"Obviously, what Jesus promises is highly desirable. Blessedness, freedom, healing of internal sin, access to eternal life-- who does not gladly hear of such things? Who would not want to celebrate with the King? What hinders us, since he calls to each of us and demands nothing in return?

"But this misconstrues the intent of the goodness whose goal is to lead us to conversion. It is not shown to us so that we might remain what we are. It rather appeals to us to transcend our base drives and free ourselves from coarse desire. For the king remains the king, even when in his grace he opens his banquet to all. All his banquet serves his glorification, even if it bestows great blessedness upon us. The fellowship of those who celebrate with him is not the place to put our contempt for God on display. Nor is it an occasion to assert our resistance against his command. Without our cooperation, God's grace comes to us and lodges with anyone who places trust in it. But to trust in it is to recognize its greatness and treasure its value. For it is to know that it is God's grace. One can no longer live as though grace no longer claimed him, as if it were some negligible trifle or extra ingredient of only secondary importance. Grace, once received, obligates."

Adolf Schlatter, Do We Know Jesus? p.486.

Tags: Faith & Life

Morning:
November 1 Luke 22:54-23:25 -- Betrayal of the King (Guest Preacher Doug Barcroft)
November 8 Luke 23:26-56 -- The wages of sin...
November 15 Luke 24:1-12 -- He is not here...
November 22 Luke 24:13-53 -- Eyes opened
November 29 Advent part 1

Evening:
November 15 Colossians 1 -- Gnosticism
November 29 Advent part 2 (Chrismon Tree-Lighting Service)

Tags: preaching, Ordinary Days, Advent

While Jerram Barrs was here over the weekend, I asked him (among many other things!): How should we respond to those who are trafficking in Gospel-denying fear about political matters?

Part of his response was to point out how disrespectful talking about President Obama and others as some Christians do is-- not simply of our president, but of other Christians who have faced real threat and persecution.

This is such a key point. This video underscores it:

[HT: Glen]

For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”
~Romans 8:15, emphasis added

Tags: Faith & Life, Politics

The Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church Spiritual Life Conference starts this evening. Our theme for the conference is: Ask, Seek, Knock-- Learning to Pray.

If you're in the area-- or even remotely close-- you might seriously consider changing your plans to come be a part of this. Prof. Jerram Barrs will be our speaker, and events will include multiple lectures, a Q&A luncheon, a prayer service, and worship together Sunday morning.

Online registration is closed, but you can still come and register when you get here-- it's only $15! This will be too good to miss; get here if you can!

I've been discussing church membership a lot lately.

The other day, I was interacting with someone about the importance of membership, and they offered the following argument:

"Joining a church doesn't make someone a Christian, any more than attending a football game makes you a sports fan."

Granted. But there's more that is telling about this analogy than just whether joining a church makes you a Christian.

You see, most Christians today assume that joining a church is akin to attending a football game. This is the big flaw in the conventional wisdom. Joining a church is more than merely attending a football game; it is even more than buying season tickets.

We're not just observers. We aren't "doing church" just so that we can watch. The degree to which we are called to participate in the life of the church is not simply to "cheer on" the professional Christians that we've hired to run plays.

If you want to use a football game analogy to describe joining the church, here you go:
You, my fellow Christian-- you, who are called by Christ to put off your old identity and take up the identity you are adopted into in Him-- YOU are a Left Tackle. Or a Strong Safety. Or a Fullback.

You get the picture? Maybe you've been a Left Tackle all your life. Perhaps you are the most promising Strong Safety in this year's class. It could be that you are the most well-developed Fullback this side of the Mississippi. But without a team to play on, you have only so much to offer. Without the other 10 guys on the field with you, your skills and talents-- even your crowd-wowing abilities-- are fairly useless.

So join the team. There's room on the depth chart for you.

Tags: Faith & Life, Church, Membership

"Worship is first an identity before it's ever an activity."
~Paul David Tripp

Not quite 15 years ago, I began hearing a buzz about this Baptist pastor from Minnesota who had begun to change the way that some people were thinking about the Christian life. In fact, he was challenging the way that people thought about the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism! (This was WAY before the "young, restless, Reformed" movement-- so imagine my surprise that a Baptist pastor was even AWARE of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.)

Of course, this pastor was John Piper, and he, through his writings, lectures, sermons, and other platforms, has continued to be formative in the lives of many believers-- Baptist, Presbyterian, and other identities altogether. That book that I was introduced to in the mid-90s, Desiring God, remains one of his most popular titles and, in fact, lent its name to the ministry that spun out of his Baptist congregation and serves as the launch-pad for so many of his ministries outside of Bethlehem Baptist Church.

These days, Desiring God Ministries is huge, and Dr. Piper has become almost a celebrity in some circles. He, along with literally just a few others, have spurred a movement of the introduction of Calvinism to the hearts and minds of believers. I've known people who are convinced that Dr. Piper is the pre-eminent leader of our generation, and others who can quote from his books as others quote from the Bible. A friend of mine coined the term "Piper-Calvinist": someone who isn't exactly "Reformed" but is familiar with Dr. Piper's brand of Calvinism and embraces it. Doubtless, John Piper is a brilliant man, and an influential thinker.

But I think, on at least one substantial point, he is wrong. Or rather, backward.

Q: What is the chief end of man?
A: Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
~Westminster Shorter Catechism, question #1

I was given a copy of Desiring God, and I read it (and even read through it and discussed it with a good friend). The fundamental principle that drives the book-- and subsequently, so much of Dr. Piper's ministry-- is his idea of "Christian Hedonism", which he spins out of his adaptation of the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Dr. Piper's adaptation goes like this:

Answer: Man's chief end is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever.

In other words, we seek our pleasures in God, and that is the most glorifying thing that we can do. When we find our delight in God, we are, in fact, glorifying Him.

Now, I'm not convinced that this is wrong. I think Dr. Piper has some fair points in his angle on this (though I think that, in several places, he takes it too far in the book). I believe that the basic principle is right, and even probably biblical: it IS glorifying to God to delight in Him.

But I don't think that is what the Westminster Divines (the guys who wrote the Westminster Shorter Catechism) meant. In fact, I think they would probably be fairly appalled at that interpretation of Question #1. And while I believe it to be a biblical assertion as one end, I don't think we find that in Scripture as man's chief end.

[An aside: To be frank, I think that the Westminster Divines would be fairly appalled, in general, at how we have venerated the Westminster Standards (the Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms). I'm simply not convinced that they intended for that work to become a standard that some would elevate (almost) to the level of Scripture in its authority.]

This is where I think he has it backward: Dr. Piper asserts that the first part of man's chief end is dependent on the second. Thus:

I won't elaborate; if you're quite interested in how he comes to that conclusion, he develops the idea pretty thoroughly in Desiring God. As I said above, I don't think the idea of glorifying God by enjoying/delighting in Him is wrong; I just don't think it is man's chief end.

As I read Scripture, however, I see that man's chief end is precisely the inverse of Dr. Piper's assertion: the second part of man's chief end is wholly dependent on the first. Thus:

All of the Bible compels me to believe that we were made to be worshipers-- and that God intended us to find our ultimate fulfillment in the worship of Him. To "glorify God" according to Scripture is inherently tied to worship. And we cannot be truly worshiping God if we are first of all seeking our own pleasure and delight.

Instead, our identity must fundamentally become all about the worship of God. As Paul David Tripp says (see the opening quote), "worship is first an identity before it is ever an activity." When this becomes our identity, then the consequence is that we enjoy God forever through the satisfaction of fulfilling our own identity!

This is, by our contemporary way of thinking, a convoluted manner of understanding our enjoyment of God. In part, this is because we are such individualists that we default to a "me-first" attitude-- and the notion of putting God first in our chief end is incongruent. Also in part, this is because we secretly suspect that God is not interested in what gives us enjoyment-- we believe His law to be oppressive, not freeing.

But it is largely difficult for us because it is "upside-down" to our normal way of thinking. But this is the way of the Gospel-- everything is upside-down.

The cross tells you everything you have heard in the world is wrong. Because the cross says the way up is down, the way to get real power is to give your power away, the way to get real riches is to give away your money radically and generously, the way to get tremendous self-esteem, assurance of your beauty, is to admit that you are such a terrible lost sinner that somebody had to come from heaven and die for you.
~Timothy Keller

To be perfectly fair, I believe that Dr. Piper would largely agree with much of what I've just said (though not entirely). But the way that many of his "disciples" apply his notion of "Christian Hedonism" is far afield from this way of thinking. Therfore, it may have been more accurate to label this "John Piper's disciples have it backward-- but then that wouldn't have gotten your attention as easily!

Tags: Identity, Faith & Life, worship, theology

We'll be singing this hymn during the sacrament of Communion on the last Sunday of this month; until then, we'll be learning it on Wednesday nights.

If you aren't familiar with this one, here are the lyrics and a video of it being sung. (HT: Adam) It is called "Behold the Lamb" and is written by Keith and Kristyn Getty and Stuart Townend.

Behold the Lamb who bears our sins away,
Slain for us – and we remember
The promise made that all who come in faith
Find forgiveness at the cross.
So we share in this bread of life,
And we drink of His sacrifice
As a sign of our bonds of peace
Around the table of the King.

The body of our Saviour Jesus Christ,
Torn for you – eat and remember
The wounds that heal, the death that brings us life
Paid the price to make us one.
So we share in this bread of life,
And we drink of His sacrifice
As a sign of our bonds of love
Around the table of the King.

The blood that cleanses every stain of sin,
Shed for you – drink and remember
He drained death’s cup that all may enter in
To receive the life of God.
So we share in this bread of life,
And we drink of His sacrifice
As a sign of our bonds of grace
Around the table of the King.

And so with thankfulness and faith we rise
To respond, – and to remember
Our call to follow in the steps of Christ
As His body here on earth.
As we share in His suffering
We proclaim Christ will come again!
And we’ll join in the feast of heaven
Around the table of the King

Tags: worship

What's going on in Florida right now is a perfect illustration of how little "presbyterian" we often are in the PCA.

Dr. D. James Kennedy was the founding pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, and was one of the most well-known names in the PCA (and elsewhere), and when he died just over two years ago, it was a loss for both the PCA and the Kingdom. Dr. Kennedy was a strong leader, and was well-known for Evangelism Explosion (an evangelism program that he developed), his outspoken participation in political debates, his media ministries, and starting Knox Seminary in Florida.

In the spring of this year, the news got out that Coral Ridge PCA was ready to call a new pastor: Tullian Tchividjian, who was at that time pastoring another church in the area. Though young at 37, Pastor Tchividjian has written several books (with another on the way), and had already begun to make quite a name for himself as pastor of New City Presbyterian Church. He also had the distinction of being the grandson of Rev. Billy Graham. New City didn't want him to go, but Coral Ridge had set their hearts on him; they finally agreed to merge the two churches so that he could do both! Everyone was excited.

That is, until some of the people at Coral Ridge realized that Pastor Tchividjian is not Dr. Kennedy. They were unhappy with his decision not to wear a robe when he preached. They weren't happy with the fact that he felt that Evangelism Explosion, while having its place, was not as effective a method as it once was; most people, he said, are still a few steps away from those questions. They also were displeased with the fact that he refused to offer strong political messages from the pulpit as Dr. Kennedy had frequently done. Once they realized these things, some were unhappy. Did they voice their concerns to their Session? Did they contact their new pastor and speak to him directly about their concerns? No-- they did none of these things.

Instead, a few-- six, to be exact-- began to circulate a letter to the congregation against the wishes of the church's leadership. In that letter, this handful of members from the 2000+ member congregation stated their case against Pastor Tchividjian, and circulated a petition calling for a congregational meeting to remove him as pastor. Eventually, they accumulated several hundred signatures (more than the 100 required by the Book of Church Order), and a congregational meeting was called. (Those six also were disciplined for their sinful stirring up of dissent, instead of handling their complaints in a biblical manner.)

The meeting that these dissenters had longed for came, and to their surprise the vote went the other way: 422 voted WITH the dissenters to remove Tchividjian as pastor; 940 voted AGAINST that action, and instead voiced their desire to see him remain as their pastor. Incidentally, 100% of the church's officers voted with the majority to keep Tchividjian as Pastor.

How did these dissenters respond? They had taken full advantage of presbyterian polity to force a meeting and vote, hoping to get their way. Would they behave like true presbyterians, and accept the decision of the majority without further complaint?

No-- in fact, they revealed that they are not very presbyterian after all. They left immediately, and the following weekend held services for a new church-- with 400+ people in attendance, 501(c)(3) status already applied for, and talks of property hunts already underway. One of the leaders of the group said, "what happens next depends on what denomination contacts us."

I grieve this sort of unbiblical dissent, but as much as that I also grieve this sort of easy abandonment of presbyterianism. Whatever this group becomes, I hope they can recognize that they aren't presbyterian in any functional way-- because presbyterianism is fundamentally based on the idea that I'm as likely as not to be mistaken or even sinful in my decision-making alone, and that the larger body usually has greater wisdom and discernment than I do individually.

Tags: presbyterians, PCA, PCA Polity, Grief, Pastoral ministry

Morning:
October 4 Luke 22:7-23-- The FIRST Supper
October 11 Luke 22:24-38 -- Service to the King
October 18 Luke 22:39-53 -- Handing himself over
October 25 Guest Preacher Jerram Barrs (Spiritual Life Conference)

Evening:
October 4 The Life of Faith
October 18 The “Tribulation”

Tags: preaching, Ordinary Days

It's clear to me that there are two kinds of homeschoolers-- that is, two kinds of parents who homeschool their children.

The first kind are primarily concerned about the education of their children. Because of circumstances, opportunities, and/or necessity, they have chosen to take on the education of their children at home. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't accept another opportunity (even public schools) if it met their standards and/or was necessary; it simply means that, as things are, this is what is best for their children right now. It also means that they are open to different options in the future if, again, they considered it and determined it to be what is best. These homeschoolers are generally accepting of other people's decisions about how those people educate their children, because, after all, those parents are the ones in the best position to know what is best for their children's education and overall health and well-being.

The second kind of homeschoolers would like for you to believe that their primary concern is the education of their children. They will even say that is their primary concern. But it isn't-- in fact, that is a secondary concern, at best. The primary concern for these homeschoolers is bound up in their worldview, political persuasion, and dogmatic views about what they believe is right for ALL children. They are convinced that they are "right" about all of their views-- not in the sense that they have carefully weighed it against all others and are acting on personal conviction, but in the sense that what they say goes for everyone else too. They have fallen into the fateful error of believing that they have unlocked "God's way" for understanding education, politics, social discussions, education, and everything else that interests them. As far as education goes, they have not only determined that what is best for their children is an education administered by them, but that there is no other biblical way that children can be rightly educated. This determination gives them a sense of superiority that empowers them to treat anyone who differs with them with condescension and belligerence.

In the Christian church, the first kind typically handles themselves in particular manner. They have come to their decision humbly, and regard others with the same humility. They are simply out to do their best, and are interested in connecting with others who homeschool because they recognize that many others are working in ways that they could learn from. While they may hold opinions about politics and social issues-- and even about whether others are making wise choices regarding their children's education-- they understand that those are their opinions. They do not view their homeschooling as necessarily motivated out of the "right" way to do all things, but out of what they believe is the best decision for their family; in fact, they acknowledge that sometimes homeschooling is a train-wreck for some families, and was a bad decision. They are grateful for the church as a refuge for broken people, a community of fellowship, and most importantly as a place where sinners may come to learn and grow in Christ's grace as those who were once the enemies of God but have now been adopted as His children. Many of them get concerned when the church loses its focus on the Gospel and emphasizes too much the things of this world.

In the Christian church, the second kind also handles themselves in a predictable particular manner. Regardless of the manner in which they have come to their decision (humbly or not), they tend not to regard others with humility. They are out to prove a point-- and nearly every contact with them begins or ends with that point being pushed on others. They regard their opinions about politics and social matters, as well as education, to be definitive, and anyone who disagrees with them is obviously in sin. They have no problem with foisting their every political comment and complaint on whoever will listen (and many who won't), under the guise of "keeping people informed" but in the form of a presentation that is not only biased but frequently disrespectful and undignified. They typically equivocate "Christian" with "Republican" and assume certain shibboleths (such as "pro-life" and "pro-family") to be the markers of "real" Christians-- indeed, that these are all but required alongside a profession of faith for the profession to be valid. They believe that the church is a place for the righteous, a coalition of the like-minded, and most importantly as a place where everyone should go to be shown all of the right ways of thinking about the issues they care about. They get concerned when their preacher doesn't call people to the carpet for their political, social, educational, or other failures.

Homeschoolers: which one are you?

To the first group, I say this: thank you for your humble and tireless efforts to raise your children as best as you are able. I know that it is often difficult, and you sometimes wonder if you have made a mistake in choosing this path. Your humility is affirming of the fact that you are approaching this with the right attitude, and that counts for a lot. Keep up the good work, and know that there are many of us behind you. You give homeschooling the good name that it (usually) deserves.

To the second group, I say this: please reconsider the over-confidence and absolute certainty with which you approach this and many other positions that you hold. I cannot say with any conviction that your attitudes or positions are inherently "blessed" by Scripture or by God, as you seem so persuaded is the case. I am certain of this: there is no requirement of political or educational uniformity in Scripture, and you are misrepresenting the church, the Gospel, and Christ Himself in much of the way you portray them. I fear that your presentation of what it means to be a Christian is a hindrance for many who otherwise long for the grace of the Cross.

Tags: Education, Faith & Life, family life, rant

Morning:
September 6 Luke 20:27-21:4 -- Confusion about what is what
September 13 Hebrews 12:1-3 -- 175^th Anniversary Sermon
September 20 Luke 21:5-36 -- Anticipating the Return
September 27 Luke 21:37-22:6 -- Delighted at betrayal

Evening:
September 20 Daniel 5 -- End-Times Events

Tags: preaching, Ordinary Days

I’ve had a few recent conversations on spiritual gifts, and I thought I would offer some thoughts.

I don’t claim to represent the views of the PCA on this, although to the best of my knowledge my views are not out of accord with the PCA. (The predominant view of PCA pastors on spiritual gifts, especially on the apostolic or “sign” gifts, can be found in this Pastoral Letter, which is a good summary.)

• I am a “Cessationist” when it comes to the apostolic or “sign” gifts. That is, I believe that they have “ceased” to manifest. These were, from everything I can tell from Scripture, gifts given to evidence the presence of the Holy Spirit in the churches, primarily so that New Testament-era believers could discern when the teaching they were receiving was orthodox or not. Two things convince me that such signs are no longer necessary: first, that we have the Bible-- and therefore we have a different, and better, measure of orthodoxy; second, that we have the completed Bible-- which means that ongoing revelation (which appears to have been the immediate content of the manifestation of these gifts) is unnecessary and, in fact, contrary to our views of Scripture. Also, I don’t hold that against others-- I’ve had good friends who have believed in the continuation of the apostolic gifts, and it hasn’t been reason to break fellowship.
• I expect that the exercise of spiritual gifts is to be done in a biblical manner. One of my professors from seminary mentioned in class once (in an appropriate context) that he was not a Cessationist, but that he looked for, not the gifts of the Spirit, but the fruit of the Spirit as evidence that someone is a believer. This view comes out of a right understanding of what Scripture-- and especially the New Testament-- says regarding how we might be confident in someone’s faith. It also happens to fly in the face of the practice of many, who claim that someone who has not evidenced one or more certain gifts (and they are always the apostolic or “sign” gifts) must not have the Holy Spirit present in their lives. Not surprisingly, there are other biblical manners by which the gifts of the Holy Spirit are prescribed to be exercised, which are ignored by many who engage in their practice. For example, 1 Corinthians 14 clearly requires that, in the case of speaking in tongues, an interpreter must be present-- and if one is not present, then the speaker should keep quiet. It also stipulates that, at most, two or three people should offer prophecy, and not more; whereas, I have known of times when dozens of people have claimed to have prophecies in some Charismatic churches. As I mentioned above, I don’t have a strong conscience about other Christians’ belief in the continuation of these gifts; my problem is with the unbiblical exercise of them.
• I believe that, in general, it is helpful to consider spiritual gifts. For a while in the 80s and 90s, you couldn’t swing a dead skunk without knocking someone’s “spiritual gift inventory” off of a table-- there was great fervor for spiritual gifts, and frequently what seemed to me to be an over-emphasis on them. In our typical “all-or-nothing” way, many Christians summarily rejected spiritual gifts as unimportant, mainly out of reaction to the zeal. I don’t think either is appropriate; it seems clear from Scripture that there are spiritual gifts that are present in the lives of believers, and therefore it seems right that we should investigate and consider our spiritual giftedness-- but not in isolation or to the exclusion of other aspects of how God has made us. There is nothing wrong with completing a “spiritual gift inventory” and learning more about your spiritual gifts. In fact, we have some information about these in the Resources section of the HWPC website.
• I think that spiritual gifts are connected to “natural” gifts. It seems to me that what it means for someone to receive a spiritual giftedness in a certain way simply means that they already had some natural talent, ability, or giftedness that was "sanctified" in their conversion for spiritual usefulness. There are plenty of people who are gifted teachers, for example, who are not believers; when they get converted, however, the Spirit appropriates their natural talents for teaching for Kingdom-usefulness. I don't believe that, ordinarily, one should expect his/her spiritual gifts to be altogether different from something that they already had some capacity for. I've never known it to be the case, for example, that someone who stammered and stuttered, and who was terrified to the point of hyperventilating to stand before a crowd, upon conversion suddenly becomes a preacher. If it has happened, then it is extraordinary, not ordinary. (Before you tell me that John Piper was afraid to speak, remember that he was already converted long before he overcame that fear.) This also means that there is spiritual gifting that includes more than simply what is listed in the New Testament letters, because there are areas of natural giftedness beyond these areas. For example, one spiritual gift inventory I saw listed "music" as a spiritual gift-- appropriately corresponding to the obvious natural abilities that some have (though not others) for musical skills. I think this is right, even though there is no mention of music at all in Paul's lists.
• I have found that investigations of spiritual gifts are helpful to "connect the dots" for some. Someone recently asked me why spiritual gift inventories are valuable, especially if they are simply extensions, if you will, of natural gifts. In my experience, there are two ways. First, someone may not immediately or intuitively recognize how their natural talents and abilities are useful for Kingdom purposes; for whatever reason, they may have a misunderstanding that some interest, ability, passion, or talent that they have is not holy and profitable for Christ's service. A spiritual gift inventory may open their eyes to the contrary, and help them see how their unique giftedness fits into Christ's transforming work. Secondly, Christians often affect a self-effacing denial of their own value, believing that it is the path to humility; consequently, they begin to believe that they are worth little, and eventually their identities as children of the living God are squelched by this false view. A spiritual gift inventory can counteract this by directly exposing the aspects of a person's character and being that are useful and valuable to God.
• I am convinced that spiritual gifts are just a part of who we are. One of the results of the enthusiasm toward the spiritual gifts craze of recent years was that some began to understand their identity in Christ primarily by way of their spiritual giftedness. This had two consequences, both negative. It suggested a hierarchy in worth, because some people obviously had more spiritual gifts than others; thus, some became envious of others' gifts, or simply became depressed because they weren't all that. Also, it denied the many other aspects of who someone is, and how Christ might transform them into His image; this even, at times, had the unfortunate result of creating large "blind-spots" in someone's spiritual growth, because the focus was so much on the spiritual gifts. God has made us as complex creatures, and the more we might know about ourselves, the better. In my experience, there is wisdom to be gained from considering, not only spiritual gifts, but also temperament, communication style, natural talents and abilities, leadership style, key life experiences, major influences, and even passions and dreams. (A good book to look at these comprehensively, by the way, is Aubrey Malphurs's Maximizing Your Effectiveness: How to Discover and Develop Your Divine Design.)

Tags: theology, Faith & Life

As I said in my last post on this subject, I’ve started a study with some people in our congregation about our identity in Christ.

Read Part 1

Here is part two of the study; as you can see, we’re moving through Scripture in order; we will skip ahead after a while-- the study isn’t going to go chapter by chapter through the whole Bible! (Though that would be a good, and quite thorough, study.)

Genesis 2

Read Genesis chapter 2, then consider the following questions:

1. Verse 18 is the first time in creation when God says that something is NOT good. What is NOT good in this "pre-fallen" creation? What is God's solution to that which is NOT good? What does this verse tell us about our built-in needs for relationships?
2. Verses 19 and 20 describe Adam's search for a companion in creation. As wonderful as animals are, do you think that they can be adequate companions for people-- that they can offer "enough" companionship? Do you think that these verses support your thoughts on that? In light of these two verses (and what is to come next), do you think it is fair to say that there is nothing in all of creation, apart from God and other people, that can satisfy our built-in needs for relationships?
3. Verses 21-24 describe the creation of woman, who God created as the perfect companion to the man. With an understanding (from verses 18-20) that all of mankind-- even before sin and the fall-- had and have a built-in need for relationships, how do you think we should understand marriage in light of verses 21-24?
4. Verse 25 gives us a picture of the intimacy and vulnerable nature of this first marriage. In what ways is that kind of intimacy missing in the relationships that you have? How is it present in your marriage? How is it missing in your marriage?
5. Genesis 1 and 2 give us two key ideas about who we are: we bear the image of God, and we have a built-in need for relationships. Are these two related? Think about the way that we speak of God as "Trinity" and that there are three persons of that Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Does God exist in a sort of community? Do you think that our need for relationships-- especially a relationship with God-- is a part of the way that we bear God's image?

Tags: Bible, theology, Pastoral ministry, Personal Growth

Last week, I started a study with a couple I’ve been meeting with. Among other things, we are discussing our identity in Christ, and how that identity is our dignity and confidence, our assurance and esteem.

Lots of folks struggle with many different issues that, it seems to me, have their roots in a misunderstanding of this. So I’m starting this study of portions of Scripture with this couple-- and also posting the discussion questions here-- in order to address this great need. Here is part one.

Genesis 1

Read Genesis chapter 1, then consider the following questions:

1. How does God describe what He has made at the end of each day? How does He describe the whole creation at the end of chapter 1? What does this teach us about creation?
2. How was man made? What he made along with everything else, or separately? Is mankind just another part of creation, or are we distinct?
3. Verses 26 and 27 speak very specifically about mankind being created "in the image of God." (This is an idea that we will come back to frequently.) What do you think this says about the dignity that is given to mankind?
4. Verse 28 tells of God's command to man to be fruitful, to subdue the earth, and to rule over the creatures. Were these commands given to man because of his sin? (Remember, the "fall" of man doesn't happen until Genesis 3.) If not, what do you think this suggests about the nature of work, and whether work is valuable to God? Do you think this verse suggests that man was made to work, and that work is part of man's image-bearing?

Tags: Bible, theology, Pastoral ministry, Personal Growth

Almighty God, we pray for your blessing
on the church in this place.
Here may the faithful find salvation,
and the careless be awakened.
Here may the doubting find faith,
and the anxious be encouraged.
Here may the tempted find help,
and the sorrowful find comfort.
Here may the weary find rest,
and the strong be renewed.
Here may the aged find consolation
and the young be inspired;
through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

Tags: prayer, worship

August 2 Prayer series, part 1: Exodus 17:8-16 -- Learning Intercession from Moses
August 9 Prayer series, part 2: Psalm 51 -- Learning Confession from David
August 16 Prayer series, part 3: Colossians 1:3-14 -- Learning Petition from Paul
August 16 (evening) Obadiah 1-21 -- Pride
August 23 Prayer series, part 4: 1 Peter 1:3-9 -- Learning Praise from Peter
August 30 Luke 20:1-26 -- By Whose Authority?

Tags: preaching, Ordinary Days

I think weddings are awesome.

Having been married now for more than 11 years, I think marriage is one of the greatest things in life. I have low tolerance for those who belittle it, especially in the context of a wedding-- ball and chain jokes, her dragging him down the isle, etc. (Mostly, it’s men who do this-- women have a better appreciation for marriage.)

And weddings are worship. They are a time for the whole Body of Christ, not only for the couple getting married. That doesn’t mean that I think weddings must be solemn, somber occasions that are quiet, frowny, and dull-- on the contrary. Worship, and maybe especially at a wedding, should usually be joyful, celebratory, and even fun.

All corporate worship is an acknowledgement that we have been welcomed into the presence of our Lord and King by His grace-- this is something to be excited about, no? And the Bible clearly pictures marriage as a type of the church’s relationship to Christ-- even calling us His Bride-- and that weddings are, therefore, all prefiguring the coming “wedding supper of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:9). Indeed, they ought to be some of the most joyous and amazing times of celebration we experience.

Some weddings do this in very traditional ways. Strings play music so beautiful that you could weep, and horns announce the entrance of the bride in a way that has echoes of heaven. Everyone dresses up in their finest clothes-- many buying new and finer clothes than they already owned-- because this is the greatest party they will attend before Christ returns. The entrances of those who have a prominent role are big and bold, and everyone present gives their attention entirely to the moment.

Other weddings are less traditional, but still capture that spirit. Watch this video of a couple (and their wedding party) that totally embodied the joy, zeal, celebration-- and fun-- of the wedding event. I think this represents a sense of the magnificence of the moment better than anything I’ve seen in a while, and without knowing the couple or their hearts, I can’t help but think of the biblical intentions of weddings and what they represent and delight in this. As with most weddings, when the bride makes her entrance I tear up, just a little bit, in thinking both of my own wedding and the coming wedding of Christ to His church.

(HT: Blake)

Note/disclaimer: I’m not endorsing Chris Brown’s “Forever” as a worship song, nor do I think that it (or similar songs) are necessarily appropriate for all weddings. I will say that I don’t find the lyrics for the song (which is really just an extra-long Doublemint Gum commercial jingle-- seriously) offensive, and believe that when Brown says that it’s really a love song with a dance beat, he’s not trying to fool us. Further, I’ll say that, in some weddings, this song (or others like it) might actually be entirely appropriate, and I wouldn’t object.

Tags: worship, Fun

UPDATE: I changed the last week’s text, making it longer (including the next section).

July 5 Luke 18:35-42 -- What the blind man saw
July 12 Luke 19:1-10 -- A wee little faith
July 19 Luke 19:11-27 -- Faithful stewardship
July 19 (evening) Romans 8:31-39 -- Assurance
July 26 Luke 19:28-20:26 -- The King has come

Tags: preaching, Ordinary Days

...to John Calvin, who was born 500 years ago today!

There are TONS of blogs, websites, and other resources that are devoting huge amounts of attention to Calvin’s 500th birthday. There is even a celebration trip/tour going on right now in Geneva, where most of the Reformed preachers I’ve ever heard of are teaching, preaching, and reflecting on Calvin’s life, ministry, and contribution to theology.* I’m not going to try to pretend that I have anything to contribute to the mystique or biographical evaluation or anything else regarding John Calvin.

Instead, I want to offer three basic reflections about why I admire John Calvin and am thankful for him:

1. A lot of people think of Calvin primarily as a leader of the Protestant Reformation (which he was), a theologian (which he was), or a Bible scholar (which he also was). But thinking of Calvin only in one (or even all three) of these ways is an inappropriate limitation of who Calvin was. He was all of these, but they were actually the fruit of something more that he was: a Pastor.
2. Calvin the Pastor was a fairly amazing man. He preached frequently, at times almost daily, and sometimes multiple times a day, and regarded preaching as not merely the delivery of a message but a “pastoral event.” In addition, he also was active with pastoral visitation of his flock, devoting individual attention to their faith and sanctification. Beyond that, Calvin was a teacher, working with education at all levels (including the seminary level, where he taught John Knox, the founder of Scottish Presbyterianism-- thus our close roots with Calvin), and a social reformer, working to bring about civic and economic reform as the result of a theologically Reformed worldview. He wrote profusely, penning commentary on the entire Bible, works of catechetical instruction, much theology, and his most well-known work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion. All of this he accomplished while nurturing his marriage to his wife Idelette, and the children of her first marriage (she was a widow at 31 when he married her). Incidentally, both John and Idelette Calvin were frail in health, which presented a difficulty that he seldom allowed to interfere with his pastoral work. Calvin was the very model of a Reformed Pastor.
3. Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion is often looked on as a daunting and unapproachable work of theology. In many ways, it is-- with the translations of the final version (Calvin re-wrote it several times throughout his ministry, with the first edition being only 20% of the final version) hitting 1800 pages, it does not make for a short read; and as content goes, it is probably a notch or two higher than most Christians are accustomed to. However, Calvin’s goal was not to write a difficult seminary textbook; on the contrary, the goal for the Institutes was to offer the common Christian a guide to thinking and living according to their faith, and it is still quite useful for that purpose. (Let it be said that some of the difficulty in reading comes in the fact that there are no recent translations, and an up-to-date translation would inevitably result in a more approachable book.)

If you are interested in a good biography that will introduce you to all of the aspects of John Calvin’s life, you might try Robert Godfrey’s John Calvin: Pilgrim and Pastor.

Happy birthday, Pastor Calvin-- your ministry continues to bless Christ’s church today, and I join thousands-- if not millions-- of others in giving thanks and praise to God for your work. I look forward to our fellowship in the new Jerusalem together!

*Check out Reformation 21’s ongoing reports of the Calvin 500 conference/trip. Also, the guys at Reformation 21 have been “blogging” through Calvin’s Institutes all year, and it has made for interesting reading (no, I haven’t read the whole blog).

Tags: History, theology, Pastoral ministry, Systematic Theology

• Here’s good advice on improving your devotional life from a friend and fellow Covenant Presbytery Teaching Elder.
• Check out these photos that are real, but look like they are “Photoshopped”.
• A good article on the current state of marriage in the U.S.
• In related news, don’t miss this one on “The Scandal of the Public Evangelical.”
• Very clever-- 15 odd (but useful) inventions.
• This is a good interview with Ken Myers, a guy I’ve admired for years.
• A good idea-- but I wonder if the effect would be a bit less than intended...
• I really like this piece on choosing a church.

Tags: Links

Here’s a great and amazing video. It offers a redemptive view of a tragic circumstance.

What I love about this short account is that these believers aren’t pie-in-the-sky about their faith or passé about their situation. They are simply grateful for what God has given them, and for the hope that He has redeemed, is redeeming, and will redeem this broken world.

I’m undone.

(HT: Glen)

Tags: Faith & Life, family life

• Probably the best take I’ve seen on Gov. Mark Sanford’s “thing.”
• Too funny-- Duncanesses in the PCA...
• The end of a photography era.
• A great take on the Oprah phenomenon.
• Here’s a good piece from Ed Stetzer on small churches (good comments, too).
• Unsurprisingly, the NY Times has done a great job of covering Michael Jackson’s death (and Farrah’s and Ed’s, too)

Tags: Links

I was challenged in college, and again in seminary (sometimes I’m hard-headed) to learn to pray the Scriptures. I’ve since found this a valuable and rich way to pray.

When we pray the Scriptures, we know that God approves of our prayers-- after all, we are praying His words back to Him! It can take some getting used to, however, to learn to do this. Also, we actually have to KNOW the Scriptures fairly well in order to be able to pray them!

I recommend the following as great places to start in learning to pray the Scriptures:

• Face to Face, volumes 1 and 2, by Kenneth Boa-- these two volumes (subtitled “praying the Scriptures for intimate worship” and “praying the Scriptures for spiritual growth”) are set up in a daily devotional style, with each day (three months’ worth) including a prayer of adoration, confession, renewal, petition, intercession, affirmation, thanksgiving, and a closing prayer. (All Scripture passages are printed out, so it’s a great way to get acquainted with more Scripture, as well.)
• Praying the Scriptures by Evan B. Howard-- while Boa’s books are designed to thrust you directly into praying the Scriptures, Howard gives a greater introduction to different types of biblical text, as well as different types of prayers, and how we find the two converging. This is much more of a “how-to” book, and gives a lot of insight into approach and method.
• Answering God: The Psalms as Tools for Prayer by Eugene Peterson-- much more like Howard’s book than any of the others, Peterson walks us through different facets of the Psalms and discusses how these become prayerful tools. He focuses on things like language, story, rhythm, and liturgy (to name a few) and unpacks what they bring to our prayer life. Peterson has such a pastoral style that this book is an easy read; he has such rich insight that it will change how you read (and pray) the psalms.
• Praying the Psalms: A Commentary by Stanley L. Jaki-- this book is just what the title suggests: one by one, Jaki works through the Psalms and draws out themes of prayer that are found within them. While there is some take-away in terms of how a psalm might be our prayer, Jaki focuses more on how any given psalm was the prayer of the one who wrote it. This is valuable insight, and protects us from taking a psalm out of its scriptural context and making it into something else.

Tags: prayer, Bible

John Piper wrote a piece way back in ’95 that covers this question by looking at what the early church prayed for. Piper identified 35 different topics, which included:

• They called on God to exalt His name in the world.
• They called on God for boldness in proclamation
• They called on God for the healing of unbelievers
• They called on God for unity and harmony in the ranks
• They called on God for forgiveness for their sins

Read the whole article here.

Tags: prayer

I’ve noticed, actually for several years now, that many believers have eschewed the label “Christian” in favor of “Christ-Follower”.

Now, there are some valid reasons for wanting to distance oneself from a label that has taken on too much baggage. In the earlier half of the 20^th century, those who wished to define themselves as faithful to Scripture as the inerrant, inspired Word of God called themselves “fundamentalists”; yet today that term is used almost as a slander, even by Christians. The term “evangelical” seems to be moving in a similar direction: it has become so broad as to mean very little, and now you have churches whose name (or even whose denominational name) includes the word “evangelical” who are actually the very antithesis of what the word was/is supposed to mean, and some folks talking about being “post-evangelical”.

But this new shift-- from “Christian” to “Christ-follower”-- is different. And maybe even a bit dangerous.

On the one hand, there are many in the Gospels who are called “followers of Christ” who, in fact, were not Christians; instead, they followed Jesus because they wanted to be a part of the masses who followed Him, or because they misunderstood His role as Messiah (and they wanted a military or political leader), or because they found the trappings of this world too great for them to take up their crosses as He called them to do. Jesus Himself seems, at times, to distinguish between being a “follower” and a “disciple” though this distinction is somewhat ambiguous.

And that’s a big part of the problem: when we simply talk about being a “follower” of Christ, where is the boundary drawn? Those who align themselves with His movement? Those who appreciate His philosophies and moral teachings? Or those who are regenerate, who have saving faith in Him because of the Holy Spirit? All three of these categories are, at different times in the Gospels, called “followers of Christ”.

On the other hand, when we decide that the term “Christian” is something to abandon, we must realize that we have abandoned a Bible word, not just a convenient label. Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16 all employ the word “Christian” to describe those who, in faith, are saved by grace through Christ alone. This suggests to me that God, through the inspiration of His Word, intends His people to be known as Christians (among other labels that He Himself gives, like believers, the Body, etc.)

What does it suggest when we decide that a Bible word no longer “works”? Should we do the same for sin-- why not just talk about “mistakes”? How about salvation-- should we call it “life-change”? Both of these have the same net effect as the rejection of “Christian” for “Christ-Follower”-- positively, they replace a term with a lot of history (and therefore a lot of baggage) with a more contemporary, less heavy-laden term; but negatively, they introduce ambiguity where the Bible word is clear.

Now, those who promote the “Christ-Follower” monicker will say that Jesus Himself appealed to the 12 Disciples with the call, “follow me”-- and that there is therefore good precedent for using that label. And that is true-- but Christ also called others with the same words, who did not answer the call. And I’m not one of those 12, and neither are you, and those guys fulfilled a very special and particular role in the early church, so we have to be careful of how much we extract from their experiences as normative for us today.

Besides, I’m not saying we shouldn’t consider ourselves followers of Christ-- not at all! My point is this: we aren’t merely “followers” in a sense that Christ is our great leader, and He will take us down the path we should go. If we have saving faith in Him, then our identity is much more than that-- we aren’t just followers of Christ, but are His adopted brothers, co-heirs, and are being re-made into His image. That’s why the label “Christian”-- which some have suggested literally translates as “little Christs”-- is fitting.

Tags: Faith & Life, Discipleship

The murder of Dr. George Tiller over the weekend was an act of sin and a tragedy. Regardless of Dr. Tiller’s choices and actions-- regardless of his sins-- a single individual taking his life was the laying of claim to something that individual had no right to claim. In that lone act, the murderer completely undermined the very cause he is believed to have acted on behalf of (or at least attempted to): the Pro-Life Movement.

According to the Washington Post, the suspect, Scott Roeder, had alleged ties to the violent group Operation Rescue, admired the Army of God’s “Defensive Action Statement” and was, by all appearances, a ticking time-bomb for something like this to happen:

Fellow abortion opponents described Roeder as a foot soldier convinced that killing an abortion doctor is not a crime because it saves the lives of unborn children. In a 2007 Internet posting, a person identifying himself as "Scott Roeder" said Tiller is "the concentration camp 'Mengele' of our day and needs to be stopped."

If this sort of language doesn’t frighten you, I’m not sure what would. And if Dr. Tiller’s murder doesn’t appall you, then I would challenge you: is your “Pro-Life” position a matter of conviction, or one of convenience?

Christians have no grounds for taking such action; quite the contrary. Albert Mohler stated it clearly and well:

In the case of Dr. George Tiller, the governing authorities failed again and again to fulfill their responsibility to protect all citizens, including those yet unborn. The law is dishonoring to God in its disrespect for human life. The law failed to bring George Tiller to account for what should have been seen as crimes against humanity. But this failure does not authorize others to act in the place of the government, much less in the place of God. The government must now act to prosecute and punish the murderer of Dr. George Tiller.

Misunderstanding what it really means to be “Pro-Life” leads us here, to this place, where those who claim to be acting on behalf of God and who coldly and confidently take the lives of others are regarded as the consistent ones.

Mr. Roeder claims to be acting on his Pro-Life convictions in murdering Dr. Tiller; yet, the leading Pro-Life organizations uniformly have denounced Mr. Roeder’s actions (ref: American Life League, National Right to Life, Americans United for Life). Indeed, so are major leaders in the church, like Dr. Mohler.

And yet, the mainstream media concludes that this is damning evidence of our inconsistency:

[These denunciations] don't square with what these organizations purport to espouse: a strict moral equation between the unborn and the born. If a doctor in Kansas were butchering hundreds of old or disabled people, and legal authorities failed to intervene, I doubt most members of the National Right to Life Committee would stand by waiting for "educational and legislative activities" to stop him. Somebody would use force.The reason these pro-life groups have held their fire, both rhetorically and literally, is that they don't really equate fetuses with old or disabled people. They oppose abortion, as most of us do. But they don't treat abortionists the way they'd treat mass murderers of the old or disabled. And this self-restraint can't simply be chalked up to nonviolence or respect for the law. Look up the bills these organizations have written, pushed, or passed to restrict abortions. I challenge you to find a single bill that treats a woman who procures an abortion as a murderer. They don't even propose that she go to jail. [Slate magazine: http://www.slate.com/id/2219537/?from=rss]

The problem is that 99% of what comes out of the church as “Pro-Life” statements is really simply “Anti-Abortion” noise. Most Christians don’t really know what it means to be Pro-Life in a consistent, worldview-driven way.

This is why church-goers are more supportive of torture than non-church-goers.

This is why so many Christians who heard about Dr. Tiller’s murder released a sigh of relief instead of a groan of grief.

Beloved, we MUST take up the reconsideration of what the idea of “LIFE” in our alleged “Pro-Life” position means. Ask yourself if being “Pro-Life” has anything to do with your views on any of the following topics:

• Welfare
• Government-supported healthcare for the poor
• Infertility treatments
• The death penalty
• Care for unwed/teenage mothers
• Domestic violence
• War and peace
• Care for the elderly
• Use of contraception
• Treatment of prisoners (domestic and foreign)
• Pre-marital sex
• Love and dignity for neighbor
• Criminal justice

Like it or not, these are all of a piece-- your position on life, and not just the life of the unborn, is what dictates how you fall out on all of these. If you don’t know how your personal convictions about being Pro-Life speak to all of these, then you’re not being consistent.

Don’t feel too bad; very few Christians in our culture have even begun to think about this, let alone come to any conclusions. But when the conclusions come, it almost always looks like something completely different from the actions taken by Scott Roeder. But think about what it would look like if much-- or even most-- of the church learned this sort of consistency? It would transform our culture.

Otherwise, we’re stuck with what we have today. And that’s a sad state of affairs.

More on Tiller, Roeder, and this issue:

• From Ignatius Press: Suspect arrested in Tiller slaying
• From Robert P. George: Gravely Wicked
• From the Center for Lutheran Theology and Public Life: Killing the Killer Was a Blow to Pro-Lifers
• From James Grant: Vengeance Is Not in Our Hands
• From William Saletan, The NY Times: This Is the Way the Culture Wars End

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Ethics, Health, Sin & Repentance, Grief

June 7 Luke 17:1-19 -- Standing firm in the faith
June 14 Luke 17:20-37 -- Your Kingdom come...
June 21 Luke 18:1-17 -- Prayerful faith, faithful prayers (Guest Preacher: Doug Barcroft)
June 28 Luke 18:18-34 -- Learning to Repent

Tags: preaching, Ordinary Days

We’ve just started actively promoting our Spiritual LIfe Conference for 2009. The dates will be October 23-25, and the topic is Prayer. Our speaker will be Jerram Barrs, professor of Covenant Seminary and Scholar in residence of the Francis A. Schaeffer Institute.

The conference will include several lectures from Jerram, a Question & Answer Luncheon with him on Saturday, and he will preach during morning worship on Sunday. There will also be a prayer service Saturday morning, and the sanctuary will be open for prayer all afternoon on Saturday.

One thing that our brochure DOESN’T say is that there will be a Pastors’ Luncheon on Friday, in addition to all of the other activities.

To learn more and to register, visit the website: slc.hickorywithepc.org. And keep an eye on it, because there may be some additions yet to come in the plans and offerings.

Tags: prayer, Faith & Life

Here’s a good piece from Ligon Duncan, a PCA pastor in Jackson, MS, on how to pray for your pastor. Duncan has put together a list of 17 specific ways you can pray for your pastor.

And here’s another good one, this time from Thom Rainer (an author and church leader) on the same. Rainer doesn’t offer a list, but instead a testimony of how vital to ministry is a member (and a congregation) that prays for their pastor.

Tags: prayer, Faith & Life

One of my favorite clips from King of the Hill, which happens to be a show that I think offers some of the most poignant cultural critique today:

Courtesy of ChristianClips.com

Tags: Funny, Faith & Life

May 3 Luke 14:25-35 -- Discipleship re-defined
May 10 Luke 15 -- To seek and save that which was lost...
May 17 Luke 16:1-15 -- How much have you been entrusted with?
May 24 Luke 16:16-18 -- The difficulty of the law
May 31 Luke 16:19-31 -- We have enough!

Tags: preaching, Easter, Pentecost

These are such helpful quotes from David Gordon on the “Culture War”-- i.e., the attempt by Christians to get the world around them to conform to biblical principles:

The culture warrior refuses to acknowledge that true and significant cultural change can happen only when the individual members of the culture have forsaken their own self-centeredness, and have revolted against their revolt against God. Worse, the culture warrior assumes that coerced change in behavior is desirable-- that if we can pass a law that outlaws sin, this will somehow make people and culture better (when, in fact, we just become more devious and learn how to evade detection, adding deception to our other sins).

And...

Such a view is contrary to everything the Bible teaches that its prevalence must be account for as a kind of blindness that is due to misplaced patriotism... The particular blindness of the culture warrior is that he permits himself to think God is pleased by coerced behavior; by requiring people to say, “one nation, under God” even if they do not yet believe in God (which strikes me as an instance of taking the Lord’s name in vain). The culture warrior’s religion and his patriotism are in conflict. His Christianity teaches him that God is not pleased with mere external confession of insincere religious faith; but his patriotism just cannot accept the fact that his culture is moving in directions of which he disapproves. He desires to be proud of his nation; and he therefore concludes (wrongly, in my estimation) that it is better to have a public display of commitment to Christianity that is the result of coercion than to have a decline in the public display of commitment to Christianity.

And...

Haven’t we already had a historical experiment that is precisely what the culture warriors want? Wasn’t ancient Israel a nation whose constitution demanded obedience to the revealed laws of God, and didn’t its executive branch use coercion to attain such obedience? Did Israel not, effectively, have the Ten Commandments in its courthouse? Yet which prophet ever had anything good to say about the nation? ...If theocracy didn’t work in Israel, where God divinely instituted it, why do people insist on believing it will work in places where God manifestly has not instituted it?

[T David Gordon, Why Johnny Can’t Preach (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Books, 2009), pp. 86-88.]

These are so good, and hit precisely at the root of the problem of the culture war.

My only concern is this: at the end of the second quote block, Gordon asserts that the culture warrior’s Christianity teaches him not to believe that God is pleased with mere external display of religious faithfulness (absent any true inward faith). But I’m not sure that this is something we can uniformly rely upon in today’s church.

What do you think: can we rightly assume that every church, or even most churches, regularly and faithfully teach that outward religious living alone is not enough?

Tags: Cultural Discernment, preaching

Update: I accommodated my changes for the last two weeks.

April 5 Luke 23:34 -- Jesus prayed for our forgiveness (Palm Sunday)
April 12 Mark 15:34 -- Jesus suffered for our suffering (Easter-- sunrise service)
April 12 Luke 23:46 -- Jesus died our death to gain our resurrection (Easter-- 11am service)
April 19 Luke 13:17-35 -- Who will be in the Kingdom?
April 26 Luke 14:1-24 -- A banquet for the unlovable

Tags: preaching, Lent, Easter

There are lots of things I like about the PCA. Two things that have come to mind recently, both of which seem to be on the rise, and both of which make me quite content to minister in the PCA, are these. We could do a much better job at both, and there is plenty of room for growth. Still, I love these:

• Striving to be inclusive when we don’t have to be exclusive. There is a certain required exclusivity in the church, and the Gospel presents that clearly. I’m OK with that. And I certainly acknowledge that there is a very vocal minority in the PCA that would prefer that we be as exclusive as we can be. But it seems to me that the majority (and a growing majority, at that) strives for being inclusive when we do not have to be exclusive. This is an encouraging counterpoint to dangerous sectarianism, and makes the PCA a friendlier environment to minister (and, incidentally, a friendlier place to hear the Gospel and get converted!).
• Willingness to admit when we’re wrong. The Westminster Confession of Faith says plainly, “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both” (WCF 31.4). The more we remind ourselves of this, the better-- this sort of humility ought to ooze out of our meetings of Session, Presbytery, and General Assembly. I love the fact that this is a part of our confessional standards, and that I see more and more men in the PCA approaching their leadership with this spirit.

Tags: PCA, presbyterians

Not long ago, I was talking with an acquaintance about the liturgy at Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church. I specifically mentioned that we were beginning to make use of the liturgical calendar more intentionally. He wrinkled his nose, furrowed his brow, and replied, “I don’t know... that’s sort of like the Roman Catholic and orthodox churches.”

I said, “Sort of.”

He responded, “But aren’t you a Presbyterian church?”

Even though we talked about it for a few more minutes, I could tell the conversation was over at this point.

This fellow, and many like him, approach such matters from the same perspective: they are inherently suspicious of anyone-- or anything-- that is different from what they understand and practice. In this case, his experiences and personal practices had suggested to him that all Presbyterians had plain, unadorned, even stoic worship that varied not by season nor circumstance. Therefore, he concluded, any church that diverged from this path, even though they may be Presbyterian, was not practicing proper Presbyterian worship. They-- and in this case, we-- must be in error.

Why must this be the case? Is it so that the Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox are utterly wrong? Could it be possible that they might teach and/or practice some things with which we might disagree, but not all things? Couldn’t the same thing be true of other Christian traditions?

When faced with questions such as these, I’ve found that “Suspicion because of difference” will grant my premises. Yet, when it comes to actually practicing this, they have no interest, and in fact they are sometimes fearful.

This is natural, I think: we are all fearful of what we don’t know and understand. Most of us are insecure enough to interpret differences as a conscious and active condemnation of our point of view, rather than simply a thoughtful and purposeful acceptance of another point of view. And we are prideful enough to look on something that is different from what we do, think, or feel as wrong by default.

But we must be careful when our default position is to be suspicious of something simply because it is different. Look at it this way: most, if not all, of how you spend your time today, what you think about, and the beliefs that you hold, are inherently different from what you did, thought, or believed a decade or two ago. In many of us, the differences are drastic-- and we are grateful that they are! In fact, if someone cannot honestly say that this is at least somewhat true of them-- that they are a good bit different today than 10 years ago-- then they either aren’t being honest with themselves or they haven’t demonstrated any personal growth over that time.

If I, 10 years ago, had met the “me” from today, would I even recognize myself? Would I be suspicious of the differences I saw in this other person? If that is true of me-- and you-- then shouldn’t we give those who are different from us some benefit of the doubt?

What are we looking for when we demand conformity to our own images in this way? Are we simply looking for affirmation? Are we attending to some deep insecurities that cause us to second-guess ourselves, and therefore others as well?

Or are we asking for some shibboleth that Scripture itself doesn’t require? Tim Keller once said, “No matter where you are, there is someone to your right, as it were, who thinks you sold out the Gospel.” Is this what we’re getting at when we get so suspicious so quickly?

Two nights ago I had a conversation with someone who noted that, in visiting a different Presbyterian church, he had observed a surprising number of things that harkened back to Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic practices. He was surprised.

“Why?” I asked him. “I think John Calvin and Martin Luther would have wanted it that way.”

“Do you really think so?” He asked.

“Yes-- after all, Luther and Calvin didn’t want to not be Roman Catholic-- they simply wanted the Roman Catholic church to be biblically faithful.”

But we forget that. And we forget that our differences-- whether they be about worship practices, liturgical calendars, theologies of baptism, or how actively we must pursue a certain social agenda-- ought not be something that we are inherently suspicious of.

One of my favorite TV shows was (and is!) The West Wing. In one episode, a group of Chinese refugees were trying to flee religious persecution in their homeland, and President Bartlett (played by Martin Sheen) was seeking affirmation that they were legitimately Christians and not just being coached. Meanwhile, China is demanding that the refugees be returned.

Instructive. After all, this is the sum of it, and any further shibboleth that I construct is wrong. Let’s be a bit less suspicious.^*


*Don’t get me wrong here: I’m not suggesting that it is wrong to have theological standards for, say, ordination-- but simply that when I don’t “get” the way another Christian practices their faith, I must be careful not to assume that their faith therefore isn’t real.

Tags: Faith & Life, love, Liturgy, community, Church Universal

HT: James

Tags: Media, Sin & Repentance, Faith & Life

One thing that we in the PCA-- and in the broader church-- must be careful of is the difficulty of sectarianism. Frankly, it is something that we have been far too careless about, and that must change for the church to move forward in this century in the United States.

When I say sectarianism, this is what I mean: when we are quick to dismiss, divide from, or decry because of a disagreement over ANY issue, large or small, we might be sectarians. When our nuances are different from someone else’s, so we determine that they are wrong by default, we are being sectarian. When we decide that we understand what someone else believes better than they do, and we castigate them for those beliefs, we are acting in sectarian ways.

Let me illustrate: the position of the Westminster Confession of Faith-- our denominational confession-- on the observance of the Sabbath, is fairly straightforward. Essentially, the Sabbath day must be preserved from ALL activities apart from worship and passive rest (the one accepted exception to this being “deeds of mercy”). Basically, a Christian ought to return home from corporate morning worship and retire to his prayer closet until rejoining the congregation for evening worship, according to the WCF.

This raises a lot of questions, like what should a Christian do about meals? Must they be simple and plain, requiring the sparsest of work? Is a parent who attends to the needs of an infant child sinning because of the work involved (or is this a deed of mercy)? How does this apparently strict observance of the Sabbath square up to the New Testament portrayal of the Lord’s Day as a time of celebration, feasting, and delight?

Consequently, I don’t know ANYONE who is ordained who doesn’t take some exception to the WCF’s position on the Sabbath; the classic exception is phrased something like, “I think it’s okay to throw the baseball with my kid in the backyard.” In some (many?) presbyteries, this is not even considered an exception of any substance; in ours, for example, this is normally judged as an exception of primarily semantic nature (although I’m personally confident that the Westminster Divines-- the guys who wrote the WCF-- would not agree).

In other words, we have nuances to our theological convictions. Here’s where sectarianism comes in: when my nuances are different from your nuances, I am acting in a sectarian manner if I say that your nuances are wrong by default, simply because they aren’t just like mine. I am sinning when I do this, in several ways: I am exhibiting pride in my nuances, rather than a humility that acknowledges that I could be wrong; I am failing to exercise biblical discernment in considering the position of the other; I am dividing from my brother over what is (often) an issue that should not break fellowship, rather than preserving the unity the Christ Himself emphasized ought to define us.

Yet, sadly, this happens all the time in the PCA. In fact, it happens all the time in much of the church. It has defined the manner in which several denominational debates have played out over the past decade or so. It has caused harm to the reputation of the church both within and outside of her walls.

Another illustration: a friend of mine was one of the speakers for the Conversation on Denominational Renewal a little more than a year ago. (Actually, a few of those guys are friends, and I won’t say which one I speak of now.) This same friend had presented the same ideas that he offered at the Conversation at another meeting, where 50 or 60 key leaders in the PCA were gathered. Afterwards, my friend was talking privately with one of the bigger names in the PCA-- known inside our denomination and outside of it as a man of some stature, whose name you would probably know if I offered it (but I won’t).

My friend said to this man, “Whether you aim to or not, you are one of the few people in a position to shape the future of the PCA. Here’s what I want to know: is there room in your PCA for a guy like me?”

After a moment’s pause, this leader responded, “I don’t know.”

This is sectarianism at its fullest. My friend is openly and publicly inviting others to consider with him how the PCA could be better: more biblical, more united, more loving in our presentation of truth, more faithfully living out our theology. Yet for this leader, there might not be room for such a guy-- because my friend doesn’t “look” exactly like him.

This is what causes denominations to splinter over reasons that make no sense a hundred years later. This is why there are more than 44 Reformed denominations in the United States alone. This is what keeps us from having a vital ministry of evangelizing the lost: because we’re too busy killing and eating our own people, and others look on that and wonder why they would ever want to be a part of it.

It’s not unique to the PCA, either. Mark Dever’s recent rant about things he cannot live with, including Universalism, Racism, and Infant Baptism (which he further qualified by describing what a sinful practice infant baptism is) is another example of rampant sectarianism (not to mention irony).

Sectarianism is the real sin here-- and I believe it is a sin that we ought to exercise church discipline for.

Tags: PCA, Church Universal, theology, General Assembly, presbyterians, community, love, PCA Polity

Our Session has determined that we will have a congregational day of fasting for all who feel led to participate, on March 28^th. I wanted to take an opportunity to answer some questions and offer some guidance about this.

Why do we fast? This basic question occurs to all of us at some point. A writer named Scot McKnight defines fasting as, “a whole-body response to a grievous sacred moment.” This definition helps us understand why we fast: we are responding to something that is spiritual enough, and grievous enough, to merit such a response. We are spiritual beings, and often respond to grievous occasions in a spiritual way (prayer, for example); but we are also physical, body-dwelling creatures, and we can and should respond with our bodies as well.

On this occasion, the Session has recognized that there have been many “grievous sacred moments” over the past several years, some of which still linger in the hearts and minds of our members. We want to respond appropriately, with fasting and prayers for repentance (both personal repentance and congregation-wide repentance) and forgiveness.

Some may ask, “Should I participate?” The answer is, yes— if you believe that you should. Fasting is something that some people incorporate into their spiritual lives on a regular basis— even weekly for some. Others seldom, if ever, fast. If you have never fasted— or if it has been a long time since you did so— you might try it, keeping an open mind. You may find that it is a practice you would like to continue.

There are some people who should NOT fast because of health or medical reasons; if you aren’t sure about this, it might be worthwhile to call your doctor before you decide to fast. Some will find that fasting can become something they approach in a legalistic way, and these people should be careful about whether they should fast, and what their motives are for fasting. No one should feel compelled to fast if they don’t feel led to, nor should they feel judged by others if they choose not to fast.

What is involved in a fast? Strictly speaking, a fast is giving up all food for a period of time. Some people do what is called a “liquid fast” which means that they do not eat solid foods, but they still allow themselves liquids such as juices and other drinks. Another type of fast is called an “absolute fast” which is when the one fasting gives up all food and drink for the duration of the fast. In most cases, a fast involves no solid foods and no drinks but water.

Sometimes people will speak of giving up certain foods for a time— during Lent, for example. This is not technically a fast, but an “abstention,” as they are simply abstaining from certain foods. This can be a good exercise, too, in a similar way to fasting. Some who are not able to fast due to medical need might find that they can participate in a group or congregational fast by abstention.

A natural question is, “How long will we fast?” In this case, the Session has called for a “half-day” fast to start on the 28^th. What that means is that we ask those who participate to fast from after lunchtime on Saturday until a congregation-wide breakfast on Sunday. We aren’t asking you to give up ALL meals on Saturday! Eat breakfast and lunch, then eat nothing more until breakfast the next morning, at the church, at 10:00am (instead of Sunday School).

Someone asked me, “What do I do during the fast?” This, like fasting itself, is largely up to your conscience. However, I am glad to offer some suggestions. You might spend the time you would normally take for meals in prayer, reading the Bible, or singing hymns. You may decide to calculate what you would normally spend on those meals and snacks and give that amount of money to the Deacons’ Fund at HWPC, or to a charitable cause.

In this case, because the Session has called for both fasting AND prayer about a specific topic— repentance for our personal and corporate sins— you should spend some extra time in prayer. One “cue” that I have used in the past is that, whenever my stomach growls or I feel a hunger pang, I take that as a prompting to pray. You should pray in your own way, and as you feel led to do so.

Jesus tells of how we should NOT spend our times of fasting: flaunting it before the world. When we fast, he says, we should not do it like the hypocrites, making a big deal about it and drawing attention to ourselves (Matt. 6). Thus, if you choose to participate in this fast (and/or to fast at other times), you should be cautious that you don’t do so hypocritically or in a manner that draws attention to your fasting.

Finally, we understandably ask, “What does fasting DO?” Sometimes we feel we must “get something out of” an exercise like fasting. And truthfully, God does, at times, bless our fasting with a response of granting us something— He will answer our prayers in the manner that we asked for, or will begin (or continue) a work in our midst that represents a blessing. But (like prayer and so many other spiritual activities) we must be careful not to approach fasting with wrong motives, or to view it as some sort of special tool that will help us to get our way with God. Fasting is not a spiritual crow-bar for leveraging our desires into the will of God.

Going back to McKnight’s definition of fasting: what fasting does is to serve as an appropriate response. We don’t fast to get something; we fast to be something— or someone: specifically, a child of God. When we are grieved by our sin, by the lack of repentance in our hearts, by our neglect of the poor, by a tragedy or loss, or by any of a number of other reasons why we might be grieved, fasting is a natural and proper response for the children of God. If we get anything from it— if fasting DOES anything in these moments— then the most important thing it does is to help us to draw closer to the God who we call Father.

I hope you will search your hearts and pray about whether you would participate in the day of fasting that we have scheduled. May the Lord be with you as you do.

Tags: prayer, Faith & Life, Grief

If a boy asks his father for several things, all within the father’s power to give, the father may give him one of them right away, delay giving him another, decline to give him a third, set up a condition for a fourth. The child is not assured of receiving something because he has used the right incantation: that would be magic. The father may decline to give something because he knows it is not in the child’s best interests. He may delay giving something else because he know that so many requests from his young son are temporary and whimsical. He may also withhold something that he knows the child needs until the child asks for it in an appropriate way. But above all, the wise father is more interested in a relationship with his son than in merely giving him things. Giving him things constitutes part of that relationship but certainly not all of it. The father and son may enjoy simply going out for walks together. Often the son will talk with his father not to obtain something, or even to find out something, but simply because he likes to be with him.None of these analogies is perfect, of course. But it is exceedingly important to remember that prayer is not magic and that God is personal as well as sovereign. There is more to praying than asking, but any sustained prayer to the God of the Bible will certainly include asking. And because we slide so easily into sinful self-centeredness, we must approach this holy God with contrition and confession of our sins. On other occasions we will focus on his love and forbearance, on the sheer splendor of his being and approach him with joy and exuberant praise. The rich mixture of approaches to God mirrored in Scripture must be taken over into our lives. This rich mixture is, finally, nothing more than a reflection of the many different components of the kind of relationship we ought to have with the God of the Bible.

[D.A. Carson, A Call to Spiritual Reformation: Priorities from Paul and his Prayers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1993), pp. 31-32.]

Tags: prayer

An acquaintance recently pointed out that she has noticed the tendency for the news anchors to refer to our President as “President Obama.” This wouldn’t be that peculiar, except, as she noted, they preferred to call President Bush simply, “Mr. Bush”-- though they were thick with “President Clinton” before then. She noted this as possible evidence of media bias, but asks, is she being paranoid?

She isn’t paranoid; neither is this phenomenon something unique to the media, nor to "liberals" in general. What she has noticed is simply the fruit of the degrading of the concept of "office" in American culture: we (the people of the United States, not necessarily “we” as individuals-- though it certainly can and does include some of us as individuals) no longer have respect for the Office of the Presidency; now we only regard the man who occupies that office.

This is a problem that, i believe, can be traced back to two primary (and probably surprising to many) sources: Charles Finney (and the Second Great Awakening), and Rush Limbaugh (and like-minded talk show hosts).

Finney's teaching on the church-- and particularly the pastor-- led to a predominant mindset in Christianity that the pastor is no one special, that he is no different from anyone else, and that he isn't due any particular regard or respect simply because of his role as pastor. This is only a small fraction of the problems that Finney introduced into the evangelical church, but it is a substantial one.

In the 80s and 90s, a number of Finney-esque pastors (self-appointed, often with no theological education or training, following Finny's very teaching about what a pastor is and should be) rose to prominence nationally, largely leading revival-style meetings that were much in the way of charismatic/pentecostal churches (though they are in no way a fair representation of charismatic/pentecostal faith and practice, any more than they are representative of pastors in general). The multitude of scandals involving these men led to the broad-spread acceptance of Finney's view of the pastorate. No longer could we trust someone implicitly, because of the office they held; not even pastors were properly due a certain amount of trust or respect.

Limbaugh, and others like him, indirectly took this concept to ALL offices in the 90s. To hear Rush Limbaugh speak of President Clinton was to hear contempt. Period. There was no restraint in his discussion of the man or his politics, simply because of the fact that he held the office of President of the United States of America. I remember Limbaugh railing against President Clinton after the truth of the Lewinsky stuff came out, saying that the media ought to always refer to him thenceforth as, “known liar Bill Clinton.” Whatever you believe about the man Bill Clinton, surely the fact that he then occupied the office of the President should have reigned in the vitriolic language from Rush. I quit listening to him with any regularity back then, but from all I know and have heard, he is still a source for the same sort of contempt.

Now, we are reaping what we have sown. Ironically, so much of this originated under banners that are historically conservative-- but it comes back around to bite us in the end. Almost no one values offices any longer-- even within the church, and even though the concept of “office” is literally ALL OVER Scripture. While there are still latent acknowledgements of it-- for example, my recent reference to how frequently people recognize my clerical collar as an indication that I am someone they can turn to for spiritual counsel-- the active, intentional, and thoughtful acknowledgement of an office is diminishing.

This is a shame, at very least because it means that a new pastor has to work from scratch to begin his ministry to his flock. More than that, however: if and when it truly diminishes completely, many of our social structures that we now take for granted (such as our system of elections in a democratic republic, order within our churches, even basic leadership among groups like civic service groups) will begin to fall apart due to implicit lack of trust.

But worst of all: our understanding of the gospel itself will be threatened. How can we grasp what Christ did for us as Prophet, Priest, and King, if we do not understand the very concept of office itself?

Tags: Pastoral ministry, Politics

March 1 No services due to snow
March 8 Guest preacher Doug Barcroft -- Prayers of lament
March 15 Luke 12:13-34 -- What do you treasure?
March 22 Luke 12:35-53 -- Ready to finish...
March 29 Luke 12:54-13:17-- Being set free

Tags: preaching, Lent

A friend and I began something of a debate (via e-mail) over the weekend about Lent. He wondered, where do you find Lent in the Bible? Here are my thoughts on this important question.

There is no doubt in my mind that Christ observed the feast days of the Old Testament (Mark 14:12; Luke 2:42; 22:1; John 2:23; 7:8, 14), and that he expected His disciples to do so, too (John 7:8). And, of course, the feast days of the OT had corresponding days of fasting (Lev. 23:28-32). Certainly, no one can dispute the presence of sacrifice-- personal and corporate-- in the OT, and while Christ is the fulfillment of the ceremonial law, we nevertheless glean a good bit of our worship practices from these portions (such as fellowship offerings, thank offerings, etc.). Christ commanded this, too: just as the Israelites were commanded to deny themselves (Lev. 23:32), so too Christ demanded a spirit of sacrifice from His disciples (Matt. 16:23; cf. Mark 8:34; Muke 9:23).

There is also the model of Christ Himself fasting for 40 days (Luke 4:1-13); why did He fast? To prepare for His public ministry, in which He would bring "the good news of the kingdom of God" (Luke 4:43). This was unique because it was Christ, but it wasn't original: Moses, also, fasted for 40 days (Ex. 34:28) for what? In preparation for the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments-- if you will, the good news of the kingdom of God. The pattern of a time period of "40" is imposed upon Israel in their desert wandering, as well; to what end? To prepare them for entrance into Canaan-- in other words, for preparation for the fulfillment of covenantal promise of good news of the kingdom of God.

Scheduled/patterned days and times of fasting were never rejected by Jesus; rather, when He taught about the patterned fasting of twice a week by the Pharisees (Matt. 6:16-18), He was pointing out their hypocrisy as the problem, not their patterned fasting. He assertion, "when you fast..." (Matt. 6:16, 17), implies that He expected them to continue in a patterned fasting. If you want to argue that He opposed regular fasting in this way, you also set the stage for His opposition to giving to the poor (Matt. 6:2) and prayer (Matt. 6:5)! In fact, in His only other teaching on fasting, Jesus stated outright that, after He had ascended, we (his disciples) WOULD fast until His return (Mark 2:18-22).

It is clear that, by the time of the Didache [which is the collected teachings of the Apostles], the expected routine fasting was a normal practice of Christians, refraining from the hypocritical patterns of the Pharisees. Didache 8:1 says, "But do not let your fasts coincide with those of the hypocrites. They fast on Monday and Thursday, so you must fast on Wednesday and Friday." And this sort of patterned, scheduled fasting continued well into the Reformation and beyond-- with only our more modern era rejecting regular fasting as a way of Christian experience, probably because we are much more gnostic than we dare to admit.

Furthermore, the earliest Christians (that we have any records of, apart from Scripture) apparently observed Lent because they believed that the apostles themselves had commanded it. It is mentioned in The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (similar to the Didache) Book V, section III-- “On Feast Days and Fast Days”:

Brethren, observe the festival days; and first of all the birthday which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month; after which let the Epiphany be to you the most honoured, in which the Lord made to you a display of His own Godhead, and let it take place on the sixth of the tenth month; after which the fast of Lent is to be observed by you as containing a memorial of our Lord’s mode of life and legislation. But let this solemnity be observed before the fast of the passover, beginning from the second day of the week, and ending at the day of the preparation. After which solemnities, breaking off your fast, begin the holy week of the passover, fasting in the same all of you with fear and trembling, praying in them for those that are about to perish.

Did the New Testament church observe Lent as we see it today? No, because they were essentially continuing to follow the calendar of the Jewish tradition. Neither did they observe Christmas, Easter, or any other of our calendar observances as we have them today. Did you remark anything about it being Christmas on December 25 at your church? Will there be mention of Easter on April 12? My guess is, of course! If not, then I would suggest that, at least in MOST churches (that don't follow a liturgical calendar), they still have a calendrical pattern; it just happens to be dictated by Hallmark instead of church history!

Tags: Lent, Bible

Today is Ash Wednesday, which is the first day of the liturgical season called Lent.

If you have friends who are Roman Catholics, they will likely attend a Mass today and have ashes smeared onto their foreheads in the shape of a cross. This is done as a reminder of death and mortality-- ashes to ashes, dust to dust, as we say at funerals. When people leave the Mass and walk around in public with ashen crosses upon them, they are reminders that we are all, apart from Christ, literally walking dead people.

(Incidentally, these ashes traditionally come from burnt palm fronds from last year’s Palm Sunday.)

Today is a good day to fast (if you haven’t already eaten breakfast!), in response to, and in penitence for, the sin that brought death and fallenness into the world, which you share in the culpability for. Even if you simply miss a single meal, I’d recommend it.

I blogged about Lent a bit last year, and it’s worth a re-consideration. I’ll probably have a bit more to say about it later in the season. Meanwhile, have a good Ash Wednesday, everyone.

Tags: worship, Faith & Life, Liturgical Seasons, Lent

The Japanese, famous for their inscrutability, have two words that hint at the divided self. There is the tatemae (pronounced tah-teh-mah-eh), the part of myself I let people see on the outside, and the hon ne (pronounced hon[g] neh) what takes place on the inside where no one can see. Perhaps we need three words: one for the image of ourselves that we project to colleagues at work, clerks at the supermarket, and other casual acquaintances; one for the more vulnerable parts we make visible to select family members and best friends; and a third for the secret places we never make known. That third place is what God invites us to lay open in prayer. Prayer makes room for the unspeakable, those secret compartments of shame and regret that we seal away from the outside world. In vain I sometimes build barriers to keep God out, stubbornly disregarding the fact that God looks on the heart, penetrating beyond the tatemae and hon ne to where no person can see. As God informed the prophet Samuel, "The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." In truth, what I think and feel as I pray, rather than the words I speak, may be the real prayer, for God "hears" that too. My every thought occurs in God's presence. (Psalm 139:4, 7-8: "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord... Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.") And as I learn to give voice to those secrets, mysteriously the power they hold over me melts away.

Philip Yancey, Prayer: Does It Make Any Difference? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), p. 41

Tags: prayer

(HT: Matt)

Tags: Evangelism

Rachel Gardner is a literary agent whose blog I read regularly. This morning, she posted about an e-mail she recently received, where someone who had come across her blog asked why she self-identified as a “Christian” on her blog about being a literary agent. She responded, but also invited others to comment. I’d like to offer my thoughts here.

The question-- and the answer(s)-- are a symptom of a problem that the Kingdom of God has had for some time now: is it good and right to have a “Christian” writer, musician, literary agent, artist, etc.? Why not simply have a literary agent? A musician? An artist?

Over the last several hundred years, a cultural shift took place that cemented our current environment with the above problem as a definitive element. Christians, perhaps offended at the moral/ethical degradation of society as reflected in such cultural artifacts as music, literature, art, and so on, slowly concluded that the best solution would be to offer a niche in each of these arenas that was intentionally and overtly “Christian” in its content. Thus, the industries of Christian sub-culture were born, and now we have Christian publishing houses, Christian music labels, Christian television networks, Christian movie studios...

[An aside: what is ironic is that, in the last several decades, most of these companies have been purchased by larger companies that are not distinctively identified with a particular faith or religious group, but are-- shhh-- “secular” companies! Oh no!]

Now, everyone who has ever set out to defend this sub-culture to me has appealed to one of several angles:

• It offers a good opportunity for evangelism of the lost
• It provides a “healthy” alternative to secular media for Christians
• It fulfills biblical concepts of work, creativity, etc.

I would put it to you, however, that, if it does any of those, it does not necessarily do them well. Rather, it may be the case that this sub-culture often does NONE of those things!

Let me offer an example: when I was in college, a good friend of mine had come to faith recently enough that her tastes in music were still largely untouched by her perceptions of how to practice her faith. I recall overhearing a conversation that she had with an older student who, at the time, worked for a Christian bookstore. He was counseling her about what music to listen to, and encouraged her to “try this band, they sound like X, and this band sounds like Y...”

At one point I asked her: why don’t you keep listening to the bands you like? She said, “listening to them makes me angry.” So I suggested, could it be the form of their music-- the sound, style, pace, etc.-- that affects her mood, at least as much as the content (lyrics)? She confessed that she didn’t actually pay that much attention to the lyrics. Why, then, would she want to find a “Christian” version of the same anger?

The problem with my friend wasn’t that she was seeking change to better live out her faith. It was that the change she was seeking wasn’t enough. She was interested in keeping just enough of the “old self” (Eph. 4:22-24) to be comfortable, but just enough of the “new self” to make appearances. She wanted change, but not too much change.

Is this sort of music a tool for evangelism? Perhaps in a weak, bait-and-switch way, since you’ll surreptitiously slip “good” content (in the lyrics) in using familiar styles of music-- assuming the two don’t contradict each other, or that the listener pays close enough attention to the lyrics (and that they are well-written enough!) to actually get the message. But I doubt it is “healthy” for a Christian, as I suggested above. (I’ll address the biblical concepts of creativity and work at a later point.)

[Another aside: I’m not at all endorsing a perspective that certain kinds of music are inherently bad or evil. If that is true, I don’t think we can consider ourselves to be fair and objective measures of it. Rather, let me highlight that music is a highly emotive art form, and it evokes real and distinct responses from people; if the music you listen to causes you to stumble into a sinful attitude toward others, simply changing the lyrics is unlikely to help-- unless, of course, you’re listening to hymns that are full of bad theology and sinning in that way...]

Of course, the alternative in the Christian sub-culture is no better. In contrast to the “sound-alike” artists and bands, a good bit of what is marketed as “CCM” (=Contemporary Christian Music) is musically and lyrically poor, something like a mix of Muzak with bubblegum pop and a dash of lounge act thrown in. This may actually be the preferred style/genre for some, but I haven’t met them. Rather, most people I have known who listen to this style of CCM do so out of a sense of obligation. Certainly, it fails in terms of any evangelistic effort-- non-believers won’t subject themselves to it! But it also fails in terms of offering a “healthy” alternative, as it is something like the spiritual equivalent to diet pills: they taste bad, and while you will lose weight, you’ll also mess up your system while denying yourself the right enjoyment of creative and well-prepared meals.

In other words, in the search for change through “Christian” music one typically either finds too much change (where the actual inherent quality of the music suffers as a result) or not enough change (where there is too much latent worldliness and unholiness to accomplish the goal of holiness and sanctification). You rarely find a winning combination there.

This is why Michael Horton once said, “When people become Christians, they throw out all of their secular music; when they become [theologically] Reformed, they throw out all of the Christian music!” He affirmed in that statement that the sub-culture approach to music offers little help to the thoughtful, intentional Christian.

But what of the many musicians who are Christians, writing excellent music and lyrics and recording good songs about real life-- but who don’t feel the need to distinguish themselves as overtly “Christian,” either in their identity as musicians or through their musical content? Not that they hide their faith, or put on pretense; rather, their perspective is that if their music is good, they are fulfilling their calling as musicians and as Christians. (Now we’re beginning to dip into the biblical mandate for work and creativity...)

In my next post on this subject, I’ll take that topic up.

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, Evangelism

All last week, Jack had been asking me if he can have some of the soup I bought for Marcie. He asked if he could have it for supper Wednesday night instead of the steaks I was grilling. When I said no, he asked if he could have it Thursday night instead of whatever we were going to have (which happens to be home-made pizza). I told him I would fix it for him for lunch on Thursday.

Marcie loves this soup, but I knew that it might be a bit complex and even spicy for his tastes. I even suggested as much: wouldn’t he prefer a soup he knows and likes? He was confident: please, may I have THAT soup.

So he got it. And he didn’t like it-- it was too spicy. In fact, he didn’t even finish his bowl, even though that was all he was offered for lunch. We tried adding a little milk to tone down the spiciness, but to no avail.

Though he doesn’t know it, Jack has demonstrated why prayer often turns out the way it does. By that I mean, why we often don’t “get what we asked for” in prayer.

When we appeal to our heavenly Father, we believe-- sometimes with the utmost confidence and conviction-- that we KNOW what is best for us, what we need in a certain circumstance, or the way things should go. Our assumption is, naturally, that we, of all creatures, should know what is right and good. And when we don’t get what we’ve asked for, we are incredulous.

Yet, isn’t it so that God may know something we don’t? In fact, is it inconceivable that God knows something about us that we don’t? If God knows what we don’t, and has promised to provide for our needs, why do we question when He doesn’t give us what WE ask for?

Because we doubt-- that God is good, that He responds in love, and that what He provides for us is truly what we need. Luke 11:13 tells us: “if you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” And we think, “wait-- I don’t need the Holy Spirit! I need this or that...”

When lunch was over, Jack asked me why I didn’t give him a soup he would like. I reminded him that he had been asking me for that particular soup, and his response was a pleasant surprise:

“Dad, next time will you give me a soup that you know I will eat, even if I ask for a different soup?”

Out of the mouths of babes...

Tags: prayer

Paul Washer has a lot of insightful and worthwhile comments. His video is a little lengthy, but worth the time:

(HT: Dane)

Michael Wittmer has a good point about where things are and/or are headed in terms of the need for emphasis. Take a look at this short clip:

(HT: Koinonia)

Designing (or redesigning) a website? Here’s all you need to know about it:

(HT: Jon)

Should the evangelical (and Reformed) church be concerned about the emerging churches? Probably not if they are like Mark Driscoll, a Calvinist/emerging/hipster pastor in Seattle who is introducing hundreds, if not thousands, to the gospel. Watch this ABC News Nightline spotlight on Driscoll:

(HT: Matt)

The power of multiplying discipleship-- visually illustrated:

(HT: Mark)

Finally, here’s one to make you laugh, cry, shake your head, or all three:

(HT: Caroline)

Ah, the power of YouTube.

Tags: Links

I mentioned a while back that I would talk about our “Ministry Focus” soon, so I’d better do it!

Our Session (the body of the Ruling and Teaching Elders, gathered to lead the church) has decided that we will establish a “Ministry Focus” for each church year, where we will focus on one aspect of spiritual life and formation and order the ministries of our church around it. We are committed to doing the following as a part of this:

• Providing specific resources related to the Ministry Focus for individuals and households
• Enfolding the Ministry Focus into our existing congregational ministries and activities
• Developing new events, activities, and ministries to advance the Ministry Focus as necessary

Our Ministry Focus for 2009 is Prayer, obviously.

As an example of how our Ministry Focus is going to take root, here are a few things we’ll be doing over the coming couple of months (if not already) to integrate a Ministry Focus of prayer into our worship:

1. We have expanded our Prayers of the People a bit, including a few new elements that we will pray for weekly.
2. I will take a moment to briefly describe a part of our corporate prayers immediately before the Prayers of the People.
3. We will have several sermons and sermon series on prayer during the course of the year.
4. I will be including prayer in my explanation and/or application in every sermon.
5. During the liturgical season of Lent, we will focus on personal and congregational mourning and repentance of sin, and will utilize prayers of lament during our time of corporate confession of sin.

I’m very excited about the idea of Ministry Focus in general, the Ministry Focus on prayer in particular, and how things are already beginning to develop. Keep a watch for regular posts on prayer.

Tags: prayer, community, Faith & Life

February 1 Luke 11:14-36 -- Hearing and sight, darkness and light
February 8 Guest preacher Doug Barcroft --- Prayers of thanksgiving
February 15 Luke 11:37-54 -- The dangers of legalism
February 22 Luke 12:1-12 -- Confidence in the face of opposition

Tags: preaching, Ordinary Days

How well do you know your Bible?

It’s always difficult to measure, and no measure is completely fair or accurate. Still, the folks at Christianity Today put together this Bible knowledge test (based on the book What Every Christian Should Know by Jo. H. Lewis and Gordon A. Palmer). A few sample questions (I won’t reproduce the whole thing out of respect for copyright):

Common Bible Sayings

1. Am I my brother's _____?
2. Daniel in the _____ den
3. Do unto _____ as you would have them do unto you.

In the Bible

1. Name the first four books of the New Testament.
2. In what book of the Bible is the Christmas story found, the version familiar to most people?
3. What is another well-known name for "the Evil One"?

More Common Bible Sayings

1. Death, where is thy _____?
2. Don't hide your _____ under a bushel.
3. Gold, frankincense, and ______.
4. I am come that they might have _____ and that they might have it more abundantly.

Sayings that May Surprise You

1. A good name is better than _____.
2. Giving honor unto the _____, as unto the weaker vessel
3. Four _____of the Apocalypse

There’s a lot more, plus an answer key. Take the test-- and report your scores in the comments, if you will! (No judgement here; I’m just curious...)

Tags: Bible, reading

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. ~1 Timothy 2:1-4

Scripture clearly portrays the faithful follower of Christ as one who extends respect, submission, and regular prayer to the leaders and authorities that God has placed over him or her. In our Ministry Focus on prayer this year, one of the lessons we might learn is how to pray for the President of the United States, who God has sovereignly and providentially given to us.

Here are some ways that you might be in prayer for the President:

• That, above all else, he would humble himself in the sight of the Lord, and be exalted by the victory of Christ on the cross to atone for his sins and bring him into a reconciled relationship with God the Father.
• That he would love his family faithfully, and in the face of the pressures and stress of the presidency remain committed and able to be the husband and father that God has created him to be.
• That God would grant him wisdom, courage, and commitment to lead and serve the citizens of our country faithfully and well, and that he would not bow to the idols of esteem, power, or pandering even when all around him beg him to do so.
• That his presidency would be marked by love, mercy, justice, and truth at every turn and in every decision.
• That he would be quick to repent, publicly when necessary, owning his failures and fallibility and resting in the grace of Christ, not in the illusion of moral, ethical, or political perfection.
• That God would grant him humility and repentance in the face of wrong policies and positions, and that he would search the Scriptures, his own conscience, and the counsel of the Body of Christ for wisdom and discernment in each decision, policy, signing of law, or other act; and that, with a teachable spirit and humble mind, he would readily reverse even his own decisions when convicted by the Holy Spirit that he erred in them.
• That God would use him as an instrument of grace, justice, truth, and reconciliation, both within our country and across the world, and that he would be known more as a man of peace than a man of the sword.
• That he would know his own strengths, and that he would use them for the good of the country and the world, not merely for the good of his own political agenda or that of his political party.
• That he would know his own weaknesses, and that he would own them freely, granting room for those whose strengths complement his weaknesses and humbly delegating leadership to them for the good of the country and the world.
• That he would find love, respect, and support from Christ’s church as we fulfill the commands of Scripture, and that we, the church-- through our actions, our attitude, and our prayers-- might encourage him ever closer to Christ.

Tags: Faith & Life, prayer, Politics, love, community

One of my former co-workers once said to me, “I don’t get this whole Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.”

I said, “Have you ever read, listened to, or watched his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech?”

“No,” he replied.

That explained it all to me.

This year, MLK Day has peculiar significance, as you know. If YOU don’t “get” it, then let me offer the following as an introduction to what makes it so important.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Christian Pastor and preacher, and was compelled by the convictions of his faith to speak out against the oppression and racism that was so prevalent in his day, and in many ways remains so in ours (if perhaps more subtly at times). His speech-- almost a sermon-- entitled, “I Have a Dream,” draws on the heritage of our country and what the ideas and principles behind the constitution stand for; more importantly, though, it draws even more heavily on biblical themes, particularly themes of redemption, love, and longing for glory, and is a heralding call to everyone-- ESPECIALLY Christians-- to live out these biblical principles.

In short, King responded to racism, hate, and oppression by calling for MORE Christianity, and a closer adherence to biblical Christianity.

Here is the text of “I Have a Dream”:

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.

We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Here is the speech on video:

Tags: Faith & Life, Cultural Discernment, rhetoric, Church Universal, love, community

Here’s R.C. Sproul discussing how frequently a church should celebrate the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper-- or, I should say, outlining some of the arguments on both sides, more frequently and less frequently.

I think Dr. Sproul does a good job of introducing most of the major categories of discussion points on this issue. What do you think?

Tags: worship, Sacrament

Our “Ministry Focus” for 2009 is prayer-- which I’ll give more details about soon.

As a part of that, I’m going to incorporate thoughts, reflections, quotes, and resources about prayer into my blogging for this year. Here is the first, from Pastor Stuart Briscoe, about how vital prayer is for ministry (of all types-- including vocational ministry, but also the ministry of the laity, Ruling Elders, Deacons, etc.):

Gifting was not enough! Practice might make perfect, but it wouldn't address need in its rawest form. Sharpening skills and improving methodology, polishing technique and being innovative and relevant could not effectively counter the presence of evil I was confronting on a daily basis. I was dealing with issues supernaturally conceived and devilishly exacerbated, and only supernatural counteraction would suffice. I needed to put into practice the third foundational principle of my ministry: Pray that the Spirit moves. I freely admit that my prayer life has been deficient and my growth in this area less than stellar. I believe in prayer but don't always do it. I understand that I'm told to pray, but I don't always obey. I am an activist by nature; I am not contemplative by temperament. I am not happy with this state of affairs and have given much thought to what prayer is, what it does, and what I need to be doing about it. Of a few things, however, I am sure; and over the years I have formulated my convictions as follows: Prayer must be a declaration of dependence-- a heartfelt cry from a frail human being commissioned to speak in the name of the Almighty and to be the agent of his working among strife-torn people. This agent must be painfully aware of his or her limitations of ability and suitability for such a task and cry out for empowering and enabling that alone will suffice to achieve divine ends. Prayer must also be a litany of longing. The promise of overflowing blessing in John 7:37-38 is made to those who are "thirsty"-- those who in recognition of their own needs are willing to freely confess them, are eager to address them, and are ready to "Come and drink," to take whatever steps will release the promised provision, because the desire is so strong and the need so pressing. Bein thirsty signifies a sense of divine discontent with thins as they are, a growing conviction that things could be much closer to what they ought to be, and a willingness to pursue whatever is prescribed. And finally, prayer must also be an expression of expectation-- a humble claiming of the immutable promise of blessing made by the Son of God who cannot lie and a settled assurance that the promised Spirit, through whose activity alone the blessing will flow has been given, is resident within and is more than ready to accomplish that for which he has been sent in and through obedient, dependent servants. This, I am sure, is the kind of praying we need and for which I strive. And in response to this kind of praying, I believe the work will continue to thrive. Thank God that we have many people in our community of faith whose praying is infinitely more effective than mine.

[From Flowing Streams: Journeys of a Life Well-Lived by Stuart Briscoe. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008, p. 151-152.]

Tags: prayer

Here are the sermon texts for January.

Hickory Withe PC members: if you aren’t doing so already, may I encourage you to read each week’s text (and all the other months as well!) before you come to church on Sunday? Perhaps you could close out the day on Saturday with them, or read them with your family after supper on Saturday.

January 4 Luke 11:1-13 -- Learning to Pray, part 2
January 11 Luke 10:1-24 -- The work of the disciples
January 18 Luke 10:25-37 -- Won’t you be my neighbor?
January 25 Luke 10:38-42 -- Two choices

Tags: preaching, Epiphany, Ordinary Days

Tags: Christmastide

I read a lot of blogs. Some of you know this, and have asked about it-- specifically, why do I read so many blogs, and what sort of blogs do I read?

First, the “why”-- I consider most of my blog-reading to fit into the category of “personal development,” in the same way that someone might read a newspaper or a trade journal. Maybe a dozen of the blogs I read are written by friends and strictly for the purpose of keeping me informed of their lives. The rest are related to something I am or that I do: ministry, writing, technology, productivity... plus a small handful of news blogs and feeds. This post is a perfect example of why I read blogs.

Now, a few more words about what sort of blogs I read. Here are some key factors for deciding whether I’ll continue to read a blog or feed:

• Teach me something frequently. A lot of the blogs that have earned a longstanding, permanent place in my feed reader* are there because they regularly give me something to chew on-- even if it’s “just” a quote or a short snippet of an idea. If you want me to look forward to seeing a new post from you, give me something to think about.
• Write with humility. Help me see that you don’t think you have the final word on a topic, unless it is your own opinion-- and in that case, help me see that you don’t think that yours is the only opinion that matters.

As importantly, here are some things that almost guarantee that I’ll drop your blog from my reader:

• Spending all of your energy selling me something. I won’t deny any blogger the right to make some money from their blogs, but don’t make it all about that. Just yesterday, I removed a feed because every post was centered around a book that was linked to (through an Amazon affiliate link) and the gist of each post was, “to REALLY learn about this, buy this book...”
• Toot your own horn often. It’s great to hear about something you’ve done that is praiseworthy. If more than half of the posts in a given week or month are all about your accomplishments (especially if they read like, “let me tell you about the great thing I just did...”), you can bet I’ll stop reading soon.
• Focus often on a topic that isn’t germane to your blog. It’s one thing to offer an occasional comment or idea about something that is apparently outside your normal field of topics; it’s another to spend a lot of time (yours and mine) on it, especially with a tone or voice that suggests that I should take your word as more than just another opinion. During election season, I dropped a couple of blogs from my feed-- one from a popular Reformed writer, and another that is supposed to be a news source for our denomination-- because both spent at least every other post hawking the editors’ personal political views.
• Put yourself forward as the watchdog for a particular group or cause. Someone recently said, “commentary is, sadly, always a few notches below creativity.” One thing I’ve come to despise is the set of blogs from folks who spend most of their time pointing out where everyone else is wrong. I tried reading some of the blogs that offer frequent discussion about matters in the PCA, but I just couldn’t stomach it.
• Write with no concern whatsoever for grammar or style. There are a few blogs that I would read regularly, if only the writers would use decent punctuation, capitalize properly, and break their text up in to paragraphs. As much time as I spend staring at a computer screen, if my browser is suddenly full of text that looks like an unbroken string of characters from top to bottom, my eyes glass over and everything goes fuzzy.

So, for whatever it’s worth, thats a quick summary of why I read blogs, and what sorts of blogs I read (and what sorts I don’t).



*I use a piece of software called a “newsfeed reader” that handles all of my blogs and other feeds. The one I use is called NetNewsWire. I only read blogs that offer an RSS feed (or something like it, that my reader can use)-- these notify me of new content and automatically summarize it for me. If a blog doesn’t offer a feed, I won’t read it with any regularity.

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment, love, community

(HT: Russell)

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Funny, Evangelism

The title came from a description that a pastor gave about what his church was doing by offering refuge to folks fleeing the path of Hurricane Gustav. This ironic statement echoes exactly what my friend Craig and I recently dialogued about on his blog. What’s wrong with this picture?

This quote demonstrates how thoroughly the ideas of “postmodernism” have influenced even the church. Without getting deeply into all of the aspects of postmodern philosophy, one thing that is notable is how the shifts in philosophy have led to consequent shifts in the seat of authority-- when, by “authority,” I mean the arbiter of truth, stability, and purpose. Follow with me:

Whether he realizes it or not, this pastor (quoted above) has clearly become convinced of the Post-Modern position, at least as far as whose role and duty it is to care for those in need. Historically, the Church has been the default institution that would be assumed to be charged with caring for the needy. In that sense, it would be just the opposite: the governmental services would be filling the gap the Church left.

How is that our mindset? Do we recognize that the Church’s job-- not the government’s-- is to attend to the needs of those in need? Do we understand the implications of this for the way that we vote or take up political activity? When we believe that the fundamental and primary solutions to our social and community problems is to vote the “right” person into office, have we sold out our biblical view of the church for a Postmodern illusion of solutions?

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, Philosophy, Church Universal

My fellow pastor Jeff Myers of Providence Reformed PCA in St. Louis recently offered this catechism, introducing the basics of what the season of Advent means:

The Church Year

Q 1. Why do we have different seasons of the year?
A. God created the seasons for man’s use and enjoyment.

Q 2. What do Fall and Winter remind us of?
A. Fall and Winter remind us of sin and death because it is dark and cold.

Q 3. What do Spring and Summer teach us?
A. Spring teaches us that God brings light and life to the world through Jesus Christ.

Q 4. What does the church calendar chiefly celebrate?
A. The church calendar celebrates the life of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Q 5. Why does the church have her own seasons?
A. The church has her own seasons to teach the world that true life is found in Jesus Christ and to resist reducing life to politics and economics.

Q 6. How are we to sanctify the seasons that God created for our benefit?
A. According to 1 Timothy 4:5, we are to set apart the seasons with the Word of God and prayer.

Q 7. How has the church set apart the seasons with the Word of God and prayer?
A. The church has chosen readings from the Old and New Testaments for each season and has ordered the prayer life of the church to match the life of Jesus.

Advent & Christmas

Q 8. What does the word “Advent” mean?
A. The word “advent” means “to come” and has to do with the coming of Jesus.

Q 9. What portion of the life of Jesus does Advent celebrate?
A. Advent celebrates the times leading up to the birth of Jesus as well as his coming again at the last day.

Q 10. How many Sundays are there in Advent?
A. There are four Sundays in Advent.

Q 11. What are the colors for Advent and what do they mean?
A. The colors for Advent are purple and royal blue. They remind us that Jesus is a glorious King.

Q 12. What do we pray for during Advent season?
A. During Advent we pray that Jesus our King would continue to come to us and serve us as he has promised.

Q 13. In our Advent prayers are we pretending that Jesus has not yet been born?
A. No. During Advent we are praying for him to come to us again and again as he has promised.

Q. 14. How did God fulfill his promises to his people in the Hebrew Scriptures?
A. God fulfilled his promises by uniting himself to our human nature in his Son, who faithfully lived a perfect life of service, died the death we deserve, and was raised to life again as the new man, and all this for our salvation.

Q 15. How has Jesus promised to come to us today?
A. In many different ways—to be with us on Sunday for worship, to help us daily when we are in trouble, and at the end of the world to establish the new heavens and earth.

Thanks Jeff! Also, be sure to check out Jeff’s collection of posts defining and defending Advent and Christmas.

Tags: Advent

Not long ago, I discussed a key psychological and social factor that often keeps churches smaller. Today, let’s talk about what it takes for a church to become bigger.

If the factors I mentioned are at play, it is easy to see why churches remain small. To refresh, there appears to be an inherent limit to the number of relationships we can actively “manage” in our heads, and that number is somewhere around 150. Many more than that, and evidence shows that people naturally begin to break into smaller groups. This built-in limit, I suggested, is the reason why churches often seem to hit a wall around the 150-200 size and cannot easily grow larger than that.

Back in the 1970s, some smart men began to study the idea of church growth, and their studies realized about the same thing: without (apparently) applying the sociology and psychology that I mentioned in the last post on this topic, they nevertheless arrived at 200 as a cap for what they called “small churches.”

[An aside: why 200, instead of the sociologically-proven number of 150? Here’s my reasoning: in a church with 200 members, it’s easy to imagine that 50 or so are not actually a part of the regular social and relational life of the congregation. There will always be home-bound and shut-in folks who are elderly, sick, or otherwise unable to regularly attend worship and other activities. There will inevitably be a few households where part of the family-- maybe the wife and children, but not the husband-- are more active than the rest. And there will be others who are considered members of the congregation-- and even consider themselves as members-- but are either in the process of switching to a different congregation or their commitment to participation in church has ebbed. So a congregation with a membership of 200 probably has 150 or less people in active participation.]

This study eventually became known as the Church Growth Movement, led by Dr. Donald McGavran. Now, this movement has its fair share of critics, and in many cases the critics make important points. Let me be clear about this: I’m not promoting the Church Growth Movement, or suggesting that I accept and promote all of the theories, principles, or methods of that movement. I do believe, however, that there is much to learn about the life of the church from them.

One of the men who has written more recently as a part of that movement is Gary McIntosh, a professor at Talbot School of Theology, which is the seminary of Biola University in California. McIntosh is a prolific writer, but the work of his that I want to focus on here is called One Size Doesn’t Fit All, and details the differences between the different-sized churches.

McIntosh breaks all churches down into three categories by size:

• Small churches-- 15-200 worshipers
• Medium churches-- 200-400 worshipers
• Large churches-- more than 400 worshipers

Now, it’s worth mentioning here that 80% of all churches in the U.S. are smaller than 100 in membership (which means they are even fewer than that in worship attendance), while more than 90% of the churches in the U.S. are 200 or less. So the second and third categories that McIntosh describes represent less than 10% of all churches in the U.S.

Still, these are helpful categories because of what McIntosh goes on to develop in terms of how each category differs in how it must be led. For example, McIntosh says that the structure of a small church is as a “single cell” while a large church is a “multiple cell” structure. The leadership in a small church resides essentially in key families, while in medium churches it resides in committees, and in large churches it resides in select leaders. Decisions in a large church are made by staff and leaders and are driven by vision, whereas in a medium church they are made by committees and driven by changing needs, and in a small church they are made by the whole congregation and driven by history.

I won’t get into details about any of these; I won’t even try to present the whole paradigm to you about how the sizes differ. But I want to draw out a key, crucial point about this that McIntosh develops: the “medium church” size is almost always a transitional stage. In other words, small churches that are growing and reach that size will typically either continue to grow and eventually hit “large church” size, or they will reach the struggles of the “medium church” for a season and that will push them back to a small size.

What are the struggles of the “medium church” that either force continued growth or natural reduction? Here are some of the things that McIntosh points out: since decisions are driven by changing needs, things always seem to be changing which brings a sense of instability. The obstacles to growth for a medium church are inadequate facilities, inadequate staff, inadequate finances, poor administration, and increasing complexity-- all of which demand a change in status quo. Consequently, the strategies for growth in a medium church are: develop a distinct identity, add additional staff, use facilities multiple times or expand facilities, offer multiple worship services, write a long-range plan, and improve the quality of ministry.

You can see how implementing these growth strategies could result in the congregation soon becoming a “large church”. On the other hand, failure to address the growth obstacles and other difficulties that a “medium church” faces will bring a natural reduction in their numbers-- which, by returning them to “small church” size will bring the stability that the members and leadership craved during the struggles of medium church status.

This is why, historically, churches are usually big or small. However, some churches and other ministries have tried to find another way-- and I’ll discuss that in a future post.

Tags: community, Pastoral ministry

I had a foreign-language teacher in college who was not a native U.S. citizen; thus, her speech patterns sometimes didn’t fit our conventions. For example, when she would encounter a word or concept she didn’t know, she would ask, “What means this?”

I think many of us look at “Advent” and, internally, we ask, “What means this?”

Sure, a lot of us go around at this time of year reminding everyone that “Jesus is the reason for the season” and that we must “keep Christ in Christmas.” Some folks have taken things a lot farther in attempting to define (or redefine) the “true” meaning of this season. And of course we can always give the default answer: that it’s all about Jesus.

But do we really get what it means? Probably not-- I certainly find myself learning more about it all the time.

“Advent” is a derivative of a Latin word that means “coming” or “arrival.” Thus, Advent is focused on the coming of Jesus as Messiah. It is a season of preparation, anticipation, and waiting. It has traditionally (and by traditionally I mean, in the church and for Christians, not in the traditions of Americans in the last 50 years) been a season of fasting, reflecting on the individual and corporate need for a Savior, and openly longing for the soon-coming return of Christ to reign forever.

Christmas (and Christmastide), on the other hand, is a time of celebration, of feasting, focusing on Incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity as Emmanuel, “God with us.”

So it should make sense to us that Advent is distinct, and quite different, from Christmas. Historically, Christians have set Advent apart from Christmas in these ways (among others):

• With an entirely different set of hymns for Advent from the carols of Christmas
• By fasting throughout Advent, while anticipating the feasts (yes, multiple feasts) of Christmas
• In decorating their homes for Christmas in the last days of Advent-- even traditionally on Christmas Eve (think of the scene in a Christmas Carol when Scrooge visits the family who, on Christmas Eve, is decorating their tree together)
• By having worship services that were marked by more solemn and quiet tones than at other times, especially Christmas

Someone asked me the other day whether we couldn’t just sing “regular” Christmas carols during the Christmas season. Of course, I said-- when we get to Christmas. But just as we would think it out of place to sing “Christ the Lord Is Risen Today” on the Sunday after Thanksgiving, or “Good Christian Men, Rejoice” in mid-June, we ought to think it out of place to sing, “Yea, Lord, we greet Thee, born this happy morning” (from “Hark! the Herald Angels Sing”) three Sundays before Christmas.

If you’ve been thinking, “What means this?” about Advent, a couple of good resources to learn more are Ken Collins’ Web Site on the Season of Advent and the “All About Advent” page at Churchyear.net.

Tags: Advent

There have been some very good questions coming my way about Advent, and why we (the church) do things the way we do. I want to reflect on the important season of Advent over the course of the next few weeks, and I actually began these reflections a couple of days ago.

This time, I want to encourage you toward an article that appeared recently in First Things, which is a wonderful journal about religion and culture. The article, by Joseph Bottum, is entitled “The End of Advent” and it reflects very helpfully on why Advent is so crucial to the Christian life.

A couple of key excerpts:

...the disappearance of Advent seems especially disturbing—for it’s injured even the secular Christmas season: opening a hole, from Thanksgiving on, that can be filled only with fiercer, madder, and wilder attempts to anticipate Christmas.

I find this to be the crux of the matter, and a huge reason why Advent is so important. Why, after all, DO we anticipate Christmas? It is because of what Christians have historically focused on during Advent: our growing awareness of our need for a Savior, and our longing and anticipation for the coming of One.

Advent has been lost, though-- and in losing it, we’ve lost the purpose for Christmas. (Why do we need a celebration of the incarnation of God Himself if, after all, we have lost our sense of awareness of the need for a Savior?) The fruit of this is that Christmas becomes a nostalgia-fest, looking backward instead of looking forward. Here’s more from the article:

Maybe that’s what has happened to Christmas. The ideas and the emotions have all broken free and smashed their way across the fields. From Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s I heard the bells on Christmas Day / Their old, familiar carols play to Irving Berlin’s I’m dreaming of a white Christmas / Just like the ones I used to know, there has been for a long time now something oddly backward looking about Christmas music—some nostalgia that insists on substituting its melancholy for the somber contrition and sorrow of forward-looking Advent.

Ironically, such a nostalgic approach to the days leading up to Christmas-- I won’t call that Advent, since it clearly isn’t-- too often longs for the Christmas of our childhood. And what was that? A time when we couldn’t wait for Christmas to get here, yet a sense that, daily, it WASN’T here yet. A time when the days before Christmas had something oddly special about them. Bottum captures this exactly:

When I was little—ah, the nostalgia of the childhood memoir—I always felt that the days right before Christmas were a time somehow out of time. Christmas Eve, especially, and the arrival of Christmas itself at midnight: The hours moved in ways different from their passage in ordinary time, and the sense of impending completion was somehow like a flavor even to the air we breathed.

Yet, even that has shadows of that true sense of Advent, doesn’t it? A longing, an anticipation that was so real and present that it shaped how the days even felt.

Isn’t that what Christmas-- and Advent-- bring to the Christian’s life? We know our need; we know also that our need has been, is being, and finally and completely will be met in Christ. And we long for that in Advent, which leads us to celebrate its realization at Christmastide.

I highly recommend Joseph Bottum’s brief article, “The End of Advent.”

Tags: Advent, Christmastide

I agree with 99% of what Michael says here about “what [he] means by Post-Evangelical.”

I find much of the baggage of evangelicalism stifling to my faith, my ministry, and the life of the church. I appreciate his gentle critique, and find it helpful to have some new categories to think in.

What do you think of it? Could you consider yourself a “Post-Evangelical” according to these criteria?

Tags: Faith & Life, Pastoral ministry, Church Universal, community

Tags: Advent

December 7 Romans 8:25 -- The gift of patience
December 14 1 Peter 1:3 -- The gift of hope
December 21 Hebrews 1:1-4 -- The gift of revelation
December 24 Isaiah 12:3ff -- The gift of joy (Christmas Eve Candlelight Service)
December 28 Luke 11:1-13 -- Learning to pray

Tags: preaching, Advent, Christmastide

Scot McKnight is a college professor who writes a wonderful blog called Jesus Creed. Among several factors, one thing that makes Jesus Creed wonderful is that it is a true online community: there is a tight group of regular readers who read almost every post, comment frequently, and have actually gotten to know one another online. The tone of their discourse is civil and gracious, even when they disagree. Scot is a prolific writer, but he is also a master at moderating comments and regularly interacting with them.

In my view, Jesus Creed has become as close to an online “church” as it is (currently) possible to do so-- the readers are the congregation, and Scot is the Pastor, and he regularly feeds them from the Word and encourages them in the growth of their faith, while they learn and grow together in fellowship and discussion.

Scot recently had the opportunity to expand the reach of his blog, and after careful consideration, he took it. When he announced the changes that would take place (which included “moving” the blog to a large online community called BeliefNet), he got mixed reactions. Here is an example:

My concern about a lowered level of dialogue remains also. There is thoughtful, quality commentary in many of the actual articles on Beliefnet. But perusing the comments and looking at those ads mentioned above, Beliefnet feels more like the fast food station in Wal-Mart, while this blog has felt like a cozy community-owned cafe that has its own community-shaped culture. Maybe rather than the McDonalds in Wal-Mart, the Starbucks in Barnes and Noble is a more fair analogy to Beliefnet, I don't know. I'd still prefer the locally owned coffee shop with its own community based culture over the corporately created ambience of the B&N Starbucks. I hate the fact that this sounds snobbish. But the level of discourse here is one of the reasons I come, and if in order to find one thought provoking comment I have to wade through multiple posts that don't follow the basic rules of logic or show an awareness of how to make a point cogently while trying to ignore obnoxious advertisements, then I'll probably come less often.

This comparison-- small vs. big, community-based vs. corporate, local vs. chain, etc.-- reflects a common posture toward the church today, and one that is the fruit of social, psychological, and anthropological constructions. While the Jesus Creed blog isn’t a church, it presents an interesting case-study that helps us understand why churches are usually big and growing larger, or small and staying so.

It turns out that we have built-in levels of capacity. Seven happens to be the highest number of memorable digits-- which is why the Bell company originally chose seven digits for telephone numbers: they wanted the highest number of digits possible that would still be something easily committed to memory. Psychologists have tested this and proven that, by and large, this is a built-in limit for most people. They call this “channel capacity.”

Our built-in limits to handling information affects us relationally, too. Anthropologist Robin Dunbar has developed extensive theories about what writer Malcolm Gladwell calls our “social channel capacities.” Here’s Gladwell describing Dunbar’s findings:

If you belong to a group of five people, Dunbar points out, you have to keep track of ten separate relationship; your relationships with the four others in your circle and the six other two-way relationships between the others. That’s what it means to know everyone else in the circle. You have to understand the personal dynamics of the group, juggle different personalities, keep people happy, manage the demands on your own time and attention, and so on. If you belong to a group of twenty people, however, there are now 190 two-way relationships to keep track of: 19 involving yourself and 171 involving the rest of the group. That’s a fivefold increase in the size of the group, but a twentyfold increase in the amount of information processing needed to “know” the other members of the group. Even a relatively small increase in the size of a group, in other words, creates a significant additional social and intellectual burden. [Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point (New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2000), pp. 178-179.]

This inherent increase in complexity explains why growing groups appear to struggle, while static groups seem to be more consistently content: there is an intellectual and social challenge attached to growth that is correlated in an exponential way to the addition of members. For every single person added to the mix, that represents an additional challenge of much more than one more relationship-- and that addition increases with every new member.

Gladwell continues:

[Quoting Dunbar] “The figure of 150 seems to represent the maximum number of individuals with whom we can have a genuinely social relationship, the kind of relationship that goes with knowing who they are and how they relate to us. Putting it another way, it’s the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar.”Dunbar has combed through anthropological literature and found that the number 150 pops up again and again. For example, he looks at 21 different hunter-gatherer societies for which we have solid historical evidence, from the Walbiri of Australia to the Tauade of New Guinea to the Ammassalik of Greenland to the Ona of Tierra del Fuego and found that the average number of people in their villages was 148.4. The same pattern holds true for military organization. “Over the years military planners have arrived at a rule of thumb which dictates that functional fighting units cannot be substantially larger than 200 men,” Dunbar writes. [Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point (New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2000), pp. 179-180.]

So we’re beginning to get the point: we tend to cluster into groups of 150 or smaller. Does this apply to churches too?

Yes it does. One more quote from Gladwell:

Then there is the example of the religious group known as the Hutterites, who for hundreds of years have lived in self-sufficient agricultural colonies in Europe and, since the early twentieth century, in North America. The Hutterites (who came out of the same tradition as the Amish and the Mennonites) have a strict policy that every time a colony approaches 150, they split it in two and start a new one. “Keeping things under 150 just seems to be the best and most efficient way to manage a group of people,” Bill Gross, one of the leaders of the Hutterite colony outside Spokane told me. “When things get larger than that, people become strangers to one another...” At 150, the Hutterites believe, something happens-- something indefinable but very real-- that somehow changes the nature of community overnight. “In smaller groups people are a lot closer. They’re knit together, which is very important if you want to be effective and successful at community life,” Gross said. “If you get too large, you don’t have enough work in common. You don’t have enough things in common, and then you start to become strangers and that close-knit fellowship starts to get lost.” Gross spoke from experience. He had been in Hutterite colonies that had come hear to that magic number and seen firsthand how things had changed. “What happens when you get that big is that the group starts, just on its own, to form a sort of clan.” He made a gesture with his hands, as if to demonstrate division. “You get two or three groups within the larger group. That is something you really try to prevent, and when it happens it is a good time to branch out.” [Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point (New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2000), pp. 180-181.]

This explains why the readership on Scot McKnight’s blog are antsy about the changes that will draw more readers and, by implication, commenters (who will become members of this online community). They have felt the struggle of that exponential increase in social/intellectual challenge before. They realize that it will happen again-- to a community that they love. They are acting on instinct.

This is also what happens in any church-- especially an historically small congregation-- that experiences rapid growth. The original members push back instinctively. Pastors and leaders tend to dismiss this as a poor attitude toward growth, but what Gladwell wrote above suggests that it is more than that, and far more unconscious and innocent than that.

I’ll continue this post tomorrow next time, when I’ll bring in the idea of churches that are big, how they got that way, and why some grow big while others don’t.

Tags: Pastoral ministry, community

Many people struggle with weight-- either being overweight (most of us) or, in some cases, being underweight. In some cases (on either end), the struggle is a truly dangerous one.

To combat the problems and struggles of being overweight, our culture offers us a number of “solutions.” (Sadly, our culture doesn’t offer any real help for the struggles of being underweight.) You can take pills that will suppress your appetite. You can have the fat literally sucked out of your body, and even have your digestive system permanently altered so that you are physically unable to eat “too much.” You can buy into a “subscription” diet program where every bit of your diet is prescribed for you. All of these will cause you to lose weight-- and there is nothing inherently wrong about any of them.

But none of them address the real problems of overeating. With some relatively rare exceptions, every chronic overeater does so for the same sets of reasons: as a coping mechanism, because of lack of self-control, out of greed, or even because of boredom. How does a person overcome these?

A friend of a friend asked exactly this question. He had been a collegiate wrestler, and this had completely messed up his metabolism. When he found himself significantly overweight not long after college, he determined to deal with it in a manner that is a consistent outgrowth of his Christianity. He called it “felling the idol.”

Man’s nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols. ~John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 1, ch. 11, sec. 8

The real solution to the problem of overeating is to turn away from the idols in our hearts and find our hope in the Lord. What does that look like for an overeater? Maybe realizing that Christ alone will pacify the sadness and turbulence in her heart. Maybe owning that a biblical view of moderation will make us more satisfied in the long run, not less. Maybe in finding outlets for our boredom in a creative endeavor rather than only in food. Maybe relearning how to eat in moderation, enjoying the delights of food that God made (and that He made good). (As programs go, Weight Watchers does a good job helping with this.) Maybe starting an exercise program that improves your health and complements a healthy and moderate diet.

The bottom line here: Christians must learn to face the sin and fallenness that causes them to overeat and struggle against that-- not simply treat the fruits of that sin and fallenness with solutions that don’t get to the heart of it. What if eating in moderation was your natural inclination, the fruit of the Holy Spirit granting you self-control?

This can only happen if we think and live like disciples, not like food vessels that expand and contract mechanically.

So it goes...
The same is true for other perpetual struggles. For example, over the past 15 years there has been a substantial rise in use of pornography, even among Christians (and the struggle isn’t unique to men, either). One recent statistic suggests that as many as 50% of Christian men and 20% of Christian women are addicted to pornography (comprehensive statistics here.) The rampant availability of pornography on the internet accounts for much of the increase in this problem, while our over-sexualized culture easily accounts for the rest.

So, what is a Christian to do about that? Well, the “stomach-stapling” solution is to simply activate the filters and blockers that are built into many computers, or perhaps subscribe to a similar (but more effective) service that offers the same. And there’s nothing wrong with doing that. But this is treating the symptoms, not the root problem.

You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ~Matthew 5:27-28

A service like Covenant Eyes is a step or two in the right direction: beyond mere filtering, Covenant Eyes offers internet accountability, where a report of your internet activity is regularly e-mailed to one or more accountability partners, who (one would presume) have agreed to exercise true accountability if they see something amiss. As I said, this IS better-- it puts in place a system and structure that allows real growth and healing through accountability.

Even better (perhaps in addition to using something like Covenant Eyes) is to get deeper. God has created sex (and sexuality), and He made it good and pleasurable. He also designed it for certain contexts and relationships. A biblical treatment of the problem behind pornography (and addiction to it) is to face the sin of addiction, the struggle of lust, the indignity of objectifying others, and the neglect of God’s beautiful and perfect design. We must fell these idols in order to truly deal with a struggle with pornography.

Christians can do this-- it isn’t impossible to overcome addiction or a struggle with pornography. Resources like New Man magazine and Mark Driscoll’s e-book Porn-Again Christian are good places to start. The church can help, too, by making it safe to discuss this struggle (and other “taboo” topics) honestly and without fear of judgment or ill-treatment. What if desire and lust were checked quickly, and dignity and God-honoring treatment of others instinctively came to mind, as the fruit of Christ at work in you to restore a righteous view of people and relationships?

This can only happen if we learn to live like disciples instead of amoral, sexually perverse creatures.

Broadening the application...
So, if we deal with overeating only by treating the symptom through stapling our stomachs or denying ourselves food, we’ve missed the point. Likewise, if we deal with a struggle with pornography only by cutting off our connection to it, we haven’t truly dealt with the sinful lust in our hearts.

I would argue that we would do the same by making the outlaw of abortion our sole approach to dealing with the sin of abortion.

Make no mistake: I believe that abortion is a sin. I am appalled by the statistics related to legal abortions in the United States, and long to see it eradicated as a practice. I believe that, as a nation and a culture, we all have blood on our hands and ought to be regularly on our knees in repentance.

But if our agenda for dealing with the sin of abortion is simply to make it illegal, we’ve ignored the sin behind abortion. In short, we’ve become Pharisees-- who were utterly concerned with the appearance of righteousness, but inwardly were indifferent.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. ~Matthew 23:23

What about the sin of immorality that led to many of the pregnancies that were aborted? What of the sins of selfishness and lazyness that drove some to abort because a pregnancy-- let alone a baby-- would be too much of an inconvenience? What about the sin of those around an aborting mother, who allowed or even drove her to believe that abortion was her best option? What about the sin of a culture that leaves so many children languishing in foster care and orphanages because we won’t step up to adopt? What about the sin of a world that tolerates a highly-sexualized culture-- even participates in and encourages it-- that persuades children to take sexual relations so casually?

There is great sin involved in abortion. Be assured of this: if we do not attend to the litany of sins wrapped up in abortion, we will not reduce abortion substantially simply by making it illegal. Abortion wasn’t invented in 1973, and it wouldn’t be eliminated by the passing of legislation.

But if we fell the idols of abortion, we create an environment where abortion is reduced or even eliminated because it isn’t necessary. Women and men alike take sexuality seriously enough to not engage in it lightly, and they take responsibility for their actions if she does get pregnant by not aborting (and by giving the child up for adoption if they cannot properly care for him or her). The culture around them supports this out of an inherent value of all life, and few children who need adopting aren’t adopted, few mothers who need spiritual, social, and financial support lack it. No one who faces the struggle of being pregnant at a young age or out of wedlock becomes a pariah, because all acknowledge that their sins are just as severe-- and yet neither do they go without loving accountability.

What if abortion was essentially eliminated from our culture because there was no need for it?

It can happen if we learn to think and act like disciples, rather than political activist culture warriors.

Tags: love, community, Politics, Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, Health, worship

I’ve heard or read a number of people who are simply mystified by the relatively large “undecided” category of voters in this election. Beyond mystified, actually-- many of them scoff at the idea of being undecided at this point.

My guess is that the race won’t be quite as close as the “undecided” numbers suggest-- in other words, we’re not in for another 2000 marathon, I’m betting. (And for what it’s worth, a full 20% of voters were undecided as late as September 2000.)

Most of the scoffers are either single-issue voters, straight-ticket devotees, or those who love to believe the spin, rumors, and lies. Anytime I hear, “he [or she] scares me” I realize I’m dealing with a scoffer-- and probably one who has put political movement (above all else, including God’s sovereignty) forth as the hope for our future security and happiness.

The real surprise (though most of the scoffers don’t think of it in this way) is how many voters are undecided because they are finding their normal categories for decision-making challenged or even turned upside-down. But considering these gives answer to the question, “why still undecided?” Here’s a glimpse of what I mean:

• Categories of faith: this could be seen as a “neither,” “both,” or “really? him?” category. Senator Obama is a professing believer, and has spoken openly about his Christian faith. Senator McCain is, at best, tight-lipped about whatever faith he professes (some will say that his choice of Governor Palin was a direct appeal to the faith-based vote). Even if you doubt the sincerity of Senator Obama’s profession-- or worse, believe the misinformation about him being an alleged closet-Muslim-- that, at best, makes him and Senator McCain even on what is typically a category where the Republican candidate has strength. (As an aside: I think President George W. Bush has done a lot to erode this as a Republican stronghold. While I don’t doubt his faith, he has been inconsistent, at best, in applying his faith to the decisions he has made.)
• Categories of role: I think almost everyone has assumed that the first woman elected to be president or vice-president would be a political liberal-- thus, most Christians were comfortable that they could oppose the politics behind the leader, and not have to speak to the gender or role issues. Governor Palin turned that on its head, stepping forth as a professing evangelical Christian AND a Feminist (she’s a member of Feminists for Life) and breaking all of the stereotypes. Now Christians are forced to decide: do they really oppose Feminism? Do they inherently oppose a woman in leadership? Can they be consistent in voting for a ticket that could put a woman in the Oval Office, while still maintaining that she mustn’t hold an ecclesiastical office? There are no easy answers here, but I think most Christians who hold a complementarian view about women’s roles recognize that they have a difficult decision in supporting the McCain/Palin ticket.
• Categories of ability: There’s no doubt that Senator McCain has more experience and preparation to serve as president, by far: distinguished military service, multiple decades in national politics, and broad and deep familiarity with foreign policy (and the people involved) add up to an impressive resumé, and Senator Obama cannot hope to compete at this level. However, Senator McCain faces an obstacle of inability that his experience has no sway over: perception, both domestically and internationally. Given that the perception of Senator McCain is that he would essentially represent a continuation of current policies-- which have been increasingly unpopular-- he is facing something of a lame-duck posture, whether he is actually that close to President Bush’s policies or not. On the other hand, Senator Obama is seen worldwide (and, for the most part, within the U.S.) as a break from status quo and a pursuit of true change. Couple that with Senator Obama’s support with congress, which will probably increase in number of Democrats, and whatever ability Senator McCain has is balanced out.
• Categories of issue: Yes, some of the single-issue topics polarize the candidates. On abortion, for example, there is little doubt that Senator Obama supports legislation that protects abortion rights, while Senator McCain is a strong opponent of abortion (and its legalization). On other issues, however, what should be important to Christians is not necessarily a shared priority with Senator McCain. Education and poverty, for example, don’t really rank as significant issues with Senator McCain, but Senator Obama has highlighted both as areas of priority. Even on the abortion issue, Senator McCain’s lack of substance on poverty undercuts the viability of any progress there, since a decrease in abortion will certainly amount to an increase in social need. Isolating the issues doesn’t help the voter understand which candidate is a better one. The media hasn’t helped, with some painting Obama as a socialist (he’s not), while others declare McCain as a warmonger (he’s not).
• Categories of tradition: Some voters are beginning to question the assumption that the “right candidate” will automatically equal the advancement of their political agenda. After 20 years of Pro-Life presidents in the White House, the legality and restriction of abortion is roughly the same as it was 30 years ago. With health care taking a prominent place in the election process for the past 20 years, the reforms that have been advanced by subsequent presidents have not made much headway in improving care or making it more affordable. Many of the undecided voters seem to be favorable to looking past these sorts of issues (what have been “traditional” deciding points for elections) and at other factors.
• No “good” candidates: More than anything I’ve heard this season, the comment I’ve gotten the most is, “I’ll have to pick the lesser of two evils.” This seems utterly unsatisfactory when it comes to how we pick our next president. My sense from the undecideds I’ve talked to is that their consciences are heavy about this attitude, and they have been holding out for further input that might shape the idea of “good” or “bad” perceptions of the candidates-- or inwardly debating a write-in.

Given these points, I don’t have difficulty understanding the undecided voter’s ambivalence. What about you-- do you have any thoughts about it?

Tags: Faith & Life, Politics, Cultural Discernment

Happy Reformation Day! (And happy Hallowe’en, as well.)

There’s a lot of good stuff around commemorating today. Here’s quick round-up.

My friend Paul has a good summary of why Reformation Day is significant.

My friend James does too. (Also, check out his introduction to a good Reformation hymn.)

GA Junkie offers a different perspective on Reformation Day, also interesting.

Ligonier Ministries is giving away a nice Reformation Day gift: a “free” Reformation Study Bible with any donation.

Ed Stetzer offers an interesting perspective on haunted houses and “hell houses”.

Along the same subject, Internet Monk asks: where does the Bible say that Satan wants people to go to Hell?

You want to know what scares me? This (video below)-- which combines both Reformation Day and the scarier parts of Hallowe’en: the false gospel that is the prosperity gospel.

Tags: Faith & Life, History, reading, Links

With the twins being born, I didn’t get as much reading done this month as I would have liked. Nevertheless, here’s my list for October:

• Churched by Matthew Paul Turner. I’ve already reviewed this book here. (9+)
• Preaching to a Post-Everything World by Zack Eswine. Nevermind that Zack is a friend and a former professor of mine; this was one of the best books I’ve read in a long time. It was like a post-graduate course in homiletics (the study of preaching), and a much-needed and appreciated re-charge of my vision for my own preaching. Zack picks up where Bryan Chapell’s Christ-Centered Preaching leaves off and runs many miles further down that road. My one regret of reading this book is that I was only able to absorb about 10-15% of it, which means I need to re-read it every 6-12 months for the next several years. If you’re a preacher or teacher, this should go to the top of your must-read list. (10)
• How Would Jesus Vote? by D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe. I’ve reviewed this one already, too. (5)

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

I have to confess, I was skeptical from the outset of the new Waterbrook Press title How Would Jesus Vote? by D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe. In my view, this could have (and maybe should have) been the shortest book Waterbrook has ever published, with a single page declaring, “He wouldn’t.” And I feared that this would be one more piece of Christianized political propaganda in a time when the church really needs solid, biblical wisdom.

Was I right? Yes and no-- but, sadly, mostly yes.

The book is divided into three sections-- Jesus and Politics, The Issues, and Final Thoughts. The first section is very good, with good rationale for why a Christian ought to be concerned with the political process, a check on the notion that all of the answers are found in political solutions, and an encouragement toward a well-considered “World and Life View.” Though Kennedy’s political views are present in the three opening chapters, it isn’t offensively present. I found my skepticism being challenged, and I began to have hope that this book may be exactly the resource the church needs.

Let me take a moment to say what I mean by “offensive” in this context. Everyone has political opinions, even if their opinions are simply, “I don’t care.” But when someone who is influential in a non-political arena-- such as the church or an educational context-- utilizes their position to advance their personal political preferences and opinions, they are abusing their position and deceiving those under their leadership. I find this offensive, especially in the case of a pastor or other church leader.

Which leads me to the second section, The Issues. There are 10 important and considerable issues discussed here, and in spite of my initial skepticism I had hopes that Dr. Kennedy would handle them fairly and biblically, based on the general appreciation I had for the first section.

I was wrong. In almost every case, Dr. Kennedy presents only scant biblical support for the views and opinions he proffers in The Issues. Instead, he puts forth his opinions and biases, sometimes with Scriptural support and sometimes without much biblical input at all. Worst of all, he concludes each chapter in the section with a “How would Jesus Vote?” summary of his opinions.

Take the environment as an example. Are there biblical texts that speak to the environment and the Christian’s view of it? Absolutely. Can a believer extract a balanced understanding of how he or she ought to view matters (especially political matters) of environmental conscience? I think so. Does Dr. Kennedy expose us to these texts, and explain how we might derive a biblical worldview about the environment? No-- what he offers amounts to an attack on the current positions of the political liberals, especially the Democratic party, and pronounces arguments and evidence against them that is little different from any other Republican attack. There is little biblical support, and no consideration for a number of biblical texts that speak to the issue.

By and large, that is the case for all of the issues. In some of them, Dr. Kennedy does better, in others worse, with drawing out a full sense of the biblical position on a topic. The chief exception for that is the issue of immigration, where Dr. Kennedy actually does a very good job of working through the biblical words on the issue, and a good job of applying them (in general terms) to our context.

Other than that, though, much of what counts for biblical support is often Dr. Kennedy declaring his opinion, then searching for a proof-text to back it up. I cannot recommend the second section at all, and would urge readers to simply skip over it.

The closing section is something of a mixture of the other two, in terms of approach. The content in the final section is hit-or-miss, but largely it is acceptably good. I do appreciate the general tenor of it, proclaiming that there is something more important than politics.

Dr. D. James Kennedy is a dyed-in-the-wool, straight-ticket Republican. There is no denying that having read this book, and there’s nothing wrong with that, either-- he certainly has the right to hold whatever political convictions are his. But in How Would Jesus Vote? he draws a direct equation between his Republican positions and biblical Christianity. And there IS something wrong with that.

There is no doubt that a book that looks at each of the issues from a strictly biblical perspective is a needed tool and guide for Christians today. Make no mistake, though: How Would Jesus Vote? isn’t it. Such a book would need to at least straddle the various parties and where they are closer to a biblical perspective, or at best transcend the parties and consider only the biblical views-- NOT baptize a particular party’s platform under the auspices of biblical support.

I rate this book as a whole as a 5. (If Waterbrook were to cut out the middle section and just publish the first and last sections as a book (about 88 pages), I would probably rate it as an 8.)

Tags: reading, Faith & Life, Politics, Cultural Discernment

November 2 Guest preacher: Doug Barcroft
November 9 Guest preacher: Doug Barcroft
November 16 Luke 9:37-62 -- (Mis)Understanding discipleship
November 23 Luke 10:1-24 -- The work of the disciples
November 30 Isaiah 25:6-26:6 -- The gift of anticipation
November 30 (evening) Various texts-- The gift of presence (Chrismon Service)

Tags: preaching, Ordinary Days, Advent

• Good thoughts here (from a generally creative set of guys) on why stories are so effective.
• A while back, I recommended a set of lectures on Denominational Renewal. More recently, those lectures have received new attention as the Common Grounds blog has hosted a series of discussions on those lectures and their ideas. Some of the comments, in particular, ought to be taken with a grain of salt (or a block of it), but overall the articles themselves are helpful thoughts. I’d encourage you to listen to the lectures, then check out the discussion.
• Here’s a good piece on the Osteens, and it gives a taste of why they are both as popular (among the masses) and as unpopular (among theological conservatives) as they are. (If you want a little more than a taste, check the comments in the Internet Monk’s link to the same article.)
• My friend and classmate from seminary, Joel Hathaway, has penned a pretty good article on elections and politics for the current issue of byFaith magazine.
• This is an interesting insider piece about the growing bias in the mainstream media. (HT: Nick)

Tags: Links

• Very cool: man decorates his basement with a Sharpie. This piece (and the basement itself) is both a nod to the creativity of a guy with a marker AND his well-lived life. (HT: Chris)

• An interesting quiz at Parchment and Pen: what are the essentials and non-essentials of belief? (Bonus points if you take the quiz and comment here, on my blog, with your results.)
• Is this going to change the way that football is played? If so, I might actually consider letting Jack play...
• I’m curious about Seeds Music-- family worship that actually sounds pretty good. Maybe we’ll pick some up. (HT: Nikki)
• Rant: yes, the man’s name is Gene Edward Veith-- but he goes by Ed. Not Gene. I know this may surprise some of you-- perhaps you think that Gene is a better name than Ed (I happen to disagree). And it doesn’t help that his blog’s URL is “geneveith.com”-- but still, he goes by Ed. So here’s my plea for those of you out there who like to refer to Gene Edward Veith as if he had supper at your house last night: either refer to him as Ed Veith, or referring to him in such a familiar way. (End rant.)

Tags: Links

Waterbrook Press sent me a copy of Churched by Matthew Paul Turner to review, as well as two copies to give away! (More on that in a moment...)

In Churched, Turner reflects on his childhood memories of growing up in the local “fundamental Baptist” church. We’re given a child’s view (and an insider’s look) at how a Baptist church in the 70s and 80s looked and felt. I won’t say that this is how ALL Baptist churches looked then (or today), but obviously at least one did... and I’ve seen a couple that could fit the bill here, too.

What’s so great about Turner’s portrayal is funny, and delights in the irony and awkwardness of these situations, yet it is also humble and stops short of bashing or attack. Turner does a good job of making this as much about him and his family-- and their understandings (and misunderstandings) about faith and practice-- as it is about the church and its teachings.

Nevertheless, Churched is funny, and it does expose some of the aspects of the Christian sub-culture that are at least embarrassing, if not shameful. There are other books that take more in-depth and pointed shots at this; Dave Burchett’s When Bad Christians Happen to Good People (also published by Waterbrook) comes to mind. Turner’s book is different in two ways: it is more personal, coming across as more of a memoir than just an idea book; and it refrains from an attack position, instead merely pointing out observations.

The critique aspect can still be found, because Turner is a great writer who communicates the damage and problems of a fundamentalist and sub-culture mindset through his personal story. In his wrap-up chapter, Turner gets a little bit closer to the critique, but even here it is more inwardly-focused, almost self-effacing. His insights-- in the closing chapter and throughout the book-- offer me, as a pastor, a helpful perspective. Maybe the most stinging words came in this paragraph (in the final chapter):

Even though I’m in my midthirties, I still struggle with being alone with a pastor. Furthermore, and more detrimental to my spiritual health, I also have a hard time trusting pastors. Whenever I find myself in the presence of one of God’s official spokespeople, part of me clams up with fear. It didn’t matter that Pete and I were the same age or that he looked like Ryan Seacrest. I still felt fear.

Which simultaneously makes me want to invite Turner to my church, and afraid of whether I give off the same impressions of the pastors of his past and present. Probably, both of these are good instincts for a pastor to have. Thanks, Matthew.

(My rating: 9+)

I’ll post an announcement about my give-away copies next week. Stay tuned-- you’ll want to read this one.

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life

UPDATE: Marcie reminded me of another good piece of information on poverty-- see the Miniature Earth link below.

Today is “Blog Action Day” according to someone. The point is to bring awareness about poverty to those who read our blogs. I think it’s a good idea.

My friend John Allen recently posted an amazing set of myths and facts on his blog (which he himself copied from the Food Bank of Northeast Louisiana), and I’m shamelessly copying it here:

Myth: They are not hungry. They are fat!

Fact: This is called the Obesity Paradox. The population that is forced to live on cheap, starchy foods are, in many cases, fat. In some cases they are morbidly obese. They are getting a lot of calories and little real nutrition. The end result of this is all kinds of health problems.

MYTH: They do not need help– they get food Stamps.

Fact: According to studies done by America’s Second Harvest, 40% of the people eligible for food stamps do not receive them. And , almost 84% of the families contacted for the 2000 hunger study reported that the food stamps they receive last for three weeks or less.

MYTH: Low-income families who need help do not work.

Fact: Seventy-one percent of low –income families work. In fact, the average annual work effort for low-income families is 2,500 hours, equal to 1.2 full time jobs.

MYTH: The kids get enough food through school lunch and breakfast programs.

Fact: These programs do not provide an evening meal the vast majority do not provide food during the summer, school breaks, and holidays.

MYTH: Low income families are illegal aliens, or immigrants.

Fact: Seventy-two percent of the low-income families have American-born parents only.


I’ve heard some of these statements (complaints? excuses?) used to justify inaction toward addressing poverty. We’ve got to stop. We have to begin to own the fact that Jesus himself spoke far more frequently about loving the poor and needy than he did about marriage, homosexuality, abortion, or war (incidentally, Jesus didn’t speak directly to either abortion or homosexuality, though other parts of Scripture-- all God’s Word-- do address these). Jesus-- and the New Testament apostles-- were equally as concerned with right belief AND right practice, the latter of which James summarizes as caring for those who are marginalized and without means (James 1:27).

For another look at the reality of poverty and wealth, this video from Miniature Earth is amazing.

Here’s my encouragement: check out these very helpful documents that the PCA offers, thanks to the amazing ministry of Randy Nabors:

• Biblical Guidelines for Mercy Ministry
• Principles for Giving Assistance
• Five Common Questions for Evaluating Need

Find more at the PCA’s urban and mercy ministries page under “Resources.”

Tags: Faith & Life, community, love, Orphans & Widows

• Ben Witherington has a very good guide to basic principles of hermeneutics (the study of the study of the Bible-- no, I didn’t stutter). Worth reading. (HT: John Allen)
• Who says Latin is dead? (Of course, I’ve known this for years, as I taught for six years at a school that offered Latin.)
• In case you don’t know, Zondervan books has a very good blog with regular posts from their most-known authors. My favorites are Mondays with Mounce (Biblical Greek insight from William Mounce, author of a popular seminary Greek text) and Hebrew Corner (from John Walton, an Old Testament professor and Hebrew scholar).
• What do you do with poo? Some creative conservationists in Asia and Europe have some good ideas.
• The Internet Monk has an interesting discussion, asking the question, “is it a sin to be a stay-at-home dad?”
• Too funny: the battle of the church signs.
• For those who are interested: Marcie has started a blog.

Tags: Links

To the generation of faithful men who, as Pastors and Elders, led the formation of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA):

Dear fathers in the faith,

Thank you for the work that you did 35 years ago, in the years leading up to then, and in the years that followed. You stood against attacks on orthodoxy and biblical truth and refused to compromise in your deep commitments to the authority of Scripture and to the faithful teaching and preaching of the Bible. At great sacrifice, personally and-- in many cases-- professionally, you remained faithful to the essential convictions that the truth of Scripture was the final authority for faith and practice.

With grief and mourning, you fought for orthodoxy in a denomination that seemed committed against it, and when you recognized that you would not win that battle, you chose to separate and form a denomination for whom the commitments to the authority of Scripture, the faithful teaching of the biblical gospel, and the brotherly association of congregations would always remain pre-eminent. What you did was difficult and costly, yet, unselfishly, you did it for the sake of the gospel and Christ’s church.

Thank you. For your convictions, commitments, sacrifices, and leadership, Thank you.

The PCA is a wonderful denomination to serve in, and I am so grateful for her. Since her foundations, she has grown substantially through the efforts of church planting. Other congregations, seeking a friendly orthodoxy, have found refuge here. The uniting of two like-minded denominations increased the PCA’s size, stature, and reach in many ways. Ministries conventional and unconventional, in all manner of contexts and to all manner of people-groups, have spread the good news of Christ’s Kingdom where it was absent before. A worldwide emphasis on missions has made the PCA one of the strongest missionary denominations in the country. All of this had its seed in your labor to form this new denomination.

I hope you hear in my words above a sincere admiration, appreciation, and gratitude for your labor and service. I have only respect and praise for you. I know that you love the PCA deeply. I have come to love the PCA too-- not in the same ways that you do, of course, but deeply nevertheless. So I hope you will therefore receive the following questions in all sincerity, not as attacks or dismissals, nor as trick questions or traps. They are asked out of love, for you and for our denomination, and most of all, for Christ and His gospel.

• Through the years, you have remained vigilant in your efforts to protect the PCA from “liberal” theology. Again, thank you for this. But are there other things that we must be vigilant against as well? In the past 35 years, our culture has largely shifted from a world that generally believes in Christianity-- or at least something close too it-- and needs the perfecting of their belief, to a world where Christianity and anything close to it falls under suspicion. Is the new fight for the PCA not merely a battle against liberalism, but also against unbelief itself? In your wisdom, how might we find a balance between these two fronts?
• Surely theology is essential; we must have sound, biblical theology taught in our churches, as you have, for so long, labored for. But is not orthopraxy as important as orthodoxy? I’m thinking of Luke 8:21 and James 1:22-25 in this question. Of what use is our sound theology if it is not merely taught, but also practiced? How deeply do we understand our commitments to the doctrines of grace, if we are not consequently gracious? How much have we understood the Father’s mercy, if we are not merciful as the Father is merciful? From your experience, how might you advise the next generations of Pastors and Elders to live out the grace of God?
• You have shown through the years a great effectiveness for building and growing the church, and we are indebted to your capability in this way. The Book of Church Order is a model of efficiency and the very embodiment of gracious church governance, and the practices of worship and other ministry that have defined the PCA for the past decades have driven many to have a deeper heart of worship and a greater understanding of the truth. Are there ways to accomplish ministry in strict accordance with the principles that undergird our denomination without following the form and practice those have taken historically? As I consider Paul’s ability to adjust his ministry style and approach to accommodate the hearer without compromising the truth (Acts 17; 1 Corinthians 9:19-23), I wonder if we have granted the freedom of our ministers to do the same. Have we constrained our people not only in principle but in practice?
• Your readiness to defend against true theological threats is so valuable, and needed. Yet we often perceive threats where there are none, particularly when we have been attacked before. Is there a way to remain vigilant against heterodoxy without operating from a default posture of suspicion? Practically, it seems that an initially defensive response becomes a hindrance to growth and ministry. Biblically, Paul challenges us to deal lovingly with each other, even when declaring-- and defending-- the truth (Ephesians 4:15), and to hope and believe out of love that our brothers are acting in earnest (1 Corinthians 13:7). Shouldn’t our attitudes toward one another at presbytery and General Assembly meetings-- toward fellow Ruling and Teaching Elders in good standing-- embody this loving, trusting spirit?
• You were right to depart from a body that had abandoned its commitment to biblical truth. Yet, could it be that a contributing factor that drove them toward liberalism was a deep association of conservative theology with unloving, ungracious practice? Christ is a model of commitment to true orthodoxy in the face of bad theology, yet his manner toward even those with whom he disagreed was vitally loving and gracious (Mark 10:17-22; Luke 13:34). Ought not our practice toward one another-- and even toward those who oppose us-- be so gracious and loving that they may not mistake false teachings and poor theology as more closely following the model of Christ?

I am among the newest to join you as a Teaching Elder, Pastor, and Presbyter-- I haven’t yet been ordained for a year, and I’ve barely been a member of my presbytery a year. I wasn’t yet one year old when you were instrumental in forming the PCA. While I have enjoyed membership in the PCA for almost 20 years, and service in (non-ordained) ministry for 12, I realize that, often, I may be too young and too inexperienced, too brash and overconfident to know very well what I speak of. Had I not been confirmed in my thoughts by many other brothers-- some of whom have many more years of experience than I-- I may be inclined to second-guess myself here, as well.

I pray that these questions might be received for what they are: a genuine hope for the ever-increasing fulfillment of our vows to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the gospel and the purity, peace, and unity of the Church.

Your servant,
Ed Eubanks, Jr.

Tags: presbyterians, PCA, PCA Polity, Pastoral ministry

My daughter wrote on the sofa the other day. It wasn’t an accident-- it was a letter “p” and a little design beside it. When Marcie and I discovered it, we were naturally upset. We asked her about it, and she said she did it “because she wanted to.” She confirmed that she knew she wasn’t supposed to do this sort of thing. So we disciplined her for it, and talked with her about how writing on anything other than paper is very bad behavior.

But here’s the thing: throughout the discussion and discipline, I noted in my head how many times we also affirmed that we loved her so much, unconditionally, and no amount of disobedience would cause us to stop loving her. After the discipline was done, she wanted to snuggle, and though she cried for a moment she did not withdraw her affection or affirmation that she trusted our love deeply.

I read something not long ago surrounding a discussion of how the church treats homosexuals. This particular comment came from someone who professed saving faith in Jesus Christ, and who also stated their inclination toward homosexuality. It was clear from his comment that he had been treated with varying degrees of “badly” over the years, particularly by the church.

The discussion they were participating in focused on how the church ought to treat those who are homosexuals, or who are inclined toward homosexuality. One phrase that kept coming up was the old standby: “love the sinner, hate the sin.” This fellow, though, responded strongly to that, saying, “I hate ‘love the sinner, hate the sin.’ If you hate my sin of homosexuality, then you hate me.”

I can understand how he might have arrived at this conclusion. Chances are good that some of those who he had encountered in the past had done a poor job of loving the sinner while hating his sin-- it probably didn’t feel much like love OR a differentiation between the sinner and his sin.

But, just as we faced when we disciplined our daughter for her sin, it is possible to love the sinner deeply, forgivingly, even unconditionally, while despising their sin and its effect. Had we overlooked Molly’s sin and disobedience-- had we simply said, “that is no big deal” and not addressed it at all-- we would have loved her less, not more. I think we instinctively know this about parenting; often, the judgments that are waged against “bad parents” are focused on their willingness or ability to discipline their children.

But we don’t seem to instinctively know this in other relationships. Somehow, loving another in a non-parental relationship implies that we overlook their sin and error more than we address it. In fact, the precedent suggested by this hurting young man creates an environment where it is impossible to love someone AND keep them accountable.

Luke 6:41-42 is often invoked in defense of that view. How dare we discuss the speck in our brother’s eye? Of course we must deal with the log in our own eye first. But a more careful reading of Luke 6:42 reveals that, in the end, both the log in my eye and the speck in yours are removed.

What would it look like to love those who’s sins are highlighted in our Christian culture? How do we love the sinner and hate the sin, when the sin is child abuse or molestation, or adultery, or homosexuality? And are we right to elevate those sins above the others as sins we hate?

Tags: Faith & Life, love, community, Sin & Repentance

I like books-- especially free ones. And I really like author Thom Rainer, and his son Sam.

That’s why I was excited to see this: their book Essential Church? is available for free as a downloadable e-book (PDF format). Only until Monday. Get it here.

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

As we approached October, I’ve been really excited about our study in Luke and how it is progressing and developing.

As before, take these dates as tentative, since the twins may come at any point!

October 5 Luke 8:1-21 -- The work of the Word
October 12 Luke 8:22-56-- Wonder-working power
October 19 Luke 9:1-17 -- Power to the people
October 26 Luke 9:18-36 -- What it means to be the Christ

Tags: preaching, Ordinary Days

• Slate has compiled a fascinating transcript of last Friday’s debate, complete with redacted fact-checks for every factual statement made (more than 200).
• Everyone seems to be blaming the Bush administration for the economic crisis, but it’s clear that it began during the Clinton administration and was perpetuated by Democrats in Congress. Also, get a better grasp on what is going on. (HT: Leslie, Mark & Adam)
• A fascinating look at the practice of rebaptism-- part 1 and part 2.
• What is business casual? A great line: use the detergent test. (HT: Daily Saint)
• How does Bon Jovi understand worship in a way that most churches don’t? Very good points here.
• Watch the last three minutes of this video for a real laugh. I laughed harder at the end than I have in a long time (and if you know me, that’s really saying something). Boom Chakka-Lakka.

Tags: Links

I have believed for a long time that the essence of my ministry-- regardless of where it is or to whom-- is to teach people of the truth of the Gospel, our need for it, and its transforming power to give us new identities in Christ. My primary goal at Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church has been, and is, to focus on that.

Here is PCA pastor Tim Keller talking about that transformed identity, in a better way than I am able to explain it:

Tags: Faith & Life, Pastoral ministry, theology

When I was in college, I took modern Hebrew as my foreign language. I had it in my head that this would give me a head-start on seminary (and it did, to a degree).

As a result, I learned a lot about the Israeli and Hebrew culture. For one thing, my university required that we take a history class that was related to one of our disciplines-- and I chose a “History of Judaism” class that was taught by one of the local rabbis. For another, my Hebrew teacher was an Israeli herself-- she married an English Literature professor when he was doing a sabbatical in Jerusalem-- and she had a good sense that the connection between learning a language and learning a culture was essential.

One of the key “meta-lessons” I learned from this (apart from the interesting stuff about the culture of the Hebrew-speaking people) was how important it is to learn the “language” of a culture. By this, I mean the words, phrases, and concepts that have particular and special meaning to that culture.

This is as true in the church as it is anywhere. The church is a culture (and sometimes it degrades into a sub-culture; more on this another time), and the people of that culture have their own language. Sometimes this is almost comical, but in the ways that it is serious and important, we must learn the language of that culture.

I’m thinking about terms and phrases like these:

• Justification
• Salvation by grace alone
• Atonement
• Propitiation
• The inerrancy of Scripture

Are these familiar to you? Can you offer something in the way of a basic definition of these?

Here’s the thing: these are words taken straight out of the Bible. They aren’t just lingo for stuffy theology professors, but are supposed to be the stock-in-trade of the Christian. There are others, too-- and you ought to learn them.

No one takes up a hobby without expecting to learn some new terminology. If you know what a Birdie is to a golfer, if you can describe a car’s differential, or if you understand what RAM does in a computer, then you bothered to learn terms that were, previously, esoteric and irrelevant to your life. Why would you treat your faith-- which is what grants you eternal life and security-- with less appreciation for the terms and language that accompanies it?

Along those lines, Michael Horton and R.C. Sproul discuss this idea briefly in part of their conversation from a recent episode of the White Horse Inn, a (normally) audio resource that is available in podcast form. Here is the interview:

Tags: Faith & Life, community, Language, theology, worship

A friend of mine recently posted a series of notes on his social network discussing his concern for the fact that our national motto, “In God We Trust,” is being moved from the face of coins (as is common today) to the sides, or edges, of coins in some proposed future designs.

My friend’s concern is that, once the motto is moved to the edges of coins, it won’t be long before it is removed entirely. This is a Slippery Slope argument, but that’s not what I’m concerned about here. Instead, I’m bothered by my friend’s insistence that this bodes badly for the spiritual state of our nation.

He asserts that we see all references to God being systematically removed from the “arenas of our culture.” This, he says, is a problem because, as with the motto on coins, this removes from the consciousness of the culture the truth of the Biblical God. I think he assumes too much in this.

We in the church are accustomed to seeing the word “God” and immediately associating it with Yahweh, the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the trinitarian God. But I think the idea of “god” has become so vague and passé outside of the church that there is little or no association with the Christian God in the word itself.

For that matter, in a culture like ours-- where almost everyone has had some exposure to more than one religious belief system-- the notion of “God” may, as often as not, conjure up an association with Allah (the god of Islam), Gaia or some other pantheistic idea, Hinduism or some eastern religious concept, or even some personally-invented idolatry or paganism. It is clear from the studies that have been done that, while a very large majority of the population of the U.S. say they “believe in God,” the idea of god that those respondents hold is frequently anything other than an orthodox understanding of God.

In stark contrast, I get the sense from my friend’s posts that he considers the presence of our national motto as a great boon for the spread of the Gospel. While this might be an interesting conversation starter that could lead to an evangelistic opportunity, I’ve never heard of anyone who actively inquired about spiritual truth because of the U.S. motto on currency. I could be dead wrong on this one, but I rank the motto on a coin as several notches below bumper stickers, t-shirts, and coffee mugs as tools for outreach.

So here’s my point: should my friend be up in arms? I don’t think so. In fact, I think it is time and energy that is misplaced, that could have been spent doing actual ministry of evangelism and outreach. (So, too, is this post-- consider me sufficiently convicted.)

Tags: Faith & Life, Cultural Discernment, Politics, community, Evangelism

An interesting discussion on counseling and medication over at another blog raised a good point that I’ve often found is a stumbling block to Christians. David Powlison, quoting the Director of the National Institute on Mental Health, said:

Psychiatric medications can sometimes take the edge off symptoms, but they can't give people what they really need. People need meaning and relationships. Psychiatry can't give that. Medication can't give that.

This is something that is apparently difficult to understand for those who have not had immediate contact with the effects of this kind of medication (known as “psychotropic” medication).

I once had a student whose comment revealed that even those who HAVE had contact sometimes misunderstand. She said in an off-hand manner, “I’ve taken anti-depressants. They make you happy!”

The truth is, they don’t. They might help you to be normal (in a chemical sense), but they don’t make you “happy.” My concern deepened as I counseled this student about this, because she had faced mild-to-moderate depression for so long that she had come to assume that her depressed state was “normal”-- thus, having that edge of depression taken off was “happy” feeling to her.

Here’s my best analogy of what psychotropic drugs offer: Suppose you love running, and have your heart dead-set on running a marathon in a year. In preparation for a training regimen, you visit your doctor, who informs you that the slight pain in your knee is actually a problem that needs to be addressed surgically; in short, if you don’t have your knee scoped, you won’t be able to train for the marathon, let alone complete it.

Here’s the analogy: if you have your knee scoped, is that going to make you ready for the marathon? No. You’ll still have a lot of work to do to condition your body (and your mind) for running the marathon. But if you don’t have your knee scoped, you are guaranteed that you won’t be able to run the marathon.

So it is with psychotropic medication: they won’t overcome your depression for you, but they might address the physical/physiological obstacles that would keep you from being able to do the work of overcoming depression. (Likewise with anxiety and other clinical mental health issues.)

Tags: Science & Technology, Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, Grace, Grief

Following up (again) on my recently completed series on the Lord’s Supper, I thought this brief (< 1 min.) video from Tim Keller might be another helpful summary of what happens in the sacrament of Communion.

Tags: Faith & Life, worship, community, love

As I wrapped up a brief sermon series on The Lord’s Supper yesterday, I thought it may be helpful to summarize the applications, or “answers” to the questions I posed about the sacrament (which were, “what is it?” “when is it?” and “how is it?”):

• The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is a covenantal meal, which means it is a family meal-- thus, it’s not primarily an individual thing, but much more of a group thing, and in a mysterious spiritual way, it is a time of true, living fellowship with God Himself, through which He nourishes our souls with grace.
• The sacrament is something that we should be devoted to doing: devoted to doing it in the context of worship, accompanied by Word and prayer, because these are the spiritual food that God has given us for nourishment; and devoted to doing it often-- as often as we are able-- because we long to be fed and nourished all the more on the grace of God.
• The sacrament is something for believers gathered together, not for unbelievers: if we know salvation through Christ alone, we are welcomed through the Gate to take part in this spiritual feast; but if we approach it wrongly-- in an unbelieving way, whether because we misunderstand what the sacrament is for, or because we presume on it meaning that it doesn’t have-- then we are warned of the consequences of judgement being increased on us.

Tags: preaching, worship, Sacrament, Bible, theology, community, Faith & Life

Happy Labor Day, everyone. Here are the sermon texts for the month of September, with the continuation of the series on the Lord’s Supper, and then resuming Luke.

One thing to note: as we move through the fall (even starting in September, though I certainly hope this won’t be the case then), you should take these published texts with a grain of salt. Chances are, the schedule might change last-minute if Marcie should go into labor and the twins arrive. I’m planning to have some guys in the Presbytery “on call” to pinch-hit for me should I need it.

UPDATE: I made a slight adjustment to the last text.

September 7 1 Corinthians 11:23-34 -- What is the Lord’s Supper? Part 3: How is it?
September 14 Luke 7:1-17 -- Great power and humble faith
September 21 Luke 7:18-35 -- Following a prepared path
September 28 Luke 7:36-50 -- How great is the debt?

Tags: preaching, Ordinary Days

There is an interesting overture before the legislature of Arkansas that, if it succeeds, would put a bill before the state that would outlaw adoption and foster care by unmarried people who live together.

I find it interesting because it is addressing the very problem that, I believe, ended the current debate about same-sex marriage before it started: when we (and by that I mean the “royal we”-- the culture of our nation) granted same-sex couples the right to foster and adopt orphans, we tacitly allowed them to also define themselves as a family. How, then, could we possibly deny them other similar legal rights as a family?

So the people of Arkansas have realized that-- or at least they have recognized that granting same-sex couples (and other unmarried couples as well) the right to adopt, they put the “traditional” understanding of family under threat. This is a pretty bold move, given the widespread acceptance of divorce and even co-habitation in our society.

At the same time, I have to say I’m sympathetic to the response from the “other side”-- in this case, including the social workers and others who want to see the huge numbers of orphans placed with families that can care for them better than the state. Is it not the case that ANY willing parent-- single, unmarried, homosexual-- who will offer love and care for a child is better than none, leaving children in state care?

And this is where the rubber meets the road: if the church dares to demand that such measures be taken (i.e., stripping same-sex couples of the possibility of adoption), we must step up to improve our participation in adoption and foster care ourselves. We are biblically mandated to do so (James 1:27) if we claim to take the practice of our faith seriously. How can we say that unmarried couples must not be allowed to adopt, when they are willing to do what we are not?

Tags: Faith & Life, family life, Cultural Discernment, Politics, Orphans & Widows

In August, we’ll take a little break from Luke after wrapping up the Sermon on the Plain (Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount). During that break we’ll work through a three-part series looking at the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

UPDATE: I’ve adjusted the schedule to reflect Bruce Farrant’s sermon from last Sunday.

Here are the texts for August:

August 3 Luke 6:37-42 -- Dealing with others’ faith
August 10 Luke 6:43-49 -- Dealing with your own faith
August 17 Guest Preacher Bruce Farrant-- Proverbs 18:14; 1 Peter 3:15
August 24 Matthew 26:26-30 -- What is the Lord’s Supper? Part 1: What is it?
August 31 Acts 2:42-47 -- What is the Lord’s Supper? Part 2: When is it?

Tags: preaching, Ordinary Days

Following up on my previous post, I’ll continue my reflections from the fascinating conversation I got to be a part of earlier in the week.

At another point in the conversation, one of these formerly legalistic teenagers commented on the damage that was done through this oppressive environment. Specifically, she said that she felt like no one was given any sense of their right to read the Bible for themselves. Instead, they were told what the Bible taught and what it meant for them.

This is oppressive-- and brings to mind a significant part of the Protestant reformation, which was to translate the Bible into the language of the people (instead of only into Latin), so that people of than the priests and bishops could read it. There is an essential aspect of the faith that comes from reading Scripture; it is the Word of God for the people of God. And it is important that people know their Bibles so that they can test the teachings of others against the Word of God (remember the Bereans, who were praised for this in Acts 17:11).

At the same time, the approach of the leaders in the legalistic community are a good example of how we tend to take sound principles too far, when there is actually a “middle ground” balance needed.

Christians today too often take the “democratization of the Bible” too far; because the Reformers saw that it was important that people other than only the authorities of the church be able to read Scripture, today we have many who have decided that their interpretation of the Bible is as good as anyone’s-- and maybe better.

In fact, not everyone can interpret the Bible equally. Some have been trained extensively for interpreting the Bible-- learning the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, studying the history, archeaology, and peoples of biblical times, training in methods and approaches of how to study and interpret Scripture, and other ways of being trained. Others have read and studied their Bibles many times over, and they simply know the Scriptures well. Still others are, frankly, not familiar enough with the Bible to make the confident assertions of interpretation that they do.

This isn’t to say that not everyone ought to read their Bibles and, yes, make efforts at interpretation. But it is to say that all of us ought to remain teachable about even those biblical texts that we feel the most familiar with. And when we recognize that an interpretation we have made is at odds with an interpretation that others have made, we ought to be willing to hear the reasoning behind their interpretation with an open mind.

Imagine, if you will, the person who dogmatically insists that his translation of a text, though totally at odds with everyone else, is the accurate one:

Dogmatist: This is what I believe the text is saying...
Elder: I don’t see how you got that from Scripture; instead, I think the text says this...
Dogmatist: You’re wrong. It says what I said.
Elder: Well, let’s consult these commentaries, written by contemporary scholars... and, yes, they disagree with your interpretation, also.
Dogmatist: It doesn’t matter. I’m sticking with what I said.
Elder: Okay, but now I’ve consulted with the historical confessions, and they all assert that your interpretation is incorrect.
Dogmatist: That’s what they think. I know what my Bible says.
Elder: But look here, where the early church fathers wrote about exactly that... and they all say the text means something different.
Dogmatist: They can say what they want, but I still say it means what I said.

This sounds a little far-fetched-- but I’ve actually met people who were so convinced that their interpretation (and it always seems to be a “new” take on something) is right that they are willing to disagree with pastors, scholars, and others over 2000+ years of church history and interpretation of the Scripture. A wise pastor once said to me, “if your interpretation is in complete disagreement with 2000 years of church history, you’re very likely wrong.”

This is one of the reasons why I find the presbyterian approach to “doing church” so helpful. As presbyterians, the default position is that my voice alone is not the final word, nor is anyone else’s. Instead, we constantly defer to one another with humility. As presbyterians, we trust that God is at work in the others in our congregation, our presbytery, our synod, or our assembly, at least as much as He has been at work in us to reveal the truth. There will always be times when it is possible that the larger bodies are wrong-- but then we turn to the greater history of the church and test our perspectives against that. The deference to the higher bodies is always present, and always keeping us accountable for our interpretation.

We must read our Bibles, and we must work at interpretation. But we must also be ready to be shown that we are wrong. If we aren’t, then we have made ourselves the author of Scripture-- for only the author can be utterly certain of the meaning of a text.

Tags: Bible, community, Leadership, Faith & Life, presbyterians

The other day I was with a group of people who were talking about an especially legalistic environment that some of them had been a part of as teenagers-- a place where they were literally told what to believe, and that if they disagreed they would go to Hell. The leaders in this environment were, clearly, abusing their authority and making claims that no one person or group has a right to make.

One person commented on the fact that I should get a lot of sermon illustrations from these stories! (He was right...) That got me to thinking about what the real applications really were. I’d like to reflect on two broad applications here, over two posts.

At one point I asked the question of this group: how did your parents (who were all Christians) continue to believe that it was good for you to be a part of this? After all, I said, you would surely come home and tell them all about it.

Their first response demonstrated how powerful the authoritarian environment was:

No, we were told that if we reported on them we would go to Hell.

[Note, by the way, the similar nature of this environment to a classic abusive relationship-- where the victim is told that THEY (the victim) would get in trouble if they told.]

But as they went on, something else became clear. One of them said:

I was glad to be there. I needed a place where I could belong, and this place felt safe-- partly because of the rules.

And there I saw my first sermon illustration: when it comes down to it, we all gravitate toward legalism. We are all legalists.

When we’re offered an environment where the rules are known, it becomes very easy to settle into that. We know where we stand in the pecking order; we are then able to proclaim with confidence precisely why we have merited the favor of God and men.

I think this is what makes grace so threatening, so terrifying to all of us. If the work that earns us favor isn’t our work (through legalism) but Christ’s work imputed to us (by grace), we are actually dependent on something (grace) and someone (Christ) other than ourselves.

This also illustrates why even communities that are defined by Christ’s grace (namely, churches) quickly return to legalism. Dependence is very uncomfortable. Dependence is often humbling, sometimes awkward, and frequently at odds with pride. Someone who is dependent has just reason to lose some confidence in themselves.

Here’s the irony in it all: we are always dependent. Even when we think we have every reason for confidence (as with the group of teenagers who knew exactly their place in the social order of that legalistic community), we are still dependent on something: for the legalist, it is the rules and laws that we subscribe to, and the authority who creates and enforces them.

Legalism-- that idea that “I can earn merit/favor/righteousness through obedience, and take confidence and pride in myself”-- is a lie.

Tags: Bible, Faith & Life, community, Leadership, Grace

I’ve recently read two posts from bloggers who, somehow, have managed to candidly capture in their posts the shock, the depth of pain, the sense of loss that they have experienced.

Amazingly, both of these writers appear to have written their words even during their experiences. Their words are as beautiful as they are tragic, in part because they are so vulnerable and exposed in them. They are also beautiful because they seem to be inviting others-- not to share their pain, but to understand it.

So many Christians I have known are afraid of pain, many because they have been so sheltered from it. But our world is full of pain, and it is quite likely that more than half of the people you encounter today are facing suffering of some sort. What would you do if you knew of it? How would you come alongside them in their pain? As one friend (who pointed me to one of these posts) wrote, “I am currently working on a doctorate in biblical studies... a Ph.D. does not address this.”

I think the heart of these two ladies is right: to come alongside them, we must understand their pain. We don’t have to share it-- I think many who are the midst of suffering feel strongly that the only way others can understand IS to share it, but I disagree-- but we must understand it. I’m grateful for the vulnerability of these two who, in the moment of their suffering and pain, invite you and me to have a glimpse of what pain looks like, that we might understand.

I invite you to read the stories of:

Rae (AKA SmockLady) who faced her first miscarriage
Denny (AKA Songstress) who lost her husband at age 33

Tags: love, Faith & Life, family life, community, Grief

How did you choose the translation of the Bible that you use? What was the process for evaluation? What factors did you consider?

My guess is that many folks “chose” somewhat arbitrarily. Maybe they were given a nice Bible as a gift, and they decided that would become their main Bible. Maybe a friend showed her a study tool in his Bible, and she thought she would like to have those tools as well. Perhaps they’ve simply used the same Bible since they were a child-- and they can’t even remember where they got their Bible!

When I was first beginning at Hickory Withe PC, one of the members asked me, “which Bible translation will you be preaching from?” It turns out that he and his wife wanted to do their devotional reading in the same Bible that they would use on Sunday mornings-- which they wanted to be the same translation that the preacher would be using.

This is a great idea-- and an easy way to make what is becoming a more and more difficult decision: which Bible translation should I use?

There are a lot of factors that go into a Bible translation, and there is an increasing number of useful and good translations. Evaluating them can be tricky.

Thankfully, there is a new website whose intended purpose is to guide people through understanding the different translations: Best-Bible.org. Whether you’re looking for a new Bible, curious about the differences between your translation and others, or wondering what translation philosophy went into the Bible you love, you’ll find a great amount of helpful information over there.

[Full disclosure: I had been meaning to mention this helpful tool already; however, by linking to them today I’m entered in a drawing to win a free copy of the forthcoming ESV Study Bible.]

Tags: Bible, reading

Some of you may not know that we have a professional bluegrass band in our congregation, called Cypress Creek. At least, we have a significant part of it-- two full members of the band (and one who regularly joins them) are members of our church.

They’re a lot of fun, and they’re also really good. They play gigs all over the mid-south, and every now and then we get a bluegrass number as an offertory or for special music during worship.

They’ll also be playing at the Vicky Williams Benefit that the church is holding and hosting in early August. If you’re able (and you’re in the area), come out on August 9th from 4-8pm and hear Cypress Creek.

Update: Sorry about the bad link from earlier; I was using an old link. To make up for it, I’ve posted THREE videos now!

Here they are in the studio:

Tags: Music, Faith & Life, Media

Here are the texts for this month’s sermons. You’ll note that again this month, I’ll be gone for the last Sunday of the month, and a guest preacher will bring the Word for us.

UPDATE: I won’t have a guest preacher on the last Sunday after all.
UPDATE #2: I adjusted the text for this Sunday!

July 6 Luke 6:1-11 -- Sabbath Restrictions? Or Sabbath Freedom?
July 13 Luke 6:12-16 -- Appointing Twelve
July 20 Luke 6:17-26 -- Blessings & Woes
July 27 Luke 6:27-38 -- Love for others

Tags: preaching, Ordinary Days

In light of yesterday’s post on single-issue voting, I’ll offer this post that re-covers the ideas that started it, plus the counter-points to those ideas.

I’m not throwing my support behind either candidate– and I don’t care to share who I’m voting for. I think there’s a good case to be made for a conservative on both sides, and I understand the “I’m socio-politically conservative and I’m voting for Obama” side completely.

Here’s the gist of that argument:

1. Single-issue voting is wrong and unbiblical.
2. Even if it were not, we’ve been told that “the next president will end legalized abortion through judicial appointments” since the 80s– has it happened yet?
3. If that’s not reason enough to be skeptical, there is arguable evidence that abortion actually was reduced more under Clinton than Bush– so why is the default assumption that a Republican president will be better for the pro-life position? (Oh yeah: because the whole argument goes, the distant possibility of total elimination of legalized abortions is more important than the more likely possibility of reduction of legalized abortions.)
4. A vote for McCain is a guarantee for continued waging of war that is unjust and has little possibility of ending soon or with effective outcome. A vote for Obama is at least a solid chance of ending that much sooner.
5. The grim predictions of all who oppose Obama is that he is an extreme liberal who will be the enemy of people of faith. The last time we heard this was, of course, when President Bill Clinton was elected. But really, Clinton didn’t end up being that bad, and it is hard to argue that the U.S. suffered or got worse under his presidency. Why should we believe it this time around?
6. Isn’t it natural to want to believe that all of the talk of change, a new tone, and truly productive political process is true? Even the most cynical among us must surely WANT it to be true.

So there is my take on the case for Obama from a conservative’s perspective. Now, here’s the argument for the other side: why should a Christian/conservative/moderate (or even liberal) vote for John McCain?

1. Single-issue voting is wrong and unbiblical. (And just as many conservatives oppose Obama because of his position on abortion, many others oppose McCain because of his position on the Iraq War.)
2. Even if it were not, the Iraq War is a commitment we have made as a nation-- good or ill-- and we ought to take that commitment seriously enough to see it through to completion. Yes, we’ve been involved in it for over five years; we were in Vietnam for 16 years, and our failure there was largely due to growing apathy and opposition toward the later stages, even when some evidence of success had shown up. The recent reports of the positive effects of the “surge” ought to be enough to at least slow down the urgency to pull out as soon as possible. So the next president will at least need to be open-minded to the matters at hand, and not dogmatically committed to immediate withdrawal. We may not “win” this war, but we can certainly finish well.
3. McCain, though fairly moderate on many issues, has a solid record of “pro-life” support and congressional/senatorial voting. So if we ARE inclined toward the single-issue agenda that consumes so many Christians, he’s your guy!
4. A vote for McCain may actually be a pretty good balance of conservative and moderate positions, appealing more to many of the younger generation of folks who don’t identify purely with a right-wing, conservative agenda.
5. While McCain has, at best, been very tight-lipped about his personal beliefs and faith (to my knowledge he’s never gone on record stating that he considers himself a Christian or any other belief), he HAS shown himself to be friendly to Christians and other people of faith.
6. McCain’s lack of Obama-like charisma doesn’t alter the fact that he speaks boldly of change as well; plus, his years of political and military experience bolster his claims of being able to be the leader we need to get true bi-partisan change effected.

That said, there are reasons why many believers may not wish to vote for EITHER of them! Whether it encourages you to a write-in (Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are two names I often hear about as write-ins) or to go the “none of the above” route, here are a few more thoughts on the two presumptive candidates:

• Neither candidate is a distinctively Christian candidate; Obama, who has openly discussed his faith, recently resigned his membership from a congregation that espouses Black Liberation Theology in a denomination that is probably the most theologically liberal denomination that still considers itself to be “Christian;” now he is, I presume, an unchurched theological liberal. McCain, as I mentioned, has NO open declaration of faith or belief on record, and when asked by Christians about his faith instead refers to the inspiration he has found in the faith of others. This may not be a deal-breaker for everyone-- I would rather see the “best” man in place than an adequate Christian-- but it’s probably a factor for most Christians.
• Both candidates talk a LOT about change-- which may be good-- but have yet to really spell out what said change would really mean, at least in a way that has gotten through to the general audiences. In other words, nothing like the “lock box” of 2000 has really emerged. Time will tell; in the historic scheme of elections, it is very early (even though it seems like it has been going on forever already, and we still have six months left).
• While so much talk about change is bantered about, we’ve still got a growing economic crisis and an over-dependence on petroleum. We know what they’ll do about the Iraq War and the military action in Afghanistan, but what will they do about the economy? How will they solve our oil dependence problem? We’ve heard the soundbite niceties that represent, at best, short-term relief; I’m not sure if either candidate has a solid plan (or even an idea) about how they will lead the nation to true solutions over the long-term.
• Almost everyone I know seems fairly dis-satisfied with our candidate selection. Apart from those who have really been wowed by Obama’s style and charisma, most people I’ve talked to feel like both candidates represent something of a blasé option.

There it is: my assessment of the presidential race as it stands today. I hope this is, at least, food for thought.

Tags: Politics, Faith & Life, Cultural Discernment

In honor of Independence Day, I thought I would offer up a post that simultaneously speaks to our context and government, the Kingdom of God, and the current events of our political process. (I’m also taking this opportunity to respond to a question posed to me over at my friend Megan’s blog.)

Why is single-issue voting unbiblical?

I’ll work through this issue from the most practical to the most theological (but hopefully that’s a false dichotomy, and there are shades of each at the opposite ends of the spectrum).

• Even someone with a die-hard “culture war” perspective has to begin to wonder if the culture war has been lost. If you follow principles of just war (which biblical Christians ought to feel obligated to do), and you appropriate these principles into the culture wars as well (after all, they are just a violent in many ways), the principle of “probability of success” has to give you pause. If your single issue is abortion or defining marriage, don’t you wonder if we’ve already lost those wars? (Ditto for other single issues.)
• It is difficult to be a truly consistent single-issue voter. (Really, it’s difficult to be consistent about political issues in general; it’s just that the single-issue voter invites greater scrutiny of his or her consistency.) Most who hold up abortion as the defining issue, for example, claim (rightly, I believe) that abortion is murder. What, then, is the desired end-goal? To have would-be mothers arrested and tried for murder if they have an abortion performed? At least they should be tried as accessories to murder. Likewise, some claim that the definition of marriage as only that between a man and a woman is the ultimate issue of this year’s elections; they don’t want to allow same-sex couples to define their relationships under the terminology of marriage. But the outcries were far fewer when family courts began to grant same-sex couples the right to adopt, thereby allowing them to functionally define their relationships under the terminology of family.
• Another difficulty in single-issue voting is the problem of which single-issue you decide is the most important. How do you decide? Even the most carefully-reasoned decision here necessarily excludes a number of vital issues. The decision will inevitably be at least shaped by your cultural context: your race, your socio-economic circumstances, your geography of origin. Morality has a role, but in the end deciding on one single issue as arbiter political decisions is a moral and ethical coin-toss. This sort of relativism is inherently contrary to biblical reasoning.
• Whatever the single-issue is does NOT encompass the whole of any candidate’s platform or worldview. Thus, we may find that we are inadvertently supporting and aligning ourselves with a candidate with whom we utterly disagree on another issue. This is not always taboo, and there are times when we can and should join with those with differences for the sake of a particular effort; nevertheless, to do so thoughtlessly or ignorantly (because you simply weren’t paying attention to or concerned about other issues) is not being consistent to a biblical worldview of engaging and interacting with culture and world.
• (Closely related to the third point) It is impossible for ANY single issue to be elevated as more important than others from a strictly biblical perspective. Suppose the most aggressively anti-Christian legislation were at stake-- say, making it illegal for Christians to gather for worship, punishable by death-- would that rise to the top as most important? Would defending our “right” to gather for worship (the loss of which has never stopped the Christian church from gathering over the centuries) be more important than the biblical mandate to care for the poor or evangelize the lost? Would it be consistent to have argued for these several decades that opposing abortion is the most important endeavor the church can undertake (yes, I’ve actually been told exactly that) and suddenly to switch issues?
• Single-issue voting represents a segmentation of life into nicely compartmentalized concepts, as if they are completely unrelated. But the Bible clearly portrays a world where such things are inherently connected. Scripture shows us connections we can’t make in a segmented view, such as the value of building codes as a part of loving our neighbor as ourselves (Deut. 22:8). We can see these connections in our world today, as well. One person suggested recently that the solution to the economic crisis we’re in would be to cut governmental spending, which he fleshed out as, “get[ting] out of schooling, Social Security, and welfare.” Many Christians may agree. But the truth is that our society isn’t prepared for the fall-out for the reduction of governmental support in ANY of these areas, and until we establish a foundational structure for replacing ALL governmental education (and not just for the wealthy Christians, but for poor Christians and non-Christians as well), we ought not begin demanding that the government “get out of schooling.” Likewise, if abortion were outlawed tomorrow, the needs in adoption, health care, and social support for unwed and low-income mothers/families would go through the roof within months, and the demands on our educational, legal, and criminal systems would increase over the next two decades. We HAVE to understand the connections and obligations that each issue requires of other issues, and single-issue voting ignores that irresponsibly. After all, approximately 34% of our tax dollars go directly to supporting social programs; does YOUR church’s budget come even close to that much given toward benevolence? Let’s get our spending priorities in order in the church before we start worrying about the speck in the eye of our government.
• Scripture covers a multitude of issues that are at play in a socio-political system. If we based our assessment of what issues are the “most important” for Christians on what the Bible teaches about social and political issues, we would have to include issues of the sanctity of life and family values, of course; but we would also have to include matters of war and peace, social care for the poor, education, and racial and ethnic equality. Furthermore, a biblical view of the sanctity of life, for example, might begin with addressing abortion, but it goes far beyond that to include care for the sick, the elderly, and a host of issues that our bio-medical advances have raised for us. Yet few “pro-life” Christians I know can truly say they are more than simply “anti-abortion”-- they simply haven’t thought through what the fullest sense of the idea of being pro-life means, nor what they implications are from a socio-political viewpoint.
• The “greatest commandment” wasn’t “Do not murder” OR “Do not commit adultery,” though most Republican Christians I know seem to suggest that it was one (or both) by their single-issue emphases. The greatest commandment, to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength,” at least implies a whole-life devotion to God, which effectively nullifies the justification of single-issue voting. But if the inclination for single-issue voting persists, what does the second-greatest commandment imply? Wouldn’t “love your neighbor as yourself” lend credence to a single-issue emphasis on social issues like poverty, health care, or welfare?

These are just some rambling thoughts; a fair amount of this was shooting from the hip. I’d welcome any interaction about these.

Tags: Politics, Cultural Discernment

Here are the sermon texts for the month of June. The one exception is the last Sunday; I'll be in South Carolina on that Sunday, so we will have a guest preacher.

UPDATE: I’ve changed my text for Sunday, 6/22.

June 1 Luke 5:12-16-- A Gospel for Outcasts
June 8 Luke 5:17-26-- Spiritual Healing
June 15 Luke 5:27-39-- A Call to Sinners
June 22 James 5:19-20-- Wandering souls
June 28 Guest Preacher: Justin Westmoreland

Tags: preaching, Ordinary Days

At the recommendation of my St. Louis friend Steve Hughes, I started watching Last Comic Standing on NBC this summer. Funny stuff-- I’ve always enjoyed stand-up comedy, and this is a fun reality show.

On the first show, a pair came on that really hit on something good. They present themselves as a “Christian folk duo with a message” and (after looking them up on the web) I think they really are Christians who are also comedians and want to poke fun at the sub-culture that has, sadly, emerged as perhaps representative of Christianity in our world. Here’s their first clip:

Tags: Funny, Media, Music, Cultural Discernment

I’ve mentioned before (twice: here and here) that a significant issue facing this year’s General Assembly was the question of women and how they fit into diaconal ministry. In what my friend Steven Estock called “the year of the woman,” there were no less than five overtures before the assembly that spoke to this matter, most of them asking the assembly to erect a study committee that would apply high-level scholarship to the issue.

After some substantial discussion (and some interesting moves of parliamentary procedure), the primary overture (and the rest as well, as related overtures) was answered in the negative (in other words, we voted against it) on the grounds that:

...the presbyteries should work through the implications in their own local contexts.

Their response was centered around the basis that the overtures were intended essentially to amend the Book of Church Order, and they pointed out that there are processes to amend the BCO that don’t require the time and resources of a study committee.

Already there is quite a bit of stir about this decision. Some will continue to debate the matter in a way that suggests that the vote hasn’t yet happened. Others will continue to insist that the questions being asked are such simple matters that the motives of the questioners must be suspect. (For a glimpse of some of this, you might read some of the responses to ByFaith’s report of the decision.)

While I’m disappointed with the vote, I don’t think either of these responses is the most helpful or appropriate. Part of our presbyterianism-- a large part, actually-- is that we acknowledge that God works through His body, at least as much as (if not more than) through individual believers. So we need to trust that, if the assembly voted against this overture, God has good purposes for that.

What’s before us, then, is to receive the advice and instruction of the assembly and take up study of the issue in the lower bodies. I’m sure many are already beginning to do exactly this-- I certainly am-- and I’ll be curious to see how many overtures are presented next year with, not just questions about the issue that MIGHT lead to an amendment, but actual amendments.

Tags: PCA, PCA Polity, theology, Bible

A few links and fun stuff for the weekend:

• Good thoughts on listening to a sermon can be found here (dealing with action) and here (dealing with reaction). Go forth and do likewise.
• A problem I just don’t have... yet?!?
• There’s been a bit of interesting stuff about transracial adoption lately. For one, there’s this piece from the NY Times on de-emphasizing race. Here’s another, from Touchstone magazine, discussing how the Gospel affects the issue. The Washington Post chimes in about it, and Thabiti Anabwile offers his thoughts on the Times piece and others. Thoughtful stuff. (HT: Between Two Worlds for some of these.)
• John Piper is starting a seminary at Bethlehem Baptist Church. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Will there be any other professors but him?
• Thoughtful ideas about both sides of the now-FINALLY!-decided Presidential race: is Barack ready? Is McCain ready?
• What are Christians NOT allowed to say? Here’s one piece on “cussin’” and foul language. Here’s another piece on the same topic, with a slightly different take. Here’s an entirely different idea-- with some surprising responses-- on what ideas Christians aren’t “allowed” to say. (I’ll come back to this soon, I think.)
• From Will Smith... who knew? Here’s some great marriage advice from the guy who brought us “Parents Just Don’t Understand” and “Gettin’ Jiggy Wit It” as well as Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Independence Day, Hitch, and The Pursuit of Happyness. I’ve always known he was a great talent; now I see that his talent extends into understanding people, as well.
• An interesting way to express yourself... create your own fonts. What’s so fascinating about this is that, 20 years ago, this artform was so obscure and difficult to accomplish that those who actually did it could be counted by the hundreds, if not the tens.
• Is your favorite ice cream in this list? Here are the top six most-fattening ice creams in the U.S. I’m so glad someone finally did that study.
• My friend Dane has some good questions for the emerging church. Very thoughtful-- I’d like to know that too, Dane.
• Okay-- 10 is enough for this week.

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, Politics, family life

Sort of a slow week on the blog this week; sorry about that. Here are a few links to keep you busy...

Here's a cool tool for helping you with your Bible memory: BibleMemory.us. This cleverly-named program makes use of e-mail and daily reminders to keep you focused on Bible memory. (HT: Adam)

Sam Rainer has good reflections and summary of a recent Ellison Research study on what sort of churches folks swap to when they swap churches.

PCA Pastor Bob Smallman will hit 30 years serving at the same church in November; read his reflections (written at the 25-year mark) on the long pastorate here. (By the way, PCA Pastor Rob Rayburn also hit 30 years.)

My friend Craig's two posts reflecting on California's decision to legalize "gay marriage" generated a lot of discussion and debate; catch the initial post here, and his followup here. Joe Carter interacts with a lot of data and research on the same topic; check out his thoughts here. Together, there's a lot to think about.

How do you define "failure" in a school? I thought this was already pretty well understood; it's hard to believe that this article is from USA Today, not The Onion.

Wow-- an actually helpful set of disclaimers and identity-markers about evangelicals. This article is a sort of "rubber meets the road" approach to the same problem the Evangelical Manifesto sets out to correct, in brief (and very readable) form. (HT: Joe)

Cleaning out your parents' home has become a major factor in our culture; I found this brief post (and the comments that followed) from Unclutterer to be really helpful.

I'm more glad every day that I'm not in high school anymore. Here's the latest reason why... which is more important: actually being liked, or perceiving that you are liked? Ugh. (HT: Joe)

Teachers in the midst of grading papers will resonate with this one: a community college professor reports that remarkably few students do well in his English 101 classes. (HT: Heidelblog)

Tags: Links

Here's a few things I've been listening to/watching lately:

First, a video (using audio from R.C. Sproul) to discuss whether "Jesus as the only way to heaven" is too narrow:

Here's PCA Pastor Tim Keller speaking at UC Berkeley, addressing the topic of his new book The Reason for God. This is great stuff (if a little long!); keep listening after his talk, because he takes questions for about another hour. If you've never heard Keller answer questions in a public forum like this, you'll learn a lot about public discourse and how to engage others with ideas in a winsome, gracious way.

PCA Pastor Ligon Duncan is interviewed about why Christians should care about the Patristics. Who are the Patristics? What did they do? Why should we care? Pastor Duncan does a great job here of introducing this group of our spiritual ancestors to contemporary believers.

Here's Tim Keller again, this time speaking at Google Authors (a forum that Google provides for its employees and the community around them):

The talks from the Conversation on Denominational Renewal is probably the best thing I've listened to in a while. These five talks cover several topics briefly, and they do an excellent job of debunking the myths of what trouble the PCA is in under the threat of theological variation, and expose the truth about the trouble of misplacing our focus. If you listen to only one, make it Jeremy Jones's talk on "Renewing Theology." (Click on "Who's Speaking?" after following the link...)

Everybody else seems to be linking to this video from Joshua Harris (the I Kissed Dating Goodbye guy) on models of education; and this video from John Piper called "Don't Waste your Pulpit." I might as well link to them also! They're both actually good videos with good points behind each.

Finally, way back in the day I gave my sister a book entitled something like, 101 Things to Do during a Boring Sermon. The funniest one was called "Rapture Bingo" and it provided a Bingo card something like this one. If you got bingo, you were supposed to stand up and shout, "IT'S THE RAPTURE!" (The second-funniest one was "Not the Rapture Bingo" wherein you waited for someone to stand up and shout, "IT'S THE RAPTURE!" at which point you would stand up and shout, "NO IT'S NOT!") Enjoy-- but if I catch anyone playing during one of MY sermons, I might make a sermon illustration out of you!

Tags: Links

What is the most crying need of the church in America today? A handful of key thinkers answer this question thoughtfully and helpfully.

I mentioned the various comments and discussion of the Evangelical Manifesto; you can find some of them here: Os Guinness, Doug Wilson, Darrell Bock, Joe Taylor, Denny Burk, Alan Jacobs, Guinness again, Al Mohler, Ed Stetzer, Justin Taylor.

A great quote from Spurgeon on looking to Jesus, courtesy of my friend Paul Bankson.

My friend Adam has a great list of resources on suffering. 'Cause all of us face it.

Why are some Reformed folk so unpleasant? Thomas McCall of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School has some good remarks here; see also this (now dated) post and this Christianity Today article. Shouldn't grace beget grace?

What's going on in Myanmar? And why are we hearing more about it? Note these two posts from Justin Taylor (first, second) about some of the problems. How can the average American local congregation do something to help?

Tags: Links

Does this idea about "women and word of mouth" suggest anything to the church about evangelism and outreach? Could this be part of the reason why there are more women attending church today than men? Does it imply that we ought to put more emphasis on women in our outreach efforts?

Tags: Evangelism, Faith & Life

Last week, a document entitled The Evangelical Manifesto was released by a broad group of Christian leaders (by that, I mean leaders of Christianity in various forms) as an effort to raise helpful questions and offer helpful guidance about how we, as Christians, live out our faith as both citizens of the Kingdom and residents in our American culture.

The list of 80 "charter signatories" and authors includes a lot of names that will be familiar to many Christians: Kay Arthur, Darrell Bock, Stuart Briscoe, Leighton Ford, Os Guinness, Jack Hayford, Max Lucado, J.P. Moreland, John Ortberg, Rebecca Manley Pippert, Alvin Plantinga, Miroslav Volf, Jim Wallis. It also includes many names that won't be familiar, while the titles under them will: President of Dallas Theological Seminary; Chancellor, Northwest University; President, National Association of Evangelicals; President, Bethel University; President, Dollar General; Founder, Leadership Network; President, Liberty Seminary; Former President, Eastern University; President, World Vision International; President-Emeritus, Gordon-Conwell Seminary; President, Wheaton College; President, World Relief; President, Houghton College; President, Institute for Global Engagement; Editor in Chief, Christianity Today International; Founder, Charisma Magazine; President, National Religious Broadcasters; President, Beeson Divinity School. You get the point.

What's laudable about the document is that it offers clarification to a question that there are far too many answers for today: who are the Evangelicals? We hear about them in the news (especially as tied to some political or social movement). The Manifesto clearly asserts that we (Evangelical Christians) ought to be defined more by our theology than our political, social, or cultural agendas. And it goes on to say that, whatever we may differ about, there are many truths we can agree upon-- which it spells out in eloquent terms. It is unashamed of the Bible, of historically orthodox Christianity, and of the plain Gospel of salvation through Christ alone. (Some have suggested that it is not exclusive enough on the "Christ alone" part-- I don't see how the statement, "we believe that the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bore the penalty for our sins, credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to God, and empowers us with his life 'from above'" (pp. 5-6) leaves that open to question.) The authors state that, in answer to the question above, we must reaffirm our identity, reform our own behavior, and rethink our place in public life. And in their description of how we might do all of these things, they challenge self-described Evangelicals to handle themselves and others with charity, grace, and humility, leading with a message of affirming what is true before asserting what we are against.

It's interesting to me that the above goals are almost exactly what I have been thinking about lately, and dialoguing with others about. It seems like there is a groundswell of support for exactly these ideas, and this Manifesto is perhaps the first big, self-conscious step in a good direction that the whole of American Christianity might undertake. It's not the only step, nor is it the last step, but it is a very good first step.

The document has come under fire right from the start, naturally-- because these days, it seems like anything that suggests that Christians can actually find common ground with one another, reaching past denominational or theological boundaries and acknowledging the faith and brotherhood of those who don't believe exactly like us, is clearly faulty and problematic in the eyes of a small but vocal minority. I've read a good bit of discussion surrounding this Manifesto, and I'm surprised at how vehemently it has been attacked in some cases. (Some of the attackers admit that they haven't even read the document!) My suspicion is that many of the attackers, by and large, are responding defensively to the suggestion in the Manifesto that their single-issue voting, slippery-slope sectarianism, or separatist fundamentalism is somehow out of accord with Scripture. This, by the way, is based on the fact that much of the criticism is aimed at these issues, and consists of arguments like, "how can they argue that there is a fight more important than abortion?" (which the Manifesto DOESN'T argue). As one commenter said, these critics are reading more into the document than they are reading out of it.

There are some legitimate critiques-- even some that I agree with-- but I don't think these should prevent Christians from embracing this document for what it is: a starting point, a common point. It isn't a complete articulation of what it means to be a Christian-- which is why, for example, there is something left to be desired in the view of participation in a local church-- nor is it a call to do LESS than what we are already doing in our life of faith, generally speaking. It is simply a call to be MORE what we claim to be, and to connect more fully with others who share the same faith.

Perhaps the most interesting attack came from Douglas Wilson. Known for his tendency to provoke strong responses, Wilson accuses the document of handing over the public square to the atheists and secularists (which, I suppose, is what the Manifesto's perspective would look like to a Reconstructionist like Wilson). This attack was interesting to me because Wilson was/is one of the loudest voices accusing the PCA of being too exclusive and not accepting enough of theological variance when it comes to the Federal Vision controversy. (Watch out, FV proponents; it looks like Wilson could be quite inconsistent in this way, much like my friend Jon and I discussed in the comments of his blog.) One brief paragraph from the Manifesto could have been penned by one of those very FV proponents who came under fire: "Behind this affirmation is the awareness that identity is powerful and precious to groups as well as to individuals. Identity is central to a classical liberal understanding of freedom. There are grave dangers in identity politics, but we insist that we ourselves, and not scholars, the press, or public opinion, have the right to say who we understand ourselves to be. We are who we say we are, and we resist all attempts to explain us in terms of our true motives and our real agenda" (p. 4).

It's worth noting that the self-appointed watchdogs of the PCA haven't commented on this document, although the "blogosphere" is abuzz about it. (In fact, I haven't heard anything about it from anyone in the PCA, that I know of.) I'm curious about why this is so, though I have my suspicions. How about it, friends: what is your take on the Evangelical Manifesto?

Tags: Politics, theology, Faith & Life

I mentioned a few weeks ago that Philadelphia Presbytery has submitted an overture to the PCA's General Assembly asking the GA to erect a study committee on Deaconesses. That overture has been echoed by the Western Canada Presbytery, and if I'm able to read this sort of thing at all, the committee will almost certainly be erected.

It may be needless to point out that this issue has caused quite a bit of stir and discussion. The PCA's own magazine, byFaith, has posted a summary of the announcement of the overture and that has generated quite a bit of discussion in the comments. Other, less "official" sources have also hosted a significant amount of discussion as well. A good bit of the discussion is quite helpful, offering finer points and perspectives that would simply be impossible to gather were it not for this Internet/Information Age that we live in.

Sadly, a lot of the discussion has also deteriorated into mostly or totally unhelpful rant, name-calling, and fear-mongering. A few of the points of discussion may be summed up as follows:

• "Scripture is clear on this matter (OR, arguing that Scripture isn't clear is a sign of our cultural liberalism and feminism)." The thought process here: because the NIV translates 1 Timothy 3:11 with reference to "their wives" instead of (the equally possible) "the women;" and because it translates "diakonos" Romans 16:1 as "servant" because it refers to a woman, then the issue is clearly settled. But who is to say that these translations are filled with cultural bias or the influence of a historical patriarchalism? Anyone who says, "Scripture is clear" has probably only been looking at English translations.
• 
  
• "The Book of Church Order (BCO) already prohibits ordaining women as Deacons." The line of thought here: The BCO is a finished, completed document that is utterly faithful to Scripture and never need be changed or amended to be brought closer to the Bible. This is difficult to reconcile with (common sense and) the Westminster Confession of Faith, which says, "All syonds or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both" (WCF 31.4).
• 
  
• "The word that is translated 'Deacon' in the Bible for men is obviously translated as 'servant' for women." Thought process: meaning changes substantially, even fundamentally, based solely on gender. This is an interesting foundational principle-- and one I'd like to hear more support for by other examples before accepting, which the arguers haven't provided.
• 
  
• "The Apostles' recognition of Phoebe, and other women in the New Testament, was a function of their cultural role-- something that doesn't apply to us." The appeal here is to the historical context, which of course is a fundamental principle in Bible interpretation. The problem is that these same folks will argue that historical context trumps literary context (or the language of the text itself-- see previous bullet) when Phoebe is mentioned, but when dealing with, say, 1 Timothy 3:11, quickly jump to the next argument...
• 
  
• "The historical context doesn't apply, since Paul was writing normative principles to Timothy about the qualifications for Deacons." Line of thought: somehow historical context is disposable for any normative portion of biblical text. The problem with that is that it would rule out the context of the deliverance and redemption of Israel out of Egyptian slavery as the setting for the 10 commandments, for example-- which most would agree poses some problems about a classic Reformed understanding of the 10 commandments.
• 
  
• "Allowing women as Deacons (even if the Bible permits it) will inevitably lead to handing over all authority in the church to women." The thinking here is a classic slippery slope notion: if one thing is bad or prohibited, then we dare not go near anything close to that thing. (This was a problem that the Pharisees often had, by the way...)
• 
  
• "Allowing women as Deacons is granting them authority and leadership that is unbibilcal." The thought trajectory in this argument is that Deacons have authority of the same sort that Elders have, and the Bible forbids women to have such authority. The problems here are rooted in the (mistaken and unbiblical) idea that Deacons are some kind of "Junior Elder" and therefore share in the role of authority with the Elders. But two problems immediately arise from this line of thought: first, the BCO itself defines the office of Deacon as "one of sympathy and service" (BCO 9.1) while it defines the Elder as office of exercising "government and discipline" (BCO 8.3)-- very different roles, one with clear distinction of authority and the other with, at best, less clear distinction. Secondly, the Deacons are "under the supervision and authority of the Session" (BCO 9.2), which begs the question: what authority do they have that, for example, a Sunday School teacher or WIC (Women in the Church) leader doesn't also have?
• 
  
• "We already have the WIC; what do we need women as Deacons for?" The idea here being that the WIC serves as a functional body of "Deaconesses" and we should simply let things remain as they are. Here again, there are two problems with this: first, Scripture does not define for us something like a WIC, and if we desire to pattern our bodies of leadership after Scripture then we should be careful about casually assuming that the WIC fulfills a role that Scripture defines for women. Secondly, and more importantly: the WIC is a ministry of leadership, structured specifically to minister to the women in the church; yet, the office of Deacon is broader than just women. Frankly, I learn a lot from women and have benefited from the ministry and teaching of many women-- and I find the suggestion that women should only minister to other women (and children) short-sighted.
• 
  
• "We ought to just do like ____ [insert name of a very large PCA church in the south] with the way they handle Deacon's assistants." I was surprised to see this argument made by more than one or two people. The thinking here: So-and-so has figured it out, and they should set the pace for all PCA churches. Again, problems arise: setting aside the very big assumption that the leadership there really has figured it out and has hit upon the perfect biblical solution, what does this have to do with what the BCO says about Deacons and women? But a closer look at the proposed practices reveals the truth: said PCA church's solution is to hire out the work of "serving tables" to outsiders (many of them unbelievers, all of them African-Americans).

I'm not convinced that blogs and discussion boards (mine included) are completely helpful in matters like these. It seems to me that folks are getting so entrenched in their positions, long before GA, that the possibility of healthy, profitable discussion on a study committee-- and even a good appointment of that committee-- is diminished.

I'm not decided about the matter. I've held back from my inclination to dig into the issue and study it to the point of deciding what my mind is about it-- though I'll take the time to do that before GA. But I am struck by this: most of the arguments against the study committee (summarized above) go against my logical inclinations-- committing fallacies and demonstrating inconsistency frequently-- and these weaken the case against a committee significantly. So I'm obviously in favor of erecting a study committee, even if I'm not decided on the issue of women as Deacons/Deaconesses.

Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm surprised that brothers and sisters in the PCA can't have a more constructive conversation about all of this. As much as anything, reading some of these discussions have caused me to grieve the lack of brotherly love and charitable grace within our denomination, and my heart has frequently been heavy about it over the past few weeks. Why is an overture to study ANY part of the BCO to consider if it is fully and truly based on Scripture so threatening?

One commenter (Scott Truax of Peace Presbyterian Church, Cary, NC) at the byFaith page summed it up the best: "If we follow Scripture, we have nothing to fear."

Tags: Bible, Biblical Theology, theology, PCA Polity, Systematic Theology, PCA, Pastoral ministry, Politics, community

Apropos to the wrap-up of the series on the cross yesterday-- the cross in our suffering, the cross in our glory-- I find this quote from the late James Montgomery Boice, who faithfully pastored 10^th Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia for over 30 years before succumbing to liver cancer:

If God does something in your life, would you change it? If you’d change it, you’d make it worse. It wouldn’t be as good. So that’s the way we want to accept it and move forward, and who knows what God will do?

(HT: Paul Bankson)

Tags: Faith & Life, community, theology

I was reading this article in Christianity Today about Jim Wallis, who is a leader among a Christians with a progressive political perspective, and I was struck by the fact that Ted Olsen (who interviewed Wallis) asserted that, for some, the issue of blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples is, in Olsen's words, "a gospel issue."

It's not.

Make no mistake: it IS an important issue. And it certainly is an issue of biblical authority. But it is NOT a gospel issue.

There's a key difference between an issue that is a matter of biblical authority and a "gospel" issue. A Gospel issue is one that actually threatens the truth of the Gospel-- such as a challenge to the incarnation of Christ, an assertion that the resurrection didn't happen, a claim that Jesus didn't live a sinless life, etc. Something that questions the underlying concepts of salvation is a Gospel issue. Thus, when folks in the PCA express their concern about the Federal Vision's position on Justification, for example, they are demonstrating concern about a Gospel issue.

There are a number of issues of biblical authority that aren't Gospel issues. Questions of infant baptism vs. believer's baptism, or of the function of the sacraments, are issues of biblical authority. These are very important issues. But they aren't matters of Gospel integrity, in the same sense that Jesus being God in the flesh is a matter of Gospel integrity.

Take note of this: it is possible for someone to be in error on an issue of biblical authority and still be a Christian, and it's possible for them to remain in their error and not be considered a heretic. This is because there are differing degrees of error in terms of understanding matters of biblical truth and authority:

Working through this concept, then, Here's how these break down:

• Truth: these are the real "gospel issues" that are universally agreed-upon as aspects of salvation, as well as a few other core beliefs (which include biblical inerrancy and authority, by the way). You might think of these as that which is required for membership in the church.
• Mistaken opinions: Minor matters of conscience typically fall here-- someone who is of the opinion that liberty in Christ allows them to drink as much alcohol as they want on occasion, for example, holds a mistaken opinion about biblical truth. In terms of agreement or disagreement, you might think of these matters to be often matters of "semantic" differences-- where often our language and the way we say things suggests differences that suggest differences that aren't really there.
• Errors: These are problematic, but not necessarily matters to divide over. Issues like "paedocommunion"-- where a child is offered the sacrament of communion on the basis of baptism, not on the basis of a profession of faith-- have been judged to be in this category. As such a matter was recently described by our presbytery, these might be judged as more than semantic, but not out of accord with the fundamentals of our system of doctrine.
• Systemic errors: When we get to this stage, there are concerns that may lead to division, without requiring that we dismiss those who differ as "unbelievers." For example, in the PCA we hold that the Assemblies of God theologians have instituted systemic error in the way they view the gift of tongues. I would also argue that matters such as the one discussed with Wallis, regarding the blessing of same-sex unions by the church, falls into this category. Presbytery would label these as beliefs which "strike at the vitals of our system of doctrine."
• Heresy: These are matters that violate the essence of the Gospel-- in other words, they are true "gospel issues" in the same way that the category of "Truth" above is, only in an opposing sense. When the remonstrants challenged the idea of the total depravity of man-- arguing that man in not inherently sinful, that he can, in fact, act in true and pure righteousness-- they were guilty of heresy. (Incidentally, they were judged as such by the courts of the church, and the response to their various points of doctrine was what we call the "five points of Calvinism.")

(Credit to David Jones and Michael Williams for this concept.)

I think it is not just useful, but essential for Christians to gain a better understanding of this. We all disagree on something-- and if you view disagreement as strictly a black-and-white, right or wrong, truth or heresy matter, then you are asserting that someone who is or may be a true brother or sister in Christ has given up the gospel.

Worse, you are asserting that your perspective is completely right and biblical-- which is never the case.

Tags: Bible, Biblical Theology, Systematic Theology, Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life

May brings two significant changes in our preaching schedule: first, we will finish the series on the cross on the first Sunday, so after that we will return to Luke and begin the discussion of Jesus' public ministry. Second, we finish out the liturgical season of Easter, which spans the 50 days following the resurrection, and have Pentecost and then the "ordinary days" that follow. (I'll blog more about these seasons soon.)

So, for the month of April, here are the

5/4/08: Romans 5:1-11 -- The cross and our suffering, the cross and our glory (last Sunday of Easter; "Ascension Sunday")
5/11/08: Luke 4:14-30 -- Setting the agenda for a new community (Pentecost)
5/18/08: Luke 4:31-44 -- Putting his words to work: Jesus and the new agenda (1^st Sunday after Pentecost)
5/25/08: Luke 5:1-11 -- Calling in the next generation of leaders: Jesus appoints his disciples (2^nd Sunday after Pentecost)

Tags: preaching, Easter, Pentecost, Ordinary Days

In the big scheme of things, I don't know much about missions. That's something that I'm working on-- but my lack of knowledge doesn't keep me from thinking about it, especially when I see opportunities.

One of the big areas that has emerged as a theme in my ever-vigilant watch of technology is the development of new concepts and technologies to supply water and other resources to third-world communities. Allow me to point you to a few examples:

• Martin Fisher wins the Lemelson-MIT award for sustainability for the SuperMoneyMaker Pump. Fisher has devised a $100 water pump that can pull water from a 30-foot well to irrigate up to 2 acres of land. (He's also developed a $35 tool called the "Hip Pump" that uses a farmer's body weight to operate it.)
• The PlayPump System is an utterly brilliant concept that links a well pump and cistern to a kids' merry-go-round toy, so that as they play on the merry-go-round they are actually supplying water for their community from the well (which is stored in the cistern). The whole system costs $14,000, and can supply 2,500 people with water for 10 years. (PlayPumps International gets extra props for setting up a system where you can donate as little as $6 toward the installation of these-- and that $6 will supply one child with clean water for 10 years.)
• Dean Kamen has built the Vapor Compression Distiller, which is a chemical, membrane, and filter-free water purifier (meaning it doesn't require substantial maintenance and consumable goods to continue filtering). Kamen believes this could eradicate a huge amount of disease worldwide.
• The Hippo Water Roller is designed to alleviate the difficulty and physical stress required for a human body to retrieve and transport water from long distances. It allows 200 pounds of water to be reduced to an effective weight of only 22 pounds for easier transportation, even over difficult terrain.
• Daniel Sheridan has won three separate awards for developing a see-saw designed to provide enough electricity to power a classroom for several hours through 10 minutes of play.

All by themselves, each of these is a very good idea. It strikes me, though, that the missing piece for all of them is the infrastructure to distribute and install these.

Sure, the Peace Corps and similar secular groups are all over the place doing this kind of work. But why not missionaries? Why couldn't some of the many missions boards with teams of people in third-world countries send short-term teams that would bring and install these as a support and extension of the existing ministry?

One thing I DO know about missions is this: it is almost universally agreed that long-term sustainability of Gospel ministry depends on developing local, indigenous leaders to take over the ministry. That sort of sustainability, it seems to me, demands that stability of resources also be in place-- so water supply, irrigation, agriculture, medical care, and education must become immediate concerns for pastors and missionaries in a third-world context.

All of the above projects seem to offer affordable solutions for exactly that: stabilizing resources. It seems like a no-brainer to me. Am I missing something? What do you think?

Tags: Missions, technology, Stewardship, Evangelism

You've probably gotten an e-mail forwarded to you about it. If not, then maybe you've read what the pundits are saying about it. Or maybe-- just maybe-- you've been unfortunate enough to have an irresponsible church throw it in your face.

What am I talking about? The suggestion-- or even the outright claim-- that Barack Obama is a Muslim, or a terrorist, or the Antichrist, just because of his name and his heritage.

In case you haven't heard, there's a man running for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States whose name is Barack Hussein Obama. Obama is considered an African-American, though he is actually of mixed racial heritage. He himself has acknowledged that his name alone is a disadvantage: on Jay Leno's Tonight Show, Leno asked him if he felt like the underdog; Obama responded, "when your name is Barack Obama, you're always the underdog." Apparently when he was in high school and college, he (wisely) chose to go by "Barry" to reduce the ruthless, thoughtless teasing that immature adolescents would surely have subjected him to.

My frustration has been growing about the way people have made enormous assumptions about the man simply because of what he was named. It seems that, having grown out of the stage of ruthless, thoughtless adolescents, Obama now faces the more formidable problem of ruthless, thoughtless adults. This morning the "last straw" came across my screen: this article about a church that was short-sighted and foolish enough to put a political message on their sign. The message? Get ready... here it comes.

"Obama, Osama, hmm, are they brothers?"

Are you kidding? April Fool's Day was a few weeks ago, right?

I'll summarize the article for you. The pastor actually says the message wasn't meant to be racial or political. He just wanted to make people think. About what? About, "what could possibly happen if we were to get someone in there that does not believe in Jesus Christ," he said. He refuses to take the sign down, because he doesn't want it to appear that controversy made him do it.

Folks, let's get two things straight about this: first of all, it is unloving, presumptuous, and morally wrong to make broad-sweeping assumptions about someone simply because of their name or because of whom they are descended from. When this is done to those of Jewish ancestry, it is called "Anti-Semitism"-- and who wants to be called an anti-semite? Yet we have folks running amok with the same thing surrounding Barrck Obama.

Second, Obama has been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for 20 years. Why is everyone so concerned that he is a Muslim?

If you want to know what we should really be concerned about, here it is: how about the fact that the United Church of Christ has been creeping (and sometimes racing) toward a liberal theology for years, and they are by far the MOST theologically liberal denomination that is considered a "Christian" denomination. They are merely a few notches away from the Unitarian Universalists in terms of how far from orthodoxy they have wandered. If you want a concern about the candidate's religious beliefs, be concerned that he may be too soft and wishy-washy on matters of genuine orthodoxy.

But then ask yourself this: who would make a better president-- the one who is a firm, theologically-conservative Christian who is barely qualified for the office, or someone who is (take your pick: Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist?) of other religious beliefs but is immanently qualified for the job? Just as I would prefer an Atheist who was the best surgeon in the state over a mediocre surgeon who was a Christian, I would rather have a Muslim in office who is the BEST candidate than a Christian who was a poor candidate.

But that's a moot point, since Obama's not a Muslim. Neither is John McCain or Hilary Clinton. Since one of these will certainly be in the White House this time next year, I pray that the BEST candidate would be placed there-- and I trust that God is at work putting that in place.

Finally, a disclaimer: I realize there's a primary today, and this post is in NO WAY intended to be a statement intended to have an effect on that. (I don't even think any of my tens of readers are in Pennsylvania.) It was more a matter of timing: I read this story this morning and my "tipping point" was reached, I had to respond.

Tags: Politics, Cultural Discernment, Evangelism

I didn't see An Inconvenient Truth. It's not that I don't care about the environment; I'm even impressed with Al Gore's passion and presentation skills (had he honed these a few years earlier, he may have won the electoral vote!). I just don't care too much about sitting through a movie-length propaganda film from a point of view that I don't completely agree with.

Likewise, I've never seen any of Michael Moore's documentaries-- although I confess I've always wanted to see Roger and Me, his film about how General Motors abandoned their factory in Flint, Michigan. Moore's political worldview, so I understand, is so in-your-face that those who disagree can feel the blood pressure rising.

The bottom line is: why go see such films? While some are cleverly disguised as documentaries (which, by definition, has a somewhat raw and unedited approach to presenting reality-- thereby calling into question whether the films mentioned here are true documentaries), they are actually long propaganda pieces.

Here's my question: who goes to see these that don't already hold to the positions presented? Can Moore claim to have swayed thousands to his political perspective through Fahrenheit 9/11? Has Al Gore really turned toward global warming the attention of those who were skeptical before?

I ask because I'm curious about the kerfuffle and spin surrounding the recently-released Expelled. Apparently Ben Stein (you remember him: the monotone teacher constantly calling for Ferris Bueller) has positioned himself as the Al Gore of Intelligent Design, making an exposé-like film that reveals how scientists everywhere, who are sympathetic to an Intelligent Design (ID) position, are being fired or run out of their positions in academia and scientific research because of their belief in the possibility of ID.

From the trailers, Stein's movie looks snarky and humorous (at least to those of us who lean toward his view on the matter). Apparently Stein interviewed a few prominent Evolutionists for the film as well as ID proponents, and his use of their perspectives has cast question on the reliability of he presentation, for me at least. At least one of these prominent scientists (who viewed the film in a pre-screening) claims that the editing and cut-and-paste job done to his interview completely misrepresents his point of view. What is worse, apparently one of the dominant thrusts that Stein attempts to make in the film is that Darwinism was a prime motivating factor in Hitler's Nazi regime, and therefore Darwinism ought to be inherently suspect. (Good thing folks haven't drawn the same mistaken conclusion about Christianity because of the Crusades and the Inquisition... oh, wait-- they have.)

So I wonder: what is the goal here? Do we (Christians, sympathizers to ID, those concerned with the lack of "objectivity" that comes with worldview-- take your pick) honestly believe and hope that secular, atheist scientists who doubt ID or zealously affirm a Macro-Evolutionary position will come to this movie and have their worlds turned upside-down? Do we expect that thoughtful secularists who are NOT scientists will be persuaded by such a film?

And if so, do we expect that it will happen through sarcasm, misrepresentation, and a handful of arguments wrought with poor logic (hasty generalizations, slippery slopes, ad hominems, etc.)? And that actions like kicking out those who disagree from early screenings will advance the cause? I don't really follow what the point is, unless it is some sort of retribution for Christians and other conservative thinkers being mischaracterized in the past. Otherwise everyone sees it for what it is: a propaganda piece (as my friend Jon said, "Obviously it is propaganda, but it is *my* kind of propaganda :)").

One more thing: I want to take this opportunity to call on World magazine, and especially Marvin Olasky, to step up and do the right thing with regard to this movie. Over the last three weeks, I have been appalled by World's coverage of this film. The same magazine that called Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, "disgusting, pathetic propaganda without the slightest shred of integrity" (July 17, 2004 issue) and accused Gore's An Inconvenient Truth of employing "stage tricks, straw men, and well-rehearsed rhetoric" (June 17, 2006 issue) lauds Expelled as, "reasonable, radical, risible, and right" (April 5, 2008 issue). Ironically, Olasky himself (who reviewed Expelled) said that biblically-directed reviews should "emphasize specific detail, not abstract theorizing" and "should present a biblical perspective, not individual bias" (Olasky, Telling the Truth: How to Revitalize Christian Journalism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1996, p. 173). Marvin, your team of reviewers has been waffling back and forth between "Inconsistent Christians" and "Traditionalists" instead of pursuing true biblical objectivity (see ch.1, esp. p.20, of Telling the Truth).

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, Politics, Science & Technology, Evangelism

As we continue through the series on the cross, we've reached a pivotal point in the series: the first few weeks introduced the prominence of the cross, while the last several weeks have focused on the accomplishments of the cross. Now we reach "the response to the cross" or a study of what life at the foot of the cross looks like. There are five studies remaining-- just enough to complete the season of Easter. We'll cover four of those five in April:

4/6/08: Hebrews 13:11-16 -- The community of celebration
4/13/08: Romans 6:1-18 -- Understanding ourselves through the cross
ANOTHER UPDATE (!): 4/20/08: John 13:3-17 -- Self-denial and self-affirmation in response to the cross
4/27/08: Matthew 5:43-48 -- The cross enables us to love our enemies

Tags: preaching, Easter

Two ideas I've recently encountered that might get some discussion going about what it means to be "poor."

First, Jeff White of New Song Community Church in New York city recently spoke at a conference called A Conversation on Denominational Renewal in St. Louis (click here to find audio for all of the talks from that conference). All of Jeff's talk was great (as were the rest of them), but one thing he said stood out as an interesting idea: Jeff said he would like to expunge the church of the term "mercy ministry" because to extend mercy in a biblical sense means to give someone a second chance even though they don't deserve it, and this does not apply to poor people in most ways.

Second, the humor blog Stuff White People Like did an interesting post called, "#62: Knowing what's best for poor people." A big idea from the post: "It is a poorly guarded secret that, deep down, white people believe if given money and education that all poor people would be EXACTLY like them. In fact, the only reason that poor people make the choices they do is because they have not been given the means to make the right choices and care about the right things." And, as is apparent to these bloggers, making "the right choices" and caring "about the right things" are, in white people's minds, always identical to what white people (in this case, upper-middle class white people) choose and care about.

Both of these ideas, in their own way, represent challenges to the way I think about the poor and those in need. What do you think about these quotes and ideas?

Tags: Faith & Life, Cultural Discernment, community, Stewardship

"I hate to meet a man whom I have met ten years ago and find that he is at precisely the same point, neither moderated nor quickened nor experienced but simply stiffened."
~Oswald Chambers

I recently saw this quote on the blog PastorHacks, and it reminded me of how much some people really do change over the years, while others surprisingly don't. It also reminds me that sometimes, the change is not 100% for the better.

I was once interviewing for a ministry job and, naturally, had mentioned one of my good friends as a reference. This particular friend had been a PCA pastor for some time, and had been to seminary with the Senior Pastor at the church I was interviewing with. My friend, who was then and still is a wonderful, humble, and godly man of grace, had exhibited less gracious tendencies while in seminary, and this Senior Pastor remembered that well. "If you hold yourself out as someone like 'so-and-so' then I don't think this will work out," he said to me point-blank. What a shame that this man hadn't bothered to get acquainted with the great man that I knew.

In a similar incident, a man I know was interviewing (also for a staff position) with a Senior Pastor who had gone to seminary with the fellow's former boss. While the former boss was a good guy, he had softened over the years to the point where he had become a poor supervisor, yet according to my friend the boss was unwilling to accept any of the responsibility for the failures of those he supervised poorly. It happened to be that circumstances involving this poor supervision had led to my friend leaving this position. The two former classmates talked to discuss my friend, and naturally the Senior Pastor took the boss's word about the young candidate-- even though he other references contradicted the boss's account. As far as the Senior Pastor was concerned, the boss was still the same great guy he knew in seminary.

I think of people I knew 10 years ago-- especially people I served in ministry, sometimes poorly. How would they receive me today? Would they extend me grace, expecting and looking for ways that God had matured me since they last knew me well? A verse comes to mind as I consider this...

[Love] always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
~1 Corinthians 13:7

And then I think of the guys I went to seminary with. Some of them were great guys who were a bit too full of themselves; others had a touch of immaturity to shake off. I'm sure I struck many of them in similar ways. How will the Lord mature them over the coming years? How will he change me in that time? I pray that I would be able to see them with fresh eyes down the line.

To rest in the fact that "love always hopes" (or as another translation phrases it, "love hopes all things") encourages me that those who knew me when I was not yet the man I am today might, in love, see me without prejudice-- and that those who know me today, when I am not yet the man I will, Lord willing, become, might also.

Tags: community, love

One of the more difficult questions facing many churches (and I say "many" because some churches have answered the question for themselves, not because it isn't a question for them) is, what is the role of women in leadership in the church?

The PCA has, since its inception, proclaimed a "complementarian" position on women in leadership. The "complementarian" view stands squarely between the egalitarian (with unequivocal removal of distinction between men and women in terms of leadership and/or authority) and the patriarchal (with unequivocal denial of any sort of leadership or authority to any woman). How to implement this has frequently been in dispute: at worst, the complementarian position appears little different from the patriarchal position, with perhaps the exception of allowing women to minister to other women (and usually children); at best, applying the complementarian view is summed up in the idea that a woman may perform any act of service or leadership (apart from preaching in public worship) that a non-ordained man may also perform.

One complicating factor in applying the complementarian position has been that the PCA's Book of Church Order (BCO) does not currently allow for women to be "ordained" to any leadership office-- Elder or Deacon. An overture for the upcoming General Assembly, from the Philadelphia Presbytery, may bring some modification to this, or at least clarification for how it is to be implemented. I appreciate the spirit of this overture, and how it asks for clarification even if the "status quo" is maintained. Should the BCO be amended to allow women to serve as Deacons, it might actually make the issue more complex-- but in this case simplicity hasn't historically proven to be beneficial, when it comes to the application of seemingly simple ideas. Simplicity in this issue usually results in either denying women opportunity or ignoring biblical guidance.

Another complicating factor, ironically, is the difference between leadership and authority. Ironically, because for years (centuries? millennia?) this has been the argument that I have heard tossed back at women who argue that they are denied opportunity for service and the exercise of their gifts. Yet more recently confusion on this point has been the justification for relegating women to only teaching children or perhaps other women. Why is granting women a role of leadership a tacit breech of biblical distinctions for authority?

As a counterexample: if leadership somehow equals authority to the point where biblical boundaries are crossed, why have a two-office view (Elders and Deacons) in the first place? Isn't the granting of authority to male Deacons at least raising the possibility that the boundaries will be crossed? Of course it is-- and sometimes those boundaries ARE crossed. Yet we don't eliminate the office of Deacon to protect the authority of the Elder. We don't eliminate the organization of a presbytery to protect the authority of the local congregation, either. Thus, we shouldn't prevent women from having a role of leadership simply to limit their authority.

I'm glad for the Philadelphia Presbytery overture, and I look forward to seeing the PCA mature through this discussion. What do you think?

Tags: Faith & Life, PCA Polity, Systematic Theology, Stewardship, PCA

I have been finding such delight in this series on the cross. I hope you have been, as well.

As we approach Easter, I am all the more encouraged as I see how the sequence for these sermons, which was determined by an orderly approach to understanding a theology of the cross (not simply by what message seems appropriate for a certain date), nevertheless is so fitting for this season of our year. As you'll see below, the sequence fits perfectly with Easter meditations (FYI, Palm Sunday is the 3^rd Sunday in March this year, and Easter is the 4^th Sunday).

Here are the texts for the month of March:
Hosea 11:1-11-- The price of our sin
Exodus 12:1-28-- God's substitutionary atonement
Galatians 3:21-29-- Salvation for sinners through the cross
Luke 24:13-35-- God reveals himself through the cross (UPDATED 3/17/2008)
Colossians 2:13-17-- Evil is overcome through the cross

Tags: preaching, worship

When I am attacked by gloomy thoughts, nothing helps me so much as running to my books. They quickly absorb me and banish the clouds from my mind.
~~Michel de Montaigne

As you may have picked up, I love to read. More than that, I love books, and what they represent: accessibility to knowledge and understanding of subjects that are unknown or less known than we want them to be.

Someone once said, "There is no such thing as a learning congregation without the pervasive habit of reading." Getting good books into the hands of the people in our congregation strikes me as one of the most helpful things I can do as a Pastor. It represents an extension of the teaching ministry of our church, opens doors for further discussion on a variety of important topics, and affords congregants an opportunity to fortify themselves and their faith with sound instruction.

Read not to contradict and confute, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider.
~~Sir Francis Bacon

Toward this end, our Session has determined to set up a book table in the education wing of the church facilities where good books will be provided at affordable prices. Some books have already been purchased and made available; others will follow in the coming weeks.

Why sell books at church? A book table offers two unique benefits to our congregation. First, it enables me, as Pastor, to exercise discernment on behalf of the congregation by choosing which books may, at this particular point in time and in the face of the circumstances immediately facing us, are relevant and needed for growth and encouragement. Not everyone is familiar with authors, publishing houses, and topics enough to be as discerning as they need to be for the investment of time and money into a book. As a Pastor trained for ministry, I am in a better position to make initial judgment across a wide array of topics, presenting to the congregation a selection of options. (In other words, it allows me to exercise what one friend called my "spiritual gift of bibliography!")

Second, it increases the accessibility to good books for our congregation. The closest Christian bookstore for many of us is a good distance away. Further, we are more mindful of spiritual things while involved in church activities than we are at other times. Our book table increases access in both proximity and mindfulness for our congregation. It also makes more accessible books related matters that may come up in sermons, classes, or in individual counseling. Having these books ready-at-hand makes it possible to extend the impact of our church's teaching and counseling ministries.

In the case of good books, the point is not how many of them you can get through, but rather how many can get through to you.
~~Mortimer Adler

Philippians 4:8-9 encourages us for what our minds should dwell upon. Reading good books is a certain practice that helps us to think about "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable." The apostle Paul himself was a model of commitment to reading (even toward the end of his life asking Timothy to bring him his scrolls in 2 Timothy 4:13), even though he apparently struggled with his eyesight. Thus, when Paul says in Philippians 4:9, "whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me," he clearly meant also a life committed to reading.

We, too, might take up this example. It is my prayer, and that of our congregation's leadership, that reading might be a tool that God uses to teach and grow His people of Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church. As Les Parrott said, "A congregation that doesn't read is missing one of God's greatest means for providing personal and spiritual growth" (Serving as a Church Greeter, p. 49). May God bless our congregation as readers.

Reading is a basic tool in the living of a good life.
~~Mortimer Adler

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life

UPDATE: I reposted this with the video embedded-- some of the feedback I got was that clicked through to another page was causing trouble. (Thanks to Eden Worship Center in Topeka, Indiana for the video montage you see.)

Tom Brady might be one of the greatest success stories of our day. (Okay, so he would be more of one if he had completed that perfect season a couple of weeks ago for his FOURTH Super Bowl victory...)

Yet, Tom Brady feels empty. In an interview just before the recent Super Bowl, Brady described his emptiness; watch the video.



My response when watching this video was: you're absolutely right! There IS something more to life than reaching record-breaking heights in the first few years of your career; there is something more than being considered one of the best-looking athletes around; there is something more than dating an international supermodel; there is something more than having all the money and fame you could ever ask for.

Oh, and by the way Tom: you don't need any of those things to obtain that thing, that "something more."

I hope you can see this as easily as I can: the "something more" that Tom is seeking is only found in Christ.

(ht: Fred Harrell & Big Hair Preacher)

Tags: love, Evangelism, Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life

A website called "Church Marketing Sucks" posted a brief piece today about how Dutch Catholics have "re-branded" Lent as the Christian version of Ramadan, an Islamic holiday season.

Ramadan is, essentially, a season that commemorates the so-called revelation of the Koran (the Islamic holy book), or more precisely, the beginning of that revelation. The name is taken from the Arabic name for the month in which it occurs. During Ramadan, Muslims observe a daytime fast, eating only before the sun rises in the morning or after it sets in the evening. Muslims are also encouraged to read through the entire Koran, and make sacrificial gifts to the poor, among other practices.

Lent is a 40-day season of the liturgical calendar of Christianity, and is often observed by fasting, self-denial, and almsgiving (giving to the poor). Thus, externally Lent and Ramadan appear similar. However, the similarities end there.

Lent is a time of fasting and self-denial, not in celebration of a revelation, but as a season of contemplation and preparation for the coming Lord at Easter. (Both Lent and Advent are seasons of preparation in this way.) Mirroring the 40 days Jesus spent in fasting and self-denial prior to launching his public ministry (see Luke 4:1-13), Christians likewise fast and reflect on the significance of Christ's work.

In many ways, Lent is not an uplifting or exuberant season, and many Christians seem to resent it because of that. However, life itself is not a constant time of exuberance, and Christ's life and ministry are full of times where his experiences are far from uplifting, in terms of the "mood" of the moment. One of the things that Lent offers is a time to focus on the spiritual dimension of these seasons of life: when things are less than wonderful in every way.

Not to downplay the significance of Ramadan to the Muslim at all-- but it is not very much like Lent in its meaning, purpose, and function in the Christian's life. There is value in using "familiar language" instead of churchy insider-speak like we often use; but calling Lent the "Christian Ramadan" is not really considerate of either.

Tags: Liturgical Seasons, Lent, Faith & Life

As I mentioned in a previous post, I wear a stole over my Geneva gown for worship. There are lots of stoles, though-- and most of them have a particular meaning. What about the stoles I wear?

My stoles follow the traditional colors that correspond to the liturgical seasons. Clothes are inevitably colored; the historic church took advantage of this fact to bring symbolism and reminders into worship in new ways, though we often take them for granted. In liturgical observance, there are four basic and traditional colors:

• Purple signifies wealth, power, and royalty-- primarily because the dyes required to make purple were very expensive until more recently. Thus, purple is a kingly color, and signifies a celebration of the coming of the King. The seasons of Advent and Lent are times of preparation for the King, so purple is worn during these times.
• White is used throughout scripture to signify purity, and especially purity in Christ. It is also a color associated with angels, as well as resurrection. White is the color that is appropriate during the seasons of Christmastide and Easter.
• Red is also a color that is found throughout Scripture, signifying blood, sin, and death. It has also been a color associated with martyrdom and fire. Thus, red is the color for the last week of Lent, also known as Holy Week, and for Pentecost Sunday (when fire descended on believers as a sign of the Holy Spirit).
• Green is the "default" color, and is worn during the days following particular days (that is, ones that have a definitive day where the celebration takes place; the Sundays in these seasons have no particular names, just numbers) such as Pentecost and Epiphany. These days are sometimes called "ordinary days." Green is an earthy color, and as the color of vegetation has always been regarded as a color signifying life and health.

There are other colors that are used less frequently, and these also have significance (though they are not required as replacements of the traditional four colors): gold and ivory are accepted alternatives to white, rose (a color associated with joy) is sometimes inserted for the third Sunday in Advent and, occasionally, for the fourth Sunday in Lent; natural (un-dyed) or "hemp" colors are sometimes used on Maundy Thursday; blue is a color of hope, and is used by some during Advent; and black is used, though very infrequently, on the most solemn days.

Likewise, there are special days when colors change: white is used for weddings, for any secular holidays that the church might observe, and also for funerals (think resurrection)-- though some will use black for funerals instead. Black is also occasionally used on Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and All Souls' Day. Red is used for ordinations and installations, as these are times of particular recognition of the Holy Spirit's presence.

As we move through the seasons, the colors we use are helpful reminders of the many seasons and emotions of life. I hope you will find them a useful addition to our worship in these ways.

Tags: Liturgical Seasons, worship

Fat Tuesday brings in
the beginning of a time
for self-denial

Tags: Liturgical Seasons, Lent, Faith & Life

Well, a lot happened recently, and even today. Here's a quick glimpse at what is going on...

Memphis ranks #1 again this week. The Tigers continue their amazing season; will they ever lose? (Hickory Withe insiders say, "no.")

Obama gains major ground in the Democratic primary. Whatever your political convictions, you have to admit that Barack Obama's campaign is building a head of steam that (for now, at least) looks like it might carry him all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue.

Louisiana Presbytery faces a formal indictment, and consequently Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church withdraws from the PCA. Personally, I see this more as a call to mourning than a resolution to the controversy that the Federal Vision has become.

Baptist group woos moderate views. Does this strike anyone else as ironic?

President Bush predicts "no recession." I don't understand how $300 per household will really prevent one (especially since, if you adjust the value of the dollar in comparison to international currencies, we are already in a recession!), but here's hoping he's right.

Tiger wins another, ties Arnold Palmer's record. He's amazing-- but why anyone is surprised by this, I don't know.

Legos bricks turn 50. Just about everything-- including a Lego church-- has been built out of these gems. Happy Birthday, Lego!

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, community

I overheard a young first-year seminary student talking with a couple of others in the bookstore a few years ago. He was talking about his sense of call to ministry, and they asked him if he wanted to be a Pastor when he finished. Yes, he did, but he quickly (and haughtily) clarified: "I'll go overseas to do missions, of course. The U.S. is way too full of churches and Pastors."

This video is a good presentation of a bunch of amazing statistics about the church in the U.S., and in a matter of minutes utterly refutes this young man's jaded viewpoint. (HWPC folks, may I ask that you be sure to take a few minutes to watch this?) What's clear from the data presented is that the local church has never held a more important place in the community, even if most of that community doesn't realize it.

While it is clear that the statistics are presented with an intent to promote church planting, they offer great insight into the mission and importance of established churches, as well. In my view, those figures regarding the established church's less effective outreach are simultaneously an indictment and a call to action.

What struck you as the more interesting aspects of that presentation?

Tags: Evangelism, community, Faith & Life, Pastoral ministry

I recently read a book on the nuts and bolts of pastoral ministry by two seasoned Pastors called On Being a Pastor. There were many great lessons from this book (thanks to my friend David Dennis for the book recommendation), and one key take-away was regarding preaching a series.

They commended the practice in general-- and affirmed its value to a congregation. But they also recommended that Pastors take regular breaks from a series, offering a change of pace and direction for a time.

One danger of expository preaching-- especially when we begin-- is the tendency to be too long in one book or subject. Expository does not need to be synonymous with exhaustive and exhausting!

We've been working through the book of Luke since I began at Hickory Withe. While we started with a brief (4-week) series on the Parable of the Lost Son, we've spent every Sunday morning in Luke since October 14! By mid-November, we started with Luke 1:1 and will finish chapter 3 on Sunday. We've studied the foundations of the book, the announcements of the births of John the Baptist and Jesus, and the events of those births.

We're approaching a natural break in Luke-- in the middle of chapter 4, the end of Jesus' preparation for ministry concludes; starting with 4:14, Jesus begins his public ministry. Luke's account of the public ministry of Jesus continues until chapter 19, where the account of the triumphal entry begins the account of the passion of Christ. Clay Harrington will join us next week, and will preach on Luke 4:1-13-- the last text on Jesus' preparation for ministry. This will be our twelfth week of sermons in Luke, done in sequential order.

At that point, I plan to take a break from the sequential preaching of Luke's gospel, and will begin a new, 14-week series on the cross. This series will carry us through the liturgical seasons of Lent and Easter, and is fitting for both. Following that series, we'll return to Luke to begin working through the public ministry of Jesus (though we'll probably take another break down the line before we finish that section of Luke!).

This series will be topical, though most or all of the sermons will still be expository sermons. Here's the plan for the series, week by week:

1. The cross as central to Chrstianity
   
2. What did Christ die for?
   
3. The accomplishment of the cross
   
4. How forgiveness works
   
5. The price of our sin
   
6. God's substitutionary atonement
   
7. Salvation for sinners through the cross
   
8. God revealing himself through the cross
   
9. Evil is overcome through the cross
   
10. The community of God as a celebration of the cross
    
11. Understanding ourselves through the cross
    
12. Self-denial and giving of ourselves in response to the cross
    
13. The cross enables us to love our enemies
    
14. The cross and our suffering, the cross and our glory
    

Tags: preaching, Pastoral ministry, Faith & Life

Over Christmas, my step-sister Louise played princess with Molly. This was the first time, really, that Molly had played princess to that extent, and all of us were a little bit surprised by how much she took to it!

But should we have been? I've been thinking about that, especially since my sister Ann Louise asked me (and others) what we thought about it. I'll try to summarize my thoughts.

The Scriptures clearly portray believers as sons and daughters of the King-- adopted, true, but sons and daughters nevertheless. In fact, when you read the accounts of how the last days will be for believers-- especially in the first part of Revelation 20-- it is clear that, as the holy children of God, set apart for His glory, we will somehow reign with Him in that glory.

What also appears to be true-- as it is latent in the words of all Scripture-- is that we were intended to reign with God from the very beginning. In part, this is what it means to be created in His image. We get this, and long for this, the most when we pause to consider how un-natural our sin is. That is what Plantinga meant when he wrote his marvelous book Not the Way It's Supposed to Be-- that "shalom," true peace and harmony with God, includes a sense of the holiness and majesty that we only see shadows of.

This idea is so rich, and has such broad application to the church. Individually, it means that, when we sin and wallow in the lowliness of instant gratification, forsaking our majesty, we ought to think, "I'm better than that!" Our means to obedience is God's grace, but our motivation for obedience is not only His grace but His dignity bestowed on us in creation, and restored in us through the cross. Corporately, it requires us to re-consider the "us vs. them" mentality that so permeates contemporary Evangelical Christianity. Yes, we are "beggars telling other beggars where to find bread" but only in the sense that the prince and the pauper traded places, and the prince got his first taste of what it means to be a beggar.

This applies to the question directly, because if this is true-- in other words, if what the Scriptures say about "the way it is supposed to be"-- then we were made for royalty. We were made to be princes and princesses. And in childlike understanding, perhaps we express this inclination best when we resonate with stories, tales, movies that suggest that all of us can have a "fairy-tale" life. In fact, it isn't a fairy tale at all.

I think little girls express this through their pretend, while little boys express this through their struggle with what looks to us like independence (but is really more of a spiritual "muscle-flexing" like a prince ought to occasionally try out). Adults express it in similar ways, but it seems much further off-- probably because so much of our view of ourselves and our world has been shaped by fallenness that we can't see past it easily.

The Pevensies weren't out of place as the kings and queens of Narnia; they were right where they were intended to be.

Tags: Faith & Life, Biblical Theology, Bible

Son of God and son
of man, living for us and
our unrighteousness.

Tags: Haiku, Christmastide, Liturgical Seasons

Here is a list of the sermon texts for January, 2008:

1/6-- Luke 2:39-52
1/13-- Luke 3:1-22
1/20-- Luke 3:23-38
1/27-- Luke 4:1-13

Tags: worship, preaching, Liturgy

Merry Christmastide!

What is Christmastide, perhaps you are wondering? In most protestant churches, we tend to ignore the "seasons" of the church that have historically been set apart as the flow of the calendar for Christians, but in some Christian churches (protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholic alike) a liturgical calendar guides how the different seasons of the Christian year are distinguished. Christmastide is the brief season from Christmas Day to January 5.

Also called Yuletide or simply the Twelve Days of Christmas, Christmastide marks the season during which the church has historically reflected on the significance of the incarnation. If Advent is a season of anticipation, then Christmastide is a season of fulfillment and a beginning awareness of what that fulfillment means.

Christmastide includes consideration of the various early events of Christ's life, including visitation from the shepherds, the visitation and gifts of the Magi, and the circumcision of Jesus. It ends on what has traditionally been called Twelfth Night, which is the eve of the day of Epiphany (which is sometimes called Three Kings' Day). Just as Advent is a season that culminates with Christmas Eve, Christmastide also culminates with the eve of the next season.

I think it is very helpful to observe the seasons, rather than simply celebrating the days and having a gap of time in between. For me, all that happens in anticipation of Advent is more than I want to contemplate all at once, so I'm thankful for a season of four weeks or so to consider it. Likewise, the significance of the incarnation is more than I want to try to think through on just one day (Christmas Day), so I appreciate having a season for reflection on that.

Tags: Faith & Life, Christmastide, Liturgical Seasons

...Protestants traditionally have interpreted marriage as a necessary way to quell the temptations of the flesh or as a natural union that will be dissolved in the afterlife...

Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp, in "A Mormon President? The LDS Difference" from The Christian Century, August 21, 2007.

While I'll admit that this statement is not intended to be comprehensive-- and, in context, emphasizes an important difference between Protestant Christian views on marriage from Mormon views-- I would argue that Ms. Maffly-Kipp misses much of the core meaning of marriage for Christians, and thus misrepresents marriage entirely.

The view espoused by Ms. Maffly-Kipp is taken primarily from a single verse, 1 Corinthians 7:9, wherein Paul is discussing how unmarried and widowed believers should approach singleness. Paul says, simply, that for the service of the Lord it is better to remain single (v.8)-- this removes the divided focus of attention that marriage and family inevitably brings. Paul says, though, that if self-control is an issue (and here he means, subtly, sexual control) then they should marry, for it is "better to marry than to burn with passion."

Thus, one can argue that the above claim about the Protestant view of marriage is biblical. Why do I claim it to be inaccurate?

If for no other reason, than this is a chief concern: we should be very cautious (as in, I'll stop just short of saying "never do it") about deriving doctrines and positions from single verses. One of the key principles to understanding the Bible that we should all regularly employ is to let Scripture interpret Scripture-- in other words, the Bible, collectively and in context of itself, will instruct us on how to understand the meaning of texts.

In this case, one could argue that 1 Timothy 5:11 supports this claim of doctrine or position-- thus letting Scripture interpret Scripture. But in the whole context of the New Testament (and, indeed, the whole Bible) a much bigger and fuller sense of how and why Christians should marry emerges. In fact, a more comprehensive-- and I would say healthier-- view of sex emerges, as well.

Perhaps that's what bothers me the most about this quote: it seems to take a fairly cynical view of both sex and marriage, neither of which are portrayed in the Bible as the sort of annoyances that Ms. Maffly-Kipp seems to imply.

In a future post, I'll work through what I see as the "fuller sense" of how the Bible portrays marriage. Meanwhile, what are your thoughts?

Tags: Faith & Life, love

Marcie has mentioned Kate Snodgrass to many of you; Kate is someone we know from a St. Louis church where we were members. She has been battling cancer for some time now, and she has chronicled her struggles (and the lessons God has taught her through them) on a blog.

If you're interested, you may read Kate's blog at this link.

Tags: prayer, community

Faith and anxiety are not absolutes. That is, if you experience one, you do not eliminate the other. Faith can keep company with many sets of ordinary feelings that can be handled and lived with but never removed. Those who insist on a "pure faith" unstained by human emotionality make the denial of reality a condition of faith. But the encouragement of the Scripture is to "take heart," not take cover. We take heart because we believe that human life in its totality becomes enormously fruitful in the hands of God through the power of God's gracious promises.

Peter L. Steinke, How Your Church Family Works

Tags: Faith & Life

Anticipate Christmas
God descended from heaven
to be our Savior

Tags: Haiku, Advent, Liturgical Seasons

Lou asked me if I would publish a list of my sermon texts for upcoming sermons. I think this is a great idea-- that way, as you are preparing your hearts and minds for worship in the days prior to Sunday, you might read through the text I'll be preaching on.

Here is a brief list of what I'll preach through in December:
12/2-- Luke 1:39-56
12/9-- Luke 1:57-80
12/16-- Luke 2:1-7
12/23-- Luke 2:8-20
12/23 (evening)-- Matthew 2:1-12
12/30-- Luke 2:21-40

Tags: worship, preaching, Liturgy

John the Baptist offers a strong and healthy confession of faith in John chapter 1: when asked who he is, he answers, "I am not the Christ!"

We would all do well to adopt John's confession as our daily affirmation of how much we desperately need a Savior. While it is often tempting to believe that we can earn our way to God's favor, we must realize that it is not so. Instead, we might join John in affirming that, indeed, I-- and we-- are not the Christ.

And give thanks that God has sent us One who is.

Tags: Faith & Life

Part of yesterday's Sunday School class on Donald MacNair's The Practices of a Healthy Church included discussion about the spiritual growth of others in our church. Specifically, Dr. MacNair asks, "are many in our church evidencing spiritual growth?"

As we talked about that, we realized that we can't answer this question unless we are involved in each other's lives. How can I know if others are growing spiritually unless I am around them regularly, unless I know them well enough to see the growth in their lives? I have to be invested-- as we all do-- to recognize spiritual growth in others in the church.

Do you know your fellow church members this way? What are some ways that you could get to know them better?

How about any of the following as "starter" ideas for getting to know each other better: speak to someone you don't know very well after worship; invite someone to have supper with you; offer to meet them for lunch or breakfast; find out their birthday and send them a card or note; call them on the phone for no particular reason; ask if they could help you with a project around your house (or offer to help with one of theirs); sit with someone new at the pot-luck dinners (or other events).

These are just a few ideas. What ways do you know of to get to know someone better?

Tags: community, love

The other day I was with a group of people who were talking about an especially legalistic environment that some of them had been a part of as teenagers-- a place where they were literally told what to believe, and that if they disagreed they would go to Hell. The leaders in this environment were, clearly, abusing their authority and making claims that no one person or group has a right to make.

One person commented on the fact that I should get a lot of sermon illustrations from these stories! (He was right...) That got me to thinking about what the real applications really were. I’d like to reflect on two broad applications here, over two posts.

At one point I asked the question of this group: how did your parents (who were all Christians) continue to believe that it was good for you to be a part of this? After all, I said, you would surely come home and tell them all about it.

Their first response demonstrated how powerful the authoritarian environment was:

No, we were told that if we reported on them we would go to Hell.

[Note, by the way, the similar nature of this environment to a classic abusive relationship-- where the victim is told that THEY (the victim) would get in trouble if they told.]

But as they went on, something else became clear. One of them said:

I was glad to be there. I needed a place where I could belong, and this place felt safe-- partly because of the rules.

And there I saw my first sermon illustration: when it comes down to it, we all gravitate toward legalism. We are all legalists.

When we’re offered an environment where the rules are known, it becomes very easy to settle into that. We know where we stand in the pecking order; we are then able to proclaim with confidence precisely why we have merited the favor of God and men.

I think this is what makes grace so threatening, so terrifying to all of us. If the work that earns us favor isn’t our work (through legalism) but Christ’s work imputed to us (by grace), we are actually dependent on something (grace) and someone (Christ) other than ourselves.

This also illustrates why even communities that are defined by Christ’s grace (namely, churches) quickly return to legalism. Dependence is very uncomfortable. Dependence is often humbling, sometimes awkward, and frequently at odds with pride. Someone who is dependent has just reason to lose some confidence in themselves.

Here’s the irony in it all: we are always dependent. Even when we think we have every reason for confidence (as with the group of teenagers who knew exactly their place in the social order of that legalistic community), we are still dependent on something: for the legalist, it is the rules and laws that we subscribe to, and the authority who creates and enforces them.

Legalism-- that idea that “I can earn merit/favor/righteousness through obedience, and take confidence and pride in myself”-- is a lie.

Tags: prayer, Pastoral ministry