From Christian Legalism to Christian Hedonism

Why this blog is DEAD

2009-09-21T08:35:00.002-05:00

I am focusing my attention on our church blog for the time being so this blog will no longer be updated. When (or if) I resurrect my personal blog, it will most likely be hosted elsewhere. My apologies to my subscribers and readers for the deadness of this blog, but I hope you will subscribe to the Crosstown Church blog here.

Blogging the Deliberate Church: Part 10

2009-08-17T15:18:00.002-05:00

Here it is, finally. The last post from my reading of The Deliberate Church.

I do not doubt that some who read this book (or my posts on it) will be frustrated with all the deliberateness the authors describe regarding the church. Some will surely say that there is too much nit-picking here, that no wonder the church is so ineffective today when some pay so much attention to the smallest of details. But in the conclusion to the book, the authors explain why they take aim at such minutiae. The goal, they say, is a healthy church, and a healthy church is one in which the corporate gaze is Godward. The problem is that "the recent trend in pastoral ministry has been to come up with increasingly clever and innovative models or metaphors for ministry that still retain some semblance of faithfulness to God's Word" (p. 196). Here is where the authors will face their opposition. Are our churches simply striving to be creative in their gospel proclamation, or have we simply missed the setting forth of the truth plainly? The authors of The Deliberate Church would say it is the latter.

The conclusion of this book is not really a summary of what has been argued in the previous chapters. Rather, it adds new information, stressing the importance that as a healthy church sets its gaze upon God, it cannot help but also be looking outward. In other words, the church's ministry cannot be concerned with self-absorption, but must constantly be looking outward to other individuals, other churches, and even other countries. I appreciate these closing comments that remind us all that a healthy church is one whose existence is to the benefit of others.

We need to be teaching people that a biblical church is about much more than simply meeting our felt needs for purpose, significance, fellowship, and mutual understanding. It is about the glory of God in the Gospel of Christ. We need to be weaning members off the expectation of being served or even entertained, and training them rather to expect to become a contributing part of a global and even cosmic corporate cause to glorify God among the nations and in the heavenly halls of power. (p. 201)

Now to finish off this project of blogging through an entire book, here are my closing observations.

The author's attempts to apply the regulative principle (chapter 7) seem a bit too rigid and I remain unconvinced that the regulative principle is superior to (or more biblical than) the normative principle.
I think the author tries to find a purpose for the traditional gatherings of the church (Sunday school, Morning service, Evening service, Wednesday evening service, and Members' meetings), making it seem like the only way these purposes can be achieved is through the traditional set of corporate church gatherings.
I love the deliberateness! O how I wish more churches were much more careful with how the gospel is being communicated rather than with how they can grow numerically or handle logistics more efficiently.
The second half of the book is much better than the first half of the book. There are four basic sections: Gathering the church, When the church gathers, Gathering elders, and When the elders gather. The first two sections are good (aside from some of the insistence on the regulative principle); the last two sections are great. Yes, half the book is focused on elders, which appropriately demonstrates the necessity for getting that part of the church right. I think the single most effective way to improve the gospel-centeredness of our churches is to gather gospel-centered elders who know how to lead the church.

There is much to be gained by reading The Deliberate Church. I am happy to recommend this book to all who care about the direction their church is heading.

Blogging the Deliberate Church: Part 9

2009-08-11T14:26:00.003-05:00

Section 3 of The Deliberate Church dealt with the process of gathering elders. In Section 4, the final section of the book, the authors talk about what the elders do when they meet. How should pastors handle the spiritual business of the church?

The first thing discussed here is the importance of unifying the elders around God’s Word and prayer. This is the “stating the obvious” part that unfortunately is not all that obvious in many church leadership meetings. Perhaps we begin our meetings with the obligatory petition for God’s guidance. Or, we may even spend a bit longer in prayer, interceding for one another or for the more obvious issues in the church. But I think it is a good thing to ask ourselves if we really value the place the Word and prayer have in our pastoral leadership.

Here’s how the authors do it at their church. Elders’ meetings begin by reading the Bible. This is “not mindless or unreflective reading, but thoughtful reading that is looking for reasons in the text to praise and thank God” (p. 174). The elders each then offer a brief prayer of praise. Next the elders join in prayer, first for each other, then for individual church members (using the membership directory), and then finally for the corporate body (praying for health and not just size). A good, practical suggestion for how to do pray for the church at large is to memorize the prayers that Paul prayed for the churches (e.g. Eph 1:15-23; 3:16-19; Phil 1:9-11; Col 1:9-14; 1 Thess 3:11-13; 2 Thess 1:11-12).

Another aspect of uniting the elders around the Word, though not specifically related to the actual meeting of the elders, is the importance of the elders studying the Word together. For example,

Periodically an issue will arise in the congregation that requires some biblical study on the part of the elders. Don’t waste these opportunities! These can be some of the richest and most rewarding times in the life of an elder body. (p. 174).

If we are concerned that our congregations aren’t interested enough in theology, perhaps we should see if the elders are leading the congregation to be so. By studying relevant biblical issues and then presenting them to the church as an elder council, the elders are able to model what it means to shepherd the congregation in a biblically responsible way.

Only after the elders have united around the Word and in prayer are they ready to move on to other areas. The authors say that spending quality time in the Word and in prayer takes them almost two hours! Again the elders must ask themselves if they are truly “devoted” to the ministry of the Word and prayer (see Acts 6:4). But moving on (chap 20), church’s that have staff elders as well as non-staff elders will need to work hard to reduce the disparity of knowledge that exists between them. One thing that can be done is prepare the agenda and relevant reports at least a week ahead of the elder meeting and distribute it to all the elders. The goal is to get all elders up to speed in advance of the meeting.

So what should the elders talk about? The authors offer three “categories for conversation” to help steer the discussion. First is member care. This includes updates on who is joining the church and who is leaving the church. But much attention focuses on the “care list.”

The care list is simply an informal list of people whom the elders have recognized as needing special attention for a variety of reasons. Periodically a person is put on the care list because of a particularly extreme kind of trial. More often, though, the care list is used to keep track of those people whom the elders have noticed as being delinquent in attendance over the course of a few months or as being involved in scandalous sin that will require church discipline if not repented of quickly. p. 181.

In larger churches the elders need to go over the membership directory systematically so that no one falls through the cracks. This kind of work is part of the spiritual oversight required of elders (Heb 13:17) and is the best way to practice church discipline. It is also a reason why plural elders is so necessary; no one pastor could possibly do this kind of intentional oversight on his own.

The second category of conversation in the elders’ meeting deals with the administration of the church. While this may be “deacon work” primarily, the elders need to know the overall status of things like finances and facilities.

The third category is ministry and missions where the elders consider things like missionary applications, short term mission plans, proposals for new church ministries, benevolence, constitutional revisions, and church planting. “This is where the elders work to ensure that the spiritual vision of the church is realized,” the authors tell us, “and that the spiritual direction of the church is maintained” (p. 183).

After all is said and done in the elders’ meeting, it will be important to assign certain elders with the task of communicating with the deacons and staff about decisions that have been made.

Chapter 20 concludes with a brief discussion on the annual budget process, and also with a word about modeling good leadership meetings by inviting others (e.g. pastoral assistants and interns) to attend the elders meetings to quietly observe the process.

The final chapter of this book deals with how decisions are to be made in the elders’ meetings. As the authors explain, “The most heated and divisive moments in a church’s life often come at critical decision making moments” (p. 189). So it is very important that we have an approach to handling decisions, though no approach can prevent every possible conflict.

First of all, it is helpful to emphasize that the senior pastor does not need to chair every elders’ meeting, or members’ meeting for that matter. By sharing the leadership of the meetings, the senior pastor can communicate that he is not power-hungry and that he does not view the pastorate as a CEO position. “Pastoral authority is like soap—the more you use it, the less you have left” (p. 190). Pastors then should lead with the Word, “not simply with the strength of your personality or opinions” (p. 190). They should model good character in speaking graciously and must be patient rather than insisting on having things done their way.

Still, we need a good way to observe order in handling matters. The authors advise the elders to begin discussing a matter by having the issue addressed in a one-page, specifically written memo that all elders can review a week or two before the meeting. Then at the meeting the motion needs to be seconded. In a smaller elder body all elders can be asked for their thoughts. The chair determines the length of the discussion, so “each must be patient with the others, and each must know when to back down for the good of the group” (p. 193).

When the chair feels like the discussion has proceeded far enough, he may call for the vote. Unanimity does not need to be the requirement for action (except perhaps in the case of elder nomination); instead, voting gives all elders an opportunity to practice humility, especially when they do not get their way. They must treasure the unity of the body more than their own ideas, and they must learn to not take being voted down personally.

I find the authors to be at their best in this discussion about elders. It seems to me that this kind of deliberate pastoral oversight of the church is sorely lacking in the average church today. The authors have done us a service by giving us some good practical advice for how we might approach leading our churches in a more healthy way. In my opinion the greatest need we have, and the one we should always begin with, is a devotion of the church’s pastors (elders) to the Word and to prayer. Perhaps we have simply tried to govern our churches without depending upon God for way too long.

Blogging the Deliberate Church: Part 8

2009-07-27T17:43:00.006-05:00

If churches are to be led by a plurality of elders (pastors), then what about other paid workers within the church? How should a church go about adding staff positions and personnel? This is the subject discussed in chapter 18 of The Deliberate Church, and I found the discussion to be rather insightful and thought-provoking.

This chapter is interesting because it challenges the idea of specialization, the commonest way of staffing in most churches. What is specialization?

One of the most popular ways of hiring and organizing church staff has been to divide the variegated lump of ministry responsibilities into specialized departments such as music, youth, adult education, community, evangelism, discipleship, and the like. It only makes sense, then, to look for a person who is particularly suited or gifted to lead in one of those areas. So we hire a minister of music or youth, a director of adult education, a pastor of evangelism and so on. (page 161.)

What's wrong with that? The authors point out four potential problems: professionalization, fragmentation, territoriality, and program drivenness. I cannot elaborate on those four areas now, but will comment on the first, professionalization. While it is true that the ideal is for people to serve in areas we are most gifted to do, too often we find giftedness (or a lack thereof) to be an excuse for non-service. Why should only "gifted" childcare workers fill children's ministry positions? Surely all parents are called to children's ministry, whether they feel gifted to do it or not! As the authors point out, the problem with specialization is that it creates a niche-marketed mentality where we assume the problem with our children's ministry is that we do not have enough gifted workers when the problem may really be we haven't trained the parents how to minister to their children.

So is there an alternative to specialization?

What we want to work toward is a staff model that contributes to the integration of ministries, the evangelical camaraderie of pastors, and the unity of church members. (page 165.)

The idea proposed by the authors is to no longer divide pastoral ministry into different departments, led by a departmental "specialist." As they say, "no more Music Department to be run by the Minister of Music; no more Youth Department or Evangelism Department or Adult Education Department" (p. 165). "Instead," they explain, "we want to view pastoral ministry (and, by extension, Christian maturity) as one integrated unit whose distinguishable parts grow together in proportion to the whole" (p. 166). This does not mean that there are not certain individuals who are given oversight over certain areas of ministry. It just means that these individuals are not to be limited by or even defined by those ministries. No more "ministers of" any specific ministerial area.

Here's how it works at the authors' church. "Instead of hiring specialists, we've found it useful to hire pastoral staff who are willing to be generalists" (p. 166). They hire pastoral assistants, a full-time but temporary position who may or may not go into full-time pastoral ministry. The PA's assist the senior pastor and are often single, post-undergrad, pre-seminary guys who want to test their giftedness in the context of the local church. So it is an "assistanship" as well as an apprenticeship, and it is designed to train young men to be generalists in ministry.

The church also hires assistant pastors whose distinction from the PA's is that they are brought in from within the congregation after being recognized as gifted for vocational ministry. They assist the senior pastor as well as the associate pastor(s) and are often given general oversight over various ministries, though again their job description is not limited to these things. Again the goal is to get them to be well-rounded in ministry.

Third, the church also hires associate pastors who actually may look just like the senior pastor in giftedness and call but who are willing to submit to the senior pastor's authority while serving in similar yet complementary ways. The idea with associate pastors is to have other people on the boat who can steer the ship in the absence of the senior pastor.

So how does it all work between the staff, elders, and deacons? The authors explain with this analogy: "The elders decide on teh destination. The staff drive the bus. The deacons make sure we've got enough gas to get there" (p. 169). In other words, the church is "elder-led, but staff-executed" (p. 168), though of course, some staff will also serve as elders.

These ideas on staffing the church are quite distinct from the typical church's setup. Whether one adopts all of the ideas or not, I think the authors have made a great point about the need for the pastoral ministry to not only be shared by having a plurality of elders, but shared also by having the pastors be generalists. Yes it is wonderful when we can serve the church by executing the gifts we have been entrusted with. But a lack of giftedness should never be an excuse to neglect important aspects of ministry, and it is the responsibility of the pastors to be sure that essential ministry is being done within the church.

I also think the idea of hiring pastoral assistants is noteworthy. It seems like the church often falls short in giving men the opportunity to test their giftedness and call to pastoral ministry within the context of the church. Here is a way to get staff responsibilities done while at the same time giving young men an opportunity to see if vocational ministry is truly what the Lord is calling them to do.

Blogging the Deliberate Church: Part 7

2009-07-27T16:55:00.003-05:00

In this post, I will review chapters 13-17 of The Deliberate Church. Those chapters, together with chapter 18 (which I will review in my next post) comprise the book's third section entitled "Gathering Elders."

Why a whole section on elders? Actually, the 2nd half of the book focuses on this issue, as the fourth section is entitled "When the Elders Gather." In other words, the subject of elders is obviously an important subject for the authors of this book. For though they admit that the biblical evidence on church structure is scant, it nevertheless is consistent that

New Testament churches are to be congregationally governed yet led by a plurality of elders who are released by servant deacons to devote themselves to the ministry of the Word and prayer. (page 131)

In chapter 13 the authors offer the biblical evidence for plural elder leadership in the church and also give six advantages of a plurality leadership in our congregations. My favorite observation here is the fact that plural leadership "indigenizes leadership." In other words, with a set of elders/pastors leading the church, the work of the church can continue in the absence of the paid pastor. Practically speaking this means that the non-staff elders need to outnumber the staff elders. But the point is that the church is led by people who are invested in that congregation and not by the hired professional whose stay is (on average) only 3-5 years.

Now how should a church go about securing elders? We might assume that the process would involve looking for men we think have the potential for eldership, training them for that role, and then installing them to the office. But in chapter 14 the authors contend that we should recognize elders before we train them for the office. In other words, it is wise for the church to acknowledge those men that are already exemplifying the character of an elder and doing the work of an elder even without holding the official title. Men such as this "do not view the office as something to train for and execute, but as a wise and godly way to live regardless of their official capacity" (p. 138).

Also in chapter 14 the authors give us the definition of an elder:

An elder is simply a man of exemplary, Christlike character who is able to lead God's people by teaching them God's Word in a way that profits them spiritually. (p. 140)

Given that definition, we should look for those who meet the qualifications in four main areas: 1) core theology, 2) doctrinal distinctives of the local congregation, 3) love for the congregation, 4) cultural distinctives of the local congregation.

Then, in chapter 15, the authors elaborate on guidelines for assessing potential elders. Here we find a critical observation. Because "churches rarely grow past the maturity of their leaders" (p. 143), we must move slowly and deliberately in our search for qualified elders. We will want to assess their character, both by the explicit biblical requirements as well as by biblical wisdom implied by other texts. In other words, we should not limit our assessment of character to the list of qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. We will also want to assess their ability "to explain the Scriptures accurately to other people in ways that profit them spiritually." An elder "should be known by others in the congregation as a man to whom people can go in order to have the Scriptures explained to them" (p. 145). Third, we will want to assess their fit, that is, their gifting and passion as well as their communication style in relation to the other elders. It is extremely important that the elder body be unified (they need to get along!) for the sake of the unity of the congregation. This area of how a potential elder "fits" with the rest of the elder council would be an easy assessment to overlook, which could prove devastating to the efectiveness of the entire council.

If character is not the only area we assess in choosing elders, why is is that character is the major focus of the explicit biblical requirements for elders? The reason, the authors suggest in chapter 16, is because the elders must be examples of godliness. Furthermore, they will hear stuff in elder meetings and know stuff about people in the congregation that only godly men should hear and know. So while we must not insist on perfection in a man's character, it is important that we see a high standard exhibited there before we allow a man to serve his church officially as an elder. That is not too much to ask for those who are to be models for the church to emulate.

In chapter 17 we find a 5-stage plan for moving to plural elder leadership in the church. This information is most helpful if one's church needs to transition from single-pastor leadership to plural elders. Begin with biblical exposition. Show them that the desire to move to plural elders is based on the biblical evidence and not your opinions regarding church government alone. Then the church will have biblical eyes for step two, recognizing those who are most qualified to serve in this office. Third, potential elders should be nominated, by the existing elders (the senior pastor in a single-pastor model) and not by the congregation at large, who may not be spiritually mature enough to make such choices. The fourth step is to elect the new elders, which is merely congregational affirmation of the nominations. Finally, elders should be publicaly installed, perhaps even by reciting vows, a sample of which can be found on pages 158-159.

One last thought that I found worthy of note. The authors contend that non-staff elders should be term-limited to create a rotation of elders on the elder council. Why? Two main reasons. First, it provides the opportunity for more leaders to be developed, and second because it helps prevent territorialism from arising within the council.

Blogging The Deliberate Church: Part 6

2009-07-16T15:08:00.002-05:00

Chapter 12 of The Deliberate Church is all about music. Not worship, just music. The chapter begins by pointing out that while it is common to equate worship with music, in reality music is only a subset of our corporate worship in the church. Still, its major place in most worship services necessitates an entire chapter in this book to talk about how we might be deliberate in our use of music in the church.

The authors contend that the two important factors to keep in mind with regard to music in the church worship service is that it ought to be corporate and it ought to be participatory. By "corporate" the authors mean that we should sing songs together to highlight the fact that we are not alone in our confession of Christ. Similarly when we sing songs together we are acknowledging the participatory nature of our musical worship. Not surprisingly, the authors shy away from encouraging solos and special music in the church and even suggest that a congregation's applause at the end of some performance pieces may indicate a shift in the focus of our attention away from God and on to the musician.

I appreciated the "three guidelines for congregational singing." First, singing corporately emphasizes the fact that our corporate worship is public, not privatized. While it is not wrong to have a personal experience in public worship, this is not the goal. Expressing the unity and harmony of the gathered congregation is more to the point, and I believe this concept is lost on the average American church goer. Second, songs should be theologically rich. More specifically, the authors contend that good worship songs have biblical accuracy, God-centeredness, theological and/or historical progressions, an absence of first-person singular pronouns, and music that complements the tone of the lyrics (p. 120). In order to ensure such a selection of worship songs, worship leaders really need to be theologically informed. Preferably, in my opinion, they need to be first and foremost pastors. Third, our music should be spiritually encouraging, something the authors contend will be the result if our songs are theologically rich.

Next in this chapter we find a discussion on musical accompaniment. The authors contend here that simple is best, offering their own example of using only a piano, guitar, and four vocalists lightly amplified (p. 122). While there are some really good things to say about this methodology (e.g. it is true that this is a more replicable model for deployment by smaller church plants), I find this suggestion to be offering a view that is too narrow for how we might be deliberate in our music. On the other hand I agree with and have recently benefited from worshiping with a music leader who is self-effacing and says fewer things during the worship service. I do wish all worship leaders would cut down on the flamboyancy and serve their people by actually leading them to worship in music.

More practical ideas follow in this chapter. There are good ideas for how to add variety to our musical selections. Surely it would be advantageous for us to deliberately teach new songs to our congregations. The chapter concludes with some ideas about how a young pastor can patiently transition a church into a more deliberate use of music in worship.

There is plenty in this chapter that is debatable. One might react to the suggestion that we not applaud in church or that we use only a piano and guitar in our instrumentation. But it is still worth listening to the authors' reasons for these suggestions. Hopefully all who do listen will attempt to think more deliberately about the use of music in our worship services.

Blogging The Deliberate Church: Part 5

2009-06-18T08:22:00.005-05:00

Moving on (I know, I know...FINALLY!) to the next few chapters in The Deliberate Church. In chapter 8, Dever addresses the role of the pastor. The most fundamental role of the pastor, Dever says, is to preach the gospel clearly (p. 89). While that may seem to be a stating of the obvious, Dever does not have in mind solely the pulpit ministry of the pastor. Later he observes that "everything teaches," whether you intend it to or not (p. 90). This means that the pastor must be deliberate about ensuring that he is communicating the gospel clearly and accurately and that things are not being done within the church that are harmful to the clear articulation of the gospel. Echoing the belief of others like John MacArthur, Dever contends that since the pastor's main job is to preach the Word, the majority of his weekly time should be spent in preparing the sermon. I do wonder what might happen if more pastors had studies rather than offices.

In chapter 9 Dever describes how his church utilizes four different weekly gatherings of the church. The "Adult Education Hour" (aka Sunday School) is the main equipping time. The Sunday morning service is the main feeding time. The Sunday evening service is the main time. And the Wednesday evening (midweek) service is the main study time. Throw in there regular members' meetings (the main administrative time) and you've got a lot of meetings! I appreciate the clear purposes that Dever has identified for each of these gatherings, and if you are in a church that has these types of regular gatherings in place, then I would highly recommend you consider what Dever has to say in this chapter. But I'm not convinced that asking church members to show up to all of these meetings is the best way to do church. I think some of these purposes can be combined so that we do not need to gather the whole church together so often, and I do think that smaller groups of church members meeting together has great value. Nevertheless I wholeheartedly agree with the following comment regarding the importance of the "Adult Education Hour."

What's missing from many local churches . . . is an integrated system of teaching that begins to equip members in the areas of basic Christianity for starters, living the Christian life, Old and New Testament overviews, systematic theology, church history, and Christian growth. (pp. 97-98)

Chapter 10 is entitled, "The Role of the Ordinances." I agree with the observation that the thing we evangelicals emphasize most about the ordinances is that they are not necessary for salvation (p. 105). So here as much as anywhere else we have great need for being deliberate. Dever's comments regarding how to deal with the baptism of children is very helpful for those holding a credobaptistic viewpoint. On the Lord's Supper I appreciated the suggestion of taking the bread individually but partaking of the cup together as a way to incorporate both our individual discipleship to Christ as well as the church's symbolic corporate unity in Christ (p. 107). In every church I've attended the emphasis seems to be entirely either on the individual or corporate aspects of our relationship to Christ in the Supper.

Chapter 11 is the culmination of the previous ten chapters. "The goal of gathering the church and ordering our weekly gatherings is to cultivate a culture that has evangelistic effects on our unbelieving friends" (p. 109). In other words, a church culture of Christlike love can be one of the best evangelistic strategies the church has. But this kind of culture does not happen automatically. Yes, the church will have to be deliberate in making this happen. Dever identifies 5 aspects of this type of church culture. First, the church must be covenantal. There needs to be a submission of all members to a church covenant of intentional spiritual formation. Second, the church must be careful, which is just another way of saying that there needs to be a deliberateness for obeying the Word of God in every aspect. Third, the church must be corporate. By this Dever means that we need to stress the fact that one cannot successfully live the Christian life alone. Fourth, the church must be cross-cultural. Here Dever is a bit controversial as he argues that "it is difficult to defend the practice of targeting a church to a particular demographic based on any factor other than language" (p. 111). Surely he is right that a church that transcends cultural differences is a powerful apologetic for the gospel. Fifth, the church must be cross-generational, meaning it should reflect the make-up of a family with members young and old alike interacting with one another.

Blogging The Deliberate Church: Part 4

2009-04-20T00:01:00.002-05:00

In chapters 6 and 7 of The Deliberate Church, Dever and Alexander deal with what should transpire when the church gathers. Their comments are based on their biblical convictions that worship is the purpose of redemption and that in both the Old and New Testaments God has given us regulations about how we are to worship him. Thus the authors argue that the church's corporate worship should be governed by the Regulative Principle. That is, "everything we do in a corporate worship gathering must be clearly warranted by Scripture" (p. 77).

An alternative to the Regulative Principle is the Normative Principle. The authors give us a terse distinction between the two. While the Regulative Principle forbids anything not commanded by Scripture, the Normative Principle allows anything not forbidden by Scripture. There may not be a whole lot of differences between these two principles in actual practice. For example, the authors cite Exodus 20:4 at one point, but this is a passage that seems to me to be an expression of the Normative Principle if anything. But I do think that chapter 7 entitled "Applying the Regulative Principle" offers the pastor some very helpful guidance. The authors apply the Regulative Principle by identifying five basic elements of corporate worship. I'll state them briefly here:

Read the Bible: The regular public reading of Scripture.
Preach the Bible: A consistent diet of sermons that present the gospel and its implications as the natural outworking of the point of a biblical passage.
Pray the Bible: Corporate prayer.
Sing the Bible: Ensure that the church's singing is to theologically rich and memorable tunes.
See the Bible: The proper use of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Chapter 7 ends with a section where the authors contend that having multiple worship services in the church does not correspond with the Regulative Principle.

I find it hard mentally to think in terms of either the Regulative Principle or the Normative Principle. But I do think that the authors have presented a solid case for our church's services to be "deliberate," centered around the five basic elements. And they may very well be right that we ought not add anything else to these five. I tend to agree, for example, that by incorporating drama into our worship gatherings we have robbed the sacraments from being the dramatic presentations of the gospel they were designed to be (see pp. 207-08, note 9). Perhaps the pressure to be entertaining has distracted us from worshiping God the way he wants us to.

Blogging The Deliberate Church: Part 3

2009-04-19T12:36:00.000-05:00

I apologize for the delay in my blog posts through Mark Dever and Paul Alexander's book, The Deliberate Church. I had another reading project I had to speed through, but now that I am done with that, I am focusing once again on this book. You can read my first two posts on this book here and here.

"It is surprising how careless many Christians and even pastors have become about the spiritual security of the local church" (p. 59). This is the problem Dever and Alexander attempt to address in chapters 4-5 of The Deliberate Church. Their primary concern in chapter 4 is church membership, or, as they put it, "How do we ensure, as far as externally possible, that every person we accept into membership is truly converted?" (p. 60). The authors take a relatively small space to make a biblical case for church membership. They then give three practical suggestions for carefully accepting new members into the church. First, they advocate a mandatory new members' class, the goal of which is to communicate to prospective members the expectations they need to uphold if they become members. Second, by requiring members to sign a church covenant, the church will reinforce the expectation that all members not only subscribe to a statement of faith but also that they live it. Third, utilizing a membership interview is a good way to be sure members understand the gospel, are truly converted and baptized, and that they are not coming to your church having left their previous one on bad terms.

What lies at the heart of all this procedure is pastoral responsibility for the members of our churches. The authors admit that it is inevitable that unbelievers will still make it into the church's membership, but the fact that we cannot know a person's spiritual status perfectly give us no excuse to not be discerning.

In chapter 5 the authors deal with the difficult doctrine of church discipline. First, they differentiate between formative and corrective discipline. Formative discipline includes things like the preaching, teaching, and discipling ministries of the church. Corrective discipline deals with the rebuke, admonition, and excommunication required when there are more serious errors in the doctrine and lifestyle of church members. The authors deal mostly with the nature of corrective discipline and make the very important point that "before discipline can be productive, there must be a context of both meaningful spiritual relationships and structurally sound leadership" (p. 69). Without these things in place, "corrective discipline will be like walking up to a child whom you see only once a month and spanking him in the street. It will likely be perceived as harsh, if not abusive, rather than the tough but responsible outworking of loving concern for another's spiritual good" (p. 69). Once this context of corrective discipline is understood, the bad taste in our mouths that we get when we think of church discipline will hopefully be eliminated.

The authors conclude this chapter and 1st section of the book by giving practical ideas about how to carry out corrective church discipline. They also helpfully define excommunication as "the removal of a member from the membership rolls and, more fundamentally, the exclusion of the person from taking communion" (p. 71).

Blogging The Deliberate Church: Part 2

2009-03-01T15:05:00.005-06:00

In this post I want to give my thoughts on chapters 2-3 in the book, The Deliberate Church. You can read my first review here. My friend, Jeff Wright, has made his opening comments on the book here. It is worth reading, so check it out.

Chapter two is entitled, "Beginning the Work." So what is the first thing you should do when beginning ministry in the local church? The authors waste no time giving their answer. The first thing you must do is clarify the Gospel by preaching it clearly. Here the authors discuss the plague of nominalism running rampant in our churches today.

The human heart is astoundingly deceptive (Jer. 17:9), nominalism (being a Christian in name only) has spread in our churches like gangrene, and misunderstandings about the Gospel abound among professing evangelicals, especially regarding its relationship to other religions and its implications for our everyday lives. People need to hear the Gospel--whether they're professing Christians or not. (p. 43).

Words like this are music to my ears. I appreciate the authors reminding us that "the Gospel of Christ has never needed the gimmicks of man to effect conversion in the soul" (p. 44). And their suggestion that we begin with an exposition of Mark or John to let Jesus' words speak for themselves is an excellent idea.

If you are not surprised at the suggestion that the first thing one should do when beginning a ministry in the local church is clarify the Gospel, then you may be surprised by what comes next. In a section entitled "Cleaning the Rolls," the authors argue that we must make a big deal about making church membership meaningful. How serious do the authors think this is?

Most seriously of all, when we allow prolonged nonattenders to keep their names on the membership rolls, we actually help deceive them into thinking they are saved when their behavior is in fact calling their salvation into question. If membership is the church's public affirmation of a person's conversion, then to leave a nonattender on the rolls could very well be damningly deceptive. (pp. 47-48).

I think the key to affirming this quote lies with one's agreement with the idea that "membership is the church's public affirmation of a person's conversion." It is this idea that I think so many churches have a hard time with. Not agreeing with that statement is certainly a major reason why many new churches avoid having a formal membership at all. But I think this is a huge mistake. As pastors, we will be held responsible for the spiritual well-being of those we pastor (Heb 13:17), so it is important that we have some way not only for identifying those for whom we are accountable, but also for being able to say something about one's spiritual health. Commitment to the church is one biblical way of doing just that (see 1 John 2:19).

At this point I can say that the authors have made it clear by example what they mean by being deliberate. They mean taking seriously the charge to defend the Gospel, to watch over the spiritual condition of those within the church, and (in chapter 3) to seek for genuine conversions. This last issue the authors call "Doing Responsible Evangelism," the title of chapter three, a must-read chapter in this book. Here the authors discuss four essentials of the Gospel and deal with two responses that seem to be confused with a genuine response to the Gospel: praying a prayer and coming forward at a church service. The chapter concludes with an appeal to avoid entertainment and manipulation in presenting the Gospel as well as a warning against making the Gospel me-centered rather than God-centered.

In my first post on this book I began by noting this probing question found in the early pages of the book: Does the Gospel enjoy "functional centrality" in your church? This question continues to drive the ideas of this book in the next couple of chapters. After all, the Gospel is the only message the church has been entrusted with, so we had better take great care in making sure that it is the Gospel we are indeed delivering to people both inside and outside of the church.

Blogging The Deliberate Church: Part 1

2009-02-25T11:21:00.003-06:00

My friend, Jeff Wright, and I are reading through the book The Deliberate Church together, and decided we would also blog our way through it, too. This is my first post on the book. Check out Jeff's thoughts over at Pursuing Truth.

Does the Gospel enjoy "functional centrality" in your church? That's the question that stands out to me through my reading of two "Forewords," two "Prefaces," and the Introduction to this book. I like that question because it goes so well with the title of the book: In order to answer that question in the affirmative, we will have to be quite "deliberate" about it. But this does not mean we need new programs in our churches for putting the Gospel back front-and-center. In fact, the authors argue that "to preserve functional centrality for the Gospel, human method has to remain plain, or else it will naturally supplant the Gospel's rightful role" (p. 22).

But this also does not mean that our methods for doing church do not matter. On the contrary, our methods do matter, so much so that we must be deliberate about letting the Gospel be the power behind our methods. In chapter 1 of this book, the authors lay out "Four P's" to focus on in church ministry: Preaching, Praying, developing Personal discipling relationships, and being Patient. These four things are basic and simple, but that's the point, I think. They give the Gospel "functional centrality" in the life of the church rather than one's creative genius or personality.

One final thought for now: I also appreciate the practical ideas the authors suggest; the book is more than theory. For example, rather than simply re-stating the oft-used beginning point of Prayer, the authors give us the practical suggestion of praying through the church directory on a systematic basis. I'm writing "PI" (that's "Practical Idea") in the margin of this book whenever I encounter such ideas.

Baseball Again: And My Rangers Are Getting Close

2009-02-16T10:02:00.002-06:00

It's that time of the year again: Spring Training for Major League Baseball, still America's favorite pastime, I don't care what anyone else says.

And I'm particularly giddy now, because I'm not the only one that thinks that my Texas Rangers are getting very close to the playoffs. Check this out, and don't be surprised if you see my Rangers being very competitive in 2009.

Great Thoughts on Evangelism

2009-02-04T09:37:00.001-06:00

I appreciated and was helped by these reminders from Mark Dever.

Don't be Too Cool

2009-01-31T19:10:00.001-06:00

This video reminds me of the dangers of trying to be too cool.

Songs I Hate

2009-01-27T09:28:00.004-06:00

Yes, the title of this post is rather strong. I admit, I'm hoping to grab your attention. But there are some songs that are sung in Christian circles that absolutely drive me nuts! Here is one I heard in a church I visited recently:

Na na na na na na na na na na na (x2)

Every move I make I make in You
You make me move Jesus
Every breath I take I breathe in You

Every step I take I take in You
You are my way Jesus
Every breath I take I breathe in You

Waves of mercy, waves of grace
Everywhere I look I see Your face
Your love has captured me
Oh my God, this love
How can it be?

na na na na
na na na na na na
na na na na na na
na na na na

Someone please tell me: what does this song mean? How does one "make a move" IN Jesus?

How I long for songs that have substance. IMO, this one does not.

What are the "Christian songs" that get under your skin?

Why I Left the Mac World

2009-01-22T20:25:00.003-06:00

Yesterday I sold my MacBook Pro. After a 1-year journey into the Mac "cult," I decided to get out. I bought a brand new Dell with the money I got for the MacBook. I notified my Facebook and Twitter friends that I was doing this. And yes, I received several comments from friends who were shocked, saddened, and incredulous that I could make such a move.

While the "PC vs Mac" debate is well-documented all over the internet, let me give you the top three reasons I gladly walked away from it all.

Compatibility. My favorite desktop application is Logos Bible Software. Until recently, the software was PC only. But then the Mac version was released. I was excited. Until I got my Logos Bible Software for Mac. I quickly discovered that many of the features available on the PC version were not included in the Mac software. As someone who has attended two Morris Proctor seminars to learn this incredible software, I cannot live without the availability of those features. For me, using the Mac version of Logos was like working on Windows 95 (maybe not quite that bad). So I discovered very quickly that the $50 investment to cross over to Logos for Mac was a waste of my money. The same thing is true of another one of my favorite desktop applications, Book Collector. I continued to run both of these in Parallels. And yes, Parallels is a good application, but it is not perfect. It takes a lot of system resources to run Windows and Leopard, so it was not always convenient to have Parallels booted up. Nonetheless I found myself running Parallels a lot, making my MacBook Pro one very expensive PC. That leads to my second complaint.
Expense. We have three computers in our home. My wife and I both own a laptop and we have a desktop for a small business/hobby. I like these three computers to "talk" to each other, and I like to be able to share and synchronize files between them. That means, I like to open the files on each of them. But my Mac was always a problem. It spoke a different language! So while I could share files between these computers, I couldn't always open them on any of the computers. I finally concluded that all three computers needed to speak the same language for my wish to come true. But do you know how much it would cost to have three Macs? I don't even want to think about it. Truth is, Macs are simply overpriced. Who can blame them for charging more than double what a PC costs when they obviously can sell them like hot cakes? But I finally came to realize that it just was not feasible for me to keep up with the expense of owning a Mac, or two, or three. But I could manage to do this with a PC.
Productivity and Hype. Finally, after a one year experiment with a Mac I did not find that I was any more productive than I was with a PC. And that's the reason I own a laptop to begin with. I don't use a PC to try to look cool. I drive a minivan and often wear tennis shoes with my jeans. So I could care less about the glowing Apple logo on my laptop. I just want to get my work done efficiently. In other words, I think the ridiculous expense of a Mac is mostly hype. Sure there are some useful features (I will miss Finder's Quick Look and the "Spaces" feature), but none that I cannot live without. All of my friends who think I'm nuts for going back to the dark side only signal to me the reality of the hype (one must be a complete idiot for choosing a PC over a Mac, right?). But tell me, how is your life really better with a Mac? I would really like to know.

Actually, on second thought, don't tell me. 'Cause it's too late for me now. I've gone back to the PC world, but no one can say that I didn't give Apple my best shot.

Oh No! Michael's Mad!

2009-01-12T09:18:00.001-06:00

If the Texas Rangers are getting close to winning a championship, something I am very optimistic about, this is definitely going in the wrong direction.

Don't Even Think About It

2009-01-03T12:29:00.002-06:00

If the cashier inadvertently gives you a dollar too much in change, don't even think about keeping it. Give it back.

If you get a rebate check in the mail for $250 when you were only supposed to get $50, don't even think about keeping it. And don't try to be spiritual and give some (or all) of it away to charity. The money does not belong to you. Give it back.

The first situation has happened to me a handful of times. This second situation just happened to me this week. I am amazed at how tempting it is to keep the money. I immediately thought of many different "good" ways to use the money.

But I did the "right" thing and called the company and reported the mistake. I felt really good about myself. Well, I did until the company told me they would immediately stop payment on the check! I guess I thought maybe I would get rewarded for my honesty. Maybe they would tell me to keep the check, you know, kind of like the "Community Chest" card in the game Monopoly that reads, "Bank Error in Your Favor, Collect $100." Instead, the company took their money back! Imagine that! I did get a brief thanks-for-your-honesty comment, but then it was over. I even have to wait another couple of weeks to get the correct rebate amount I am owed. For some reason I didn't feel so good after the phone call.

Just shows how tempting money can be.

New Year's Resolution Right Here!

2009-01-01T05:11:00.004-06:00

I suppose most people who make New Year's Resolutions typically make only one resolution per year. I make several. But here is one that I have made for this year and that I'm announcing on this blog for my own accountability: I'm going to blog more faithfully.

I hope you will subscribe to or bookmark this blog (as well as my other one), check back often and post a few comments to help me keep this resolution in 2009!

Another blog

2008-12-01T16:36:00.002-06:00

We have recently launched the website to our new church in downtown Oklahoma City and I have been doing my blogging over the past week or so there. Here is a link to the blog and here to the website.

I am not yet giving up on this blog, so I hope you will keep checking back here from time to time. But I will probably be more active blogging at the new site, so be sure to bookmark its location as well or subscribe to our feeds.

A Theology for Choosing Our Homes

2008-11-03T08:45:00.002-06:00

I was talking to some of my neighbors last night and they were telling me about what downtown Oklahoma City was like about 15 years ago. "We used to go roller blading through the streets downtown at night," one neighbor said. "The streets were empty. No one was there."

Times have changed. And the changing times continue to suggest that downtown is going to get a lot more exciting.

This story from Saturday's newspaper gives us a glimpse of what is planned for downtown. And with the new NBA team now bringing big league sports to downtown, it is hard to miss the excitement for those who love this city.

I am one of those who is very excited about downtown Oklahoma City, especially since this week, Lord willing, we are moving within a mile and a half of the heart of the city. Yes, we have finally sold our house in the suburbs (it has taken us a year to get our house sold), and we have found a new place to call home. And being close to downtown sounds like it is going to be a lot of fun.

But that's not why we are moving there.

We want to live there so that we can give ourselves away for the good of Oklahoma City. We aim to be involved in as many things as possible as we seek the peace of our city. Our dream for our church, Crosstown, is that it would be "a church for the city," boldly proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ in word and deed. Our living there is as essential as a missionary to Kenya actually living in Kenya!

Unfortunately, many Christians pay little attention to where they should live and how that impacts their mission on this earth. By that I mean that we often seek the safest neighborhoods and biggest houses that we can afford with little to no consideration of how the place where we call home impacts our strategy as Christ's ambassadors. To be sure, there were some places that we didn't consider as our new home because of the condition or size of the place. We do after all have two kids and since we homeschool them, we actually use our home. But the home we have just sold no longer worked for us not because we needed a bigger house (we are downsizing a bit) and not because we needed a better neighborhood (we had an ideal neighborhood here in the suburbs) but because we needed a better location for the work God has called us to do.

How does where you live fit the mission that God desires for you? May we all have an answer for that, whether we live in the city, the suburbs, or the country.

Paul's Assurance of Salvation

2008-10-27T07:55:00.004-05:00

Yesterday at church we talked about assurance of salvation, one of the expressed purposes for why 1 John was written.

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

We talked about the fact that assurance comes through our perseverance in the faith, not through banking on a decision we have made in the past.

This morning as I read through 2 Timothy, I was thinking about how Paul viewed his assurance. Here is what Paul says in verse 18 of the fourth chapter.

The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

Paul's confidence that God would "rescue" him from every evil deed does not mean that Paul will survive or be vindicated from the evil attacks of his enemies. Though in verse 17 he talks about being "rescued from the lion's mouth," the meaning of "rescue" shifts from the physical to spiritual in verse 18 because now Paul talks about being brought safely into God's "heavenly kingdom." In fact, Paul literally says that God will "save me into his heavenly kingdom." So Paul's assurance of eternal life is based on his expectation that God will keep Paul from being overrun by evil and falling away from the faith.

That's why Paul could say earlier in this chapter that he was confident of his heavenly reward because he had "fought the good fight . . . finished the race . . . kept the faith." (2 Timothy 4:7-8).

Assurance of salvation deepens as we persevere in the faith by God's grace.

Political Confusion

2008-10-16T22:33:00.003-05:00

The presidential debates are over and we are less than 3 weeks away from electing our next president and I remain an undecided voter. Recently I created a bit of a stir on my Facebook page by noting in my status: “Ben does not know who to vote for in November. Any suggestions?” Several of my friends chimed in with one-liners. But a couple of my friends took my question seriously and shared freely their opinions. And since I have friends on both sides of the presidential ticket, we had our own presidential debate going on.

Some of my friends were surprised that I remain undecided. “Now I just think that is a very silly question,” said one of my conservative friends. After all, I grew up extremely conservative, and I am still quite conservative when it comes to social issues. So how could I possibly be considering placing my vote for Obama?

Religion and Politics
Complicating the issue for me is my role as a minister. I believe it is a great mistake for us to imply to our parishioners that either one of the two candidates has God's vote. I grew up in churches where we were not so secretive about how Jesus would vote were he currently an American. I remember the shock I felt when I discovered that there were people as committed to their evangelical Christian faith as I am who were also Democrats! I might as well have been introduced to space aliens. Now that I actually have friends (yes, Christian friends) who are registered members of the Democratic Party, I think I have learned to appreciate that many of the political soapboxes I once stood on are not the “slam dunks” I had been led to believe they were.

As a minister, I choose to remain mum on many political issues including which candidates I plan on supporting. Only my immediate family and very closest friends will know which way I will vote. I think it was a very bad decision by some pastors to follow the Alliance Defense Fund's Pulpit Freedom Sunday. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't care about politics or in making an informed choice. And that's why I am being very serious when I say that I am still undecided. Hopefully, after reading this article, you will not sense that I am leaning one way or the other. The reason why I am writing this piece is to show my friends, Republican and Democrat alike, how I'm sifting through some things. My hope is that my thoughts might help some of my friends (again on both sides of the political spectrum) think a bit more deeply about the intersection between an evangelical faith and politics.

A Plea for Open-mindedness
We criticize politicians for being partisan and not “reaching across the aisle.” But we, their constituents, are just as guilty of partisanship. Most of my conservative friends have never cast a vote for a Democrat. And I also have Democratic family and friends who have told me that they've never voted for a Republican. I like to ask them both, “Do you think the world would be a better place if we were all [enter party of choice]? Usually getting some form of an affirmative answer, I wonder if the world would be a better place if the United States just became two separate nations. We could have the Republican States and the Democratic States. Each would be governed by their own party's platforms. The Democratic States could have universal health care and the Republican States could make abortion illegal. We could be friendly to each other and even be allies. You could live in whichever one you choose, but if you are a Republican living in the Democratic States of America, you would just have to accept things the way they were.

Come on! Why can't we have more Independent thinkers? We all revere George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Would they be Democrats or Republicans today? Why do we have to continue making villains of each other? After all, and this is a very important point, don't we all want the same thing? I refuse to accept the smears against Obama that he is a radical Muslim who is secretly interested in overthrowing America after being elected President. I believe he loves his country as much as anyone else does. Please don't send me any more YouTube videos of Obama not saluting the flag during the Star Spangled Banner. If he really is a secret operative for Osama bin Laden, surely he wouldn't prove his disdain for this country with such an obvious anti-American gesture as that!

So, (here comes a rant) away with these pitiful attempts to make the other party ticket look stupid, unqualified, and unpatriotic. With the exception of Saturday Night Live spoofs, such attacks should be banned from public view. After all, if someone had a video camera or tape recorder locked in on every one of your waking moments, I'm sure we could find (or put together in the editing room) enough evidence to prove that you are a home-grown terrorist yourself.

Everybody wants to state their statistics as “the facts” on any given issue. But every time this is done the “other side” gives an explanation for why those “facts” are not really, well, facts. Did John McCain agree 90% of the time with George Bush's policy proposals? Did Barack Obama really vote against legislation that would make partial-birth abortion illegal? I've heard both accusations made; I've also heard each candidate “explain away” the accusations. The point is that one is discouraged from even look at a candidate's voting record for solid evidence. After each presidential debate, ABC does a “fact check” on the candidate's claims during the preceding debate. Every time they find incorrect claims being made by both sides. How can I possibly know who is telling me the truth all the time? Answer: you can't because they all lie, or at least twist the statistics to make themselves look better than their opponent.

Still, our two major candidate's obviously disagree on many of the issues of our day. One of the most helpful comments I've heard about politics is that we Americans typically agree on the end, but we differ on the means to get to those ends (the public policies). Let's look at two examples.

Abortion
I am decidedly pro-life when it comes to abortion, and I think Roe should be overturned. I am unapologetic about that; I cannot believe my Bible and also believe that it is morally acceptable to murder a child developing in the womb of her mother. For most of my life, a candidate's position on this was enough to win or lose my vote.

But now I'm not so sure that the Republican party hasn't used this issue merely as a political football. The goal should not be to win a political battle—overturning Roe is not really the goal that pro-lifers should be aiming for. The goal is to reduce the number of abortions in this country. And while overturning Roe could go a long way in doing that, it would not eliminate abortion completely any more than illegal drugs are absent from our society. The point is that there may be other ways to reduce the number of abortions and the steady decline of abortion rates since 1980 is something we should all be thankful for. I am very disappointed that the Democratic Party's platform this year seemed to move even further to the left on this issue, but I'm also no longer willing to make one's stated position on this issue the determining factor for whether or not they get my vote. What I am more interested in is whether or not that candidate will act in ways that lead to the declining of abortion rates. I am interested in saving the lives of unborn children; I am not so interested in winning elections.

The Economy
With the recent historic slide of the stock market, this has become the number one issue for most Americans in this year's general election. With good reason. We should be electing candidates whose policies serve the public good the most, and when jobs are being lost because of economic hard times, I do think the government should step in and offer real solutions.

The problem is that I don't know whose economic policies offer the best solution to our current crisis. Call me ignorant if you want, but is John McCain really just proposing more of George Bush's “failed economic plans”? Is George Bush really the one to blame for the recent economic collapse anyway? Does Barack Obama's economic proposal really threaten to raise taxes on small businesses, causing the loss of more jobs? The majority of the second presidential debate was dedicated to this topic, and depending on who you listen to, it is difficult to know who is proposing the best solution to our economic woes.

Conclusion: This is not an experiment!
Now, I do not live in a swing state. Oklahoma is going to cast its electoral votes for Sen. McCain. So it really will not matter which candidate I choose. You might think, then, that given my residency, I am not really considering voting Democratic. Maybe I'm just trying to be edgy by suggesting that I might? Or, maybe this would be a “safe” election for me to be able to show that I am able to vote Democratic, since a vote for Obama by me will not really change anything. But the reason why I'm undecided at this point is because I'm trying to think critically. I'm trying to see things from the point of view of both sides. But for the most part, I don't like what I see.

I am offended that John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, not because I disagree with Palin on the issues (she is probably the candidate I most agree with when it comes to the social issues that matter a lot to me) but because I felt like McCain picked her to try to win the votes of people like me. I'd rather he pick someone who is truly qualified to step in and serve as President of the United States should the need arise. I cannot believe Sarah Palin is such a person. That's no slam on her; I would be a horrible choice, too. Again, I think McCain should have made a pick that would serve the common good. He failed miserably simply because he was playing politics instead of being a statesman (my opinion, of course).

I am irritated at Obama's extremely liberal viewpoints on abortion (regardless of how he wants to try to squeeze around the issue when asked by evangelicals). I also don't think he is experienced enough to be this nation's next president.

So who am I going to vote for?

Don't rush me. I've still got almost three weeks to decide.

Doctrinal Disagreements and Theology

2008-10-08T12:25:00.003-05:00

From Will Metzger's book, Tell the Truth:

None of us is so naive as to think all differences among Christians would be solved in our day if we returned to a theological basis for evangelism. Nevertheless, it is still imperative to challenge each other to look into the Scriptures again and again in order to make us more self-conscious of the doctrines that shape our methods. Even if we must agree to disagree on certain points, we will know clearly what they are; our fellowship will be more honest, and our children can take up studying where we have left off. We must never give up praying that new light will break upon the church as she seriously studies the Bible.

Watching My Words

2008-09-30T20:22:00.004-05:00

This past weekend my wife and I had the privilege of being able to attend the Desiring God National Conference in Minneapolis. The theme of the conference was "The Power of Words and the Wonder of God." You can watch, read, or listen to the messages here.

If I were to share all the highlights of this conference, this post would be extraordinarily long. So, let me just share some "highlights of the highlights" for me.

Sinclair Ferguson kicked off the conference Friday evening with an exposition on James 3:1-12. The tongue is such a powerful part of our body because it speaks out what is already in the heart, and so it is connected to the whole of my being. Toward the end of the message Ferguson exhorted us all to allow the Word of God to dwell in us so richly that we cannot help but to speak with an accent.

Saturday morning's message by Bob Kauflin was probably the best message on the role of music in the Christian life that I have ever heard. I strongly urge everyone to hear what Bob had to say. The bulk of his message was dedicated to showing the ways in which music relates to words. He gives three ways that music helps serve the word: 1) Singing helps us remember words; 2) Singing helps us engage emotionally with words; 3) Singing helps us use words to demonstrate and express our unity. This message is full of practical advice for worshiping God through song, and it will make you think deeply about the importance of music.

Mark Driscoll spoke next. His topic was the use of cutting, strong words in the Scripture. If you know who Mark Driscoll is, you can probably guess how exciting this message is; if you don't know who Mark Driscoll is, and you decide to listen to this message, be prepared to be surprised by what you hear.

Dan Taylor and Paul Tripp finished up the day on Saturday. Taylor is a literature professor. The thesis for his talk was that the single best way of conceiving of faith and the life of faith is through a story in which you are a character. He then gave 12 reasons to back up his thesis. One of his points that stood out to me was that stories call us to action, even if we choose to act disastrously. If faith is only agreement with a set of propositions, then we are no different from the demons (James 2:9). Tripp spoke (at length) about the use of words in everyday, relational life.

Sunday morning John Piper closed the conference by addressing the question, "Is There Christian Eloquence?" The question is an urgent one in light of 1 Corinthians 1:17 and 1 Corinthians 2:1. Piper concludes that the eloquence Paul rejects in these verses is not the convention of language itself but rather the use of language to exalt self and/or to simultaneously belittle the crucified Lord. So two questions we should ask ourselves in our use of language are 1) Am I using language to exalt myself, boast my ego, and make myself look clever? and 2) Am I keeping the cross in the shadows so that I am exalted in its place? Piper's application to these exegetical conclusions were both challenging and entertaining. He shared five ways that eloquent words can be effective for the sake of the gospel. I must say that I have thought very little about these things, so Piper's insight here was quite helpful for me.

There are few things that could be discussed in a conference that would be more practical than "The Power of Words and the Wonder of God." Words are a major part of everyone's life whether spoken or written. I have found myself several times since coming back from the conference asking myself, "Are my words being used to build my kingdom or God's kingdom?" This is a very helpful question we should all keep in mind all the time. For as James wrote,

From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. (James 3:10)

Seeing and Testifying

2008-09-23T15:59:00.004-05:00

One of the reasons the book of 1 John was written was to help Christians gain assurance that they have been reconciled to God and are in fellowship with him. In order to achieve this goal, the writer gives us several evidences of authentic faith. We can easily find many of these evidences as we read this book because they often begin with the words "by this." One of those places is found in 1 John 4:13 where the apostle tells us that the presence of the Holy Spirit within us is proof of our mutual "abiding" with God.

What is the connection that the next two verses have with verse 13? Verses 14 and 15 read:

And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

It is the word “and” at the beginning of verse 14 that makes me think that John intends to connect what he says here with what he says in verse 13. In other words, another way that we know we abide in God is by "seeing" and "testifying" that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. John says whoever "confesses" this about Jesus (v. 15) can be sure that "God abides in him, and he in God."

When John says “we have seen and testify,” he must not be referring only to himself or the other apostolic witnesses of Jesus' life on earth. The "seeing" and the "testifying" go together. Hundreds of people literally saw Jesus but did not confess him to be the Son of God. So the "seeing" John refers to is probably not intended to be taken literally. It is a "seeing" of faith that is in view here. It is a seeing that takes place when God opens your spiritual eyes and gives you a glimpse of who Jesus really is. Jesus came for this very purpose, to open the eyes of the spiritually blind (Isa 42:7; Acts 26:18).

Our eyes have to be opened before our mouths can be opened. There is a direct correlation between the number of witnesses for Jesus and the number of people who have seen Jesus with the eyes of faith. The reason why we do not have more witnesses for Jesus is because we do not have enough people who have seen him for who he is. This is also part of the reason why spiritual apathy can grow in our churches. It is why you and I often struggle to find our joy in God. We need to beg God to let us see again. We need to come to grips with these words that are pregnant with God-glorifying truth: “The Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.” That is the gospel in a nutshell. The gospel is the good news! It is the best news! If our newspaper editors could see it for what it is, it would be front page every day of the week. It would never grow old, boring, or irrelevant.

For those who have the spiritual eyes to see the beauty of the Son, sent by the Father, to be the Savior of the world, they will thereby enjoy the fellowship with God that John so desperately wants them to have (1:3). It is the confession of the heart that Jesus is the Son of God that leads to mutual abiding with God.

God Is Love

2008-09-16T17:16:00.002-05:00

The Bible does not just command us to love others. We are also given reasons why our love for one another should not be a burden but a delight. For example, 1 John 4:7-8 say this:

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

The first reason why Christians should love one another is because “love is from God.” In other words, love has a divine source. Whenever we see love, we can know that God is behind it. Now that means that much of what we call “love” is really no love at all. It means that when the world uses the word “love,” they are defining love in ways different than how God defines it.

This becomes even more explicit at the end of verse 8. There the Apostle John says flatly, “God is love.” What does this mean? First, we must not make it mean more than it does. It cannot be a convertible proposition. That is, it does not mean that “love is God,” that love and God are one in the same. But we also must not make it mean less than it does. It does not, for example, mean that God has the ability to love.Y ou and I have the ability to love, but I cannot say, “Ben Janssen is love.”

Instead, it must mean that God has the quality or attribute of love. When we speak of something as being an attribute of God, we mean that it is a characteristic of God that is true all the time. So we can say that God is patient and just and true and holy. All of these are characteristics of God that are always true of him. That means that when God demonstrates his holiness and his justice and his wrath, he is just as loving as when he demonstrates his patience and mercy and goodness. God does not put his attribute of love on hold when he demonstrates his wrath. God is not somehow unloving because he condemns some people to hell. This is a simple truth, but it is so often misunderstood by people, both Christian and non-Christian alike.

Already, then, if we will accept this truth, we can begin to see that the kind of love with which God loves and expects of his followers is not the same kind of love we usually see in this world. This also means that we must not define love by our own experiences and then force that definition upon God and thereby not present his other attributes properly. Already in 1 John we have been told that God is light (1 Jn 1:5), an analogy that refers to God’s perfection and holiness. So God is love at all times but in such a way that his holiness is never compromised. If we are going to think of God properly we must think of him wholly with all his attributes and not elevate one of them so that the rest are diminished.

Trying to think about God in this way will challenge your thinking. I hope that it does. I hope the result of our meditating on the attributes of God (God is ...) will lead to both greater understanding and greater amazement. For God is never boring. He will continue to amaze us for all eternity!

Discerning Truth from Error: It's Really Important!

2008-09-10T09:50:00.004-05:00

In last week's Bible study at Crosstown, we came to these words from the Apostle John:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

Throughout the book of 1 John, the apostle seems particularly concerned about protecting the church from deception (see 1 John 2:26 and 1 John 3:7). Because "the spirit of the antichrist" (1 John 4:3) attempts to persuade through deception, we cannot assume that such error will always be obvious to us. It may be obvious that differences exist between two ideas, but it is not always easy to know which of the two is true. We need a way to discern, and the Apostle gives us two ways to do so.

The first test is whether or not a person or philosophy or idea holds to an orthodox view of Jesus. John says that "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" (1 John 4:2). The spirit of the antichrist is a spirit of theological error. Therefore, what we believe about God (theology) matters a great deal. This does not mean that we must have everything right theologically, but it means that we must have some things right. Most importantly, we have to be right about who Jesus is. If we get that wrong, it matters little what else we might have right. For the Christian, every belief revolves around our beliefs about Jesus.

But confessions with the mouth are useless if they do not truly reveal the belief in the heart. In verse 3 John says that the spirit of the antichrist “does not confess Jesus” and so “is not from God.” To confess Jesus means not only to assert one’s loyalty to him but also to accept him as he is: God in the flesh. We have not confessed Jesus if we make him something different than what he is. He was not just a good teacher, moral example, or religious guru. He is God incarnate. And because he is God, we cannot show allegiance to him while refusing to obey him.

That’s why we should not be too surprised at John’s second test for discerning between truth and error. We find it at the end of this passage, in verse 6: “We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”

Now this seems to be a rather bold if not arrogant thing to say. Imagine the offense if I made this kind of claim today: “Those who know the truth, those who really belong to God, will do what I say.” Such assertions are the stuff that cults are made of. But this is exactly what John says!

Actually, he doesn’t say that he alone is the standard that all true believers will follow. He uses the plural “we.” So who is he talking about? He could be talking about himself and the rest in the church. But he also might be referring to himself and the rest of the apostles. In either case, the point is not the superiority of the people but the superiority of the message. In other words, John is emphasizing not the apostles, but the apostle’s teaching. He is not elevating the preacher but the message preached. Those who are from God will pay attention to his Word as it is preached.

One of the identifying practices of the early church was their devotion to “the apostle’s teaching” (Acts 2:42). It is still an identifying characteristic of the true church today. The aim of any true church is to teach what the apostles taught, accurately proclaiming their teaching from their writings in Scripture. And those who respond to the word as it is preached give evidence that they, too, are from God. In other words, how one responds to God’s Word is another test, not only for discerning between truth and error in others, but also in helping us who profess Christ assure ourselves of our relationship with God.

So it matters greatly not only what we say we believe, but how we respond to the truth we see in the Bible. How will we respond when we do not like what the Bible says? Will we adjust our lives to match the Bible, or will we adjust the Bible to match our lives? This is where the rubber meets the road and where the Christian life will truly stand out. Can you and I identify times in our lives where the Bible’s teaching has directly altered the way we live?

Perhaps some will object: but what if we are not properly interpreting the Bible? Who says that our beliefs are right? John may have been able to say, “whoever listens to us,” because he was an apostle. But now, what gives us the right to say we are proclaiming the truth?

No answer will satisfy everyone who asks, but I do think we have a way to attempt an answer. John himself did not merely say, “just believe what we tell you.” Instead, he repeatedly pointed his readers to recall the things they had “heard from the beginning” (1 John 2:7, 13-14, 24; 3:11). In other words, John appealed to primitive Christian doctrine as the standard. Likewise, it is helpful for us to know the things that Christians have always believed.

To be sure, there will be argument over this as well. But it is important for us to research the history behind our beliefs in trying to discern between truth and error. Suffice it to say for now that when we find ourselves or others going against the grain of orthodox Christianity, we need to proceed with great caution if we care at all about the truth.

Prayers Answered, Guaranteed

2008-09-02T13:50:00.002-05:00

What if God promised to answer your prayers? Would it change your commitment to the discipline of prayer?

There are several places in the Bible where God promises to answer our prayers (e.g. Psalm 34:17; Proverbs 15:29; Matthew 7:7; 21:22; John 14:13; 15:7). We find another one of those places in 1 John 3:21-22. Here's what it says:

Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.

So what should we make of such a daring promise? And why do so many of us get frustrated that we do not receive from God “whatever we ask” of him?

One thing to note about this promise of answered prayer is the invitation that God extends to his children to ask. He wants us to pray, and apparently is delighted to answer the requests of his children. Getting our prayers answered begins with us having “confidence before God.” In other words, answered prayer stems from a vibrant relationship with God in which we are unashamed in approaching God and asking. The Christian's prayer life, then, is a good indication of the health of his relationship with God.

But there is an element of conditionality to the promise of answered prayer. Whenever we find this promise in the Bible, we find (1) that God answers the prayers of the righteous but not the wicked; (2) that faith is required for receiving what we ask for; (3) that God answers our prayers so that he receives the glory; and (4) that we must abide in Christ to receive our requests. In our present text we have already seen that we need a heart that does not condemn to even be able to approach God with our requests. And verse 22 tells us that the reason why we can receive from God whatever we ask is “because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.”

In other words, the Bible is clear that God answers our prayers to the extent that he is pleased with our request and glorified in answering our request. God does not answer our prayers because we somehow merit his favor. He is not like Herod who was so pleased by the performance of his step-daughter that he promised to give her as a gift whatever she should ask for (Matthew 14:1-12). God will give us what we ask for provided what we ask for is pleasing to him as well. The reason why we get what we ask for is because “we are keeping his commandments and doing the things that please him.” So if that is true, then what we ask for will be those things that help us to please him and keep his commandments. And God will always be pleased to answer such requests.

So God answers our prayers only if our request is in accordance with his will. This is exactly what John will say later in this book in 1 John 5:14-15. The key to answered prayer is asking for the things that please God. Obviously this rules out our requests for selfish gain. And for many Christians, this “small print” is what keeps so many of them off their knees. After all, if God only answers the prayers that further his will, and if God will accomplish his will regardless, then why bother praying? Surely there are more important things to do with our time.

But such a conclusion misses the point of prayer and God’s eagerness that we participate in it. Since the beginning of this chapter (see 1 John 3:1) John has had in mind the relationship we have with God, calling it the relationship of a son to his father. While it is true that our sovereign God will surely accomplish his will, it appears that the means by which he will do so is through answered prayer. And the reason this is so is so that we might be allowed to participate with God in seeing his will accomplished. In other words, God invites us to pray for his glory and for our joy.

When we fully enter into the relationship that we have with God as his children, the more our desire will be for the things that God desires most. Our prayer will be for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. We will be radically different from a world that cares nothing about God’s values. We will not ask for bigger houses, newer cars, fatter paychecks, and the latest fads. We will not ask for things that make us look good but for things that make God look good. And he will be pleased to answer such prayers. God will be glorified, and we will be satisfied.

Do Right and Be Hated

2008-08-27T11:35:00.004-05:00

In 1 John 3:16-18 the Apostle John informs us about the kind of love that indicates that one has been born of God. But before he gives us the positive example of Christ, he first wants us to think about the negative example of the Old Testament character, Cain.

For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother.

Now the reason John mentions Cain and his murder of Abel is not so much to give us a negative example of love, but rather to show how the world will respond to the love of God within us. So in verse 13 he says, in light of what Cain did to Abel, “do not be surprised that the world hates you.” As Abel was to Cain, so Christians are to the world. The world will hate Christians as wickedness hates righteousness.

Notice how illogical this hatred is. Abel did nothing wrong, certainly nothing injurious to Cain. But he was hated by Cain nonetheless. Christians will be hated, but not because of anything wrong done to the world. We are, in fact, to show love to the world and so give them no legitimate reason to despise us (Titus 2:7-8). We are to love our neighbor and do good to them. It is a good thing to be at peace with your neighbor.

But Cain hated Abel and killed him, "because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous." Every time Cain laid eyes on his brother, he was reminded of his own sinfulness. Similarly, the Christian's right standing with God will be a constant reminder to the world that they have been rejected by God.

So it will come as no surprise when we do have to bear the hostility of the world simply because of our association with Christ. If he was hated, so his followers will be. This is what Jesus predicted in John 15:18-19.

If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Now the reason why it is important for us to know this is because it will be tempting for the believer to deny Christ when he faces the hatred of the world. After Jesus warned about the coming hatred, he said

I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. . . . Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. . . . But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you. (John 16:1-4)

Those who are coming to faith in Jesus need to know that doing so will not make their life easier. Wouldn't Jesus have had more followers if he had promised a life of ease and prosperity? Sure, but they would have followed him for his material blessings and not for his glory. Instead, Jesus set the bar high at the beginning. Following Jesus means you will be hated, but God's glory will shine brightest when we persevere in faith and love both our brothers and sisters as well as our enemies.

We need to stop suggesting to people that following Jesus is a life of ease. Jesus never hinted that that would be the case. Instead, he wanted us to know that following him would bring its share of suffering and hardship precisely because of our choice to follow him.

Still interested in following Jesus?

Christians Do Not Sin

2008-08-20T08:38:00.005-05:00

What does John mean when he says that no one who abides in Christ "sins" (1 John 3:6) or that no one "who is born of God . . . cannot sin" (1 John 3:9)? These verses have given Bible interpreters a great challenge, since such absolute statements seem to be contradicted by what John has said earlier in this book (1 John 1:8-2:2) and by Christian experience.

It is quite popular to suggest that the kind of sinning John is talking about is "habitual" or "continuous" sin. Accordingly the NIV uses phrases like "keeps on sinning" and "he cannot go on sinning" to translate these two verses. But such an understanding of 1 John 3:6, 9 both requires further explanation (how infrequent must sin be to not be "habitual" or "continuous"?) and misses John's point in his argument.

It is far better to view John’s absolute statements another way. We can begin by asking ourselves this question: If the reason Jesus came to earth was to “take away sins” (1 John 3:4) or, stated another way, “to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), then did he succeed in his mission? The answer is clearly “yes” (John 17:4).

So if Jesus came to take away sins and to destroy the works of the devil, and if he succeeded in his goal and yet believers continue to have frequent battles with sin, then John must not have meant that Jesus came to earth for the purpose of completely removing sin from our lives now. The best way to understand 1 John 3:6, 9 is to identify exactly in what sense Jesus “took away sins” and “destroyed the works of the devil.”

Romans 6:6-7 is key to our understanding. It reads, “We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin.” These verses make it clear that what Jesus came to do was to deliver us from the dominating power of sin and the devil. Jesus himself made this clear in John 8:34-36:

I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

So sin no longer has us under its dominion. We are now able not to sin because sin’s power has been broken. We are free to live righteously in Jesus Christ even though sin continues to be a threat to us. But why does John say that those born of God "cannot sin"?

When I say, “I cannot eat fish,” I do not mean that I am unable to put fish into my mouth, chew it up, and swallow it. I mean simply that I do not enjoy the taste of fish and so will choose not to eat it. (Or I may mean that though I can get it down my throat I am not able to keep it down there very long so I choose not to eat it!)

So verse six tells us that the Christian will not sin to the extent that he abides in Christ. Verse nine teaches us that we cannot have victory over sin apart from the new birth. It is the new birth that gives us the ability to reject sin. The new birth gives us a new appetite. For those who are born of God, we can no longer “stomach” sin.

This is not just a cute way of skirting around John’s direct statements in verses six and nine. The grammar that John uses, especially when generic subjects are in view (note John’s use of “no one” and “whoever” in this passage), can describe something that is true any time rather than a universal statement that is true all the time. Such statements are somewhat proverbial in character. They describe a general, timeless fact, such as “laptop computers run on batteries.” That is, of course, true, even though most of the time when I am using mine it is plugged into an outlet.

The point John is wishing to make at this point in his letter is twofold. First of all, given the fact that those who left the church and were trying to deceive those still in the church were apparently passive about the seriousness of sin, it fits with the situation of John’s letter for him to argue that how one reacts to sin is a good indication of whether or not one has been born of God (see 1 John 3:10). While we should all expect to see progress in our holiness by attaining victory over sin, this progress can also be identified with sincere hatred of sin, even if one continues to struggle with some besetting sin.

Second, John’s statements in verses six and nine, though they are grammatically descriptive, are logically imperatives and statements of obligation. They describe what is ideal Christian behavior and implicitly command us to pursue the ideal. John is saying, “Christians do not sin, so, if you really are a Christian, don’t sin!” He wants to urge his readers to reject the lies of the apostates who argued that sinful behavior was just not that big of a deal. John argues for exactly the opposite. Sin is a big deal. It is the reason for which Christ came to this earth. Those who are true lovers of Jesus will respond to its seriousness by waging war against it.

New Pastor at Bridgeway Church

2008-08-19T22:05:00.004-05:00

I was shocked and thrilled to see that Sam Storms is coming to Oklahoma City to assume the senior pastorate at Bridgeway Church. Bridgeway is church with a heart for this city and was a place where my family was able to heal during a dark time in our lives a little over a year ago. Bridgeway Church is a place that remains very dear to our hearts.

And while I've not (yet) met Sam Storms, I have read his books and I keep up with his blog, and what's even better, he is a Christian Hedonist! (And God knows we need more of them in Oklahoma City!) I am very eager to meet him. Welcome, Dr. Storms.

HT: James Grant

Why Our Hope Matters Now

2008-08-13T10:55:00.002-05:00

This past Sunday at our church our study through 1 John took us into chapter three. There John writes about the significance of us becoming God's children. This is due to the lavish love of God toward us: "See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are."

It was quite a humbling experience for us to meditate for a while on how deep the Father's love for us must be to not just atone for our sins but also to make us his children. We observed six things that are true for all believers thanks to God's adoption of us whereby he makes us his children.

One of those observations came from the astounding words of verse three. John writes, "And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure." I struggled for some time to understand John's logic. Why does our hope in being made like Christ at his appearing cause us to "purify ourselves" right now? How is it that our hope for this future transformation makes a practical difference in our lives now?

I think the answer is indicated by those final four words: “as he is pure.” That’s the connection to verse two, where our final salvation is achieved by seeing him “as he is.” We will miss the entire force of this passage if we don’t follow John’s assumption here, namely, that those who are born of God and have his nature will yearn to become just like Jesus. And knowing that the only way we will become like Jesus is by seeing him, we, who have this hope of becoming like him, will now be purifying ourselves in order to become just as he is pure.

In other words, those who are born again are the kind of people who are moving toward perfection, though they will not be there until Christ appears. Conversely, those who are not God’s children are moving away from the purity of Christ.

The way to become like Christ, according to the implication of verse two, is by seeing him. But in verse three John refers to this process as an act of purifying. Interestingly, that word in the Bible means "to cleanse and so make acceptable for religious use." Purification, then, is what one does as preparation. So what John is saying is that those who have this hope in Jesus, the hope that his appearing will be our final salvation as we become like him, will pursue the typical Christian behavior of striving to become like him now by striving to see him. That’s what perseverance is all about. It’s about wanting to become like Christ and so striving to see him and to know him. And all of that becomes a sort of “prerequisite” to seeing him on that final day as one of his children.

Let me remind us all that our only hope of seeing Jesus now is by looking where he has revealed himself. We ignore the disciplines of Bible study, prayer, service to others, and Christian community to our peril. Let us take up these disciplines and the others so that we might catch a glimpse of Jesus and there find the full and everlasting joy of communion with him.

Why Theology Matters

2008-08-06T07:20:00.004-05:00

If evangelical Christians cannot agree on all areas of theology, we might be tempted to conclude that theology isn't all that important. Do we need to insist that we have doctrinal agreement in the church? The Apostle John thought so. Here is what he says:

22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

When John uses the term antichrist in this passage, he is referring to those who were once a part of the Church but have subsequently left (1 Jn 2:18-19). And he is writing in this passage to warn those who are still in the Church, and to exhort them to not fall prey to the deceptive lies of these "antichrists" (1 Jn 2:26).

But notice why John calls those who have left the Church "antichrists." It is because they have denied the Father and the Son. And how have they done that? By denying that Jesus is the Christ. In 2 John 7, we find out more: “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.” We know from verses like this that John was combating a growing heresy in the church called Gnosticism. One segment of Gnosticism, called Docetism, denied that Jesus had come “in the flesh” but only “appeared” to be human. Their view of Jesus was too high: he was God but not man. Another segment of Gnosticism taught that Jesus was a human being upon whom the Spirit of God came at his baptism but left before his crucifixion. Their view of Jesus was too low: he was a man but not God.

It is not clear which of these two heresies is in view here, but in either case the problem was a Christological error. These “antichrists” held a belief about Jesus that was not right. He can call them “antichrists” because in spite of what they might say about Jesus, because of their heretical views about him they are perverting Christianity and in reality opposing Christ.

For John, right theology mattered a whole lot. Although there are many theological things that we can and should debate among ourselves, there are a few things that we cannot afford to be wrong about. And one of them is before us in this text. We cannot afford to be wrong about who Jesus is. John argues in the second half of verse 22 and in verse 23 that if we deny something that is true about Jesus we have also denied the Father. To be wrong about Jesus is to put yourself at odds with God. Conversely, the acceptance of Jesus automatically leads to fellowship with God.

In other words, John calls these apostates “antichrists” primarily because they deny an essential truth about Christ. Yes, theology matters. It matters a whole lot.

Praying for Our City

2008-07-30T09:28:00.003-05:00

Last night a group from our church gathered at the Myriad Gardens in downtown Oklahoma City and then spread across the city on a Prayer Walk. I had never done one of these before. Our assignment took us to the south side of downtown. My wife and I and our 7-year-old son spent half an hour conversing with God as we walked. We didn't talk to each other. We simply prayed. And walked. And watched. And listened.

When we returned to the Gardens we met up with the others in our group and shared what had happened. It was a sweet time. We all agreed that there was something about walking through our city and taking in the sights that increased our burden for the people here. We all agreed that this is something we need to do on a regular basis. I hope you will join us next time.

As we walked past the downtown Goodwill and the Salvation Army I kept thinking to myself about how hesitant the Church is to go into the least-desirable areas of our cities. I felt the uncomfortableness of walking my family past the homeless and the down-and-out. And I knew that this is where Jesus would be.

We aim to help with the needs of these people. But tonight we were there for one specific purpose: prayer. I suppose we could feed the hungry and house the homeless without God. But our aim goes deeper than that. And what we are here to do in this city is impossible without God.

I was reminded once again of how easy it is for us to neglect the spiritual discipline of prayer. We almost feel like when we pray we are not doing enough. But that's the point. When we pray we are expressing our total dependence on God, acknowledging that only he can accomplish what he has put us here to do.

How can we be used by God to bring real change to Oklahoma City? Among other things, don't forget to pray.

In Search of Authentic Church

2008-07-22T09:34:00.003-05:00

In our church plant efforts our group has often talked about our desire for authenticity. Over the past couple of weeks, as I've shared this quest for authenticity with others, I've had two people ask me to clarify what we mean by "authenticity."

When I talk about being authentic I am usually referring to an openness about our spiritual progress. I find that there are two disciplines that help foster this kind of openness. First is confession of sin. The Bible encourages us to "confess our sins to one another" and "to pray for one another" (James 5:16). What would it be like if in our Christian communities our intercession for each other consisted mainly in praying for victory over sin for our brothers and sisters? I'm talking specific sins. But most Western Christians I know are really good at putting on the appearance that we have things together for the most part. While very few of us would claim to be sinless, the fact that we very rarely confess our sins to each other suggests that we are acting as though we were sinless. Confession of sin is, by the way, connected with forgiveness of sin (1 John 1:9). It is a dangerous thing to neglect the discipline of confession.

Our group is doing a project together right now to help us identify a particular "growth area" for the next year. The idea is to identify just one area in which we are struggling in our Christian life, confess it to the group, and then work on it over the next several months. My growth area (here's my confession) is "Giving Away My Time." My stinginess with my time has contributed to me not being very compassionate. It is a sin in my life. And I am going to battle against it every week now.

The second discipline we are emphasizing for the sake of authenticity is inviting accountability. I also know some professing Christians who readily admit their sins to others but then seem to not care enough to do anything about it. I remember a couple of years ago at a previous church, I had selected a young guy as a potential small group leader. He "looked" like an authentic Christian. He gave the appearance of a guy who had a good relationship with the Lord. Imagine my surprise when he admitted to our leadership training group that he couldn't remember the last time he had read the Bible and prayed on his own. How could I expect him to lead others spiritually if he was not feeding his own soul?

That woke me up to how far we've drifted from an authentic faith. Most of us can show up to church week after week and look and talk like a Christian, but really we are just a replica. We are not the real deal.

It was C. S. Lewis who said, "The one thing Christianity cannot be is mildly important." Yet, this seems to be the problem most American Christians are in. Call it nominalism if you'd like. The truth is that most of us do not sense how significant Christianity really is. It matters to most of us, but not too much.

And I'm as guilty as the guy sitting next to me or behind me this Sunday. So, I have invited accountability into my life on a daily basis. I want someone else to be in the know about how I'm doing spiritually day by day. Some days I'm really struggling. Other days I feel I'm doing pretty well. Every day I need to fight.

And I don't want to fight alone.

When God Is Boring

2008-07-17T09:08:00.002-05:00

When someone says that church or preaching or the Bible is “boring,” it tells us more about the person who says this than it does about the thing they find uninteresting.

I'll take issue with you if you say that baseball is boring. I stayed up until almost 1am Tuesday evening watching the “boring” mid-summer classic go 15 innings. The reason the game does not appeal to you is not because it is intrinsically uninteresting but because you do not understand the game enough to appreciate it.

If you take the time to learn about the game, you will surely learn at least to appreciate it. Even if you never really enjoy the game, you will never again think it is boring.

So if you say that something is boring, be careful; what you are really saying is that you do not know something very well or that you are not mature enough to understand it. Either way the problem lies with you.

I remember when I was a child and my dad would watch the nightly news every night at 5:30. Sometimes I would sit there with my dad wishing he would stop watching the “boring” news and play with me instead. But Dad was not to be interrupted. I couldn't understand how he could be so fascinated by some guy giving a monologue about some far away place. Cartoons were far more interesting! I had to wait until the 30-minute broadcast was over, and then Dad was all mine!

Just a decade later I found myself watching the evening news religiously, just like my dad had always done. What had changed? Answer: me. I had become mature enough to appreciate what was being discussed on the television every night at 5:30, and I didn't need any cool special effects or animation to keep my interest either!

So when someone says that the sermon is boring, the answer is not that we need to put more excitement into the message. The answer is that we need to pray that that person grows in their maturity. The things of God are never boring. In fact, the things of God are more exciting than anything else in the universe. Beg God to give you the maturity to see that it is so.

When Love Comes Full Circle

2008-07-16T09:43:00.002-05:00

This past Sunday we came to these words from the Apostle John during our Bible Study:

And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says, "I know him," but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. (1 John 2:3-5a)

When the Apostle John says that the difference between those who truly "know" God and those who do not is that the former "keep his commandments" what does he mean? I know plenty of non-Christians who appear to keep the commandments better than some Christians.

The answer to this is that "keeping the commandments" does not mean obeying God's law perfectly. Otherwise we could become sinless and Christianity would be nothing more than a "moral improvement" religion.

But John tells us that "whoever keeps his word" is not one who becomes perfect but one in whom the love of God is perfected. Big difference. "Keeping God's commandments," then, involves much more than external conformity to rules. Fellowship with God involves a loving relationship with Jesus rather than a checklist of things to do.

Those who know God will obey him out of genuine love for him. Jesus said, “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15). Obedience, when it is motivated by duty rather than love, is not what God is looking for. But imperfect obedience, when it is motivated by love rather than duty, is “keeping the commandments.”

That must be the kind of commandment keeping that John has in mind because he says that for the one who “keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.” The commandment keeper is not the one who never breaks any of the commandments, but the one in whom the love of God has been brought to completion. It is this “love of God” that makes the difference between the true believer and the unbeliever, between the holy and the unholy.

When John refers here to the “love of God” he does not intend to differentiate between God’s love for us and our love for God. He simply wanted to address the effect that God’s love has now come “full circle.” He loved us first, chose us, and reconciled us to him by grace. But God’s love for us has worked to create a genuine love for God in us that is now expressed in obedience to his commandments. Now we obey because we want to obey. This is what the love of God is intended to do: “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” (1 John 5:3).

So assurance of fellowship with God is found when we find ourselves conforming to the commandments of God because we find those commandments to be our desire and not merely our duty. That is the difference between the true Christian and the non-Christian. Only God can instill this desire into our hearts. An unbeliever may try to live morally or religiously, but he will be unable to do so from love so his obeying will be dry and lifeless.

Meditating on Sin (that didn't sound right)

2008-07-09T09:30:00.004-05:00

I've been thinking a lot lately about sin.

Now that sounds like a discouraging thing to be thinking about doesn't it? Why not something more positive? Why not meditate on something that delights one's soul? Why not think about something lovely?

Turns out, my meditation on sin has been exactly a meditation on those kinds of things.

On Sunday mornings, we at Crosstown have been studying the book of 1 John. Last week we moved into chapter 2 and read these words:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

One of the questions we asked of this text was this: Why does God permit us to continue our moment-by-moment struggle with sin? Why does he allow us to continue to fail him in act, attitude, and nature? Why doesn't he completely eradicate sin from our lives now?

We found our answer in the words of Jesus who once said this to a Pharisee named Simon:

"A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?" Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly." . . . He who is forgiven little, loves little. (Luke 7:41-43, 47b)

Did you catch those last few words? He who is forgiven little, loves little. One of the effects our on-going struggle with sin is supposed to have is to remind us of how much we have been forgiven. How unfortunate that most of us don't think much on how much we need the forgiveness of God. That's why the apostle John reminded his readers of how desperately we all need the forgiveness of God:

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

We are so desperately in need of the forgiveness of God that Jesus took to the cross to secure it. He "propitiated" the wrath of God caused by our sin by satisfying the justice of God on the cross. Note well: sin--all sin--is horrible and brings the wrath of God. And the only way God's wrath may be propitiated is by the sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf. That's how badly we all need God's forgiveness. That's how much we have been forgiven.

And when I meditate on how badly I need and have received that forgiveness something strange happens to me. I find my love for God has increased as well.

So thank you, Lord, for reminding me of my sin.

Catching up with Chris Sligh

2008-07-02T10:08:00.005-05:00

Most Americans know Chris Sligh as an American Idol finalist from two seasons ago. But I know Chris Sligh as a guy who went to high school with us, who grew up on the mission field, and whose parents are members of (and supported by) the church I grew up in.

So it was fun to see Chris this past week while he was in concert here in Oklahoma City. Hadn't seen him in probably 10-15 years. But it was fun catching up. The concert was good, but I have to admit, it was more going out to Braum's with him afterword and talking about the past.

What I want to say here is that Chris (who has chosen to go into the Christian music industry, click here to find out why he made that choice), seems to have a really mature faith. I rejoiced to hear how he has grown in the Lord since our high school days. I wish him all the best in his career.

Pursuing God in Spiritual Disciplines

2008-07-02T10:04:00.002-05:00

During our Sunday worship gatherings, we have been studying the book of 1 John together. We have noticed that fellowship with God is the goal of the gospel that John proclaimed, and we have noticed that sin is what prevents fellowship with God. I have found myself convicted about not taking sin in my life with enough seriousness and gravity, and wonder how much I assume that I am in fellowship with God.

So, along with a friend of mine at Crosstown, we came up with a plan to fight against sin and to fight for fellowship with God. We decided that if we really believed that fellowship with God was worth fighting for, we could not take too lightly our struggle with some of the spiritual disciples (namely, Scripture reading, memory, meditation and prayer). The early church met for encouragement and exhortation every day (Acts 2:46). Why couldn't we meet together every day?

I don't mean actually see each other every day, but we could meet on the telephone easily enough. We could ask each other if we had been in the word and in prayer that day. So that's what we have done for the past two weeks. Every day one of us calls the other and we ask each other about these spiritual disciplines.

The result? Well, neither of us has missed a day of devotion the past two weeks. I am quite sure I would have missed at least a couple of days if it hadn't been for the daily accountability. We know that there is much more to the Christian life than this, but we figured we should start somewhere. Our study of 1 John has already convinced us that we dare not assume anything about our fellowship with God. We must fight for it. And God has been gracious to help us in our perseverance.

At Crosstown we value Intentional Spiritual Formation. We like to say that we value church growth--that is that every believer demonstrates genuine Christlikeness. Our goal is to see Christ formed in one another. For too long many of us have only passively participated in our sanctification. And I'm afraid the church has become anything but a place where authentic exhortation of one another is happening. Consider these words from Hebrews 3:12-14:

"Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end."

So why not team up with another believer and exhort one another every day in the spiritual disciplines?

Why Preach the Gospel?

2008-06-16T14:18:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, I preached the sermon for our new downtown church's first worship service. We are going to study through the book of 1 John. Here is what I shared from 1 John 1:3:

. . . that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed jour fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

The aim of John’s proclamation is that his readers will “have fellowship with us.” That is, John wants his readers to experience the kind of fellowship he himself has experienced—fellowship with the Father and with the Son. “We proclaim the gospel,” he says, “so that you might find the kind of fellowship with the Father that we have also found.”

Fellowship has become Christian jargon, and most of us think little about the depth of relationship this word signifies in the New Testament. Next week, Lord willing, we will look more in-depth at this concept of fellowship. But for now note how important it is to John. It is the purpose of his proclamation. The answer to this question: “Why preach the gospel?” is not “to save the lost from hell.” It is “so that you [yes, even you Christians] may have fellowship.” The immediate aim of the gospel is not sparing you from hell. Too many of us have thought that way for too long. The immediate aim of the gospel, at least on a personal level, is reconciliation. The goal is to bring you and I back into a right relationship with God. It is to restore fellowship with the Father and the Son. Don’t say to yourself, “I know I have fellowship with God because I’ve prayed the sinner's prayer and so I’m not going to hell.” That is the wrong way to think about it. Instead ask yourself, “Do I know I belong to him because I have fellowship with Him?” That is the immediate goal of the gospel.

Serving Our City, May 2008

2008-05-19T09:15:00.006-05:00

On Saturday evening, May 10, a few of the guys associated with our church plant drove to the east side of Oklahoma City to do a service project together. I was really looking forward to this one. A friend of mine is helping us get into our community--particular the parts of our community that have a different culture than what we are used to experiencing.

So off we went to the Marcus Garvey Leadership Charter School. The school was having its first annual "My Queen and Me" banquet, something similar to a mother-son dinner. Our task was to help the other men serve dinner to the mothers (or grandmothers, cousins, or aunts) and the sons. I thought this would be a great experience for us men to serve together. I especially liked the idea of the men serving the women and sons, an excellent illustration of the way things ought to be. Men need to be seen as willing servants of their families.

Our group was warmly accepted and I thought we fit right in (although we certainly stood out from the rest in attendance that evening!). Everyone had a wonderful time, even though we worked pretty hard to keep glasses filled all evening.

It is our dream that our church downtown will reflect the different nationalities in our city. We also know that for this dream to come to pass, we will have to be willing to get around people who are different than us and learn from them.

Doing that can be uncomfortable at times, but it can also be fun. The latter is what we experienced on May 10, as you can see from the picture at the left (can you pick out the ones from our group?).

One Way God Answers Prayer

2008-05-06T09:21:00.004-05:00

In Augustine's Confessions, he retells the story of his sneaking away to Rome in spite of his mother's protests that he not go. Here is a section of his account (from Book 5, Chapter 8):

That night I privily departed, but she was not behind in weeping and prayer. And what, O Lord, was she with so many tears asking of Thee, but that Thou wouldest not suffer me to sail? But Thou, in the depth of Thy counsels and hearing the main point of her desire, regardest not what she then asked, that Thou mightest make me what she ever asked.

Did you catch that last part? Augustine says that though his mother's immediate request to God was not granted to her, the "main point of her desire" (namely, that Augustine would be converted) would eventually be granted to her. But this would come only through the denial of her immediate request, for Augustine's time in Rome would prove pivotal to his coming to faith.

I am greatly encouraged by this truth about prayer. Recently our small group was praying for one of our members who had just had a very promising job interview that excited her. It would be a job that would not only pay more but would also allow her to use her giftedness and interests. It sounded like a perfect match. So we were all quite disappointed that she has not gotten the job. But circumstances like this should not cause us to pray less. God, "in the depth of his counsels," is able to answer "the main point of our desire" even when our most immediate request is denied us.

So keep on praying. And then trust that God will answer in ways that he deems best. Remember that requests that are denied do not necessarily mean that God is saying "no" to what we really are asking for.

Movement(s) of Young Christians

2008-05-02T05:28:00.003-05:00

A new movement is attracting a younger generation of Christians, shaking up institutions, denominations, and churches along the way. Not everyone in the movement is attracted to it for the same reasons, but they gather at conferences and online to share thoughts, debate, and learn from the elder statesmen of the group. Now a new book attempts to explain, sympathetically, what's really going on.
Actually, it's two books, and two movements.

Read part one of the conversation initiated by Christianity Today between Collin Hansen and Emergent Village's Tony Jones.

Reading Plan: May 2008

2008-04-30T12:11:00.013-05:00

I didn't do much reading in the month of April except to finish up some of my March reading and get started on some of this month's readings. But here's my plan for May:

I already know quite a bit about what Neil Cole has to say in this book since I heard him in person last fall. I'm fairly certain I will not like some of his ideas; I'm equally certain I will like many of them. And since the title of this book somewhat describes the kind of church I'm trying to start right now, I'm looking forward to reading all of it. I'm particularly interested in the Life Transformation Groups because I'm attempting to start something like that right now with the men in our core group.

The Reason for God is still on the NYT best seller list (currently #23). I have already started reading this one and love it. I'm hoping to do a book study with some non-Christians through this book in June, so I've offered some of them a $20 Barnes and Noble gift card if they will read the book and give me their reviews of it.

An account of one of the most severe child abuse cases in California history, this book is on my bookshelf and I would like to read it this month. It helps me in my reading to read different kinds of books. Plus, I have a hard time letting books take up shelf space and not ever be read.

I did not complete my reading of Augustine's Confessions in March and I didn't read any more of it in April. I am having a hard time with it, to be honest, but I am determined to make it through. Plus, I am still working through Jim Talley's book Reconcilable Differences.

On another note, there is one book that I started in March that I do not plan to finish. Focus or Failure failed to keep my attention. It is back on my bookshelf, and may not last there for very long.

How to Start Blogging (when it's been more than a month since your last post)

2008-04-30T12:05:00.003-05:00

Apologize to the few people who subscribe to your blog or who otherwise check it periodically. I'm sorry I have bored you to tears.
Figure out something to blog about. My reading plan is back for May. Check out the next post.
Then, give your excuses. Life has been complicated and stressful for the past month. I have just felt too exhausted to try to think of something worth posting. In other words, I have no excuse (at least no good ones). So please forgive me and let me try this again.

St. Patrick's Day Parade "Evangelism"

2008-03-17T10:59:00.009-05:00

This past Saturday was the annual St. Patrick's Day Parade in downtown Oklahoma City. Some from our new church that we are starting decided to attend the parade and pass out water bottles free of charge. This was our way to introduce ourselves to our city. We had no agenda other than passing out free water bottles. The goal was to serve our city in this very objective way.

Some call such actions "Servant Evangelism." While I am hesitant to call what we did "evangelism," I will say that it is certainly an evangelistic mission that motivates what we are doing downtown. So, are such efforts effective? After all, why should a church undertake anything that is ineffective? If the goal is evangelism, then how could we be successful if we never even opened our mouths to share the gospel? Perhaps the guys who were handing out the million dollar bills were more effective.

I doubt anyone came to faith because of our efforts. And I doubt that anyone came to faith because of the million dollar tracts. But as we do more service projects in our city, our hope is that many will see an authentic Christian movement that will have an impact on them spiritually. We pray that the spiritual barriers will come down and many will come to faith in Christ. In the meantime, we served our city. And our actions have an impact on us as well as we learn what it means to give ourselves away expecting nothing in return.

We did have several ask us about who we were and why we were providing free water. We did get a chance to tell some that we love our city and that we wanted to serve them today. And very few people turned down our offer. And unlike those who were handed the million dollar bills, those who took our free gifts used them and thought favorably about those who gave the water to them. We were thanked on numerous occasions. People were coming to us to receive the free water. Rejection was at a minimum.

I think we succeeded in what we had come to do (we passed out over 1,000 water bottles). But the work is not yet complete. Like the tract distributors, we still pray that many will turn to Jesus for the salvation of their souls. In this case, however, I think the water bottles were more effective than the million dollar tracts.

Book Review: Good to Great

2008-03-06T16:14:00.004-06:00

Jim Collins has done everyone a favor by writing this book. That's right. Everyone. This is not just a book about business, although it is of course true that the research done for this book was conducted in the corporate world. Nevertheless, Collins points out very early in the book (p. 15) that the book is not strictly about business but rather timeless principles of good to great.

One cannot help but be impressed with the thoroughness of the research itself. There are about 40 pages in the appendices explaining the research project (I'm still wondering where appendices 3-4 and 6-7 went, however). The goal was to find out what differentiated companies that became “great” from companies that were merely “good.” In other words, this is not a book about how to succeed in business; this is a book about how to excel in business (and in anything else for that matter).

The principles of greatness begin with “Level 5 Leadership.” Collins' identification of great leaders is very helpful. It's not that good or mediocre companies do not have very good and talented leaders. But the jump from level 4 to level 5 leadership is truly a great from good to great. The second principle is “First Who . . . Then What” where Collins shows that the great companies concerned themselves first with getting the right people “on the bus” before deciding on the direction the company should go. Third, great companies must be able to “Confront the Brutal Facts (Yet Never Lose Faith).” Such companies always believe that they will become the best, but they do not hold this faith in spite of the evidence. They do not ignore reality; they engage it with tenacity and optimism, even when the news around them is not all that encouraging. Fourth is what Collins calls “The Hedgehog Concept.” Great companies learn to identify what they are passionate about, what they can be the best in, and what drives your resource engine. The ability to maintain simplicity within these “three circles” and to resist the temptation to chase every possible opportunity around them is a key factor in helping companies go from good to great. Fifth, great companies maintain “A Culture of Discipline” and sixth they make use of “Technology Accelerators” (leveraging technology to accelerate momentum and not to initiate momentum. All of these principles work together to create the seventh principle, “The Flywheel Effect,” in which the business gains momentum on their way to greatness.

Collins points out that there is a moment of breakthrough that every good-to-great company achieves. “Ultimately, to reach breakthrough means having the discipline to make a series of good decisions consistent with your Hedgehog Concept—disciplined action, following from disciplined people who exercise disciplined thought. That's it. That's the essence of the breakthrough process” (p. 184). And he argues that this moment of breakthrough is attainable for all companies.

As an aside, I must say a few words that anyone wishing to read Good to Great needs to also avail themselves of Collins' work Good to Great and the Social Sectors: A Monograph to Accompany Good to Great (NP: 2005). Collins states that at least one third of the readers of Good to Great did not come from the business world. Many of them were involved with the social sector, and Collins is eager to show in this short work the many similarities (and a few differences) that exist in seeking greatness both inside and outside of business.

For anyone eager to explore some objective ways that they can become better in their work, I would highly recommend these two works by Jim Collins. They are enjoyable to read even for those of us who are not involved in business. I'm confident that anyone who picks up these works will find some very useful information. Perhaps that's one factor that makes a book go from good to great. I give this book 4 ½ stars.

Reading Plan: March 2008

2008-02-29T17:54:00.009-06:00

The first two months of 2008 are now behind us, and I am grateful that I have been doing relatively well with my reading plan. Here is my plan for the new month, Lord willing:

When I met Ed Stetzer last November he recommended three books to me dealing specifically with church planting. The first two I have now read, so this one, Community of Kindness, finishes up that recommended reading list. Having just given a negative review of the previous recommended book, I'm looking forward to diving into this one since the subtitle speaks of what I'm looking for in this topic: A Refreshing New Approach to Planting and Growing a Church.

This month I return to doing a reading from a "dead guy." St. Augustine's Confessions may be the oldest book (next to the Bible) I've ever read through. Again I will be doing this reading on the computer via my Libronix Digital Library System. There is a wealth of material there (now over 1,000 books in my e-library) that I just cannot allow to remain there unread.

I admit, I am less than enthusiastic about reading this book. But I have enjoyed my two business reads this year and so I decided to go through this one since it is sitting there on my bookshelf. I have to ask myself if I am wasting my time reading this when I could be reading something else on my reading list. But I'm hoping that it will do me some good to read something about our country in this election year, particularly since I sense my patriotism is beginning to wane in light of my frustration with politics.

My wife and I made a decision to make it an annual practice to see a marriage counselor to invest in and work on our marriage. We are really privileged to have a Christian marriage therapist living 5 minutes from us who wrote this book! While the book is written for those in "troubled marriages," Dr. Talley wants us to read through it nonetheless. I'm going to do as my counselor says!

The fifth read for the month is my continuation through Alfred Lansing's book Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage. I did not get through it last month, so it is part of this month's reading list as well.

Book Review: Planting Growing Churches for the 21st Century

2008-02-25T17:06:00.007-06:00

There can be no denying that Aubrey Malphurs is passionate for the church and wants to see it grow and succeed. He has contributed a lot of paper and ink to the topic of the church, and this book contains a lot of that material—425 pages worth to be exact. Anyone reading this book will appreciate the enthusiasm with which Malphurs approaches the subject. After all, he is not only a seminary professor but a pastor as well.

I am not sure, however, that the contents of the book live up to the passion of the author. This book was recommended to me because of Malphurs' expertise in church planting, and with the title of the book I assumed it would have much to suggest to one who is involved in the planting of a new church. But as others have pointed out, the book is not entirely for new church startups. Indeed the subtitle of the book is A Comprehensive Guide for New Churches and Those Desiring Renewal. And not everything that applies to churches seeking renewal is immediately helpful to churches just starting out, or vice-versa.

The book is divided into four sections, nicely (annoyingly?) alliterated. Part 1 is entitled “The Preparation for Church Planting.” Here the author deals with such basics as why there is a need for church planting and how a church plant can be supported. Part 2, “The Personnel of Church Planting,” consists of two chapters dealing with the assessment of a prospective church planter. In Part 3, “The Principles of Church Planting,” the reader will find discussion regarding the traditional aspects of church life such as lay involvement, worship, evangelism, and small groups. Part 4 is dedicated to “The Process of Church Planting.” Here we find what we would expect to see in a book with this title—practical advice for each stage of the church planting process.

There are two reasons that I found this book to be a disappointment. First, it took me 250 pages before I got to the most helpful section of the book (Part 4). I suppose that if one knew absolutely nothing about the church or vocational ministry he might find the first three sections to be informative. But such persons are not likely to pick up this book anyway. The whole assessment process described with much ink in Part 2 is tiring and overdone, again unless you have never been through any type of assessment process. I did not find much new advice in Part 3 either. I wish I had just read Part 4 and skipped the rest. One might wish the book came in an “abridged” version for just such a purpose!

Second, Malphurs' philosophy of church planting seems dated. He appears to be heavily influenced by the Church Growth movement. I lost track of how many times he referenced Willow Creek or Saddleback as examples to emulate. Many of us are frustrated with where such ideology has led the church regardless of how many numbers megachurches like these two can report. It would be nice to hear about a fresh approach to church planting and not one that depends upon high-powered programs to bring unbelievers to our events so trained professionals can “seal the deal.”

Again, one cannot deny that Malphurs has put a lot of the modern thought on church planting in writing and so this book has value so far as that approach can contribute to this activity. I'm sure there are many who might profit from the chapter questions and worksheets that are provided which are intended to help one think through specifics of the task. But for me, there just does not seem to be enough fresh thinking in this book to warrant much attention to it. I was quite disappointed with this one and can only give it 2 ½ stars.

I Grew Up _, Now I'm _.

2008-02-25T12:22:00.003-06:00

The Boston Globe cites a recent survey done by the Pew Forum which found that "44 percent of American adults have left the denomination of their childhood for another denomination, another faith, or no faith at all."

The study, which provides some really interesting data, can be found here. Only three states, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Tennessee, have a majority of Evangelical Protestants.

Pornography and the Church

2008-02-20T15:17:00.003-06:00

As a young Christian legalist, I remember hearing of a group of believers who were well known for doing "beach evangelism" on the Florida coast during Spring break. At the time, I remember thinking to myself, "How in the world can you share the gospel with a teenage girl dressed in a bikini relaxing on the Florida beach and keep your mind pure?" Those were the kinds of questions a Christian legalist becomes enthralled with.

Last night, things went to a whole new level as I got the chance to hear Craig Gross share with a few of our men from our church. Craig is the founder of the #1 Christian Porn Site on the web: XXXChurch.com (don't worry--I promise it is ok to click on the link!). This ministry exists to reach out to those inside the porn industry. They also have a lot to offer for those outside the industry who are struggling with porn.

So how hard is it to keep yourself pure when you're reaching out to Porn stars and porn producers? Craig said that he does not struggle with porn, but I was impressed that he still has an accountability group that uses software he developed that tracks and reports to your accountability partners the websites you have visited.

A friend and I had a conversation afterward and decided we, too, would download the software (it is free) and keep each other accountable. My friend says he could not do ministry to the porn community as XXXChurch.com is able to do, but he and I both thank God that somebody does it, and does it with integrity.

By the way, Craig and a former Porn Producer debated 2 porn stars last week at Yale University. You can see the debate at ABCNews or this Thursday evening on Nightline.

Staying Relevant

2008-02-12T10:26:00.000-06:00

Because I am trying to start a new church in an urban area, I am frequently confronted with the importance of being relevant. And I confess, it is one of the most frustrating disciplines I undertake. That's why I was greatly encouraged this morning by these words from this past Sunday's sermon delivered by John Piper:

As a preacher, I think a lot about relevance. That is, why should anyone listen to what I have to say? Why should anybody care? Relevance is an ambiguous word. It could mean more than one thing. It might mean that a sermon is relevant if it feels to the listeners that it will make a significant difference in their lives. Or it might mean that a sermon is relevant if it will make a significant difference in their lives whether they feel it or not. That second kind of relevance is what guides my sermons. In other words, I want to say things that are really significant for your life whether you know they are or not. My way of doing that is to stay as close as I can to what God says is important in his word, not what we think is important apart God’s word.

In a day when so many want to move away from the theological goldmine found in the Bible, it is important for us to understand that the Bible, correctly understood, is always relevant. We may have to work at it in our application of the Bible, but we must not think that staying relevant means we cannot proclaim the Bible in its original context and meaning.

So, Is It a Joke?

2008-02-11T10:55:00.001-06:00

I hesitate to put this one on my blog, both because of its somewhat offensive nature and also because of its outrageousness. This blog is dedicated primarily to those who find themselves journeying away from Christian legalism and (hopefully) toward Christian hedonism (whether you like that term or not). So I have gone ahead and posted this one in hopes that those who find themselves still leaning toward Christian legalism will see how silly many of their "convictions" truly are, even if they find this guy too radical for them. In other words, it is my contention that although many Christian legalists would not agree with the words from this preacher, much of what I experienced in Christian legalism was not too far off from this kind of nonsense.

No wonder most people just get a laugh at us and don't take us (or our faith) very seriously.

Warning, the content may be offensive to some.

HT: Big Orange Truck

The Legend is Back in Arlington

2008-02-07T09:09:00.001-06:00

There is hope once again for the Texas Rangers, now that the club's Greatest Legend is back with the team in an important role. I'm thinking World Series again...

Better to Be Right than to Error on the Side of Grace

2008-01-31T15:32:00.000-06:00

Our son was on his way to guitar lessons when he asked my wife this "theological" question: "If I jump off a bridge and then ask God to save me, will he?" My wife explained that God has created certain laws--one of which is called gravity--with which God typically governs the universe. While he certainly could trump such laws, he usually does not.

Upon arriving at guitar lessons, my wife remembered that our son's guitar teacher is not just an accomplished musician; she is also a theological graduate. So my wife told our son that his teacher was a theologian and so it would be good to see how she would answer his question. So she posed the question to the guitar teacher, and also told her how she had answered our son. "Is that how you would respond?" My wife asked. "If our son were to jump off a bridge and then ask God to save him, he probably wouldn't, would he?"

The teacher paused, then responded, "I don't know, I think it would be better to error on the side of grace."

My wife chuckled. Until she saw from the look on the teacher's face that she wasn't joking.

"I don't think we should judge," said the teacher as she repeated her answer again. "It is better to error on the side of grace."

The teacher's comment reflects much of what is being taught in theology today. Our postmodernity has gotten the best of us, or at least it will if we try jumping off bridges with such beliefs.

The rejection of absolute truth and antithesis in favor of relativism is that dangerous. And so we must also boldly proclaim what is not true. It is better to be right than to error on the side of grace.

Francis Schaeffer notes:

If we do not communicate clearly on the basis of antithesis, many will respond to their own interpretation of the gospel, in their own relativistic thought-forms, including a concept of psychological guilt feelings rather than of true moral guilt before the holy, living God. If they do respond in this way, they have not understood the gospel; they are still lost, and we have defaulted in our task of preaching and communicating the gospel to our generation. (From, The God Who Is There, Appendix C.)

In his book, Bringing Up Boys, James Dobson also illustrates this need for what he calls "beneficial negatives":

Negative thinking has its advantages too. It is negative thinking that leads me to buckle my seat belt when I get in a car. I might be hurt in a collision if I don’t strap myself in. It’s negative thinking that causes me to buy life insurance to protect my family. I could die suddenly and leave my loved ones in financial difficulty. It’s negative thinking that encourages me to avoid behavior that could be addictive—such as using illicit drugs, alcohol, or pornography. . . . Indeed, if a person only allows himself to read or hear positive messages, he will have to skip over at least half of the Scriptures. Jesus said some of the most profoundly negative words that have ever been uttered, including the prospect of unregenerate people entering eternity without God. Yet His message to a lost and dying world is called the gospel, meaning “good news.” (Page 235.)

A vicious lie is being told to today's generation, thanks to our theological accommodation to postmodern ideals. We have lost our ability (or willingness) to offer the world our best commodity: truth. If you ignore the truth of the gospel you will perish.

And the same thing will probably happen if you jump off the bridge.

Reading Plan: February 2008

2008-01-31T10:36:00.000-06:00

Here are the books I plan to work through this new month:

Everyone at Dallas Seminary (my Alma-Mater) knows who you talk to when you want to talk church planting: Aubrey Malphurs. Unfortunately, I never took Dr. Malphurs' classes because I wasn't thinking church planting while I was in seminary. But this book, I'm told (#2 recommended to me by Ed Stetzer), will give me the next-best thing to having Dr. Malphurs as my prof.

No, I've never read The Ragamuffin Gospel. No, I've never read anything else by Brennan Manning. But this month I'm planning to read his book, The Signature of Jesus. This book was given to me by a friend well over a year ago, so it is another one that has been on my reading list for some time. If all goes well, perhaps I'll be reading Ragamuffin next!

I really enjoyed the business book I read last month, so I thought I would try another one. Good to Great is well-known, and I own the accompanying monograph dealing with the social sector, so I want to work my way though it as well. I heard Jim Collins share at Willow's Leadership Conference in 2006, and he was interesting. I'm hoping to glean some useful insights from his book as well.

Shouldn't all married people read something on marriage in February? With Valentine's Day approaching, I've asked my wife to read this one along with me. It is a new book, and the blogosphere gave it a lot of positive recommendations when it came out last year. So I've purchased this book and am looking forward to reading it. My wife needs all the help she can get being married to this sinner!

Alfred Lansing's book Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage, is my leisure read for February. I have inherited this book, and in one of the books I read last month it was mentioned as a must-read. It sounds exciting enough: a mission in 1914 to cross the Antarctic overland that goes terribly wrong. With the snow coming down outside today here in Oklahoma City, I'm feeling the chill of the story already!

Book Review: unChristian

2008-01-28T14:36:00.000-06:00

“Christianity has an image problem.” That’s how unChristian begins, and it is the problem it attempts to resolve, not by explaining the Christian faith to non-Christians, but by urging professing Christians to fix their image in 6 specific areas. According to the research done for this book (from the Barna Group), Christians are accused of being hypocritical, insincere in their efforts to convert people, antihomosexual, sheltered, too political, and judgmental. Because of these accusations, the writers contend, evangelical Christians, or those who are considered to be “born again,” have lost the respect of those outside the church. These non-Christians consider the Christian faith as it is practiced today to be unChristian, that is, “they think Christians no longer represent what Jesus had in mind, that Christianity in our society is not what it was meant to be” (p. 15). Are they right?

It is tough to argue with the data gathered from the research. The authors make a convincing case that even those inside the church—young Christians in particular—agree that something has gone terribly wrong with modern Christianity. I found myself nodding in agreement quite a bit as I read the accusations hurled at the faith I myself possess. If our faith has become “unChristian,” we must not delay in working to fix it. And even if we are tempted to think that it doesn’t really matter what non-Christians think about us since non-believers will always disapprove of what we believe (the authors field this charge and respond to it on pp. 36-39), we have to realize that perceptions, even wrong perceptions, still affect the way people respond to us. If as Christians we desire to be heard by non-Christians, then we would do well to listen first to them.

As for the specific allegations leveled at us, can there be any doubt that Christians by and large are guilty of being hypocritical? It is true that for many of us our lives do not reflect what we say we believe. And we can surely understand that many of our attempts at evangelism have lacked in genuine interest for the person with whom we are sharing our faith. Yes, the Christian faith can seem “like a religion of rules and standards” (p. 123), and surely many of us have far too often made others feel like we were judgmental, setting ourselves up as the judge and jury of morality. We are known more for what we are against than for what we are for. We are too quickly associated with a political party and with antihomosexual values. What is helpful in this book is the authors’ ability to help us see why we should not wear many of these charges as badges of honor. Each chapter concludes with a section from various contributors explaining ways in which we might change these perceptions of non-Christians.

There are, however, a couple of areas in which I think the authors have erred.

First, in chapter 5, in which the authors’ deal with the accusation that Christians are unloving and hostile to homosexuals, I found the authors to be wrong about some of their conclusions. They quote (favorably) one pastor who says, “the struggle of gays being attracted to the same sex is no different than my struggle in being attracted to the opposite sex” (96, emphasis mine). Now I agree that the sin of homosexuality is no different than the sin of immoral heterosexuality as far as God’s judgment of sin is concerned. But the Bible does suggest that there is a progression in reprobation, and according to Romans 1, homosexuality is further down that progression than other sins. The authors also ask if “we really want government regulating the sex lives of its adult citizens” (96). Does this mean that we should oppose a Federal Marriage Amendment? Do the authors think that government should not regulate morality in any way? I agree that “we cannot assume that politics is the only or best way to influence people” (106) and that we can further burn the bridges by which we hope to reach homosexuals by unloving political jargon. But this doesn’t mean that Christians should abdicate this issue politically and cease in our efforts to influence our legislators toward a biblical morality. The authors also imply that we shouldn’t speak so passionately against the right of homosexuals to adopt children because “our most important concern must be the response of young people to Christ, not merely what type of home they grew up in.” While there is much to learn from this book’s chapter on homosexuality, I was disappointed by these suggestions that we shouldn’t fight the issue politically because of the potential that our opinions will alienate the homosexuals we should be trying to reach with the gospel.

Second, and perhaps even more importantly, there is a potentially fatal flaw in the research that supports this book. On page 46 the authors tell us that in their research, “when it came to nonreligious factors—the substance of people’s daily choices, actions, and attitudes—there were few meaningful gaps between born-again Christians and non-born-agains.” The point is clear: this book is built upon the assumption from the research that born-again Christians do not live much differently from those who are not born-again. The authors even tell us how they identify those who are born-again: “a person has to say he or she has made a personal commitment to Jesus that is still important and that the person believes he or she will go to heaven at death, because the person has confessed his or her sin and accepted Christ as Savior” (46). Based on these conclusions, the book attempts to help these “born-again” Christians recover an authentic Christian faith.

But a survey cannot identify true “born-again” Christians without error. Just because a person makes the necessary profession to be classified doesn’t mean he or she really is. The authors say that two out of every five adults nationwide qualifies as being “born again.” Really? Forty percent of adult Americans are born again? What the authors miss is that behavior is a better identifier of regeneration. Of course, only God knows those who are truly his, but the Bible says we are to inspect the “fruit” of people’s lives in discerning those who are truly born-again (1 John 3:10). I do not deny that true believers are often guilty of the accusations leveled at them in this book by non-Christians. But I do think that Christianity gets much of its bad reputation from those who are not truly born again. So I’m afraid the research for this book is skewed.

Nevertheless, the damage is done to the Christian reputation, even if the guilty party are those who profess to be Christians but truly are not. Keeping that in mind, this book does offer some helpful advice for Christians who truly desire to convey to “outsiders” what it means to be Christian. I give this book 4 stars.

Book Review: Starting a New Church

2008-01-24T18:15:00.000-06:00

If you are looking for a book on church planting packed with ideas and not just sage advice, you will do well to read Ralph Moore’s Starting a New Church. Recently I met Ed Stetzer from Lifeway Research and we talked at length about church planting. This was the first book he recommended I read on the subject. I can see why.

One thing I’m discovering is that every church plant is unique, so finding a book that is relevant to your particular church planting situation is not always that easy. While there are now plenty of books to choose from, it can be difficult to find books that are mostly filled with helpful information rather than antiquated ideas and methods.

Ralph Moore certainly knows church planting. This book comes from the pen of one who has done it on several occasions. So the four parts to this book provide a logical progression of stages that seemingly apply to anyone who is planting a church. I will summarize each of these four parts.

First, Moore encourages the reader to think through the church plant. In this section he speaks personally to the church planter. Is this truly a calling from God? Are you really ready to do this? Do you know where you want to go with this effort? Do you know where to get help? (Because you will certainly need it.) One great emphasis that Moore makes is the necessity of a church planter having the support of his local church. It does not have to be financial support. But Moore insists that no one should attempt a church plant without clear backing from his own home church.

In Part Two, Moore even discusses a procedure for making the proposal of a new church plant to the home church. This section on designing the new church covers such practical areas such as the new church’s values, developing a core team, and funding the new church. When considering funding Moore makes the helpful comment that you need two budgets: an operation budget for covering recurring expenses; and an opportunity budget for those larger expenses that come along at unpredictable times. I note this advice because it is part of a larger philosophy that Moore communicates throughout the book. The goal is not to build an organization that merely “makes budget” every year. The goal is an effective church plant. You do not want to become “a tiny pod of operational expenses and a few people” (p. 92). He advises new churches to keep operational expenses at a minimum so that more can be spent on opportunities. Office space and even meeting facilities are operational costs that most people think of when discussing “church.” Technology and missional opportunities are better places to spend your money, Moore advises.

Of course there are many more great ideas in this book that I cannot take time to recount. But in Part Three Moore discusses the actual planting of the new church. It is important to plant a church with a flexible church structure to facilitate growth, and Moore supports the rapid multiplication of churches as the best growth strategy. Thus in Part Four, “Anticipating the Future,” he concludes the book by explaining how every new church should begin their new life as a reproducing church.

What I found most refreshing about this book was that it was full of practical advice without giving the impression that Moore was interested in creating businesses. His passion for church planting was clear. But he did not seem to be corrupted by the temptation to seek power in starting a new church.

An easy read, yet one that provides a wealth of practical advice, I give this one 4 1/2 stars.

Highlights from Sunday 1.13.08: The Need for Antithesis

2008-01-14T11:04:00.000-06:00

Yesterday began a new series through the book of Galatians here at Council Road. The sermon title for the first section, Galatians 1:1-5, was The Importance of Belief. I thought it was a unique approach to this text, which consists of Paul's salutation to the churches of Galatia. The sermon centered much on the postmodern epistemology and how damaging it is to the Christian faith. It is important to know what you believe, the first point stated, but this also implies the necessity of knowing what you do not believe. So Paul begins this letter by stating that he is an apostle, but not from men or through men. In other words, it is important to know that Paul was an apostle. It is equally important to know that his apostleship was not granted by men.

And then here was the statement that stood out to me: "If you are not able to say what you do not believe then you will never be able to change people's lives." Why is that true?

Perhaps these words from Francis Schaeffer's work The God Who Is There will shed some light:

We must not forget that historic Christianity stands on a basis of antithesis. Without it, historic Christianity is meaningless. The basic antithesis is that God objectively exists in contrast (in antithesis) to His not existing. Which of these two are the reality, changes everything in the area of knowledge and morals and in the whole of life.

So be sure you know what you believe, and be sure you know what you do not believe.

Reading Plan to Start the New Year

2007-12-31T21:33:00.000-06:00

My good friend posted his reading plan for January 2008 on his blog (and graciously linked to mine, so I'm returning the favor). I figured I would do the same, if, for no other reason, it makes me feel somewhat accountable to get through these works since I've gone public with them.

My choices also lie in 5 general areas: Church Life (since I'm a church planter, these kinds of books will dominate this category for a while), Theology/Biblical Studies, History or Literature, Culture (something from the secular field), and Special Interest (typically marriage or parenting). I'm also trying to select books I already own.

Ed Stetzer's #1 church planting book recommendation to me was Ralph Moore's Starti ng a New Church. I've checked it out from a local University library, so hopefully I won't get too carried away since I like to mark up the books I read!

My reading from dead guys this month will be Francis Schaeffer's The God Who Is T here. I've done precious little reading of Schaeffer in my life, so I'm eager to get into this work. I will be reading this book electronically, so we'll see how that goes.

Let's R oll sounds (and looks) rather cheezy, but it's on my bookshelf and I just can't seem to ignore it any longer. I'm hoping that this widow's account from 9/11 is not embellished for the sake of a story. Honesty, I don't know.

F ire Someone Today is written by Bob Pritchett, the founder of Logos Bible Software (click on the link at the top of this blog), a product that is great not only because of what it does but because of the business that it comes out of. I'm curious to learn more about this Christian businessman's view on making uncomfortable leadership decisions.

My son will turn 7 this year, so I guess it's time I figure out how to raise him. Seriously, Bringing Up Boys is a book I should have read several years ago, but better late than never.

How is Jesus a Father?

2007-12-28T07:17:00.000-06:00

Sam Storms has written a fine piece on Isaiah 9:6 which demonstrates Six Gifts God has given us in the Person of Jesus Christ. The whole thing is worth reading, but I was especially drawn to his analysis of the title "Everlasting Father." It seems lately that I have been confronted a lot with the ancient heresy of modalism (that God is not three distinct Persons but just one Person appearing in different forms at different times). Does Isaiah 9:6, clearly a prophecy about Jesus, suggest that the Son is the same Person as the Father? Storms explains:

Why this word to describe Jesus as "Eternal Father"? First, the term "father" is not used here in the Trinitarian sense, as if depicting relationships within the Godhead. The prophet is not saying that the Son is also the Father (a heresy denounced in the early church councils).

The word "Father" is a descriptive analogy pointing to Christ's character. What does a "father" do? What image is evoked by the word? I suggest he has in mind the tenderness and sensitivity of a compassionate and affectionate father. It is the security and love he provides, as well as protection and provision. Jesus, therefore, is fatherly, father-like, in his treatment of us. This is similar to what the psalmist had in mind when he said, "as a father shows compassion to his children, so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear him" (Ps. 103:13).

As Storms points out earlier in his article, the six titles given to Jesus in Isaiah 9:6 are not literal names that he has but are descriptions of his character and personality. Jesus is a father in the sense that he is compassionate and sensitive to us his followers, as an ideal father is to his children.

Highlights from Sunday's Sermon Dec 9

2007-12-10T20:55:00.000-06:00

Round one of an Oklahoma ice storm kept many from attending worship this morning, but I tested out the roads and decided we could make it. I'm glad I did.

I have been very blessed by the preaching ministry of Rick Thompson. I'm grateful that he knows how to preach expositionally through the Bible. And I'm grateful for his hermeneutics that lead him to find Jesus in the Old Testament.

The Scripture text for yesterday was Genesis 29:15-35, the account of Jacob's labor for his two wives, Leah and Rachel. Having worked seven years for the privilege of marrying Rachel, Jacob speaks to her father, Laban, in verse 21: "Give me my wife that I may go in to her..." Jacob has been a lonely man with a great sense of inner emptiness. These words express his false hope of finding in Rachel the answer to that emptiness. But he is tricked. He ends up with Leah.

One of the lessons we should take from this account is that we must take the deepest passionate desires of our heart away from our false hopes and put them on the Lord. So the question I pondered yesterday was, "What do I pour my hope into? What is the hope I am longing for and desiring to be fulfilled?" Whatever "it" is, it will always disappoint. The soul finds no rest until it finds its rest in God (to quote Augustine).

Once again I am in need of repentance for letting myself hope for fulfillment in anything besides a vibrant relationship with God.

Highlights from Sunday's Sermon

2007-12-03T11:49:00.000-06:00

Yesterday's sermon was from Genesis 28 and Jacob's "Stairway to Heaven" dream. Rick pointed out that Jacob's "ladder" was not really a ladder but more like a staircase. And according to John 1:51, Jesus himself is the staircase through whom God's revelation to man is made.

But I was challenged by this statement from the sermon:

Our temporal happinesses are not as important as God's plans for my life.

When Jacob dreamed this dream, he was not exactly "happy"--he had to use a stone for a pillow! But it was precisely at this time of spiritual darkness that God revealed to Jacob the plans he had for Jacob's life.

So God's plans for my life often exclude temporal happinesses. God's plans include suffering and pain and death. These things do not exactly make us "happy." But happiness is fleeting, and God is more interested in our abiding joy.

And thanks be to God that he is.

Seeking God's Presence, Holding Him in Awe

2007-11-21T09:17:00.000-06:00

It is a very difficult time for our family right now as we watch a very close family member suffer with cancer. For me and my wife, we have had to dig deep to find how our faith sustains us in times like these. Earlier this week, I read this from D. A. Carson:

As an athlete endures in order to build up endurance, so a Christian perseveres under trial in order to build up perseverance. Perseverance contributes something important to our character. It “must finish its work so that {we} may be mature and complete, not lacking anything” (James 1:4). The alternative is a personality that may love the Lord when things are going well, a character that is bold and happy on bright days in the Spring, but knows little of steadfastness under duress, of contentment when physical comforts are withdrawn, of quiet confidence in the living God when faced with persecution, of stability in the midst of a frenetic pace or a assive disappointment. In other words, in a fallen world perseverance contributes maturity and stability to our character — and trials build perseverance.

We certainly want to know that "quiet confidence in the living God." It seems like that only comes through trials.

Today my reading was in 1 Chronicles 16. I was moved by these words from David's song of thanks (on the day before Thanksgiving):

Seek the LORD and his strength; seek his presence continually! (verse 11)

We know something of what it means to seek his presence continually. Another:

For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised, and he is to be held in awe above all gods. For all the gods of the peoples are idols, but the LORD made the heavens. (verses 25-26)

Keeping our attention and awe on the LORD is the only way to think straight in times like these.

Piper's Appreciation for Fundamentalism

2007-11-01T09:22:00.000-05:00

In spite of fundamentalism's warnings about his ministry and teaching, John Piper thanks God for the fundamentalists:

What I want to say about Fundamentalism is that its great gift to the church is precisely the backbone to resist compromise and to make standing for truth and principle a means of love rather than an alternative to it. I am helped by the call for biblical separation, because almost no evangelicals even think about the doctrine.

Piper certainly knows fundamentalism since he grew up in Greenville, South Carolina and his father was on the board at Bob Jones University. I appreciate his willingness to see that even fundamentalism has something to contribute to our understanding of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. But it is precisely the issues that fundamentalism uses to criticize Piper that demonstrate their inability (or unwillingness) to consider whether or not they have taken the doctrine of separation so far as to have fallen into legalism.

For example, Piper is criticized for offering "enthusiastic support for Daniel Fuller, who has publicly undermined the traditional understanding of the authority of Scripture." Piper points out that while he is unashamed in his admiration for Daniel Fuller, the two do have their disagreements, "so it would not be helpful to talk in terms of an unqualified 'endorsement.' " But for fundamentalists, once you say almost anything postive about another who has some belief that doesn't sit well with fundamentalists (like not being a dispensationalist), you are immediately thrown under the bus (a doctrine they refer to as "double separation"). Surely there must be some parameters within which we exercise the separation card.

I wonder if, since Piper has offered an "endorsement" of fundamentalism, will the fundamentalists who have chosen to separate from him now have to separate from themselves lest they also be declared guilty by association?

Swindoll and Howard Hendricks on Christian Legalism

2007-10-18T14:32:00.000-05:00

The latest issue of Veritas (a publication of Dallas Theological Seminary) includes an excerpt of a conversation between Howard Hendricks and Chuck Swindoll. A good portion of their conversation centers on the topic of Christian legalism. Chuck Swindoll has written extensively on this topic, of course, in The Grace Awakening, a book that all Christian legalists must read! Swindoll explains the way that Christian legalism usually is identified:

The problem comes when we get into areas that are not set forth in Scripture, either in precept or even in principle. . . . I think legalism begins when you do or refrain from doing what I want you to do or not do because it's on my list and it's something that I am uncomfortable with.

Hendricks adds:

One of the things I notice is that whenever Christians feel something is the will of God for them, they tend to want to make it universal. . . . I think we have a lot of that in our Christian community, trying to put our convictions on someone else.

Particularly interesting (humorous?) is Swindoll's advice for combatting Christian legalism:

The problem with legalists is that not enough people have confronted them and told them to get lost. Those are strong words, but I don't mess with legalism anymore. I'm 72 years old; what have I got to lose? Seriously, I used to kowtow to legalists, but they're dangerous. They are grace-killers. They'll drive off every new Christian you bring to church. They are enemies of the faith. Other than that, I don't have any opinion!

I have often battled the question of how forthright I ought to be with Christian legalists. It does seem that they need to be confronted as much as they like to "confront" others. But here we have the dilemma of not wanting to forget about grace ourselves. How much grace we should show toward grace-killers is a difficult issue to resolve practically.

Urban Church Planting, the SBC, and Tim Keller

2007-10-06T19:53:00.000-05:00

My friend sent me this link, which tells about the influence Tim Keller is having on the move to plant churches in urban areas, even within the Southern Baptist Convention.

One of the changes I have seen in recent church revitalization and church planting is the move to the cities. Southern Baptist churches have predominantly been located in rural areas, although the megachurch movement eventually led churches to start in booming suburban populations. Yet it is a relatively new emphasis and change to see more and more Southern Baptist churches go back to urban population centers and plant their outpost in the heart of the city. Much of this new emphasis can be attributed to the efforts and writing of Tim Keller who pastors Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.

Count me as one of those so influenced. It was this message by Keller that got me to thinking about planting a church in downtown Oklahoma City.

Which Comes First? Orthodoxy or Orthopraxy?

2007-10-06T13:58:00.001-05:00

At a recent conference I attended, I heard again this belief that orthopraxy is more important than orthodoxy. The statement was (my paraphrase), "I'm not sure if I believe in inerrancy, but I do know what it means to care for the homeless, because I have spent my life ministering to them."

For those who emphasize orthopraxy, there is often the accusation that orthodoxy does not usually lead to orthopraxy. And where there is no orthopraxy, there is dead faith.

Guilty as charged, if one defines orthodoxy as "right teaching." But Phil Johnson (HT: SharperIron) makes the helpful observation that orthodoxy is better understood as "right belief." And this being the case, the only cure for evil praxis is orthodoxy. He writes:

On the one hand, it's certainly true that "doing is more important than words." No one here has argued otherwise. However (and this is the point I have labored to make), "orthodoxy" is not about words. It's about truth, real belief, and the Word of God. If it doesn't result in "doing," it isn't true orthodoxy; it's dead faith. That's James's point in chapter 2.

So the problem with Christian failure to live rightly is not a problem of over-emphasizing orthodoxy but a failure to fully grasp orthodoxy.

Must I Study to Preach?

2007-10-03T22:09:00.000-05:00

I remember one minister commenting that his sermons came from "25 years of preparation." Of course he meant his life experiences in ministry, not 25 years of biblical exegesis.

I think he along with other Christian legalist ministers might want to check the 18 Signs That You Might Need to Study More for Your Sermons (HT: SharperIron). Scarey how many of these I have actually witnessed during my days as a Christian legalist.

Piper Overload

2007-10-02T15:00:00.000-05:00

I couldn't help myself. When Logos Bible Software recently announced two new John Piper pre-publications, I immediately purchased both.

First, you can now purchase Piper's Sermon Manuscript Library. I know, I know, you can read, listen to, download, and sometimes even watch all of Piper's sermons for free over at the Desiring God website. So why did I spend $55 for this product? Listen to this:

Logos Bible Software and the John Piper Sermon Manuscript Library were truly a match made in heaven. Search every sermon for any topic you can think of in only seconds. View each sermon side-by-side with the trusted English Standard Version. Studying a specific verse? Find out what John Piper has said about that verse by doing a simple search through your collection. For fans of John Piper, this is the next best thing to being at Bethlehem Baptist Church each week!

And once the library is mine, I will get free updates whenever more of Piper's sermons are released by Logos.

Then just last night I learned of the John Piper Collection, 24 of Piper's most popular books, fully searchable, for just $150! Logos has not (in my opinion) overstated the point that

The time we spend in these important resources will be time well spent learning how our gracious God meets our needs where we are.

I have committed myself to the purchasing of electronic titles whenever I can get them from Logos. Their products are not just e-books; they are fully searchable, fully integrated libraries of information. I am thrilled about these two Piper pre-pubs, and will find the $200 to get them one way or another.

Now it is my habit to rid myself of print books whenever I can acquire the same title from Logos. But here I have made an exception. After recently purchasing several of Piper's books for just $5 each, I will be hanging on to most if not all of them, even though I will now have the same title in electronic format. It is true that there are times that reading electronic data is simply a nuisance. But the electronic format is most beneficial for reference works, and Piper's works fit into the reference category for me since I turn to them time and time again.

So quit reading this blog right now and get these two pre-pubs (and the Libronix Digital Library System, if you don't already own it). Don't worry, I get absolutely no commission for this!

Comfort in Suffering

2007-09-18T11:46:00.000-05:00

You walk in the hospital room and find the family in tears. You know their situation. The pain and suffering are great. What can you say--what will you say--to try to comfort them?

I found out first-hand last week that the only real comfort comes in acknowledging God's sovereignty in suffering. By this I mean coming to terms with the truth that God does not merely permit suffering but that he actually designs it.

This does not sound all that comforting at first. But what other answer can we give? If God is merely allowing suffering, we might wonder how sovereign he really is when it comes to agents of suffering like sin and Satan. Or, we will question his character, asking ourselves what kind of a God he really is. What point is he trying to make in allowing us to suffer? I have found little comfort in pondering the answer to that question.

But Paul said that his physical suffering ("a thorn in the flesh") was given to prevent him from exalting himself (2 Corinthians 12:7). That does not sound like a reason why Satan would induce suffering. Rather, God had graciously done this for Paul, so that rather than boasting in himself he would boast in Christ: "Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me" (2 Corinthians 12:9). Do you see that? Paul would rather suffer if it would allow him to exalt in Christ. So in designing suffering, God has graciously helped us to desire him more than the fading pleasures of this life. Now that is an act of love by a loving God.

And that has been bringing me and my family comfort ever since we heard the news in the hospital room.

Remembering Dr. D. James Kennedy

2007-09-05T09:50:00.000-05:00

Dr. D. James Kennedy, pastor of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Ft. Lauderdale, passed away peacefully this morning (HT: Justin Taylor). You can read a timeline and watch a video tribute of his life here. Mark Dever recently posted about the influence of Dr. Kennedy and his "Evangelism Explosion" on the resurgence of Calvinism among young evangelicals. Here, I want to share my own story.

Five years ago today I was in Ft. Lauderdale being trained in Evangelism Explosion. During my time there I was able to meet Dr. Kennedy, and had my picture taken with him. I wrote in my journal: "He was very kind and allowed me to have my picture made with him. . . . We talked with him for maybe 5 minutes. It was a pleasant experience."

But what impressed me most about Dr. Kennedy was not how "nice" he was in our 5-minute conversation. Having been a Christian legalist, I was most impressed about how evangelistic this Presbyterian minister and his church were. Having been taught that Calvinists were not evangelistic, Dr. Kennedy showed otherwise. This had a profound impact on me as I struggled with my position within Christian legalism.

So while we mourn our loss of Dr. Kennedy, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank God for using this man to help me in my journey away from Christian legalism.

The Call to the Ministry

2007-08-24T12:20:00.000-05:00

The report came back from the recent church youth camp: ten children had committed their lives to full-time Christian ministry. While this seems to be a reason to rejoice, I've often wondered if we push too hard for such commitments. It seems like just another excuse to report numbers.

When it comes to a "call to the ministry," we all know what is meant. The phrase is intended to refer to a career in Christian ministry, whether as preachers, missionaries, para-church workers, or Christian school teachers. Of course, these are good and noble professions. But surely we all agree that those who hold such positions are not the only ones who are called to the ministry. Every believer is to be a minister, including Christian doctors, engineers, landscapers, and farmers. This fact suggests that we should do away with urging impressionable young people to make a commitment to vocational ministry. When was the last time the church rejoiced over a youngster's desire to be a firefighter? I am afraid that we have communicated to our children the idea that work in vocational ministry somehow comes with more of God's approval, even if it doesn't always bring more financial prosperity.

But surely we need pastors, missionaries, and other vocational ministry people. My contention is not that we stop filling these positions, but that we start filling them with the appropriate people. And who might that be? How can we discern God's "call" to the ministry?

According to 1 Timothy 3:1, desire is not a bad motive to have. "If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task." Instead of laying guilt upon some overly-sensitive soul, it may be best to look for those who have come to the conclusion on their own that they would like to labor in vocational ministry. It is far easier to motivate the already-motivated, and I'm sure we would find vocational ministers who want to be there far more successful than those who are serving out of compulsion.

But desire itself is not enough, as the further qualifications for an overseer in 1 Timothy 3 suggest. There can always be impure motives. Ministry can afford too many the opportunity to seek notoriety, and too many have consequently become entangled with pride in their ministries. This post by Carl Trueman (yes, I know it is three weeks old already!) points to the difference between desiring to teach and desiring to be teachers. Thus, there are many who focus on their own status and not on the words they proclaim which "are merely instrumental to getting them status and boosting their careers." The post goes on to make a suggestion as to how we might fill vocational ministry positions:

Nine times out of ten, I believe that the church should first discern who should be considering the Christian ministry, not simply act as a rubber-stamp for a putative internal call which an individual may think he has.

In spite of the fact that I myself experienced this "putative internal call," I find myself agreeing with these sentiments. I would like to see the church taking a more active approach in filling vocational ministry positions. In Acts 13, the Holy Spirit "calls" Barnabas and Paul into missionary work, but it happened "while they were worshiping the Lord and fasting" and it apparently was not these two who sensed the inner call, but the church at large who heard (or sensed, or knew) the Holy Spirit's call. These two men were some of the "prophets and teachers" in the church at Antioch, but the church "laid their hands on them and sent them off."

I'm wondering why something more like this couldn't continue to happen today. Why can't the church initiate the "call to ministry"? Why not suggest to effective church volunteers and lay leaders that they fill needed ministry positions. Why not send our own pastors and teachers to the mission field, or our own Sunday school teachers to the pastorate? Indeed this does happen in some churches. I’m just wishing it happened more often. Surely there are many individuals who could use the help of their church in discerning God’s call to the ministry. After all, they may be struggling with some “inner sense” that just doesn’t square with all the risks that will be created by giving up their current career for vocational ministry.

We will still be eager to see our children grow up in the church and to see some become involved in vocational ministry, but perhaps it should be the church who sends them off in this direction, rather than some dubious internal "call." Meanwhile, praise God that the Holy Spirit does lead many into ministry, even if that call is first heard at youth camp.

Is This Baseball or Football?

2007-08-23T10:36:00.000-05:00

So, maybe my beloved Texas Rangers aren't going to win the World Series this year. But here's one way to get ESPN's attention: score a record 30 runs in one game! Baltimore's football team, the Ravens, haven't given up that many points since Week 12 in 2005!

Don't mess with Texas y'all!

Baptism and Church Membership (Again)

2007-08-20T13:43:00.000-05:00

The Baptism and Church Membership debate seems to be the hot topic in the blogosphere right now. Mark Dever has gone on record to say that the paedobaptists should not be accepted into the membership of a Baptist church because they are unbaptized and are thus in sin for disobeying God's commands. But as Abraham Piper points out, there is a difference between being an unrepentant sinner and being wrong about a theological point. Sam Storms has now weighed in with this comment:

Let me be clear on one thing. I am a credo-baptist, not a paedo-baptist. That is to say, I believe that only those who believe in Jesus Christ should receive the ordinance of water baptism.... Ligon Duncan, on the other hand, is a Presbyterian paedo-baptist. Because of this, both Mark Dever and Al Mohler made it clear that if Duncan were in attendance at either of their churches they would not permit him to partake of the elements of the Lord's Supper....
This may be offensive to some, but the claim to be "Together for the Gospel" rings a bit hollow to me when some would decline to fellowship with others around the Lord's Table because of their disagreement on the proper recipients of baptism.

For church planters like me, issues like these need to be carefully considered, and even more carefully applied.

Baptism and Church Membership

2007-08-09T11:59:00.000-05:00

The issue of credobaptism vs. paedobaptism is a serious debate, but one that most evangelicals agree should not divide us. But when it comes to church membership we have a problem. Should credobaptists admit paedobaptists into their membership? Wayne Grudem has recently changed his mind about this, but I agree with his earlier position. And so does John Piper, who writes:

When I weigh the kind of imperfection involved in tolerating an invalid baptism because some of our members are deeply persuaded that it is biblically valid, over against the kind of imperfection involved in saying to a son or daughter of the living God, “You are excluded from the local church,” my biblical sense is that the latter is more unthinkable than the former. The local church is a visible expression of the invisible, universal, body of Christ. To exclude from it is virtually the same as excommunication. And no serious church takes excommunication as an invitation to attend the church down the street.

The Problems with and without Fundamentalism

2007-08-06T14:55:00.000-05:00

Rick Phillips, who was not raised fundamentalist, explains why he is now choosing to send his children to a fundamentalist school. Among other reasons, "They get the Christian antithesis, that light has shined in the darkness and that we are to walk in the light and shine the light into the darkness."

In a response, Carl Trueman warns that Fundamentalism can create "a situation where others are only ever critiqued, not learned from, while we remain blissfully above correction."

The perspectives of these two men are helpful, and well worth reading. There is the tendency for those of us who are moving from Christian legalism to miss the important point that prevents us from finding good balance in Christian hedonism; namely, "that light has shined in the darkness and that we are to walk in the light and shine the light into the darkness." On the other hand, there is the temptation for fundamentalists, because of their sincere faith to fall into "a cultic mentality," as Trueman states.

HT: Between Two Worlds and Sean Michael Lucas

Goodbye, Mark. Braves are WS Bound!

2007-07-30T16:37:00.000-05:00

Here's the sad news: it will be the Braves, not the Rangers, who will win the World Series this year. (As a true Rangers fan, I was not throwing in the towel, until now.)

Here's Why I Believe in Logos Bible Software

2007-07-30T16:28:00.000-05:00

There are many good reasons why any serious Bible student should invest in, learn, and use Logos Bible Software. But here's the best reason I can think of: the company is dedicated to getting it right. This is a Bible study software that I am confident will always be on the cutting edge of research and analysis without compromising quality, even down to chapter and verse divisions.

An excerpt from this Logos blog post explains the difficulty with chapter and verse divisions in the Bible:

The LXX has a book called 2 Esdras (or Esdras B) that is a combination of Ezra and Nehemiah. The English bibles have a book called 2 Esdras that is not at all related to Ezra or Nehemiah, but is a non-canonical book not found in the Greek tradition at all - it is found in the Latin Bibles, where it is called 4 Esdras (or Esdrae or Ezrae) – 2 Esdras in the Vulgate refers to Nehemiah. But modern editions separate the core Jewish material of 4 Esdras from the Christian additions, and break 4 Esdras into EITHER 2, 4 and 5 Esdras OR 4, 5 and 6 Esdras. And to really add insult to injury, in the Slavonic and Russian bibles, 2 Esdras is the name for the English and Greek 1 Esdras, which is called 3 Esdras in the Latin because 1 Esdras in Latin is the book of Ezra. Except when it isn’t. So when a reference book, or a user of Bible software, writes ‘2 Esdras’ there are a great many places that reference could refer to.

So what has Logos done about this dilemma?

We’ve just finished a massive data project that defines the various structures of the different Bibles in all their glorious, gory detail, and allows for effortless transformations from one versification system to another. As it stands now, the project consists of 56.6 megabytes of xml files that look a lot like the snip pasted above. The new Bible data type generated from this data will be available to you, our dear customers, in the next major version of the software, which means the next version will have a higher degree of precision when it comes to Bible navigation, comparing Bible versions and viewing them in parallel, and Bible reference tagging.

Bible software that dares to be that precise will surely benefit anyone who uses it to study the Scriptures. Thank you Logos Bible Software!

Left Behind

2007-07-29T16:16:00.001-05:00

I was having a conversation recently with my pastor about the plight of the many Palestinian Christians who are ignored to a large extent by evangelicals in the West. Then I was reading about Christians United for Israel (CUFI) who recently held their Washington/Israel summit. CUFI finds support not only in religious leaders like founder John Hagee, but also in politicians like Tom DeLay and Joe Lieberman. A young Jewish man, Max Blumenthal, attended and reports about what he heard and saw (the 10-minute video is worth watching). It is sad (and scary) to see the passion and blind devotion so many have toward the Jewish political state. As Ben Witherington points out

What is perhaps most disturbing about this video is not how many Christians have bought this horribly distorted view of the Gospel and the future, and fervently believe it too, but how very clear it is that the mixing together of bad theology with bad politics results in a Devil's brew which makes the Gospel say just the opposite of what it says.

And that includes what the Gospel has to say about who God's people are in the Middle East. Bad Theology has contributed to the carelessness with which so many Arab believers are ignored by Christians in the West.

As my pastor said to me, "Brings new meaning to 'Left Behind.'"

Don't Focus on the Externals

2007-07-12T10:03:00.000-05:00

John Owen warns about attempting to deal with the sins of those who are not regenerate:

Some casuists (those who rigidly apply ethical rules) among ourselves, who, overlooking the necessity of regeneration, do avowedly give this for direction to all sorts of persons that complain of any sin or lust, that they should vow against it, at least for a season, a month or so, seem to have a scantling of light in the mystery of the gospel, much like that of Nicodemus when he came first to Christ. They bid men vow to abstain from their sin for a season. This commonly makes their lust more impetuous.

Earlier Owen says that preaching against sin--however good that may be in itself--if it does not lead to regeneration first is

like the beating of an enemy in an open field, and driving him into an impregnable castle, not to be prevailed against.

What make these words from Owen particularly challenging is that he addresses them to those who are "preachers of the word." To them he says

It is their duty to plead with men about sins, to lay load on particular sins, but always remember that it be done with that which is the proper end of law and gospel--that is, that they make use of the sin they speak against to the discovery of the state and condition wherein the sinner is; otherwise, haply, they may work men to formality and hypocrisy, but little of the true end of preaching the gospel will be brought about. It will not avail to beat a man off from his drunkenness into a sober formality.

I fear that many brothers who are involved in Christian legalism unknowingly find this to be the effect of their preaching in the ears of many who hear them. (Quotes from Overcoming Sin and Temptation, pp. 84-86).

The Mereness of Church

2007-06-29T17:53:00.000-05:00

Thabiti Anyabwile has been blogging on The Mereness of Church. I have enjoyed all of his posts. The latest post is entitled "Life Together." Commenting on the description of "church" in the first century given in Acts 2, Anyabwile notes

This passage in the early history of the church tends to stun us with the obvious and powerful supernatural acts of God on display. There were "many wonders and signs" and "the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved." It's as though our eyes tunnel in on these extraordinary aspects of that huddled mass of early Christianity.

We all look to Acts 2 for the hope of what church should be. But perhaps we're missing it in part because we've gotten away from the simplicity of what church should be. Again:

It's actually a pretty mere list. No vacation Bible school. No organized men's or women's fellowships. No alternative services for differing musical preferences. No special auxiliaries of the church for this or that social or political cause (and surely there were plenty to be involved in in 1st century (Rome and Jerusalem). Nothing mentioned about youth group or youth church. It's a pretty plain paper bag approach: teaching, fellowship, communion, and prayer.

The irony, as Anyabwile points out, is that we've sought for God's power to show up through our programs rather than in the basics of church because such basics are often begrudged by contemporary Christians. One more quote:

Prayer meetings are almost empty in most churches. People tire of doctrine and theology; they want something "practical" they tell us. Hospitality and fellowship are a lost discipline in many quarters; privacy and anonymity are vaulted values. For some, communion is an "add on" to the service, a ritual often not understood or esteemed even by many in the ministry.

I find myself driven to serve in and do life together with a church that looks to recover the "mereness" of life together. I found this book to offer a lot of good ideas on just how to do it (I know, there are a lot of other good ones out there, too.)

A Response Regarding Ann Coulter

2007-06-29T14:16:00.000-05:00

Darrell Bock responds to the Ann Coulter/Elizabeth Edwards fiasco. His response (along with a previous one by Al Mohler) demonstrate that many (most?) politically conservative Christians who tend to agree with her politics do not endorse her way of promoting her views. Bock concludes:

Most importantly, for those who wish for a high moral standard to our country’s community life, someone who claims the high moral ground on issues need not and cannot stoop so low and truly advance the causes they advocate. In fact no matter which side of the left-right fence you are on (or even if you are straddling it), no one can or should condone five year old behavior in what should be a very mature discussion. When it comes to the tone of our political discourse, we all may need to grow up. So let’s pick our models carefully.

Four Classes of Legalism

2007-06-27T22:29:00.001-05:00

For you who read blogs regularly, you may have already read this post from late last week. But I had to put it on this blog because I found it quite helpful. I have often thought that today's Christian legalists are modern-day Pharisees; but in some respects the accusation didn't seem to fit. Dan Doriani convincingly shows how

Class-four legalists can preach sermons in which every sentence is true, while the whole is oppressive. It is oppressive to proclaim Christ as the Lawgiver to whom we owe a vast debt, as if we must somehow repay him- - repay God! -- for his gifts to us.

So perhaps today's Christian legalists aren't exactly like the Pharisees of Jesus's day, but the title legalist may still fit just the same.

The entire article is worth your read if you are a recovering Christian legalist.

HT: Justin Taylor

Piper Books on Sale

2007-06-21T14:23:00.000-05:00

Get virtually every John Piper book for a mere $5 each on June 27-28.

Anyone else impressed with the way Desiring God runs their ministry? I must admit, however, that I might go broke next week gobbling up some books.

Dealing with the Gray Matters

2007-06-18T18:02:00.000-05:00

I just finished listening to the messages from this year's New Attitude Conference and can say that each message was spiritually challenging and refreshing. I would suggest that you download and listen to each one of them (they are free by the way!), but of particular note for this blog is the message by Eric Simmons entitled "Discern the Graymatters." This is of course an issue of big disagreement between fundamentalists and evangelicals. Eric takes a bit of a different approach to this issue which makes his message fresh and helpful. I plan to listen to the message again this week, and would like to challenge all fundamentalists to do the same. I will post again about the message when I finish reviewing it once more.

The audio files can be listened to or downloaded here.

Letting the Pastor Do What He Is Supposed to Do

2007-06-18T17:51:00.000-05:00

Dan Burrell makes some good suggestions on how the church can care for its pastor(s) so that they can be busy doing the things that really matter. The article is worth reading in its entirety, but here are his ten suggestions:
1. Insist that your pastor practices the Biblical principle of “Sabbath.”
2. Remember that the absence of active resistance is not the same as active support.
3. Send your pastor to the Mission Field at least once per year.
4. Fund his library.
5. Consider periodic sabbaticals.
6. Require him to take vacations at least 2 weeks at a time.
7. Send him and his wife to places for spiritual recharging.
8. Respect his private time and study time.
9. Come together as a church for an annual expression of appreciation.
10. Equip him for efficiency.

Seeker-Sensitive or Saint-Driven?

2007-06-06T16:19:00.000-05:00

I’ve been reading the book Growing Your Church Through Evangelism and Outreach (Edited by Marshall Shelley, Nashville: Moorings, 1996). One thing that is interesting about this book on church growth is the variety of contributors ranging from Bill Hybels (as one might expect) to Ravi Zacharias.

John MacArthur has a chapter entitled “Our Sufficiency for Outreach.” In it he shows his disdain for popular church growth techniques. The church, MacArthur contends, is primarily for saints, not for unbelievers. To quote (p. 159):

My calling as pastor is to lift God’s people before the Lord, to bring his Word to his people, and to equip them for their calling. Unbelievers, in a sense, are incidental to that primary purpose.

I would never think, How can I structure this service to accommodate unbelievers? or How can I make unbelievers want to attend? because that’s not our purpose—unless we are gearing a special meeting for evangelism. We do have an evangelism outreach on some Saturday and Sunday nights. But we would primarily ask our people to bring those they know.

The biblical pattern is that the church gathers to worship and be edified. It scatters to evangelize.

I tend to agree with MacArthur on this one. It is not that I do not think the church should be a place for evangelism, but it would seem that the church can be primarily seeker-driven or saint-driven, one or the other, but not both. And contrary to what one might think, the saint-driven church has every bit as much of an opportunity as the seeker-driven church to get its members actively involved in evangelism. Again quoting MacArthur (p. 160):

Christians have something non-Christians want. I trust that by giving our church people a clear understanding of the gospel, they will be able, when doors open, to start where people are and lead them to the good news of forgiveness and salvation.

Saint-driven churches are not by definition non-evangelistic churches. When we help professing Christians gain a deeper understanding of the gospel, they become the best evangelists for the church. So I prefer to see our efforts in the weekly worship service go first to equipping the saints for the work of the ministry. “Gather and scatter” rather than “Bring ‘em to win ‘em” is I think a better (and more biblical) approach to doing church.

Swindoll Is Cursing Now

2007-06-05T14:12:00.000-05:00

One of the most entertaining debates going on in the Christian blogosphere is over the appropriateness of certain kinds of language that push the envelope a bit. We all know about Mark Driscoll, and now John Piper seems to be getting more comfortable with profanity. What is happening?

Well now Chuck Swindoll has joined the camp of potty mouth preachers. Actually, this is not new, but recently the VCY Radio Network dropped Swindoll's Insight for Living Broadcast because of objections to some of the words that have come from Swindoll's lips. Here is part of the release from VCY:

Since 1979 VCY America has aired Insight For Living. Increasingly over recent years, VCY has been concerned about the content and direction of the IFL broadcasts with Chuck Swindoll. Through the years we have had multiple conversations with IFL regarding objections to content in their broadcasts. It is VCY’s position that certain language and illustrations used have been crude, vulgar, and from the gutter and have no place on Christian radio.

You can see a sample of the profanity Swindoll has been using here (if you so dare). While as Christians we should take great care the language we use, I wonder how serious this issue should be.

HT: C. Michael Patton

Why Fundamentalism Is Losing Its Younger Followers

2007-06-05T13:53:00.000-05:00

When I officially bolted from fundamentalism (by leaving the staff of an Independent Baptist Church to attend Dallas Seminary), I was asked by my pastor why so many of us young "preacher boys" were leaving fundamentalism. That is a great question that I wish could be discussed more often in fundamentalists circles.

Check out this explanation for why so many leave fundamentalism. Written by a professing fundamentalist, it seeks to engage Romans 14 from a fundamentalist perspective. I would love to hear your thoughts on this article, especially from those who are former "fundies" like me!

Is Speaking in Tongues Gaining Acceptance?

2007-05-25T17:20:00.000-05:00

According to this USA Today article, glossolalia is gaining acceptance in many Christian groups, and institutions like Dallas Seminary and Campus Crusade for Christ are leading the way.

Will Hall, spokesman for the SBC, says the denomination has no official policy on speaking in tongues for its churches or individual members. But there are other signs the practice is gaining acceptance. Dallas Theological Seminary and Campus Crusade for Christ, two strongholds of independent Christianity, have done away with restrictions on tongue-speaking for students and staff.

See the DTS official response here. Of course, for those of us who would like to see more openness to non-cessationist theology, the ongoing debate within the Southern Baptist Convention should be a matter of intense prayer.

Posing as an Expert

2007-05-24T16:02:00.000-05:00

You may already be familiar with the following dialogue between Charles T. Russell (founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses) and an Attorney. Under cross-examination, Russell proved he was no expert in Greek (and that he frequently contradicted himself):

Attorney: "Do you know the Greek alphabet?"
Russell: "Oh yes."
Attorney: "Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?"
Russell: "Some of them; I might make a mistake on some of them."
Attorney: "Would you tell me the names of those on top of the page, page 447, I have got here?"
Russell: "Well, I don't know that I would be able to."
Attorney: "You can't tell what those letters are? Look at them and see if you know."
Russell: "My way..." [he was interrupted at this point and not allowed to explain].
Attorney: "Are you familiar with the Greek language?"
Russell: "No."

(Quoted in Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, 84-85.)

I make reference to this infamous account, not to make a point about Jehovah's Witnesses alone, but to all those who try to pass themselves off as "experts." It is particularly dangerous when such impostors pretend to deal with matters of the soul.

I could not verify this story of a Fundamental Baptist professor making up Greek words, but I certainly don't doubt that it could have happened. (Even if the story is made up or the details have been clouded, it's still good for a laugh, and my point still stands).

HT: Daniel Phillips

Falwell the Liberal

2007-05-23T12:43:00.000-05:00

I have waited a long time to make this post, but I thought this would be a good way to get back into the saddle of updating this blog. Yesterday was the funeral celebration for Jerry Falwell, and plenty has already been said about the life of this man, both by those who loved and admired him as well as those whose hatred of this man ran just as passionately.

I want to use the life of Jerry Falwell and all that he stood for to make another point more appropriate for the purposes of this blog. Jerry Falwell is a fine example of how to be a theological fundamentalist without becoming a Christian legalist. You see, to those who know the kind of Christian legalism I’ve known, Jerry Falwell was a liberal!

In December of 1998 I was home from college for the Christmas holiday. This was during the time of the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings, and one of my relatives, a committed Democrat who was obviously disgusted with the Clinton saga, was also visiting us. As expected we ended up in a political discussion, and somehow Jerry Falwell’s name was brought up. Imagine the surprise my relative received when he heard me refer to Falwell as a liberal! I’ll never forget watching my relative laugh harder than I’ve ever seen him laugh before, undoubtedly trying to find some emotional release to digest how far to the right I must be if I viewed Falwell as a liberal. Could one even be more to the right of Jerry Falwell without falling off the planet? Surely such a person would be completely out of touch with reality.

But I was only repeating things I had been taught. At college, a chapel speaker told the female students, “If you want to wear your pants, go to Liberty University!” And while leaving the Independent Baptist Church I first worked in to attend Dallas Seminary, my pastor questioned how I could go to such a “liberal” school as Dallas Seminary!

The idea that Liberty University is too lax on its rules for students and that Dallas Seminary is a “liberal” theological school could only be held by someone who would also be willing to call Jerry Falwell a liberal. Unfortunately, these are the ideas of many trapped in Christian legalism. The rest of the world wonders what planet we are on when we can’t even endorse the ministry of Billy Graham!

Of course, part of the problem lies in how we define words. When I referred to Jerry Falwell as a liberal, I certainly did not mean politically. Most Christian Legalists I know are/were ardent supporters of the Moral Majority. But I also did not mean he was a liberal theologically, though that’s what I thought I meant. At the time I probably agreed with all of Falwell’s theological and dispensational views, just like my former pastor who accused me of going to the “liberal” Dallas Seminary probably agreed with most every theological point affirmed at DTS. When I said Jerry Falwell was a “liberal,” I could only have meant that I believed Falwell was on the “slippery slope” of compromise by not holding to strict separatist behavior. Indeed, Falwell by that time had already jumped ship to join with those “liberal” Southern Baptists.

Jerry Falwell was a fundamentalist, but he seemed to know how (unlike most fundamentalists) to unite with other evangelicals. For this, I applaud him and his life, as have other evangelicals in the days since his death. He was not afraid of academics and intellectual integrity, and this served to balance his fundamentalism. May other fundamentalists learn to do likewise, and then they may find more evangelicals willing to be called fundamentalists once again.

The Sword Speaks Out on Christian Blogging

2007-03-27T17:45:00.000-05:00

Shelton Smith, editor of the Sword of the Lord, has this to say about Christians and blogging:

The blogosphere is mostly about molehills, not mountains. But a lot of good people are being smeared without mercy over the molehills. That’s shameful!
The current state of things in the Christian blogosphere could more aptly be described as a “blab-a-sphere.” I hope that will start to change.

As a start, a lot of the bloggers could shut off their computers, shut down their blog, get a good night’s sleep for a change and see about doing something really constructive when the morning comes.

Guess I better head off to bed.

HT: SharperIron

Don't forget the grace

2007-03-15T11:35:00.000-05:00

One of the things that will inevitably be discussed here is the effect that "seeker-sensitive" ministry models and others like them have had on evangelical Christianity in the West. Here is a sample of one such critique, specifically of Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven" model. The article is worth your reading, but also be sure to read the comments. This comment to the above-mentioned post has much to consider:

I may not agree with everything that comes out of Saddleback, but I do know they are being used by God to make an impact for the kingdom and for His fame! There is really no reason to bash them…one responder to your blog said Rick was an enemy of the cross! This kind of blog only creates divisive attitudes in the kingdom! Who are you to questions Rick’s salvation…I laugh at your ridiculous brashness…Pharisees question peoples commitment to God!

Brothers and sisters, we need to hear the truth, but let's not forget the grace! Our critiques of Willow Creek and Saddleback do not have to become judgmental decisions of whether or not God is pleased with such ministries. I for one am convinced that God is using even "Christian legalism" to expand his kingdom. Yes, much harm comes through imperfect views of the Gospel; praise God for his grace.

Hey Parents, Don't raise a Pharisee

2007-03-10T20:56:00.000-06:00

Carey Hardy, former Senior Executive Pastor at Grace Community Church, offers some good warnings for parents so that they don't raise their children up to be Pharisees. He begins:

The counterpart to the Pharisees today is the people who are afraid to allow Christians to live only with God’s Word. To biblical principles they add rules, regulations, and standards…and then come to the point of believing they are part of the Scriptures themselves.

This is the way it is for legalists—God lays down a principle, and then man reduces God’s great principle to a set of rules that may be burdensome but that certainly remove individual responsibility for making choices. Finally, man elevates rule-keeping to a mark of spirituality and judges himself and others by it.

He then offers a 12-step program to raising a Pharisee (so we can all be on our guard against these 12 steps).

HT: Justin Taylor

Shepherd's Conference

2007-03-08T15:26:00.000-06:00

Tim Challies is blogging about John MacArthur's Shepherd's Conference. For those of us who aren't so privileged to attend, it is very helpful to read about what is going on. Tim's blog offers a very thorough review of each of the messages that are delivered there. You will want to stay up to date by checking out this blog.

Behavior and Sanctification

2007-03-07T16:01:00.000-06:00

I do not doubt the sincerity of most Christian legalists. Having been one, I know that what drove much of my legalistic views was a sincere desire for holiness. I wanted to be separated from the world so that I could be holy. But there were certain things about myself and others that made other Christian legalists feel like we were not completely dedicated to this quest for personal holiness. I was (and still am) quite competitive, and my desire to win on the basketball court was sometimes mistaken for carnal pride. Others who did not as readily display such emotion were occasionally mistaken to be further along in their sanctification. Unfortunately, my passionate personality for winning a basketball game seemed incompatible with my quest for godliness.

I am beginning to read from the Puritan theologian John Owen, and today found this helpful comment.

Remember that of many of the best Christians, the worst is known and seen. Many who keep up precious communion with God do yet oftentimes by their natural tempers of freedom or passion, not carry so glorious appearances as others who perhaps come short of them in grace and the power of godliness. (Quoted in Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor, eds., Overcoming Sin and Temptation: Three Classic Works by John Owen, p. 30).

We must beware of the all-to-common temptation of judging spirituality by external behavior. While I do not mean to advocate a holiness without externals, I am learning that behavior is impacted by temperament as well as sin.