los Angeles, and not just in Glendale but in a hospital, room 452 to be exact? It should be obvious that my original answer was adequate, and therefore truthful in every way. No error was committed. Similarly, the Bible is not in error should it estimate, round up, give an average, or speak in generalities at times. The authors of Scripture are situated culturally and utilize simile, parables, hyperbole, metaphor, and many other forms of speech just as we do. None of these preclude the Bible’s ability to speak truthfully. Too often we impose our assumption that to be truthful there must be absolute technicality, when in reality we live in a world where reliability does not necessarily require meticulous exactitude. As The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy observes, “Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.”
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Be Discerning!
I recently posted some comments and a review of the Christian bestseller Jesus Calling. It is a book that has enjoyed a wide readership. The fans of Jesus Calling are deeply enthusiastic. It is, however, a troubling book in that the author Sarah Young claims that the words of the book were given to her directly from Jesus (or, "The Presence"). Interestingly, Young claims that only the Bible is inerrant and that the words that Jesus gave her are not as authoritative as those found in Scripture. But this begs the question: Why are the words Jesus gave directly to Sarah Young less authoritative, binding, or inerrant than those words given directly to Moses, the prophets, or the apostles?
Have evangelicals lost their discernment? Have they lost the stomach to ask critical questions? Are they able to ask, "Is this biblical?" and back it up with adequate knowledge from the Scriptures?
Last week while I was minding my own business in Barnes and Noble I was visually assaulted by the latest edition of Heaven Is For Real. This one was extra big and entitled Heaven Is For Real For Kids! What's amazing is that the first edition does not qualify as being "for kids." But I digress. Anyway, as I maneuvered around the case of books I noticed yet another "I went to Heaven but God sent me back because I'm too important for his purposes" book.
As I have pointed out before (here and here) one of the reasons I am so troubled by these books, and others like them, is that they undermine confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture. Why do we need Sarah Young's less inspired and potentially errant words directly from Jesus when the Bible gives us the fully inspired and inerrant Word of God? Why do we need Todd Burpo to assure us that Heaven is for real when the Bible already does?
Someone with whom I am close recently had a conversation with a precious saint. This wonderful person has been a Christian for many years. And yet, having been so captivated by Heaven Is Real she assured my friend that we will have wings in Heaven because the Burpo kid says so.
Brothers and sisters, we can do better than this. We must do better than this. It does not honor God, who gave us His Word and two thousand years of faithful witnesses, when we gather to ourselves tellers of tall tales and mystic guides. For God's sake and our own good let us do better.
Have evangelicals lost their discernment? Have they lost the stomach to ask critical questions? Are they able to ask, "Is this biblical?" and back it up with adequate knowledge from the Scriptures?
Last week while I was minding my own business in Barnes and Noble I was visually assaulted by the latest edition of Heaven Is For Real. This one was extra big and entitled Heaven Is For Real For Kids! What's amazing is that the first edition does not qualify as being "for kids." But I digress. Anyway, as I maneuvered around the case of books I noticed yet another "I went to Heaven but God sent me back because I'm too important for his purposes" book.
As I have pointed out before (here and here) one of the reasons I am so troubled by these books, and others like them, is that they undermine confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture. Why do we need Sarah Young's less inspired and potentially errant words directly from Jesus when the Bible gives us the fully inspired and inerrant Word of God? Why do we need Todd Burpo to assure us that Heaven is for real when the Bible already does?
Someone with whom I am close recently had a conversation with a precious saint. This wonderful person has been a Christian for many years. And yet, having been so captivated by Heaven Is Real she assured my friend that we will have wings in Heaven because the Burpo kid says so.
Brothers and sisters, we can do better than this. We must do better than this. It does not honor God, who gave us His Word and two thousand years of faithful witnesses, when we gather to ourselves tellers of tall tales and mystic guides. For God's sake and our own good let us do better.
Great sale at wtsbooks!
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
"No frills, no spin, no soul patches"
Great piece by Carl Trueman on learning from reliable men:
Someone asked me recently why I seem so alienated from what appears to be the cutting edge in American conservative evangelicalism.Frankly, I have stopped regarding myself as an evangelical over here, in a way that I do back home. Why? Well, at a time when Christian leaders in the USA are apparently writing explicit sex books, when there are confused signals on the Trinity, when art and cultural transformation and social justice are increasingly the talking points and the kind of themes and priorities I learned from Drs. Packer and Lloyd-Jones are at best assumed, at worst eclipsed by such things - frankly, it is very hard not to feel alienated, and an alien, in such circumstances.Read the whole post HERE.
Re-reading Packer and Lloyd-Jones is a delight. Just basic Christian priorities laid out with no frills, no spin, no soul patches, no Barnum and Bailey pyrotechnics. For someone well into his forties, such reading perhaps provokes the occasional Charlie Kane 'Rosebud' moment; but it is a delight nonetheless. Almost thirty years on, I still have an awful lot to learn from these men, and my debt of gratitude can never be repaid.
As you age, starting to sound like your dad is bad enough; sounding like your grandad is even worse, but here goes: I am glad I am not young today. Who knows what I might be told to read?
A Plea to Mark Driscoll
There are things I truly appreciate about Mark Driscoll. I love that he knows and preaches the Gospel (the "matter of first importance" - 1 Cor 15). I love his zeal for evangelism and evident compassion for the lost. I love his desire to teach doctrine so that his church is not shallow and untrained. I love his desire to return to the church an understanding of and respect for biblical manhood.
But like all of us, Mark Driscoll is a bit of a mixed bag. He is a very public figure who has stirred up no small amount of controversy. Some of that controversy has been the result of his faithfulness to the Gospel, biblically prescribed gender roles, and biblical sexual ethics. However, much of the controversy has been due to some rather unfortunate behavior and statements on his part. All of us have said and done things that we would like to take back. But for an internationally known "rock star" pastor, author, and church network leader the margin for error is precariously thin.
With the release of Mark and Grace Driscoll's new book, Real Marriage, there is fresh conversation about the pastor's tendency to preach, teach, and write about sex in frank, and, some would argue, inappropriate ways. Others are weighing in on this matter helpfully (Carl Trueman [here and here], Denny Burk, Tim Challies). I hope that Driscoll will listen to and learn from these brothers. I won't, at least for now, seek to add to their comments.
But I offer a plea to Mark Driscoll. It is a plea that flows from concern over his repeated claims to receive direct revelations from God. It all began, according to Mark, when his conversion to Christ, his call to be a pastor, to be a mentor to men, and to marry Grace came to him via the audible voice of God. Specifically, my plea is for Mark Driscoll to stop making claims of direct revelation from God.
My concern is four-fold:
1. It seems arrogant.
History is somewhat spare of those to whom God spoke directly. There was Adam and Eve. There was Noah, Abraham and, later, Moses. There were the prophets that followed. Later, the apostles received direct revelation as they recorded the Scriptures we call the New Testament. But even in their case we do not have any evidence that God spoke to them in an audible voice (except of course through the incarnate Christ). And now we have...Mark Driscoll? Is it wise to repeatedly claim to have heard the audible voice of God? What purpose does this serve? Is it important to broadcast the reception of continued, direct revelation? Those few men who truly did receive revelation from God suffered on account of it. Paul points out that because of the revelations he received (the purpose of which was for the writing of Scripture) God gave to him a thorn in the flesh that he might not become proud (2 Corinthians 12:5-9). It seems arrogant for a preacher in our moment of redemptive history to repeatedly make claims to receive direct revelation from God. It places one in rarefied air indeed.
2. It is pastorally unwise.
It seems that every cult and man-made religion begins with someone claiming divine revelation: "God speaks to me," "I am a conduit of the divine," or "I found these golden tablets that only I can interpret!" I am not accusing Mark Driscoll with being a cult leader. I do not believe he is. Again, I am grateful that he proclaims the gospel. But his claims to direct revelation can easily lead to a cult-of-personality. Who can argue that this has not already happened?
Don't misunderstand. A pastor ought to be the best educated man in his congregation in regard to the Scriptures and doctrine. It is right to honor such a man (1 Timothy 5:17). However, claims to direct revelation and hearing the audible voice of God can easily lead to a kind of elitism that goes well beyond healthy honor. It can create a sort of hierarchy in which the pastor is placed on a super-spiritual plane the average parishioner will never reach.
On the other hand, a pastor's claims to direct revelation can create within parishioners an expectation to experience the same phenomena. We don't have to imagine the sorts of confusion and chaos this sort of expectation can cause. We need look no further than some of the titles being released by Christian publishers where the fanciful and fantastic is valued over that which is biblical. Or simply tune in to Trinity Broadcasting Network to see a whole motley parade of men and women who claim to speak for God.
The claim to direct revelation begs the question why? What is missing in the Bible that Mark Driscoll, or anyone esle for that matter, can provide? Given the contemporary church's notorious biblical illiteracy, why should we be seeking additional revelation or words from God? I fear that Driscoll's claims will seriously undermine his congregation's confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture.
3. It is, at least, potentially blasphemous.
As a preacher I know what it is like to have words placed in my mouth. People routinely "hear" me say things from the pulpit that I never said. The consequences are potentially severe of misquoting a person or, worse, fabricating statements that were never said. Even if the words are innocent or inconsequential, none of us want to be given credit for statements we never made.
It is bad enough when that happens to me or you or anyone else. But when God is misquoted or entire statements are mistakenly (or intentionally) attributed to Him then the consequences are grave. The Bible reserves some of its harshest condemnations for false prophets who do not speak God's words but their own vain imaginings cast as God's words. It is no small sin when we say, "God said," when God did not say.
Mark Driscoll has claimed from the pulpit of his church and in the pages of his new book on marriage that God reveals to him, in vivid detail, the sexual sins of others. Please understand, Driscoll's claim is not that God makes him aware of certain sinful patterns in other people's lives. That would be odd enough. Rather, his claim is that God runs in his mind, movie-like, graphic images of sexual sin that others have committed (including those of his wife in the days before they were married!). This is troubling, not least of all because it makes God responsible for projecting sexually graphic images in Driscoll's mind. But what if Mark is wrong? What if God is not running these disgusting images in his mind? Can it be anything less than blasphemy to falsely attribute these revelations to the work of God?
4. It is almost certainly not true.
Now, before anyone freaks out, let me explain. God is alive and powerful. He is a personal God who speaks to his people. And, no, I do not believe God spoke audibly to Mark Driscoll. Why? Because God no longer speaks to men in this way.
I can hear the protests. "Aha! You're just an anti-supernaturalist who is trying to put God in a box!" But this could not be further from the truth. I am not trying to limit God in any way. I am only suggesting that we believe what God himself has said about the way He speaks:
"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world" (Hebrews 1:1-2 ESV).
God has spoken supremely through the Son. And where do we find this word of the Son? In the Scriptures of course. All of the Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, points us to the Christ. Jesus himself taught the disciples to read the Bible this way (Luke 24:25-27).
The days of the prophets and apostles are over. Direct revelation is closed by God's own design. The Scriptures are complete. God's plan is on the move just according to His design. Rather than listening for a voice in our heart, from the sky, or along a river bed we are promised something far better. God promises to speak to us through His inscripturated Word which never goes forth without accomplishing His purpose. No need to rely upon mystical experience. No unclear impressions required or ever warranted; just God's clear, powerful, and sufficient Word faithfully and lovingly recorded for us through the Spirit's work of inspiration.
The newly united brothers and sisters whom God formed into the first church at Jerusalem were "devoted," not to mystical experience or discerning a voice (audible or otherwise), but to "the apostle's teaching" (Acts 2:42). It is that very same teaching that we have today in the form of the New Testament. This, along with what we know as the Old Testament, continues to be the blessed means by which God graciously speaks to His beloved people.
So, I plead with Mark Driscoll to stop relying on and proclaiming these extra-biblical revelations. It is pastorally unwise and could imperil the souls of the men and women with whom he has been entrusted.
But like all of us, Mark Driscoll is a bit of a mixed bag. He is a very public figure who has stirred up no small amount of controversy. Some of that controversy has been the result of his faithfulness to the Gospel, biblically prescribed gender roles, and biblical sexual ethics. However, much of the controversy has been due to some rather unfortunate behavior and statements on his part. All of us have said and done things that we would like to take back. But for an internationally known "rock star" pastor, author, and church network leader the margin for error is precariously thin.
With the release of Mark and Grace Driscoll's new book, Real Marriage, there is fresh conversation about the pastor's tendency to preach, teach, and write about sex in frank, and, some would argue, inappropriate ways. Others are weighing in on this matter helpfully (Carl Trueman [here and here], Denny Burk, Tim Challies). I hope that Driscoll will listen to and learn from these brothers. I won't, at least for now, seek to add to their comments.
But I offer a plea to Mark Driscoll. It is a plea that flows from concern over his repeated claims to receive direct revelations from God. It all began, according to Mark, when his conversion to Christ, his call to be a pastor, to be a mentor to men, and to marry Grace came to him via the audible voice of God. Specifically, my plea is for Mark Driscoll to stop making claims of direct revelation from God.
My concern is four-fold:
1. It seems arrogant.
History is somewhat spare of those to whom God spoke directly. There was Adam and Eve. There was Noah, Abraham and, later, Moses. There were the prophets that followed. Later, the apostles received direct revelation as they recorded the Scriptures we call the New Testament. But even in their case we do not have any evidence that God spoke to them in an audible voice (except of course through the incarnate Christ). And now we have...Mark Driscoll? Is it wise to repeatedly claim to have heard the audible voice of God? What purpose does this serve? Is it important to broadcast the reception of continued, direct revelation? Those few men who truly did receive revelation from God suffered on account of it. Paul points out that because of the revelations he received (the purpose of which was for the writing of Scripture) God gave to him a thorn in the flesh that he might not become proud (2 Corinthians 12:5-9). It seems arrogant for a preacher in our moment of redemptive history to repeatedly make claims to receive direct revelation from God. It places one in rarefied air indeed.
2. It is pastorally unwise.
It seems that every cult and man-made religion begins with someone claiming divine revelation: "God speaks to me," "I am a conduit of the divine," or "I found these golden tablets that only I can interpret!" I am not accusing Mark Driscoll with being a cult leader. I do not believe he is. Again, I am grateful that he proclaims the gospel. But his claims to direct revelation can easily lead to a cult-of-personality. Who can argue that this has not already happened?
Don't misunderstand. A pastor ought to be the best educated man in his congregation in regard to the Scriptures and doctrine. It is right to honor such a man (1 Timothy 5:17). However, claims to direct revelation and hearing the audible voice of God can easily lead to a kind of elitism that goes well beyond healthy honor. It can create a sort of hierarchy in which the pastor is placed on a super-spiritual plane the average parishioner will never reach.
On the other hand, a pastor's claims to direct revelation can create within parishioners an expectation to experience the same phenomena. We don't have to imagine the sorts of confusion and chaos this sort of expectation can cause. We need look no further than some of the titles being released by Christian publishers where the fanciful and fantastic is valued over that which is biblical. Or simply tune in to Trinity Broadcasting Network to see a whole motley parade of men and women who claim to speak for God.
The claim to direct revelation begs the question why? What is missing in the Bible that Mark Driscoll, or anyone esle for that matter, can provide? Given the contemporary church's notorious biblical illiteracy, why should we be seeking additional revelation or words from God? I fear that Driscoll's claims will seriously undermine his congregation's confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture.
3. It is, at least, potentially blasphemous.
As a preacher I know what it is like to have words placed in my mouth. People routinely "hear" me say things from the pulpit that I never said. The consequences are potentially severe of misquoting a person or, worse, fabricating statements that were never said. Even if the words are innocent or inconsequential, none of us want to be given credit for statements we never made.
It is bad enough when that happens to me or you or anyone else. But when God is misquoted or entire statements are mistakenly (or intentionally) attributed to Him then the consequences are grave. The Bible reserves some of its harshest condemnations for false prophets who do not speak God's words but their own vain imaginings cast as God's words. It is no small sin when we say, "God said," when God did not say.
Mark Driscoll has claimed from the pulpit of his church and in the pages of his new book on marriage that God reveals to him, in vivid detail, the sexual sins of others. Please understand, Driscoll's claim is not that God makes him aware of certain sinful patterns in other people's lives. That would be odd enough. Rather, his claim is that God runs in his mind, movie-like, graphic images of sexual sin that others have committed (including those of his wife in the days before they were married!). This is troubling, not least of all because it makes God responsible for projecting sexually graphic images in Driscoll's mind. But what if Mark is wrong? What if God is not running these disgusting images in his mind? Can it be anything less than blasphemy to falsely attribute these revelations to the work of God?
4. It is almost certainly not true.
Now, before anyone freaks out, let me explain. God is alive and powerful. He is a personal God who speaks to his people. And, no, I do not believe God spoke audibly to Mark Driscoll. Why? Because God no longer speaks to men in this way.
I can hear the protests. "Aha! You're just an anti-supernaturalist who is trying to put God in a box!" But this could not be further from the truth. I am not trying to limit God in any way. I am only suggesting that we believe what God himself has said about the way He speaks:
"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world" (Hebrews 1:1-2 ESV).
God has spoken supremely through the Son. And where do we find this word of the Son? In the Scriptures of course. All of the Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, points us to the Christ. Jesus himself taught the disciples to read the Bible this way (Luke 24:25-27).
The days of the prophets and apostles are over. Direct revelation is closed by God's own design. The Scriptures are complete. God's plan is on the move just according to His design. Rather than listening for a voice in our heart, from the sky, or along a river bed we are promised something far better. God promises to speak to us through His inscripturated Word which never goes forth without accomplishing His purpose. No need to rely upon mystical experience. No unclear impressions required or ever warranted; just God's clear, powerful, and sufficient Word faithfully and lovingly recorded for us through the Spirit's work of inspiration.
The newly united brothers and sisters whom God formed into the first church at Jerusalem were "devoted," not to mystical experience or discerning a voice (audible or otherwise), but to "the apostle's teaching" (Acts 2:42). It is that very same teaching that we have today in the form of the New Testament. This, along with what we know as the Old Testament, continues to be the blessed means by which God graciously speaks to His beloved people.
So, I plead with Mark Driscoll to stop relying on and proclaiming these extra-biblical revelations. It is pastorally unwise and could imperil the souls of the men and women with whom he has been entrusted.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Seeing, they do not see...
In a recent Hardball, Chris Matthews and his panel demonstrate a stunning lack of moral seriousness in a conversation about abortion. Of course, avoiding moral seriousness is necessary if one is to hold a "pro-choice" point of view. The entire abortion debate rests on the issue of personhood. But it is this issue that Matthews and his ilk, for obvious reasons, seek to avoid.
Denny Burk links to the Hardball episode and offers these comments:
Denny Burk links to the Hardball episode and offers these comments:
I have often observed that debates about abortion among political pundits tend to miss the point. There is no serious moral contemplation of the issue, but only crass calculations of how a particular point of view might help or hurt some politician.
That is why I was struck by this conversation on Chris Matthews’ program “Hardball” (see above). Matthews and his guests seem to have discovered for the first time that pro-lifers actually believe life to begin at conception. They are astonished and appalled by this revelation, and it is almost as if they have never even heard of this point of view before several GOP candidates signed the Personhood USA pledge. As a result, the panel lampoons the view as if it represented some extreme, unheard of ideology. They don’t seem to realize that the pro-life position consists precisely in the view that individual human life begins at conception. How could they not know this?
The entire pro-life debate hinges upon the status of the life that is taken in an abortion. If it’s just a blob of cells, then abortion on demand would be no problem. If it’s a person (as pro-lifers have been arguing all along), then that unborn person should be protected in law. I am happy to welcome Matthews to the national conversation now that he has discovered what it is really about.
I give you fair warning that what you are about to see is completely morally unserious. Matthews argues that the politics of abortion should be totally disconnected from “metaphysical” questions about personhood. The panel even suggests that the reality of miscarriages somehow constitute prima facie evidence against the personhood of the unborn. The arguments here are really weak, but they are precisely the kinds of opinions that proliferate among unthoughtful pro-choice advocates.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Journaling Through the Bible
Journibles look like a helpful tool for studying and meditating upon the Bible. I am looking forward to the release of the 1 & 2 Corinthians edition.
Journible Spot 1 from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
"Jesus Calling" A Review
Tim Challies reviews Sarah Young's enormously popular book Jesus Calling. In it, Young claims direct revelation from Jesus Christ. Oddly, while Young claims the entries in her book are the words of Jesus delivered to her, she cautions the reader to not regard them as authoritative as Scripture. But how can this be? If her book is Jesus speaking (which she explicitly claims) then how can those words be less authoritative or binding as the Scriptures? Indeed, if Mrs. Young has written down the words of Jesus that He spoke directly to her, then how can they not be Scripture? Unfortunately, her many admirers seem not to mind her troubling claim or incoherent contradiction.Challies writes:
James Montgomery Boice once said that the real battle in our times would not be the inerrancy or infallibility of Scripture, but its sufficiency—are we going to rely on the Bible or will we continually long for other revelation? In Jesus Calling we see this so clearly. Young teaches that though the Bible is inerrant and infallible, it is insufficient. It was not enough for her and, implicitly, she teaches that it cannot be enough for us. After all, it was not reading Scripture that proved her most important spiritual discipline, but this listening, this receiving of messages from the Lord. It is not Scripture she brings to us, not primarily anyway, but these messages from Jesus.Dr. Boice was right. Clearly, the battle over inerrancy continues. But more often it is the sufficiency of Scripture that is under constant attack in evangelical circles. "God told me," "God spoke this word in my heart," etc are frequent appeals to extra-biblical revelation. And yet such claims are ubiquitous among evangelicals. We make bestsellers out of fanciful tales of people's trips to heaven. How gullible have we become? We must ask, "When did God's Word become insufficient?" When did the Bible need the help of mystical experiences? extra words from God? or a little boy's trip to heaven and back?
On this basis alone this book is very suspect and needs to be treated with the utmost care. Young offers us words that she insists come straight from the Lord. But she gives no proof that we should expect the Lord to speak to us this way; all she offers is her own experience of it. At this point we are left with a few options. We can stop reading altogether, we can continue to read while rejecting her claims that these are words from the Lord, or we can read and take her at her word. Personally, unless reviewing the book, I would abandon it immediately. If she claims to be speaking Jesus’ words, I am no longer interested. However, for the sake of reviewing it, I continued to read.
Challies continues:
Read the entire review HEREIt is interesting that the majority of the devotionals are affirmations rather than commandments which means that the book tends to be more descriptive than prescriptive. It is less about Jesus telling how we are to live, but more about who he is, who we are, and how to enjoy his Presence. It is notable that these affirmations span only a very narrow range of the Christian experience. It is equally notable that many of Jesus’ words sound very little like what he says in the Bible. For example, “Let the Light of My Presence soak into you, as you focus your thoughts on Me.” And shortly after, “Learn to hide in the secret of My Presence, even as you carry out your duties in the world.” I do not even know what that means or how it might be applied. There is no clear command there for me to obey and no clear word about who Jesus is.
Conclusion
Jesus Calling is, in its own way, a very dangerous book. Though the theology is largely sound enough, my great concern is that it teaches that hearing words directly from Jesus and then sharing these words with others is the normal Christian experience. In fact, it elevates this experience over all others. And this is a dangerous precedent to set. I see no reason that I would ever recommend this book.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Like "priapistic teenage boys sniggering"
Ed Young Jr. is by no means the only pastor out there with a fondness for preaching and writing about sex. However, his latest project does prompt more than a few questions. Is all this "honesty" about sex truly helpful for the church? Does the presence of Song of Songs in the Bible justify this, this, or this?Carl weighs in with a dose of biblical sanity:
It is true: those who jump quickly to allegorise the Song of Songs bypass entirely the obvious fact that it is an erotic love poem. Nevertheless, it seems to me significant that the Bible reserves raw and explicit sexual references for passages like Ezk. 23:20. Yes, the Bible contains crudity but it never uses such language to describe a properly functioning marriage. Those who speak explicitly in their sermons about sex acts may be reflecting the fact that the Bible does refer to such things; but the form they use may actually be reflecting rather the pathologies of the wider culture. They are certainly not paying any respect to the form which scripture uses to speak of such things. There is a beauty to the Song of Songs which is connected to its poetic form. Telling the world it refers to this or that specific sex act misses the point on so many different levels and is an interesting and eloquent response which perhaps tells us much about the reader and little about the text; it reminds me of being in a gallery and seeing priapistic teenage boys sniggering at the naked breast of a woman in a painting by a Renaissance master.Read the entire post HERE.
I also wonder how helpful it is to deal in graphic detail with sexual acts from the pulpit for those struggling with addiction to internet pornography. Or even simply for single people. Or for those who have not heard of some of the sex acts mentioned. Or for those who are impotent. Or for those who are still children. Or for those who suffered sexual abuse. So many pastoral issues would seem to be exacerbated by explicit and indiscriminate teaching on this issue from the pulpit. Yes, there are obviously serious sexual dysfunctions in the church - many deriving directly from a wider culture which is so explicit about sex - but most if not all of these are best addressed in more individualized pastoral settings.
Further, the reduction of sex to a set of physical acts seems to play to the idolatries of the world around, and this reduction can be the result as much of the way we talk about sex as the content of what we say. I find it significant, for example, that we now routinely talk of `having sex' rather than `making love.' Perhaps the latter is somewhat archaic but it still carries with it emotional, relational and loving connotations which the former lacks entirely. A man can have sex with a prostitute; he can only make love to one to whom he is emotionally connected.
The Bible's refusal to reduce sex to physical acts is surely one of the reasons why it uses poetry to describe it. Poetry communicates meaning and significance which cannot be reduced simply to the reference; and the turning of the Song of Songs primarily into a sex manual is arguably a greater act of reductionism than jumping straight from the text to Christ and the church. This is important because reducing the importance of sex to the physical is one of the greatest moral errors of the spirit of this age, and the current penchant for explicit content in sermons seems rather to stand in continuity with this spirit than to be a prophetic sign against it. Paul's advice about it being better to marry than to burn is not reducible to 'if you struggle with lust, find a girl to marry and have sex with her.' That does not address the underlying problem. Everyone knows that nobody is ever addicted to one pornographic picture; thus lust is not eliminated by simply trying to set it in a monogamous context.
Finally, I wonder if the current passion for producing books and preaching sermons on sex also witnesses to the erosion of the boundary between public and private which is all too obvious in the world around us. Facebook, Twitter, reality TV and the rise of celebrity have each served to turn us all into exhibitionists and to make those who yearn for privacy look like weirdoes and losers. That this is impacting the church from the top down is obvious; and it is at least worth pausing to ask whether sex books and explicit sermons are part of this. It is surely hard to imagine Christian public figures of yesteryear such as Martyn Lloyd-Jones, J I Packer or Carl Henry setting up a website called the `sexperiment' or giving advice on sexual technique from the pulpit.
What you want in a pastor...
Good stuff from Jonathan Leeman:
AS IMPORTANT AS ANY OTHER QUALITY
I’m not talking about a man who simply checks the belief box on the “authority” or “sufficiency” or “power” of the Bible.
I’m talking about a man who whose conviction here runs so deep that it profoundly influences the way he works and lives. He plans his weekly schedule based on this conviction. He rests his daily mood upon this conviction. He even picks his clothes in the morning knowing that, it’s not how good he looks that will bring life to the dead, it’s the resurrection power of God’s Word and Spirit.
This is as important as any other quality a pastor could have. It’s as important as swimming is to a lifeguard, throwing is to a quarterback, or adding is to an accountant. It defines the very task of what a pastor does.
THE POWER OF THE WORD
Humans create with hands, shovels, and bulldozers. Not God. God creates with words. He says, “Be,” and it is. He says “Peace” to the riotous wind and waves, and they obey. He says “Come forth” to dead people and their eyes pop open.
Just as astonishing, God tells the light to shine in dark hearts, giving them the ability to see the glory of his Son (2 Cor. 4:6). His Word of power saves (Rom. 10:17). It fundamentally changes people (1 Thess. 1:5-7). It gives the new birth (1 Peter 1:23).
Now get this: God gives his faithful servants the ability to do the same things. “If anyone speaks, she should do it as one speaking the very words of God.” (1 Peter 4:11). This is why Don Carson calls preaching “rerevelation.” A preacher’s primary task is to say again what God has already said. Did you think life comes to the dead through the power of our intelligence or humor or charisma?
Picture Ezekiel standing in a valley of dry bones. He preaches God’s Word, God’s Spirit blows, and the bones come to life. Your church wants a pastor who believes—deep in his bones!—that the same supernatural power is available to him. POW! He doesn’t rely on “the weapons of the world” but on “divine power to demolish strongholds” (2 Cor. 10:4). KAZAMM!
WHY THIS IS CRITICAL
Why is this critical for who your church should look for in a pastor search?
1. It will keep him from manipulating. Paul said he “renounced secret and shameful ways” but instead “set forth the truth plainly” (2 Cor. 4:2). If a man believes that the Word alone is powerful to save, that’s what he’ll do—preach plainly and not try to emotionally manipulate.
2. It will keep him from building your church and your spiritual life on his personality. Paul wasn’t a “trained speaker” with an impressive resume, like the “super-apostles.” He just preached Jesus, the Spirit, and the gospel (2 Cor. 11:4-5). Likewise, you want a man who is a good steward of his gifts, doesn’t rely on or trust his gifts to give life. He plants and waters, but relies on God to give the growth (1 Cor. 3:6-7). Men who build on their personalities have churches filled with nominal Christians.
3. It will keep him happy. A man who trusts God to save by his Word and Spirit is a man who can sleep at night, because it doesn’t finally depend on him. This is a happy man who probably has a happy wife and children because he spends time with them. He doesn’t carry the weight of the world on his shoulders. This is a man who won’t burn out as easily and will serve your church for years.
4. It’s the primary means to your growth and your church’s growth. It’s through the words of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers that God’s people become prepared for works of service “so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-13).
5. It’s your best hope of reaching non-Christian neighbors. “Faith comes from hearing the message,” says Paul (Rom. 10:17). Can the message be proclaimed through special programs and events? Of course. But you want a man who recognizes that it’s the regular, weekly “in season, out of season” work of “great patience and careful instruction” that saves the lost and builds up the saints—you want a man who “does the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim. 4:2-5).Jonathan's book Reverberation was one of my favorite reads for 2011. I would love every church member to read it.
Secrets Pastors Keep
I can certainly identify with much that is in this following list. Perhaps this will serve as a helpful way to inform our prayers for our pastors.From Ron Edmondson:
1. Leading from this position is overwhelming at times. We know Christ is ultimately in charge, but we also know it often seems everyone looks to us to have all the answers.
2. People tell the senior pastor all kinds of things about what is happening in their life or in the lives of others…many we would rather not know sometimes…and sometimes the weight of others problems we carry is enormous.
3. Most pastors walk with a degree of uncertainty, which keeps us in prayer, but also makes us question our abilities at times. It makes depression common for many senior pastors. (Need a Biblical example…see 1 Kings 19)
4. Many senior pastors fear the possibility of failing in their role, so they thrive on the encouragement and prayers of others.
5. Sometimes we allow insecurity to cause us to become overprotective of our reputation and our position.
6. We face the same temptations and occasional spiritual dryness as everyone else. This means we need accountability, but are often afraid to seek it.
7. Our spouse is sometimes the loneliest person in the church and often feels extreme pressure to live up to unrealistic expectations.
8. Loneliness can exist for all leaders and many pastors suffer from it.
9. We seldom know who we can trust, which is why we become guarded and appear hard to get to know. Most senior pastors have been burned by someone they once trusted.
10. We suspect the staff, church leaders and congregation sometimes talks about us behind our back.
Read the whole thing HERE.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Cherishing what we still precariously hold
For those of us in church leadership who are always under pressure to innovate, the following words from P.D. James present a relevant challenge:
I believe it was C.S. Lewis who wrote about "chronological snobbery": the tendency to think that your time, your methods, your generation, etc are somehow worthy of greater esteem than that of the past. This has been tragically true within evangelicalism. The irony, of course, is that we are a people whose entire existence depends upon events 2,000 years ago and beyond. What is more, we have two millennia of church history from which to draw. Unfortunately, in our preaching, praise, and education we seem to prefer the cheap porridge of contemporary trends over the rich and thoughtful deposits of our forebears. The finest historians on the planet ought to be Christians. Our churches ought to be filled with historical referents. Not that our buildings would be museums and our gatherings exercises in nostalgia. A thousand times no! However it seems to me, to quote one of my co-laborers, "We are sowing the seeds of our own demise."
HT: Justin Taylor
We live in an age notable for a kind of fashionable silliness and imbued with a restless desire for change.
It sometimes seems that nothing old, nothing well-established, nothing which has evolved through centuries of experience and loving use escapes our urge to diminish, revise or abolish it.
Above all every organisation has to be relevant—a very fashionable word—to the needs of modern life, as if human beings in the twenty-first century are somehow fundamentally different in their needs and aspirations from all previous generations.
A country which ceases to value and learn from its history, neglects its language and literature, despises its traditions and is unified only by a common frenetic drive for getting and spending and for material wealth, will lose more than its nationhood; it will lose its soul.
Let us cherish and use what we still precariously hold.
Let us strive to ensure that what has been handed down to us is not lost to generations to come.
I believe it was C.S. Lewis who wrote about "chronological snobbery": the tendency to think that your time, your methods, your generation, etc are somehow worthy of greater esteem than that of the past. This has been tragically true within evangelicalism. The irony, of course, is that we are a people whose entire existence depends upon events 2,000 years ago and beyond. What is more, we have two millennia of church history from which to draw. Unfortunately, in our preaching, praise, and education we seem to prefer the cheap porridge of contemporary trends over the rich and thoughtful deposits of our forebears. The finest historians on the planet ought to be Christians. Our churches ought to be filled with historical referents. Not that our buildings would be museums and our gatherings exercises in nostalgia. A thousand times no! However it seems to me, to quote one of my co-laborers, "We are sowing the seeds of our own demise."
HT: Justin Taylor
Sunday's Sermon
On Sunday I preached from the messianic prophecy found in Isaiah 9. It is entitled "A Great Light" and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.
Christmas Everyday...
Good stuff from Carl: Read the entire article HERE.The irony of the Christian Christmas is that the Christ child comes not because of any need of his own or any desire to fulfill a selfish or inwardly directed want; this child, the child in the manger, considers it not robbery to be equal with God and yet humbles himself by taking the form of a servant in order to be obedient even to death on the cross. All of this is done for those who not only did not deserve it but who despise the very thought of grace. For the strong and the self-sufficient to be shown their need and to be delivered therefrom by a nobody who begins life in a manger and ends it on a cross is a profound insult to everything we hold dear. The world looks on - now as then - and see this all as so much childishness; the tragedy, of course, is that it is the unsuspecting world which is truly childish.
I wonder if it is coincidence that at the very moment when childhood - or, perhaps better, childishness - seems to be permeating society, atheism and the militant rejection of Christianity are becoming so trendy. There is nothing more childish than the repudiation of parental authority by those who are still dependent upon their parents for everything from food to shelter to clothing. As the fourteen year old kid with the body-piercing and mohawk is still utterly dependent on his parents' money to buy him the torn jeans and the tee-shirt with the anti-authoritarian slogan spray painted on it, so those dependent upon God for their lives take a perverse and childish pleasure in denying his claims over their lives. And as the fourteen year old punk looks like a serious adult role model to the twelve year old wannabe, so the angry atheism that sells so many books today looks like true maturity to the world at large. Yet it does not change the fact that, as Romans 1 tells us, such is really a move not towards maturity but towards a fundamental denial of our humanity.
This should put our need to engage with atheists in perspective. Atheists do appear scary to the church, as the foul-mouthed kid with the leather jacket and the tatttoo might well be an intimidating and alien presence in my neighbourhood late at night; but all the expletives in the world do not change the fact that he is just a kid with attitude, not a serious challenge to my safety or well-being. Yes, we sometimes need to refute atheists in the same way we need to check unruly teenagers; but we should not waste too much time on such matters. The church also has adult work to be doing and dealing with kids should not distract us from that. Atheists come and atheists go; as far as I can tell, Mt. 16:18 continues to prove to be true.
The message of Christmas is the message of the cross: all our human conceptions are turned upside down; greatness is found in a manger and on a cross; the most powerful autonomous aspirations of men and women are in comparison to the baby Jesus but childish acts of meaningless defiance; atheism pretends to maturity; but from the perspective of the Bethlehem stable, it is but so much juvenile posturing.
Monday, December 19, 2011
The "Dear Leader" Dies
We may never know the extent of Kim Jong Il's brutality and madness. We know that he tortured and murdered his people on a massive scale. Il the atheist insisted on being worshipped as a god. He routinely threatened the world. All the while the "Dear Leader" lived in luxury enjoying fine wine and American movies. Since the North Korean Communist dictatorship is a family enterprise, the reigns of leadership will go to one of Kim's sons. There is, so far, no indication that any of his sons will change the ever darkening course of this already dark country.Justin Taylor has posted a series of videos that give a glimpse into the wicked cruelty that was Kim Jong Il's North Korea.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
An obituary for Christopher Hitchens
Doug Wilson has written a moving but, thankfully, not sentimental memorial for Christopher Hitchens who died of cancer yesterday.
Read the whole thing HERE.G. K. Chesterton once pointed to the salutary effect that the great agnostics had on him—that effect being that of "arousing doubts deeper than their own." Christopher was an heir of the Enlightenment tradition, and would have felt right at home in the 18th-century salons of Paris. He wanted to carry on the grand tradition of doubting what had been inherited from Christendom, and to take great delight in doubting it. This worked well, or appeared to, for a time. But skepticism is a universal solvent, and once applied, it does not stop just because Christendom is gone. "I think, therefore I am. I think." We pulled out the stopper of faith, and the bathwater of reason appeared undisturbed for a time. But modernism slowly receded and now postmodernism is circling the drain.
Our intelligentsia needs to figure out how to do more than sit in an empty tub and reminisce about the days when Voltaire knew how to keep the water hot. Christopher knew that faithful Christians believe that it is appointed to man once to die, and after that the Judgment. He knew that we believe what Jesus taught about the reality of damnation. He also knew that we believe—for I told him—that in this life, the door of repentance is always open. A wise Puritan once noted what we learn from the last-minute conversion of the thief on the cross—one, that no one might despair, but only one, that no one might presume. We have no indication that Christopher ever called on the Lord before he died, and if he did not, then Scriptures plainly teach that he is lost forever. But we do have every indication that Christ died for sinners, men and women just like Christopher. We know that the Lord has more than once hired workers for his vineyard when the sun was almost down (Matt. 20:6).
We also know that Christopher was worried about this, and was afraid of letting down the infidel team. In a number of interviews during the course of his cancer treatments, he discussed the prospect of a "death bed" conversion, and it was clear that he was concerned about the prospect. But, he assured interviewers, if anything like that ever happened, we should all be certain that the cancer or the chemo or something had gotten to his brain. If he confessed faith, then he, the Christopher Hitchens that we all knew, should be counted as already dead. In short, he was preparing a narrative for us, just in case. But it is interesting that the narrative he prepped us with did not involve some ethically challenged evangelical nurses on the late shift who were ready to claim that they had heard him cry out to God, thus misrepresenting another great infidel into heaven. It has been done with Einstein, and with Darwin. Why not Hitchens? But Christopher actually prepared us by saying that if he said anything like this, then he did not know what he was saying.
This is interesting, not so much because of what it says about what he did or did not do as death approached him, and as he at the same time approached death. It is interesting because, when he gave these interviews, he was manifestly in his right mind, and the thought had clearly occurred to him that he might not feel in just a few months the way he did at present. The subject came up repeatedly, and was plainly a concern to him. Christopher Hitchens was baptized in his infancy, and his name means "Christ-bearer." This created an enormous burden that he tried to shake off his entire life. No creature can ever succeed in doing this. But sometimes, in the kindness of God, such failures can have a gracious twist at the end. We therefore commend Christopher to the Judge of the whole earth, who will certainly do right. Christopher Eric Hitchens (1949-2011). R.I.P.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Sunday's Sermon
On Sunday I preached the final message in our series focusing on the Great Commission. It is entitled "Sustained By Grace" and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.* On Sunday January 8th, I will begin preaching through Philippians.
My Favorite Reads for 2011
The following are books (not all published in 2011) that were either the most enjoyable or the most important books I read over the last 12 months.Theology / Biblical Studies:
Historical Theology by Gregg Allison
I have not read this book cover-to-cover. However, it is extremely helpful; a great "one stop shop" for the history of the development of Christian doctrine.
What is the Mission of the Church? by DeYoung and Gilbert
Excellent. Clarifying. Careful. Readable. Important. Need more?
Union With Christ by J. Todd Billings
I am thankful for what may be a renewed focus on a sadly neglected doctrine. Dr. Billings's volume is a great example of theology in service of doxology and the church.
Outstanding! Readable and doxological instruction.
The best single volume I have read on the doctrine of the Word of God. Man, does Frame love appendices!
Applied Christianity:
Good News for Anxious Christians by Phillip Cary
I love this book! Dr. Cary offers an important correction to the errors of what he calls "the new evangelicalism."
Excellent. Leeman helps the reader understand how God uses his Word to transform his people. This is one of those books I wish every church member would read.
A refreshing journey through Colossians with an eye toward the radical nature of the gospel.
A Gospel Primer for Christians by Milton Vincent
Read this book...now.
Non-Fiction / Biography:
Raven by Tim Reiterman
* Okay, I understand how some of you may be concerned about my seeming fascination with tyrants and cult leaders.
I confess that I have not completed this yet but so far it is excellent.
The Strange Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst by Tomalin and Hall
An amazing story but little known in the U.S. The story of Donald Crowhurst is a compelling mix of adventure, mystery and tragedy.
Fiction:
Hitler's Niece by Ron Hansen
The following are some books I have recently begun reading and are, so far, excellent:
Truman by David McCullough
Washington: The Indispensable Man by James Thomas Flexner
Feast Day For Fools by James Lee Burke
Salvation Accomplished by the Son by Robert Peterson
Authentic Church by Vaughan Roberts
The Christian Faith by Michael Horton
Friday, December 9, 2011
Simply Proclaim
Carl Trueman on the challenge and privilege of preaching (especially at Christmas):
The problem is not just metaphysical, not simply a question of how one can talk about infinite God entering finite human existence (`Our God contracted to a span, incomprehensibly made man', to use Wesley's beautiful phrase). In this it is akin to the cross as Paul articulates it in 1 Corinthians: it is foolishness and a stumbling block. Foolishness, because the very idea of the sovereign creator and ruler of the universe being born of a teenage virgin in a stable in a tiny nation of no account at the far end of the Mediterranean is utterly ridiculous. Indeed, one might say that it looks very much like proof that God cannot exist -- at least, that is, God built according to our specifications and requirements. An offence because I do not need salvation, especially salvation brought by a pre-modern peasant's child in some backward place nobody would otherwise ever have heard of.Read the whole thing HERE.
Yet this is where the glory of preaching and hearing the word of God comes into play. Preaching is proclamation, and proclaim we must, however inadequate we might think our words and our delivery are. Preaching is not a carefully worked-out philosophical defence of what God must be like if the advent of Christ is to be true. Nor is it an attempt to make Christianity look sophisticated or moral as the world understand these things. Least of all is it stand-up comedy designed to entertain those who might otherwise seek their fun elsewhere. Its agenda, especially at Christmas, is not to be determined by unbelief or what the hipsters in the Village will tolerate or what the brain's trust at MIT think is plausible. Preaching at Christmas is akin to Lk. 2:8-12. It is the announcement of what God has done, that he has come in Christ, and that thereby his grace has abounded and overflowed to those who deserve it not.. Our task as preachers is to do simply that: proclaim the advent of the Christ. Can there be a greater privilege, a more awesome responsibility, or a greater delight?
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Some light reading for Christmas...
Carl Trueman has posted some recomendations for Christmas reading:Gregory K. Beale, A Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Baker). Monumental work. My students know I have a thing about people who use `eschatological' every other sentence (the Reformed equivalent of quoting Bono among trendies) but in Greg's case, I'll forgive him. The book has already changed the way I think about New Testament teaching on eldership. It is self-contained (good job at over 1 000 pages) but familiarity with Greg's work on the Temple is useful.I have just begun Dr. Beale's massive new volume on biblical theology. I'm still in the introduction! I just received in the mail today Dr. Billings' book on union with Christ. It looks like it will be an excellent read. I will certainly try to get hold of Derek Prime's book on Charles Simeon.
J. Todd Billings, Union with Christ (Baker Academic). Those who have enjoyed Dr Billings' work on Calvin and on scriptural interpretation will know what to expect. Thought-provoking treatment of a hot topic. To be read alongside Robert Letham's book with the same title. Both of these books are both theological and doxological. Letham also has one of the most concise and brilliant summaries of Cyrilline Christology to be found anywhere.
James Dolezal, God Without Parts (Pickwick). An important elaboration and defence of divine simplicity, a doctrine frequently rejected today but rather less frequently understood.The Reformed Orthodox would have regarded divine simplicity as one of -- if not the most -- important element of their doctrine of God.
Derek Prime, Charles Simeon: An Ordinary Pastor of Extraordinary Influence (Day One). OK, I have not read this yet; but the combination of author and subject is irresistible. Mine is on the way from the UK but some Christian bookshop in the USA needs to take this on.
Finally, guilty pleasure for anyone with a (British) sense of humour: Adam Macqueen, Private Eye: The First Fifty Years (Private Eye). Nothing Christian about this one. I became an avid Eye reader at age 13 and it inspired me to go on to be part of the team that put together the semi-underground satirical magazine for my school (greatest achievement: getting it banned from the girl's school next door because of `unacceptably subversive' material). My role was writing parodies written in the style of the local newspaper and in the manner of various schoolmasters. All the inspiration came from the Eye. If you are suspicious of establishments, the self-important, Rupert Murdoch, celebrities of any stripe and have never grown up, this is the book to read. And Craig Brown is one of the few living geniuses.
Learning from Herman Cain
Albert Mohler has written a thoughtful challenge for Christian men in light of the news swirling around Herman Cain.
Mohler points out five lessons to be learned:
1. The Christian man must realize that credible accusations of sexual misconduct or immorality are fatal to credibility and ruinous to Christian witness.
2. The Christian man cannot dismiss any charge of sexual immorality as being a private matter of no public concern.
3. The Christian man must plan his life in order to assure moral accountability and protections.
4. The Christian man must depend upon his church, the congregation that is so essential to his Christian vitality and faithfulness, as a bulwark against sin.
5. A Christian man knows that his wife is his best defense against sexual immorality and sexual vulnerability - and his most important witness to character.
Read the entire article HERE.
Mohler points out five lessons to be learned:
1. The Christian man must realize that credible accusations of sexual misconduct or immorality are fatal to credibility and ruinous to Christian witness.
2. The Christian man cannot dismiss any charge of sexual immorality as being a private matter of no public concern.
3. The Christian man must plan his life in order to assure moral accountability and protections.
4. The Christian man must depend upon his church, the congregation that is so essential to his Christian vitality and faithfulness, as a bulwark against sin.
5. A Christian man knows that his wife is his best defense against sexual immorality and sexual vulnerability - and his most important witness to character.
Read the entire article HERE.
Sunday's Sermon
Sunday's sermon was part 7 in our series focusing on the Great Commission. It is entitled "How Disciples Are Made" and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.Monday, December 5, 2011
The fanaticism of amorality
"A revolution without a firing squads," Lenin is meant to have said, "is meaningless." He spent his career praising the Terror of the French Revolution because his Bolshevism was a unique creed, "a social system based on blood-letting." The Bolsheviks were atheists but they were hardly secular politicians in the conventional sense: they stooped to kill from the smugness of the highest moral eminence. Bolshevism may not have been a religion, but it was close enough. Stalin told Beria [one of the most sadistic members of Stalin's inner court] the Bolsheviks were "a sort of military-religious order"...Stalin's "order of sword-bearers" resembled the Knights Templars, or even the theocracy of the Iranian Ayatollahs, more than any traditional secular movement. They would die and kill for their faith in the inevitable progress towards human betterment, making sacrifices of their own families, with a fervor seen only in the religious slaughters and martyrdoms of the Middle Ages - and the Middle East...From Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore
The "sword-bearers" had to believe with Messianic faith, in order to act with the correct ruthlessness, and so convince others they were right to do so. Stalin's "quasi-Islamic" fanaticism was typical of the Bolshevik magnates: Mikoyan's son called his father "a Bolshevik fanatic." Most came from devoutly religious backgrounds. They hated Judaeo-Christianity--but the orthodoxy of their parents was replaced by something even more rigid, a system of amorality: "This religion--or science, as it was modestly called by its adepts--invests man with a godlike authority...In the Twenties, a good many people drew a parallel to the victory of Christianity and thought this new religion would last a thousand years," wrote Nadezhda Mandelstam. "All were agreed on the superiority of the new creed that promised heaven on earth instead of other worldly rewards."
On the fate of those who have never heard the gospel...
An illustration from Francis Schaeffer:
If every little baby that was ever born anywhere in the world had a tape recorder hung about its neck, and if this tape recorder only recorded the moral judgments with which this child as he grew bound other men, the moral precepts might be much lower than the biblical law, but they would still be moral judgments.
Eventually each person comes to that great moment when he stands before God as judge. Suppose, then, that God simply touched the tape recorder button and each man heard played out in his own words all those statements by which he had bound other men in moral judgment. He could hear it going on for years—thousands and thousands of moral judgments made against other men, not aesthetic judgments, but moral judgments.
Then God would simply say to the man, though he had never head the Bible, now where do you stand in the light of your own moral judgments? The Bible points out . . . that every voice would be stilled. All men would have to acknowledge that they have deliberately done those things which they knew to be wrong. Nobody could deny it.
We sin two kinds of sin. We sin one kind as though we trip off the curb, and it overtakes us by surprise. We sin a second kind of sin when we deliberately set ourselves up to fall. And no one can say he does not sin in the latter sense. Paul’s comment is not just theoretical and abstract, but addressed to the individual—”O man”—any man without the Bible, as well as the man with the Bible.
. . . God is completely just. A man is judged and found wanting on the same basis on which he has tried to bind others.
—Francis Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century, 2d ed. (Crossway, 1985), pp. 49-50.
Romans 2:1-3; 14-16:
1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? . . .
14 . . . When Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
HT: Justin Taylor
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
