Eyes Open Wide

Can We Really Know God?

2010-09-06T16:58:00.006-05:00

Note: This is the second in a series of letters I'm sending to my adult/near adult children, minus (of course) the family business. Thanks for the comments received on the last post... they really are welcome. DC

________________________________

September 6, 2010

Dear Kids,

It's Labor Day today, and I can't believe how fast the time is going! We're back in the swing of Fall activity, with new schools for some of you and new challenges for all. We are so proud of each one of you, and we're looking forward to what the year brings. Mom and I are doing well, although it is more of an adjustment than I expected with all of you gone (or very nearly so).

You're all entering into a new time of study, all at Christian schools with God's Word and truth central to your studies. I can't tell you how happy that makes Mom and me, and how worthwhile an investment we think it is. In my last email, I wrote to you about the fact that "God Is," meaning that He's important, and real. He's our "problem" because He exists, and we all must deal with Him on His own terms. But what difference does that make, really? I want to remind you that God Is "Knowable" - we can know who He is - and that knowledge of Him will lead us to trust Him with our lives.

Think about it for a minute: Can we really "know God"? I read the CNN Belief Blog occasionally, and saw this exchange in comments under a post by my "favorite" author, Brian McLaren (who's got a graduate degree in uncertainty, it seems). Someone named "Liutgard" said this:

"I've been flirting with agnosticism for many years- because I think that it is not possible to really 'know', and I found that the more someone insists that they 'know' God and his will, the less likely they are to actually behave like Jesus said they should.

But the past couple of months I've been attending an Episcopal church- it appeals to my sense of ritual and tradition, but also to by desire to see faith really in action. Food banks, homeless shelters, etc- Episcopalians don't run them so as to have an avenue to preach at people, but because it is a way to reach out to the community and obey the teachings of Christ. I still don't 'know', but they are happy to see me when I walk in the door, and I can worship or not as fits my comfort level. Certainly nothing like the Pentecostal churches I grew up in."

In reply, "David H." said:

"As a life-long Episcopalian, welcome! You seem to 'get it' about us. The Episcopal Church isn't about Orthodoxy (right belief or right thought), it's about Orthopraxy (right practice – i.e. how we do our liturgy). Remember, as the old joke goes, 'Wherever two or more Episcopalians are gathered in His name, there will be three or more opinions.'"

Are they right? I'm finding that it is increasingly counter-cultural to claim that "you know" anything, especially in matters about God. Even in the church, there seem to be multiple views on almost every important topic. There are lots of reasons for this (and why it's a problem), and someday when you've got a free day to kill, you can read my copy of No Place For Truth by David Wells - it's a great place to start. One reason for this reaction - this hostility - that our culture has towards "knowing" has to do with the confusion between opinion and fact. To be more specific, I'm convinced that when people talk about "knowing" something in the spiritual realm, people hear them saying that they have a really strong opinion - and that rubs people the wrong way in a pluralistic society. But knowing isn't just simply having an opinion (or even a strong one) on something - it's a confident assurance in belief based on the facts. In other words, it isn't what I think; it's what I know is actually, really, objectively, true - and not just for me, but for you, too.

Let me ask you to think about this sometime this week: Do you believe that you can "know" God like that? No Sunday School answers to this question, guys. Remember, most people (at least practically) don't. Many will say that we can't even know if God really exists! Others may accept God's existence, but they don't believe that we can know God... at least not in any way that is worth risking your life for! Your Mom and I believe that you can - and you should.

Isn't it presumptuous to claim that our understanding of God is right? Said another way, we believe that while we can't know God fully, we can know Him truly. I'm not saying that we can know God fully or completely. After all, how can finite people fully comprehend the infinite God? We can know what He has revealed about Himself to us. I want to point out that God reveals Himself in two specific ways - and I wanted to mention the first way this week.

God reveals Himself to everyone in Creation. Theologians call this "general revelation" because its available generally to everyone. All people can know of God's existence, character and God's moral law through observing creation itself. After all, "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1). God has provided evidence, all around us, of His existence, power and character! The intricacy of creation, the scope of the universe, the miracle of life, the wonder of relationship, the tiny fingers of a baby - all of creation shouts to anyone who will listen that there is a God. All of this can not exist by random chance!

Perhaps you saw the press coverage this last week of Stephen Hawking's soon to be released new book The Grand Design. He argues that modern science eliminates even the need to see God's hand in the design of the universe:

"Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." (emphasis added)

I'm certainly not going to pick a fight with Dr. Hawking - he'd run rings around me intellectually. But even a Dad can understand that his argument is (at best) silly. One wonders where he supposes that "the laws of gravity and quantum theory" came from! Some people think it's arrogant to believe in the existence of God, but what would you say about someone who thinks they know so much that they can rule out God's existence?

In his letter to the Roman church, Paul says very specifically that

"...what can be know about God is plain to [all men] because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20).(emphasis added)

And there's more about general revelation that's available to everyone as well. For example, people's consciences tell them that there is a right and a wrong - even imperfectly. We all have, at some level, a hunger for justice... to see wrongs righted and evil punished. All of these things are gifts from God, and a reflection of His character. They are part of what it means to be made "in the image of God." So, through external and internal observation and evidence, we can know that there is a God, something of His amazing power and influence in our world and something of His requirements for us. And these observations are true even though many people don't pay attention to them (we'll talk more about why when we get to the "Man Isn't" email). For now, remember that we believe that everyone has the opportunity to know God - to know that "God Is" - at least to some degree if they want to do so.

So that's enough for today. I'll pass on some more about this in my next email. Let me ask you this today: Do you want to go beyond opinions about God, and to really know Him? I'm sitting in the office at home alone this afternoon - with memories of you all everywhere. I can almost hear your voices... I can almost still see you here. That's because I love you, and my eyes are open to see the things that you've done and who you are. They are everywhere I look. So, look for God in your world that way this week... you'll see Him everywhere... if you'll just look for it. And you can know it for sure.

Love always,

Dad

The MOST Important Thing In Life

2010-07-31T17:35:00.013-05:00

What Is The Most Important Thing In Life?

Note: The following is the first in a series of letters I'm sending to my adult/near adult children. I'm posting these - minus (of course) any really personal stuff - because what I'm seeking to communicate is important enough to stand scrutiny, clarification, and even correction. So feel free to comment. It's welcome, and helpful

I offer this with the hope that the discussion will help all of us to see what really matters... and to respond appropriately as a result. - DC

________________________________

July 31, 2010

Hi Kids!

We've reached a new stage in life: The stage where I have to write to you to communicate things we used to just talk about! We haven't had all four of you in the same state for more than a couple of days for quite some time now. I can't tell you how much I miss the daily interaction with all of you. You're all growing up way too fast, and it seems like there's never enough time to talk about what's REALLY important.

And maybe this is a good way to continue our conversations. After all, this process will spare you from those long pauses in my talking... you know the ones that you've all complained so much about. (By the way, that's a genetic trait passed down from generations, and it's coming at you faster than you realize!)

And you aren't children anymore, either. Mom and I are very proud of each of you. I also feel strongly enough about what I want to say to allow you to digest it at your own pace.

What's So Important?
Let me start this way: I've spent a lot of time over the past 12 months thinking about this question: What Is THE Most Important Thing In Life?

This should be an easy question for "church kids" to answer, but I want to ask you to think about it with me. I'll also tell you where I'm headed longer term, so we don't get lost along the way. In summary, I believe that there are four essential things you need to get clearly settled in your mind. These four truths will be an anchor for you, and will form the foundation for everything that matters in your life... really! There are that:

God is...
Man is not...
Jesus did...
As a result, We must...

We'll unpack each of those statements one at a time (and thankfully, not all in this letter!). While I've got more to say about this, think first about the average person's reaction to "God." Most people seem really not to care about the subject in any meaningful way. Even people who are religious, or who even claim to know and/or love God can spend the vast majority of their time ignoring Him! But if God is, and ESPECIALLY if God is who He says He is, that doesn't seem to be such a great idea, does it?

What's the Right Answer?

Do you remember the old joke about the Baptist Sunday School teacher who, in a class "warm up" session, asked her 3rd grade class to identify a picture of a small mammal? No one would answer and, after being put on the spot, one boy said this:

"Well, I know the answer is Jesus, but that thing sure looks like a squirrel!"

That boy "knew the right answer" - but "the answer" really didn't seem to match reality. And while he misunderstood the question and thought he was supposed to give the "Sunday School" answer, the point remains that those of us who grew up with one way of looking at the world are often thrown for a loop when the real world challenges our assumptions. And just like that Sunday School boy, you're old enough to realize now that the "Sunday School" answers don't always seem to fit in the real world.

You all understand by now that the "real world" of 21st century America sees EVERYTHING as more important than our "Sunday School" answers. The pursuit of comfort and entertainment, personal fulfillment and pleasure are the basis for our entire popular social, political and economic system! "Fun" is what people live for these days.

But our family answer to my question - the "Sunday School" answer - is that GOD IS the MOST important Thing In Life. But we also know that this is a strange, unrealistic and (worst of all) impractical answer in our culture.

Let me suggest two thoughts about this, and ask you two more questions. These may seem obvious to you, but they are radically different from the way people think today:

My first thought: God is. By this I mean that the subject of God Himself is the most important thing in life. There is no more important thing to think about, no higher subject, no more practical topic than God Himself.

Newsflash: Most people don't think so!

Today is my parent's 56th wedding anniversary. Every year that I remember when I was growing up, they went away to Door County, Wisconsin to celebrate their anniversary together. And every year, Nana and Papa read together the book The Knowledge of The Holy, written by their pastor for years, A. W. Tozer at the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church in Chicago. In it, Tozer says this:

"What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us...".

Tozer was right, and I know this in part because I saw that Nana and Papa showed that they believed God was important in the way they lived their lives! Your Mom and I hope that we have communicated to you what we believe about God in the same way.

When something is important to you, you think about it. You talk about it. You pursue it. You care about it. Not just once a week or on holidays, or when life goes wrong and you need help. If God Is, than God is IMPORTANT.

So here's Question 1: When people look at you and your life, do they think that you think God is important?

My second thought (and it's closely related to the first): God IS. That is to say, not only is the topic of God the most important thing in life, but God Actually Exists.

Newsflash: Most people don't think so.

Some people don't believe in God in the first place. They see people like us as curiosities, maybe throw-backs to a by-gone era. I've had people tell me that "religion is a crutch" for psychologically needy people. They think "God" is something we manufacture to protect ourselves from the ultimate meaninglessness of life.

Bonus thought: By the way, when you run into someone accusing you of believing in God "for emotional reasons," consider R.C. Sproul's response. In his book Defending Your Faith: An Introduction Into Apologetics, Sproul points out that while of course he has an emotional draw towards believing in God, Atheists may also have an emotional need underlying their denial of God. After all, if God exists (especially as described in the Bible), than people aren't autonomous after all - and they are to be held to God's standards of conduct, not to what THEY think is right!

Also, while other people aren't willing to deny the existence of God, they misunderstand who He really is. They may be "deists" in their theology, seeing God as a supreme being who created the universe but who doesn't get involved in human affairs. Like a clock-maker, he made the world ("wound it up") and now sits on the sidelines watching how things play out. Others believe in a God that they've made up - maybe like an old, befuddled, rich Grandfather, who helps them out when they need him, but generally stays out of the way. In any case, these are people who accept the possibility or even the existence of God, but that belief doesn't make any practical difference in their life.

If God does exist, that that is A BIG DEAL. The existence of an all-powerful, omnipotent being casts more than a little shadow over the fun most people are pursuing! Tozer also pointed to this:

"All the problems of heaven and earth, though they were to confront us together and at the same time, would be nothing compared with the overwhelming problem of God: That He is; what He is like; and what we as moral beings must do about him..."

To put it simply, the existence of God is a problem. Mankind's GREATEST problem... OUR greatest problem. As Sigmund Freud once said, the worst thing imaginable would be to fall into the hands of "the superior power of fate," and ESPECIALLY if that "fate" is an all-powerful and holy God!

So here's Question 2: When people look at you and your life, how real do they think that you believe God actually is... and how are you addressing "the problem of God" in your daily life?

That's what I wanted to say to you this time. I'm hoping that I can prompt you somehow, in the midst of grad school, college or high school - in the midst of friends and fun, school and dreaming about the future - to consider that GOD IS. And because He is, pursuing Him, knowing Him, loving Him... well, dealing with Him is The Most Important Thing In Life. And not just because it's "the right answer," but because your are gripped by the reality that most people sadly miss.

You know I've been working on our family genealogy. I've been able (through Papa's sister's work) to trace our family back 13 generations to a man named John Rogers from England. He was born in 1500, and was notable first because he was responsible for printing the first English Bible translated from the original languages into English! He was caught up in the Reformation controversy in England, and stood firmly, boldly and publicly for God - even in the midst of hostile religious and political times.

In 1555, he was sentenced to die for what he believed. The story strikes me because he was my age when this happened! You can read the whole story in Chapter XVI of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, but on February 4, 1555, in the Smithfield area of London, England, this actually happened:

"When the time came that he should be brought out of Newgate Prison to Smithfield, the place of his execution, Mr. Woodroofe, one of the sheriffs, first came to John Rogers, and asked him if he would [recant]. Rogers answered, 'That which I have preached I will seal with my blood.' Then Mr. Woodroofe said, 'Thou art an heretic.' Rogers replied 'That will be known at the Day of Judgment.' Mr. Woodroofe added, 'I will never pray for thee.' Though Rogers responded, 'But I will pray for you.'"

Your Great-Grandfather (11 times removed) John Rogers awaited and met death - burned at the stake - cheerfully! A little while before his burning, they offered again him a pardon if he would renounce his faith, but he utterly refused it. The fire was lit and he washed his hands in the flames as though he did not feel them! He became the first of hundreds to die at the hand of Queen "Bloody" Mary. And why? Because he believed that GOD IS. He knew what was REALLY important... and he died for it. More importantly, perhaps, he lived for it, too.

This is part of our family legacy... it's in our blood, so to speak. So I'm praying that you see the reality of what really matters in life, that you feel it - "that the eyes of your heart would be enlighted in order that you may know..." And this starts with seeing God as important, and real. After all, "anyone who would please Him must first believe that He is..." (Hebrews 11:6).

Well, more next time. I love you all very much. No matter how near or far you are from home, we're thinking about you. We pray for you daily, and will be excited to see what life has in store for each of you this year.

Love always,

Dad

A New Look...

2010-07-28T23:07:00.000-05:00

OK, finally.

I've been on a semi-enforced sabbatical from the old blog for quite a while now... and there have been some changes in the ol' Doulos neighborhood.

You'll note that there's a new blog name here... in light of the ongoing conversation here, we decided to retire the "No Pearls" name... we've also changed the URL of the blog to www.eyesopenwide.net (but for a while, the old links will still work), and a word of explanation is likely in order.

I'd like us to see well. That's why I'm writing.

At my semi-advanced age, I think a lot about seeing. I wear reading glasses almost all the time, and am as blind as a bat without my contacts in. At night, Mrs. Doulos laughs regularly at my repeated tendency to slam my foot into the bed in the dark. To see well, I need light.

But I have to admit that's not enough. My Ophthalmologist tells me my prescription is about 20-1 Gazillion... without glasses or contacts, I couldn't see the computer screen here! To see well, I need correction.

But even that isn't enough. Last year I preached monthly at Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago... one night, time was short, my preaching segment was abbreviated, and I was "on a mission" - I was animated, engaged, passionate and intent on staying within my allotted time. I did (barely) and, after the service ended, my pastor (who was visiting that night) came up to me and said this: "I can't believe you did that!"

I was very pleased with my self, thinking that he was complimenting me for my ability to finish a message on time - maybe even for the value of the content. I discovered soon enough, though, that I misunderstood (and this ACTUALLY HAPPENED): Pastor K was impressed that I had continued my message without being terribly distracted by - and I'm not exaggerating - the guy who had THROWN UP in the front row during my message! I don't know if I'm proud or frightened by this fact, but the truth is... I didn't see it at all.

The lights were on and my contacts were in... but I needed more: To see well, I needed to focus beyond my agenda.

And that's what I'm hoping to share here.

I've spent quite a bit of time in the book of Ephesians this last year... what a wonderful book! I've been struck often, though, by Paul's prayer for his readers in Chapter 1, starting in verse 18:

"I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way."

That's my prayer here. That my eyes - and those who read this - would be "enlightened" by God's truth. We're all in the dark spiritually. We all are born blind spiritually. We all are unable to see what's going on around us because we're consumed with our own lives and agendas.

Paul saw those things in the lives of those he cared about in Ephesus. And his prayer was that they would see. That they would see what God had done - and who He is... that they would see who they really were - and what was really important. And it's my prayer too - for me, and for you.

So, we'll start again. I'll welcome your comments - especially in this next series. I'll be posting a series of letters to my children about what really matters. I'm posting it because - well, it really matters, and if I'm wrong, I'm counting on you to weigh in.

I'll explain more in the next post. But for now, let's get started again!

--------------
The Eyes Wide Open header is a picture of the caves in Gunung Mulu National Park in Borneo, Malaysia.

Where Have You Been?

2010-05-09T17:06:00.000-05:00

Watch for the re-launch of The Pearls over the next week or so; A new layout, a new topic for discussion - but the same old concern for Plain Speaking and Truth. Details to follow...

Should Christians "Forgive" Everyone?

2009-09-11T08:30:00.001-05:00

I don't frequently just re-post someone else's article, but this one really has me thinking... Are we to "forgive everyone" unconditionally? When wronged, are we merely to "forgive and forget"? Is that the Biblical mandate?

The author makes a convincing argument that we are NOT to do that. In part:

"Christians are not called to automatically forgive every offense. Rather, we should offer forgiveness to all. Said another way, we should maintain an attitude of forgiveness. But biblical forgiveness is more than a feeling. It is something that happens between two parties, and it takes place in the fullest sense only when the offending party repents and the relationship is restored..."

It is, I think, very helpful to adopt a Biblical approach to forgiveness... especially these days. All too often, breaches happen in relationships - from families to churches - and it is very uncommon to find people willing to do the hard work of actually addressing the breach. How many marriages, families, friendships or church memberships are shattered - with potentially years of wasted time - because the parties involved don't want to address the problem?

So here"s my question: In the case of a relational breach, are we Biblical when we ignore the breach and "let time heal all wounds" or should we offer forgiveness freely, but withhold it's delivery until repentence and restoration is achieved?

If you missed the link above, you can find the entire article at http://www.reformation21.org/articles/unpacking-forgiveness.php.

Evangelical Confusion: What Is Justification?

2009-08-01T17:44:00.018-05:00

Confusing? Sometimes the direction you get just isn't really helpful...

If you're listening, you've noticed that there is a LOT of confusion in the Evangelical church these days… in a LOT of areas. Many - even pastors - seem confused (at best). Certainly, the lack of practical commitment to sound doctrine lends itself to this confusion, and the Evangelical trend towards viewing doctrine as divisive has lead to increasing distain – at both the lay level and even among leadership - for precision and consistency in theology.

American Evangelicalism is increasingly a sub-culture which seems determined to distance itself from its historical roots. The bounds of orthodoxy are being stretched in every direction, churches are setting aside their own historic distinctives, and practical theological training is increasingly ignored or even ridiculed in some Evangelical circles. (I confess to not understanding the reasoning for this; after all, I don’t think any of us want to go to a dentist who didn’t go to dental school! But that’s the subject for another post.)

If what we think about God matters, it’s no wonder there is rampant confusion, even on this fundamental question: What is the Gospel?

How do you answer that question?
I’ve been astonished as I’ve listened to answers from those who claim to represent Jesus. Too often, their response is some variant around the theme of personal transformation – that is, what I have done, am doing now, or what I have experienced. It may sound something like this: “I was [bad/unhappy/unfulfilled/addicted, etc.], but I accepted Jesus and now I’m [getting better, etc.]” Said another way, the answer is “inside” us. It is the Good News about our transformation.*

If anecdotal evidence is at all indicative, the common Evangelical answer is miles away from the way the Bible defines the Gospel… which is the objective declaration of the finished, historical work of Jesus Christ, particularly in His death and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). What happens to us (through the work of the Holy Spirit) is the result of the Gospel - not the Gospel itself... and that is an important distinction to remember.

There is a lot of confusion these days in the Evangelical church about this. Even where Biblical doctrine is affirmed in a church's statement of faith, all too often the primary focus of attention in ministry practice is on changing a person's life without addressing what they believe! These churches operate under a false dichotomy (“we’re not interested in doctrine, we’re interested in life” or “we don’t want ‘head-knowledge,’ we want to live the gospel”), as if they had never read Romans 12:1-2! This has lead to a de-emphasis on - and even more importantly, a lack of confidence in, Truth as revealed in Scripture, and an over-emphasis on one's personal experience. This is why sound doctrine is a bad word in many circles, and the focus of ministry is shifting from "mind-renewing" to the pragmatic focus on pietism and personal fulfillment.

Here's my question: Is “the Gospel” at its core the good news about Jesus or good news about us?

I’m not saying, of course, that we are not transformed by the Gospel – we are (2 Corinthians 5:17). But the shift in focus has led to a growing confusion among the rank and file in Evangelicalism between “justification” and “sanctification.”

So, What's the Difference?
The Biblical position is that justification is a legal determination which occurs on the basis of faith the finished work of Jesus Christ alone. In temporal terms it is an event, and distinguished from the process of sanctification. That is what Evangelicals have historically believed as essential.

Other positions deviate from the Biblical view. For example, the Catholic position historically (effectively) has been that “justification” is sanctification. Similarly, while claiming “Evangelical” status, N.T. Wright’s position in his variant of the “New Perspectives on Paul” is essentially the same - that we are justified (finally and definitively) at the end of our life “on the basis of the whole life lived.” Sadly, the view of the average current Evangelical is strikingly similar in practice. Because the Good News we share is about our personal transformation, the primary assurance of our salvation is also our personal transformation. Our assurance is undermined by an honest evaluation of our lives and our own current performance!

No wonder Semi-Palagianism is the default theology of the Evangelical movement** as the common thought seems to be that one can lose the salvation God has given. Some people try to ignore theological labels and, if pressed, seek to draw a distinction between “assurance” and “security” (the former being knowing that you have been converted and the latter that you will persevere). Others seek to try to carve out novel positions, like “God won’t let go of you, but you can somehow 'nullify' God's work on your behalf.” (I'm serious! I've heard both taught... and they are both are just variants of the same old Semi-Palagian thinking).

It is important to be precise in our understanding between our justification and our sanctification because it underscores the source of our confidence. So let’s draw the distinction:

Said simply, the Bible teaches that justification is being legally declared righteous by God. This happens only one time and changes our legal standing before God as a result of faith in the finished work of Jesus on our behalf (Romans 5:17-19). Sanctification is being made experientially righteous by God over time by God. This is a process, continuing through our lives, and it is both the work of God and something we are commanded to pursue (Philippians 2:12-13). They are both part of the Salvation process, but they are different. More precisely:

Justification is the legal determination made by God Himself, which addresses everyone’s “most urgent need” – that is, the need to deal with our condition by birth of being enemies of God and under His Divine wrath. We are born with a sin nature, hostile to – and enemies of - God Himself (Romans 1:18, 3:23, 5:12, etc.). We all stand guilty before Him (Romans 3:23). In other words, we have two distinct, but related problems: First, we are sinners (that is, NOT righteous), and second, we have sinned – that is, we deserve God’s wrath. The first separates us from God and the second demands punishment. And the good news is that God has dealt with this Himself on behalf of those whom He has chosen (Romans 8:29-30) in two very important ways:

First, God addressed our need for punishment by making Jesus to be a propitiation by his blood on our behalf (Romans 3:25). This means that Jesus’ death paid the penalty due to us by God’s righteous wrath for our sin. He paid our price for us and, as a result, we are forgiven… “just as if” we had never sinned. This is why the Biblical view of the work of Jesus on the cross is described as a substitionary atonement. But that by itself does not address the whole problem, because if that were it, we still would be separated from God because of our unrighteous nature and our failure to be perfect in His sight. So...

Second, to address our unrighteousness and imperfection, God imputed Jesus’ perfect righteousness to us (Romans 4). In other words, God credits the righteousness of Jesus to those of us who believe. This faith itself is, of course, itself a gift from God – not of works (Romans 4, Ephesians 2, etc.) This second point is increasingly lost in Evangelical discussion, but it is critical to understand. Wayne Grudem, in his systematic theology, says this:

"It is essential to the heart of the gospel to insist that God declares us to be just or righteous not on the basis of our actual condition of righteousness or holiness, but rather on the basis of Christ's perfect righteousness, which he thinks of as belonging to us. This was the heart of the difference between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism at the Reformation. Protestantism since the time of Martin Luther has insisted that justification does not change us internally and it is not a declaration based in any way on any goodness that we have in ourselves." (Grudem, Systematic Theology 1994, p. 727)

Grudem rightly contrasts this with the Roman Catholic view, which mixes justification with sanctification, defining it (for example, from the Council of Trent) as as "the sanctifying and renewing of the inner man" (Grudem, p. 727, quoting Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.257).

So, Why Does It Matter?
The difference - and the implications - between the Protestant and Catholic view are massive. It is critically important because a misunderstanding between these two parts of salvation leads to all sorts of confusion around whether or not we can have assurance of our salvation... and what that assurance (if any) really looks like. If you believe that your assurance depends on your personal transformation – as many seem to these days, you will have a very difficult time accepting the Biblical teaching on assurance. On the other hand, if your confidence rests on what Jesus has done, you will find the comfort and encouragement that God has intended for His children (1 John 5:13).

If one sees their personal progress in holiness (that is, their sanctification) as an evidence of their legal standing before God (that is, their justification), any sin at all calls their status before God into question. But the Good News is that God has – in the past – historically and finally – justified us. Made us right with Himself… forgiven us and credited us with the righteousness of Jesus Christ himself. And here is my point: The reason that we can have confidence before God is all based on the finished work of Jesus Christ – not on our personal transformation or other "inner"experience. The Good News is an external, objective reality… not an internal, subjective experience.

Of course we are being transformed (or sanctified)… and the God will complete the work He has begun in us (Philippians 1:6). All who have been justified are being sanctified. But the two must not be confused, because all Christians continue to wrestle with sin… it is our experience in this life (Romans 7). We cry out with Paul in the struggle between who we are currently and eschatologically (Romans 7:15-25). As we grow in knowing God and understanding His character and requirements, we see ourselves falling farther and farther short and who we are to be.

The problem, of course, is that Evangelical teaching is all too frequently indistinguishable from Catholic doctrine on this point. Mike Horton touched on the growing confusion about this in the Evangelical movement - and its implications - in the October 21, 2007 edition of the White Horse Inn (“Faith and Assurance”). He said this:

"In his book Revisioning Evangelical Theology, Stanley Grenz argued that Evangelicalism is more a spirituality than a theology, more interested in individual piety than in creeds, confessions, doctrines and liturgies. Experience gives rise to, in fact determines doctrine - rather than the other way around. The main point of the Bible, he says, is how the stories can be used in daily living. He goes on to write this:

“Although some Evangelicals belong to ecclesiological traditions that understand the Church as in some ways a dispenser of grace, generally we see our congregations foremost as a fellowship of believers. We share our journeys, our testimony, of personal transformation. Thus, a fundamental shift in self-consciousness may be underway… a move from a creed-based to a spirituality-based identity that is more like medieval mysticism than protestant orthodoxy.

Consequently, spirituality is inward and ‘quietistic,’ concerned with combating the lower nature and the world in a personal commitment that becomes the ultimate focus of the believer’s affections. Therefore, the origin of faith is not to be attributed to an external gospel but arises from inner experience, because ‘spirituality is generated from within the individual, inner motivation is crucial… more important than ‘grand theological statements.’

The spiritual life is above all the imitation of Christ. In general, we eschew religious ritual, not slavish adherence to rights, but doing what Jesus would do is our concept of true discipleship. Consequently, most Evangelicals neither accept the sacramentalism of many main line churches, nor join the Quakers in completely eliminating the sacraments. We practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but understand the significance of these rights in a guarded manner. In any case, these rights are practiced as goads to personal experience, and out of obedience to the Divine command.

So, get on with the task! Get your life in order by practicing the ‘aids to growth’ and see if you don’t mature spiritually. In fact if a believer comes to the point where he or she senses that stagnation has set in, our counsel is to re-double one’s efforts in the task of exercising the disciplines.”

Check up on yourself, the Evangelical counselor admonishes. We go as Evangelicals to the Church, he says, but not in order to receive means of grace, but for fellowship, instruction and encouragement.

All of this emphasis, as you can see, is on what happens inside of us, what we can do by ourselves alone, and what we do – not on what God does for us and gives to us when we assemble as His people.

This is a very different kind of view than you have with the spirituality generated by the doctrine of Justification. Here there is real assurance, genuine assurance. Luther says because you believe in me, God says, and your faith takes hold of Christ whom I have freely given to you as your justifier and Savior, therefore be righteous. Thus, God accepts you or counts you righteous only on account of Christ in whom you believe. Whatever other piece of good news concerning New Birth, Christ’s conquest of sin’s tyranny, the gift of the Spirit, His promise to renew us throughout our life, the resurrection of our body and the freedom from the presence of sin, much less the useful exhortations we may offer ourselves. The announcement that Luther here summarizes is the only thing that can create and sustain the faith that not only justifies but assures and sanctifies as well.

The External Gospel creates assurance. We don’t focus on something inward to create something inward… its something outward that creates inward assurance that we belong to Christ… Christians are the people who make it to the finish line; those who persevere to the end will be saved. We’re not justified by the level of our faith, by the degree of our faith, or by how strong our hold is on Christ, but by how strong his hold is on us. We will endure to the end, because he has saved us. Having been justified, we have peace with God.”” (White Horse Inn Broadcast, October 21, 2007, my emphasis added.)

So what is the Gospel? What is the Good News God has for us? It is an announcement of the finished work of Jesus Christ. It is external to us… because of Jesus’ perfect life, God has declared us righteous. Because of Jesus’ propitiating death, God’s justice is displayed and satisfied, and through His resurrection, we are justified (Romans 4:25).

The Gospel is Good News because it is OUTSIDE of us! So don’t be confused: Your confidence should rest on what has already happened (your justification), not your current status in personal transformation (your sanctification). And that confidence leads us to be encouraged in the process of our ongoing sanctification. After all, this is what John meant when he said Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as He is pure." (I John 3:2-3).

Think about it this way: The question for our lives is NOT primarily “What Would Jesus Do?” That is consistent with our tendency to put our confidence in ourselves… if we could obey perfectly, we'd be fine - but since we don't, we would always be in trouble. The Good News is the answer to the question “What Has Jesus Done?” Our confidence is not in ourselves and our performance, but in Jesus who said:

“…I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.” (John 6:38-39)

And that, my friend, is good news!

------------------------

* By the way, the “testimony” is typically moralistic (Jesus is making me a better person), therapeutic (God is helping me become happier, a better husband, beating my addiction, etc.) and deistic (as a practical matter, God requires very little of me… He’s not that involved, but He’s there when I need Him) – Mike Horton describes that so much better than me in his book Christless Christianity... give it a read!

**We’re always thankful for thoughtful exceptions. Please consider – and give a listen – to the ministries of solid teachers like John Piper, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, James MacDonald – and some locals including Josh Moody, Craig Troxel, David Helm, and (thankfully) others. But be "Berean" in your hearing... (Acts 17:11).

Evangelical Confusion: What Is the Gospel?

2009-07-23T16:20:00.004-05:00

I've been thinking about confusion in Evangelical thinking lately, particularly around the core message of the Gospel. This thought from David Wells seems to capture both the problem with the movement's underlying philosophy - and the results succinctly... It's a sad commentary, and I think his choice of descriptives is both helpful and Biblical. But what do you think?

“If we mute the biblical gospel by our misunderstanding, or by our practice in the church, we destroy the possibility of spiritual authenticity in the church. In theory, most evangelicals assent to all of this. In practice, many evangelicals – especially those of a marketing and emergent kind – are walking away from the hard edges of these truths in an effort to make the gospel easy to swallow, quick to sell, and generationally appealing. They are very well aware of a deep cultural hunger for spirituality in the West, and they are trolling in these waters. The problem, however, is that this spirituality is highly privatized, highly individualistic, self-centered, and hostile to doctrine because it is always hostile to Christian truth. Evangelicals gain nothing by merely attracting to their churches postmoderns who are yearning for what is spiritual if, in catering to this, the gospel is diluted, made easy, and the edges get rounded off. The degree to which evangelicals are doing this is the degree to which they are invalidating themselves and prostituting the church.” (The Courage To Be Protestant, page 372, emphasis added.)

Ouch. I see too often churches who "mute the Biblical Gospel by ... misunderstanding" and even open hostility to doctrine. Have you seen this in your experience? Is Wells right or wrong in his assessment? Comments are open!

Genesis Confusion - What Can We Really Know?

2009-07-20T17:33:00.003-05:00

Christianity Today published an interview last week with Francis Collins, the former director of the Human Genome Project, who also recently launched the BioLogos Foundation, which "promotes the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms seeking harmony between these different perspectives." Collins gave a personal account of his attempt to harmonize faith and science in his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, published in 2006. Karl Giberson (who became Executive Vice President at the request of Collins in 2008) conducted the interview. There's certainly a lot one can say regarding this article. (By the way, if you are interested in a solid, Biblical response to the theory of evolution, I'd highly recommend listening to John MacArthur's talk on Creation, Theology and the End of the Universe from the opening of the 2009 Shepherd's Conference.) But what stunned me in the interview was the pejorative tone used by Mr. Gilberson - sanctioned apparently by the editors over at CT. For example, what is one to think of the introduction to this question posed by Mr. Gilberson (on page 4 of the website)?

"One of my theologian friends once said, in great frustration over this issue, "I wish they had never put the Bible in the hands of ordinary people." It seems to me that we need to take more seriously the teaching ministry of the church. We encourage people to read the Bible on their own, but certain misunderstandings are bound to emerge with that approach. Young people are going to read Genesis and think of Adam and Eve as real biological parents of the human race..."

What a shocker, Karl. Imagine that people might read the Bible and actually believe what it says. What has happened to CT - and the Evangelical movement that it seems to represent? Has the idea of creationism really become that unpalatable? Not surprisingly, Collins reviews favorably Dr. John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, in which Walton advances his theory that Genesis 1 isn't about creation at all (not withstanding Genesis 1:1), but rather a description of the functional ordering (as opposed to material creation) of the Earth, in a pattern recognizable to the ancient middle-eastern culture.

I guess I'm just too simple minded. The point of much of this seems to be to make the Bible obscure... why anyone is seeking to apply scientific law to a miraculous event seems to be a category error to my limited way of thinking. I remember sitting in a class listening this theory once, and hearing from a good friend and younger Christian afterwards who said this: "Wow! He's smart. I'll never understand the Bible!"

Maybe that's what some are aiming at these days - and one wonders what the Reformers would have thought of the re-institution of the Magisterium... and counter to the Reformation principles we're remembering following a half-millennium since Calvin's birth. There was a time when we recognized the supremacy of theology over the other sciences; now, folks like Collins seem to assume it's subordination to science!

For those of you who don't accept the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2, here's a question: Why not? Have you considered the following?

If you believe in evolution as the origin of humanity, when did "the fall" happen?
Evolution, by the way, requires death - in the process of natural selection. Where did "death" come from prior to the fall of man (who, under the theory, is the product of evolution)?
Is it not possible for God to have operated outside of the laws of science in creation - and why do you insist on judging the account of creation by something that may not even be applicable?'
If you don't believe Genesis 1 and 2, just when do you start believing the text? What other chapters would you have us not believe?

Perhaps most importantly, for people who don't believe in God's miraculous intervention in creation (and, as a result, don't accept Adam's headship and representative status for the human race), how do you explain man's sinful condition?

So many questions... and here's mine: Why not just take God at his word, and believe Him?

Why This Blog??

2009-07-19T17:29:00.001-05:00

I’ve been asked on some occasions why this blog exists. I assume that the question isn’t referring to a philosophical question (“Cogito Ergo Blog” or “I Think, Therefore I Spam”), but rather what my point is in the eclectic series of periodic posts published here.

I think that’s a fair question… one that I’ve been thinking about for some time. So, I thought I’d “re-boot” the blog with a modest attempt at articulating an answer.

I am a student of history. Or at least a product of the History Department of a Christian liberal arts college, a frequent reader of history and a person with a life-long interest in the ebb and flow of “what-has-gone-before” us. In addition to history generally, I have grown up with a love of the history of the Church. I love this not merely culturally, but because it is the Bride of Christ – He laid down His life for it, He loves it, He will glorify those in it. I think that anyone who gives up on the Church really misses the heart of our Lord.

But things aren’t going so well for the church in America these days – and especially for the Evangelical church. Watching it, participating in it, praying for it, grieving for it… You’ll note that I focus on this frequently, and this is the heart of the question I’ve gotten: Why focus on what’s wrong – why not just talk about what is right? Why be “negative” anyway?

J. Greshem Mechan was faced with this same question early last century. If you don’t know him, you should… at least read his book Christianity and Liberalism. Here’s his take on the question:

“...men tell us that our preaching should be positive and not negative, that we can preach the truth without attacking error. But if we follow that advice we shall have to close our Bible and desert its teachings. The New Testament is a polemic book almost from beginning to end. Some years ago I was in a company of teachers of the Bible in the colleges and other educational institutions of America. One of the most eminent theological professors in the country made an address. In it he admitted that there are unfortunate controversies about doctrine in the Epistles of Paul; but, said he in effect, the real essence of Paul’s teaching is found in the hymn to Christian love in the thirteenth chapter of I Corinthians; and we can avoid controversy today, if we will only devote the chief attention to that inspiring hymn. In reply, I am bound to say that the example was singularly ill-chosen. That hymn to Christian love is in the midst of a great polemic passage; it would never have been written if Paul had been opposed to controversy with error in the Church. It was because his soul was stirred within him by a wrong use of the spiritual gifts that he was able to write that glorious hymn. So it is always in the Church. Every really great Christian utterance, it may almost be said, is born in controversy. It is when men have felt compelled to take a stand against error that they have risen to the really great heights in the celebration of truth.” [“Christian Scholarship and the Defense of the Faith," in J. Greshem Machen: Selected Shorter Writings (Pages 148-149, emphasis added).

I’m not comparing myself to Machen, mind you. But I share his understanding of the authority of the Bible, and the clarity of its message. But is it possible today:

Even with all of the talk about “humility” in our theology, that there is much that God has revealed clearly - and that the Evangelical church obscures it by alternative views on every possible theological issue?
That the Bible really is God’s word to us and that He intends for us to know it - and that the Evangelical church dilutes it through a variety of means (from Archeology to bad hermeneutics) which undermine the practical authority of Scripture?
That somewhere, deep in our sinful hearts, we rejoice in the confusion some find in Scripture because it gives us an excuse to “wriggle off of the hook” of the conviction we’d experience from a clear presentation of Scripture?

The sad fact is that when reading the Bible, you are repeatedly confronted with the disparity between what we are supposed to experience in a corporate body and actual experience. You'll also see our clear responsibility to stand up against the doctrinal error constantly confronting us from all sides within the Church. But to recognize the disparity and stand against error is a sure-fire way to be vilified and marginalized in the average Evangelical congregation.

I'm no longer surprised by teaching which seems to “darken counsel by words without knowledge” (Job 38:2), which is so prominent in pulpits and Sunday School classrooms (that's in the rare cases where adult Christian education even exists anymore). I am surprised though that so few Christians seem to want to stand against it!

Loving Truth requires me - no, all of us - to recognize that it is wrong to obscure the truth of God's Word by make disputable that which God makes clear in the Bible. The results can be seen in tolerating broken relationships, abusive and disfunctional authority structures – and most clearly in lack of sound, Biblical doctrine taught.

To acknowledge the existence of this type of error in many Evangelical churches is one thing - which seems undisputable to me. It is heart-breaking when you see it in your own community of faith. It cries out for someone to stand up and point it out.

It's interesting to me that I usually don’t get much push-back on the existence of the problem… In fact, the people I’ve found myself in debate with seem comfortable to agree that things aren't what they should be, but they assume that things always have been this way, and that they will always continue. The argument I most usually get is that even though these problems exist, we shouldn’t focus on them because to do so is "negative."

So what does the Bible intend for us to do with calls to “contend for the faith once for all delivered” (Jude 3)? How ought we rightly emulate the Berean attitude towards teaching (Acts 17:11)? The answers - however uncomfortable - seems clear to me.

Those are the question I’m wrestling with in this blog… and the reason I write. And in light of the usual reaction received, I've been slower to post lately as I have been asking this: When "contending for the Truth," what should our heart attitude be? I love John Piper’s words in this regard, in setting the stage for the great battles for truth in the lives of Athanasius, John Owen and - coincidentally - J. Gresham Machen:

“Some controversy is crucial for the sake of life-giving truth. Running from it is a sign of cowardice. But enjoying it is usually a sign of pride. Some necessary tasks are sad, and even victory is not without tears—unless there is pride. The reason enjoying controversy is a sign of pride is that humility loves truth-based unity more than truth-based victory. Humility loves Christ-exalting exultation more than Christ-defending confrontation—even more than Christ-defending vindication. Humility delights to worship Christ in spirit and truth. If it must fight for worship-sustaining truth, it will, but that is not because the fight is pleasant. It’s not even because victory is pleasant. It’s because knowing and loving and proclaiming Christ for who he really is and what he really did is pleasant.” (John Piper, Introduction in Contending for Our All, page 17.)

So why do I blog? Because the Truth of Jesus is far better, far more desirable, far more profitable than the error… even today. I long to see the day – even in my lifetime – when the error is confronted appropriately and dismissed, Christian unity is based on a common Truth rather than merely a shared program and where real love is embraced and displayed – even (or maybe especially) in how we pursue the Truth.

I may fail in the process of contending well, but I'll go with A. W. Tozer when he says that "what comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us." A.W. Tozer, Chapter 1 of Knowledge of the Holy, page 9.) And that's my heart behind these musings. Perhaps you'll help in dialogue, leading to a more Biblical understanding of God and His Truth.

Why I Don't "Tweet"

2009-06-26T15:48:00.004-05:00

Ok, I must be getting old. I love technology - I am usually the first to buy it, try it or at least read about it.

But not this. I think it's evil... no matter what the kids say about it.

It's twitter. And here are my top 10 reasons why I think it may foreshadow the end of modern civilization - even though I may try it out!

Top 10 Reasons I Don't Twitter

10. The people who need to know "what I am doing" already know

9. I have never seen a "tweet" that was important enough to merit the time I spent reading it... do I need to know what you had for lunch, your workout schedule, your random thoughts while watching "24" or your semi-profound insights?

8. People's tweets aren't as interesting, funny and/or profound as they imagine

7. Unlike blogs - which can admittedly be trivial - Twitter's character limit guarantees triviality. Besides, you can blog about ideas, present argument and reason, etc. In tweets, you are limited to mere information or assertion

6. As "a way to stay in touch with family and friends," its a lame substitute for a phone call or (gasp) a conversation

5. Particularly pathetic is the false sense of community - and even intimacy - perpetuated... (should I be getting regular messages from Oprah?)

4. Tweets are forever. No edits. No erasing.

3. What people tweet generally tells more about them than they think.

2. Twitter is a stalker's dream... accessible to anyone who can google your name and the word "twitter"

and the main point...

1. Narcissism is spelled "T-W-I-T-T-E-R"

Comments?

What is Happening to the Pulpit?

2009-06-15T10:47:00.001-05:00

I found this article - about the loss of the pulpit in church - very interesting. Although the "worship wars" seemed to have ended in Evangelical-dom (with the methodology and ministry philosophy of the Marketers having clearly won the hearts and minds of most non-denominational evangelical churches)... I think it’s especially important to note the symbolism of the pulpit – even for those who’s preaching is biblical, we risk undermining our message (or at least confusing it) by how – as well as what – we do.
What do you think?

Dystonia...

2009-06-11T10:14:00.000-05:00

Very rarely would I post something this personal, but...

My older sister has suffered for years from a condition called dystonia. I love her very much - and I've been troubled for literally my entire life at the lack of information and, more importantly, attention and understanding about this disease.

I saw this story today on CNN, and my heart aches for the Staab family - and for my own, too. I'm grateful for the attention they are willing to bring to this... and I'd ask for you to consider helping them - and to pray with me that God might provide direction to the doctors and healing to people with this condition - the Staab children, and my sister too.

For more information about the Staabs and their efforts, please visit their foundation website, Tyler's Hope.

A View of America From Russia...

2009-05-30T13:13:00.021-05:00

I never thought I'd link to an article on Pravda, but this article from Russia is - I'm afraid - more true than not. Especially where highlighted (my emphasis). But you decide... discussion, anyone?

American capitalism gone with a whimper
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?
These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

CBS News on "Safe Families"

2009-05-18T22:34:00.013-05:00

Here's a brief look at an organization we value a lot called "Safe Families" - a practical way to show Christ's love in a world full of real need. Malik (one of the boys featured in this story) has been a joy in our home and we've had the privilege of being able to participate with his family - and to share the Gospel with him.

Watch CBS Videos Online

By the way, they can always use another loving home... if you're interested, check out the link above or drop a note to us here at the blog.

Another "Trouble Maker"...

2009-03-25T12:25:00.007-05:00

Here's a great thought from Eric Ludy, author of The Bravehearted Gospel: The Truth Is Worth Fighting For, from his podcast for today (broadcast on Moody Radio):

Sadly, I think he's right on target. Nothing seems to rile an evangelical more these days than questioning whether what they are doing is Biblical. But questioning whether something is consistent with God's revealed will is something all true Christians are required to do... first in their own lives, and then also in their experience - especially in their local church.

Just a few things worth repeating from his post:

"There are a few things that are classified as out of bounds these days in modern Christianity and 'pulling an Elijah' is one of them.

It’s obvious that the Church is in the midst of a drought just like back in the days of 1 Kings chapter 18. But we don’t want to hear anything about our version of Christianity being the reason for this drought. We’ve been eating slim spiritual pickins for years in the church. The grand and epic Gospel has been trimmed down to a mere stump of Truth. We’ve treated sin as if it is simply a necessary bedfellow and haven’t allowed our Savior to actually rescue us from all that is destroying our souls."

It is no surprise that I don't like a lot of what I'm seeing these days in my limited sampling of Evangelicalism - and I'm certainly not Elijah. But the truth is, it doesn't seem to matter whether you are correct or incorrect in your assessment when you question these days because you'll be vilified for the act of questioning. Oh, and you certainly won't get a reasoned, Biblical response, because the Evangelical response never seems to move beyond the messenger to the message itself.

I'd like to hear the Evangelical response to Elijah, which would likely sound like these typical thoughts: "It's not his message I object to, it's his tone." "He doesn't sound very humble about his views." "Who is he to say, anyway?" "Why does he focus on such petty issues - they don't really matter because nobody agrees about that doctrine stuff anyway." "Don't respond to him, nothing will be good enough for him anyway."

If someone insults or misrepresents the character of your spouse or parent, you're likely to get angry about that. You might even use a "harsh tone" in response. Why? Because it is an appropriate response. So here's my question: Where is the "appropriate response" to the widely documented, growing Evangelical apostacy these days? All too often, the decline is met with silence. And like the spouse or child who doesn't rise to defend their insulted relative, the observer is left to question the love within the relationship.

Eric concludes by saying this:

"So if a modern day Elijah raises his voice to speak, the Church at large is hotwired to shake their heads and moan under their breath, 'not another one of these trouble-makers.' But, let’s get something straight: The man with the message of 'repent' is not the problem! The weeping prophet that says with a tear-choked voice, 'wake up Church' is not the one creating the trouble! America, can we admit that we’ve grown fat and sloppy spiritually? We are not a finally chiseled athlete ready to fight for Truth, stand for the Gospel, and defend the Sacred Text of Scripture. "

I do think that "we all need a little kick in the rear end from the Old Prophet Elijah. We need to hear a firmer message, a message with guts, a message with the ring of uncomfortable truth once again... so instead of furrowing your brow and muttering, 'trouble-maker!' Say, 'Thank you God that you still care enough about me to speak above the din of modern American Culture.'"

The Great God Entertainment

2009-03-24T14:45:00.008-05:00

Here's a timely message from A.W. Tozer* from way back in 1955 - imagine what he'd say today...

"A German philosopher many years ago said something to the effect that the more a man has in his own heart, the less he will require from the outside; excessive need for support from without is proof of the bankruptcy of the inner man.

If this is true (and I believe it is) then the present inordinate attachment to every form of entertainment is evidence that the inner life of modern man is in serious decline. The average man has no central core of moral assurance, no spring within his own breast, no inner strength to place him above the need for repeated psychological shots to give him the courage to go on living. He has become a parasite on the world, drawing his life from his environment, unable to live a day apart from the stimulation which society affords him.

Schleiermacher held that the feeling of dependence lies at the root of all religious worship, and that however high the spiritual life might rise, it must always begin with a deep sense of a great need which only God could satisfy.

If this sense of need and a feeling of dependence are at the root of natural religion, it is not hard to see why the great god Entertainment is so ardently worshiped by so many. For there are millions who cannot live without amusement; life without some form of entertainment for them is simply intolerable; they look forward to the blessed relief afforded by professional entertainers and other forms of psychological narcotics as a dope addict looks to his daily shot of heroin. Without them they could not summon courage to face existence.

No one with common human feeling will object to the simple pleasures of life, nor to such harmless forms of entertainment as may help to relax the nerves and refresh the mind exhausted by toil. Such things, if used with discretion, may be a blessing along the way. That is one thing, however, the all-out devotion to entertainment as a major activity for which and by which men live is definitely something else again.

The abuse of a harmless thing is the essence of sin. The growth of the amusement phase of human life to such fantastic proportions is a portent, a threat to the souls of modern men. It has been built into a multimillion dollar racket with greater power over human minds and human character than any other educational influence on earth.

And the ominous thing is that its power is almost exclusively evil, rotting the inner life, crowding out the long eternal thoughts which would fill the souls of men, if they were but worthy to entertain them. The whole thing has grown into a veritable religion which holds its devotees with a strange fascination; and a religion, incidentally, against which it is now dangerous to speak. For centuries the Church stood solidly against every form of worldly entertainment, recognizing it for what it was—a device for wasting time, a refuge from the disturbing voice of conscience, a scheme to divert attention from moral accountability.

For this she got herself abused roundly by the sons of this world. But of late she has become tired of the abuse and has given over the struggle. She appears to have decided that if she cannot conquer the great god Entertainment she may as well join forces with him and make what use she can of his powers. So, today we have the astonishing spectacle of millions of dollars being poured into the unholy job of providing earthly entertainment for the so-called sons of heaven. Religious entertainment is in many places rapidly crowding out the serious things of God.

Many churches these days have become little more than poor theaters where fifth-rate 'producers' peddle their shoddy wares with the full approval of evangelical leaders who can even quote a holy text in defense of their delinquency. And hardly a man dares raise his voice against it.

The great god Entertainment amuses his devotees mainly by telling them stories. The love of stories, which is a characteristic of childhood, has taken fast hold of the minds of the retarded saints of our day, so much so that not a few persons manage to make a comfortable living by spinning yarns and serving them up in various disguises to church people.

What is natural and beautiful in a child may be shocking when it persists into adulthood, and more so when it appears in the sanctuary and seeks to pass for true religion. Is it not a strange thing and a wonder that, with the shadow of atomic destruction hanging over the world and with the coming of Christ drawing near, the professed followers of the Lord should be giving themselves up to religious amusements? That in an hour when mature saints are so desperately needed vast numbers of believers should revert to spiritual childhood and clamor for religious toys?

'Remember, 0 Lord, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach. The crown is fallen from our head: woe unto us, that we have sinned! For this our heart is faint; for these things our eyes are dim.' AMEN. AMEN."

Taken from Root of the Righteous, Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1955, p. 32-33.
________
*And just think... he was an Arminian!

An interesting Response to Driscoll on "New Calvinism"

2009-03-21T10:45:00.001-05:00

Hate to just re-post, but this is worth the read...

Daniel's Place - (Reformata et semper reformanda): A Response to Driscoll on "New Calvinism"

What Is An "Evangelical"?

2009-03-13T16:09:00.010-05:00

I was telling Mrs. Doulos the other day that I have a remarkable ability to be profoundly oblivious to the PAINFULLY obvious. To my kids, that’s no real news, but let me give two examples (and I am not making this up…):

#1 - I was preaching at Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago last Tuesday night… presenting the Gospel from Isaiah 53:4-6 (what an incredible passage!). I was really captured by the text, and anytime you’re talking to anyone about the great need that we have and the unbelievable provision God has for us in His Son – and the unfathomably suffering He endured to deliver that provision, well… there aren’t enough superlatives to describe it. I felt that I had just a glimmer of a vision for that Truth when I stepped up to speak. I did my best, I was focused on the task at hand, and I finished on time. After returning to my seat, a co-worker greeted me with the following statement (or something like this):

“I’m amazed at your concentration – I can’t believe that didn’t phase you.”

I had NO IDEA what he was talking about. It turns out that while I was preaching, a man in the second row of the auditorium (center aisle, almost right under the pulpit) threw up! It caused quite a stir (and a mess), and required someone with a BUCKET AND MOP to clean up.

I understand that people sometimes feel sick when I talk, so I am not surprised that someone finally expressed this thought so graphically. But here's the point: I DIDN'T EVEN SEE IT! When they told me, I smelled it, but I still can’t believe it happened – literally – right under my nose without my notice!

#2 - Reading Phil Johnson’s talk (What Is An Evangelical?) at the Shepherds’ Conference reminded me of this reaction (the “oblivious” part, not the “vomiting”), and this is what I mean: I am amazed that I continue to be shocked at the condition in the Evangelical church these days. I’d recommend Phil’s talk – it merits close attention (part 1 here and part 2), but I think he is accurate in his assessment of the broader Evangelical movement.

What is an "Evangelical" these days? According to Johnson:

"It's frankly one of those questions you can answer almost any way you want and defend your answer as articulately as you like, and most people are still going to tell you you've got it wrong. Because it seems these days everyone has his own personal idea of what constitutes an evangelical. Ask 100 evangelicals to define that they mean by the term and odds are you're probably going to get 100 different answers—some of them so wildly different as to be virtually contradictory.

Evangelicals have been trying hard to be all things to all men for at least two or three generations, and in this regard they have completely succeeded: The evangelical movement is now so broad and diverse that you can define it practically any way you want. In an article celebrating their 50th anniversary a couple of years ago, Christianity Today said they think diversity is in fact the dominant feature of evangelicalism." (emphasis added)

And therein lies the problem. I don't think CT is alone in celebrating "diversity" - even on core doctrines like the nature of man, the work of God and the very definition of the Gospel itself! The problem is, when you question theological diversity in Evangelical circles, you are very quickly labeled as a trouble-maker, opinionated or, even worse, "negative." (There is a FAR worse label being tossed around these days, but that's the next post!)

Johnson says that people accuse him of being "negative" and so, in response:

"… So let me say it this way: I'm positive that the broad evangelical movement today is abominable. The brand of Christianity (or should I say "the assorted brands of Christianity"?) represented by Christianity Today, The National Association of Evangelicals, and the Christian Coalition—the spiritual heirs of Billy Graham, Fuller Seminary, and the Urbana Conferences—that large movement that most of our spiritual parents identified with—that vast movement is now as utterly backslidden and spiritually degenerate as Israel was in her most backslidden state during the times of apostasy described in the book of Judges. We have reached that point where ‘Everyone [does] what [is] right in his own eyes.’ And lots of so-called evangelicals think that's just fine. The current editors of Christianity Today seem to think that's just fine. They never tire of celebrating their constituents' "diversity." (emphasis added)
I frankly don't like to identify with the contemporary evangelical movement. I'm strongly tempted simply to stop calling myself an evangelical altogether, just to keep from being associated with every infamous religious scoundrel from Ted Haggard to Joel Osteen. What does it actually mean to say we're evangelical when the menagerie of heretics and charlatans appearing nightly on TBN all insist they are evangelical, too? Tony Campolo, who has renounced practically everything that's distinctively evangelical, insists on calling himself an evangelical. Lots of Roman Catholics call themselves evangelical. Lately even Mormons have begun arguing that they have a right to the label as well. None of them would agree on what the term means, of course, but they all want to wear it, because it gives them an artificial connection with the rich heritage of evangelical history.”

You go, Phil. I’m with you when you say that
“I do affirm historic evangelical principles. The original evangelicals are my spiritual ancestors. I believe what they believed, and I'm passionate about the things they were passionate about. We share a common faith, and I happen to believe it is the same faith proclaimed by apostles and the early church. But in the broad sweep of church history, the set of convictions I hold is best known by the name evangelicalism. And I'm not ready yet to concede that label to people who in fact have no spiritual connection—and nothing whatsoever in common—with historic evangelical beliefs.”

I know there’s press all around on this subject, particularly since the Internet Monk met the Christian Science Monitor this week. And I’m also surprised at the way that the discussion lines are being drawn. (By the way, read IM's full posts before you dismiss him as some have for the CSM article). For those who have concluded that this assessment (from Michael Spenser or Phil Johnson or many others) is wrong, they’ve found “the Enemy.”

But for some of us, we think these guys are on to something that is not only right, but important. I'm not sure I'm understanding how to attribute electrical properties (like negative and positive) to this discussion - but I do think their assessment is accurate.

So here's my big shock: I'm surprised that people hate the truth so much. I'm surprised that people think personal attacks or blind optimism somehow deflect reality. And when I think about the state of things generally (and when I read the mainstream Evangelical thinking in response), I feel a little like the guy in the second row at Pacific Garden Mission. I guess I’m just surprised that I’m still surprised.

Next Time: Who Is the REAL Problem?

The Coming Evangelical Collapse

2009-03-10T22:40:00.005-05:00

I trust that you all noticed Michael Spenser’s provocative – and brilliant - article in today’s Christian Science Monitor. Not a pretty picture, but spot on in articulating the sorry state of many churches today.

It’s very sad that once solid, Bible-believing churches continue to trade away the very thing that gives them influence in the world – that is, the Gospel of Jesus Christ – for a stab at “influence” from the world’s perspective. They have seemed to embrace the notion that the Gospel is a stumbling block to the Jew, foolishness to the Greek (and, in the words of Kim Riddlebarger, “both to an American”).

Spenser is devastating in his assessment and analysis. His conclusion is both breathtaking and easily foreseen – if one has eyes to look beyond the self-deception so common in inbred corporate systems that Evangelical churches so frequently emulate. Why, he asks, are we on the verge of a collapse of the Evangelical movement? In part, he says (and the emphasis is mine):

“We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.” (Take that, “deeds, not creeds!”)

“We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.” (I’d add that this condition clearly isn’t limited to merely the young people either).

What does he see coming? In part:

“Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented mega-churches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.”

This is the core problem for Evangelical churches – a shift from doctrine to ... well, something else. It always leads to compromise and weakens - even destroys - a church's effectiveness. In their effort to become “relevant” they lose their relevance. When a church compromises on its doctrine and distinctives, it becomes unable and weakened to pass on its truth to the next generation of believers; in fact, it ceases to have anything meaningful to pass on! When a church ceases to defend its own doctrine, for example, it has defaulted on its primary responsibility! Increasingly (if Christianity Today is any indication), churches are afraid to take a stand on even the most basic – core – doctrines because somebody somewhere disagrees. Churches like this may still remain “christian” in the most general (or generous sense), but they are a “church” only in the organizational sense. This is the error that the Mainline denominations made… and the Evangelicals are running after them as fast as possible.

Evangelical churches used to organize around what they believed. Now they organize around what they do. That is a great operating philosophy for a para-church organization, but it has become the philosophy of ministry for local churches!

“Evangelicalism doesn't need a bailout. Much of it needs a funeral.” Amen, Michael. I trust, though, that you are wrong when you predict that the “purveyors of the evangelical circus [continue] in fine form, selling their wares as the promised solution to every church's problems.” I pray that God will open the eyes of His people to desire beauty and substance of His Word; that God’s people will give up the lie that “we can’t know;” and that men in leadership would be cut to the heart in understanding their responsibility to care for and to feed God’s people with the Word of God.

Important Read...

2009-03-07T08:58:00.007-06:00

Whose voice are you listening to these days?

In studying the book Christless Christianity, I've been struck repeatedly by the increasingly pervasive trend in the evangelical world towards denying both the certainty of truth and its practical application in evangelical theology. A clear demonstration of the sad decline in biblical theology (where it was once rightly assumed) was reported from the National Pastors Conference in San Diego last month. It is incredible to me that many seem very comfortable leaving issues like the authority of Scripture, the nature of the atonement, the centrality of the person and work of Christ himself up for debate! Evangelicalism IS being "hijacked by closet theological liberals!"

It would be sad enough if the problem was just conferences and books... but the real problem lies inside local churches. The trends in many churches (including the purpose driven churches, seeker sensitive churches, the planter-driven churches and, sadly, even in established evangelical churches) is towards softening their doctrinal distinctives or ditching them altogether. The sad - but observable fact - is that increasingly churches who used to organize around what they believed and taught organize now around what they do.

This was the liberal experiment in the early 20th century, and I don't think it will be any more successful for the evangelicals of the 21st century who embrace the same strategy. IMHO, the evangelical movement is trading influence - which is found in fulfilling its mission to be a truth-teller and to feed the people of God - for the appearance of significance through programs and activity. What ever happened to "being transformed by the renewing of our minds"?

The Dallas-Fort Worth Star Telegram had an interesting article last Saturday about a book which seeks to answer the question "Why IS the church losing its influence in modern society?". The author of The Vanishing Church: Searching For Significance in the 21st Century makes this interesting and important observation:

"What I’m saying is that the biblical New Testament church is vanishing from society today," he said. "Anything and everything is acceptable as long as it builds a crowd. Jesus wasn’t as interested in building a crowd as he was in telling the truth."

Here's an important reminder as well from John MacArthur:

"People say, 'Oh doctrine divides…doctrine divides.' I say, 'Amen, preach it, doctrine divides.' You know what it does? It confronts error. It separates true from false. It makes judgments. Today’s climate, however, of unity in the priority of relationships, that’s not tolerable."

Hmmm. Maybe they're on to something. Make sure you're following someone who isn't leading you over a cliff...

Pelagianism vs. Biblical Christianity

2009-02-15T18:37:00.006-06:00

Here's the recap from today's class...

Man’s nature and Original Sin - Pelagius taught that man was morally neutral before God. He rejected the idea of “Original Sin” and taught that sin consists of sinful acts – not a condition of the heart. This is, however, contrary to the testimony of Scripture, which teaches that:

a. We inherited guilt from Adam (Legal Guilt)

“Therefore…sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all have sinned.” (Romans 5:12)

b. We have a sinful nature because of Adam’s Sin (Original Sin or Inherited Corruption)

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51:5)
We are “…by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” (Ephesians 2:3)

c. In our nature, we totally lack spiritual good before God. (Total Depravity) – not that we are as bad as we could be, but that every part of our being is affected by sin… our intellects, emotions, desires, goals, motives, etc.

“I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh” (Romans 7:18)
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)
Apart from the work of Christ, all are “…darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.” (Ephesians 4:18)

d. In our actions, we are totally unable to do spiritual good before God.

“Apart from Me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5)
“Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34)
“We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.” (Isaiah 64:6)
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” (John 6:44)

For other references, see also Genesis 6:5; Job 15:14-16; Psalm 130:3; Psalm 143:2; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Jeremiah 13:23; John 3:19; James 3:8; 1 John 1:8

Note: What about AFTER conversion?

“…As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.” (John 15:4) See also vs 5.
“For we are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh…” (Philippians 3:3)
“…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12-13)

Man’s capacity and Free Will – Pelagius also taught that God holds man responsible only for those things that man is able to do. Since God warns us to do good, therefore we must have the ability to do the good that God commands. (“Ought implies Ability”) The idea, though that we are responsible before God only for what we are able to do is contrary to the testimony of Scripture.

a. Because of Original Sin, he is unable to do anything good (meritorious) before God (see above).

b. He is unable to believe in God (or come to him)

John 6:44 (see above)
“… no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:65)
“Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil and your will is to do your father’s desires…” (John 8:43-44)
“…you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.” (John 10:26)
“Therefore they could not believe. For again, Isaiah said, ‘He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart’…” (John 12:39-40)

c. He is unable to understand the truth

“…even the Spirit of truth, who the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him.” (John 14:17)
“The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

d. He is unable to seek God

Rom 3:10-11

e. He is spiritually dead

Genesis 2:16-17; John 3:5-7; Ephesians 2:1-3; Col 2:13

f. He is blinded and corrupt in his heart

Gen 6:5; Gen 8:21; Ecclesiastes 9:3; Jeremiah 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; John 3:19-21; Romans 8:7-8; Ephesians 4:17-19; Ephesians 5:8

g. He is captive to sin and Satan

John 8:34; John 8:44; Romans 6:20; 2 Timothy 2:25-26; Titus 3:3; 1 John 5:19

h. He performs actions freely according to his nature, but his nature is wholly evil

Job 14:4; Matthew 7:16-18; Matthew 12:33; Mark 7:21-23; James 1:13-14

The Glen Ellyn Bible Church Statement of Faith says it this way:

"We believe that our first parents were created holy and upright, that they fell from this condition, and that, in consequence, the whole human race is by nature dead in trespasses and sins" (Romans 5:12; Ephesians 2:1,2).

Pelagianism was first condemned by the church as heresy at the Council of Carthage on May 1, 418 – and repeatedly thereafter. But, it continues to influence thinking in the Church.
For example:

Charles Finney - Pelagian in theology and influential in Evangelical thinking and methodology.
Willow Creek (Reveal Study) -Pelagian in assumptions when they say:

"There is a passionate instinct born in all of us that desires to draw closer to God... The human spirit is wired by God to search for him, just like birds are wired to fly south for the winter." (Reveal Study, pages 41 and 44)

Joel Olsteen - he's a poster-boy for Pelagian thinking

Well, so what? The issue is this: The Pelagian viewpoint influences our thinking in at least 2 ways:

First, it leads to an UNDERSTATEMENT of our problem (pre-and post- conversion)
Second, it leads to an OVERSTATEMENT of our ability.

We'll talk more about this, but if you don't understand the severity of the problem and the importance of the solution, you'll minimize both. We'll unpack this more as we go, but this means that, in many cases, our message ceases to be about the Good News of what God has done for us in Christ Jesus, and is replaced by a call to our responsibility.

Think about this as we prepare for future discussions: All of this leads to the first sign of "'Christless' Christianity"":

If we're lost in sin without ability to save ourselves, we need "Good News." If we have a little problem with God and retain the ability to fix it ourselves, we just need "Good Advice".

In the book, Dr. Horton says this:

Without understanding “…the human predicament before a holy God, it is unclear what this personal relationship [with Jesus] might accomplish.” Without an understanding of the mediating work of Jesus, His substitutionary death on our behalf in order that His righteousness could be imputed to us by faith – which is itself a gift from God – the danger is that a personal relationship with Jesus becomes “…a vague, sentimental attachment to someone who is more like an invisible friend than the incarnate, dead, raised, ascended, and reigning Savior of the ungodly.” (Christless Christianity, p. 73)

If sin isn’t so bad, the practical focus becomes what we are to do – rather than what has been done for us. (That's moralistic)
If God isn’t so mad, the practical focus becomes how obeying God benefits us – rather than its proper focus on God and His glory. (That's therapeutic)
Most damaging of all, these misunderstandings of the problem and the focus lead us to conclude, as a practical matter, that we don't need God to address our need. (That's deism)

And Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism just isn't Biblical Christianity.

Pelagianism and the State of the American Church

2009-02-05T21:03:00.005-06:00

Glen Ellyn Bible Church College Class:

This coming Sunday, we're going to continue our discussion about Pelagianism, and its impact on American thinking - both secular and, sadly, Evangelical as well. We'll talk about its history, the impact of Charles Finney on American Evangelicalism and how that carries on, even into today's popular Evangelicalism.

You may recognize this all too well.

So, if you'd like to get ready for the discussion this coming Sunday, here's some material for you to watch/read:

Video: The State of The Church
(from the White Horse Inn)

Additional Reading:
"Pelagianism" by Michael Horton

"The Pelagian Captivity of The Church" by R.C. Sproul

"The Legacy of Charles Finney" by Michael Horton

Yet Another Example...

2009-02-05T11:24:00.002-06:00

... How about this as another example from The Gathering Church in Franklin, Tennessee?

Another Example...

2009-02-04T11:46:00.003-06:00

Not to pile on the last post, but here's another example of what we discussed on Sunday... any thoughts?

The American Church In Captivity: Naming The Issue

2009-01-31T12:17:00.016-06:00

Thanks to those of you who joined us this week - great discussion!

We continued our discussion of the book Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church today, focusing on chapter 2. (All quotations below are from the book.) As mentioned last week, we are exploring the extent to which - as a theological, philosophical and practical matter - American culture influences not only what we do, but why we do it. Is it possible that "American" thinking is shaping what we do - and even what we believe?

While we haven't arrived there yet in totality, both Dr. Horton and I agree that we are well underway.

For those who weren't there, here are the class notes:

I. A Brief, Unscientific Survey
We started class by looking at the following video, and discussing the sermon series described...

Note the focus of each series - both in terms of the problem or issue(s) to be addressed and the assumptions about the audience. (By the way, I've added a few other examples that didn't make the video cut below*.)

The point is that the presentations focus on us and our needs. So... is that wrong? There's nothing bad about offering help in these areas, but I'm asked a different question, which is this: Is this The Gospel?

The answer? No, it isn't. (Bear with me on that - we'll prove that up as we go.)

It sure is appealing to Americans, though. Witness the growth in churches who use these strategies to appeal to both the "unchurched" and to those who "don't like church." Why is this so popular?

To get a handle on that, consider the mind-set of America on religious issues. George Barna, in his book The Second Coming of the Church, said the following about the average American's religious view:

"To increasing numbers of Americans, God - if we even believe in a supernatural deity - exists for the pleasure of humankind. He resides in the heavenly realm solely for our utility and benefit... this same group of people, including many professing Christians, also believe that people are inherently good; that our primary purpose is to enjoy life as much as possible."

If this is the case (and who really knows whether these kinds of studies are accurate or not), its no wonder that the presentations above can appeal to the average American. This is, however, further aggravated by the level of Biblical illiteracy that exists (sadly, even in the church). Michael Horton points out that:

"Eighty-two percent of Americans (and a majority of evangelicals) [polled] believe that Benjamin Franklin's aphorisms, 'God helps those who help themselves,' is a biblical quotation. A majority believe that 'all people pray to the same god or spirit, not matter what name they use for that spiritual being' and that 'if a person is generally good or does enough good things for others during their life, they will earn a place in heaven.'"

Adding insult to injury and after citing a series of reports, Barna concludes,

"In short, the spirituality of America is Christian in name only... We prefer choices to absolutes. We embrace preferences rather than truths. We seek comfort rather than growth..."

Finally, Horton states that "[a]mong the false assumptions 'killing the ministry' today are that 'Americans have a firm understanding of the basic tenets of Christianity,'... or that non-Christians are interested in salvation, since most Americans 'are relying instead on their own good deeds, their good character, or the generosity of God' apart from Christ."

These are stinging indictments. If true, they deserve our attention - and even more so if they are part of our own mindset.

II. Defining the Condition: “Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism”
Horton points out that "Americans have always been can-do people. Pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps, we assume that we are good people who could do better if we just had the right methods and instructions. Add to this the triumph of the therapeutic in popular culture and we end up with what sociologist Christian Smith has called 'Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism." (I've included a link to a paper presented at Princeton Theological Seminary on these findings at the 2005 Leadership In Youth Ministry Lecture Series below.)

Citing a study conducted from 2001 to 2005 through the University of North Carolina, Smith conducted extensive research and interviews to understand teen spirituality in America today, and concluded that "moralistic, therapeutic deism" is "the dominant form of religion or spirituality" among American teens. (I'll also note that Smith bemoaned the fact that "most teens - even those reared in evangelical churches who said their faith is 'very important' and makes a big difference in their lives - are 'stunningly inarticulate' concerning the actual content of their faith.'"

What they do appear to believe is this:

1. God created the world.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when needed to solve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

In short, these beliefs are summarized as

Moralistic - In general, the major purpose of religion is to be a "good" person.

Therapeutic - In other words, religious participation will often be defined around how religious experience has helped someone overcome personal difficulties.

Deism - While not necessarily denying the truth of orthodoxy, as a practical matter believing that while God does exist and has a lot do with how the world came to be, He is not that demanding of God’s creation.

We're using this as a working definition for now. But that leads to another question: What is it in America (and even in the human heart) that makes this plausible (and popular)?

III. A Theological Footprint
To understand this, I asked the foundational question: What is Man's condition? After the fall, what happened to man? We touched briefly on the 3 historical views of the nature of man:

1. Man fell up! He's getting better and better. Said another way, there is nothing in man which prevents him from being good or bad... he has only to decide to improve himself and he can do so. As a result, he needs information and/or motivation. This is Pelagianism - it is the "default" setting of the human heart, the prevailing view of American culture and, increasingly, rearing its ugly head in the Church today.

2. Man fell down, he's in a very precarious spot and is in deep trouble. He needs help to improve his situation... maybe a little, or maybe a lot, but this view says that man retains the ability to cooperate in that rescue. Ultimately, he has to decide to take the help. It is a "synergistic" (cooperation is required between God and man, with the focus on man's response to God's initiative.) This is Semi-Pelagianism - while this hasn't been true historically, it is the "default" setting of the Evangelical movement today.

3. Man fell down to the ground, and he died. He is dead to God - he doesn't need information or motivation, or "help" - he needs life. This is the Reformed/Augustinian view... I would point out that it is the Pauline view, the view of Jesus - in short, the Biblical view.

This doctrine of man's "total inability" is shocking to American thinking. It is deeply offensive to be told that you can't do anything. But it's offense doesn't make it any less true.

Without regard to the differences between the Biblical view and the Semi-Pelagian view (and there are many, they are significant, and we'll deal with them later), the point this week is to begin to examine how the Pelagian view - which we will argue is the default view of American thinking (if not the default view of the human heart) - impacts the thinking and operation of the church.

The denial of "original sin" isn't being left to those outside the Evangelical movement today... witness the broadside on the doctrine from the blog postings of Tony Jones from Solomon's Porch in Minneapolis... consider “Original Sin: A Depraved Idea” where this conclusion is presented: “I have come to reject the notion of Original Sin. I consider it neither biblically, philosophically, nor scientifically tenable…” (This is Monday's post - you can follow the trail to keep up with the conversation. Does anybody want to ask Tony about this the next time he comes to Wheaton?)

IV. Where is The "Scandal of the Cross" in America?
As noted in the sermon series highlighted above, is it possible that much of what is proclaimed in "Christian" churches today is not "scandalous" because it conforms to the culture's underlying Pelagian assumptions?

So, what is “the Scandal of the Cross” in our culture? I'll suggest this: It is scandalous to say that man is TOTALLY LOST and UNABLE to help himself in ANY WAY. His problem is not primarily HIS experience or life circumstance, but that he has offended His creator. And that without merit or participation, the God of the Universe demonstrates both the justice of His wrath and the extent of His love and grace by saving people through the substitution of Himself in the person of His Son Jesus. It is precisely this unilateral action that is so offensive to Americans. We want to believe that we are inherently good and self-reliant. The Gospel message at its heart is exactly the opposite. And when the Gospel is preached in its fullness, it is deeply offensive to the American mindset at precisely these points.

Christless Christianity avoids the scandal by denying these points. The observation about liberal theology in the 1950s by H. Richard Niebuhr seems sadly appropriate to even some Evangelical messages today:

“A god without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through a Christ without a cross.”

And just to repeat myself again, in the words of William Willimon,

“Lacking confidence in the power of our story to effect that of which it speaks, to evoke a new people out of nothing, our communication loses its nerve. Nothing is said that could not be heard elsewhere… In conservative contexts, gospel speech is traded for dogmatic assertions and moralism, for self-help psychologies and narcotic mantras. In more liberal speech, talk tiptoes around the outrage of Christian discourse and ends up as an innocuous, though urbane, affirmation of the ruling order. Unable to preach Christ and him crucified, we preach humanity and it improved.”

If we are to recover the scandal of the Cross in our culture – the Gospel itself – we will have to face head on the diametrically opposing viewpoints of Biblical Christianity and American culture on these 3 questions:

1. What is our nature?
2. What is our problem?
3. What is God’s role in the solution?

Next Week: The Message of Christless Christianity, Part 1: What Is Man's Problem?

Additional Helpful Reading:

"On Moralistic Therapeutic Deism as U.S. Teenagers' Actual, Tacit, De Facto Religious Faith" by Christian Smith

"The Pelagian Captivity of the Church" by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

"An Interview with David Wells" (Do yourself a favor, too - If you haven't read David Wells, be sure to read his book The Courage to be Protestant (or any of the 4 preceding books in the series - they're listed in the right-hand column of the blog).

_______________________

*Here are just a few other sermon series promotion videos to consider. My biggest problem with this exercise was deciding which of the many to highlight!)

One of the many "Pure Sex" sermon series... (is it just me, or is it tacky to use www.iamturnedon.com as the website for a church?)

"Bringing Sexy Back"

Bringing Sexy Back Promo from Revolution Church on Vimeo.

"Rock of Love"

Rock of Love Invite Cole Phillips, The Connection Church from The Connection Church on Vimeo.

"Confessions of a Pastor"

We Bare All from Ian Schneider on Vimeo.

"Purple People Leader - Activate Your Leadership Potential"

Elevation Church - Purple People Leader Trailer v2.0 from Geoff Schultz on Vimeo.

Can Christianity be "Christless"?

2009-01-26T22:41:00.003-06:00

(Notes from Glen Ellyn Bible Church's January 23, 2009 College Class)... If you're in town, join us! Whether you are or not, feel free to comment below.

Week 1: Introduction

“’Christless’ Christianity” – Is that possible?
“What would it look like if Satan really took control over a city? Over a half century ago, Presbyterian minister Donald Grey Barnhouse offered his own scenario in his weekly sermon on CBS radio. He speculated that if Satan took over Philadelphia, all of the bars would be closed, pornography banished, and pristine streets would be filled with tidy pedestrians who smiled at each other. There would be no swearing. The children would say ‘yes, sir’ and ‘no, ma’am’ and the churches would be full every Sunday… where Christ is not preached.”

I’m tempted to think the main threat to Christianity is something like Bill Maher’s movie “Religulous.” But I’m convinced, like C.S. Lewis suggested in his book "The Screwtape Letters", danger exists when we add to the Gospel as well as when we subtract from it. In this class, we’ll not be focusing on the danger or conflict from outside the church… Without minimizing that problem, we’ll focus on the more significant, insidious danger from within (for example, the book of Jude).

1. The Message of Christless Christianity
What is the Message of Christless Christianity? It is “Christian” religion which isn’t centered on Jesus and His work. It comes in lots of forms, but it is “Man-centric” rather than “Christ-centric” – ultimately, it is the “Christianity of Me” vs. the “Christianity of He.”

It may emphasize what we do as compared to an emphasis on what Jesus has done for us (works vs. faith). Americans are pragmatists – they love something to do.
It may emphasize a reaction to others, either against what they do or for what they do. These messages may feel like their coming from fundamentalist separatists (like the SNL Church Lady) or liberal “tolerants” (like SNL’s Stuary Smalley). Either form shares a type of judgmental attitude and behavior that may take on even a religious look and feel, but is distinctly different from the person and work of Christ.

In any case, it’s Man Centered. The focus becomes us and our (happiness, purpose, fulfillment, or work, responsibility, mission) rather than on Christ and His work. We’ll see that this is related to our desire for the law over the gospel, and is rooted in the Palageian heresy that is ingrained in American popular thinking. It’s evidenced whenever the question addressed in the message is primarily “Would Jesus Do?” rather than “What Has Jesus Done?”

Here’s one example… notice the more recent drift from churches organizing around a set of doctrinal beliefs to organizing around methodology and practice. Increasingly, some in the Evangelical movement are redefining classic, historical Christian theology, using the same words in a way different from their historic meaning. For example, when people preach about:

Jesus: Is He Lord and Savior, or Example and Life Coach?
The Bible: Authoritative in actual practice and application, or merely mined for quotes and largely irrelevant on its own terms?
Salvation: Is it “Our Best Life Now,” or are we saved from God’s judgment and wrath by God Himself?
The Holy Spirit: Is He the One who reveals Christ and His work or an electrical outlet we plug into to meet our agenda?

Anything that distracts from the centrality of the message of the Gospel can give rise to a “form of godliness which denies the power thereof.” This, in its essence, is “Christless Christianity.”
When everything is measured by our happiness rather than God’s holiness, the sense of our being sinners, lost and in terrible danger becomes secondary, if not offensive and an embarrassment. (Watch Joel Olsteen squirm under Larry King’s question about the exclusivity of the Gospel!)

We’ll talk also about theological “drift”… which certainly is increasingly evident even in Evangelical thinking. There is a rise in neo-liberalism in the writings of some… for example, Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy (which I believe is neither orthodox or generous) where he questions not just peripheral issues, but the very basis of our historical faith. Just as one example, citing Steven Chalke and The Lost Message of Jesus describing the cross – and the Biblical doctrine of substitutionary atonement - as “cosmic child abuse.”

We’ll talk about the marked decline in biblical literacy – both among lay people and, perhaps more astonishingly, even at the ecclesiastical/pastoral level. We’ll observe the loss of common understanding – even comprehension – of basic biblical terms like justification, propitiation, imputed righteousness, sanctification… concepts which represent the HEART of the Gospel message!

We’ll also discuss the growing lack of concern over doctrinal precision and clarity. Consider Rick Warren’s popular mantra of “deeds vs. creeds,” which (at best) assumes a common understanding of at least the issues within the creeds.

While we will talk about the widening borders of what is acceptable thinking in Evangelical circles, this is a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Mike Horton says this:

“My argument in this book is not that evangelicalism is becoming theologically liberal but that it is becoming theologically vacuous.”

There is certainly evidence of error, but even as great is the evidence of silliness and the trivialization of the Gospel.

A church’s message is only authoritative to the extent it speaks with a common voice and conviction. All too often, churches are becoming PRACTICE focused – at the expense of a common doctrinal message – and the point of commonality in theology is really become anthropological – man-centric rather than Christ-centric!

William Wilimon said this:

“Lacking confidence in the power of our story to effect that of which it speaks, to evoke a new people out of nothing, our communication loses its nerve. Nothing is said that could not be heard elsewhere… In conservative contexts, gospel speech is traded for dogmatic assertions and moralism, for self-help psychologies and norcotic mantras. In more liberal speech, talk tiptoes around the outrage of Christian discourse and ends up as an innocuous, though urbane, affirmation of the ruling order. Unable to preach Christ and Him crucified, we preach humanity and it improved.”

So, in thinking about the “Message” we proclaim, we’ll ask this question: To what extent does American subjectivity and individuality infect our understanding and proclamation of the Gospel?

2. The Practice of Christless Christianity
We’ll see that – far from being neutral – our practice can be the vehicle which creates the distraction from the true message of the Gospel. We’ll discuss a number of practical elements, including:

The drift towards the subjective (inward) at the expense of the objective (external) reality of Christianity. For example, rather than addressing the question “What is the Gospel? (the objective, historical facts), we frequently ask “What is the Gospel TO ME?” (that is, what do we experience or feel). When witnessing, we’ll talk about why it is frequently more comfortable in our culture to share “our testimony” (that is, our experience) as opposed to giving THE testimony (about the facts of what Jesus did and why He did it).
Our Sunday gatherings, including how “Worship” is being redefined and becoming about our service – even performance – for God rather than His provision for us in the Gospel
The drift in membership process expectations from “Believe, Belong, Become” to “Belong, Become, then Believe”
We’ll talk about how our methodology reveals and supports our theology, which we will argue is becoming therapeutic rather than theological in focus
We’ll discuss the individualization of what we believe combined with American entrepreneurialism has fostered an explosion in new churches – many with little historical/theological or even personal leadership accountability.

In examining the “Methodology” we use, we’ll ask these questions:

Is American Evangelicalism increasingly a movement with political, environmental, psychological, or other TEMPORAL focus (along with a sentimental attachment to the image of Jesus) more than a witness to Jesus Christ and Him Crucified?
Are we more about Kingdom building than Gospel proclaiming?
To what extent does the American “pragmatic” mindset infect the American Church and its practice?

I disagree with those who say that we have the correct doctrine but are not living it out. As an evangelical movement, though, there is growing evidence that our doctrine has been forgotten, assumed, ignored and even misshapen and distorted by the narcissistic culture in which we live.

3. To be clear, we are NOT saying that:
… we have “arrived” at Christless Christianity
… there are no good people or works or
… many people aren’t zealous in what they are doing.
… we will deal with ALL of the issues – for example, identification with right or left wing politics is a symptom, not THE problem

4. We will deal with these questions:

Is Jesus Christ and the Gospel proclaimed? (even in a culture which polls tell us over ½ of which is Evangelical)?
Is the “Gospel” commonly understood?
If it is correctly identified, is it a means to an end – like personal transformation or social transformation, love and service to our neighbors, the least and lost, etc. – or is it THE END in itself?
Is what is proclaimed in the pulpits today “The Gospel”?
Do we need “The Gospel” preached after conversion?
To what extent to “mission” and “relevance” trump or overshadow the Gospel?

In conclusion, I’m not coming at the from a “High Horse” position. In many respects, the Evangelical church is what I spent much of my life helping to build. John Stott, who’s ministry has been a hallmark of Evangelicalism, has “embodied [the] integration of Christ-centered proclamation with missional passion” over the post World War II period. When asked, though, by Christianity Today to describe how he would evaluation the Evangelical movement to which he spent so much of his life and ministry contributing, “Stott could only reply, ‘the answer is growth without depth.’”

There have been, over my adult life, many calls to “reformation in the Church” from Robert Schuller’s call in the 1980s for a reformation of Self-Esteem to Rick Warren’s more recent call this decade for a reformation of “deeds vs. creeds.” I’m convinced that we are at a turning point in the history of the American church – and it will be up to you to decide where we go… will we continue on the road we’re on now (to which history may suggest dire consequences) or will we return to the message of the Gospel itself in our proclamation and practice?

So join us when you’re in town or available at Glen Ellyn Bible Church at 11:10am Sunday mornings as we explore Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church. If you’d like more information about the book, go to www.christlesschristianity.org.

Supplemental reading: Christless Christianity: Getting In Christ's Way by Michael S. Horton

Additional materials and podcast available at the White Horse Inn (www.whitehorseinn.org)

(Quotes above from Chapter 1 of the book.)

CLASS DISCUSSION SCHEDULE:

“’Christless’ Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church”

(Jan 25) Introduction - Can Christianity be “Christless”?
(Feb 1) The American Church in Captivity: Naming the Issue
(Feb 8) The Message of Christless Christianity, Part 1: What’s Man’s Problem?
(Feb 15) The Message of Christless Christianity, Part 2: What’s God’s Solution?
(Feb 22) Biblical Authority and “Your Own Personal Jesus”
(Mar 1) Bringing Christ to Our Culture, Part 1: The Message – Law vs. Gospel
(Mar 15) Bringing Christ to Our Culture, Part 2: The Medium – “Doing” Church
(Mar 22) Conclusion – A Way Forward

Election Aftermath...

2008-11-06T10:50:00.003-06:00

It's time to get this going again... but before I pick up with something important, this brief news report:

I Shouldn't Do This, but...

2008-08-27T22:32:00.003-05:00

While it's WAY wide of anything that matters, I thought I'd post this in honor of this week's Democratic National Convention.

Well, he's The One, you know. I say this whole thing is an Obama-nation.

What's The Difference?

2008-08-10T22:52:00.000-05:00

On a more serious note, here is a really important reminder from R.C. Sproul on the difference between "justification" and "salvation"...

Election Nonsense...

2008-08-06T22:10:00.002-05:00

News Flash: This guy has my vote this year! Is it 1980 again?

That's Entertainment...

2008-07-14T21:28:00.007-05:00

Ok, I've been on a LONG break in the "Is Evangelicalism Still Christian?" series, and I really am coming back to it. (Really!) But I saw this video this evening (using a recent White Horse Inn pod cast and adding some examples)... and I believe that this DEMANDS the careful attention of every Evangelical today. It is well worth your time in watching.

You may say that this isn't representative of your church... but while the examples may be extreme, the philosophy of "worship ministry" just may seem all too familiar.

So, what do you think? Reactions? Comments? I'm especially interested in thoughts from anyone involved in a worship ministry: Where are the White Horse Inn guys wrong - or right?

The No Pearls Comment Section is wide open...

Is Evangelicalism Still Christian? - Pt. 3: Focus on God's Glory vs. Man's Benefit

2008-05-15T20:40:00.003-05:00

Evangelicalism is a divided camp these days... I'm not talking though about the usual denominational differences, or even the sparring over issues which, on the surface, look like relatively harmless intramurals (for example, gender roles in leadership). There is a struggle for the very soul of the Church - and it is, accordingly, extraordinary in its scope and practical import*. It is a division between “ME-Centered” and “HE-Centered” Christianity.

In Part 2, we discussed briefly the difference in approaches to defining the Gospel and suggested that ME-Centered Christianity defines the Good News of the work of Jesus Christ in terms of our benefit (or INTERNAL to us), but HE-Centered Christianity understands that the Good News is THE WORK OF JESUS itself (EXTERNAL from us). The difference is significant first because your definition of the Gospel determines the message you proclaim – it defines your FOCUS. And the Evangelicalism is divided today in its message to the world.

The “ME-Centered” message is framed in terms of how God can help you, and a “HE-Centered” message proclaims God’s Glory and man’s responsibility. And while it is important to note that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they are not necessarily always compatible either.

I’ll illustrate the distinction with two very pointed examples… two views of the “Gospel” from Evangelicals with very different focuses (emphasis added):

First, in anticipation of Mother’s Day, Moody Radio ran several times the following “evangelistic” 60 second spot (listen here):

“It’s that time of year again when we honor the most influential women in America. That’s right, our mothers! This is a day we pay tribute to the noble job they do in raising the next generation. But to be quite honest, sometimes as moms we don’t feel so glorious. Our love is masked by anger and frustration. We can’t seem to do it all, and we certainly don’t feel like a super mom. The good news is, we are not alone in this job of parenting. We have a wonderful Heavenly Father who is able to strengthen us with His love, wisdom and patience. The Bible says, “God redeems our life from the pit and crowns us with love and compassion. He satisfies our desires with good things so our youth is renewed like the eagles.” God loves you and desires to help you. If you would like to know more about a relationship with this wonderful God through His son Jesus please call 1-888-Need Him. Someone is waiting to talk with you. Call 1-888-Need Him. I’m Karol Ladd wishing you a Happy Mother's Day!” (Emphasis added)

Second, consider this from John Piper’s book God Is The Gospel: (available free at the link!):

“Today—as in every generation—it is stunning to watch the shift away from God as the all-satisfying gift of God’s love. It is stunning how seldom God himself is proclaimed as the greatest gift of the gospel. But the Bible teaches that the best and final gift of God’s love is the enjoyment of God’s beauty. “One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to inquire in his temple” (Ps. 27:4). The best and final gift of the gospel is that we gain Christ. “I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ” (Phil. 3:8). This is the all-encompassing gift of God’s love through the gospel—to see and savor the glory of Christ forever. (Introduction: What The World Needs Most – The Gospel’s Greatest Gift, God, page 8)” (Emphasis added)

Ladd's focus in the first quote is on MAN's BENEFIT, while Piper's is on GOD's GLORY in the second. There is no small distinction between the two.

If your understanding of the heart of the Gospel is that God PRIMARILY wants to do something for your benefit, then your message will be something like this: “YOU can experience God's best... God has a wonderful plan for YOUR life... 'God loves YOU and desires to help YOU.'”
On the other hand, if you believe that the Good News is PRIMARILY about God bringing glory to Himself and us into line with His will and purpose, your message will be something like this: “GOD’s greatest gift to the world is Jesus Christ … God’s love for us is demonstrated in His amazing sacrifice of His own Son, and gaining Him is greater than anything else – any loss, any suffering, any pain – all are nothing compared to Him. It is worth EVERYTHING to 'see and savor the glory of God in Christ forever!'”

In practical terms, ME-Centered Christianity sees and proclaims the Gospel as “about us” and for our benefit. HE-Centered Christianity sees the Gospel as all “about God” – from Him and through Him and for Him from beginning to end. Consider the following perspective, shared by John Piper at Wheaton College Chapel in October, 1984, Piper said this (the whole talk in context is on the link):

“I would like to try to persuade you that the chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy Himself forever. Or to put it another way: the chief end of God is to enjoy glorifying himself.

The reason this may sound strange is that we tend to be more familiar with our duties than with God's designs. We know why we exist - to glorify God and enjoy him forever. But why does God exist? What should he love with all his heart and soul and mind and strength? Whom should he worship? Or will we deny him that highest of pleasures? It matters a lot what God's ultimate allegiance is to!...

God did not leave us to guess in this affair. He answers the question at every point in redemptive history from creation to consummation… From beginning to end, the driving impulse of God's heart is to be praised for his glory. From creation to consummation his ultimate allegiance is to himself. His unwavering purpose in all he does is to exalt the honor of his name and to be marveled at for his grace and power. He is infinitely jealous for his reputation. "For my own sake, for my own sake I act," says the Lord. "My glory I will not give to another!"

My experience in preaching and teaching is that American evangelicals receive this truth with some skepticism if they receive it at all. None of my sons has ever brought home a Sunday school paper with the lesson title: ""God loves himself more than he loves you." But it is profoundly true, and so generation after generation of evangelicals grow up picturing themselves at the center of God's universe.” (Emphasis added)

Is this hard for you to hear? I winced when first I read that, but the more I think about it in light of Scripture, the more I realize that it is true… and very different from our “default setting” in proclaiming the Gospel – which too often may sound like a sales pitch for how the non-believer’s life will be better than it is now if they will just come to Christ. But faith in Christ certainly does not promise a more comfortable life now, temporal benefit, exemption from sickness or freedom from the pain and suffering of humanity. Christians suffer in all kinds of ways, through their own imperfections, through the common effect of sin in the world... and for God’s Glory consistent with His will and purpose (Romans 8:28).

Proponents of ME-Centered Christianity frequently argue that they aren’t changing the heart of the Gospel by focusing on the benefit to Man, they are simply trying to make the Gospel more ACCESSIBLE by speaking in terms of Man’s need. HE-Centered Christianity argues that, intentionally or otherwise, attempts to make the message ACCESSIBLE frequently are actually seeking to make the Gospel more ACCEPTABLE – and the world WILL NOT, and therefore CAN NOT accept the truth of the Gospel (Romans 8:7). Our responsibility is to tell the Whole Truth to a world we understand is, by nature, hostile to it. ME-Centered Christianity avoids that hostility altogether and, to paraphrase William Willimon:**

"Unable [or unwilling] to preach Christ and him crucified, we preach humanity, and it improved."

The focus of the Gospel is NOT primarily to bring benefit to us - but to bring glory to God. There are today hundreds of thousands of people in misery around the world. Many of those people’s stories are unknown and untold. We read about Typhoons, Earthquakes, Tornadoes (just during the past week!) and the toll of death, destruction and misery is almost unimaginable. What is the Church’s message to those in the real world – including those in such desperate circumstances?

The Evangelical ME-Centered Gospel falsely promises (implicitly and sometimes even explicitly) deliverance from temporal difficulty because it places MAN'S BENEFIT as the focus of the message. But this type of thinking isn’t just “historically aberrational” in Christian theology, it’s silly. Worse yet, it is empty – imagine carrying that message to the people in Myanmar or China this week! The Gospel doesn’t EXEMPT us from the world’s problems, it gives us reason to GLORIFY GOD as we go through them and, as a result, to TRIUMPH over them. This is the focus of HE-Centered Christianity… and it is the message the World desperately needs to hear.

Next Time: Our Focus: What’s “THE Problem?”

*By the way, others much smarter than me have written insightfully about this issue. If you look on the right side of the blog here, you’ll note a series of books which do a great job of articulating our current state – or which provide helpful background material from prior generations. If you’re interested, I’d recommend in particular David J. Wells’ new book The Courage To Be Protestant, which ought to be required reading for every Evangelical leader today.''

**On a related note, you may be interested in this very helpful interview with Willimon called "A New Evaluative Question: "Would Jesus Have to Be Crucified to Make This Sermon Work?" from Modern Reformation Magazine.

Is Evangelicalism Still Christian? - Pt. 2: External vs. Internal Gospel

2008-04-26T07:18:00.007-05:00

In Part 1 of this series, we suggested that there are two competing religions in Evangelicalism these days - The Christianity of "He" vs. The Christianity of "Me" (and its close cousin in many circles, the Christianity of "We"). The differences are startling, and so I hope to begin to demonstrate how important it is for us to understand the issues and, more importantly, stand up for the right side in the argument. As I noted before, the wrong one appears to be winning today.

Before we dive in, a word of explanation: I've styled the issues as dichotomies and they are philosophically; in application, practice is more likely a question of priority and focus. I've "cartooned" the issues in summary to point to highlight and clarify the issue. So think through this carefully with me.

Let's start at (arguably) the MOST IMPORTANT POINT: What is the Gospel? What is our primary message - the thing that is "...the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16)?

The nature of the Gospel is that it is External to Man , as opposed to Internal to Man. It is an external reality which has, of course, internal result. But the Gospel itself is external, not internal. And if we get this message wrong, we miss the point - and the power of the Gospel itself.

What do we share as the Gospel? What do you share when asked? Are you ready to answer the question?

Today, many sadly share, as the Gospel, a message of their own experience - something like this:

"I was once [fill in the blank, usually not good], and now I am [much better, thank you] because I [did something, for example (a) accepted Jesus as my personal savior (b) asked Jesus into my heart (c) trusted Christ for salvation (d) walked an aisle (e) prayed a prayer (f) etc.]"

Others may share a different message, like this:

"God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life..." or "You were created for a purpose..." or "the only way to true [pick as many as apply (a) happiness (b) joy (c) peace (d) security (e) prosperity (f) health (g) freedom from addiction (h) etc.] is through Jesus."

There are many variations on this theme, but the common element is this: They are "internal" messages - their primary focus on "ME" - My problem, My benefit, My action, My result.

The only problem is this: That's not the Gospel. The Gospel is external to us - and while it may result in some of the "internals" its nature and focus is very different. The Gospel of the Bible is this:

God saves sinners by grace, through faith in the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ on their behalf. Men are saved by grace through faith in Christ’s work, which a free gift from God, and are freed from the power of sin to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. There is no other way to be saved, and those who do not have faith in the atoning work of Christ on the cross will be judged accordingly and condemned to eternal punishment in Hell.

If I were allowed a little more precision, I’d say this:

Because all men are by nature sinful, they are rightly judged as guilty before God and subject to His wrath, which if unsatisfied will result in their eternal punishment in Hell.
There is no way for any man to satisfy God’s righteous judgment.
The Gospel (good news) is that Jesus Christ (God’s only Son and God Himself), died to satisfy the just requirement of His wrath for those whom the Father has given Him, and was raised from the dead to accomplish their justification.
Accordingly, God saves sinners by giving them the ability, through regeneration (the New Birth) to have faith in the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ on their behalf.
Having begun this good work in those who are adopted into God’s family through Christ’s death and resurrection, God Himself will bring the good work to completion, ultimately through the sanctification and glorification of His children.
This process increasingly allows God’s children to love, obey and enjoy God and to glorify Him.
All those who are not converted in this manner remain under the just wrath of God, and will ultimately be condemned to eternal punishment in Hell.

Here's the truth: The Gospel is not your experience. The Gospel is not primarily even about you. The Gospel is not “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” The Gospel is not “God wants to be in a relationship with you.” Apart from Christ, God does NOT love you in any way that will result in your eternal benefit! We who are in Christ are the beneficiaries of the Good News,

The Gospel is an event in history, for a specific purpose with a definite result. In that sense, the Gospel is external to us – it is not about us, but from God, of God for God. It is not an “internal” event or experience.

• It is not “I was once [ ] and now I am [ ].”
• It isn’t “asking Jesus into your heart”, or “accepting Jesus”. It is not something that I am called to do or to experience and, it is not a relationship.

The result of the Gospel in our lives is all of these things, but the result is to be distinguished from the Gospel itself – which is that God saves sinners by grace through faith in the atoning work of Christ’s death on the cross.

Finally, the Gospel is, of course, the work of God. It is a free gift – and our appropriation of the work done by God is not by any work or human effort or anything of us. And it needs to be said these days that the Gospel is not ANYTHING that starts with the phrase “God longs for…” The Gospel of the Bible is what God accomplished, not what He hopes might possibly happen.

In that sense, then, the Gospel is external – the results are internal. Why does this matter? The Gospel is what must be preached, and it – not the internal result(s) – is “the power of God unto salvation” for those who believe it.

I've heard frequently that, in witnessing, we don't need to "get theological" or cite a lot of Bible verses - we just need to tell our story - share our experience. That's fine, I guess - as long as you get around to telling people The Gospel. Your experience isn't The Good News.

So how does today's Evangelical Message stack up against this? Pretty sadly in my highly unscientific sampling. All too often in sermons, I hear the results - benefits to us, etc. discussed as “the Gospel.” Troll around the web today and look at the sermon series being offered and it's pretty astonishing - especially in the "seeker" and "emergent/emerging" oriented churches. All too often, I hear and see the following:

Power and Experience as the Gospel
Prosperity and Health as the Gospel
Personal Reformation and Life Transformation as the Gospel
Psychological Therapy as the Gospel
Social Action and Justice as the Gospel
Compassion for the Least and the Lost as the Gospel

Some of this is good, some is not. Some is right and some is wrong theologically. That's not my point here, which is this: If the "Message" preached or proclaimed is not Jesus Christ Crucified for Sin - it's not the Gospel. If the message you share is "internal" it's not The Gospel, and it's not the power of God unto salvation. And ultimately, it's like the sign above... it may be true, but it misses the most important thing.

What do we need proclaimed by the Church today? We want to see our children, family, neighbors, friends and community come to salvation - They need the Gospel. We want to grow in obedience to our Lord. We want to be more like Him - We need the Gospel.

The Evangelical Church today is overrun with messages and preaching that focus internally - and miss the mark of the Gospel itself. The Gospel is a factual description about "HE" not a report about "ME". And while this may seem picky, if you think about it, the focus of the Gospel presentation will follow through out its application... if it was all about you in the first place, it will be throughout the rest of your experience as well. But if the focus initially is on what Jesus did, it will continue to focus on Him as well.

So what's your Gospel Message?

Next time: The Primary Focus - God's Glory vs. Man's Benefit

A Brief Interlude...

2008-04-25T19:59:00.001-05:00

Our series continues soon... but first this timely message:

Is Evangelicalism Still Christian?

2008-04-16T20:38:00.009-05:00

There comes a time when thinking people need to ask hard questions, and this is the one I've been wrestling with for some time now. It may seem like blasphemy to even ask something like this, but I am increasingly convinced that there is a great divide in modern evangelical thinking and, like the road pictured here, we're not all moving in the same ultimate direction.

I'll be exploring this further in upcoming posts, but I'll start with my working conclusion: There are two competing religions in Evangelicalism these days. They are incompatible and they are at war for the souls of men, women and children in our midst. Pick your metaphor: The two are oil and water, black and white, night and day, right and wrong... one is a reflection of God's will and purpose and the other is a lie as old as the Garden and the deceiver in it.

They use the same language. They cite the same scriptures. They profess the same faith. But they are TOTALLY different in their nature. Contrary to the wishful (and ignorant) thinking of many who name the name of Christ these days, they do not represent "differences within the family" and they are not insignificant - one is orthodox and the other is apostate.

And I am deeply concerned as the wrong one appears to be carrying the day.

I'm going to spend a few posts talking through this, but at their heart, the two competing religions are The Christianity of "He" vs. The Christianity of "Me" (and its close cousin in many circles, the Christianity of "We"). Here is just a brief list of the most significant differences ("He" vs. "Me"). They address the same questions, but present very different answers (I'll let you guess which is the right viewpoint!):

The Primary [fill in the blank] :

Nature of the Gospel -
External to Man vs. Internal to Man
Focus -
God's Glory vs. Man's Benefit
Mover -
God's Sovereignty vs. Man's Decision
Result of Christ's Death -
God's Completed Work vs. Man's Available Opportunity
Purpose of Sharing the Gospel -
The Glory of God vs. The Benefit of Man
Vehicle for Articulating Faith -
Embracing of Creeds vs. Accomplishment of Deeds
Means of Discipleship -
God's Completed Work vs. Man's Ongoing Responsibility
Measure of Security -
Christ's Work and God's Promise vs. Man's Decision and Consistency
Nature of Worship -
God-Focused and Reverent vs. Man-Focused and "Relevant"
Characteristic of Pastors -
Shepherding vs. Leadership
Identifying Characteristics of Followers -
Fidelity and Obedience vs. Comfort and Power

The Evangelical movement is unapologetic in embracing the "Christianity of Me." Increasingly, this is evidenced by (among other things) our

Unprecedented rejection of doctrine as unknowable at best and irrelevant at worst, combined with
Belligerent embracing of Biblical illiteracy and
Insatiable appetite for entertainment, even at the expense of authenticity

To the extent that this is happening, it isn't just a difference of opinion... it is an assault on the Gospel itself, and must be addressed and rejected by everyone who loves Jesus.

The Church Universal has survived - even flourished - through days of apostasy before, and it will through these dark days. It is, after all, the Bride of Christ - and He who began a good work in the Elect will bring it to completion. But we who are living in this time must take seriously the call of Scripture to be discerning - to watch out for false teachers - to beware of false doctrine - to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints... The problem is real, and the time for playing and pretending is long over.

So explore this with me if you will... whether you agree with me or not in my conclusions, I trust you'll see that the issue I'm raising is real - and perhaps at least a real discussion can begin. Is it possible that those of us who are "evangelical" are rejecting the very fundamental tenets of the Gospel itself? And if there are really two irreconcilable paths in Evangelicalism these days, which road are you on?

Next Time: "'He" vs. "Me" Christianity - Is the Gospel External or Internal?

Tonight: "Worship" on Fox

2008-04-13T14:05:00.007-05:00

In a truly surreal moment, finalists on the TV show "American Idol" recently performed the song "Shout To the Lord." (If you didn't see it, they did it not once, but twice!)

Some are calling this an opportunity, others are blasting it... I see this as just one more blurred line between the secular and sacred. In a Christian culture that has seemingly lost the ability to distinguish between "worship" and "entertainment," this seems perfectly appropriate I guess. Aside from the promo intro, this looks like what most evangelical churches are striving for these days.

Apparently, there is some ruckus about this in the blogsphere. I'll confess to being happily ignorant about the whole thing until this morning, when I stumbled across a post over at the ThinkChristian.net blog. I was especially intrigued by this comment from "MCG":

"Philippians 1:15-18: It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. If it's good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me :)

[two comments later...]

"I do think that in terms of what matters---the Gospel spread---it is a net benefit that the song was sung on American Idol... Many people who have never heard that song, or at least who have never considered it seriously, were exposed to a powerful declaration of Jesus Christ... The Gospel was, indeed, spread."

Really? Is singing Shout to the Lord "preaching Christ"? Do the lyrics of the song proclaim the message that Paul is celebrating in Philippians 1? What is "the Gospel" that we're talking about?

You may think I'm being picky - and maybe that's the case here. But it does raise the question I've been wrestling with for some time now. I've been threatening to take it up, and will do so later today or tomorrow.

For now though, I can say one thing about the American Idol thing: We know they aren't worshiping because no one has raised their hands. :-)

One Hand Slapping...

2008-03-11T22:39:00.008-05:00

WARNING: SARCASM ALERT!

Julie, over at "One Hand Clapping" hosted a rousing and enlightening discussion - ostensibly about John Piper's recent comments about the importance of doctrinal consistency in teaching at a church or seminary. He had, apparently, the unmitigated gall to suggest - as a Reformed pastor - the following (and be prepared for a SHOCK):

"Here’s my rule of thumb: the more responsible a person is to shape the thoughts of others about God, the less Arminianism should be tolerated. Therefore church members should not be excommunicated for this view but elders and pastors and seminary and college teachers should be expected to hold the more fully biblical view of grace.

Do you separate from a denomination that allows pastors and seminary teachers to believe and teach this error? You can. We do. Oh, how we need discernment concerning how helpful you might be to the cause of Christ and his truth."
By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

Hard to believe, isn't it? What an "arrogant" thing to say! Who does he think he is?

Can you believe the temerity of a Calvinist having a hard time with Arminian theology being taught? Arminians would NEVER object to Calvinism being taught, would they? (By the way, I HATE the labels... and I don't see "Calvinism" starting with Calvin: It was Augustinianism before Calvin, Pauline before Augustine and Biblical before that. Blame Jesus for having the nerve to put that doctrine in His Bible!) Well, we certainly wouldn't want consistency in thinking or conviction in belief - the most important thing isn't a passionate pursuit of the Truth, because apparently that's not knowable (or not thinking it is isn't "humble").

We need "humility" in our beliefs - I'm right, but you're right too. That's the ticket. Where is Mr. Rogers when we need him? Sing along, kids!

I think you're a special person
And I like your ins and outsides.
Everbody's fancy.
Everybody's fine.
Your body's fancy and so is mine.

Pa-leeeeeeze.

Anyway, check out the enlightening, profitable discussion that ensued with the "emerging church" folks on Julie's blog - I think it's a great commentary on "emerging church" thinking - and priorities. Note that Northern Illinois has its own "cussing pastor" too!

And feel free to let me know what you think. In my view, it's so sad. And I'm wondering when the adults are going to show up and start asking some legitimate questions about what is going on in the name of "church" these days.

This leads very nicely into my next series - If I can ever get time to start it! Stay tuned.

Back to School... Part 7

2008-03-01T08:51:00.005-06:00

As we've followed along With Christ in the School of Prayer, we've seen that God's will and purpose is to be our first priority - actually, it is our only priority because of the great truths that if God is our Father, He knows, cares and meets our needs and that we have reason to have full assurance and confidence in this because of His character and His promise. And our real need is consistent with God's will and purpose... to bring Glory and Honor to Him.

As we grow to see our lives as instruments in bringing glory to God, as a result of God's working in us, how can we not trust Him more? How can we not see more and more clearly our circumstances in light of God's plan rather than merely from the perspective of our comfort?

If you are truly God's child, do you judge your circumstances as "fair or unfair"? Do you evaluate them by how comfortable you are? Or do you look at life asking how you can, this day, bring glory to God regardless of your circumstance?

If God has you in a place that feels painful now, is He in control - or is He constrained by you and your actions? So many who name the name of Christ seem to think that they are in control of God - that while "He longs" to bless us, He can't do so without our cooperation. But that isn't the God of the Bible! He wills it, and He brings it to pass. And ALL THINGS work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose.

Today, we finish this lesson by looking at our final need: Protection from the evil one. And like the other petitions in this model prayer, it's all about God. Its from Him and for Him. No wonder this prayer ends with the profound truth and declaration that ALL control (the Kingdom), ALL AUTHORITY (the Power) and ALL CREDIT (the Glory) belong to God and Him alone.

Here are my final questions from this little lesson (and be careful how quickly you answer!):

When you pray, who is your focus - is it you, or is it God?
What is the desired outcome or goal of your prayer - is it a change in your circumstance or is it God's Glory?
What is your view of God - is it that He is your Father, and you can not only trust Him but subordinate your will to His... or does God need to be convinced (or even manipulated) into obeying you?
In the difficult circumstances of life, do you see God as your loving Father - no matter how things go for you - and the Sovereign Lord of the Universe who is trustworthy? Or do you see God as a really nice - but functionally impotent "semi-deity" who is hindered by your will and action?

Remember, we are "with Christ" in the school of prayer... when we remember His example, we see the focus on God's priority - and the confidence in God's provision. And when we remember His promised presence, we can take courage to pray in this manner which is - as we really consider it - so unlike us!

_____________________

"‘And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.’

Our daily bread, the pardon of our sins, and then our being kept from all sin and the power of the evil one, in these three petitions all our personal need is comprehended.

The prayer for bread and pardon must be accompanied by the surrender to live in all things in holy obedience to the Father’s will, and the believing prayer in everything to be kept by the power of the indwelling Spirit from the power of the evil one.

Children of God! it is thus Jesus would have us to pray to the Father in heaven. O let His Name, and Kingdom, and Will, have the first place in our love; His providing, and pardoning, and keeping love will be our sure portion. So the prayer will lead us up to the true child-life: the Father all to the child, the Father all for the child.

We shall understand how Father and child, the Thine and the Our, are all one, and how the heart that begins its prayer with the God-devoted THINE, will have the power in faith to speak out the OUR too.

Such prayer will, indeed, be the fellowship and interchange of love, always bringing us back in trust and worship to Him who is not only the Beginning but the End: ‘FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER, AMEN.’ Son of the Father, teach us to pray, ‘OUR FATHER.’ ‘LORD, TEACH US TO PRAY.’"

Back to School... Part 6

2008-02-24T16:57:00.000-06:00

We've learned that our primary concern With Christ in the School of Prayer is to be for our Father - His name, His glory, His honor, His will and His purpose. How different this is from the prayers we hear so frequently, which focus on our needs and concerns!

We've also learned that God is concerned about us as well - He is our Father. We understand a father's love and concern from their children, and the more we realize that God is the Father of those whom He has chosen, the greater our confidence to come into His presence - to take up His concerns, and to bring our concerns to Him as well. And how much He loves and cares for us! How He meets every one of our needs - He knows them before we even ask, and He has resource sufficient for all!

We learn in this portion of the lesson that our needs include not only physical provision, but relational provision as well. We were made to be in community - remember, after all, that God's one "negative" comment PRIOR to the fall was this: "It is not good that the man should be alone..." (Genesis 2:18). We were made for communion with God Himself, and to be in right relationship with those around us. And the barrier to that communion is, of course, our own sinfulness.

How appropriate, then, that we are given a way to address this great need in the Model Prayer - the first provision which requires us to do anything! (By the way, it's the subject for another day's post, but think about Jesus' parable tying our forgiveness with that which we extend to others in Matthew 18: Assume that a day's wages were $10 - the King forgave a debt of $780,000,000 (!) while the servant would not forgive a debt of $1,000! Aren't the things we're asked to forgive our brothers also disproportionately small compared to what we've been forgiven?)

So today's questions: In light of who God is and His provision for you, will you own your fault - your sin - which is the cause of your estrangement from Him? And in receiving His pardon - and considering its generosity, will you forgive those around you?

_____________________

"‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.’ As bread is the first need of the body, so forgiveness for the soul. And the provision for the one is as sure as for the other.

We are children but sinners too; our right of access to the Father’s presence we owe to the precious blood and the forgiveness it has won for us.

Let us beware of the prayer for forgiveness becoming a formality: only what is really confessed is really forgiven.

Let us in faith accept the forgiveness as promised: as a spiritual reality, an actual transaction between God and us, it is the entrance into all the Father’s love and all the privileges of children.

Such forgiveness, as a living experience, is impossible without a forgiving spirit to others: as forgiven expresses the heavenward, so forgiving the earthward, relation of God’s child. In each prayer to the Father I must be able to say that I know of no one whom I do not heartily love."

Back to School... Part 5

2008-02-23T09:50:00.004-06:00

We're learning With Christ in the School of Prayer that prayer is first and foremost about God, and not about us. It's about our Father in Heaven, who's whole being and character, who's very name is Holy. It's about His agenda - His will - His plan and purpose being accomplished in our world... especially in us. Prayer is our opportunity to personally enter into what is most concerning to bringing glory, honor and obedience to God. This is the great purpose of life, our highest calling, our greatest joy.

And it is totally consistent that a life focused this way enjoys great confidence in relationship with God. Murray's point here ought not be missed: Do you wonder whether God understands your needs? Whether He knows or cares? If you are His child, you have direct assurance from the Word on this point (Matthew 6:32-33), and our assurance is tied directly to our correct understanding of this Divine priority.

But understanding that, Our Teacher wants us to understand, feel... enjoy confidence in knowing that our Father will provide for our needs. Where ever you are today, God knows your need... and if He is your Father, you can have confidence and assurance that He will provide all that is needed for you. When you think about how little we rely in practice on this truth, it is astonishing!

If you are His child, do you doubt His willingness or ability to take care of you? "...seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you."

_____________________

"‘Give us this day our daily bread.’

When first the child has yielded himself to the Father in the care for His Name, His Kingdom, and His Will, he has full liberty to ask for his daily bread. A master cares for the food of his servant, a general of his soldiers, a father of his child.

And will not the Father in heaven care for the child who has in prayer given himself up to His interests?

We may indeed in full confidence say: Father, I live for Thy honour and Thy work; I know Thou carest for me.

Consecration to God and His will gives wonderful liberty in prayer for temporal things: the whole earthly life is given to the Father’s loving care."

Back to School... Part 4

2008-02-19T21:19:00.001-06:00

It is a challenging place, to be With Christ in the School of Prayer. The School calls us away from our comfort zones, and out of ourselves and our interests and concerns. It calls us to something much bigger... and better.

For us, prayer can often be self-centered... self-focused. Like little kids coming to dad to right a wrong or fix a problem, so we often come to our Heavenly Father only when there is an injustice, an injury or a problem. And if this only when we think of prayer, how completely it misses the point - the real reason God calls us to pray!

We've been called into relationship with the God of the Universe! The One who has created all things, sustains all things, knows all things... who is Perfect in every way, infinitely More than anything we can imagine. While He loves us and knows (and cares!) about even the smallest details of our lives, His will and purpose is FAR more important than ours. When we think about it, even when our difficulties and concerns are overwhelming to us, we understand that God is already aware of them (Matthew 6:31-32), more than able to take care of them (Matthew 7:11) and that He is calling us to care about His concerns. What a privilege! What an honor! What a responsibility!

I need to say, though, that this privilege is reserved for His children - and we are NOT "all God's children" though, no matter how popular the thought remains. We are, by nature, children of the devil (John 8:42-44) - alienated from God, dead to God and objects of His wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3). But by His grace and apart from anything we do, He has chosen some to be His children (Ephesians 1:3)! And God will call them to Himself, make them right before Him, and ultimately, glorify them along with His Son, Jesus (Romans 8:30). If you don't know God this way... seek Him while you have time and opportunity. He may be found! None of us deserve it, but God is rich in mercy. And what could be more important than to be apart of God's plan and purpose?

Today's Question: Do you want God's will to be done - in your life? May it be so for each of us... and if you have not come to know Him, this is a good time to be concerned about it!

_____________________

"‘Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.’ This petition is too frequently applied alone to the suffering of the will of God. In heaven God’s will is done, and the Master teaches the child to ask that the will may be done on earth just as in heaven: in the spirit of adoring submission and ready obedience.

Because the will of God is the glory of heaven, the doing of it is the blessedness of heaven.

As the will is done, the kingdom of heaven comes into the heart.

And wherever faith has accepted the Father’s love, obedience accepts the Father’s will.

The surrender to, and the prayer for a life of heaven-like obedience, is the spirit of childlike prayer."

Back to School... Part 3

2008-02-18T17:11:00.000-06:00

Back to With Christ in the School of Prayer again... One of the things I love about this book is that it doesn't primarily teach me about prayer, it encourages me to pray. I trust that perhaps you're thinking that way as well. Most people have a sense that prayer is a good thing. It's frequently mentioned, especially in times of difficulty - that is as it should be, because it is in when we realize our woeful inability to meet the need of the hour that our ordinary sentiments seems so, well, shallow and hollow.

Perhaps you were listening to the news this last week when the NIU shootings happened. I live in northern Illinois, and we have connections to NIU... and as parents of a college student, I can only begin to start to imagine what happens in the mind of a parent during a tragedy of that magnitude. So when someone, meaning well, says "You're in my thoughts," I appreciate the sentiment but it doesn't really do much to meet the need.

If, on the other hand, though, someone says "I'm praying for you," consider the audacity of that statement: They are saying that they have access to the God of the Universe, that they are daring to enter His presence and are speaking to Him (the author of time, space and the keeper of all eternity, the judge of the entire world, the one with whom ALL must ultimately deal) about this very circumstance! WOW! If it really is that (and I understand that it is EXACTLY that), prayer is a HUGE deal and an INCREDIBLE privilege.

In this "Model Prayer" Murray has pointed out - so far - that it isn't just that all powerful deity that invites us into conversation... He is our Father, and we are loved as dearly loved children if we've been adopted into His family. Oh, and just in case the "familial relationship" leads one of His children to an inappropriate familiarity, we are reminded that Our Father is Holy and that His Glory is to be our Primary priority.

He is Our Father, so we can approach Him. Who could have more access to someone than their child? We are family, so we can draw near.

He is Holy - it is His Name and Character - so we understand Him as He really is. This One we pray to isn't a god of our imagination... we must come to Him as He is. And He is Awesome! But when we pray, do we share our Father's agenda, or are we just all about what we want from Him?

Here's the question for today: Does God's agenda grip you? When was the last time you prayed from God's perspective? That's the subject of today's portion of the lesson. (By the way, this is the shortest of the sections, but if you think about it, perhaps the most challenging. Consider what life would be like when God answers this request - Hey, that's a great place for a comment, so weigh in!)

_____________________

"‘Thy kingdom come.’ The Father is a King and has a kingdom. The son and heir of a king has no higher ambition than the glory of his father’s kingdom.

In time of war or danger this becomes his passion; he can think of nothing else. The children of the Father are here in the enemy’s territory, where the kingdom, which is in heaven, is not yet fully manifested. What more natural than that, when they learn to hallow the Father-name, they should long and cry with deep enthusiasm: ‘Thy kingdom come.’

The coming of the kingdom is the one great event on which
the revelation of the Father’s glory,
the blessedness of His children, and
the salvation of the world
depends. On our prayers too the coming of the kingdom waits. Shall we not join in the deep longing cry of the redeemed: ‘Thy kingdom come’? Let us learn it in the school of Jesus."

Back to School... Part 2

2008-02-17T15:00:00.001-06:00

We're back to school with Andrew Murray again.... If you haven't read yesterday's portion, go ahead and do that first - the rest of us will wait for you!

Murray's fourth lesson in the book With Christ in the School of Prayer is discussing "The Model Prayer" given by Jesus in Matthew 6. (By the way, before this one he's discussed Jesus (Luke 11:1) as "The Only Teacher" for prayer , those who worship in Spirit and Truth (John 4:23-24) as "The True Worshippers" and the only people of prayer and being "Alone with God" (Matthew 6:6) as the beginning place - the school - of prayer. Great stuff, and all worth a place in your devotional thinking.

So here's the question for today: When we pray, what is primarily on our mind? The answer to that question reveals a lot about our heart. Are you willing to learn from Jesus about what is important in prayer? The truth here is not new, but if you've ever attended a public prayer meeting, you'll likely realize how sadly lacking this truth is in application. How often our concerns are the first (and sadly, even often the only) things that are mentioned in prayer!

May that not be true with us. Our Heavenly Father is waiting for those who put His priorities first, and our churches need the example of a few who will learn to pray in accordance with the Father's priorities... will you be one who prays this way?

_____________________

"‘Hallowed be Thy name.’ There is something here that strikes us at once. While we ordinarily first bring our own needs to God in prayer, and then think of what belongs to God and His interests, the Master reverses the order.

First, Thy name, Thy kingdom, Thy will; then, give us, forgive us, lead us, deliver us. The lesson is of more importance than we think. In true worship the Father must be first, must be all. The sooner I learn to forget myself in the desire that HE may be glorified, the richer will the blessing be that prayer will bring to myself. No one ever loses by what he sacrifices for the Father. This must influence all our prayer. There are two sorts of prayer: personal and intercessory. The latter ordinarily occupies the lesser part of our time and energy. This may not be.
Christ has opened the school of prayer specially to train intercessors for the great work of bringing down, by their faith and prayer, the blessings of His work and love on the world around. There can be no deep growth in prayer unless this be made our aim.
The little child may ask of the father only what it needs for itself; and yet it soon learns to say, Give some for sister too. But the grown-up son, who only lives for the father’s interest and takes charge of the father’s business, asks more largely, and gets all that is asked.
And Jesus would train us to the blessed life of consecration and service, in which our interests are all subordinate to the Name, and the Kingdom, and the Will of the Father.
O let us live for this, and let, on each act of adoration, Our Father! there follow in the same breath Thy Name, Thy Kingdom, Thy Will;—for this we look up and long."

‘Hallowed be Thy name.’ What name? This new name of Father. The word Holy is the central word of the Old Testament; the name Father of the New. In this name of Love all the holiness and glory of God are now to be revealed. And how is the name to be hallowed? By God Himself:
‘I will hallow My great name which ye have profaned.’
Our prayer must be that in ourselves, in all God’s children, in presence of the world, God Himself would reveal the holiness, the Divine power, the hidden glory of the name of Father. The Spirit of the Father is the Holy Spirit: it is only when we yield ourselves to be led of Him, that the name will be hallowed in our prayers and our lives. Let us learn the prayer: ‘Our Father, hallowed be Thy name.’"

Back to School... Part 1

2008-02-16T10:57:00.006-06:00

I've been reading lately again Andrew Murray's wonderful book With Christ in the School of Prayer, and am reminded again of the simplicity and power of our Lord's teaching... and that His teaching is so simple that even a child can understand it, and yet it possesses a depth which takes His disciples deeper and deeper in its meaning each time they hear His words. Murray reminds me of this with his brilliant devotional exposition of the Lord's Prayer in his Fourth Lesson in the book. (By the way, if you haven't read this, you really ought to do so... it's one of the few books about prayer which not only inspires me to think and talk about prayer, but to actually pray!)

One of the great tragedies of today's evangelical movement is the sad lack of personal and corporate prayer. You know the old saying:

"Much prayer, much power... little prayer, little power... no prayer, no power."

This is a great summary of a core problem with a self-sufficient culture (even an evangelical sub-culture), and a reason for the selfish focus of many who name the name of Christ in these days. And what a tragedy it is to claim to follow Christ, but at such a distance that we miss His will and purpose by failing in this fundamental privilege of actual communion and fellowship with the Father. I want to share over the next few days just this one lesson... by the way, have you considered recently what an unbelievable privilege it is to have the direct, specific teaching from Jesus on this subject? How incredibly important it must be for us to understand - and to follow in practice.

Today, I'm going to let Murray speak for himself without any further distraction from me. Perhaps you will renewed encouragement, and may God grant to each of us the reality of His presence in prayer.

_____________________

"‘Our Father which art in heaven!’ To appreciate this word of adoration aright, I must remember that none of the saints had in Scripture ever ventured to address God as their Father. The invocation places us at once in the centre of the wonderful revelation the Son came to make of His Father as our Father too.

It comprehends the mystery of redemption—Christ delivering us from the curse that we might become the children of God.
The mystery of regeneration—the Spirit in the new birth giving us the new life.
And the mystery of faith—ere yet the redemption is accomplished or understood, the word is given on the lips of the disciples to prepare them for the blessed experience still to come.
The words are the key to the whole prayer, to all prayer. It takes time, it takes life to study them; it will take eternity to understand them fully. The knowledge of God’s Father-love is the first and simplest, but also the last and highest lesson in the school of prayer.

It is in the personal relation to the living God, and the personal conscious fellowship of love with Himself, that prayer begins.
It is in the knowledge of God’s Fatherliness, revealed by the Holy Spirit, that the power of prayer will be found to root and grow.
In the infinite tenderness and pity and patience of the infinite Father, in His loving readiness to hear and to help, the life of prayer has its joy.
O let us take time, until the Spirit has made these words to us spirit and truth, filling heart and life: ‘Our Father which art in heaven.’ Then we are indeed within the veil, in the secret place of power where prayer always prevails. "

Who Will Stand Up and Sit This Guy Down?

2008-01-21T20:54:00.000-06:00

OK, it's been a while, so strap on your seat belts!

I've been reading Brian McLaren's most recent book Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope (2007). Mr. McLaren's audacity struck me even more in this book than usual and, while I can hardly do justice to the whole of the book (even in this unusually long post!), one aspect COMPELS me to respond.

McLaren argues that the Church has missed the point of the Gospel – not just American evangelicals, but all of Orthodox Christianity over the centuries. (I guess if you're going to take something on, you may as well go for broke!) His proposition, at least in part, is that our focus on individual salvation is wrong - or at least misguided. In seeking to demonstrate this, he contrasts historic orthodox Christianity (what he calls the “conventional” view) with the “emerging” view (which he clearly holds), and contrasts those views' answers to four questions foundational to the Gospel message. The following excerpts are his words, and I believe speak for themselves in terms of fairness, tone of “charity” and his feelings about our historic message. His questions - his responses. Let's take a Fox News look at this ("We report, you decide"):

“The Human Situation: What is the story we find ourselves in?
Conventional View: God created the world as perfect, but because our primal ancestors, Adam and Eve, did not maintain the absolute perfection demanded by God, God has irrevocably determined that the entire universe and all it contains will be destroyed, and the souls of all human beings – except for those specifically exempted – will be forever punished for their imperfection in hell.*

* Of course, there are many modern Western nonreligious ontologies and framing stories too, plus Eastern ontologies and framing stories - both religious and irreligious.

Emerging View: God created the world as good, but human beings – as individuals, and as groups – have rebelled against God and filled the world with evil and injustice. God wants to save humanity and heal it from its sickness, but humanity is hopelessly lost and confused, like sheep without a shepherd, wandering further and further into lostness and danger. Left to themselves, human beings will spiral downward in sickness and evil.

Basic Questions: What questions did Jesus come to answer?
Conventional View: Since everyone is doomed to hell, Jesus seeks to answer one or both of these questions: How can individuals be saved from eternal punishment in hell and instead go to heaven after they die? How can God help individuals be happy and successful until then?

Emerging View: Since the human race is in such desperate trouble, Jesus seeks to answer this question: What must be done about the mess we’re in? The mess refers both to the general human condition and to its specific outworking among his contemporaries living under the domination by the Roman Empire and who were confused and conflicted as to what they should do to be liberated.

Jesus’ Message: How did Jesus respond to the crisis?
Conventional View: Jesus says, in essence, “If you want to be among those specifically qualified to escape being forever punished for your sins in hell, you must repent of your individual sins and believe that my Father punished me on the cross so he won’t have to punish you in hell. Only if you believe this will you go to heaven when the earth is destroyed and everyone else is banished to hell.”* This is the good news.

*This reflects a Calvinistic, evangelical, Protestant version of the message. The popular Roman Catholic version might say, “You must believe in the teachings of the church and follow its instructions, especially those regarding mortal sins and sacraments.” The popular mainline or liberal Protestant version is sometimes vague and difficult to pin down, but one version of it might be summarized in its most dilute form as, “God is nice and wants you to be nice too.”

Emerging View: Jesus says, in essence, “I have been sent by God with this good news – that God loves humanity, even in its lostness and sin. God graciously invites everyone and anyone to turn from his or her path and follow a new way. Trust me and become my disciple, and you will be transformed, and you will participate in the transformation of the world, which is possible, beginning right now.”* This is the good news.

* This experience of transformation is, in my view, related to what Jesus means by “the kingdom of God.”

Purpose of Jesus: Why is Jesus important?
Conventional View: Jesus came to solve the problem of “original sin,” meaning that he helps qualified individuals not to be sent to hell for their sin or imperfection. In a sense, Jesus saves these people from God, or more specifically, from the righteous wrath of God, which sinful human beings deserve because they have not perfectly fulfilled God’s just expectations, expressed in God’s moral laws. This escape from punishment is not something they earn or achieve, but rather a free gift they receive as an expression of God’s grace and love. Those who receive it enjoy a personal relationship with God and seek to serve and obey God, which produces a happier life on Earth and more rewards in heaven.

Emerging View: Jesus came to become the Savior of the world, meaning he came to save the earth and all it contains from its ongoing destruction because of human evil. Through his life and teaching, through his suffering, death, and resurrection, he inserted into human history a seed of grace, truth, and hope that can never be defeated. This seed will, against all opposition and odds, prevail over the evil and injustice of humanity and lead to the world’s ongoing transformation into the world God dreams of. All who find in Jesus God’s hope and truth discover the privilege of participating in his ongoing work of personal and global transformation and liberation from evil and injustice. As part of his transforming community, they experience liberation from the fear of death and condemnation. This is not something they earn or achieve, but rather a free gift they receive as an expression of God’s grace and love.”

A little later in the book, McLaren goes further along this line, discussing the songs of Mary and Zechariah. In seeking to make the point that, at the time of the birth of Christ, these key announcements echoed the themes of the "emerging" rather than the "conventional" view of Christianity. To make the point, McLaren rewrites Mary's "Magnificat" (as he thinks it should have read if the "conventional" view was right) in the following manner:

“My soul glorifies the Lord and my Spirit rejoices in God my personal Savior, for he has been mindful of the correct saving faith of his servant. My spirit will go to heaven when my body dies, for the Might One has provided forgiveness, assurance, and eternal security for me—holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who have correct saving faith and orthodox articulations of belief, from generation to generation. He will overcome the damning effects of original sin with his mighty arm; he will damn to hell those who believe they can be saved through their own efforts or through any religion other than the new one he is about to form. He will condemn followers of other religions to hell but bring to heaven those will correct belief. He has filled correct believers with spiritual blessings but will send those who are not elect to hell forever. He has helped those with correct doctrinal understanding, remembering to be merciful to those who believe in the correct theories of the atonement, just as our preferred theologians throughout history have articulated.” (emphasis added to increase nausea).

McLaren’s characterization of the orthodox view certainly bear comment and rebuttal. It is, at best, a caricature - and an unfair one at that. His rhetoric here is consistent with his frequently utilized tendency in his writings to make his point seem more reasonable by setting up an unreasonable “straw man” argument for comparison. But in this case, his caricatures and their comparisons lead one to a very different view of the Gospel itself!

Just as one example, he appears to say that God would obviously be unfair to judge men and send them to hell for their “imperfections” while ignoring the clear doctrine of original sin. What is one to make, for example, of his characterizations of the doctrine of original sin and the lost condition of man? What is he implying when he characterizes this view as punishment in hell forever for our “imperfections” and that “because our primal ancestors” (a long time ago) weren’t perfect? What emotion is he trying to stir by saying that because of this ancient “imperfection,” “God has irrevocably determined that the entire universe and all it contains [and the souls of all human beings] will be destroyed”?

McLaren defines the historic, orthodox view of original sin and divine justice as self-evidently untrue, written in a manner that demands “NO – THAT’S NOT TRUE” as the only decent response. But while McLaren states it in an inflammatory fashion, the fact remains that the sin of Adam and Eve is imputed to all men (Romans 5:12 and following), and all of humanity faces an eternity in hell apart from the atoning work of Jesus received by faith. In his book The Story We Find Ourselves In, McLaren characterizes substitutionary atonement (what we have always affirmed as the cornerstone of the Gospel message) as “something sounding like “divine child abuse!”* And while his "emerging view" seems so much more reasonable - especially by comparison - it avoids the foundational question of the spiritual state of man and his need for the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Apart from this, men aren't "spiral[ing] downward in ...evil" - they are DEAD in it.

* To be fair (or at least complete), McLaren makes this statement in a dialogue between characters, and so he might seek to distance himself from the sentiment expressed. He does, however, go on to explain that substitutionary atonement is “a theory” which, along with others, may be “windows” into understanding a broader truth – but, like a window, they are inadequate in conveying the whole of what’s to be viewed outside. “The theories are like windows, and having a theory is better than staring at a blank wall or even a picture on the wall, but theories can’t give you the whole sky… I’d rather use the word ‘Mystery’…” All of which is part of McLaren’s ongoing effort to undermine the certainty of historic truth and propel a sense of mystery which rejects any efforts at propositional truth – at least to the extent it has been viewed as foundational in historic, Orthodox Christianity as understood by traditional Evangelicals.

The type of rhetoric used by McLaren is more than merely "provocative," and it does not represent something over which “reasonable people can disagree.” At best, it is confusing and misleading; at worst, it is “another Gospel” within the meaning of Galatians 1:8, and heretical.

There are certainly many people who have done a fair, scholarly review and assessment of Brian McLaren’s writings (see for example, D.A. Carson’s book Becoming Conversant With The Emerging Church, which predates McLaren’s most provocative writing), but my concern is not with scholarly review – we don’t need an analysis of his ideas as much as we need protection from them. This is why church leaders are told to guard the doctrine of the Church – that is, not only to give instruction in sound doctrine, but “also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). It is also why we, as “the rank and file” are commanded to test everything against the Word (e.g., Acts 17:11, 1 John 4:1) and flee from false teaching (Romans 16:17).

Evangelicals (by and large) have thankfully dismissed things like the Joel Olsteen lunacy, but seem to tolerate Brian McLaren – and for the life of me, I can’t understand why. McLaren’s socteriology appears (at least in practical application) to be Palagian, with not-so-subtle hints towards universalism thrown in as well. He is increasingly widely read, invited to prominent speaking events, featured in Christianity Today, and continues to move further and further away from historic Christianity. People need to be warned about him, and the silence of the main stream evangelical church leadership in tolerating – and even promoting his message – is astonishing.

If we have reached the point where someone can redefine the Gospel without reaction from Evangelical leadership, and where aberrant, historically biased, cartoon-like broadsides on historic Christianity (like what’s being offered by Mr. McLaren) are tolerated and even entertained, we’ve sunk farther as a movement than one would have feared. I’m praying that leaders and thinking disciples of Jesus repudiate Mr. McLaren and false teaching for the sake of the name of our Lord – and the eternal benefit of those who are less discriminating.

A Christmas Eve Thought

2007-12-24T14:30:00.000-06:00

On this Christmas Eve, I thought I'd share this story, which first gripped me in 1972:

"Once there lived a king who had power over all nations and people. His courts were of richest-splendor; his tables were heavy with finest food. Music and laughter and gaiety floated from his castle. Peasants - in their valley of violence and hunger - stopped and looked at the castle for a long while, wishing they might know the king. But none were able to reach it.

In the cold of winter, the king's tailor entered the royal chambers with the latest additions to the king's wardrobe. He had selected the finest materials and woven them into the most beautiful garments that eyes had ever seen.

But the king was not pleased. He ordered his tailor out, vowing to make his own clothes. The door to the throne room was shut and locked. Weeks passed. The royal court waited with anticipation to see what the king would make for himself. They knew they were bound to be blinded by the glory of it. Finally the awaited day arrived. The door opened and the king appeared.

Everyone, especially the tailor, gasped in surprise. His Majesty was dressed in the simplest, cheapest, most unkingly garments imaginable. He had the choice of the world's finest materials, but he had chosen to wear the clothes of a begger.

'I am going into the valley,' he said quietly." (by Michael Daves)

And He did go into the valley... our valley. Imagine the shock in Heaven when the plan became clear: Emmanual - God is to be with us. It is The Miracle of Christmas... Jesus left perfection to be one of us.

How can we grasp the enormity of this wonderful Truth? What captures the depth of the sacrifice made for our benefit? Let me ask you this... would you:

Leave comfort, power and position behind to identify with people in trouble?
Give everything away to identify with the poor?
Become homeless to reach homeless people?
Accept punishment for people who didn't deserve your help, didn't know and didn't care?

Those examples don't begin to capture the sacrifice God Himself made on our behalf. What does it say about the God of the Universe, that He would stoop so low as to become a human being? Jesus, the God-Man, "... though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God as thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Philippians 2:6-7)

And why did Jesus do this? He did it for the Glory of God... and to our eternal benefit.

I can't comprehend it all - what Jesus gave up, and why He did it. But I do know this: Your sin and mine created the problem... separated us from God. And the distance was so great, the problem so severe, the burden on us so impossible that only the initiative of the God of the Universe was enough to bridge the gap and offer us hope. And like the King in the parable above, He became like us - to our eternal benefit.

Amazing, isn't it? Yes, it is. If you don't know Him, seek Him - the One who gave up EVERYTHING for you. That's the real meaning of Christmas. May "the eyes of [all of] our hearts" be enlightened (Ephesians 1:18) to see Him as He is - and the incredible love He has shown towards His chosen ones - this Christmas Eve... and throughout the year.

Heresy from America's "Most Popular Preacher"

2007-12-23T18:53:00.000-06:00

If you caught Fox News Sunday today, you got this piece of wisdom from Chris Wallace's guest, Joel Olsteen:

WALLACE: And what about Mitt Romney? And I've got to ask you the question, because it is a question whether it should be or not in this campaign, is a Mormon a true Christian?

OSTEEN: Well, in my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his savior, and that's what I believe, so, you know, I'm not the one to judge the little details of it. So I believe they are.

And so, you know, Mitt Romney seems like a man of character and integrity to me, and I don't think he would — anything would stop me from voting for him if that's what I felt like.

WALLACE: So, for instance, when people start talking about Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, and the golden tablets in upstate New York, and God assumes the shape of a man, do you not get hung up in those theological issues?

OSTEEN: I probably don't get hung up in them because I haven't really studied them or thought about them. And you know, I just try to let God be the judge of that. I mean, I don't know.

I certainly can't say that I agree with everything that I've heard about it, but from what I've heard from Mitt, when he says that Christ is his savior, to me that's a common bond.

Now THAT's discernment for you. He had lots more GREAT stuff to say, including an explanation of his humanistic, power-of-positive-thinking mumbo-jumbo and a laughable answer to the question of why he doesn't "...go deeply in [his] sermons into scripture." And millions are flocking to listen. It breaks my heart.

Lots of other websites point out this stuff, and I usually stay out of the fray. When I listen to this guy, Galatians 1:8-9 or maybe the book of Jude usually come to mind. But just in case you're listening, Joel, here's my reaction:

I think I speak for all of us when I say: For The Love Of Everything That's Holy, PLEASE SHUT UP!

Here's a Gift Idea!

2007-12-22T09:57:00.000-06:00

Everywhere I look I get input - ads, commercials, billboards, fliers, etc. - telling me what people need for Christmas. But what do we really need, anyway?

Consider these thoughts from Oswald Chambers. He points out that Jesus came to Earth with a gift - but not quite what people think of these days. And this particular gift addresses our greatest need. Jesus came with this:

"I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

Jesus came to make things wrong. He came to cause trouble. He came to create a problem.

Let me say it this way: Christmas is popularly viewed as a time to recognize the basic goodness of all men. Think A Christmas Carol or It's A Wonderful Life... they make us feel good about man's goodness, which sometimes gets hidden in the business of life. But Christmas ought not be that at all! It's a time to remember how desperately bad we are - so much so that we need a Savior, and the only one who would do is the God of the Universe Himself! Jesus didn't come to comfort us, but to stir us out of our comfort - into the painful realization that we have an unbelievable problem in that we are sinful, separated from God and eternally lost!

When we've received that gift - the gift of the truth about ourselves - then (and ONLY then) is the Gospel of Jesus' atoning work and sacrifice really "good news".

Perhaps you're spending time this season with people you love who don't know Jesus... in a season when the whole American culture turns its attention (however briefly) to Jesus, consider asking the Holy Spirit to give this uncomfortable gift to those you really love. Oswald Chambers said it this way:

"...There must be a sense of need before your message is of any use. Thousands of people are happy without God in this world. If I was happy and moral till Jesus came, why did He come? Because that kind of happiness and peace is on a wrong level; Jesus Christ came to send a sword through every peace that is not based on a personal relationship to Himself."

We can participate in giving the greatest gift of all to those we love... the gift of an eternal relationship with the God of the Universe through His Son. But be a faithful messenger in the process - tell people the truth. All of it. Don't give "peace" to those apart from Christ... give the a sword. Make it hurt! Show them the reality of the problem, and the Holy Spirit will make the solution the most wonderful news in the world to them.

"...If God has had His way with you, your message as His servant is merciless insistence on the one line, cut down to the very root, otherwise there will be no healing. Drive home the message until there is no possible refuge from its application. Begin to get at people where they are until you get them to realize what they lack, and then erect the standard of Jesus Christ for their lives - 'We never can be that.' Then drive it home - 'Jesus Christ says you must.' "But how can we be?' "You cannot, unless you have a new Spirit." (Luke 11:13.)

It is the "poor in spirit" - those who realize they are lost and have nothing within themselves to bring to God - those whose eyes have been opened to the truth of their sinful and lost condition - those are the people who are drawn by the Holy Spirit the Son, for the Glory of God.

What do people need for Christmas? Apart from Christ, we all need the business end of a sword. If you need help understanding this truth, see (just for example)Romans 1-3.

The gift of the Truth about ourselves: It's a painful thing... and it's not peace, but a sword. It's what people REALLY need this season, and always. Merry (ouch) Christmas!

Quotes from Oswald Chambers, My Utmost For His Highest, "WHAT TO CONCENTRATE ON" (December 19)

A Sobering Day...

2007-12-09T10:36:00.000-06:00

I saw this picture today and it reminds me of an uncomfortable truth: Death is real, and it's out there waiting for each of us. Perhaps in the shadows and away from our immediate attention... but it is still there all the same. And while it may seem silent when it is "waiting," the timing of its appointment with each one of us is still uncertain, and likely coming sooner than we plan.

We got the news yesterday afternoon that the father of one of our son's friends died yesterday morning. He was a wonderful guy, 48 years old, friendly and hospitable, a beautiful family, successful in business, in apparent great health... and suddenly - without warning - gone.

We heard the news, and were stunned - shocked. Throughout the afternoon, we prayed that it wasn't true... that there was some awful mistake. Mrs. Doulos made a number of calls to try and get confirmation without success, and we (not so secretly) hoped that we just had it all wrong.

And then, the confirmation. And the sinking, heart-sick feeling as the awful reality began to sink in.

We ache for his wife and children, and the unimaginable road they have in front of them. And what can we say? It's all beyond comprehension, and mere words can't capture the pain and loss. How can we even describe it? How can we get our minds around what this family must be thinking? Loraine Boettner described this condition well in his book Immortality:

"We set out on the journey of life with high hopes and soaring ambitions. Life seems rosy and death seems far away. Year after year life runs its accoustomed course, smoothly and serenely. We read of thousands dying from starvation in India, and of other thousands that drown in China; but those places are far away and the people are not know to us. A neighbor down the street dies. That causes us to stop and think. We send flowers and feel sorry for the family. But still it does not affect us directly, and we soon continue with our work and play. There develops within us a sense of immunity to tragedy and death.

The suddenly the bottom drops out of our world. Perhaps a mother or father, or some other relative or friend is taken, leaving a aching void. Many of us have already had that experience. We have watched the changing face and have listened helplessly to the shortening breath. We have spoken or looked the last good-bye, and then, in an instant, the departing one has passed out of sight and out of hearing, into the world of the unknown... A short time ago the one we loved was here, going about his work or speaking to us; and now, perhaps in one moment, he is gone - gone so very, very far away. What baffling thoughts rush in upon the mind in those moments pressing for an answer! But there is no answer in either reason or experience..."

All of us have felt the TOTAL INADEQUACY of saying or doing anything really meaningful in these circumstances. And we feel inadequate in the circumstance because we ARE in adequate. Boettner goes on to describe it this way:

"At such time it may be that ... [a person] cries out, 'Why did this have to happen to me?' It is hard to answer such questions to the satisfaction and comfort of those who ask it, for the simple reason that at such a time those who ask it are not normal. It is difficult for the mind that is shocked beyond comprehension to be reasonable. The breaking heart wants none of our logic. It wants comfort and peace. Above all, it wants to turn back the page, to recall the life that has sped - and this cannot be. Death is so permanent. There is no recall. It comes to you and yours as it has come to millions of others - it is inevitable. It may come as a thief in the night, or it may approach slowly after ample warning. It may come early in life, or after years of happiness. But come it must. The only way to escape it is never to be born."

So our hearts break for this family... and the horror of death reminds us once more of what's really important in life.

Someone wise said that death was like a clock ticking... heard only on occasion when someone is young, but then as time passes and the reality of life becomes clearer, its tick is heard more often - and the older we get the more that we hear it. Eventually, it becomes all one hears. Perhaps that's a good picture, and why many public clocks in the past were decorated with mottos such as ultima forsan (roughly, "perhaps the last [hour]"). The clock serves as a reminder of the shortness of life - and the inevitability of its passing.

But the truth of that thought doesn't diminish death's shock and horror, or its pain. Boettner wisely pointed out that "...The Bible alone has an answer for the thoughts that come with such perplexity and insistence." And for those of us who follow Jesus, the Bible we believe and the Lord it reveals calls us beyond just shared grief, empathy and pain in response to death. We have the message of LIFE found in Jesus, and the answer to the problem of death. The only question really is this: Will we share it before it's too late?

If we listen, the "ticking of the clock" reminds us of the REAL need of those around us of the reality of death:

The spiritual death that we are all born into
The physical death that we all must face
The eternal death that still waits for everyone apart from those who are regenerated by the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ

It's not pleasant. But it is true. And, in the words of one of my friends, it is our unsaved friend's "most urgent need." And Death calls out to us not just to remember the shortness of our own lives, but to remind us of our URGENT call to tell others the truth while there is still time to do so.

Last week I posted the "sobering thought" widget in the right-hand column of the blog... it humbled and reminded me of the need of those around me to be delivered from spiritual death and adopted into God's family through the work of Jesus. It reminds me that God is able to save and deliver, and that He calls me to participate in the process. And today, while I've been drafting this, the counter has run to over 1,500. Today, for me, one of those numbers has a face on it. And -

I'm grieved that one of those numbers is someone that I knew...
I'm humbled that there are so many others where my heart has not been broken... and
I'm resolved again to fulfill my part in God's plan to pray, and to share the truth to those who are in desperate need around me.

So pray with me, if you will, for this family. And pray also with me that "the eyes of our hearts would be enlightened" anew to feel the need around us enough to be moved to new action - for the sake of the Name of our Lord.

Think of this little reminder, if you will, as a voice from the shadows.

Another Caption Contest....

2007-11-24T10:33:00.001-06:00

I saw this today - is this a sign of the Apocalypse or what?? I'd love to hear your suggested captions, and here are the catagories:

1. Current American Culture

2. Christmas Commercialization

3. Economic Theory and Practice in Middle-America

4. Today's Evangelicals' Interest in Biblical Truth (that only makes sense if people are leaving the building)

The winning caption get's the NPB4S Guest Blogger Award!

God's Plan for Suffering?

2007-11-23T11:30:00.000-06:00

Listen to the testimony of this man and his experience with suffering. His name is John Farese, from Coconut Creek, Florida. John, who is my age, is one of the oldest persons living after having been diagnosed from birth with Spinal Muscular Atrophy. He is bedridden and uses speech recognition software to operate his computer system, which enables him to do everything from reading the Bible to creating Web pages for his customers on the Internet.

From his website, he says this:

"He has turned for me my mourning into laughter, and my desolation into joy, and made my heart rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory. He drew me when I struggled to escape from his grace; and when at last I came all trembling like a condemned culprit to his mercy seat he said, ‘Thy sins which are many are all forgiven thee: be of good cheer.’ I bear witness that never servant had such a master as I have; never brother such a kinsman as he has been to me; never spouse such a husband as Christ has been to my soul; never sinner a better Saviour; never mourner a better comforter than Christ has been to my spirit. I want none beside him. In life he is my life, and in death he shall be the death of death; in poverty Christ is my riches; in sickness he makes my bed; in darkness he is my star, and in brightness he is my sun. Jesus is to me all grace and no wrath, all truth and no falsehood: and of truth and grace he is full, infinitely full."

John's testimony is a powerful commentary to the truth Jesus told in John 9 when asked the reason why a man suffered with blindness, when he answered:

"It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him." (John 9:3)

God IS good... ALL the time. Even when we suffer. Comments?

How Do We Present the Gospel?

2007-11-13T22:16:00.000-06:00

Here's a question: What is the Gospel? What do we as evangelicals say when presenting the Good News about Jesus? What do you think is important for people to hear?

Or maybe more precisely, what ISN'T said?

Do yourself a favor and watch this brief video... and tell me what you think about the ideas presented here. I'm not pointing at any one church, but I believe that there is no denying that the ideas in this video do NOT represent the thinking of most evangelistic messages in Evangelicalism these days. I'm wondering... Why not?

Let's discuss. Comments are open.

Here's One For The Books!

2007-11-02T16:22:00.001-05:00

Here's my mentor experiencing spiritual growth at a recent musical event in Virginia Beach!

Ok, my questions:

1. Just when did "raised hands" become the universal Evangelical symbol for worship?

2. Just when did "christian music" become synonymous with "worship"?

Comments are open... insight is sought. Don't let me down, Anonymous commentors!

I Can't Help Myself...

2007-10-31T17:29:00.000-05:00

I know this is very out of character for me, but I'm wondering if anyone would like to suggest a caption for this picture:

Comments are open. Do your best! Back to something more eternally significant tomorrow.

Things That Make You Go Hmmm.

2007-10-29T21:31:00.000-05:00

Here's a thought-provoking quote from David Wells, from his book No Place For Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? If you haven't read him, do yourself a favor get started. This is a great place to start (and a good answer to my anonymous commenter pal from my last post).

In Chapter 6 ("The New Disablers" - ouch!), Wells says this:
"Two models of pastoral ministry have been vying for the Protestant mind in the twentieth century, especially in its evangelical expression. Each arises from its own culture. In one case, it is the culture of theological truth, and in the other case that of modern professionalism. Each has its own distinctive way of thinking about the ministry - its nature, objectives and methods - and each has its own distinctive way of thinking about the place of theology in all of this.

In one model, theology is foundational, and in the other it is only peripheral. In the one, theological truth explains why there is a ministry at all, what it is about, and why the Church without it will shrivel and die. In the other, this reasoning is marginalized so that what shapes, explains, and drives the work of ministry arises from the needs of a modern profession. And it is my contention that the presence of this latter model in the Church goes a long way towards explaining the growing enfeeblement of the Church inwardly despite its outward growth. This model is ascending, even as the other is declining, and with its ascendancy the attacks upon theology grow more strident and the appetite for it diminishes." (p. 218-219)
Wells, in my opinion, lays his finger on the pulse of one of the great problems in the Truth war in evangelical churches... and one of the reasons that the Truth appears to be losing currently.

As Wells quotes from Richard Baxter (from his classic The Reformed Pastor):

"It is the first and great work of ministers of Christ to acquaint men with that God made them, and is their happiness; to open to them the treasures of His goodness, and to tell them of the glory that is in His presence, which all His chosen people shall enjoy... Having shewed them the right end, our next work is to acquaint them with the right means of attaining it."

Where do you think we stand relating to this standard? Which type of pastor do you have? Why are we trending the way we are? I'm open for comments.

A Thought on "Church Growth"...

2007-10-27T11:50:00.000-05:00

There is an interesting quote from John MacArthur over at Old Truth today, which is worth digesting (It's called "Synthetic Church Growth Is Like Cancer"). I especially was struck by the following posted comment comment:

"A year ago September I was Providentially led to a small independent community church in our community. (We live 3 blocks from it.) The church had just hired a new Calvinistic pastor who isn’t afraid to preach the Word. We have gone from two services to one, and people are leaving in droves. At the same time we are having great Bible studies, and the people who are left are growing spiritually. Which model for church growth is better? Water the Word down to get the maximum number of people in the pews, or preach the whole council of God straight up with no apologies and let the chips fall where they lay?

Posted by: Dan R. on Friday, October 26, 2007"

My reaction is that "truth" and "growth" don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive, but "truth" ought to be the goal and that, while there are happy exceptions, the normal experience of Jesus' ministry and the Church is that when the whole counsel of God is preached without apology, the crowds thin.

I think that the primary corporate focus of God's family ought to be on the clear proclamation of the whole Truth as taught in Scripture. The "good news" of the Gospel is only seen clearly when one understands the "bad news" of our lost condition. Why do churches try to "reach" lost people by self-help type messages, better life messages or otherwise "focusing on the positive" messages? (As if truth has electrical properties!) The answer seems self-evident: It's what they want (or are at least willing) to hear. Where are the "seeker-sensitive" messages about their real need - their totally lost condition, the reality of an eternal hell waiting for them apart from Christ, their total inability to do anything to address their problem - and their absolute dependence on a God who may or may not save them? Where are the seeker messages who warn the lost people to seek the Lord while He may be found? Where are the messages which leave the listener in awe of a most Holy God who is under no obligation at all to do anything for them?

Growth is great... it's important because it is people - but if God is responsible for the growth (1 Corinthians 3:7), can't we trust Him for it? Can't it be His message, His way that we preach? Said another way, why is so much attention placed in today's church on methodology? I think it is very telling that churches today seem to put a very high value "creativity" in methodology, and (at best) assume fidity to doctrinal truth. What other explanation can be given for the loss of esteem for formal training for the ministry? Would you go to a doctor who has been training in marketing, but hadn't gone through medical school?

I'm not saying that seminary is the answer to all of our problems. But the fact that it isn't even viewed by many as a requirement any more is an indication of how little Truth we view as essential. A cursory reading of publications like Christianity Today show that almost everything is viewed as "non-essential" these days. And so, we become a movement of style without substance, and the crowds may come - but for what? Jesus had a comment about this "growth strategy" too:
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. Matthew 23:15

My guess is that 99% of all evangelicals would think Dan R.'s comment represents an insulated, selfish point of view, and wouldn't see any merit in his comment at all. I agree with him. What do you think? Tell me why I'm wrong. Comments are open.

It's Not "Better Left Unsaid"...

2007-10-17T20:52:00.000-05:00

I’m sitting in the Tokyo airport, on my way home from a very quick swing through Asia. Chicago to Tokyo, Tokyo to Singapore, Singapore to Langkawi, Malaysia… with 5 hours sleep in a hotel. A conference there, and then 33 hours home again.

Somebody in our travel department apparently doesn’t like me… So, sitting at Narita Airport in my 11 hour layover, I was looking for things to do.

And I did it.

I’ve promised myself that I wouldn’t, but I did. And I really wish that I hadn’t, because it makes me sad. Oh yeah, and angry, too.

What? What did I do?

I’ll tell you in a minute, but first I need to tell you something about the past few days…

I traveled Wednesday and Thursday to spend a day in Singapore on Friday – which was the last day of Ramadan. In Islamic culture, Ramadan is a special month of cleansing the soul, fasting (no meals during daylight), self-control and charity… generally, putting more effort in following the teachings of Islam and seeking to grow closer to God. By tradition, the Qur’an was given to Muslims during this month. On Saturday, then a special celebration known as “Eid” was held (in Singapore and Malaysia, they call it “Hari Raya” or “the Grand Day”). People celebrate, gifts are given to children, special services are held, people feast together during the day, and celebratory traditional costumes are worn in honor of the event. Think Christmas, and you’ll have a flavor of it.

Now I could write about the fact that every store I passed was closed – EXCEPT for the ubiquitous American Fast Food Franchises (Starbucks, McDonalds, KFC). As the only American on the trip, I certainly got an earful from my Muslim colleagues about the cultural insensitivity of America, and it’s participation in the dilution of all independent civilizations into one giant mall-culture (but that’s a different post). I was struck, though, by the fact that Christianity is effectively TOTALLY unknown in the business communities here… oh, I don’t have a “scientific sampling,” but you can get the flavor of it, especially over time. The newspaper I read Saturday on the way to Malaysia was full of holiday news, and especially highlighting the wide ethnic and cultural diversity in their religious heritage, all of which was Islamic (with some small number of Buddhists thrown in for good measure). Christians were not even mentioned. It struck me: We’re not a minority - we’re irrelevant, and the Good News of the Gospel certainly is, well… whispered, if heard at all in many, many corners of this world.

The cultural differences can not be overstated. Within the general overall urbanization of world culture – the “Brand-name-ization” of world society (as David Wells so articulately points out in his book Whatever Happened to Truth?) the residual effects from the religious heritage is very, very foreign. Or at least it should be… let me explain.

The holiday showed me again more of the ways in which this part of the world – 99.9% Islamic – seeks relationship with God. And that, I suppose, is the point: They seek God. Their effort is the focus of their activity in seeking to please him. And the message of Jesus is exactly the opposite – it is God’s activity that is the preeminent one, the focus of everything, and that we are, apart from Jesus, “able to do nothing.” It is Jesus, after all, who is to “save His people from their sin” – who presents us holy and complete before the father as a result of His finished work. Of course we have responsibility, and effort is required. But it is a responsibility that we freely acknowledge that we are utterly incapable of fulfilling in our own effort… it is God’s work in us that we are totally dependent upon. Paul points out this clearly:

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." Philippians 2:12-13 (emphasis added)

We work, but it is God who is working. Our salvation – all of it, from our election and predestination, to our conviction, regeneration and conversion, through the process of sanctification and ultimately at the end, our glorification – again, all of it, is the work of God for His glory and our benefit. That is a very different message from the message my Islamic friends hear.

Are you still with me? OK, back to the Tokyo airport, and my mistake: Like I said, I did it.

I listened to an American sermon online while sitting in the airport. One preached by a guy who is a solid member of the Evangelical community. The pastor talked about our responsibility, our effort, our requirements, our actions… oh, he made passing reference to “God’s grace,” but he was clear in saying that it is our effort which makes the difference. The passage in question focused (in the text) on a request for God to do something. He acknowledged that “God was at work” in the process, but the focus of the message was on a call for us to do something. Oh, and that our failure to do things actually hindered God’s work – especially due to the fact that if we were better, more people would be converted!

And I’m sad, and even angry, that that is increasingly the message I hear in Evangelical Christendom. A message that says, work. Try harder. Expend more effort. Here’s your responsibility, get going. And poor God longs for you to do so, but He’s waiting for Almighty You to get busy and stop thwarting His will and purpose.

Where is the message of our total and complete dependence on God in everything - including serving Him?

Where are the messengers (and the messages) that call God’s people back to the realization that we are to “abide in” Jesus and that, apart from Him we can do nothing? Come on, you may say to me. You’re shadow boxing. You see things that aren’t there. Of course we all understand our dependency on God in the process of sanctification. Don’t we? I don’t think so. As a matter of fact, I’d challenge you to listen carefully for the message… you may be very surprised.

Here’s what I think: The distinctive message of Christianity, the centrality of the work of God rather than the work of man, is being diluted. Perhaps it is out of concern for some perceived inactivity within the Church, or some other problem. But whatever it is, I increasingly hear the argument that we ought to focus on “deeds, not creeds” and that what we believe is secondary to what we do. Few are as crass as, say, Brian McLaren, in expressly denying this and other central truths of the Gospel message, but I believe it is happening nonetheless. And increasingly, the message is getting flipped on its head – that it is Our Ability rather than God’s which is central to the process of living out the Gospel. And that’s a message that, in all material respects, is no different than the world view of my Muslim friends.

In the most recent edition of Modern Reformation magazine, David Gibson has an interesting article called “Assumed Evangelicalism: Some Reflections En Route to Denying the Gospel.” Gibson points out the historical trend of diluting the message within the Church’s history: One generation proclaims the Truth, the next generation assumes the Truth and the third generation denies the Truth. Apostasy and heresy rarely come in through the front door in an open attack on and debate of the Truth; they usually come quietly and arrive more slowly as a generation merely assumes that everyone understands the Truth. And all the while, false teachers “creep in unnoticed” (Jude 4), changing the message and removing its power as a result. Gibson believes that the Evangelical movement today is in the middle stage, the “assumed truth” stage, and that unless corrected, we will head down the same path to denying truth. Gibson writes:

“Assumed Evangelicalism believes and signs up to the gospel. It certainly does not deny the gospel. But in terms of priorities, focus and direction, Assumed Evangelicalism begins to give gradually increasing energy to concerns other than the gospel and key evangelical distinctives, to gradually elevate secondary issues to a primary level, to be increasingly worried about how it is perceived by others, and to allow itself to be increasingly influenced both in content and method by the prevailing culture of the day…. It is extremely difficult to spot… The danger of assumed Evangelicalism is precisely the fact that it has come from somewhere and is heading to somewhere else very distinct but the in-between-ness of it makes it a lot harder to see until you have arrived on the other side.”

There’s more to unpack there than I have time to address today, but I'll say this: I used to be amused by those who criticized Reformed Theology as something which promoted inactivity… any student of Church history knows that it is precisely when the pulpit is used to proclaim both our responsibility and our inability that the greatest periods of lasting productivity have occurred. But we evangelicals aren’t merely post-Calvinistic; I fear we’re also post-Arminian, for even they have historically acknowledged our total dependence on God’s work in and through us – an acknowledgement which was demonstrated in their preaching and action. I believe we are headed towards yet another “Palagian Captivity” in the Evangelical movement. The “Assumed Evangelical” nature of our preaching makes it hard to be sure, but the warning clouds are on the horizon. As a practical matter, for example, listening to many sermons (like the one I heard today) would lead the listener to believe that any man can begin “the faith journey” by simply doing something, and that we “grow in our faith” by doing more, and better. Oh, and that God loves all of us, and He’s patient, come whenever, give it your best shot, etc.

I hear none of the passionate urgency required by the Truth that those who have not been born again are children of the Devil (and NOT God’s children), under God’s righteous condemnation, objects of His wrath and bound for an eternity in hell. ALL of those Truths have been (at best) assumed in the presentations of the Gospel I hear these days from some. And ALL of those statements now are the subject of debate even within the Christian publishing and magazine base and, as a result, the rank and file is growing less certain and more confused about these things over time.

These are Facts:
People aren’t born neutral, capable of being “seekers along a ‘faith’ pilgrimage” until they cognitively understand the example of Jesus and determine to follow it. That’s Palagianism – and heresy.

People aren’t Christian just because they say they are, or have made some "decision." Christians are those who have been born again by the will of the Father – not by man’s “desire or effort.”

And Christians aren’t neutral, spectators in a cosmic battle between God and Satan, choosing sides and, when choosing against God’s plan, somehow thwarting the will and purpose of God.

All of these thoughts, increasingly common in my hearing at least, are a reflection of a philosophical and theological perspective that is at best confused, and which leads paradoxically, to both false confidence in those who are not truly regenerate and false guilt in those who are. And while that may not be “what we mean” to say, the “assumed” nature of our presentation (or lack thereof) of the extent and sinfulness of sin, the totally lost nature of man, the inability to do anything of merit before God, and other “negative” doctrines leaves the unbeliever unwarned and the believer potentially deceived. “How are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10:14)

I’ve just crossed the international date line on the way home. It’s been a turbulent flight… a fitting end to a turbulent week. Our hope is so very different from that of much of the world, whether it is the over-arching secularized worldview or that of any other religious perspective. I worry that we who have the Truth are assuming away the central message of the Gospel – our total dependency on Christ for His work in and through us in every way, and going the way of Ramadan – doubling down, trying harder, doing more, and missing it all in the process. The practical indicators of where we as a movement are in our demonstration “abiding in Christ” are all together too apparent even for us to ignore much longer.

Paul said it this way: “For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh…” (Philippians 3:3)

We are good at being the ones set apart, and we love to “worship by the Spirit” – do we just assume that everyone understands that we, in our message and in practice “put no confidence in the flesh” or are we on the road to a different belief?

One More (REALLY IMPORTANT) Thing!

2007-10-07T19:48:00.000-05:00

I know I'm breaking ALL the rules of good blogging - (don't post irregularly, don't take long absences, and especially don't just link to somebody else), but I read something today that is SO IMPORTANT I had to point it out. Saying it much better than I could, this really hits home to me, and maybe others of you who are very, very tired of the "entertainment" focus of today's "worship" service. So, give this a read - I'd love your comment - ESPECIALLY if you are involved in a "worship" ministry!

Welcome Back...

2007-10-07T19:03:00.001-05:00

Been gone for a while... doing a bunch of reading and studying. I've had a few false starts along the way, but I'm ready to go again!

I've been thinking a lot about our base-level assumption(s) as evangelicals... on my way there, though, here's a little something that I'd love to discuss with anybody:

More to follow!

What Bible Version...?

2007-08-10T12:15:00.000-05:00

...does your church use? Especially in sermons?

Unfortunately, this appears to be the version of the Bible most frequently used in evangelical sermon preparation:

While it's not a new idea (Consider Thomas Jefferson's efforts in creating The Jefferson Bible), it's still a bad idea. We need to seek - and pastors need to preach - the WHOLE counsel of God.

And sadly, that doesn't seem to be happening in too many places these days. Too often, sermon series are designed to make the church "relevant" to "seekers" and center around their needs. The great need of our day - and every day - is for a clear, unfiltered, unedited proclamation of ALL of God's Word. I don't know how you can do that apart from a regular, systematic, verse-by-verse exposition of the text.

I know that most people would rather have a good, energetic, up-beat, practical, positive sermon (it goes well with the rest of the weekly show). God's children, however, long for the Word. All of it. ESPECIALLY where it points out our error - because we want to be like Jesus and we know we've got a long way to go. And those who are the children of the Devil (John 8, especially vs. 42-44) desperately need to hear the same thing - it is their only hope. After all,

"So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."(Romans 10:17)

Ironically, unless things change, the drive to be "relevant" and the avoidance of a pattern in the church of clear, searching exposition and application of the whole counsel of God will likely be the very thing that dooms America to the post-Christian, secular wasteland of History.

Do you study the "erasable bible?" Consider the question next time when we cover another of Jesus' ignored commandments.

The Ignored Commandments of Jesus... Part 2

2007-08-05T11:55:00.000-05:00

"...a voice from the cloud said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; Listen to Him.'" (Matthew 17:5)

It is amazing to me that people claim to be in relationship with Jesus - and ignore His commandments. Jesus warned His followers about this phenomenon. The power of sin is so pervasive that, apart from the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit, all of us will rationalize away that which is clearly our responsibility. I take to heart personally the warning in Proverbs 14:12 that says:

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death."

Our problem, apart from God, is genuinely frightening! In a culture that values "following your own heart" as defensible, and maybe as the most common life strategy, the warning of the Bible in Jeremiah 17:9 is important to hear:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"

So what seems like "the right way" to me may be totally wrong... and I may not see it at all. After all, Proverbs 12:15 says that "the way of a fool is right in his own eyes..." - I don't know about you, but I don't want that to be me.

So what hope do we have (and what does this have to do with Matthew 5)?

Well, here's the first "ignored commandment" of Jesus that I see: (Not first in priority, by the way - just the first in my little series!) When was the last time you did this?

"...if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." Matthew 5:23-24

What? This is more important that worship? Yes, it is!

We live in a performance-based, program-oriented sub-culture. And those programs and performances may be ok, but they are not what "church" is supposed to be. It is relatively easy to do... but the call of Jesus is not just to do, but to be. Church is supposed to be a community of people who love and serve Jesus together - and love and serve each other as well.

What penetrates the the blindness of our evil hearts, and helps us see wisdom apart from our own plans? Part (and only part) of the answer lies in community - real, authentic community. The church ought to be a place where people connect deeply in life, and out of that deep connection, are able to encourage each other when they are down, and exhort and rebuke each other when they are going astray.

Here's the rub: Both encouragement and rebuke are hard to receive apart from genuine community. The encouragement feels phony, and the rebuke feels harsh. Our nature rebels against both - but community makes both real and acceptable. The reality of ongoing relational involvement from others within the community of faith - that stands the test of time and repeated demonstrates that its goal is our best interest - is winsome... and it breaks through our defensiveness. It helps us see the truth. But it can't happen if community doesn't develop. And community doesn't develop if relationships stay broken.

That's why our ignoring this commandment is so tragic. It underscores the lack of authentic community that so many of us know as our practical experience. Have you heard the old line

To live above with the saints we love,
Oh that will be glory!
To live below with the ones we know, well -
That's a different story.

It would be funny if it weren't true.

Why is it that people - even within the church - can allow broken relationships to go on for any time at all? Why is it so hard for some people - even church leaders - to be fully aware of practical problems between people and yet come week after week to "worship" without addressing the relational problem? Isn't this in direct disobedience to a clear commandment of Jesus?

Do you know that someone in the church "has something against you"? Why would you wait at all before obeying the Lord and going to that person to be reconciled? What exception clauses do you see in Jesus' command? What do you say?

"The other person is wrong - I haven't done anything..."

"The other person is unreasonable - nothing I do will help..."

"I'm too busy..." "Too important..." "It's no big deal to me, it shouldn't be to them..."

Blah, blah, blah.

In all Christian love and tenderness (and I'm speaking to myself too - I've applied this to myself this week), here's my practical exhortation for you: "Shut up."

Stop defending yourself. Stop rationalizing. Stop excusing. Just shut up, leave church NOW and go make things right. If you think I'm wrong, take it up with Jesus. But I could be wrong, because didn't Jesus say that "the world would know we are his disciples because of the way we hold out until the bitter end, ignoring the feelings of others, pretending that everything is ok even when we know it isn't and holding on to our position until the bitter end?"

Whoops. That may not be the best translation of John 13:35. :) Anyway, what chance does real community have in growing and developing when we ignore the hard work of reconciliation? As people in the pews, what possible excuse would we allow for unresolved conflict? And as leaders, do we really have a biblical mandate to ignore people with issues? Too many churches focus on the front door in getting people to come, but pay no meaningful attention to the back door - with people leaving, forgotten at best or disparaged at worst when they leave.

I can hear the excuses already. "What if I go to them and they don't want to be reconciled?" What if it doesn't "work"? What if they are too stubborn and sinful?

Does it matter? Aren't those the wrong questions anyway?

If the Lord God Almighty, the Sovereign of Heaven and Earth demands that we do this, with all due respect, who are we to say "No"? If He has spoken, ought we not "Listen to Him"?

Here's my point: The person aware of the offense - whether they agree or not, whether they are confident in the result or not - without condition is obligated by this command to initiate reconciliation. Can you imagine what the church would look like if THAT was our pattern? Jesus could... and we should too.

So let's not be like Peter and say "No, Lord" to His command. Let's put our pride aside and make the phone call - set up the meeting - reopen the conversation - what ever it takes to "be reconciled with [our] brother."

"Special" Music for today

2007-07-30T17:11:00.000-05:00

Here's a random thought before I go back to Matthew 5. Take a good look at this video:

You know, I'd laugh if this didn't represent the prevailing view of God these days. I especially appreciate the lyrics (especially at 1:36): "And if you want Me to I'll make you whole - I'll only do it though if you say so."

Hmmm. The Bible says something very different, doesn't it?

"In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will..." (Ephesians 1:11)

Really? All things? Yes, all things. Newsflash - we're not the ones in control! God is.

It is very sad to me that so many today in the church are offended by the idea of a Loving, Holy, All-Powerful God. While in total, our God is truly incomprehensible, He has made many of His divine attributes known. One of these attributes is His sovereignty over all things. Rather than an insult to His character (as this video implies), it is our great comfort and strength. Anyone who knows himself must recognize his own limitations... how much better to trust in an all-powerful, loving God - whom we are invited to call "our Father."

How wonderful it is to trust in the God of the Bible, who:

"...being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. " (Ephesians 2:1-9)

Just to be clear, though, I'm not just referring God's sovereignty in salvation - I'm talking about God's sovereignty over LIFE - all of it. Here's a profound thought: God is God, and we are not.

This video is funny to me because of the musical style (and at one time, I was one of those guys - as a high school/college guy from the '70s, I'm "generationally impaired"). But more seriously, it is a sad reflection of what many believe (without regard to musical style), and because it is a window into a form of christianity that - at its core - seeks to limit God and elevate man.

The Ignored Commandments of Jesus...

2007-07-29T09:23:00.000-05:00

"...a voice from the cloud said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; Listen to Him.'" (Matthew 17:5)

It happened during a time of increasing clarity - and conflict - in Jesus' earthly ministry. Sides were being taken, and things once hinted at were suddenly being clarified. The Biblical narrative in Matthew 14-17 seems to swing from one side to the other, highlighting the increasing divisiveness of the ministry of Jesus in a sinful, fallen world. Look at the point-counterpoint:

John the Baptist beheaded, and Jesus feeds the five thousand, walks on water and heals the sick (Matthew 14).
The Pharisees question Jesus' disciples' obedience to God's commandments, and Jesus responds by demonstrating the Pharisees' hypocrisy, healing a Canaanite woman and many others, and miraculously feeding another crowd (Matthew 15).
The Pharisees demand "a sign from heaven" in order to believe (as if what has just happened isn't enough), and Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God... and Jesus then tells them that the cost of following after Him is their very lives. (Matthew 16).

The lines are being drawn, the view of Jesus - for those who love Him as well as those who hate Him - is becoming clearer. Jesus' mission is clearer, too. He tells Peter that He is going to be killed and will rise from the dead on the third day (Matthew 16:21).

But Peter then does the unthinkable, the unimaginable. He uses a phrase that men have used with God since the fall - which continues even today. It is the cry of our sin-stained hearts... listen to what Peter said: "Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him saying, 'Far be it from you, Lord!" (Matthew 16:22) Basically, what Peter was saying was this: "Jesus, what You've said has got to be wrong... You've got to be wrong. And I'm going to set you straight. In this area, I know better than You, and I'm not going along with Your program." In other words - "NO, LORD."

No wonder in the next chapter, Matthew records the startling transfiguration of Jesus, along with Moses and Elijah. His radiance is revealed, his authority over the law and prophets is visually established and, if that's not enough, an audible announcement of Jesus' position is made. The point couldn't have been lost on Peter, even after the six days since his "rebuke" of Jesus. Imagine actually hearing that voice! And the message - announcing Jesus' position from the mouth of God, coupled with the command "Listen to Him!" goes right to the heart of Peter's problem... and ours as well.

Now I'm not that smart, but Peter's reaction seems like a bad plan to me, particularly with the Most Holy Sovereign God of the Universe. I would think Peter would have understood that if Jesus was who He said He was - actually, who Peter said that He was - the idea of rebuking Him might not seem all that appropriate! But sin is blinding, and isn't this the condition of our hearts as well? Even when we acknowledge the position and authority of Jesus, we sometimes still think that we have the right - even the responsibility - to contradict Him, and to point out where (we think) He's wrong? We might not say it out loud, but do we, by action, ever say "No, Lord"? No to His plan and stated priorities for us... and even His commandments?

It's happened with me. I'll read the plain teaching of Jesus - particularly practical things that I absolutely know are true, and find a way to wiggle out of obedience - to say "No, Lord." And I know that I'm not alone. Sometimes, to say "No, Lord" is to go along with our churches' established methods of operations!

It isn't enough to have the facts right about Jesus. We need to "hear Him" - really hear Him. Peter heard the words of Jesus in Matthew 16:21, but his response indicated that he didn't really understand. A wise man I once studied under pointed out to me that, when dealing with a sovereign, you really can't say "No." To the degree that they are superior to you, in understanding and responsibility, it isn't our place to contradict - rather, its our place to obey. When you think about it, the phrase "No, Lord" is almost a contradiction, isn't it?

Is it possible that we are like Peter? Do we ever want to be on the Lord's team, but thinking that we know better than Him - and we say no to Jesus' plan and priority for us? The call of Heaven is recorded for us as well... let's not pass by the words of Jesus without really hearing Him. So, is this still a problem today? It really is. But you and I can do something about it - by going beyond listening, and knowing... to hearing Jesus. And we'll know that we've heard Him, by the way, when we obey Him. Isn't this what Jesus meant when He said:

"Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46)

OK, I'll give you a couple of examples of what I'm talking about... One in particular from Matthew 5 in my next post.

This HAS to be a joke, right? Please...

2007-07-26T18:23:00.000-05:00

I'm sure this is a fake web-thing, designed to tweak Christians with any sense of propriety at all... Please, someone tell me this is a joke (click start):

Here's the website (and I hate to give it anything that even looks like a plug). Is it possible that people are (1) so hungry for a word from the Lord and (2) so ignorant about the truth that something as obviously silly - and as blasphemous - as this appears even remotely appealing? Here's part of their pitch:

"A history changing event is about to occur. Soon over 2.1 billion Christians worldwide will be able to have private, verbal conversations with virtual Jesus from any phone, anytime, anywhere on a daily basis. TalkToJesus uses advanced speech and AI technology to help millions connect with God personally and hear the Bible read interactively like never before. TalkToJesus will be a personal tool to help those in need...TTJ will have a soothing, caring and inspiring voice. He will learn your name and address you personally. He will read from the Bible, listen to sins and console. Jesus will pray with you interactively, and you will be able to ask Jesus numerous theological questions. TalkToJesus will educate, guide, console, forgive and more. Nothing like this has ever been done before. While millions have heard the word of God and embrace Jesus, TTJ is an extension to help people further in their lives."

Words (almost) fail me. Even if this is a joke, its not funny.

For me at least, I'll just continue to talk to Jesus the old-fashioned way - through reading God's Word, and through the amazing REAL (not virtual) access provided to us into the very presence of God through prayer on the basis of the merit of the shed blood of our Lord Jesus:

Therefore, brothers,since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that He opened for us through the curtain, that is, through His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful Hebrews 10:19-23 (emphasis added)

We don't need a "virtual jesus"... we already have access to the REAL JESUS.

He DOES speak to us, through His revealed Word, the Bible (Hebrews 4:12). He DOES speak to us - through the ministry of His Holy Spirit (John 17, especially vs. 13-14).

*He speaks to the world as well (John 17:8-11).

*He gives us forgiveness and cleansing (1 John 1:9).

*He leads His own into obedience (John 10:27).

*He makes His will and purpose known to us. He provides wisdom and direction to us when we ask believing (James 1:5-6).

*He provides real comfort and peace (Philippians 4:6-7).

*And strength (Ephesians 3:14-19).

*And words to speak at the time we need them (Luke 12:12).

All of this and much more promised to us in the Bible, and without failure to deliver. We DO hear from Jesus... if we listen in faith. And there is no "tech support" or registration required - just this word of instruction:

"You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart." Jeremiah 29:13

I love the legal fine print on the bottom of the site: "Disclaimer: TalkToJesus is intended for entertainment purposes only. It is not the actual Jesus." No kidding! Well, there seems's to be no limit to what men will mock for "entertainment purposes," and no end to man's desire to play to spiritual hunger and ignorance in man. And while there is, in many quarters these days, a "famine of God's Word" (Amos 8:11), thank God that He is a God who listens to, and speaks with His people. May we be a people who listen to, and speak with Him as well.

Teenage Affluenza

2007-07-11T22:11:00.000-05:00

When I first saw this video, I thought it was filmed right here in Mayberry! When you think about it, it is a terrible tragedy that many of the children in our community - yes, even in our little sub-culture - must endure the ravages of this horrific illness.

Please take a look, and think about what you can do to help these poor children.

For What It's Worth...

2007-07-09T18:00:00.000-05:00

Just in case you are interested, I've put into a snappy pdf form my series from earlier this year on the state of our little evangelical sub-culture. You'll find it in the "links" section on the side bar, and feel free to read and distribute - or argue - as you think appropriate.

A Quick Thought...

2007-07-07T07:27:00.001-05:00

Here's a helpful reminder for your weekend...

“The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them…providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the church…the need is for Biblical doctrine, so understood and felt that it sets men aflame.”

That's getting harder and harder to find these days in the entertainment-soaked culture (and sub-culture) in which we live, isn't it?

Cambridge today...

2007-06-29T08:46:00.001-05:00

I'm spending a relaxing day today at Cambridge University - the "other place" from my last UK university stop. Unbelievable the history... From an American's perspective, it's like walking thought the history class I slept through in college. I wish I had actually learned while I was there!

It should, I think, be required for every student to travel to the location that they are studying. (In technical legal terms, this suggestion would be termed "Duh!"). At so many levels, it is facinating. To walk where Isaac Newton studied, to visit the home of C.S. Lewis' professorship... Fantastic!

I'm having a late lunch at the Eagle in the RAF bar' where the Allied pilots in WW2 met, and left their names on the ceiling. Those men literally left a mark on the world.

In the midst of all this, I"m left to wonder whether, in the brief time I have left in this life, whether my life will be worth remembering... What "mark" will I leave? Not to be remembered by men (a stop on a tour, quickly forgotten after the camera clicks), but will it count from our Lord's perspective?

"Only one life, 'twill soon be past
Only what's done for Christ lasts."

Very true - and very "felt" here on a rainy morning in Cambridgeshire, UK.

By the way, punting on the Cam on a sunny afternoon (hey, the weather changed) - unbelivable! Pictures to follow over at that "other" website after I get home.

Greetings fom London...

2007-06-26T18:13:00.001-05:00

It's been a while since I posted, and with good reason... I've been on the road a ton this last month. In the UK for 10 days since the last post, end of the school year stuff with the family, Doulos jr. off to Kenya on a missions trip and Mrs. D getting ready for 2 weeks in Uganda with Compassion International.

For me, around the business trip earlier this month I had the chance to spend a day in Oxford with a dear friend (who was with me on his sabbatical) - we wandered the streets, looked at the history... how could we pass up a chance to visit the old "Inkling" haunt! I was having a pint in honor of the boys there when a group of people from "Harvard of the Midwest" walked through. It figures - more Wheaton people in the pub than locals! Here's a look at my wife's husband in what I understand was CSL's seat:

(I understand that the President's son was ushering through a tour of Wheaties and Moody students. Hope my choice in beverages didn't cause a stir in Midwest Evangelicaldom!)

Amidst the excitement of the trip, I found myself at the spot where Latimer and Ridley were executed in 1555 (and Cranmer in 1556), dying in denouncing the authority of the Pope and, in particular, the doctrine of transubstantiation. I realize that the times, the political landscape and contemporary culture played a big part in the drama of that 16th century scene, but I was struck by the fact that these men were willing to die for their beliefs. And they did... horribly, painfully. And all three of them - following the call of Latimer (and perhaps echoing the voice heard by Polycarp at his martyrdom) did "play the man" - and England still remembers their sacrifice.

Or maybe they do... the monument is there - along with the spot on the ground where it happened. But I was struck by how little it seemed to matter to those who passed by - an old story from a long ago time.

But for me, it was like it had just happened. Maybe it was having just read Light From Old Times by J.C. Ryle... but maybe it was also the reality that there was a day when something was actually worth dying for! I listen at baptism services when people talk about "giving everything" for the sake of following Jesus, but I was struck by the brutality - the finality - the commitment - the heroism - of the sacrifice made by these ordinary men who, in the end, gave an extraordinary testimony. Perhaps Cranmer caught my attention the most... he denied his faith and, in the end, came through with a firm affirmation of the truth. And as the fire was kindled, he stuck out his right hand - the one that had signed the damning recantation of his protestant faith - and put it right into the fire... he held it there while it burned, saying "that unworthy hand!" Wow.

In today's post-modern, relativistic evangelical sub-culture, it feels sometimes like everything is open for debate - 4 views of this, 5 views of that... with "group consensus" as the only thing which holds many congregations together. Doctrine (which, by its nature, divides) is the enemy of consensus and viewed with distain! That's a subject I'd love to discuss more, but how different our time is than the days of Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer! (BTW, for an excellent analysis of this current evangelical cultural phenomenon, I'd highly recommend that you read Chapter 4 of the book Beyond the Bounds ["Why Open Theism Is Flourishing Now" by William C. Davis - along with his devastating anaylsis of key proponents of open theism, his cultural analysis is spot-on and important for all to understand]).

Anyway, the question I'm asking is this: What would I die for? I hope I'm not tested on this soon, but I'd like to think that the rest of my life will increasingly mirror the devotion of these men at the point of their obedience even to death. In a world where truth is denied... it certainly isn't worth suffering for... I want my life to be measured by the unshakable reality of the truth of the doctrine of God revealed in our Lord Jesus Christ. And even if I need to point out that my members are "unworthy" like Cranmer, may I ultimately be found faithful in the end.

What a legacy... what a testimony. What a challenge. What a need today.

Well, I'm back in London again this week, and will head up to Cambridge for the day on Friday. Anybody have any good reformation sites for me to visit?? :)