Thoughts of a Country Preacher

The Log

2008-04-23T22:15:00.000-07:00

Matthew 7:3-5 3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

I’ll confess, I loved seminary at SBTS. I loved it for many reasons. Yes, I loved it for challenging my theology, and pushing me intellectually. But I also loved it because of the many fantastic men of God who challenged me spiritually, and as a result has changed my life for the better.

One of those men was Buddy Gray, pastor of Hunter Street Baptist Church, in Hoover AL. The first time I met Pastor Buddy, he gave a brief lecture to my Formations class. He talked a bit about family, and discussed how to apply the "log principle" to our families. He made the observation that a lot of times, whenever he gets upset over his wife about something, it is God’s way of pointing out a stronghold of sin in his own heart. So before getting angry with his wife over something, he checks his own heart – and usually he finds that same sin in his life.

Since this discussion, I’ve tried to apply the same principle to my own life, and have found that it works almost perfectly. For example: let’s say that I’m balancing our checkbook, and I start to think that my wife is being wasteful. Instead of getting upset at her, I stop and look over my own spending habits. 9 times out of 10, I’m the one being wasteful. If I think that my wife is being selfish, I look at my own life, and sure enough, I’m the selfish one.

Sometimes this even extends to my church family. I get frustrated because people are stuck in doing things the way they’re comfortable with. They demand their own way. They’re not "missional," and often seem to stand in the way of God’s work. But then after stepping back for a moment, I realize that first and foremost, these are all my own problems, not theirs.

I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I’ve had to wonder, why is this? Why is it that I see sin in other people’s lives so easily, but my own seems to be covered so well? I think the problem is that we can see other people’s sin because we are so familiar with it in our own lives. We can see through their justifications for it, and how they try to hide it because we have done all of that ourselves. Their sin is so easy for us to see because that same sin, though perhaps unacknowledged, is very close to our hearts. Those sins we see in others that make us the angriest make us angry because they reflect our sins and at some level convict us of our own heart condition.

So what sins of others make you the angriest? May I suggest taking some time and looking for that sin in your heart? If you can see their sin so easily, you should wonder what makes that sin stand out to you so plainly?

Creation Care

2008-03-10T08:03:00.000-07:00

I seriously doubt that anyone would ever call me an "environmentalist." My family all drives trucks and SUVs, we don’t recycle, and I like meat. And yet I often find myself at odds with my conservative brethren over environmental issues. I have a deep respect and love for the environment borne out of a lifetime spent in the great wilds of our nation. I was one of the few kids who didn’t watch TV after school, opting instead to spend my afternoon’s roaming around the family farm shooting stumps and trying to find the end of the creeks that ran through our property. When we went on a family vacation, the most important item we packed was a tent. It was either camping or staying home for us. In fact, to this very day I have spent more time sleeping in a tent, a truck, or under the stars than I have in hotel rooms. And my fondest life memories all involve a quiet sunrise with a few close friends as we prepared ourselves for the day’s hunt.

Our natural resources are more valuable than gold – and even rarer than diamonds. Today it is impossible to find an unspoiled environment. Even if you hike for days in any of our federally protected "wilderness" areas, you will still find crushed beer cans lying around.

We must protect the earth that has been entrusted to us. In Eden, humanity was tasked with the stewardship of God’s creation, and that purpose did not change after the fall. The only thing that changed after the fall was the fact that instead of embracing this stewardship, we rebelled against it – and we continue to do so today.

Which is why I was so encouraged by the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative. Southern Baptists speak to so many issues, and I am glad to see that this one is being addressed. I believe that this initiative reflects my own feelings on the subject very well – cautious of much of the climate claims coming from some, and yet concerned about the environment due to biblical admonitions.

One issue that they discuss but do not really address is the issue of Global Warming. Again, they take the same approach I do about it – it hasn’t been proven, but there are enough warning signs that should make us stop and think. Myself, I don’t know if Global Warming is a fact, or just a bunch of political maneuvering. Frankly I don’t care one way or another. Again, my concern for the environment is borne out of Biblical admonitions and little more.

I think of it in financial terms. My family lives on a budget. We keep to a budget when times are tough, and we keep to a budget when we are well paid – that is just a responsible stewardship of the finances that God has given us. Do we keep a budget because there is a financial emergency? No, we keep a budget to avoid financial emergencies.

In the same way, should we take steps to preserve our environment now because there is an environmental emergency? No – we do it now to avoid an environmental emergency in the future. That is just a responsible stewardship of the creation that God has give to us.

An Apology, A Thanks, And A Really Quick Post

2008-03-04T07:31:00.000-08:00

The Apology –

First off, let me apologize for my absence. Blogging has taken a back seat for a variety of reasons for the past several weeks. Inclement weather has been an annoyance; we’ve had three funerals, and everything that goes along with them. Several that has come to Christ, and all that goes along with that. My Father in Law started his cancer treatment, which has been a constant strain upon my wife. Eldon seems to have become the epicenter for a flu outbreak – which has kept me running back and forth to hospitals, a new baby, and oh – let’s not forget Easter. We all know that Easter isn’t a busy time of the year in the church. Add to that trying to keep up with my son’s new words, new activities, and new daredevil stunts, I hope you have a better understanding as to why blogging has taken such a back seat. I realize that these are all excuses, and I’m sorry about that too. But first and foremost I want to extend to you, my readers, my most sincere apology for my unexplained absence here.

A Thanks –

Despite my absence, this site has not lacked activity. There have been many of you who have checked in on me, more than few have done so daily, and I thank you for that. At the turn of the year, I was under the impression that both of my readers had somehow stumbled on this site by accident and stuck around for a chuckle. My time away has proven this wrong. To my surprise I have more than just a few regulars – and they are actually interested in what goes on here. For that I am eternally humbled by that – and grateful. Thank you for showing such interest. My readers really are the best part of this blog.

A Really Quick Post –

While things are slowing down, there is still much to do, so my post will not be too overly involved. Last Sunday, in preparation of Easter, we started specifically focusing our attention on the person and work of Jesus Christ. Last Sunday we looked at his purpose in Mark 10, where we are told that Jesus came to give his life as a ransom for many. In preparation for this message, I came across one of Piper’s sermons where he explored what is meant when Jesus said that he was to be a "ransom for many." This excerpt, reproduced from the Desiring God website, had a tremendous impact upon me, and I hope that it impacts you as well as you focus on Christ.

Jesus Came "to Give His Life as a Ransom for Many"

But now let's take the specific act of Jesus' service that he mentions in Mark 10:45. "The Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." Jesus came to "give his life as a ransom for many." This is what Christmas is about. He came. He did not come to be served. He came to give his life a ransom for many. Let's think about this act of service.

It Was Intentional

First of all, let it sink in that this act of giving his life as a ransom was intentional. It says he came to do it. Christ did not come to earth for other reasons and then get caught up in a plot that resulted in his death. He came to die. Hebrews 2:14 puts it plainly:
Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.
Jesus came to die.
Look back in this very context to Mark 10:33–34. Jesus is on the road going up to Jerusalem. There is fear and amazement in the air, because everyone suspects something tremendous is going to happen. Jesus tells them what he is walking into, willingly:
Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, and will deliver Him to the Gentiles. 34 And they will mock Him and spit upon Him, and scourge Him, and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.
So Jesus is knowingly walking into the jaws of suffering and death. Verse 45 says why: He came to give his life a ransom for many. Don't miss this. Jesus is choosing to suffer. He is choosing to die. He is participating intentionally in his own execution.

His Death Is a "Ransom"

Now why is his death called a ransom? "The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom for many." Ransom is a good translation. The Greek word here (lutron) meant just that—a payment to release someone from some kind of bondage: prisoners of war, slavery, debt. So the implication is that Jesus sees his death as a ransom to release many from bondage. He is paying what they cannot pay so that they may go free. He is substituting himself for them. And at the cost of his life, they get freedom.
So this ransom is describing a substitution. Jesus in the place of the many. Sometimes people say that the word "for" doesn't have to mean substitution. "Ransom for many," they say, may only mean, "for the benefit of many," not, "in the place of many." But listen to this compelling word from Leon Morris:
Even if . . . we take the substitutionary meaning out of the preposition ["for" = anti], we have not taken it out of the passage, for the situation [in view] is one in which the many are condemned, their lives are forfeit. If Jesus gives His life "a ransom for many" and thereby they are released from their condemnation, then a substitutionary transaction has taken place, understand the individual words as we will. (Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross [Grand Rapids; Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955], p. 36)
That seems exactly right to me. But what is the bondage or slavery that the many are in that they need to be ransomed from?

What Are "the Many" Ransomed From?

Jesus describes us in John 8:34 as enslaved to sin: "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin." He did not see us as occasionally sinning, but as under the power of sin. We are slaves of sin and we need to be ransomed from its power.
But that's not the worst of it. Jesus taught that the penalty for sin is eternal punishment. In Matthew 25:46 he says, "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Sin brings the wrath of God. It brings judgment. If we don't find rescue from the guilt of our sin, we will be punished, Jesus says, forever, because sin is an infinite offense against an infinitely holy God. So the slavery and the bondage that we need ransoming from is the slavery of sin and eternal punishment.

How Do We Know We Need Ransoming?

That is what Jesus comes to do: ransom many from the guilt and power of sin and the penalty of eternal punishment. That is our condition. How do we know this is so?
First, our conscience tells us that we are sinners. We know that we have fallen short of our own standards, and therefore how much more must we have fallen short of God's. But what about the penalty of that? It is amazing how we excuse ourselves here. Some say, "I am not worse than others." Some say, "My sins are only small, compared to the sins of others." Some say, "God would not condemn me, because he is loving." Some say, "Eternal punishment would be unjust."
But what are all these? They are opinions of men. How can you know how God will respond to your sin when you die? The answer is written by God in your heart (Romans 1:32); and written plainly in his Word. Therefore, do not let your own mind make up an answer to this. Way too much hangs on it. Search the Word of God. Seek for his answer and he will show you. I believe the answer is plain in Scripture: our condition of sin will bring judgment and wrath on us after we die if we do not find a rescue. "The wages of sin is death," said the apostle Paul, "but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23). There are two destinies: eternal life, and eternal death. Eternal death is what we need to be saved from because of our sin.

How Does Jesus Ransom Us?

So what then is the way Jesus rescues us? Jesus says, "The Son of Man came . . . to give his life as a ransom for many." He gives his life for the many. That is, he dies for many. The ransom price is his life. This is why the Bible says again and again that Christ died to save us. "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). We were "justified by his blood" (Romans 5:9). "We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" (Romans 5:10). "He bore our sins in his body on the cross" (1 Peter 2:24). "Christ died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust" (1 Peter 3:18).
The heart of the Christian message is that Christ came to give his life a ransom for many. That is, to die for many. That is: to save many from their sin and from its guilt and power and penalty in eternal punishment.

Are You in "the Many"?

Now the last question is: who are the many? Are you in the many? Were you ransomed when Christ died? Are you still under the guilt and power of sin when you might be free? Are you moving toward eternal life or eternal punishment? Who are the many that were ransomed by the Son of Man when he gave his life?
Turn with me to John 15:13. Here Jesus answers the question about whom he ransomed. He says, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." He says that he will lay down his life for his friends. He will ransom his friends. So here is the question for us this Christmas: Are you a friend of Jesus? If you are, you were ransomed. If you aren't, you can become one this morning. What does it mean to be a friend of Jesus?
The next verse explains (John 15:14): "You are My friends, if you do what I command you." This is not how you become a friend. This is the way you act when you are a friend. This is not the way you become his friend. It is the evidence that you are ransomed. The ransom is what frees you and empowers you to do what Jesus commands you to do. First you know yourself ransomed, then you enjoy the freedom and power and fruit of the ransom.

The Main Difference

2008-01-21T06:04:00.000-08:00

What makes a church grow? A simple and effective answer to that question could net an author millions should he choose to write a book about it. But seriously, I've seen churches stagnate for decades in their community just to have a new church planted not 300 yards down the road that grew from nothing to 1200 over the course of a year or so. So why do some churches grow while others stagnate and die? I'd dare say that "uber blogger" Tim Challies has presented the best answer I have read to date. The biggest factor is how we view the world around us. Are lost people our enemies, or are they potential friends? How you answer that question has a major impact on your church. I would encourage everyone to read his article here:

Distrust, Suspicion, or Love

A Humble Endorsement

2008-01-07T06:32:00.000-08:00

It has been announced that Dr. R. Albert Mohler will be nominated for the position of President of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2008. Myself, I cannot express how excited I am about this announcement. I believe that Dr. Mohler is the right man for this job at the right time, and will be able to lead our convention to new heights through grace and determination.

Let me share for a few moments why I would endorse, and plan to vote for Dr. Mohler.

Dr. Mohler walked into Southern facing some of the worst opposition any seminary president has ever faced, yet went because of a clear calling from God - a calling confirmed by the amazing success the school now enjoys.

I had the privlege of being in his Sunday School class for 3 years while I was in seminary, and that gave me the chance to watch him when he probably didn't think that he was being watched. And his example alone has had a profound impact on how I carry myself in ministry, and how I relate to those I minister to.

After his class dismisses, he is immediately mobbed by people with questions - and every single one of those questions gets an answer. In church Dr. Mohler can't take two steps without someone stopping him, wanting him to explain a large, complicated point of Christian doctrine to them. But no matter who they are, and no matter what they ask, he is always very careful to give them a complete answer in a way that they understand.

I've seen him stoop to clean up messes, walk people to their cars, pick up dropped purses, and rearrange his schedule to attend a class party - there is no task too small or insignificant for him to do.

Every couple of nights, Dr. Mohler will take his dog for a walk through the campus housing areas for the sole purpose of meeting and getting to know his students.

Dr. Mohler purposely seeks out students to invest in and mentor - the next generation of Southern Baptists is his number one priority.

Dr. Mohler has a love for both Southern Seminary, and the SBC at large that defies description. His greatest desire is to see the kingdom of Christ advanced through the SBC.

That is why I plan on going to Indy for the sole purpose of voting for Dr. Mohler, and why I pray that many more do as well. There is simply no better man for the job.

Merry Christmas

2007-12-24T07:04:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas to you and yours. I'll start posting again after the New Year.

Who's Getting Hurt?

2007-12-19T06:35:00.001-08:00

One may ask that what does the MBC's decision to defund Acts 29 affiliated churches hurt? The Great Commission for one, Kevin Larson for another.

Frustration

2007-12-11T18:51:00.000-08:00

Two posts in one day, I think that's a record or something. Our electric has stabilized, which is a blessing, but I think our electric may well be the only stable thing in the state. Breaking news breaks fast in our electronic age, and yesterday’s Missouri Baptist Executive Board meeting has already made it’s rounds. So, I thought I would weigh in on the subject.

For the past hour or so, I’ve been thinking about people in my past. People in my Southern Baptist Sunday School class growing up, people in my Southern Baptist youth group, people who went to the (Southern) Baptist Student Union with me, and on, and on. I think about them, and I am sad, because sitting here right now, out of the several hundred people I’ve come across through those encounters, I can count the number of those still in a Southern Baptist church on two hands. I have in my short 29 years, seen my generation make nothing less than a great exodus from SBC/MBC churches. I still keep up with a great many of them. Some are in independent churches, many are in nondenominational churches, some fled to mainline denominations, though admittedly those numbers are few. They’re active in their churches – deacons, elders, Sunday School teachers – they all tithe, and they’re deeply committed to their church (and conservative innerantists to their core). Why did they leave their SBC/MBC churches originally?

Too much fighting.

Too much bickering over things that didn’t matter.

Splitting theological hairs while ignoring major spiritual issues.

And as much as I hate to admit it, they have way too many examples to prove that they’re right.

Yesterday, they were given another example when the MBC Executive board voted to defund all church plants that had any association with the Acts 29 network.

I honestly don’t know what to say about this development. Right now, I am pastoring an established church – but in all honesty if I were to plant, I would go through Acts 29. And if the MBC didn’t want to go along? I guess I would be a part of that sad exodus. Right now I am frustrated at this development. Right before the MBC annual meeting at Tan Tar A, there was a solemn assembly that called on God to send a revival. I would dare say that the Acts 29 network may well be the start of a nation wide revival – after all, just look at the success they’ve had in areas of extreme darkness. Well, we found that revival, and we’ve voted against it. I suppose God should send a revival of our liking – otherwise He might be next.

So far, these gentlemen have voiced the problems raised by this move much better than I could, their blogs are worth the time to read them.

Micah Fries: Acts 29 Is Banned
Scott Lamb: Missouri Baptist Convention vs. Acts 29
Tom Ascol: Missouri Baptists Axe Acts 29
Timmy Brister: When I Am Ashamed to be a Southern Baptist
Steve McCoy: No Funding for SBC/Acts 29 Church Plants in Missouri

Winter Is Upon Us

2007-12-11T10:34:00.000-08:00

At the moment I have parted ways with the roughly 160,000 other people across the Mid West in that I (for the moment) have electricity. Ice is all around us and I have a particularly large limb that I must remove from my roof. So, there will be no substantive post this week - just a plea for prayer for the folks around the Jeff. City/Eldon area.
Also, for the first time I have decided to allow "anonymous" posts to my blog. One thing that I do ask from you, my readers, is that you will have the decencey to sign your name when you comment. If anonymous bombs start going off around here, we'll go back to allowing only comments from those with blogging accounts.

The Pastor and His Divorce

2007-12-04T08:01:00.000-08:00

Any time we apply for a job or a duty, there are qualifications that we must meet. If you want to be a lawyer, you need a law degree and you need to pass the Bar exam. If you want to be a soldier, then you need to be 18 or older, have no past felonies or drug use, and be below a certain weight.

Now this begs the question: what are the qualifications of a pastor? Typically when this question is asked, there are two passages of scripture that people tend to turn to. They are:

1 Timothy 3:1-7 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

And:

Titus 1:6-9 if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

There are many things in these passages we could discuss, but for our discussion today, I would like to focus on that one phrase "the husband of one wife." What does this mean? Does that mean that a pastor cannot be divorced? Or does it mean something else?

For the sake of discussion, I will show my cards early – I do believe that this means that a divorced man is indeed disqualified for pastoral ministry.

Now I know the first argument that people usually raise against this interpretation. They will say "Oh no, these passages don’t forbid divorce, they forbid polygamy – having more than one wife at a time." And no, that is simply not true.

Let’s consider the context that Paul was writing in for a moment. Paul was writing to Timothy & Titus, both of whom were living and ministering within a Roman context. They were in the Roman empire, and bound by Roman laws, and one law that the Romans were very serious about was that there was to be no polygamy in Roman lands – it was strictly forbidden, in fact, it was a capital offence. The Romans were so serious about their ban on Polygamy, that in 34 BC when Mark Antony, a member of the Roman Triumvirate, went to Egypt to marry Cleopatra, the Roman Senate clamored for war if he did not first divorce his Roman wife. If you were subject to Roman laws, you were married to one woman at a time – there simply was no polygamy, and if there was, you had better make sure that no one found out about it.
With this in mind, why on earth would Paul write to Timothy and Titus, warning them against polygamy? The answer is that he wasn’t, he was writing to warn them against divorce, which was a major problem in the Roman Empire. In fact, some estimate that the divorce rate in the Roman Empire was somewhere around 80-85%.

Given the context of Paul’s writing it is fairly easy to deduce that Paul is not arguing that pastors should only have one wife at a time. Instead, he is arguing that they should only have one wife – period.

Another argument against my position is that it somehow cheapens Christ’s atonement. The question is asked, "What if a person was divorced before they got saved? What if after they were saved they felt called to be a pastor? If Christ has forgiven them, shouldn’t we?" At first this argument sounds very noble and holy, but on a closer examination it turns very hollow. First off, who is arguing that Christ’s atonement cannot cover a divorcee? I have yet to see that argument made, and I am certainly not making it here. We’re not talking about salvation here; we’re talking about qualification for service. The one thing that people forget when they make this argument is that while sins may be forgiven, they still have consequences. I have seen drunks find a wonderful salvation in Christ – which was followed by years of struggle with alcohol and its physical side effects. I have seen people hit the bottom of the barrel in jail, only to turn and trust in Christ – but that doesn’t mean that they should then just be let go. At the same time, yes a person can be divorced and forgiven – but that doesn’t mean that they are qualified for service. You may feel some inner turmoil over this, and believe me I can understand it – this argument almost moved me away from the no divorce position. But Christ’s forgiveness of sin does not alone qualify one for service, and if you don’t believe me then just wait until the ex-pedophile comes to your church wanting to serve in your children’s ministry.

Finally, the question must be asked, why is this such a big deal? Why would God not allow divorcees to serve as pastors? I believe the answer lies in the phrase "must be above reproach." If you will notice, divorce is not the only sin that disqualifies a man from pastoral ministry. These passages are clear that a pastor should not have any serious, public, ongoing sin in their lives. A person may be greedy in life, but if they want to be a pastor, then they must expunge that sin from their lives, and stop loving money. A person may be an alcoholic in life, but if they want to be a pastor, then they have got to turn away from that sin, and stop being addicted to wine. And herein we find the problem with divorce. If you are divorced, you cannot turn away from that sin, and stop being divorced. Once you’re divorced, you will continue in that sin for the rest of your life.* You may remarry, but that does not change the fact that you are divorced. You may get saved, but that does not change the fact that you are still divorced. Divorce by its very nature is a serious, public, ongoing sin. And any serious, public, ongoing sin in a person’s life disqualifies him for the pastoral ministry.

*Disclaimer: You can actually stop being divorced. This is done by going back to your wife, being reconciled to her, and remarrying her. I have a friend who has seen this in his own life. He was divorced, got saved, and came to realize how bad he had been to his wife. He went to his then ex-wife to be reconciled; she forgave him, and because neither had remarried, were able to restore their marriage to each other. Today he serves as a pastor, and Biblically speaking does so with integrity, as he has lived up to Paul’s call on the pastor to be the husband of just one wife.

Soothing Tensions

2007-11-27T20:22:00.000-08:00

With one major Holiday down and another nipping on our toes, it may be wise for some of us to think about conflict management.

If you are ever in close contact with another person, eventually you will experience conflict in your life. Really, the only way to avoid conflict is to just avoid all people at all times and just become hermits in some far away cave. If we’re going to interact with people, especially family, we have to be ready for friction every once in a while. So here are some things I keep in mind when working with others that has helped me in the past.

First things first, here are just some basic general principles for conflict I follow.

Pray about it –

James 5:16 The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

Pray for wisdom –

James 1:5 5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

Pray for the words to say –

Mark 13:11 do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit.

No matter what happens, always keep your cool –

Proverbs 15:1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Finally, resolve to win him with your life before you try to win him with your words –

Romans 12:21 - 13:1 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

All that being said, when I’m faced with a conflict in my life, the first thing I do is that I ask myself is this really something to get worked up about, or is it something I should just let go?

Proverbs 19:11 11 A man's discretion makes him slow to anger, And it is his glory to overlook a transgression.

When I look back at my life, I can’t help but admit that most of the blowups I’ve had were pointless – they didn’t change anything except that they made everyone more upset. More often than not anymore, when someone criticizes me for something, I ask myself "Is this true? Is this something I should consider?" If it is, I meditate on it. I try to be honest with myself first of all – because if I’m not honest with myself, people will see that and won’t take me seriously.

Proverbs 28:13 13 He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, But he who confesses and forsakes them will find compassion.

However, if their criticism is wrong, or its something that I don’t struggle with, then I just smile & say thank you, and go on with my life.

Second, if it is something that I’ve got to work on, I go directly to that person and talk to them about it.

Matthew 18:15 15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

I think the first thing that this verse shows us is that avoidance is not the answer. A lot of people think "Out of sight, out of mind," but this just doesn’t work when it comes to conflicts. A problem that we avoid is a problem that grows. The only way to solve a problem is to confront it with loving boldness.
Since I’ve moved to Eldon, I’ve had a few problems with my neighbors. Mainly they just let their dogs run free & one is very aggressive toward both me and my wife. I could have been hateful about it, or I could have avoided the problem. But instead I just went over and had a few good conversations with them, and everything worked out great. But had I not gone over and talked to them, who knows how bad the problem could have gotten.

Third, realize that you may need help, and that seeking it out is a good thing.

Matthew 18:16 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

Sometimes a fresh set of ears is all that we need to resolve a conflict. If just talking about it doesn’t help, ask if he would like to sit down with other faithful Christians. There is a lot of wisdom in the church, and a lot of people who have been down this path before. Their experience can help you navigate through this.

Suggested Reading – Peacemakers by Ken Sande.

Pride vs. Humility

2007-11-19T10:42:00.000-08:00

Of all the virtues that I have mastered, I shall never master the virtue of humility. For if I were to conquer humility, I would be too proud of it.
- Benjamin Franklin

Pride is a creeping disease that can infect and kill the healthiest faith before its presence is ever detected – which is why we must guard against it at all times.

While pride may be endemic to the lives of all people, I believe that it is especially dangerous in the lives of pastors, where it often finds residence. Not too long ago I was listening to a speech given by an administrator of one of our seminaries who charted the course of pride through a typical student’s life. He said:

"When a new student comes to seminary, he is usually wide eyed and ready to soak in all they can. However, as classes start and their education continues, there is a change. That wise pastor back home who they respected so much suddenly doesn’t know what he is talking about. Faithful men and women in the pew become ignorant masses. Every practice of the church that he does not fully support becomes blasphemous. Until finally he becomes the sole protector of the true faith once delivered to him."

Sadly I have seen this attitude in the hearts of my fellow students while in seminary.

Devastatingly, I have seen this progression in my own heart.

Once in the world of church work, we get no better. Our conversations turn to baptismal numbers, tithing stats, membership and on and on, so everyone knows how good of a pastor we are. I suppose that we can take some comfort in knowing that this plague afflicts many ministers, even those whose reputation for holiness over towers so many. I found this gem of a quote on Timmy Brister’s blog a while back, and thought that it would be worth sharing here.

"I found, that, when I met with enlargement in prayer or preaching, or answered a question readily and suitably, I was apt to applaud myself in my own mind. I affected pre-eminence above what belonged to my age or worth. I therefore endeavored to take a view of my pride–as the very image of the Devil, contrary to the grace and image of Christ–as an offence against God, and grieving of his Spirit–as the most unreasonable folly and madness for one, who had nothing singularly excellent, and who had a nature so corrupt–as infinitely dangerous, and ready to provoke God to deprive me of my capacities and opportunities. I therefore resolved to carry my distempered heart to be cured by Jesus Christ, that all-sufficient Physician-to watch against my pride–to study much the nature and aggravations of it, and the excellence of the contrary grace."
- Cotton Mather

Pride is easy to get – humility is not, so the question has to be asked, "How can I develop the discipline of humility in my life?" Well, I won’t tell you that I have all the answers, but there are two things I focus on whenever I feel the creeping presence of pride in my life.

First, I focus on others instead of myself.

Philippians 2:3-4 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

First a quick question. At its essence, what is pride?

Essentially, pride is a focus on yourself.

So the proud person focuses on:
What do I want?
What do I need?
What can I do?
Where can I go?
What can you do for me?
What will bring me the most happiness?
What will make me more important?
What will bring joy into my life?

And through all of that, we can see that pride is essentially self centered. It begins with a belief that we are the center of the universe, and everything in the universe – whether it is people, money, or God - everything is here so that I can use it for my betterment.
When we are focused on our selves, our desires and our victories, we will naturally become prideful people.

But on the flip side of that, when we become focused on others, on their desires and their victories, then we will naturally become more humble people.

So the humble person focuses on:
What do you want?
What do you need?
What can I do for you?
What will bring you the most happiness?
What will make you more important?
What will bring joy into your life?

The humble person focuses on others.

So Paul tells us that we should regard other people as more important than ourselves.
How can we do that? By exercising what use to be common manners.

Things like holding doors open for other people.
Things like letting others go ahead of you.
Things like giving up your seats for others.
Things like being interested in what other people have to say.

And that is one point in our culture that we are failing miserably – actually listening to other people.

If you are in a conversation with someone else, do you actually stop and listen to them, or do you only listen long enough to have something for you to talk about?

This is one of my pet peeves in life, people who interrupt others while they are speaking.
Because people who interrupt, whether they mean it or not, are communicating that what they have to say is more important than what you have to say. That your thoughts and your opinions are not important – or at least not as important as their thoughts and opinions.

Second, I remind myself that whatever I am taking pride in came from God, and not my own abilities.

Deuteronomy 8:10-18 10 "When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless the LORD your God for the good land which He has given you. 11 "Beware that you do not forget the LORD your God by not keeping His commandments and His ordinances and His statutes which I am commanding you today; 12 otherwise, when you have eaten and are satisfied, and have built good houses and lived in them, 13 and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and gold multiply, and all that you have multiplies, 14 then your heart will become proud and you will forget the LORD your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 15 "He led you through the great and terrible wilderness, with its fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground where there was no water; He brought water for you out of the rock of flint. 16 "In the wilderness He fed you manna which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end. 17 "Otherwise, you may say in your heart, 'My power and the strength of my hand made me this wealth.' 18 "But you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth, that He may confirm His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day.

When we have very little, it’s easy for us to look at what we have and say, "I wouldn’t even have this if it wasn’t for God." But when our stomachs are full and our minds are at ease and our bills are paid, we have a tendency to forget God. We have a tendency to think that everything’s going good for us because we’ve done everything right.

And in the same way, whenever we do something right or we preach a good sermon or get a paper published or grow a great church, it is easy for us to forget that God did all of this, and foster pride in our lives.

There are a lot of people in the world who look down at their paycheck and say, "man, I am such a hard worker." We have a lot of Christians that look at their bank accounts and say, "man, I’ve been so smart with my money." We have a lot of Christians who look at their homes and possessions and say, "This is mine. I bought it, I earned it, I deserve it."
And in reality, what we should all do when we look at this stuff is say "Man, I am so blessed."
God has given me so much, God has given me a good job and good health and everything else – I am so blessed.

We should remember that we have what we have not because we are all stars, but because we are on the right team. We have got to realize that the things we have in life is often there despite us, and not because of us.

That it all comes from God.

And when we remember this, it should drive us to exalt God over ourselves. It should drive us to humility.

"I used to think that God’s gifts were on shelves one above another, and the taller we grow the easier we can reach them. Now, I find that God’s gifts are on shelves, one beneath another. And the lower we stoop, the more we get."
- F.B. Meyer

Out Of Pocket Again

2007-11-14T09:33:00.001-08:00

Question: What do you get when it’s deer season, your laptop’s busted, and the creative juices just ain’t flowin?

Answer: You get blog posts like the one’s I’ve been (infrequently) putting up.

Yet, as I’ve noted before, the odd thing is that I get way more unique visitors to my blog when I don’t post…I guess people like silence from me, I don’t know.

The plus side is that I do have several good topics I would like to discuss on this blog churning in my head, but with the season and what not, I have not yet had the time to put it into words. So stick with me, I promise something good will come along eventually.

Thoughts on the Convention

2007-11-05T11:58:00.000-08:00

Missouri Baptists have wrapped up their annual convention – earlier I said I would provide my thoughts on it, so here they are. If you would like more thoughtful/in depth coverage of what happened though, I would suggest looking here, here, and here.

Overall, I was pleased with the convention. The election of officers was perhaps the biggest ticket of the convention as SOC and MBLA slates, both conservative in nature, faced off over the future of the convention. Admittedly, I expected officers to be elected off of both slates, but instead the SOC slate won a decisive victory over their counterparts, showing that Missouri Baptists, while roundly conservative, realize that there are limits to what the convention can control.

I know that there are some, and perhaps many in our state who believe that the SOC is only mimicking MBLA tactics, and are doing exactly what they accuse the MBLA of doing, but I do not think this is true. Right after his election, the ABP interviewed Gerald Davidson, and asked an intriguing question – "How long will Save Our Convention continue?" Davidson’s response: "As far as I’m concerned, it can stop right now,".

I believe that this is the exact kind of attitude our leaders need. Yes, sometimes you must stand up for an important victory. But when that victory is won, its time to sit back down.

Considering all of the run up to the convention, I thought that the motions presented to the floor were somewhat mild. While I personally would have liked Mr. Fries’ resolution on seeking peace among Missouri Baptists come to the floor, I also believe that the resolutions committee did a wonderful job fulfilling their appointed tasks.

The discussion on Mr. Moran’s resolution on alcohol was perhaps the lowest point of the convention in my opinion. Personally, I would have been in complete favor of a resolution that encouraged abstinence among Missouri Baptists. However, I do think that this resolution went too far in stating that all people employed by & serving the MBC must abstain.

By and large I enjoyed and appreciated the sermons preached at the convention. Though they did seem to present two distinct visions in the MBC, and among Southern Baptists at large. I didn’t even really think about it until a friend of mine brought it up. He mentioned that it seemed like everyone was aware of the fact that Christianity was in a state of decline in the United States, and that there are two major approaches that Christians are taking as a result.

First, there are those who seem to think that we are beyond hope, and so they withdraw into their own theological systems, hoping that through separation with the world & what they see as worldly Christians, they will be able to maintain their own standing with God. Then on the other hand, there are those who are responding to this problem by going outside of their comfort zones, hoping to reach the lost with the gospel, and see their lives transformed by the gospel. I believe that he is right in his estimation, and that the second option is the only option that we can pursue if we want to see our culture transformed by Christ.

A Lot of Things Are Turning One This Month

2007-10-23T07:53:00.000-07:00

At least I remembered my son’s birthday. It has been a year since this blog has started, and to be honest, I’m starting to feel that malaise that besets so many bloggers. My regular readers may well notice that as my posting has gotten a lot less regular – honestly, there is a part of me that is ready to be done with this. I suppose that I will at least hold off for Missouri’s Convention meeting. We’ll see if that sparks any thoughts. If not, I guess we’ll see.

Called to be like Christ

2007-10-15T20:44:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IuiUOapK1w

Out of Pocket

2007-09-29T12:40:00.000-07:00

I missed last week's post, and I apologize for that. But I will admit that I had a very good reason for missing last week: I was on vacation. My wife and I visited our family last weekend, and got the chance to rent the 1966 Stingray Corvette you see above. After that we went to Tablerock to enjoy some time away from home in a quiet and somewhat cloistered location.

This vacation was one I sorely needed, and was different from the vacations that we have had for the past five years in that there was no work involved at all. Usually our vacations are the few days we have after a conference, or a class, or a series of tests, or something like that. But for this vacation there was only one thing to do: absolutely nothing.

Included in that absolutely nothing was a lack of internet access, so there was no e-mail, blogs, blogging, or anything else. When I got back yesterday I checked to see who had dropped in during my absence, and to my surprise I found that the week that I didn't post, I had the most visitors that I have had in a long time. Maybe I should abstain from writing for a while, it might improve my readership :) No such luck though, Monday I will finish my "Books to Read Again and Again" series with a wonderful short book that provoked a great paradigm shift in my theology a few years ago.

Books Worth Reading Again and Again Vol. 3

2007-09-17T11:54:00.001-07:00

Heroes of the Faith: Billy Sunday

I first read this book just before my seminary graduation. While this series of biographies were originally written for younger readers, I found that there was still much that an older seminarian could learn from them. I had just received the call to come and pastor my current church in Eldon, and after three years of classes on ministry, I was on fire ready to get on the field and do ministry. However, this book tempered that determination, and taught me a lesson that I now deeply cherish – that one can be a great success in ministry, and yet be a failure in the important things in life.

I’ll wager that most people who stop by this blog are already aware of Billy Sunday, he was in many ways the Billy Graham of his day. He was known coast to coast as America’s pastor, he could be heard on the radio, you could read any one of his many sermons, or you could see him yourself at one of him many crusades held any where at any time. In many ways, he was the quintessential "always on" minister that many people think all pastors should be, but such a fervent schedule takes its toll on both the individual and the family.

It is the very last chapter of this book that stays with me. It begins with Billy enraged at the thought that prohibition was going to be overturned. One statement in particular hit me; he says, "God sends America a stock market crash to let us know we’ve sinned as a nation. We’re all looking at the bottom of the barrel. But do we repent? Of course not!" This statement is to me very ironic, as it was Mr. Sunday himself who could not read the writing on the wall. While on one of his speaking tours campaigning for prohibition, his daughter Helen died from "disease and depression." After her funeral, Billy told his wife that he couldn’t go on preaching. His wife Nell offered to cancel the rest of his engagements, but he just kept on going. Because of that, he wasn’t there when the rest of his children needed him the most. Paul, George, and Billy Jr. went into a tailspin of failed businesses, multiple failed marriages, trouble with the law, alcoholism, and morphine addiction. Mr. Sunday was always worried about his kids, but instead of putting his preaching schedule on hold to help them, he just simply sent money to bail them out of jail & support their failing businesses. His absence ultimately led to their untimely deaths, one by suicide, and the rest by poor choices. Mr. Sunday was too busy trying to save America to worry about his family, apparently he never preached on 1 Timothy 5:8.

This was for me a wake up call. When I first came to Eldon, one of the first things I did was remind my church that my first ministry was my family. And that they were going to have to be willing to take a backseat to my son – the first to be born to a pastor of this church in about 65 years. That one could be a success in ministry, but be a failure in the eyes of the Lord, because he neglected his family. And so while I do push myself through the week, this book reminds me that there are times that require us to stop, and focus on what is important. So, I take time for my family. For instance, today I write this post from my home. Today there will be no office hours, and today I will skip the evangelistic visits I do on Monday evenings. Why? Because right now I have a 10-month-old playing behind me who has a double ear infection, and who is hurting because of the antibiotics we have to give him. So today I practice the lessons learned through the life of Billy Sunday. I stop and minister to my son. Thanks to Billy Sunday’s life I know that ultimately, my success in ministry will not come from the number of people I baptize, or how big our primary worship average gets, or even how many changed lives are present at my funeral. Ultimately, my life will be judged by the life my son lives in my wake – so that will be my focus.

Books Worth Reading Again and Again Vol. 2

2007-09-10T12:28:00.000-07:00

Revival’s Golden Key, by Ray Comfort

Last week, we began looking at books that I honestly cannot help but go back to time after time after time. These are the books that have inspired me, educated me, edified me, and in some cases, have caused me to seriously reconsider major aspects of my life.
Today I want to look at a book I first read right before I went to seminary about four years ago.

Today as I take it down from my bookshelves, I remember how long it’s been since I read it last. Today, I would probably pass by it in the bookstore. The cover pictures are very cheesy, the reference to "end time believers" smells of hyper-dispensationalism, and on the back is an endorsement from Ted Haggard. Admittedly, this endorsement came from before his incident, but still.

But four years ago I guess I didn’t have the same preconceived notions I now have. As my wife and I were packing our apartment getting ready for the move, I came across this book. I had no idea where it came from, but it looked interesting, so that evening I sat down to start reading it, and simply could not put it down. This book has in many ways completely changed the way that I go about witnessing to people, and Comfort’s "The Way of the Master" method became the foundation for my "Eternal L.I.F.E witnessing rubric.

The main thrust of this book is the use of the law in witnessing. Before, I would talk about Christ and salvation, and how people needed Christ in their lives, but no one seemed that interested. After reading this book I came to understand why. Comfort notes that telling people they need Jesus is an empty statement to the lost if they don’t understand that they have broken God’s law, are condemned, and domed to face his wrath. However, once the sinner understands the seriousness of sin, and that they cannot make themselves clean before God, only then will they understand what we mean when we say that we need Jesus to save us. Or, as Scottish evangelist Robbie Flockhart used to say:

"You must preach the Law, for the gospel is a silken thread, and you cannot get it into the hearts of men unless you have made a way for it with a sharp needle; the sharp needle of the Law will pull the silken thread of the gospel after it."

There must be plowing before there is sowing if there is to be reaping after the sowing.

Books Worth Reading Again and Again

2007-09-04T13:00:00.000-07:00

The Reformed Pastor, by Richard Baxter

My wife makes fun of me that she always knows what my favorites are, because I keep going back to them again and again. Yes, I wear my favorite gym shorts almost daily (but they’re washed regularly, so its kosher), yes when I eat out its usually at one of just a hand full of resturants, and yes I watch my favorite movies so much that I can usually quote them line for line.
Just yesterday I ordered a few books that will put the number of volumes in my personal library to just shy of 1,000. Yet despite everything that is on my to read list, I still find myself going back and rereading several books that have impacted me in some important way. One of those books is The Reformed Pastor, by Richard Baxter. Frankly it is my opinion that outside of the Bible, this should be a pastor’s most read book. Today, I would like to share with you from this book concerning a pastor’s oversight of themselves.

"Let us consider, What it is to take heed to ourselves.

I. See that the work of saving grace be thoroughly wrought in your own souls. Take heed to yourselves, lest you be void of that saving grace of God which you offer to others, and be strangers to the effectual working of that gospel which you preach; and lest, while you proclaim to the world the necessity of a Saviour, your own hearts should neglect him, and you should miss of an interest in him and his saving benefits…

But, besides this general course of watchfulness, methinks a minister should take some special pains with his heart, before he is to go to the congregation: if it be then cold, how is he likely to warm the hearts of his hearers? Therefore, go then specially to God for life: read some rousing, awakening book, or meditate on the weight of the subject of which you are to speak, and on the great necessity of your people's souls, that you may go in the zeal of the Lord into his house. Maintain, in this manner, the life of grace in yourselves, that it may appear in all your sermons from the pulpit, - that every one who comes cold to the assembly, may have some warmth imparted to him before he depart…

4. Take heed to yourselves, lest you live in those sins which you preach against in others, and lest you be guilty of that which daily you condemn…

0 brethren! it is easier to chide at sin, than to overcome it…

1. Take heed to yourselves, for you have a heaven to win or lose, and souls that must be happy or miserable for ever· and therefore it concerneth you to begin at home, and to' take heed to yourselves as well as to others…

2. Take heed to yourselves, for you have a depraved nature, and sinful inclinations, as well as others…

3. Take heed to yourselves, because the tempter will more ply you with his temptations than other men. If you will be the leaders against the prince of darkness, he will spare you no further than God restraineth him…

Take heed, therefore, brethren, for the enemy hath a special eye upon you. You shall have his most subtle insinuations, and incessant solicitations, and violent assaults. As wise and learned as you are, take heed to yourselves, lest he outwit you. The devil is a greater scholar than you, and a nimbler disputant: he can transform himself into an angel of light to deceive: he will get within you, and trip up your heels before you are aware: he will play the juggler with you undiscerned, and cheat you of your faIth or innocency, and you shall not know that you have lost it; nay, he will make you believe it is multiplied or increased, when It is lost…

4. Take heed to yourselves, because there are many eyes upon you, and there will be many to observe your falls…

Why, if one of you that is a leader of the flock, should be ensnared but once into some scandalous crime, there is scarcely a man or woman that seeketh diligently after their salvation, within the hearing of it, but, besides the grief of their hearts for your sin, are likely to have it cast in their teeth by the ungodly about them, however much they may detest it, and lament it. The ungodly husband will tell his wife, and the ungodly parents will tell -their children, and ungodly neighbours and fellow-servants will be telling one another of it, saying, 'These are your godly preachers! See what comes of all your stir. What better are you than others? You are even all alike.'…

5· Take heed to yourselves, for your sins have more heinous aggravations than other men's. It was a saying of king Alphonsus, that 'a great man cannot commit a small sin;'

(A) You are more likely than others to sin against knowledge, because you have more than they; at least, you sin against more light, or means of knowledge.
(B) Your sins have more hypocrisy in them than other men's, by how much the more you have spoken against them…

6. Take heed to yourselves, because such great works as ours require greater grace than other men's."

Worship Defined

2007-08-27T11:02:00.000-07:00

For the past several weeks, I have been preaching through the 10 commandments. For me, this has been a very enjoyable series, and in some ways a surprising one. It has been surprising to me how much I talk about worship as I discuss these verses. This past week I discussed worship somewhat in-depth as my introduction to the third commandment. This week, I will offer my definition of worship, drawn largely from the various teachings of Martin Luther, Mark Driscoll, and various other mediums.

________________________________________________________

One of the best definitions that we can find for worship can be found in the book of Romans, chapter 11, beginning in verse 36.

Romans 11:36 - 12:1 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. 1Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.

So worship is three parts, glory, dedication, and sacrifice.

Glory is that we hold something or someone in a position of prominence, preeminence, significance or centrality. This is the center of your life; this is that thing that drives you to get out of bed every morning. This is what drives you life and governs your heart. Whatever that is, that is what you have glorified in your life. And whatever it is, whoever that is, you have placed them in a position of highest praise and value.

We dedicate ourselves to those people or things that we have placed in a position of glory. That’s what Romans means by presenting our bodies, or dedicating our bodies to that which we have glorified.

Whenever we dedicate ourselves to something, we give it our devotion. We follow it; we know everything about it. Its schedule dictates our schedule, literally our entire life revolves around this object of glory that we have dedicated ourselves to. When we dedicate ourselves to something it is essentially like letting everyone know what team they’re on.

We see this with bumper stickers. If you’re going down the highway, and you come up on somebody driving a hybrid Prius with a bumper sticker on the back that says PETA – people for the ethical treatment of animals – you know what team that guy’s on.

In the same way, if you’re going down the highway and you come up on an old Ford truck with a gun rack in the back and that you can hear from a mile away and on the back of this truck you see a bumper sticker that says PETA – people for the eating of tasty animals – then you pretty much know what team that guy’s on too.

That’s the dedication, you dedicate yourself to this object of glory and they announce that devotion – you say this is my group, this is my team, my political party, these are my friends, these are my values, this is what hold a place of glory in my life. This is what I value and cherish above all other things in my life.

And when you devote yourself to this thing of glory, you begin to make sacrifices for it. Because I don’t care who you are there are limits in your life. You are limited by the amount of time you have. You are limited by money, and energy, and desire and everything else.

And so your sacrifice is that you don’t devote your time, energy, and money to certain areas of your life that may need it, because you have devoted all of those things to this thing that you glorify, that you worship, in your life.

And that is worship – that is, at its very heart, exactly what worship is.

That being said, we are all worshippers. You’re a worshipper, I’m a worshipper, the guy down the street that wont give God a second thought is a worshipper, we’re all worshippers. The only question is what will we worship, what will we place in that place of glory over our lives?

We’re all worshippers, which is a good thing because we were created to worship. The Bible tells us that true worship happens when the creation – you and me – places the creator, God, in that place of glory, we devote ourselves to him, and make sacrifices for Him.

However, because of our sin nature, because we are sinners, we have this natural tendency to invert worship. Where we elevate creation over the creator, and we devote ourselves to created gods, devote ourselves to something of our own making, and sacrifice the worship of God for that thing of glory in our lives.

Now, you might say to me John, you know you have been harping about worship an awful lot for the past several weeks. This is a series on the 10 commandments, what does worship have to do with these passages?

Well, I think Martin Luther had it right – when he was teaching on the ten commandments, he said that the first two commandments had to do with the worship of God. And the rest of the commandments dealt with the implications of what happens when we get the first two wrong.

The 10 commandments tells us don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t covet your neighbor or his possessions. And so you say OK, how do I go about obeying these commandments. You obey these commandments by getting the first two commandments right. You realize that there is only one God, and you only worship that God.

So what Martin Luther would say is that if you only worshipped the one true God, then you wouldn’t have problems with coveting. Because when we worship God and God alone, we will not look at our neighbor’s wife and say: you to me are an object of glory. Therefore I will dedicate myself to you and I will make sacrifices of my own integrity and holiness and purity to be with you and have pleasure with you.

If you have a problem with lying, Luther would say that you lie because you have placed your own glory at the center of your life. And so you have become devoted to your ego - to this image of yourself that you have in your mind, and you sacrifice the truth to maintain this image. And so your problem is that you have placed your glory over God’s glory, and you have placed your image over God’s image. You problem with lying is a problem with worship – you lie because you are an idolater. And your idol is yourself.

So Luther rightly writes that if we never broke the first two commandments, then we would never break the other 8 either.

And so, I don’t know what kind of sin problems lurks within our hearts in the blogosphere. I don’t know what specific sins you are dealing with in your lives. Maybe its anger or greed or an addiction to porn or alcohol abuse. Or maybe you don’t have a problem with those things and so your secret sin is pride – you see yourself as holier or better than those people with more blatant sin problems. Whatever it is the sin problem you have is not a problem of being unable to keep God’s law.

Our problems with sin are worship problems.

A Quick (And Late) Post

2007-08-21T10:05:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of talk about polity and ecclesiology lately which is, in my opinion, a very good thing. One of the leading questions that people have explored is how a church should be governed. Should it be elder led? Should a church be congregational, or the seemingly most controversial today, pastor led? I’ve plowed this ground before, so if you want my answer to these questions, I would invite you to look here.

Today, I want to address something a little different. I do believe that a church should be congregational in nature, but at the same time, I believe that many of our churches have perverted the biblical understanding of congregational polity. In many of our churches, I fear that we have traded congregational polity in for democratic polity, though we have kept the name.

Democratic polity can be seen in churches that believe that all things must be voted on. These churches will desire a vote on all things – who to baptize, who to accept into church membership, when to have outreach events, how much money may be spent by the youth group on a given activity (even though there is a pre approved youth budget for them to draw on), everything. In democratic churches, the congregation itself cedes no authority to the pastor or any of its leaders, except for their influence.

This is however a perversion of congregational polity. In the biblical model, the congregation will vote to provide wide perimiters for their leaders to operate in – such as the ordination of leadership, budget, etc. However, once those perimeters are established, the congregation must trust and follow its leaders until they clearly violate biblical precepts.

Thoughts on Tuesday's Acts 29 Event

2007-08-16T12:47:00.000-07:00

OK, OK, I know that I’m posting on my visit with the Acts 29 network a little later than I said I would – but hey, its my blog and it operates on my schedule.

When I go to SBC events, I’m struck by the fact that the majority of people are older, well dressed white guys. When I walked into the meeting room I was a few minutes late, and as I walked in I looked around & was struck by the fact that it was primarily young white guys with facial hair and flip-flops. Given that I fit into that category well (sans flip-flops) it didn’t really bother me – it just struck me as odd for some reason.

There were two sessions in this meeting. The first was taught by Darrin Patrick, lead pastor of the Journey Church in St. Louis. He wanted to answer the question "what is missional?" To answer this question, he looked to Acts 2:42-47, and argued that missional churches sought to emulate those things found in the primitive church. Mainly, preaching/teaching, fellowship, Lord’s service and benevolence. All in all, his interpretation was spot on, though a bit basic. I have heard Mr. Patrick speak in the past on similar topics much more in depth. I’m sure time constraints played a big part in this, but none the less the brevity of his discussion made it less than fruitful, unless one was completely devoid of any knowledge in these fields.

The breakout session that followed was of great value. There were two offered – the first designed for people new in their field on learning how to exegete their culture. The second (which I attended) was on transforming the city & focused upon benevolence ministries. The facilitator of this session, a guy named Josh, had clearly struggled with benevolence ministries, had encountered the same problems that I had, and seems to be formulating answers to questions I have been considering myself. Josh argues (correctly in my opinion) that churches should move beyond strictly charity in their benevolence ministries, and begin to focus upon empowerment – or training people so that they can help themselves. Here’s the money quote from this session: "Doing for others what they can do for themselves is charity at its worst. We must believe that every person has something of value to bring to the table." Therefore, church benevolence ministries should focus more on creating an environment of empowerment as opposed to simply throwing money at the problem.

Delayed Post

2007-08-13T06:40:00.000-07:00

This week I'm going to put off my post for a few days. Tomorrow I plan on attending an Acts 29 event, and God willing will most likely post my thoughts on it on Wed.

Religiosity vs. Christianity

2007-08-07T07:00:00.000-07:00

For the past several weeks I have, as a side note, preached about the greatest religious rival to Christianity. Despite its growth in the West, it is not Islam. Nor is Christianity’s greatest rival Mormonism or New Age thought. No, Christianity’s greatest rival today has been its greatest rival throughout all of time. It is Religiosity. For a moment today, I would like to share with you a few snippets from a couple of my past sermons that deals with the difference between Religiosity and Christianity.

If we look in the New Testament, we will find Jesus, being confronted with the Pharisees, and the Pharisees were a perfect example of people ensnared by the lie of Religiosity. Whenever they would fast, they would go around and wail and moan because they were so hungry, but they couldn’t eat because that’s how holy they were.
And Jesus looks at these guys and he says:

Matthew 6:16-18 16 "Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 17 "But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face 18 so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

So here Jesus says that outward expression with no inward meaning is pointless and empty and vain.

That’s not holiness, that is religiosity.

And so today, when we ask ourselves, what makes us acceptable to God, what do we say?
Do we say that going to church on Sunday mornings and maybe Sunday School, and dropping a 10 in the offering plate and praying over meals, and as long as I do those things then I’ll be alright with God.

That is not Christianity, that is Religiosity.

Christianity says that we are made right with God through the blood of Christ.

Religiosity says that we are made right with God by doing religious things.

Christianity says we are saved through faith in Christ.

Religiosity says that we are saved through participation.

Additionally, Religiosity tells us that if we want God’s blessings in our lives, then we have to be good, and we have to be moral. And if we do everything right then we will get what we want from God.

And the reason why Religiosity is so dangerous is that it leaves out any mention of God’s grace in our lives.

But Christianity calls us to more than morality. Christianity calls us to holiness, and that is something that we cannot produce in our hearts on our own.

Christianity remembers:
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick

Christianity tells us that God’s blessings upon us are not dependent on what we do for God.

Christianity clings to the promise of:
Romans 5:8 while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

That while we were still in a state of rebellion against God, while we lived as our own gods, while we were not just unwilling, but even unable to please God, God sent His son to die for us so that we might live for Him.

Christianity knows that there is a break between our actions and the blessings of God, and that break is the grace of God.

The Principle of Receptivity

2007-07-30T09:25:00.000-07:00

Last week, we discussed the Homogeneous Principle. This week I would like to discuss another principle found at the heart of the Church Growth Movement is the Principle of Receptivity. The Principle of Receptivity is derived from the observation that churches grow at a very uneven pace. Some populations become receptive to the gospel message while others do not. Equally, some segments of a given population may become more receptive to the gospel while other segments are not. The Principle of Receptivity argues that the bulk of the evangelistic enterprise should be focused upon populations who are demonstrating a higher receptivity to the gospel. In relation to this, C. Peter Wagner notes that there are several factors that one may examine in order to determine whether or not a given population shows a high degree of receptivity. First, is the establishment of new settlements, or an influx of people into an area. Second, is the return of travelers such as migrant workers or soldiers. Third is the conquest by a foreign power. Fourth is a rise in nationalism and the strong identity of a given population. Fifth is a shifting religious paradigm, such as the rise of postmodernism or the death of Confucianism. Finally, establishing freedom from control. This may be seen in the case of a group recently freed from prison to a nation which overthrows its dictator.

Theologically, Wagner defends this principle through what he calls a "harvest principle." The fundamental principle of farming is that of the harvest. The farmer's goal is to gather in a crop of whatever he planted. Wagner cites Jesus' parable of the sower whose seeds fell into four places. Only one of the four places was a fruitful location for the seed. The seed that fell on good ground produced fruit in great quantities. The "soil," according to this interpretation, is "people who have been so prepared that they hear the word and understand it." From this, Wagner concludes that effective strategies of evangelism attempt to identify the most receptive people. Practically speaking, Wagner supports this principle by pointing to various areas of the world that are clearly more receptive to the gospel than others, such as Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Ralph Elliot is perhaps the most vocal critic of the Principle of Receptivity. He essentially finds two broad problems with the principle. First, because church growth strategists use sociological and anthropological tools to determine receptivity, Elliot finds little emphasis on the sovereignty of God and the role of the Holy Spirit. However, such critics misunderstand church growth when they fail to see the movement's dependence on the power of God in church growth strategy. Sociology and anthropology should not be set in opposition to the work and power of the Holy Spirit. Human effort does not exclude the work of God. Second, Elliot argues that the application of the principle would lead to the neglect of the most needy, simply because they are not receptive. He is particularly concerned about the neglect of the city and the church growth preference of the suburbs.

However, abandonment is not called for, as the fields must be sown. Stony fields must be plowed before they are sown. No one should conclude that if receptivity is low, the church should withdraw evangelistic efforts. Wagner notes that correct policy is to occupy fields of low receptivity lightly. The harvest will ripen someday. Their populations are made up of men and women for whom Christ died. While they continue in their rebellious and resistant state, they should be given the opportunity to hear the gospel in as courteous a way as possible. But they should not be heavily occupied lest, fearing that they will be swamped by Christians, they become even more resistant.

The Homogeneous Unit Principle

2007-07-23T06:06:00.000-07:00

In his book, The Bridges of God, Donald McGavran discusses one of the foundational truths of the church growth movement – that when people accept Christ, they generally do not want to cross racial, linguistic, or class barriers. From this finding, the concept of the Homogeneous Unit Principle was developed, and later propagated by McGavran’s student, C. Peter Wagner. According to Wagner, a Homogeneous Unit may be defined as a section of society in which all the members have some characteristic in common. This common characteristic typically has to do with race, language, class, or custom. Church growth advocates argue that when planning evangelism strategies, one should closely examine homogeneous units, and attempt to focus upon only one during the course of your evangelism. Practitioners of this principle often employ strategies similar to Rick Warren’s strategy at Saddleback. Discover the largest homogeneous unit in their community and identifying them as "Saddleback Sam" or "Saddleback Sally." And then gearing every aspect of the church toward reaching that group.

Proponents of the Homogeneous Unit Principle argue that this method is the best strategy for evangelism for two primary reasons. First, because it closely follows the evangelistic strategy employed by Jesus during his incarnation. It was God’s love for the world that prompted the incarnation (John 3:16). However, to reach the whole world, Jesus began with a defined target audience. His niche was among the Israelites. He ate, dressed, spoke, and lived like an Israelite. It is no surprise, then, that his tactical plan started with Israelites as his target audience. When selecting his disciples, Jesus remained in his homogeneous unit. No Gentile, Samaritan, Idumean, or even a Hellenistic Jew was part of the Twelve. Jesus gathered an inner circle of men from his target audience to begin winning the world. Second, pragmatically, Wagner argues we should employ the Homogeneous Unit Principle because it is a very effective means of evangelization. In his book, Understanding Church Growth, Wagner cites examples from India, Taiwan, Mexico and Denver to illustrate that when the Homogeneous Unit Principle is properly applied, the gospel quickly spreads.

Critics of the Church Growth Movement have often centered their critique upon the Homogeneous Unit Principle. Their critique often echoes John MacArthur’s question of why most churches always seem to focus upon white middle class families in their late 20’s and early 30’s? Critics of the homogeneous unit principle argue that focusing upon only one people group will lead to a deepening of the already sharply segregated religious landscape in the United States. Some, such as Liston Pope argued that the Homogeneous Unit Principle retarded the process of congregational integration that must take place to reflect the true nature and purpose of the church.

Both McGavran and Wagner recognized the fact that, if misused, the Homogeneous Unit Principle could lead to more segregated churches, thus their admonition to use the principle wisely. In addition both Wagner and McGavran both stress that disciples should be taught that all Christians are one in Christ, and thus should not divide based upon race or class. However, in the end Wagner recognized that the Homogeneous Unit principle was such a valuable tool, it should be used even if it created racial discord. Wagner notes ""If strenuous evangelism means to multiply homogeneous churches, multiply them . . .. The evangelistic mandate is more important than the cultural mandate."

Missouri Baptists and the Cooperative Program

2007-07-16T09:45:00.000-07:00

In the Southern Baptist Convention, CP giving is being stressed now more than ever. When I was in seminary, lessons on the Cooperative Program became required for every student. I had one class that met for the specific purpose of learning convention history and function, which concluded with a visit to the ’05 National Convention in Nashville. In this class we discussed CP giving on the state side – and how it was originally set up so that states would keep 50% of their CP giving, and send the other 50% to fund national entities. While that may have been the original idea, that has not been the norm. In fact, the vast majority of states keep much more than their allotted 50%.

When I returned to Missouri in ’06, I was quite dissapointed to find out that my beloved convention was keeping 62% of its CP funds in state. In my mind this seemed like an enormous amount. In fact, I’ll admit that when I first heard this, I figured that our state probably kept more money in house than the vast majority of state conventions. Appaerentally, I am not the only one who has felt this way. There have been pastors from several sectors in MBC life that has complained of the amount that we keep to ourselves. Some have gone so far as to lead their church to skip the state level all together and send their money directly to the national convention. I breifly considered this option myself, but then thought it best to first study this matter a little further. What follows is the fruition of my investigation. I have arrainged our state conventions based upon their giving, highest to lowest (based on percentages), and listed their individual percentages. This information was gleaned from the SBC website here.

Rank - State - % Kept - % Sent
1. - Mississippi - 40.40 - 59.60
2. - SBTC - 41.01 - 58.99
3. - SBCV - 49 - 50
4. - Alabama - 57.71 - 42.29
5. - Georgia - 57.87 - 42.13
6. - Illinois - 58.03 - 41.97
7. - Arkansas - 58.23 - 41.77
8. - S. Carolina - 58.99 - 41.01
9. - Mary./Del. - 60.5 - 40.37
10. - Ohio - 60 - 40
10. - Oklahoma - 60 - 40
11. - Florida - 61.90 - 38.10
12. - Tennessee - 62.25 - 37.75
13. - Missouri - 62.5 - 37.5
13. - West Virginia - 62.5 - 37.5
14. - BGCT - 63.61 - 36.39
15. - Kentucky - 64.66 - 36.04
16. - D.C. - 65 - 35
17. - Louisiana - 64.5 - 34.36
18. - Alaska - 67.02 - 32.98
19. - Wyoming - 67.75 - 32.25
20. - Michigan - 68.26 - 31.74
21. - Hawaii - 68.5 - 31.5
22. - Kan./Neb. - 68.59 - 31.41
23. - Indiana - 69.03 - 30.97
24. - New Mexico - 70.02 - 29.98
25. - California - 70.16 - 29.84
26. - Colorado - 70.99 - 29.01
27. - Nevada - 71.25 - 28.75
28. - N. Carolina - 72.80 - 27.20
29. - Iowa - 74.22 - 25.78
30. - New York - 74.58 - 25.42
31. - Arizona - 75.03 - 24.97
32. - Northwest - 75.15 - 24.85
33. - Penn./S. Jer. - 75.76 - 24.24
34. - Montana - 78.07 - 21.93
35. - New England - 78.54 - 21.46
36. - Utah/Idaho - 79.00 - 21.00
37. - BGAV - 86.29 - 13.71
38. - Dakotas - 86.74 - 13.26
39. - Minn./Wis. - 86.79 - 13.21

There are a few surprises here. First, that percentage wise, Mississippi comes out as the top CP giver. Good job Mississippi! I honestly would have never guessed that myself, especially since the Southern Baptists of Texas keep tooting their own horn about how much they send on to the SBC.

Second, when compared to other state conventions, Missouri’s giving isn’t all that bad. Missouri is well above the median average in giving (n=20, Missouri = 13), and it is also above the national average in giving as well (n=33.07%, Missouri=37.5%).

Now, while I do not think that this is cause for celebration, I also don’t think it’s time for alarm either (at least not stateside). Our giving is considerably better than the vast majority of state conventions, and our current state leadership has a plan to increase Missouri’s CP giving for the next several years. That said, I think it would be prudent to stick with our current form of CP giving – through the state convention. If churches started to circumvent the state now, the loss of income stateside would likely give some the steam needed to move toward actually giving less to the SBC.

Church Growth and Its Relation to Evangelism

2007-07-09T10:48:00.000-07:00

Church growth is that discipline which investigates the nature, expansion, planting, multiplication, function, and health of Christian churches as they relate to the effective implementation of God's commission to "make disciples of all peoples"(Matt. 28:18-20). Students of church growth strive to integrate the eternal theological principles of God's Word concerning the expansion of the church with the best insights of contemporary social and behavioral sciences, employing as the initial framework of reference the foundational work done by Donald McGavran.

This definition, though wordy, includes some of the basic tenets of church growth. First, it emphasizes that church growth is a discipline, that is, a field of study or a system with distinct characteristics. Church growth is accepted around the world as a discipline worthy of recognition. As is evidenced by the number of classes taught at countless seminaries and that Bible colleges and professorships of church growth are increasing in number. Second, it shows that church growth is interested in disciple making. It is not merely a number-counting emphasis. Third, this definition demonstrates that church growth is founded on God's Word. Both implicitly and explicitly there is a high view of Scripture in the literature emanating from church growth writers. Fourth, it shows that church growth integrates social and behavioral sciences to help determine how churches grow. For example, demographic studies are one of many church growth tools. While demography is not necessarily a biblical concept, neither is it unbiblical. Any tool or method that is not contrary to the Bible can be used in understanding church growth. Finally, church growth, as a modern-day movement, began with the work of Donald McGavran in India. His book The Bridges of God, published in 1955, is the "birth certificate" of church growth, and is still often referred to as the foundational work on church growth principles.

Since the Bridges of God was published in 1955, the concepts of evangelism and Church Growth have been joined to such an extent that it is nearly impossible to separate the two. In many ways it can be suggested that evangelism is the purpose of Church Growth, whereas Church Growth is the process of evangelism. With that in mind it would be important to remember that while the definition of evangelism has largely remained unchanged, the process of evangelism (Church Growth principles) have changed dramatically in the past fifty years. The greatest reason that the process of evangelism has changed so much in the past fifty years is that there has been a great paradigm shift in our society. That shift has incorporated five basic changes in our culture.

First, the emergence of what may be called the "new paganism." Until the late 1960s Christians could use Christian language with a level of assurance that most of America understood them. However, in the span of about one generation, our culture has changed dramatically. Today, the typical lost person has little to no working knowledge of Christianity or its language. Second, the amount of free time to the individual has become very scarce. As such, time is a fiercely guarded. Because of this, many consider an evangelistic visit as an invasion of privacy or a theft of time. Third, a focus on unmet needs. Evangelism which does not recognize the hungering for fulfillment will not communicate the gospel effectively. Of course, the need for a Savior is the greatest need for humanity. Yet, most of the time other more temporal needs must be met to gain a hearing. Fourth, the break up of relationships, which discourage lasting, life-changing relationships. Finally, Lack of relevancy. Most churches today simply are irrelevant to most of society. The language, methodology, music, organizations, buildings, and sermons typically do not reflect the world in which most people live.

Church Growth methods have begun to change in order to address this paradigm shift. This can be seen in the Church Growth movement’s emphasis in areas such as small groups, the rescheduling of services, the relevancy and meaning of worship, and a new emphasis in evangelistic training methods.

Homeward Bound

2007-07-05T14:32:00.000-07:00

Sometimes the best part of a vacation is heading back to the familiar – that which you thought that you wanted to escape from. We left Gatlinburg fairly early in the morning and began our 9.5 hour trek back to Festus for another night with the in-laws. Our route took us through the whole of Tennessee, a bit of Kentucky, and into the boot heel of Missouri. If I am not mistaken, I believe that this was the farthest south in the state that I’ve ever been. Somewhere along the way baby Jack developed a fever that stuck with him for several days, which was a bummer. But other than that it was a smooth trip.
I had heard that the new Cabelas in Hazelwood was a sight to see, so I dropped Andrea and Jack off at her parent’s house and headed up to see it. While it was a nice store, it was not all that people have made of it. It seemed roughly the same size as the one in Kansas City, but with fewer mounts. Its staff was what has become typical among the bigger sporting goods retailers – young guys who love to talk about themselves with no clue about the products they are trying to sell. Fortunately I had done my homework before going in, and ended up buying a belated Father’s Day present for myself – a 6ft medium light spinning rod from St. Croix’s new Triumph line. I’ve yet to fish it, but the rod itself is virtually identical to Croix’s Premiere line, but $20 cheaper. While I wasn’t overly impressed by the Cabelas, in Tennessee I did stumble across a growing chain of retailer’s called Ganders mtn. I was impressed by this store. It was fair sized & didn’t have all of the trinkets that many sporting goods stores sell (who needs a "Barry the Bass" mailbox any ways?). Their staff seemed OK and they had a lot of specialty items in stock that are tough to find in a catalog, let alone in a retail store. Of course this chain has a store in every state bordering Missouri, but not Missouri itself, which stinks. So if you’re a Ganders mtn. exec., who stumbled across this site by accident, open a store in Missouri. Preferably one near the Lake of the Ozarks, on the Eldon side.

Smoky Mountains

2007-07-04T10:15:00.000-07:00

Today would be our most relaxing day of vacation & a day I have been looking forward to, a trip up into the Smoky mountains. I’ll be honest with you, I did not like Gatlinburg. Too many cars, too many people – picture Branson’s busiest day on super-steroids – that’s how bad it was. However, once we got into the mountains, things sort of cleared up. There would only be a few cars on the roads with you, and the trails were virtually people free. The only time things got bad is when you stopped on a major overlook, but even then it wasn’t too bad.
After a few hours in the park, momma and baby Jack were ready to head back. So we went to the hotel and got naps, ate, and just milled around for a while. Of an evening we decided to go to a Ripley’s aqarium that was just down the road from our hotel. In the beginning, I thought we were getting ripped off by paying $20 a head to get in (Jack was free), but we all really enjoyed it. We ended up staying for over three hours, and only left when it was time for Jack to eat. All in all, this was the best day of our vacation.

On The Road...Again

2007-07-03T08:25:00.000-07:00

Most of my time on this vacation was spent driving. We drove three hours to Festus, spent a day, and then drove six hours to Louisville, and spent a day, and today we set out for yet another road trip, this time to Gatlinburg, TN, or, the "Redneck Riviera" as one of our friends from the area put it. I wasn’t exactly sure how to get there from Louisville, so I MapQuested it, got directions, and was told that it would take about 4.5 hours to get there. I figured that wouldn’t be bad – as we could get there early in the day & buzz around before turning in for the night. However, Mapquest failed to mention anything about construction. That, along with traffic, rush hour Knoxville, and bumper to bumper traffic in both Pigeon Forge and Gatlinburg, made that 4.5 hour trip into a seven hour trip. Needless to say, by the time we made it to the hotel, the last thing I wanted to do was go out to do anything. My wife finally convinced me to go and walk down to a nearby restaurant, a Corkey’s barbecue place. It was quite good, but in Gatlinburg, I quickly found that the pedestrian traffic, somehow, is even worse that the vehicular traffic.

Back To School?

2007-07-02T07:35:00.000-07:00

I don’t know why, but every single time I think about going back to school, I think about the song Adam Sandler sang in Billy Madison as he waited for the school bus on his first day of school. Since I have spent roughly 23 years of my 28-year-old life in school, you can bet that I’ve thought of that song way too much.
Today marks the "purpose" of this trip – taking an essay test and having an interview as the final step in the application process for a Ph.D. from Southern. Prior to the test, we were given a reading list that was two pages long, and a list of six possible essays to study from. On the test day, we were given two questions from the study sheet, and two hours to write on the one of our choice. I was given the one question that I didn’t want to touch with a 10ft. pole, and another that I was moderately comfortable with, wrote for about 1 hour and 50 minutes, and walked out feeling better about my essay than I did walking in.
After this ordeal was over, I couldn’t help but to feel blessed – whether I am accepted to this very competitive program or not, I feel blessed. God has seen me through many trials to come to a place that I never thought (or planned) that I would see. From what I understand, my great grandfather received a little "home" education. Grandfather dropped out of school when the depression started to help make ends meet. My father was the first to finish high school. I was the first to go to college, and earn a masters degree, and now I’m the first to aim for a terminal degree. Honestly, had someone told me about all of this ten years ago, I’d have laughed at them. But God will take you to unexpected places, if only you will let him.
That evening, we stayed on campus and visited with some old friends still living there. We went to the "stairwell," where we lived on campus for three years and introduced everyone to Jack, and got to meet a couple of new babies ourselves. God is doing great things in all of their lives as well, we should all be so thankful for it.

Louisville Bound

2007-07-01T11:35:00.001-07:00

Today on our vacation (technically one week ago mind you) Andrea and I began our day with worship at the First Baptist Church, Festus/Crystal City, where Andrea grew up. After a long search, they had invited a gentleman to come in view of a call for their Associate Pastor position. I forget his name, but he preached a solid, textually driven sermon, so kudos to him for that. We couldn’t stick around for the vote during the evening service, but I got the impression that everyone liked him, and that they would vote to call him. If so, I think he will be an asset to that church.
After the service we knew that we needed to get going if we were going to make it to Louisville at a decent hour, so we caught lunch on the go & hit the road. Depending on who’s driving, it takes about 5 to 5.5 hours to make it to Louisville from Festus. This was our first trip there with a baby in tow so that added some stops. Add in the time change and it was around sevenish before we got to the Legacy Center.
Southern, for those of you who don’t know, is my Alma Mater, and in many ways I was glad to be back on campus. My years at Southern prompted a sharp focus upon those things that I should have been learning in my church, but had not. My three years there were good years, where we made great friends, and fell even deeper in love with an awesome God. Even though I was born and bred in Missouri, and I’m serving there now, in a very real sense it felt as if I was home on Southern’s campus. Here’s hoping to many more "homecomings" in the future.

Family Days

2007-06-30T07:17:00.000-07:00

My parents and my wife’s parents live about fifteen minutes apart from each other. While some might think that this would make visits easier, it in fact makes them much more difficult. This means that when we come in for a visit, we have to visit them both, both families want us to eat with them, or go with them to someplace, and everything else. And quite honestly, there just are not enough hours in the day to make everyone happy. But over the years, we have learned how to strike as just of a balance as possible. This Saturday, we visited with both families – above you will find my father (John Jr.), reading to my son Jack (John IV), and my father in law Chuck balancing Jack on a cast iron Farmall tractor he restored for him.

Head'n Out

2007-06-29T14:02:00.001-07:00

I was out of pocket last week, and as such there was no post – and I apologize for that. One week ago today I, my son, and my lovely wife left for our first vacation in five years, and yes we were ready for it. So, if you will allow me to, this week I will regale you with stories from our vacation. They will never make for a best seller, but they may be of some interest to my regular readers. So….

One week ago today, we set out on the first leg of our trip. Eldon to Festus, MO where we stayed the night with Andrea’s parents (because all great trips start with a stop at the inlaw’s, right?). Really, for us this was a great first leg. Andrea worked until 5, which would have made for a very late night had we tried to make it to Louisville. Plus, my parents live about 15 minutes away, so it gave both sets of grandparents the chance to spend some time with baby Jack.

Psalm 1

2007-06-18T10:28:00.000-07:00

First, an apology. I have not been spending much time on my posts and I know it shows. However, within the next week or so it is my hope that several projects I have been working on for the past several months will be brought to fruition, allowing me to spend more time here (and just about everywhere else). But until then, please allow me to offer some words from the Psalmist.

Psalm 1:1-6 How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night. 3 He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, Which yields its fruit in its season And its leaf does not wither; And in whatever he does, he prospers. 4 The wicked are not so, But they are like chaff which the wind drives away. 5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. 6 For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the wicked will perish.

Words to Ponder

2007-06-13T21:34:00.001-07:00

"Conversion is a great and glorious work of God's power, at once changing the heart, and infusing life into the dead soul; though the grace then implanted more gradually displays itself in some than in others. But as to fixing on the precise time when they put forth the very first act of grace, there is a great deal of difference in different persons; in some it seems to be very discernible when the very time was; but others are more at a loss. In this respect, there are very many who do not know, even when they have it, that it is the grace of conversion, and sometimes do not think it to be so till a long time after. Many, even when they come to entertain great hopes that they are converted, if they remember what they experienced in the first exercises of grace, they are at a loss whether it was any more than a common illumination; or whether some other more clear and remarkable experience which they had afterwards, was not the first of a saving nature. The manner of God's work on the soul, sometimes especially, is very mysterious; and it is with the kingdom of God as to its manifestation in the heart of a convert…

There is a great difference among those who are converted, as to the degree of hope and satisfaction they have concerning their own state. Some have a high degree of satisfaction in this matter almost constantly: and yet it is rare that any enjoy so full an assurance of their interest in Christ that self-examination should seem needless to them; unless it be at particular seasons, while in the actual enjoyment of some great discovery God gives of his glory and rich grace in Christ, to the drawing forth of extraordinary acts of grace. But the greater part, as they sometimes fall into dead frames of spirit, are frequently exercised with scruples and fears concerning their condition.

They generally have an awful apprehension of the dreadful nature of a false hope; and there has been observable in most a great caution, lest in giving an account of their experiences, they should say too much, and use too strong terms. Many, after they have related their experiences, have been greatly afflicted with fears, lest they have played the hypocrite, and used stronger terms than their case would fairly allow of; and yet could not find how they could correct themselves.

I think the main ground of the doubts and fears that persons after their conversion have been exercised with about their own state, has been, that they have found so much corruption remaining in their hearts. At first, their souls seem to be all alive, their hearts are fixed, and their affections flowing; they seem to live quite above the world, and meet with but little difficulty in religious exercises; and they are ready to think it will always be so. Though they are truly abased under a sense of their vileness, by reason of former acts of sin, yet they are not then sufficiently sensible what corruption still remains in their hearts; and therefore are surprised when they find that they begin to be in dull and dead frames, troubled with wandering thoughts at the time of public and private worship, and utterly unable to keep them-selves from them. When they find themselves unaffected, while yet there is the greatest occasion to be affected; and when they feel worldly dispositions working in them - pride, envy, stirrings of revenge, or some ill spirit towards some person that has injured them, as well as other workings of indwelling sin-their hearts are almost sunk with the disappointment; and they are ready presently to think that they are mere hypocrites.

They are ready to argue that, if God had indeed done such great things for them, as they hoped, such ingratitude would be inconsistent with it. They complain of the hardness and wickedness of their hearts; and say there is so much corruption, that it seems to them impossible there should be any goodness there. Many of them seem to be much more sensible how corrupt their hearts are, than before they were converted; and some have been too ready to be impressed with fear, that instead of becoming better, they are grown much worse, and make it an argument against the goodness of their state. But in truth, the case seems plainly to be, that now they feel the pain of their own wound; they have a watchful eye upon their hearts, that they did not use to have.

They take more notice of what sin is there which is now more burdensome to them; they strive more against it, and feel more of its strength."

On the Theological Education of Our Children

2007-06-04T20:06:00.001-07:00

There are not a lot of things in life that truly scare me. I’ve almost drowned (twice), I’ve been shot at, and I’ve had I don’t know how many near misses on the highways. Admittedly, I really don’t want to go through those things again, but I wasn’t super scared either. However, for the past several months, there has been a twenty-pound terror living in my house, my son, "baby" Jack. It’s not that he’s scary in and of himself – he’s actually a very mild mannered and well-behaved child. What’s scary is that I am responsible for him, responsible for his upbringing, and most of all, his spiritual education, and when I think of that, it scares me to the point of tears.
While I greatly appreciate how God has worked in my life, I do not want my son to grow up like I did. My faith tells me my life was providence, but to the casual observer it was a craps shoot. I accepted Christ when I was 5, and since neither of my parents were Christians, my spiritual growth was very hit and miss.

Parents should be very deliberate about their children’s spiritual training, and as I look at the years ahead, I honestly have very little idea about how to train up my child in "the way he should go." Since this topic has been on my mind lately, I’m hoping to share what I have come up with so far – and if anyone has any suggestions – by all means share them.

Stay Centered on the Bible
One aspect of my childhood that helped me tremendously was the fact that my Sunday School classes focused upon Bible stories from the Old and New Testaments. As such, later in life when I began to study the Bible deeper, I had a foundation of Bible knowledge and a healthy respect for its authority. Right now, I want to give Jack that same foundation. So, when I do my quiet times, I do them with him. In addition, when I do my studies for my sermons, I take Jack into my office and do them with him. It is my hopes that as time progresses, he learns important Biblical lessons. And most importantly, learn how to study the Bible himself.

Teach Them Theology
When I went to college, I had more than a few friends who grew up in church, only to abandon their faith after a short time in school. Why did this happen? Because in college their faith was challenged, and they were unable to answer those challenges. I don’t just want Jack to know the truth; I want him to know why it is the truth. Right now I’m reading Grudem’s Bible Doctrine to him. When I was younger I remember my father reading the Brother’s Grimm Fairy Tales to me, and to this day – despite the fact that it has been decades since last reading them – I still vividly remember how Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Little Red Riding Hood really went. Despite Walt Disney’s best attempts to make them as "G" as possible. Hopefully in the same way, young Jack will also recall Mr. Grudem’s lessons years from now, even if he strays from studying them himself.
I also plan on teaching him one of the old Baptist catechisms. I haven’t figured out which one I’ll use yet, or how exactly I’ll do it, but I do know that one must be careful with catechisms. I met a fellow once who taught his 3-year-old a catechism, and would often put him in front of crowds to recite it from memory. At first I was impressed, but then I realized that this kid was just parroting what his parents taught him – he very likely didn’t have a clue what it all meant. And that is the last thing I want for Jack, I want him to understand theology, not just repeat it.

The call to train a child in the ways of the Lord is a high calling, and many times I wonder if I am truly up to it. To further complicate things, I am the pastor of a small church with about a half dozen young families – all with children under the age of 5. These parents are looking to me for help in raising their children. To help them, I’m hoping to have a "Parenting 101" class in the next several weeks, but I will admit that I need help myself. If anyone out there has any good materials or ideas, please let me know.

Deuteronomy 6:4-7 4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! 5 "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 "These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.

Disclaimer: I had a pastor who said that when he started pastoring, he had 4 sermons on raising kids & no kids himself. Today, he has 4 kids and no sermons on raising kids. As such, I reserve the right to amend, add to, and do whatever else as I learn more about parenting myself.

A few thoughts on all things political

2007-05-29T10:40:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I enjoyed a Memorial Day of fishing, canoeing, and a little grass cutting. Now I am playing catch up to prepare for Sunday & our VBS next week. But until then I thought I would post a modest thought I have been kicking around.

Just a few moments ago, I got a call from the Republican National Committee, looking for my church’s previous pastor hoping he would renew his membership for a mere $65. I told them that he wasn’t here & I wasn’t interested, so they asked what I thought about the Republican frontrunners so far – I told her that I’ve yet to see anyone to get excited about & that was the end of that.

Six or eight years ago I would have loved a call like that. I was an English major at Mizzou looking forward to Law School & a political carreer. But with my call to the pastorate all that changed & I have been fairly apolitical ever since – honestly I have been pretty disgusted with politics ever since.

As I am finding that our conventions are getting more and more polarized, that discouragement has expanded to include ecclesiastical politics.

In my beloved home state of Missouri, lines are being drawn. A group called "Save Our Convention" met in St. Louis (yes, I was there) to talk about how Project 1000 was playing kingmaker with the convention. Their solution was to start nominating a different slate of nominees and slugging it out. I’m all for a good honest horserace in convention politics, and I agree that our state’s leadership should be drawn from a wide range of Missouri Baptists, I also think that the tactics this group is going to use would be dangerous even in times of peace. Given the state of turmoil in Missouri, such tactics may only serve to destroy the convention. And I am discouraged.

On a national level, San Antonio is shaping up to be quite interesting (see Bart Barber’s latest on this). At the moment, I am applying for a Ph. D., and in the off chance that I’m accepted, my vacation time will be spent doing class work, not allowing me to attend San Antonio (or really anything else for the next 5 years). In this whole mess I find myself in an odd position. I personally agree with the IMB’s new guidelines, though I also agree that theological minutia shouldn’t take center stage on the national level. I believe it wise to be tolerant of bible believing Christians, though I also believe that anyone widening the tent to the point to let in Jimmy Carter has gone off the reservation. I believe that Trustees should be trusted to set guidelines for their particular organization beyond what messengers have specifically stated. I also believe that this should be done carefully, within the framework of oversight from the convention at large. Really, no matter what happens there, some one is going to cry foul & say that they’re really speaking for the mainstream in the convention (even though they really aren’t). And thus, I am discouraged (and just a little glad I have to miss San Antonio).

So what should I do? I am remaining apolitical. I am going to keep pastoring my church, and we are going to do it according to God’s way here. And if anyone has a problem with what we do or how we do it, it will remain just that – their problem.

Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?

The Danger of Pride

2007-05-21T08:28:00.000-07:00

This week will be a very busy week in my world, so for this week's post, I would like to offer you a few thoughts on pride from John Piper.

The Lord Alone Will Be ExaltedMaking War on Pride
By John Piper January 7, 1999

During our staff days of prayer and planning, one of our focuses in prayer was to wage war on pride. For help, we looked at God's attitude toward pride, the nature of pride and the remedy for pride. We are aware that our hearts are deceitful and that we must be relentlessly vigilant in the fight against pride.

GOD'S ATTITUDE TOWARD PRIDE

God is opposed to human pride and will eventually bring it all down.

For the LORD of hosts will have a day of reckoning against everyone who is proud and lofty, and against everyone who is lifted up, that he may be abased. And it will be against all the cedars of Lebanon that are lofty and lifted up, against all the oaks of Bashan, against all the lofty mountains, against all the hills that are lifted up, against every high tower, against every fortified wall, against all the ships of Tarshish, and against all the beautiful craft. And the pride of man will be humbled, and the loftiness of men will be abased, and the LORD alone will be exalted in that day. (Isaiah 2:12-17)

THE NATURE OF PRIDE

One part of pride is taking credit yourself for what God does.

I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness. For he has said, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, For I have understanding." Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it? That would be like a club wielding those who lift it, or like a rod lifting him who is not wood. (Isaiah 10:12-15)

THE REMEDY FOR PRIDE

Take to heart that all you have is a gift of free grace.

For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? (1 Corinthians 4:7)

Trust God to exalt you in due time.

Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time. (1 Peter 5:6)

Remember that the true and full revelation of God comes only to the humble.

At that time Jesus answered and said, "I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You hid these things from the wise and intelligent and revealed them to babes. (Matthew 11:25)
Realize that entering the kingdom depends on humility.

Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3-4).

Rest in the truth that all things are already yours in Christ.

So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God. (1 Corinthians 3:21-23)

Pray with us that 1999 will be a year of humble self-forgetfulness as we see and savor the greatness of God.

Pastor John

© Desiring God

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Desiring God.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.

Can General Revelation Ever Be Salvific in its Effect? Conclusion

2007-05-14T07:10:00.000-07:00

Just some concluding thoughts on the topic for the past several weeks.

Can general revelation lead one to salvation? Though many of us may wish otherwise, the evidence we have available to us says no, it cannot. For this reason, we as evangelicals must continue in the missionary spirit began by William Carey so long ago. We must take the special revelation of the Gospel of Christ to all nations, for that gospel alone can bring the unevangelized into a saving relationship with Christ.

Can General Revelation Ever Be Salvific in its Effect? Part 4

2007-05-07T07:01:00.000-07:00

Last week, we discussed my particular position on this issue. As one can imagine, my answer is not accepted by all. So this week I would like to look and and examine objections that others may raise to my position.

There are three main objections that opposing positions would raise to my position. The first of these objections would come from what I call the "Particular Revelation" position. Those that hold to this position would oppose my conclusion that general revelation exists, and that it is possible to uncover basic truths through it. Karl Barth distrusted the concept of general revelation because it was divorced from divine revelation, and relied on flawed human reason. This position would argue that nothing could be learned from general revelation because man’s fall has erased the image of God from creation, thus totally separating God from man. This position’s supporters, such as Barth, would argue that the only valid revelation we should consider is the incarnation of the Word of God in Jesus Christ.

The other objections I will consider both come from the Pluralist and Evangelical Inclusivist camps. Both of the following objections focus upon people who have had no access to Christ, and yet are still considered "saved" or, reconciled to God. The first of these objections examine the relationship between God and the premessianic patriarchs. In chapter eleven of his book, the author of Hebrews lists many Hebrew patriarchs who died without ever knowing Christ, and yet were reconciled to God. These "faithful without Christ" include Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and even Sara. It is argued that these people were justified by God because of their faith in general, not because of their specific faith in Christ. This argument hinges on verse thirteen which asserts that they all "died in faith without recieving the promises." Those that raise this argument state that the final phrase of this verse indicates that the patriarchs never had an epistemological understanding of Christ, and yet were saved, thus proving that an epistemological knowledge of Christ is not necessary for salvation. Many who would raise this objection believe that those who have never heard the Gospel of Christ are in the same situation as the premessianic patriarchs. Similarly, they contend that the same thing that brought salvation to the patriarchs (honest faith/devotion) can bring salvation to the "man on the island."

The second argument raised by the Pluralistic/Inclusivist camp is much more practical in nature than the previous objection. Inclusivists are often quick to point out that nearly every Christian body believes that infants and the mentally incompetent are automatically included in God’s plan of redemption. Inclusivists argue that to keep our beliefs consistent, we must also believe that the "man on the island," that is, those who have never heard the gospel, are also included in God’s redemptive work.

The first of these objections, raised by the "Particular Revelation" camp, is fairly easy to answer. The main proposition of the "Particular Revelation" camp, that the image of God has been erased from creation is incorrect. Evidence of this can be found in chapter nine of the book of Genesis. In Genesis 9:6, God commands that whoever sheds a man’s blood must be put to death. Following this command, God then gives a reason for it, because in the image of God He made man. Essentially, God is telling us that it is wrong to kill because we still carry His image, despite the fall. While it is true that the image we carry may have been effaced by sin, it is quite clear that it has not been erased by sin.

The next objection, raised by the Pluralist/Inclusivist camps, is somewhat harder to answer. Initially, they contend that the "man on the island," that is, those who have never heard the Gospel of Christ, are in the same position as the Old Testament patriarchs, and thus can be reconciled to God in the same manner that the patriarchs were. However, as before, this objection does not hold up against the weight of the scriptural evidence. To answer their objection, we should look again at the same passage of scripture that they turn to, Hebrews eleven. It is true that the Old Testament patriarchs did not have an epistemological understanding of the Christ in the same way that we do today. However, verse thirteen is very explicit in saying that they welcomed them (the promises) from a distance. While they did not have the same understanding of Christ that we do thanks to further revelation, they did have faith in a coming messiah, which God had promised to them. Their faith stands as a testament in that they looked to the fulfillment of the promises of God to the very end, and though they did not see it in this life, it was something that they still found. Furthermore, the inclusivist assumes that the patriarchs in this passage were saved merely because of their devout faith. But the faith of these patriarchs was not derived from the natural world around them, it was derived from the special revelation of God to them. Therefore, there is a disconnect between the "man on the island" and the Old Testament patriarchs, and at this point their analogy begins to break down.

The final objection I will answer, that we must accept the unevangelized as a part of God’s redemptive plan for the same reason we accept infants and the mentally incompetent, is perhaps the hardest objection to answer. In fact, as I began mulling over this objection, I began to find myself giving ground to the inclusivist’s argument, and wondered if I should give their position a little more credence. Nearly all Evangelical Christians, including Southern Baptists, hold that children who die in infancy will be saved through the work of Christ, the only question that remains is exactly how this is done. The inclusivist would argue that by their very nature, infants cannot have an epistemological understanding of Christ, and thus are saved apart from divine revelation.

In a strictly naturalistic setting, this would be a very good argument. However, we must remember that divine revelation, by its very nature, is supernatural. Based upon my reading of Luke 1:41, I would contend that God does reach out to infants, and reveals Himself to them on an epistemological level. This is evident in the unborn John the Baptist’s reaction to being in the presence of Jesus, which in verse 44 is described as "leaping for joy." Thus, the inclusivist is incorrect in assuming that infant children and the mentally incompetent are saved outside of the framework of divine revelation, as this personal revelation of Himself to them is in fact a form of special revelation. (See my post "When a Baby Dies," Monday, March 19, 2007).

Can General Revelation Ever Be Salvific in its Effect? Part 3

2007-04-30T07:06:00.000-07:00

Last week, we examined the four primary positions on general revelation. This week, I would like to focus our examination on the position that I hold.

Myself, I hold to the third position presented last week, the "Apologetic Natural Theology." In my view, the fall of man did not erase the image of God in creation, as proposed by Barth. Instead, the fall merely effaced the image of God in creation. Because the image of God still exists in the created order, certain aspects of God and the Christian faith may be uncovered by carefully studying nature. However, the information about God that we glean from the natural realm alone cannot lead one to salvation. Though we may discover the existence of God through the created order, we cannot learn anything about His nature. Because man sees the created order through a veil of sin, general revelation will not lead us to a monotheistic god, it will not show us the gulf between us and that unknown god, and it certainly cannot inform us of our need of a savior in the person of Jesus Christ.

I have largely come to my conclusion based upon my readings of several biblical passages that are relevant to this conversation. The first of these passages is Psalm 19:1-6. In the opening verses of chapter nineteen, the Psalmist writes that all of creation communicates to us the glory of God, and His work in the creation of the material world. It is interesting to note that in verse one the Psalmist uses the term "saphar" in its Piel Participial form, which tells us that God does in fact communicate to His creation through creation, that this communication is available to all, and that it is an ongoing, continual process. However, in verse three we see that this revelation does not come through words, but through the image of creation. From this verse, we see that general revelation is not propositional (thus unable to convey specific information about God), but it is rational, meaning that we can draw conclusions about the existence and nature of God from His creation.

The second passage that I would like to examine is Acts 14:8-18. In this passage, Paul and Barnabas are visiting Lystra, and in the course of their visit they heal a man who had no strength in his feet. Following this, the people of Lystra concluded that Paul and Barnabas were gods, and began to worship them. The focal point of this passage then comes in verses 16-17. Here, we learn that the rains and fruitful seasons that the people of Lystra had experienced were given to them as a witness to God. However, the people of Lystra (and presumably all of us) had misinterpreted these acts and have thus "gone their own way." This instance gives us two very real facts. First, the goodness we experience from nature conveys to us the goodness of God. Thus this passage gives credence to Aquinas’ ontological argument in that Paul is here arguing from the lesser to the greater, as does Aquinas. Second, this passage suggests that general revelation could feasibly be salvific in its effect were it not for man’s sinful nature. This possibility will be further explored in Romans 1:18-20, but for now it should suffice to say that our sinful nature leads us to misinterpret general revelation, and use it as an excuse to justify our own sinful desires.

The next passage I would like to examine is Romans 1:18-20. In this passage, Paul asserts that "that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." Here, Paul affirms the fact that there is a general revelation to be found in the created sphere. In verse twenty, Paul writes that general revelation can inform us concerning God’s invisible attributes, His eternal power, and divine nature. Yet these things have been rejected by men because their hearts were darkened and we have suppressed the truth of God in our unrighteousness. This leads to the inevitable question, hypothetically, if we did not suppress the truth of God in our unrighteousness, could general revelation lead one to salvation? To this, I would answer "yes:" hypothetically speaking if one was without the taint of sin which darkens our hearts and causes us to suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness, then general revelation could be salvific in its effect. However, if we were without sin and able to accept the truth of God revealed through nature, we would not need general revelation to be salvific, so this journey into the hypothetical, though enlightening, is useless in the practical sphere of life. However, what we can glean from this passage is that general revelation does reveal God’s wrath against us, because we have perverted the natural creation and used it to satisfy our own sinful desires. So, while general revelation may not be enough to save us, it is enough to condemn us.

While in the book of Romans, there are two more passages that deserve our attention. The first is Romans 2:14-15 where Paul shows us that the "law written on our hearts", or, the human conscious, gives us evidence of a higher moral law. Thus this passage would support the "moral argument" as outlined by Aquinas. Second, in Romans 10:18, Paul introduces what may be seen as the first "man on the island" debate. Here he addresses the question "what of those who have never heard?" Paul answers this question by declaring that there are none who have not heard because "Their voice has gone out into all the Earth, and their words to the ends of the world." Here, Paul affirms that there are none who die in ignorance. Instead, everyone is given a "fair chance" to come to know God through general revelation. However, it is important to note that Paul does not say that this general revelation given to man is salvific in effect. If Paul were to be questioned further on this subject, I believe that he would refer back to his argument in Romans 1, and reaffirm the fact that general revelation is enough to condemn us, but not save us.

The final passage I would like to examine is 1 Corinthians 1:21, a verse that is often overlooked in the discussion of general revelation. Here, Paul states that the wisdom of man is not sufficient to come to know God. Here, I do not believe that Paul is using the verb "ginosko" in its epistemological sense. Instead, I believe that Paul is using it in its relational sense, meaning that man can discover the existence of God, but that discovery cannot lead one to a relationship with God. Instead, to enter into a relationship with God, we must be exposed to divine revelation, specifically, the revelation of Jesus’ death and resurrection (verse 18).

Can General Revelation Ever Be Salvific in its Effect? Part 2

2007-04-22T21:40:00.000-07:00

Last week, we began our discussion of whether or not general revelation is sufficent to lead one to Christ. Today, we will examine the four primary positions on general revelation.

There are four main responses to the question "Can general revelation ever be salvific in its effect?" Two positive responses, Pluralism and Evangelical Inclusivism, contend that general revelation is sufficient to lead one into salvation. While two negative responses, what I will call "Apologetic Natural Theology" and "Particular Revelation" argue that general revelation alone cannot be salvific in its effect.

The first position on this topic, Pluralism, states that any source of enlightenment is sufficient to produce salvation in it’s subject. This position, which is perhaps the eldest son of the relativist camp, is held by many people within and without the Christian community. Its most notable Christian proponents are Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, John Chrysostom, Wilfred C. Smith, Paul Knitter, and most notably, John Hick. In the Pluralistic worldview, humanity is a fallen creature, and must be elevated from that fallen condition through illumination from some source. To the Pluralist, Christ is but one of many means to salvation. One could feasibly be illuminated through Buddha, Islam, self reflection, or any other transcendental means. While many would see this as a general acceptance of all religious expression, even Pluralism’s most vocal figure, John Hick, admits that there are limitations. Hick does not believe that the People’s Temple of Jim Jones, nor the Branch Davidian cult of David Koresh qualify as religious experiences, though he does not offer an explanation as to why.

The second position on this topic, Evangelical Inclusivism, argues that salvific grace can be demonstrated and accepted through general revelation. This position has sought to find a balance between the relativistic Pluralism of Hick and the traditional exclusive view found in Conservative Evangelical circles. This position is represented by men such as Clark Pinnock and John Sanders, and has been affirmed in the Catholic Church by the Vatican II council. To support their position, Evangelical Inclusivists propose that Christ’s atoning work have both ontological and epistemological traits. Ontologically, Inclusivists assert that Christ’s death and resurrection has provided a universal means for humanity to obtain a saving faith. The epistemological traits are that we can know about his death and believe in his resurrection. To the Inclusivist, the ontological aspect of Christ’s work is all that is necessary for salvation. Inclusivists argue that one can come to understand the concept of a perfect God, and the concept of an imperfect man. The realization that there is a gulf between man and an unknown God is enough, says the Inclusivist, to produce a saving faith in a person.

The third position on this topic is what I call "Apologetic Natural Theology." In this position, general revelation is used as a starting point to rationally prove issues of faith, such as the existence of God, the reliability of the Christian Bible, etc. This position has been held by the Pre-Vatican II Catholic Church, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, B. B. Warfield, Emil Brunner, Paul Tillich, and Josh McDowell, but is most evident in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas’ efforts to prove the existence of God, and an immortal human soul were the precursors of modern apologetic thought. Aquinas believed that these assertions could be proven through cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral arguments. Aquinas, like most who hold this position, taught that the rational mind is able to prove God’s existence through an inductive analysis of the world around them. However, though Aquinas thought that we could gain an understanding of God through His creation, Aquinas did not teach that this knowledge was salvific in its effect. In his work God and Creation, Aquinas argues that "our natural knowledge originates with the senses, and hence our natural knowledge can reach only as far as sensible objects can lead it." Later in the same work, Aquinas states that natural theology derived from general revelation can not show us God’s nature, it can only show us that God exists.

The final position on this topic, the "Particular Revelation" stance, is quite extreme. This position argues that nothing can be learned from general revelation as man’s fall affected the whole of creation, erasing the Imago Dei. Because God’s image has been erased from creation, He is now wholly transcendent, and can only be known through direct, special revelation. The only major theologian that I am aware of that has held to this view is Karl Barth. Barth’s position in this matter is very obvious in the opening pages of his work No: Answer to Emil Brunner. In this work, Barth states that:

Every attempt to assert a general revelation has to be rejected. There is no grace
of creation and preservation. There is no recognizable ordinance of preservation.
There is no point of contact for the redeeming action of God.

Can General Revelation Ever Be Salvific in its Effect? Part 1

2007-04-17T07:51:00.000-07:00

My apologies for the lateness and short length of this post. In addition to my usual duties, I find myself cramming for the GRE and of course, now chasing after Missouri’s 2nd greatest bird.

Please accept this brief introduction to the topic I’ll be looking at for the next several weeks.

Can people be saved by God apart from his special revelation?

This question is primarily relevant in relation to the practice of evangelism, both at home and abroad. If it is true that general revelation can lead one to salvation, then many of us would have to re-evaluate both the aims and methods of our evangelism. If general revelation could lead one to salvation, then it would be foolish to send talented ministers and resources abroad when they are needed here at home.

If general revelation can lead one to salvation, then we should begin our evangelism, not with the Gospel, but with an apologetic appeal to what the unbeliever already knows through nature.

Conversely, if we contend that only the special revelation of God through Christ can lead one to salvation, then we must press forward in the missionary movement began by William Carey, and, like Paul, preach Christ, and Him crucified alone.

The Effects of the Resurrection on the Believer

2007-04-09T07:09:00.000-07:00

This article, written by John Piper, outlines how Paul lived his life in view of the resurrection. After spending resurrection Sunday pondering the resurrection of Christ, perhaps it would be wise for us to think on our own resurrection, and what it means for our life now.

Radical Effects of the Resurrection
By John Piper April 4, 2007

If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. . . . Why are we in danger every hour? 31 I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! 32 What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” . . . But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:19, 30-32, 20)

Paul ponders how he would assess his lifestyle if there were no resurrection from the dead. He says it would be ridiculous—pitiable. The resurrection guided and empowered him to do things which would be ludicrous without the hope of resurrection.
For example, Paul looks at all the dangers he willingly faces. He says they come “every hour.”

On frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers. (2 Corinthians 11:26)

Then he considers the extent of his self-denial and says, “I die every day.” This is Paul’s experience of what Jesus said in Luke 9:23, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” I take this to mean that there was something pleasant that Paul had to put to death every day. No day was without the death of some desire.

. . . with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. 24 Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea . . . 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. (2 Corinthians 11:22-28)

Then he recalls that he “fought with beasts at Ephesus.” We don’t know what he is referring to. A certain kind of opponent to the gospel is called a beast in 2 Peter 1:10 and Jude 10. In any case, it was utterly disheartening.

We do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. (2 Corinthians 1:8)

So Paul concludes from his hourly danger and his daily dying and his fighting with beasts that the life he has chosen in following Jesus is foolish and pitiable if he will not be raised from the dead. “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.” In other words, only the resurrection with Christ and the joys of eternity can make sense out of this suffering.

If death were the end of the matter, he says, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” This doesn’t mean: Let’s all become gluttons and drunkards. They are pitiable too—with or without the resurrection. He means: If there is no resurrection, what makes sense is middle-class moderation to maximize earthly pleasures.

But that is not what Paul chooses. He chooses suffering, because he chooses obedience. When Ananias came to him at his conversion with the words from the Lord Jesus, “I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name” ( Acts 9:16), Paul accepted this as part of his calling. Suffer he must.

How could Paul do it? What was the source of this radical obedience? The answer is given in 1 Corinthians 15:20:

“But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” In other words, Christ was raised, and I will be raised with him. Therefore, nothing suffered for Jesus is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:58).

The hope of the resurrection radically changed the way Paul lived. It freed him from materialism and consumerism. It gave him the power to go without things that many people feel they must have in this life. For example, though he had the right to marry (1 Corinthians 9:5), he renounced that pleasure because he was called to bear so much suffering. This he did because of the resurrection.

This is the way Jesus said the hope of the resurrection is supposed to change our behavior. For example, he told us to invite to our homes people who cannot pay us back in this life. How are we to be motivated to do this? “You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:14).

This is a radical call for us to look hard at out present lives to see if they are shaped by the hope of the resurrection. Do we make decisions on the basis of gain in this world or gain in the next? Do we take risks for love’s sake that can only be explained as wise if there is a resurrection?
Do we lose heart when our bodies give way to the aging process, and we have to admit that we will never do certain things again. Or do we look to the resurrection and take heart?

We do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. (2 Corinthians 4:16)

I pray that we will rededicate ourselves during this Easter season to a lifetime of letting the resurrection have its radical effects.

By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.

The Pastor at Rest 2

2007-04-03T17:46:00.000-07:00

I don't usually do this, but since it pertains to my previous post I thought I would direct you to Mark Driscoll's blog that talks about his personal struggle with a too stressful schedule. I personally like his thoughts on taking a Sabbath before God imposes one on him through infirmities. His blog can be found here: http://theresurgence.com/md_blog_2007-03-17_of_brokenness_and_buddies

The Pastor at Rest

2007-04-02T09:31:00.000-07:00

Though there are some who seem to believe that pastors only work about one day a week, pastoring can in fact be a tough, demanding job. This week I find myself teaching four different lessons, counseling several couples, arranging work on the church’s septic and lawn equipment, visiting a few members in their homes, and of course, keeping up with my personal evangelism schedule. Needless to say, my plate is full, and I know for a fact that there are many more pastors juggling many more projects every week. So, how do we cope with the fact that we have much to do and little time to do it? Well, most pastors decide to just work as long as it takes to get the job done, even if that means an 80 hour work week that leaves little time for our families, and even less time for ourselves. But this pace of life is very unhealthy, and will lead to diminished results of our work and, if we’re not careful, an early grave.

My solution to the many tasks ahead of me is not an 80-hour workweek; it is better time management. I have found that I can get more quality work done in 40 hours than I can in 60 or 70, if I just take a few minutes to plan out how I’m going to tackle the week’s workload. By planning my work, this allows me to plan the most important aspects of my week – rest and relaxation.

At least once a week I make it a point to get out of the house alone to do something I enjoy. I’ll go for a hike on one of Missouri’s great conservation areas, I’ll go fishing at a local lake, I’ll take the canoe out on the river, or go shooting at a local range, anything to help me get my mind off of the week’s craziness. I’ll have to admit, this idea of getting away is not new with me, it has been around for quite some time. One could say that it started with God taking a rest after creation. But admittedly, I first got the idea from Jonathan Edwards, who use to love taking long horse rides at the end of the day to unwind from his work. While describing the do’s and don’ts of ministry, Criswell tells us to make every effort to spend quality time with your family, and take a little time off each week to recuperate and recharge you mental, emotional, and spiritual strength.

Why is a day off so important?

1 – It renews your emotional strength.

As a pastor, you take on the problems and difficulties that people in your congregation are facing. Their problems and pains become your problems and pains. And yes, that is very emotionally draining. Taking a day away from these problems helps you see the bigger picture of life and forget about these problems. Putting a certain amount of enjoyment into your life will counter act the pain and sorrow you deal with through the week.

2 – It renews your physical strength.

Stress saps your strength and leads to all kinds of physical ailments. I know of one gentleman ministering nearby in particular who works all day everyday. Yes, his ministry is fruitful, yes he is well known, yes it is taking a toll on him physically. He is in his mid 40’s & looks like he is in his 60’s, and if he doesn’t slow down, he will likely not live to see retirement. I am surrounded by retired pastors, who all have serious physical problems right now because they did not take care of themselves when they were pastors. Getting out and doing something keeps the stress down, and encourages fitness.

3 – It keeps you grounded in real life.

Getting out gives you life experiences and helps you better understand what is going on in the world. Some of the best sermon illustrations I have ever used have come from experiences on family vacations, campouts, and hunting trips with friends. If I want to keep having illustrations like that, then I need to keep going on family vacations, campouts, and hunting trips. The best sermon illustrations come from real life.

4 – It is God honoring.

This is the most important reason. Yes, God wants us to work hard, and be diligent towards the tasks given to us. But, work is not all there is, God does want us to take time to enjoy what He has created and the life He has given to us. Exodus 23:12 says:
"Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves.

What are some ways to relax?

I realize that a pastor’s time and resources are usually limited – mine are too, but that shouldn’t stop us from enjoying life. I focus on day activities that are fairly cheap. Usually I just go to a park or something and do something for free. When I’m feeling more outgoing, I’ll go to a golf course or drive to one of Missouri’s trout parks for man’s greatest pastime – fly-fishing. Going to high school, college, or professional games are fun, but more expensive. One fun and cheap activity my wife and I did in seminary was going to a glass blowing shop to make our own Christmas ornaments ($80 for the both of us). Also, consider renting a car and going on a day trip. One valentines weekend, Andrea and I rented a new model Ford Mustang from Hertz for $110 + gas for three days. You can also go to Harley dealerships to rent a bike, or find specialty agencies like www.classiccarsforrent.com/ in St. Louis for something really fun.

Hobbies are also a good and (sometimes) cheap form of entertainment. Have you ever wondered how to do wood carving? Go to the local library, check out a book, and get started. Myself, I have more hobbies than I really know what to do with. When I was younger, I use to do a lot of blacksmithing, but since dad’s shop is so far away I haven’t done much of it lately. I tinker around the house, work on our cars, and anything else that I want to do. One of my favorite hobbies is custom fly rod building. I’ve fly fished my entire life, but didn’t start building rods until college. My grandfather passed away, leaving a lot of broken and half-finished rods. This got me curious about how to build rods, so I started buying books on the subject, and after a little practice have become fairly proficient at it.

Finally, your church should give you a few weeks of vacation every year. Take them – and not just to go to convention meetings – take real vacations with your family. Go where your family wants to go, don’t think that you have to stay close by because "I might be needed." Train your deacons and lay leaders to handle the small stuff themselves, get your DOM or another close pastor friend to help them with the bigger stuff – there are very few things in life that should lead you to cancel a family vacation.

The Pastor and His Study

2007-03-26T10:12:00.000-07:00

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

One night after Sunday evening services, a group of my twenty something’s came over to my house to see something on my computer. We came into my home office, and as I was getting my computer warmed up, one of them looked around my office and said, "You’ve got more books than the library does!"

This is not true; the town library does have more books than I do; though I might be able to claim to have more good books than the library does. But since they were there and interested I decided to use it as a teaching moment for those serving and being groomed to serve. I told them about how, as a teacher, I didn’t have the privilege of giving people my personal opinion or my best guess – I deal in truth, so when I teach, I have to have my facts straight, and that means only one thing – study.

One year ago today, I was in the home stretch of my seminary education & I was excited. By this time, I had already accepted a position at my current church & figured after a strong finish in seminary, I would be home free – no more long hours of study until the wee hours of the night. No more last minute trips to the library to get those last few sources I needed. No more long papers. It was going to be great.

Boy was I wrong. As a pastor, I find my self writing, and now memorizing what are effectively two six to eight page research papers a week. On top of that, I spend several hours a week going through old class notes and my various systematics to get ready for my Wed. night theology classes, and going over class notes and various books/articles to prepare myself for my personal evangelism class on Sunday nights. If anything, I’ve had to study harder to be a pastor than I did to be a student. Tack onto that my personal reading schedule, and at times I feel like I am in a constant state of study.

Given the stresses of day to day life, apathy and even hostility toward study, and other various factors, I know many of my brothers in ministry have neglected this area of life. But we do so to our detriment. God has called us to teach our people the truth, but to do that; we must first be well versed in it. So, if you will, allow me to offer a few suggestions to help you plan your study to make it a worthwhile pursuit.

First – Read several different genres of books.
When I go into a pastor’s study, I can usually tell what his hobbyhorse is, because all of his books are devoted to one particular area. If he is interested in marriage enrichment, he will have several shelves of enrichment books. If he wants to be a better leader, he will have every Maxwell and Collins book published. If he is interested in theology, all he will have are systematics. I am not saying that these subjects are necessarily bad. But if studied to the exclusion of all else, they can become bad. Have a balanced reading diet. I try to keep a cycle going where I read a theology book, a practical ministry book, a biography, and a work of fiction.

Second – Buy books that argue against positions you hold.
In my library, I have several books that are Christian classics – books I would gladly suggest to others. Books written by men like Dever, Rainer, Piper, and Ware, these are books you just cannot go wrong with. But I also have books that I would never suggest to others. Books like Spong’s "Why Christianity Must Change or Die," and Pinnock’s "Most Moved Mover." Why would I buy such things? Well, to quote Dr. R. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, "ministers must know the truth to teach it, and the error to defend against it." I would like to add that books like this help us think more clearly about doctrines we cling to, and can help us reconsider or own errors. I was once quite hostile towards reformed theology until I bought Steele’s "The Five Points of Calvinism." After reading this book I understood reformed thought better, and eventually came to a point of acceptance.

Third - Read Biographies
My own life and ministry has been greatly encouraged by those who have gone before me. By reading biographies, we learn of every aspect of our subject. Not just the successes that everyone hears about, but also their fears, failures and trials. The lives of men like Luther, Spurgeon, Billy Sunday, D. L. Moody, and others have taught me what a life of ministry will look like through the years. They have also taught me where some of the pitfalls of that life are, and hopefully will help me avoid them in the future.

Fourth - Focus more on individual commentaries as opposed to commentary sets.
Have at least one full commentary set in your library. MacArthur’s New Testament series is a good one, Barclay’s set is a good one, and I even enjoy McGee’s set quite a bit. But you will find that if you only buy sets, they will start to get repetitive. So, keep your ears to the ground for good individual commentaries, and buy them.

Fifth – Stay Up to Date with Your Studies
This sad scenario has been repeated all too often. I meet with a pastor, and we stop to look at his library. Then I start to realize that most of his books were published at about the same time he was in seminary. His library tells me something sad, "I stopped studying after seminary." New books keep our minds expanding, which keeps us out of ministerial ruts. Ever wonder why some pastors are so stuck in the past? It’s probably because their books are only from the past. Keep in touch with publishers, they will usually be glad to send you a flyer highlighting their new releases. When one seems interesting to you, order it.

Sixth – Join an Academic Society
Dues to these societies are usually pretty cheap, and come with great benefits. There are the networks of other scholars, most usually talk about books just published in their field (remember #5), and they review books, helping you weed out the good and the bad. They also publish quarterly periodicals that address various issues. Right now I am a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, and the American Society of Church Growth – both good organizations. I am also considering joining the Society of Biblical Literature, but have not yet made up my mind on it.

Seventh – Consider Continuing Your Education
Given the growth of online degrees, you no longer have to uproot and move across the country for a good education. Consider working on a D Min, or something like that. Anything that will motivate you to study harder.

Finally - Keep a List of Your Books
As I get new books, I log them into an excel program based on title, author, call number, ISBN, and price. This has several benifits to it. First, as your library grows, the search and find functions will help you quickly locate the items you need. Also if, God forbid, there should be a fire, your records will help your insurance company replace your library.

How do I get my books?
First, I talked my wife into a $100 a month budget for books, and then I stretch that budget to the limit. Mostly I shop online for used books; they are cheaper, and as long as you’re careful about what you buy, in pretty good shape. I go to places like http://www.amazon.com/, http://www.abebooks.com/, http://www.ebay.com/, http://www.christianbook.com/, and http://www.overstock.com/ . Overstock is a secular site that deals with a lot of stuff, but when they have the Christian book you’re looking for, their prices can’t be beat. Also, keep up with your older pastor friends. I’ve had several retire from the ministry and donate substantial portions of their library to help further my ministry.

Need some direction on what books to buy?
Check out http://sebts.edu/president/?p=491 . This is a list of books compiled by Dr. Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. The list he provides will help you build what I would consider the basic pastoral library. It will be a good place to start.

Also, I should mention that there is currently a contest to win a theological library at http://www.kevinstilley.com/2007/03/thousands-of-dollars-in-free-books.html He says that in order to be put in for the drawing, all you have to do is:

"Blog about it and link back to this (his) post. After you have made your post use the comment section below (on his blog) to let me (him) know where I can find your blog post and link.

- Mention it in a forum. Many people that don’t blog participate in forums. Try to find an appropriate topic for something like this, and mention it along with the URL (of his blog) so that others can find their way here. Then come back here and in the comment section (again, on his blog) below paste the link to that thread."

This blog is my entrance in this contest. I would encourage you to enter yourself, but the fact is that if you enter, there’s a better chance that I won’t win. So do what you will. :)

Your library says a lot about who you are as a minister, what is it saying about you?

Ezra 7:10 For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the LORD and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel.

When a Baby Dies

2007-03-19T10:01:00.000-07:00

Several weeks ago, I shared with you the story of my younger brother James, who suffered from Down Syndrome all of his life, and suddenly passed away last July. After a week of struggle, my parents were approached by their doctors who gave them some terrible news. James’ internal organs had all shut down, there was nothing else to be done, so a decision had to be made to keep him on the machines until he died after a few days, or go ahead and turn the machines off and let him go quickly. Understandably, my parents wanted the night to think it over. At about 11 o’clock at night, I got a call from my mother who was very distressed. She asked me, based on my studies of the Bible, what was going to happen to James after he died?

This is a difficult question – what is the eternal fate of those who die while incapable of professing Christ due to age or mental ability? The very early Catholic Church, faced with a high infant mortality rate, answered this question with infant baptism. They argued that infant baptism conveyed God’s grace upon this child, thus guaranteeing them a place in heaven. Today, in Baptist circles, we have a belief called the age of accountability. We argue that there is a time of innocence in people’s lives, and if they die during that time they are sinless and are permitted into heaven.

Both of these doctrines sound good and well reasoned, the only problem is that both of these doctrines runs against everything that the Bible tells us. Regarding the Catholic view, please refer to my posts on baptism. Regarding the "age of accountability," please see below.

First, the bible never mentions an age of accountability, nor does it say that people are innocent at any time in their lives.

Second, when is the age of accountability? How old do people have to be before we start witnessing to them? One Sunday School teacher once told me that if you can send a child into a room full of people naked, then they are innocent. But once they start feeling shame, then they have reached the age of accountability. I have only a one question about that – where is that in the bible? If this is true, then the age of accountability must be quite old, because I remember when I was living in the dorms of a state college, I ran into more than a few naked people running through the halls without a stitch of shame. Though I somehow doubt that they were innocent.

At this point in my post, I’m sure that you have guessed that I reject the "doctrine" of an age of accountability. Does that mean that I think those who die in infancy are condemned to hell?

Not at all.

In fact I do believe that those who die in a state where they are unable to accept Christ due to age or mental ability are indeed saved. I just want to have biblical reasons for believing this.

So, lets begin our discussion with reasons why infants are NOT saved.

Infants are not saved because they are innocent or lack sin. The bible is very clear that everyone sins. For example, the bible says:

Romans 3:23 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Psalm 58:3 3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.

1 John 1:8 8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

We should not say that infants are innocent, the truth is that they are sinners just like the rest of us. I realize that this is a difficult thing for us to grasp. Just last night I slipped into my 5-month-old baby Jack’s room while he slept and just watched him, and marveled at how perfect he was. However Jack is not perfect. He is in fact a slave to sin. A sin nature resides in his heart at this very moment, and he has likely committed some sin in his body that I am unaware of.
Right now, at this point in his life, Jack can say:

Psalm 51:5 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

So, how are children who die in infancy saved?

They are saved the same way that everyone else is saved – through the atoning work of Jesus Christ. The bible says:

John 14:6 6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Acts 4:12 12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

Those who die in infancy are not saved because of their own personal righteousness or innocence. They are saved because their sins have been covered by the blood of Christ.

So how does this happen?

First, we do see in the scriptures that it is possible for God to communicate the gospel to infants in a way they can respond to, even though we as adults may not fully understand it. This may be seen in the case of John the Baptist. Luke 1:15 says:

Luke 1:15 15 "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb.

This combined with the fact that John the Baptist acknowledged Christ while in the womb (Luke 1:41), gives clear evidence that it is possible for the gospel to be communicated to, and accepted by infants and those we would not think of being capable of understanding.

To say that some infants who die will be saved is the safest position to take. This can be proven 100% from the scriptures. If I were in a debate with another person well versed in rhetoric and the scriptures, this would be the position I would argue for.

However, I do believe that the scriptures do allude to the fact that all infants who die will be saved. This can be found in places like Deuteronomy 1:39 which states:

Deuteronomy 1:39 39 'Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.

Here, God has pledged to wipe out Israel for not going into the Promised Land. However, he has made an exception for those who were not old enough to engage in the decision making process of the people. Because this event is situation specific, it cannot apply to all children at all times – however it does give us the hint that God’s judgement is tempered towards those who are ignorant of their sinful estate.

Now the big question – why doesn’t God just say that all who die in infancy are saved? I believe that he does not say this for our benefit.

Not long ago, the news reported that a young mother decided to drown all four of her children – one at a time. Her reason for this? Her new boyfriend did not want kids, "so she had to get rid of them somehow."

Given the rate of mental instability among some people, one could only imagine what would happen if the guarantee of salvation for infants was expressly given in the scriptures. One could imagine a parent having a child, loving it for 2 or 3 years, and then killing it before the "age of accountability" so that it would be guaranteed salvation. Yes that is a sick thought, yes it is twisted – but unfortunately, it is not far from reality. For example, I can remember many years ago when a member of my state convention’s board of ethics argued that abortion was an acceptable and harmless practice, because all of those aborted were guaranteed salvation because they had not yet reached an age of accountability.

Thoughts on a Young Earth

2007-03-12T07:22:00.000-07:00

How old is the earth? Is it 6011 years old as some postulate, or is it tens of millions of years old as others suggest? What we find in this discussion is two separate conversations. The first is between theists and evolutionists – one side holding to biblical evidence and the other holding to scientific theories. The second side of this conversation however, is being held between theists – both of whom are arguing their position from the bible. Today, I would like to address the conversation between theists, briefly describe the positions, and explain why I hold to a young earth position.

There are several reasons why theists would hold to an old earth position, though the most popular argument advanced today has to do with the meaning of the word day (Heb. Yom) in the creation account. In volume two of his systematic theology, Norman Geisler offers us arguments from several parties who argue for an old earth position.

The Revelatory-Day View
Some conservative scholars have suggested that the "days" of Genesis may be twenty-four-hour days of revelation, not days of Creation (see Wiseman, CRSD, all). That is, they propose that it took God a literal solar week (of 144 hours) to reveal to Adam (or Moses) what He had done in the long ages before humans were created. Even in the Exodus passage (20:11) that speaks of the heavens and earth being "made" (asah) in six days, the word can mean "revealed." Just as a prophet can get revelation from God looking forward to a future series of events (d. Dan. 2, 7, 9; Rev. 6-19), even so God can reveal a past series of events to one of His servants. Indeed, Moses was on Mount Sinai for forty days (Ex. 24:18), and God could have taken six of these days to reveal the past creation events to him. Or, after God created Adam, He could have taken six literal days to reveal to him what He had done before Adam was created. Some scholars believe this material could have been memorized and passed on as the first "account of the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 2:4), just as the other "histories" (or "genealogies") were apparently recorded and passed on (d. Gen. 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; etc.) .

The Alternate-Day-Age View
Other evangelical scholars have suggested that the "days" of Genesis are twenty-four-hour periods of time in which God created the things mentioned, but that they are separated by long periods of time in between. This would account for the indications in Genesis 1 that these are twenty-four-hour days (like numbered days and "evening and morning"), while at the same time leaving room for the geological ages demanded by modern science.

Gap Theories
C.I. Scofield (1843-1921) made popular the view that there could be a great gap of time between the first two verses of the Bible into which all of the geological ages fit. In this way, the "days" could be twenty-four hours each, and yet the world could still be many millions of years old or more.
Others believe that there may be a "gap" or, better, a lapse of time before the six twenty-four-hour days of Genesis begin. In this case, the first verse of the Bible would not necessarily indicate the original ex nihilo creation of God, but more recent acts of God forming a world He had previously created (see Waltke, CAG, all) .

The Ideal-Time View
There is also a position variously known as the prochronism, apparent-age, or ideal-time view. According to this perspective, the earth and all living things were created with the appearance of age, that is, they were created mature. For example, Adam may have looked twenty-one years old a minute after he was created, but he was really only a minute old. Likewise, it is argued that Adam may have had a naval like all his descendants do, even though he was never connected by an umbilical cord to a mother. Also, it is theorized that the first trees may have been created with rings in them rather than receiving them from annual growth. If this is so, then the world can be actually young and only apparently very old.

The Literary-Framework View
Still others, like Herman Ridderbos (b. 1900), have suggested that the use of "days" and "evening and morning" are merely ancient literary devices to frame certain periods of time in order to encapsulate them in literary form much like we use a "chapter" to do the same. It is reasoned that since evening and morning were natural ways to point to a period of time with a beginning and an end, this was an appropriate way for God to reveal to Adam (or Moses) what He had done in certain periods of time before humans arrived on the scene.

While all of these theories on the meaning of day are interesting and worth studying, I do not feel that they accurately represent the passage’s authorial intent.

First and foremost, the natural meaning of the word day is to mean a literal 24-hour period. Yes, the word yom can refer to longer, unspecified periods of time, but that is not its natural, primary meaning. The allusion to "morning and evening" occurring in each of these days indicates to me that the specific use of yom in this passage should be understood as a literal 24 hour day.

Why is it that people are now trying to stretch the meaning of yom to include thousands, if not millions of years? They do so to accommodate current scientific theories. You can only come to the conclusion that yom refers to a period of time and not a literal day if you come to the text with the presumption of an old earth. Accordingly, there was no biblical commentator who applied an old earth hermeneutic to this passage before the introduction of evolutionary theory.

Second, the assumption that there is a gap of time before the days of creation or between the days of creation is an argument form silence. No where does the bible mention or even allude to these gaps. Admittedly, there is no way to disprove that there are no gaps in the biblical record of creation. But equally, there is no way to prove that there are gaps either – which makes this position difficult to hold.

Since we’re on the subject of gaps, one thing I have always wondered about was how long was the period of time between creation and the fall? Could Adam and Eve have lived thousands of years in sinless perfection before the fall, only then initiating history as recorded in the bible?

The short answer is no. It is true that the bible does not tell us how much time elapsed between creation and fall, but the bible does tell us how much time elapsed between Adam’s creation and the birth of his third son, which occurred after the fall.

Genesis 5:3 3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.

So, while we don’t know how much time elapsed between creation and the fall, it is safe to say that it was less than 129 years. Given that before Seth’s birth, Adam’s other children Cain and Abel were born and grew to adulthood, I would wager that the time between creation and fall was probably less than 100 years.

So how old is the earth? To be perfectly honest, no one really knows for sure. Bishop James Usher calculated the years of the bible’s early man through genealogies, combined that with known history, and concluded that Adam’s creation took place in 4004 BC. Given that there are demonstrable gaps in genealogies, and that they were primarily used to show relationship as opposed to kinship, the exactness of his findings are questionable, but his method does provide some help. From the biblical record, I believe that a reasonable age for the earth is somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,000 to 10,000 years. Which is why I hold to a young earth position.

A Cause for Pause

2007-03-05T07:13:00.000-08:00

Last June, after graduating from seminary and a long search, I began my duties as pastor at my current church. In many ways I was excited to come here – the town was nearly a carbon copy of the one I grew up in, the population was growing, the church was well established, the people in the church were loving and kind. In many ways it was an ideal situation to go into straight out of seminary.

There were a few small things that bothered me, but they could be easily changed, so I was not overly concerned. One of the things that bothered me about the church was the fact that the church had no existing outreach program, no plan to contact visitors or prospects, no evangelism budget, nothing.

So, the first few months here I built bridges. I got out and met our members in their homes, and worked to build trust and relationships. Then I started slowly. We had an outreach event once a month. They were well attended and the church got excited over it. Now, I am in the process of writing a curriculum to train people for outreach. Our three-week training program will start on March 18, and hopefully we will have teams doing visits the week after Easter. I am at the moment, very proud of my church.

But disappointment still abounds. Not so much over my church but the state of the churches in general. Last week my Director of Missions stopped in and took me out to lunch. Our conversations wandered a bit until I started asking him about what he thought of my program. He seemed to like it, but then told me something that absolutely shocked me. The week before he had lunch with another area DOM & he asked him how many of his churches (34 in all) had active outreach programs. His answer – zero – not one single church was trying to reach its community. My reaction was a combination of both shock and sorrow. But then he said "Guess how many churches in our association (21 churches) has an outreach program." The answer again, to my surprise, was zero – not one single church. He went on to tell me that in our association, there were only 3 pastors who get out to meet prospects & to witness – myself and two others.

So, what that means in a nutshell is that there are 55 churches in Mid Missouri that has no plan to reach a growing area. This might just be a guess, but do you think that this is why so many of our churches are declining?

So what can be done? Well it all begins with you – right there – the one reading this blog. Does your church have an outreach program? If it does, go be a part of it. If it doesn’t, start one – bug your pastor until he lets you. Get out and start doing it on your own – if you lead them they will follow.

If you need a program for training people in evangelism, contact me. I will send you all of my materials, the training curriculum, tips on building prospect lists, everything – free of charge.

The fact of the matter is that we need to get boots on the ground - Romans 10:13-14 says, "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

Who have you told today?

Conclusion - Toward a Greater Good Theodicy

2007-02-26T08:10:00.000-08:00

Over the past several weeks, we have discussed the issue of Theodicy - God's relation to evil. We have seen the answers that some propose to it, my personal position, and a discussion of why others might reject it. Today, I just want to conclude this discussion with a final thought on the subject.
How can we overcome C. S. Lewis’ "problem of pain?" Must we deny God’s goodness and omnipotence so that we may better understand the source and purpose of pain? To abandon these precepts is to abandon centuries of Christian orthodoxy and biblical truth, and as such is unthinkable. Instead, we should embrace the Instrumental view, or Greater Good Theodicy, which advocates God’s goodness, omnipotence, and foresees a greater end to the trials we face in this life.

Toward a Greater Good Theodicy - Part Four

2007-02-19T07:29:00.000-08:00

Over the past several weeks, we have been discussing Theodicy, God's relation to evil. First, we outlined the different positions that people typically take on this issue. Then we discussed the favored view, evidence for it, and then discussed God's purposes for suffering in this world. I would say that my argument is fairly strong, but with any argument, there will be people who disagree. Today we will examine three objections to the greater good theodicy, and evaluate their own personal strengths.

In the first volume of his Systematic Theology, Charles Hodge outlines two objections to the Greater Good Theodicy, which I will refer to as the limitation and happiness objections. In addition to this, I will also discuss the objections raised by those who adhere to a theology of openness.

The limitation objection argues that the greater good theodicy actually limits God. The limitation objection argues that if God was truly omnipotent, then he would not need to use suffering or pain to produce the product of his will. This argument further advances the notion that the greater good theodicy leads to the belief of a finite God in that it supposes that God cannot make anything greater or better, that this world exists as it is simply because God could not do any better. This is a fairly interesting objection, and at first I was not sure as to how to answer it. However, this objection fails to recognize God’s purpose for the creative act, mainly the glorification and exaltation of Jesus Christ. This purpose in creation requires the Earth and humanity to exist in the state that it is, so that Christ may redeem humanity from its sin, and establish himself as Lord.

Second, the happiness objection argues that the greater good theodicy suggests that human happiness is the end goal of creation. The "happiness" objection argues that this is both unscriptural and contrary to moral reasoning. This objection correctly notes that the Bible declares that the glory of God, an infinitely higher end, is the final cause for which all things exist. This objection further argues that if the purpose of suffering is the glorification or happiness of man, even through suffering, it is contrary to God’s own will, the glorification of himself. However, this objection fails in that it does not understand what glorifies God. The things that glorify God are the expansion of his kingdom through evangelism and the deepening of his people in holiness and righteousness which, according to Piper, is achieved through man’s suffering.

Finally, those who hold to a theology of openness argue that the open view of God is the best way to deal with the problem of evil. Open theists argue that evil has been difficult for conventional theism of its reluctance to see divine power as something which is shared with creation. However, open theists argue that in order to exonerate God from guilt, His "monopoly" of power must be rejected. Open theists argue that classical theism’s view of theodicy lays the guilt of evil upon God, and labels him as the author of sin. Open theism further argues that classical theism ignores the fact that there are many forces at work within creation. These forces include God, Satan, angels, demons, and men, all of whom may freely choose to rebel, disobey, and cause evil things to happen. Open theists also argue that their "logic of love" theodicy is also superior to classical theism as it can rationalize evils that are not the result of a moral agent, such as earthquakes and floods. Open theists argue that these natural disasters occur because of the randomness that underlies creativity and the byproduct of the orderly natural processes that sustain life. While the open theist’s objection is interesting in that it advocates a theodicy that is easily accepted, it must be rejected as it limits God’s omnipotence. The open theist’s goal is to absolve God of the guilt of evil, but in doing so it strips Him of his power, thus replacing a supposedly guilty God for an impotent one.

Toward a Greater Good Theodicy - Part Three

2007-02-12T09:02:00.000-08:00

For the past several weeks, we have been discussing the issue of theodicy, God’s relation to evil. First we looked at the different positions that people often take on this issue, then we settled on the "Greater Good Theodicy" as the favored model. But this fails to answer the question as to why – specifically, why do we suffer in our lives? To what greater good are we being drawn toward? To answer this we will look to John Piper’s book, Let the Nations be Glad, where he outlines six specific reasons why God allows suffering to enter into our lives.

Now that it has been established that God brings suffering into our lives to bring about a greater good, the question may be asked: specifically, to what greater good is God working toward? In his book Let the Nations Be Glad, John Piper outlines six reasons why God appoints suffering for his servants. They are: for deeper faith and holiness, for the increase of our heavenly reward, awakening others to action, opening the lost to the gospel, to enforce the missionary command, and to magnify the supremacy of Christ.

Piper’s first reason, for deeper faith and holiness is drawn from Hebrews 12, which shows us that suffering tests our faith, and purifies all remnants of self reliance. In his book, God’s Greater Glory, Bruce A. Ware echos this assertion when he states that "God often designs affliction and pain and suffering to strengthen our faith, even when we are being faithful." To support his assertions, Ware looks to Romans 5:3-5 and James 1:2-4, both of which argues that our perseverance through tribulations will produce in us spiritual maturity.

The second reason for suffering, for the increase of our heavenly reward, is supported by 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, which states that sufferings prepare us for our future, heavenly glory. From this, Piper argues that the degree of our glory in heaven rests upon our degree of suffering in life.

Piper’s third purpose for pain, to awaken others to evangelical action, is supported by the first chapter of Philippians, as previously discussed. Here, Piper notes that news of a missionary’s sufferings or martyrdom usually leads others to serve in the same area. To support this he specifically notes the case Chet Bitterman, who lost his life to Colombian guerrillas in 1981.

The fourth purpose for sufferings listed in Piper’s book is to open the lost to the gospel, and is supported by 1 Thessalonians 1:5-6. Here Piper argues that suffering for the gospel is often used by God to bring others to Christ. Piper further explains this principle in his book, Desiring God. In this work, Piper refers to Tertullian’s assertion that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. Here, Piper argues that this statement is true based on the evidence that history affords us, that Christianity has indeed spread the fastest in the wake of a Christian martyr.

Piper’s fifth purpose for suffering, to enforce the missionary command, stems from his third purpose, to awaken others to evangelical action. Here, Piper argues that the suffering of the church is used by God to "reposition the missionary troops" in places that they might not have otherwise gone. As evidence of this, Piper looks to the example of the martyrdom of Stephen, which caused many in the church to relocate and begin ministries in their new hometowns. Piper argues that the lesson to learn here is that suffering is often used to shake Christians out of their "Apathy of Abundance", and move into areas of service.

Finally, Piper’s sixth purpose of suffering is to magnify the supremacy of Christ. Piper argues that we are only able to truly understand God’s glory when we compare it to our own condition. This sentiment is echoed by Dr. Ware when he states that affliction can reveal human weakness so that the surpassing strength and glory of God may be more evident. To support this Dr. Ware turns to 2 Corinthians 4:8-12 and 2 Corinthians 12:8-10.

Toward a Greater Good Theodicy - Part Two

2007-02-05T10:17:00.000-08:00

Last week, we discussed the varioius views that surround theodicy - God's purpose & relation to evil. This week I would like to discuss the view which I hold, and give three examples as to why I hold to it.

Myself, I ascribe to the fourth view listed above, the Instrumental view, or Greater Good Theodicy. I feel that this view is far superior to the alternative views as it retains the universally understood norms of good and evil while maintaining the orthodox Christian understanding of an omniscient and all loving God. While this view is supported by the totality of the scriptures, I feel that there are three main biblical examples that exemplify this view. The example of Joseph found in Genesis 45, the example of Job, and the example of Paul’s sufferings found in the New Testament.

The story of Joseph’s life begins in Genesis chapter 37. Here, we learn that Joseph’s brothers hated him because their father loved him the most, and because Joseph had dreams in which he foresaw this own lordship over all his older brothers. At this point of the story, Joseph begins to suffer many hardships. First, in verse 18, his brothers plotted to kill him, but at Reuben’s insistence, decided to throw him in a pit in the wilderness instead. Following this, Joseph was sold to a group of Ishmaelites, who sold him as a slave to Potiphar in Egypt. After a short time in Potiphar’s house, Joseph was imprisoned due to false accusations leveled at him by Potiphar’s wife. The majority of Joseph’s life was filled with heartache and pain, but through his troubles he gained the Pharaoh’s favor, and was able to save many lives due to his ability to interpret dreams. Eventually, Joseph recognized that God had led him through his trials for a greater purpose, as evidenced by Joseph’s response to his brothers in Genesis 45 where he states "do not be grieved or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life." In this statement, Joseph summarizes the basic tenets of the Greater Good Theodicy. Mainly, that God places pain and suffering in our lives for the purpose of bringing about a greater, unforseen good in the future.

A second instance of God placing sufferings in a person’s life to bring about a greater purpose may be found in the life of Job, as recorded in the book of Job. In the opening chapter of the book of Job we are introduced to Job, who is described as an upright, godly man with great wealth and a large family. In subsequent chapters God allows Satan to curse Job, who then loses his children, servants, property, and health. Several of Job’s friends arrive to counsel him, but only one, Elihu, offers Job the correct interpretation for his sufferings. In Job 37:13 Elihu states "Whether for correction, or for his world, or for loving-kindness, He causes it to happen." Later, God arrives to rebuke Job for his grumbling, and to show him that His ways are greater than man’s, and that though we do not always see it, He is at work in our lives to bring about a greater good.

A final example given to us to show God’s purpose in suffering is found in the life of Paul. Following Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, Paul’s life became one marked with suffering, yet in that suffering Paul writes that he found true joy. As such, Paul’s theodicy is one that is worthy of examination. Paul’s view of theodicy is best seen in the opening chapter of the book of Philippians. Paul wrote this letter to the church at Philippi under great duress, as he had been imprisoned for what may be the last time. He writes to the Philippians to encourage them, letting them know that his imprisonment is a part of God’s divine plan. Paul’s belief in this divine plan is evident in Philippians 1:12-14. Here, Paul writes that his circumstances have turned out for the greater good for the gospel, as it is obvious to all that he is suffering for Christ, and not for a crime. Furthermore, Paul writes that his sufferings have led to more people hearing the gospel, as his chains have given others the needed courage to press forward in their evangelism, thus showing that God is in control of Paul’s circumstances and is using them to bring about a greater good.

Toward a Greater Good Theodicy - Part One

2007-01-29T11:32:00.000-08:00

My next several posts will deal with the issue of Theodicy - God's relation to evil. It is my hope that this first post will allow us to understand some of the different approaches that people take when dealing with this issue, and allow us to define some terms that are important to this discussion.

In volume one of his Systematic Theology, Charles Hodge draws from the entirety of scripture to make these three assertions about God. First, that the sovereignty of God is universal, it extends over all his creatures from the highest to the lowest. Second, that this sovereignty is absolute. There is no limit to be placed upon His authority, God does as He sees fit. Third, God’s sovereignty is immutable. It cannot be ignored or rejected, it binds all of creation, as physical laws bind the physical universe. Here, Hodge explains that God is divinely omnipotent, a view that is shared with millions of orthodox Christians around the world. Equally, it is widely accepted that God is also infinitely good. Hodge argues for this by examining God’s benevolence and mercy towards fallen man.

In themselves, these two views of God are easy to accept, but this acceptance becomes much more difficult when they intersect with the reality of evil. C. S. Lewis calls this the "problem of pain" suggesting that the presence of evil supports the notion that God lacks either goodness, omnipotence, or both. Theodicy attempts to solve the problem of pain by reconciling God’s omnipotence and goodness with the reality of evil.

There are four main approaches to theodicy. There is Illusionism, which seeks to redefine the classical definitions of good and evil, pain and pleasure. There is also Finitism, which seeks to redefine our conception of God, arguing that God is either not totally omniscient, or totally good. Stemming from Finitism is Dualism, or the belief that there are both good and evil forces at work in the world, locked in a battle for superiority. And finally there is the Instrumental view, or Greater Good Theodicy, which sees evil as a means to an unforseen, better end.

Illusionism is a blanket term that encompasses the various systems of belief that view pain and evil as a construct of the mind and not an external reality. The Illusionist view is very prominent in pantheistic circles, and was advanced by the philosopher Benedict Spinoza. To advance his theodicy, Spinoza drew from the classical Rabbinic theodicy of Maimonides and Gersonides, who argued that while God is perfectly good and powerful, there really is no evil. Today, Illusionism can be found among those who have been influenced by an Eastern Worldview as evidenced by the teachings of Aurobindo, an Indian sage who believes that pain is a matter of perspective as opposed to a matter of fact. Illusionism has also been embraced by Christian Science, who argues that evil has no reality but is instead a false illusion of the material sense. Within the Christian community, shadows of Illusionism can be found in the Augustinian tradition. I am hesitant to place Augustine in the Illusionist camp as his theodicy defies categorization, however, the main tenet of his theodicy is Illusionist in nature. Augustine argued against the existence of evil based on the fact that God is good, and the fact that God declared all of creation good. Therefore, Augustine concluded that what we perceive as evil is nothing more than the absence of goodness, much in the way that darkness is nothing more than the absence of light.

The second approach to theodicy is finitism, which argues that God is not capable of preventing evil, either because He is not totally omniscient or because He is not totally good. The most recent and well known attack on God’s omniscience is found in the theology of Open Theism. In his book Most Moved Mover, Clark Pinnock argues that God voluntarily limited himself for what he calls a "logic of love theodicy." In his theodicy, Pinnock argues that man was created for the purpose of creating loving relationships. These relationships required freedom, and thus the risk that man would choose evil over good. Furthermore, Pinnock argues that his logic of love theodicy is superior to the theodicies of classical Christianity as it absolves God of guilt, and explains certain evils that originate independent of human action. God’s goodness has been questioned in recent years by many Jewish thinkers who attempt to understand God’s apparent apathy in the face of the Holocaust. Norman Geisler refers to this as a "Sadist Theodicy" because it advocates the notion that God enjoys human suffering, and points to authors such as Elie Wiesel who is unwilling to exonerate God from all responsibility of this genocide. Proponents of the Sadist Theory argue that their ability to turn to God and trust Him was destroyed by their radical suffering.

Stemming from the finitism approach is dualism, the belief that there are both good and evil forces in the world struggling with each other for superiority over the created order. This approach had its most mature voice in the Manichean philosophers. The Manichean system postulated the existence of two eternal and equally powerful gods, one of them good (light), and one of them evil (darkness). The Manicheans believed that these two gods work against each other in the lives of men, causing goodness and evil. Unfortunately, a less refined dualistic system has found its way into many of our churches, where laypersons have begun to view Satan as God’s evil foil, struggling against God in an epic, ongoing battle for mankind.

The final approach to theodicy is the Instrumental view, or Greater Good Theodicy. This system argues that evil is allowed into creation to serve as a means to an unforseen greater good. This view has dominated classical theodicy and is presently held by the vast majority of evangelical Christians today. In this system, evil remains evil in the traditional sense, but it is understood as a necessary force in creation as the universe is better with it than without it. Examples of this can be seen in the animal world where one animal kills and eats another. While this may be evil in some sense, it is also very necessary as it contributes to the continuation of the created order, which rests upon this process.

Brother's Keeper

2007-01-22T16:20:00.000-08:00

In July of 2006, my younger brother James was diagnosed with a lung infection. He was given antibiotics and sent home. Before long, that infection spread to other parts of his body, and a week or so later, at the age of 21, my brother James died of sepsis.
As I sat at his funeral, I thought about his life - a life that might not have been. My brother James, born with Down Syndrome, was one that some would consider a "throw away" baby. Someone who would never contribute to society, and would be too much trouble for our family, and as such should be aborted. I was only 5 when James was born, so I don’t know whether or not my parents had that discussion. But I do know one thing for sure, in James’ case, life won out.
Unfortunately, in many cases life does not win out. In fact, over the past several years the numbers of children born with Down Syndrome has decreased dramatically. Not because Down Syndrome is now treatable, but rather because it can be diagnosed sooner, giving parents the opportunity (some would say duty) to abort the child. As an example of this, in 1997, roughly 90 percent of children prenatally diagnosed with Down Syndrome were aborted, resulting in nearly 50,000 deaths.
This is but one example of the eugenics styled abortions in the U.S. Proponents for abortion rights argue that abortion must be kept "safe and legal" in the U.S. to protect women who have become impregnated through rape or incest, or whose lives are threatened due to complications. However, Planned Parenthood’s own records show that these reasons represent a small number of abortions (roughly 2%). All other abortions are done for reasons of personal preference (can’t afford another child, another child will interefere with career plans, etc), which basically amounts to using abortion as an after the fact form of birth control.
On this day in 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling on the case of Roe vs. Wade, since that time, about one third of my generation has been lost. We now live in a culture of death where people are valued differently than others based solely on their "desirability." It is my prayer that we all see this injustice, and work to see it ended.

What is Biblical Evangelism?

2007-01-19T09:19:00.001-08:00

First, let me offer a great apology for the lateness of this post. This week has been quite hectic with the ice storms, rolling blackouts, and a wife who ended her maternity leave - leaving me with 2 weeks worth of "daddy days" with my son, which I have enjoyed very much.
Over the past several weeks I have thrown myself into reading several books, and today I would like to share an insight with you from one of the books that I am reading now. It is "The Soul Winner" by C.H. Spurgeon, and in the first chapter, Spurgeon asks the question, "what is it to win a soul?" He begins by showing us what soul winning is not. From his examples, I would wager that he found himself facing the same "madness of methods" that we face today. May his insights guide us today.

Soul winning is not transfer growth.

"We do not regard it to be soul-winning to steal members out of churches already established, and train them to utter our peculiar Shibboleth: we aim rather at bringing souls to Christ than at making converts to our synagogue. There are sheep-stealers abroad… There is such a thing as selfishness in our eagerness for the aggrandizement of our own party; and from this evil spirit may grace deliver us! The increase of the kingdom is more to be desired than the growth of a clan. We would do a great deal to make a Paedobaptist brother into a Baptist, for we value our Lord's ordinances; we would labor earnestly to raise a believer in salvation by free-will into a believer in salvation by grace, for we long to see all religious teaching built upon the solid rock of truth, and not upon the sand of imagination; but, at the same time, our grand object is not the revision of opinions, but the regeneration of natures. We would bring men to Christ, and not to our own peculiar views of Christianity. Our first care must be that the sheep should be gathered to the great Shepherd; there will be time enough afterwards to secure them for our various folds."

Soul winning does not come from inflating numbers on the church’s rolls.

"In the next place, we do not consider soul-winning to be accomplished by hurriedly inscribing more names upon our church-roll, in order to show a good increase at the end of the year. This is easily done, and there are brethren who use great pains, not to say arts, to effect it… By all means let us bring true converts into the church, for it is a part of our work to teach them to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded them; but still, this is to be done to disciples, and not to mere professors; and if care be not used, we may do more harm than good at this point. To introduce unconverted persons to the church, is to weaken and degrade it; and therefore an apparent gain may be a real loss."

Creating excitement is not soul winning.

"Nor is it soul-winning, dear friends, merely to create excitement. Excitement will accompany every great movement… Do not aim at sensation and "effect." Flowing tears and streaming eyes, sobs and outcries, crowded after-meetings and all kinds of confusions may occur, and may be borne with as concomitants of genuine feeling; but pray do not plan their production.
It very often happens that the converts that are born in excitement die when the excitement is over… The utmost zeal for Christ is consistent with common sense and reason: raving, ranting, and fanaticism are products of another zeal which is not according to knowledge. We would prepare men for the chamber of communion, and not for the padded room at Bedlam."

So…what is soul winning you might ask?

"What is the real winning of a soul for God? So far as this is done by instrumentality, what are the processes by which a soul is led to God and to salvation? I take it that one of its main operations consists in instructing a man that lee may know the truth of God. Instruction by the gospel is the commencement of all real work upon men's minds. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Teaching begins the work, and crowns it, too."

Thank you Mr. Spurgeon for your words which are both timely and timeless. May they continue to instruct us.

All quotes for this post were taken from;
Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. The Soul Winner. Eerdmans Publishing (Grand Rapids, MI), 1963.

Inerrancy

2007-01-08T15:12:00.000-08:00

I believe that the best definition of Inerrancy has come from Paige Patterson who writes that: "By inerrancy, we mean that the scriptures, in the autographs, contain no error in the fields it discusses, philosophically, historically, scientifically, spiritually, and theologically."

Sadly, there are many within our churches who would deny the inerrancy of the bible, usually based upon one of the following arguments (or one of their derivatives). I will try to quickly address them here.

1 – The Bible does not claim inerrancy, nor is the term found in the Bible. Instead modern scholars have forced this term upon the Bible.

First, the Bible does claim to be inerrant.

2 Peter 1:16-21 16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased "-- 18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Second, the fact that the bible does not use the specific word "inerrant" to describe itself is not relevant. The term trinity is also not found in the Bible, but we know that it is true because it is used to describe a theology based on a wide sample of scripture.
Equally, the term inerrancy is also true because it too is used to describe a theology based on a wide sample of scripture.

2 – Inerrancy cannot be proven because we do not possess the original autographs.
This too is not a valid argument against the doctrine of inerrancy.

Think of it this way.

Sitting in the Smithsonian, there is a one of a kind artifact. It is just a simple metal rod. That metal rod is exactly one foot long. In fact, for the United States, that metal bar is the official measure of a foot. Now, what would happen if say, a janitor accidentally threw this bar out with the trash? Could we never again know what a foot was?

Not at all.

That’s because we could go to the local hardware store, buy a yardstick, a surveyor’s measure, a grade school ruler, compare them together, and we will come up with a foot.
It is true that we do not have the original autographs. We do however have literally millions of copies and fragments, some of which date to just a few years after the originals were written. Through diligent study of these sources, we can know that the current published scholarly texts of the Hebrew OT & the Greek NT are essentially the same as the original manuscripts.

3 – There are errors and/or contradictions in the Bible.
Usually this argument focuses on 3 main ideas

The 2 accounts of creation in Genesis – This is a literary device common when Genesis was written. See Josh McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict for a complete explanation.

Contradictions – such as what is seen in the account of Sisera’s death (Josh 4), and Deborah’s song of his death (Josh 5). The differences between these accounts are minute, but worth discussing.
Both of these accounts are true. How is this possible? We must take the context of these passages into account. The account of Sisera’s death in Josh. 4 is the forensic, historical account of his death, and should be interpreted accordingly. Deborah’s song is a highly stylized account, poetical account, and should be interpreted accordingly. These two accounts can only be seen as contradictory when they are taken out of context and their respective genres are ignored.

The words of Satan – personally, I like this one. The argument is that the Bible records the words of Satan, words that are deliberate lies, therefore, the Bible does indeed contain lies.
This is a good point; the Bible does not whitewash history. It tells us of Noah’s righteousness, and his drunkenness. It tells us of Abraham’s integrity, and his lies. It tells us of David’s hunger after God and his sin against God. And yes, the Bible does record the words of Satan.
But this does not invalidate the Bible’s inerrancy. The Bible records the words of Satan accurately and perfectly, therefore maintaining the inerrancy of the Bible. While the Bible does perfectly record the words of Satan, it does not attribute truth to them. Quite to the contrary, the Bible goes out of its way to show us that his words are lies.

I realize that this is a very basic discussion of inerrancy. I have tried to do my best, but given the size of the doctrine, there really is no way to cover it in its entirety in one blog posting. But I do hope that this will serve as a primer for our future study.

Please Pray for Dr. Mohler

2007-01-05T22:12:00.000-08:00

Dr. Mohler is perhaps one of the finest Christian men I have ever met. As a student at SBTS he was my President, as a Highview Baptist Church member he was my Sunday School teacher. Everyone knows of his intellect, but what struck me the most about him was his humility and love for those around him.
His Sunday School lessons made me a better expositor and his example made me a better pastor. I cannot express how much his ministry has influenced mine.

Which is why I am asking that you all will join me in prayer for his speedy recovery.

I had heard that he was in the hospital due to abdominal pains, but this afternoon he was diagnosed with pulmonary emboli in both lungs. My wife the RN was kind enough to explain to me what that meant – honestly I didn’t understand most of her explanation, but I gathered enough to realize that it is very serious.
According to Dr. Moore on Dr. Mohler’s blogsite, Dr. Mohler is responding well to treatments, but there will still be a way to go.
So again, I ask that you will join me, my family, and my church in prayer for him. Pray for a speedy recovery so that he may return to his ministry of building up a new generation of ministers.

A Lookback at '06

2007-01-01T12:36:00.000-08:00

As most people do, at the time of the New Year, I look back at the year that just ended in an attempt to evaluate its high points and low points.
When I first started blogging, I did so with mixed emotions. Why another blog? What good would it do? Why should I spend my already limited time on one? In many ways, I am glad that I started to blog, as I have met many interesting people and have had several good, uplifting conversations. In addition to this, this blog has forced me to continue my theological studies, so that I can write a well thought out post and answer my commenters well.
But at the same time, I am a little disappointed. I have found from experience that people really only get interested in a blog if it is controversial – which may explain why so many bloggers out there are turning over every rock in the world hoping that something may crawl out. Honestly, the last thing I want to be remembered for is simply being controversial.

Which now makes me look ahead to 2007. Where will this blog go over the next year?

Again, I have mixed emotions.

In some ways I want to expand the blog to include audio files of my theology lectures, sermons, and thoughts on my daily Bible reading – in addition to my weekly thoughts on theology.

In other ways I want to just leave it as it is. To simply maintain the status quo.

And in some other ways, I just want to delete it and go on with life. The past several weeks I have been away from my computer. I have not written, read, or answered any blogs and life has gone on just fine. If I disappeared from the blogosphere today, I doubt that the world would spin off its axis – or that many would even notice.

I suppose I will just have to wait and see what the year brings with it.

Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men

2006-12-23T16:19:00.000-08:00

My son is not just our first child, he is also the first grandchild on both sides of our family. Given our long line of visitors coming, church responsiblities, and the Christmas busyness we all enjoy I have realized that I must prioritize. As such I will be stepping away from blogging for the next several weeks. I will try to keep up with ongoing threads, but no promises.

But before I go, I just wanted to wish you all a very Merry Christmas. May we all meditate on the meaning of Christmas and come to know Christ in a personal, saving way.

I will see you in January.

John

Baptism Revisited

2006-12-18T07:48:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, I posted one of my sermons concerning baptism. Unfortunately the cut/paste from my sermon notes made for a difficult post to read, so today I would like to revisit baptism for a moment.

Let me take a side note for a second. I was a part of a completely unchurched family when I came to Christ at 5. After I accepted Christ the only thing I was ever told about Baptism was that you didn’t need it to be saved. Being pragmatic at a young age, I decided that if I didn’t need it, I wasn’t going to go through the trouble of getting it. 10 years later my family moved and I joined another church that taught me what Baptism was and why it was important – so I was Baptized at 15. I spent the first 10 years of my Christian life in disobedience to Christ because I did not follow Him in believer’s Baptism – through ignorance admittedly – but it was disobedience none the less. Because of this, the doctrine of Baptism is a doctrine that is very close to my heart – one that I revisit and revel in frequently.

Today, there are many who argue that when you are baptized, you are only baptized into Christ, and it does not matter who did it or what church it was done in. I disagree with that notion, so today I hope to explain why I believe the Bible clearly teaches that when we are Baptized, we are not only Baptized into an identification with Christ, but also the particular church which Baptizes us.

First, the command to Baptize was given to the local church. As such, what the church believes about the gospel and baptism matters.

Matthew 28:17-20 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

I hope that there is an agreement that this commissioning was indeed given to the whole of the church, and not just the Apostles (there are those who argue otherwise).
When a person is baptized, they are done so under the authority of their local church, which administers that baptism through an administrator (there are no requirements for this role, except that the church approves of him).
Because they are Baptized under the authority of their local church, there is an immediate identification with that local church. After said person was Baptized by that church, they became a member of that church (Acts 2:38-41) and as a member are identified with the churches teachings – whether they agree with them or not.

Second, baptism stands as the mark of covenant between a believer and his local church.

Colossians 2:10-12 in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Here, Paul shows us that the nature of Baptism is related to the nature of circumcision. Now, before anyone freaks out let me be clear. Baptism is NOT the NT version of circumcision. There is NOT a one to one equivalence between the two. However, Paul makes it plain that they are similar in nature.
In the OT, circumcision was a mark of identification. A child was born to Jewish parents, after 8 days they were circumcised as a mark of entrance into God’s covenant community.
Baptism is similar in that when a person is born again, they are Baptized as a mark of entrance into God’s covenant community of the local church.
Because one enters into a covenant relationship with their church, they are identified with that church, and all that it believes. If they later realize that said church’s doctrine is false, that does not negate the fact that they are none the less identified with that teaching because of their covenant relationship with their church.

Think of it this way:

Not long ago I was doing a hospital visit in Jeff City. I got turned around on 50 & as I was making my way back to Missouri Blvd. there is a place where the speed limit drops from like 60 to 30 on a very steep hill. I missed the sign, coasted down the hill at 65 mph, was stopped by a cop, and learned a valuable lesson. Ignorance does not negate responsibility.

Equally:

When my wife and I were married, we entered into a covenant relationship with each other. As all married couples know, people encounter a very steep learning curve once the honeymoon is over. I learned that my sweet, beautiful wife had some not so sweet habits. However, I was in a covenant relationship with her. When I agreed to that relationship I got the whole package – everything I knew about, and everything I didn’t know about.

Equally, when you enter into a covenant relationship with a church, you get the whole package, and you cannot casually throw that relationship off.

Finally, the NT gives us the precedent of rebaptism when one is previously Baptized by a body that has a flawed view of salvation.

Acts 19:1-5 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Here, Paul finds a group of disciples – genuine Christ followers. Yet there was a problem, they had a faulty view of Salvation. After correcting their view of Salvation, Paul immediately Baptizes them.
Now, I don’t care what brand of "ism" you follow in your sotierology, to deny Eternal Security, or Perseverance of the Saints is a grievous error – a problem of the highest order. This is a direct denial of salvation through grace by faith, replacing it with salvation through grace by faith, and staying in the right with God.

If a person was raised/saved in this tradition, and later sought admission into an SBC church they should be rebaptized, based on the precedent set in Acts, for the reasons laid out in Matthew and Colossians.

Strike the Roots

2006-12-11T10:04:00.000-08:00

My parent’s farm is being taken over. Not by trespassers, or family, or by eminent domain, it is being taken over by honeysuckle. I never before thought that the honeysuckle vine was a threat to agriculture… but that was before it invaded our fields and refused to go away. First we tried to brush hog it. Apparently that just spread the seeds, because a few weeks later, more vines sprouted up. Next, we burned our fields, hoping to kill the vine and get rid of a few other problems. A few months later, it was back with a vengeance.
Lately, we’ve been talking to our friends who also have farms. Some have had this problem before. They say the only thing you can do is hit it with chemicals. It hits the roots, kills it at its source.
Today, there are a lot of weeds in the SBC field. Calvinism, anti-Calvinism, charismatics, cessationists, legalists, antinomians, Lankmarkers, anti-Landmarkers, declarations, convergences, trustees, policies, alcohol, and the list goes on and on.
We could go on with all of the debates, we could brush hog them down, we could even burn the whole thing down – but they’ll just come back with a vengeance. I believe that all of these vines come from the same root – and if we strike at the root they will all die.

What is the root cause of these problems?

A loss of Biblical authority in our lives.

These are biblical problems, these are problems that the bible addresses, and if we do a serious study of the scriptures we will find solutions. Unfortunately, the one thing lacking in these discussions are serious studies of the scriptures. Why?

Because the Bible has lost its authority over our lives.

So how do we fix this problem? How do we give the Bible its proper place in our lives? How do strike at the root of our problems?

First, read the Bible & establish some program of Biblical memorization.

Despite our emphasis on the Bible, we don’t know it very well. Researchers George Gallup and Jim Castelli put the problem squarely: 'Americans revere the Bible -but, by and large, they don't read it. And because they don't read it, they have become a nation of biblical illiterates."
How bad is it?
Researchers tell us that it is worse than most could imagine.
Fewer than half of all adults can name the four Gospels. Many Christians cannot identify more than two or three of the disciples. According to data from the Barna Research Group, 60 percent of Americans can't name even five of the Ten Commandments. "No wonder people break the Ten Commandments all the time. They don't know what they are," said George Barna, president of the Barna Group. The bottom-line? "Increasingly, America is biblically illiterate."
If we do not know the Bible, it will not be authoritative in our lives – and we will defer to other authorities like tradition and logic and personal preferences. If we want to truly see peace in the SBC, all of those self proclaimed "conservative innerrantists" in the SBC are going to have to start living it.

Second, let the Bible speak in our discussions. (A two parter)

1 – When we discuss these issues, support your position with scriptural evidence.

The way we discuss biblical topics is unacceptable. It shows us that we really don’t care about what the Bible says.
In the charismatic debate, some point to honest people who practice these "gifts." Cessationists point to abuses by some. Neither is Biblical evidence, and is therefore irrelevant.

When we discuss our position, many claim that their position is biblical – but fails to tell us why, or where the Bible speaks to their position. Simply claiming biblical orthodoxy is not Biblical evidence, if you can’t quote it, don’t claim its authority.

Pointing to historical precedence can be helpful, but should not be exclusively relied on. That is tradition, not Biblical evidence.

When someone is accused of doctrinal error, their theology should be defended though biblical exegesis. Simply saying that they are nice people is insufficient because it does not Biblically address the original charge.

2 – When you use biblical evidence, use a responsible hermeneutic.

This is one of my greatest pet peeves, when people do use the Bible to support their view, but in order to do so twist the scripture to conform it to their position.
Not long ago, I and a group of pastors were discussing the validity and usefulness of boycotts by denominations. One pastor, seeking biblical support looked to Daniel’s personal abstinence from royal food to set a precedent for boycotts. Even people who agreed with his position objected to his hermeneutic, yet he refused to drop it because he desperately wanted the Bible to support boycotts.
This kind of irresponsible hermeneutic should not be seen from any Christian, let alone a pastor. Sadly this has become the norm in our churches.

Finally, we should acknowledge that the issues we discuss do have answers – there is a right and a wrong.

Yet again, one of my greatest pet peeves. I am discussing a theological issue with a brother who disagrees with me. He says "A bunch of people see it this way, and a bunch of people see it this other way. Can’t we just agree that both positions are tenable?"

My answer – absolutely not!

Take tongues as an example. I say they have ceased, others say they continue. These positions are diametrically opposed to one another – they cannot both be tenable.
I could feasibly agree that I am wrong and they are right.
I could feasibly agree that they are wrong and I am right.
I could feasibly agree that we are both wrong.
But both right? Impossible! This undermines the very concept of truth. We can find answers to our problems – but only when our position of inerrancy becomes practical and not just academic.

We must strike at the root of our problem.

The Church and the Government – How Should they Interact?

2006-12-04T08:45:00.000-08:00

I was once told that the only thing worse than a politician who thinks he’s a preacher is a preacher who thinks he’s a politician.

Apparently, that is no longer the case. In the past several years, politicians and preachers have interacted so much that it is really hard to tell the two apart.

Here are a few examples that come to mind from recent events.
Rick Warren invites Barak Obama to speak in his church.
Jim Talent makes a speech at the Missouri Baptist Convention meeting.
George Bush makes a short speech via satellite to the SBC meeting in ’05 & Condi Rice makes a visit in ’06.
Partisan politics is played out in many churches – including a case in North Carolina where one church expelled any church member who did not vote for George Bush.
When it was discovered that Wal Mart supported homosexual groups, a boycott was immediately brought up.
I could go on and on… but I would prefer to stop there.

I suppose that at this point I should stop and offer a disclaimer. I do believe that we should engage our culture in many ways, including politics. Christians should vote. Those called to do so should seek political office. Those Christians called to do so should serve in the military. Christians should feel free to engage the political sphere in what ever way they wish.
However, the church as an institution (or as a denomination) should not become entangled in the political realm for several reasons.

First, politics cannot correct the world’s problems.

There is only so much that the government and laws can do. They can restrict the outward actions of men, but they cannot affect their hearts.
For example:
The government could outlaw abortion. But the "culture of death" that makes such a practice possible and even acceptable in some circles will not go away.
The government could ban gay marriage, but that lifestyle will continue to expand.
Why?
Because ultimately these are heart issue (Luke 6:45), and laws cannot influence a person’s heart – only Christ can do that.

Second, in the context of the United States, it is better for the church to limit its involvement in politics so that we can better fulfill the Great Commission.

We have to admit it; the church in the United States has been given a very sweet deal. We don’t pay property taxes, or income taxes, all donations to the church are tax write offs, and outside of zoning laws, government really doesn’t care what we do – In fact, some states have now legally given the church some protections from eminent domain seizures. How did we get that sweet of a deal? Easy, we are considered 501c3 not for profit corporations, and all 501c3’s get that deal. However, as a 501c3, we must follow one rule – it is:
"Organizations with this classification are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office. Public charities (but not private foundations) are permitted to conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation… All 501(c)(3) organizations are also permitted to educate individuals about issues, or fund research that supports their political position without overtly advocating for a position on a specific bill."
That’s it, just don’t lobby or try to influence public elections – if we don’t do that we’re golden.
However, there are some that think this is too restrictive, and we should throw off our 501c3 status so that we can endorse candidates and directly influence policy.
This should lead us to the question, if we do drop our 501c3 status to start doing politics, then what would our new classification be?
I’m no tax lawyer, but there’s a good chance that we might get a 527 classification. Which means that the government will become a permanent member of our congregations.
All of the protections we enjoy as 501c3’s would be gone. We would have caps on the amount of money we could collect per year, and the government would have their hands in our pockets, keeping track of where we spend it.
Smaller churches wouldn’t be affected too much, but if your church has a budget of around $200,000 or more (I think that is the cap for the budget of a 527), the way you minister to your community would be forever changed.
It is in the church’s best interest to keep the government’s hands out of our business. We can only do that by keeping our hands out of their business.

Finally, when the church becomes political, it makes the lost world our enemies and not our harvest field.

Because he puts it so well, I will let John MacArthur speak to this point. He says:
"We must repudiate our confused loyalties and concerns for the passing world and put aside our misguided efforts to change culture externally. To allow our thoughts, plans, time, money, and energy to be spent trying to make a superficially Christian America, or to put a veneer of morality over the world, is to distort the gospel, misconstrue our divine calling, and squander our God given resources. We must not weaken our spiritual mission, obscure our priority of proclaiming the gospel of salvation, or become confused about our spiritual citizenship, loyalties, and obligations. We are to change society, but by faithfully proclaiming the gospel which changes lives on the inside."
MacArthur, John. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Titus. Chicago, Ill. Moody Press, 1996, pg. 138.

What is Biblical Baptism?

2006-11-27T09:46:00.000-08:00

The following is a transcript of a sermon on baptism I preached on October 15, 2006.
As Christ commissioned the disciples before ascending to heaven, he said:
Matthew 28:18-20 "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
One would think that given the emphasis that it has in the Great Commission, the doctrine of Baptism would be a clear and accepted doctrine throughout the Christian world.
While every Christian group in the world does practice some form of Baptism, many people’s understanding of what Baptism is, what Baptism means, and how Baptism is to be done is – well – confused.
A ministerial handbook for the Latin Church says that when you baptize:
"Then the god-father or godmother, or both, holding the infant, the priest takes the baptismal water in a little vessel or jug, and pours the same three times upon the head of the infant in the form of the cross, and at the same time he says, uttering the words once only, distinctly and attentively: ' Bobby, I baptize thee in the name of the Father,' - he pours first; , and of the Son' - he pours a second time; , and of the Holy Ghost' - he pours the third time."
The ritual in use in the Russian Church goes that:
"After he has anointed the whole body the Priest baptizes the candidate, held erect and looking to-wards the east, and says: 'The servant (handmaid) of God, Bobby, is baptized in the Name of the Father, Amen; and then immerses them. And of the Son, Amen; and then immerses them; and of the Holy Ghost, Amen; and then immerses them. Now and ever, and to ages of ages, Amen, And then immerses them again.
The Nestorians take the candidate into water reaching to the neck, and dip the head three times.
The Syrians, place the candidate upright on his feet and pour water three times over his head in the name of the Trinity.
The office of the Syrian Church or Jerusalem provides a how to manual that instructs:
"The priest ... first lets the candidate down into the baptistery. Then laying his right hand on the head of the person to be baptized, with his left hand he takes up water successively from before, behind, and from each side of the candidate, and pours it upon his head. and washes his whole body.
In the Coptic Church the cus-tom has become fixed for the priest to dip the body the first time up to the middle, the second time up to the neck, and the third time over the head.
The Armenians practice baptism in a sort of odd way. Among them, we are told, "the priest asks the child's name. And on hearing it, lets the child down into the water, saying this person, servant of God, who is come from the state of childhood to Baptism, is baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' ... While saying this the priest immerses the child three times in the water, as a figure of Christ's three days' burial. Then taking the child out of the water he pours a handful of water on its head three times, say-ing, ' As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Hallelujah! As many of you as have been enlightened of the Father, the Holy Spirit is put into you. Hallelujah!"
Other groups like the Quakers and the Salvation Army believe that we should not practice baptism today. They argue that it was only to be done during the earthly ministry of Christ & has been replaced by the inward working of the Holy Spirit.
So with all the confusion surrounding baptism – who should do it, who should be baptized, and how should it be done. How can we know what baptism is and what it isn’t?
We can know what baptism is by looking to the word of God, and seeing what it says about baptism throughout the whole of God’s revelation.
As I look through the scriptures, and as I look at what it says about the doctrine of baptism, I would say that a good biblical definition of baptism is that:
Baptism is an ordinance of the church, administered to believers through immersion, that illustrates their faith in Christ, and signals their entrance into the covenant community of the church.
Just so I know that you got that mouthful, let me say it again.
Repeat.
In just a moment, we are going to open our bibles and see what it has to say about our definition of Baptism. But before we do that let’s go to the Lord in prayer and ask Him to lead this discussion and to bless it.
PRAY
The first part of our definition we should discuss is the fact that baptism is an ordinance of the church.
It is very important that we understand that baptism is an ordinance of the church, and not a sacrament of the church.
You may say isn’t that just pinching pennies? Aren’t you just playing semantics here? Ordinance/Sacrament, Tomatoes/Tomatoes – its all the same thing isn’t it?
No it really isn’t – you see, an ordinance is something that the church does because it is ordained by Christ. A sacrament is something that a church does to administer God’s grace to people.
Some denominations believe that a person must be baptized in order to be saved. They believe that through the water, God conveys His forgiveness and salvation to the person being baptized.
This kind of belief is usually found among churches that practice a high liturgy, like the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, or the Anglican & Episcopal Church, though it is sometimes found in other churches, such as some branches of the Christian Church.
You may ask where on earth did they get those ideas? Most get it from a miss-reading of 1 Peter 3.
1 Peter 3:20-21 when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—
And if we stop right there, then we start to feel a little uncomfortable. In fact, if it were not for the fact that it is written in the Bible, we would probably say that it was heresy.
And they say see, Noah was saved through the water – now we are saved through the waters of baptism.
But then they forget about the rest of verse 21, where Peter makes it abundantly clear that it is faith in Christ alone which leads us to salvation.
21 not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
In the Noah story, the waters were a destructive force sent by God to destroy creation. Noah and his family were spared from that destructive force because of their faith in God.
And here Peter is telling us that we too can be saved from the destructive forces in our world. We too can be saved from the curse of sin and death – but not through an outward washing – not by making our bodies clean on the outside – but through an inward appeal to God for a good conscience. Through belief in God and faith in the resurrection of Christ.
Baptism is not necessary for salvation – only faith in Christ can make you righteous before God.
Which leaves another question – if baptism is not necessary for salvation, then why do we need to be baptized?
In fact that was a question that I asked once that remained unanswered for me for nearly 10 years.
I was 5 years old when I accepted Christ. I immediately became an island of faith in my community – in fact I didn’t know one single Christian outside of the people I interacted with in church. My parents were not Christians, none of my friends were Christians – no one.
All I was ever told about baptism in my church was that you didn’t need to be baptized in order to be saved.
Even when I was young, I was a very pragmatic person. So I figured that if you didn’t need to be baptized, then why be baptized.
It wasn’t until I was 15 years old that someone finally explained to me why I needed to be baptized.
I needed to be baptized because Christ ordained that every person who believed in him should be baptized.
Matthew 28:19 says:
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
Baptism is that first step of faith for a disciple of Christ. When you are saved, you should be baptized soon after your conversion as a public sign of your submission to Christ’s guidance to your life.
This is a pattern seen throughout the new testament time and time again – people are saved, and then wanting to be obedient to Christ, are baptized by their local church.
Baptism is an ordinance of the church because it has been ordained by Christ.
We have already touched on this topic a little bit, the second aspect of our definition of baptism – that it should only be administered to believers.
This is where we get our term believer’s baptism. The idea that a person should accept Christ and repent of their sins before they submit to baptism.
As we read through the whole of the New Testament, we see this pattern repeated time and time again.
Acts 2:38-41 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
Acts 8:12 2 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.
Acts 10:44-47 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
Acts 8:35-38 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. 36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" 37 And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
In each of these passages, we see the same pattern – first, the person believed in Christ – then they were baptized
However, there are some who would say that this pattern is descriptive, not prescriptive – that yes, that is how things were done in the New Testament, but that doesn’t mean that it has to be done that way now.
Among some denominations that practice infant baptism, like Methodists or Lutherans, or Presbyterians, many do not see baptism as salvific – they do not believe that they are saved because of their baptism.
Instead, they argue that baptism is the New Testament equivalent of circumcision in the Old Testament.
They say that in the Old Testament, when Jewish parents had a child they circumcised him, not as a way of saving him or making him righteous, but as a means of identifying him as a Jewish person. As a person who was a part of God’s covenant community of Israel.
So they argue that baptism should also be administered to the children of Christian parents – not to save them – but to mark them as members of God’s covenant community of the church.
There are several problems with this view.
First while New Testament baptism is similar in many respects to the Old Testament circumcision – but there is not a one to one correlation.
Circumcision indicated a cultural identity – while baptism indicates a spiritual identity.
Circumcision looks forward to a coming savior, while baptism acknowledges the work of a risen savior.
Second, this argument is really a logical argument as opposed to a biblical argument.
Typically, the only passages of scripture that people use to support this view is place like when the Philippian jailer was saved and "he and his household were baptized." Or, when Lydia was saved and "her and her household were baptized."
People argue that these passages show that the infants of Christian parents were baptized in the early church.
But this is really an argument from silence. It assumes that these people had nuclear families – a husband, wife, 3.5 children and a dog living in a house with a white picket fence.
But the Bible doesn’t tell us about who was in their household, and the Bible also doesn’t tell us that these people themselves did not accept Christ before being baptized.
Really, using passages like this to support a doctrine as important as baptism is a bad idea, because these passages don’t tell us all that people want them to tell us.
When I was in college, Andrea and I had a mutual friend named Mary. Mary grew up Methodist, and as per their practice, she was baptized as an infant.
Later when she was in college, she got involved with the Baptist Student Union & started going to bible studies with us and things like that.
Mary was a Christian. She had confessed faith in Christ & she had accepted the grace of God, and so several of us started to encourage her to be biblically baptized.
Eventually she decided not to – she figured that since she had already been baptized as an infant she didn’t need to be baptized again – she acknowledged that it happened out of order, but that didn’t matter as long as it happened.
Now people ask, why do you ask believers like Mary to be rebaptized? Why does your church ask that people who were baptized as infants to be rebaptized before they can become members of your church?
Well we have to be careful about the terms we use in this discussion.
To rebaptize a person is a sin. Once a person accepts Christ and is biblically baptized, then they should never again be baptized.
So whenever a person comes to us from a denomination that practices infant baptism we do not rebaptize them, be baptize them according to biblical command.
You really can’t call infant baptism baptism because it does not meet the biblical criteria for a baptism because it is performed upon a person who has not yet accepted Christ.
You can call it a sprinkling, you can call it a dunking, or a bath, or whatever else you want to call it – but it is not a baptism.
So we see that baptism is an ordinance of the church, administered to believers –
Next we see that it is to be administered to believers through immersion
We know that there are some denominations who teach that baptism can be done through sprinkling, or pouring, or even rubbing.
But millennia ago, long before baptism was ever a church doctrine. Long before it was ever debated by theologians or church leaders baptism was a verb. A Greek verb ba,ptismw, which literally means to dip or, to immerse.
In the New Testament world, if someone ba,ptismw something, then that meant that they literally fully dipped or immersed it in a liquid.
So, whenever we baptize someone in the church, that means that we should literally dip them, or fully immerse them in the water.
Also, whenever we see a person being baptized in the New Testament, we see them being fully immersed.
In the book of Mark, when we see John coming and baptizing, we are told:
Mark 1:5 5 And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River.
Mark 1:9-10 9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him;
In order to come up from the water, it only makes sense that Jesus first was fully immersed in the water.
When Phillip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, we see
Acts 8:38 8 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Every time we see a baptism in the New Testament, we see that it was done through immersion.
Now there are some who are not impressed with the passages I just quoted – they say that just because the Bible says that they went into the water does not necessarily mean that they were fully immersed.
One Sunday, the "Minister" was giving a sermon on baptism and in the course of his sermon he was illustrating the fact that baptism should take place by sprinkling and not by immersion. He pointed out some instances in the Bible. He said that when John the Baptist baptized Jesus in the River Jordan, it didn't mean in - it meant close to, round about, or nearby. And again when it says in the Bible that Philip baptized the eunuch in the river, it didn't mean in - it meant close to, round about, or nearby.
After the service, a man came up to the minister and told him it was a great sermon, one of the best he had ever heard, and that it had cleared up a great many mysteries he had encountered in the Bible.
"For instance," he said, "the story about Jonah getting swallowed by the whale has always bothered me. Now I know that Jonah wasn't really in the whale, but close to, round about, or nearby, swimming in the water.
"Then there is the story about the three young Hebrew boys who were thrown into the furious furnace, but were not burned. Now I see that they were not really in the fire, just close to, round about, or nearby, just keeping warm.
"But the hardest of all the stories for me to believe has always been the story of Daniel getting thrown into the lions' den. But now I see that he wasn't really in the lions' den, but close to, round about, or nearby, like at the zoo.
"The revealing of these mysteries have been a real comfort me because I am a wicked man. Now I am gratified to know that I won't be in Hell, but close to, round about, or nearby. And next Sunday, I won't have to be in church, just close to, round about, or nearby. Thanks. You have really put my mind at ease."
When the bible says that people go into the water, it means that they actually went into it.
When the bible says ba,ptismw it means to literally submerge a person. So, we see that baptism should be done through immersion.
Baptism is an ordinance of the church, administered to believers through immersion,
Next we see that baptism illustrates a person’s faith in Christ
In life, there are many things that illustrate or represent a reality in our lives.
A police officer, in and of himself has no more authority than you or I. The only thing that gives him additional authority is his badge, which represents the government that vests him with authority.
This dollar in and of itself has no intrinsic value. It is a piece of paper with ink on it. It finds its value in that it represents a certain amount of gold held in the U.S. treasury.
A symbol that we are all very familiar with is the wedding ring.
On January 5th, 2002 Andrea and I stood before God and vowed to love each other – for better and for worse, for richer or poorer, through taco bell cravings at 3 am and everything else that marriage brings with it.
But you know, to look at me alone or to look at Andrea alone, you would never know that we were married to someone.
And so, to give a visible representation of our vow, we gave each other rings.
This ring says sorry ladies, this guy is taken. I have given my heart to another. My life is now inseparably bound to the life of another. I am married.
Baptism is similar to this. Baptism is an outward sign to the world – a visible declaration. I am no longer my own. I am now a Christian. I now identify myself with Christ. I have been bought with a price. And I am a redeemed person through the blood of Christ.
Romans 6:3-11 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
In many ways, the baptism service is much like a public service announcement, because through baptism, several facts are announced to the world.
Commenting on this passage, John Stott writes:
"The essential point Paul is making is that being a Christian involves a personal, vital identification with Jesus Christ, and that this union with him is dramatically set forth in our baptism."
Charles Spurgeon writes that:
What connection has this baptism with faith? I think it has just this, baptism is the avowal of faith. The man believed in Christ, but his faith remained between God and his own soul. In baptism he says to the baptizer, "I believe in Jesus Christ;" he says to the Church, "I unite with you as a believer in the common truths of Christianity;" he says to the onlooker, "Whatever you may do, as for me, I will serve the Lord." It is the avowal of his faith…baptism is also to the believer a testimony of his faith; he does in baptism tell the world what he believes. He says to the world: "I am about to be buried in water. I believe that the Son of God was metaphorically baptized in suffering: I believe he was literally dead and buried." To rise again out of the water sets forth to all men that he believes in the resurrection of Christ.
This passage of Romans is in and of itself a sermon. And if I tried touch on everything that this passage teaches us about baptism – well, your lunch will be very cold – but quickly, this passage teaches us 7 truths about baptism and how it stands as a testimony that identifies us with Christ.
1. Baptism signifies that we are now identified with the Man of life, not the man of death. (5:12-21)
2. Baptism means we can no longer continue delighting in sin, because we are now dead to sin. (6:1-2)
3. Baptism most clearly identifies us with Christ in His death. (6:3)
4. Baptism further identifies us with Christ in His resurrected life. (6:4-5)
5. Baptism affirms that we are no longer enslaved to sin for that man is now dead. (6:6-7)
6. Baptism provides an eschatological confidence that the life I have in Christ is a life that will never end. (6:8-10)
7. Baptism is the basis for my daily mortification of the flesh. (6:11-14)
And so we have seen that baptism is an ordinance of the church, administered to believers through immersion, that illustrates their faith in Christ, and
Now, that it signals their entrance into the covenant community of the church.
Earlier, we discussed how Old Testament circumcision and New Testament Baptism is not a one to one equivalent.
Circumcision was forward looking – looking to the future work of Christ
Baptism is backward looking – those who are baptized are now looking back to Christ and proclaiming that they have embraced and accepted the effects of Christ’s sacrifice – justification before God.
However, baptism is like circumcision in that it marks those who are members of the covenant community of the church.
Colossians 2:9-12 in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Baptism is that circumcision made without hands. Baptism marks you as a follower of Christ, and a member of His church.
Many people ask me why it is that it is so important that a person be baptized before they become a member of this church – or really, any other Baptist church.
Its important because Baptism serves as sort of an initiation rite.
I remember when I was initiated into the Cub Scouts.
I had earned my very first badge – the bobcat badge.
After you earned your bobcat badge, you were then initiated into the cub scouts.
What they did was that you went up in front of the pack with your parents. The pack leader gave your bobcat patch to your mother and she would pin it onto your uniform while your father picked you up and held you upside down.
And the deal was that your bobcat badge had to stay pinned to your uniform upside down until you did a good deed.
After that it could be turned over, sewn onto your uniform, making you and "official" cub scout.
And in the same way, when you are baptized by a church, then you become an official member of that church.
In the book of Acts, at Pentecost, and the preaching of John and Peter, we read that there were thousands added to the church on those days.
How were they added to the church?
Well, in Acts, we see an ongoing progression. First they were saved, then they were baptized, and were added to the church.
How were they added to the church? They were added through baptism.
They were given the spiritual mark of belief, and were accepted into the covenant community of the church.
That’s why, I believe that the best definition of a biblical baptism is that:
Baptism is an ordinance of the church, administered to believers through immersion, that illustrates their faith in Christ, and signals their entrance into the covenant community of the church.
Pray
Invitation

Hair Dryers, Alcohol, and the SBC

2006-11-20T10:17:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, my wife bought a new hair dryer. Since my hairline has been in steady retreat since I was in my late teens, I had a sneaking suspicion that it wasn’t a present for me. A few days ago while I was getting ready for church, I moved it out of my way and noticed that it had about a dozen labels, and warning stickers on it. Curious, I began to read these warnings to see what was so dangerous about a $15 hair dryer. The one label that surprised me the most read; warning: do not use this device while washing hair.

At first, I thought that this was just an over reaction of some lawyer to our culture of litigation. Honestly, who on earth would try to simultaneously wash and dry their hair? First, the abundance of water would prevent the dryer from drying the hair, and second, everyone knows that water and electrical devices like hairdryers don’t mix well. But then it hit me. This warning was here for a reason. Someone in our vast world had actually tried to do it, and had hurt themselves in the process. That was why the company had to put this ridiculous, and in my opinion, unnecessary warning on this hairdryer.

And that’s when I had one of my "aha" moments.

During the 2006 SBC annual meeting, a resolution was passed that condemned the use of alcohol. It shouldn’t be of any surprise that we would pass such a resolution, as past conventions have passed at least 60 similar resolutions over the past century. But the one aspect of this resolution that has caused a stir among some people is the exclusion of those who do drink from serving in the SBC. The exact wording of this exclusion is:

RESOLVED, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages.

This has caused a response from some spheres of Southern Baptist life who do drink, or think that drinking is not forbidden by the Bible and thus should not be forbidden by the church.

Admittedly, when I first heard of this prohibition, I also thought that it was a bit much. Not because I drink, or because I believe that the Bible approves of drinking, but because I felt that it was just common sense that Christians should not drink. But then I realized the need for such a resolution – people in the SBC were abusing alcohol, and hurting themselves, others, their witness, and their churches because of it.

Since this resolution passed, I have been shocked by the number of Southern Baptists, and Southern Baptist pastors, who admit to using alcohol – in moderation or otherwise. As I discuss this issue with seminary students (when I was in seminary), and pastors (now that I am pastoring), I have found that most people who drink do not see the practice as worldliness (as Jerry Vines described it), but almost as a sign of holiness. They see prohibitionists as biblically ignorant, pharisaical, legalistic, and some have gone so far as label supporters of the resolution as antichrists, or lost.

Which begs the question, why do prohibitionists, such as myself, feel that people should not drink? Are we really just power mad Pharisees, or are we legitimately concerned of the well being of our fellow Christians, and the well being of our denomination as a whole?

Honestly, I cannot speak for all prohibitionists, but I believe that a complete alcohol ban within the SBC would be beneficial to my individual brothers and sisters in Christ, and to the kingdom of God as a whole.

Civic Reasons for a Prohibition of Alcohol Use in the SBC

I will not camp here long, as others have made this argument very well. Alcohol use is destructive to individuals, families, and societies. Here are some interesting facts on the effects of alcohol:

Alcohol may encourage aggression by disrupting normal brain mechanisms that normally restrain impulsive behavior such as aggression. (Hingson et al, October 2001)

Alcohol is closely linked with violence. About 40 percent of all crimes (violent and non-violent) are committed under the influence of alcohol. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998)

The majority of those who reported alcohol-related DUI in the 12 months prior to a national survey are not alcohol dependent or alcohol abusers. (Caetano and McGrath, 2005)

According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2005, 16,885 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one almost every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 39 percent of the 43,443 total traffic fatalities.

Biblical Reasons for a Prohibition of Alcohol Use in the SBC

When most people object to the SBC resolution concerning alcohol, the first and loudest objection is that it has no biblical support. Admittedly, there is no passage of scripture that states "Thou shalt not drink Absolute Vodka." However, just because there is no passage of scripture that directly condemns alcohol use does not mean that the Biblical witness supports the use of alcohol. To the contrary, we will see that the Bible does in fact weave a picture of alcohol as a substance that God’s people should avoid.

First and foremost, the Bible does teach that pastors, deacons, and denominational leaders must abstain from the use of alcohol is in fact biblical.

Proverbs 31:4-5 It is not for kings to drink wine, Or for rulers to desire strong drink, 5 For they will drink and forget what is decreed, And pervert the rights of all the afflicted.

Leaders should not drink alcohol. Note the exact wording of this verse. Proverbs 31:4-5 does not just say that leaders should not abuse alcohol, it says that leaders should not drink alcohol at all.

Second, there are many passages of scripture that paints those who drink as foolish, or falling short of God’s best.

Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise.

Isaiah 28:7 7 And these also reel with wine and stagger from strong drink: The priest and the prophet reel with strong drink, They are confused by wine, they stagger from strong drink; They reel while having visions, They totter when rendering judgment.

From a brief look of these passages, we can make some basic conclusions. First, that those tasked with leadership of any kind should not drink alcohol at all. Second, because those who do drink are typically portrayed as foolish or sinful in the Bible, then we can safely conclude that it is God’s best for all people to abstain from the use of alcohol.

As a final observation, I realize that there will still be some out there who will call me a Pharisee, or a legalist, or a control freak, or biblically ignorant because the Bible doesn’t say "Thou shalt not drink alcohol." Thus concluding that alcohol use in moderation is O.K.

But lets remember, the Bible does not directly forbid many things we see as sinful.

For example, the Bible doesn’t forbid the use of marijuana, or cocaine, or meth, or many of the other drugs we see in our society.

Yet, I would wager that even those who drink "in moderation" would get pretty pharisaical pretty fast if they caught their teenage kids with a couple of hits of meth in their pockets. And I seriously doubt that their kid’s insistence that they are using the drug "in moderation" would make it O.K.

That same argument doesn’t make alcohol use O.K. either.

The Value of Remembering

2006-11-13T20:16:00.000-08:00

Veterans Day was last Saturday, and our worship service on Sunday reflected the holiday. As we started to gear up for our morning worship I looked over our bulletin – The Star Spangled Banner, America the Beautiful, and the Battle Hymn of the Republic. I sat on our front pew as our Sunday School classes began and my heart sank. Clearly, someone thought it would be a good day to stand up and let God know how great our country really is.
As our honor guard came forward with Old Glory, cynical John emerged and I started to wonder whether or not we had gone too far – were we now bowing down to Caesar? Have we taken the purple sash from Christ and replaced it with the red, white and blue?

People had come to worship, and we were holding a political rally.

When our worship leader asked all of our veterans to come forward and be recognized, cynical John was about ready to explode. I glanced over to my wife, who is usually the cynical one in the family, expecting a grimace that made me look like a happy schoolboy. But instead her face was red from fighting back tears. I looked around the rest of the sanctuary and saw mostly similar expressions.
Then I stopped and listened to our veteran’s stories, and cynical John began to get his comeuppins. We had Infantrymen from World War 2, Sailors from Korea, Marines from Vietnam, and our newest veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq. After hearing their stories cynical John was in full retreat, tail tucked firmly between his legs. These guys weren’t prideful about their service, they didn’t demand to be recognized, they weren’t fixated on the fact that they were veterans. They were just a group of guys who did what they had to do because Uncle Sam asked them to.

Did our worship service go to far in praising our country? Maybe - right now I really don’t know. But I can think of something worse than being too patriotic. And that is forgetting those people who put their lives on the line so that we could meet and worship God without harassment every single Sunday. It is right to stop and thank those men and women who expressed their love of neighbor by going to places I wouldn’t want to go, doing things that I wouldn’t want to do, and being shot at by people who really, really wanted to do them harm.
I guess that even cynical John can learn a lesson now and then.

What Is the Church

2006-11-06T08:40:00.000-08:00

Last week I had the opportunity to attend the annual conference of the American Society for Church Growth hosted by Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Missouri. This year’s conference was called "Church Out of the Box, What Is It?" Over the course of the conference, we discussed the different expressions of the postmodern church, such as cluster churches, multi site churches, drum circle worship, and improv churches. But the most interesting session of the conference was presented by Dr. Ed Stetzer, a Missiologist for the North American Mission Board for the Southern Baptist Convention. His session was entitled "HOW FAR OUT OF THE BOX? - A LOOK AT THE BIBLICAL PRESCRIPTIONS OF CHURCH AND THEIR APPLICATION THROUGH INNOVATIVE MODELS." In his session, Dr. Stetzer looked through various passages of scripture to find the core essentials of what every church should have, regardless of how it otherwise expresses itself.
Stetzer first asserted that the church does indeed matter. The church may not be the center of God’s plan, but it is central to his plan, as God intends to make his glory known through the church. Ephesians 3:10 notes: the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord. Later, in this same chapter, God again shows us that the church is the medium through which he displays his glory by saying "to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen" (vs 21).
After establishing the centrality of the church in God’s plan, Dr. Stetzer then went on to offer six essentials that every organization must possess in order to be considered a New Testament Church.

Scriptural Authority
The primitive church was first and foremost rooted in the scriptures. Every time an Apostle/disciple spoke, he consistently appealed to the scriptures as the basis of their authority. In 2 Timothy, Paul forever establishes the authority of the scriptures when he wrote: from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Biblical Leadership
While what we may call the leaders of our churches are optional, the need for leadership, and the spiritual qualifications for leadership are not. Biblically speaking, there are two offices in the church, that of pastor/elder/overseer (see my post on Oct. 30, entitled "The roles of Pastors, Elders, and Congregations in a New Testament Church"), and the office of deacon.
The Bible also indicates that having the right person to fill these offices is also important. There are passages that list the qualifications for the aforementioned offices (1 Timothy 3:1-14, and Titus 1:5-9). Paul’s discussion in these passages focuses on qualifications of these offices as opposed to their duties. The list also indicates that certain individuals would be qualified to serve and others would not. It’s interesting to note that Paul places as much emphasis on the quality of one’s character as he does the nature of the duty.

Preaching and Teaching
People need the preaching and teaching of God’s word. Paul instructs Timothy to devote himself to preaching and teaching (1 Timothy 4:12), and also writes that: "faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" in Romans 10.

Ordinances
During his earthly ministry, Christ ordained that his church should do certain things to honor and worship him. These things were the Lord’s Supper, which Christ commanded be done in "remembrance of me." And Baptism, which Christ commanded to be administered to every new convert.

Covenant Community
One of the core essentials of a church is that it is a group of believers in covenant community. As a covenant community, a church must share several common commitments, as found in Acts 2:42-47. First, a church must hold common doctrinal convictions (vs. 42). Second, a church must devote itself to congregational prayer (vs. 44). And finally, a church must devote itself to worship (vs. 46).

Mission
Churches are called to saturate the world with the Gospel. Jesus’ last word to his disciples was a commission to worldwide evangelism (Matthew 28)

The roles of Pastors, Elders, and Congregations in a New Testament Church

2006-10-30T08:18:00.000-08:00

As I read through the scriptures, I find that we are led toward a polity in which a singular or plurality of pastors/elders teaches and guides those under their care, while the congregation corporately agrees upon a church wide vision and a set of goals that the church as a whole seeks to carry out, under the direction of the pastor/elders and the deacons. This model is virtually identical to the Congregational model, with the exception that it remains silent on the exact number of pastor/elders, largely because the scriptures themselves remain silent on this issue.

The Biblical Mandate for and Role of the Pastor/Elder

In its discussions of the Early Church, the New Testament calls for two offices to rule over and guide the church. The first office of pastor/elder is tasked with teaching and providing spiritual guidance while the second office of the deacon is tasked with caring for the temporal needs of the church so that the pastor/elder may devote himself to the study and teaching of the Word. For the purpose of this post, I will primarily focus on the biblical mandate and role of the first office of pastor/elder.
The New Testament identifies a church’s first office with three terms. The first is presbuterouV, which is translated "elder," episkopoV, which is typically translated as either overseer or bishop, and poimhn, which is usually translated as pastor or shepherd. Given that the New Testament uses these terms interchangeably and occasionally uses them together to refer to the different roles of the one office (1Peter 5:1 - 3), one may conclude that these terms are understood to be synonymous in the New Testament writings. While the aforementioned evidence establishes the fact that the New Testament calls for the guidance of pastor/elders over a New Testament church, it would be prudent to stop here to examine whether or not the biblical texts call for a specific number of pastor/elders. Some would correctly point out that the term presbuterouV is always plural in the New Testament, and thus conclude that the Bible calls for a plurality of elders. However, the terms episkopoV and poimhn, are often found in the singular tense in the New Testament, thus nullifying the conclusion that the New Testament calls for a plurality of elders. Based upon my readings of the texts, I find no reason to argue for a singular or plurality of pastor/elders dogmatically, and therefore conclude that such a decision may be left up to the congregation as it feels led and needs demand.
In Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity, Dr. Daniel Akin notes that the New Testament pastor/elder is given eight specific roles.

First, he has overall responsibility and oversight of his congregation (Heb. 13:17).
Second, he is to seek the mind of Christ (Eph. 1:22).
Third, he must be apt to preach and teach (Eph. 4:11).
Fourth, he shall maintain the health of relationships in the church (Gal. 6:1).
Fifth, the pastor/elder shall exercise at least a general oversight of the church’s finances (Acts 11:30).
Sixth, he shall lead in the appointment of deacons (Acts 6:1 - 6).
Seventh, he is to lead by example (Heb. 13:7).
Finally, the pastor/elder is to lead in the exercise of church discipline (Gal. 6:1).

From Dr. Akin’s overview of the roles of the pastor/elder, one may quickly see that the pastor/elder’s primary function it to lead the teaching ministry of the church, and provide guidance to the church in its decision making processes.

The Biblical Basis for the Congregation’s Participation in the Church’s Polity

Throughout the course of the New Testament, we find that the congregation was the final temporal authority within their local church. In various passages, we find that the congregation was responsible for the authorization of new leaders, the discipline of church members, and the approval of plans and goals presented to them by their leadership. Because this pattern of congregational participation is laid out for us in the scriptures, it is then mandatory for us to model our church’s polity in a similar fashion.
We best see evidence for the congregation’s first role in church government, the authorization of new leadership, in passages such as Acts 11:22 and Acts 13:1. In Acts 11, we see that persecution scattered the church at Jerusalem, and that some believers had settled in Antioch. While in Antioch, they had an opportunity to lead many to faith in Christ. When news of this work reached Jerusalem, the church body as a whole commissioned Barnabas to go to Antioch for the purpose of teaching and training those new believers. By the beginning of Acts 13, the church at Antioch had been well established, and through the leading of the Holy Spirit felt called to begin sending missionaries themselves. Following the leading of the Spirit, the church commissioned Barnabas and Saul as missionaries, and sent them on their first missionary journey.
Evidence for the congregation’s second role in church government, the discipline of the church’s members, is seen in many instances in the book of first and second Corinthians. From these passages, I believe that 1 Corinthians 5 is the best illustration of the church’s responsibility to exercise oversight over the spiritual purity of its members. In the opening verses of 1 Corinthians 5, Paul notes that an extreme case of sexual immorality existed in the congregation. After examining this case, Paul concluded that the Corinthians must remove the offender from fellowship. However, Paul does not exercise his Apostolic authority to excommunicate the offender, nor does he call upon the pastor/elders to remove him from membership. Instead, Paul calls on the congregation to remove this person from them "when they are assembled together" (vs. 4).
Evidence for the congregation’s third role in church government, the approval of plans and goals presented to them by their leadership, is best illustrated in passages such as Acts 6. In the opening verses of Acts 6, we find that the church had grown too large for the Apostles to govern alone, as evidenced by the fact that many were being overlooked during the daily distribution of bread. To solve this problem, the Apostles proposed that seven men should be selected from the church to oversee the physical needs of the congregation so that the Apostles could focus on their teaching ministry. However, while implementing this plan, the Apostles did not unilaterally exercise their authority over the church, but instead submitted their proposal to the congregation at large, which "found approval with the whole congregation" (vs. 5).
Finally, as a sidebar, there are also theological reasons for seeking a congregational polity, most notably based in the fact that the Holy Spirit has gifted every believer to lead. Throughout the course of the Bible, those endowed with the Holy Spirit have been charged with leadership over God’s people (Josh. 1, Judges 13, 1 Sam 9/16, Matt. 3, Acts 2). Today, all those who place their faith in Jesus have received the Holy Spirit, and with Him the call and responsibility to lead God’s people. By not allowing them to exercise that calling, we are robbing them of the exercise of their God - given abilities.

Theological Triage

2006-10-23T11:41:00.000-07:00

Any time we stop to discuss a theological issue, one of the first questions we should ask ourselves is how important is this?

After observing a triage unit in a local hospital, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, developed a system of Theological Triage to help us determine how important any given doctrine is to our spiritual lives.

Dr. Mohler’s system of theological triage divides all doctrines into three main categories:

Primary Doctrines – those doctrines which all Christians can agree on, and separates Christians from Non – Christians.

Secondary Doctrines – those doctrines which we must agree on in order to cooperate together. These doctrines separates Christians into different denominations.

Tertiary Doctrines – those doctrines which should not divide Christians.

Dr. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology at SBTS, modifies Dr. Mohler’s system slightly to help us further assign importance to our doctrines. Dr. Moore subdivides the tertiary doctrines into 3rd tier and 4th tier doctrines. He notes that:

3rd tier doctrines are doctrines that we must agree on in order to cooperate within a local church. These doctrines would divide Christians into different local churches that are still able to cooperate within the same denomination.

4th tier doctrines are doctrines that Christians can "agree to disagree" and still remain in the same local church.

Thus, our theological triage pyramid would look like this:

While this system is very helpful, it does leave us with one big question: where do our various doctrines lie on this triage spectrum?

As I look at the various Christian doctrines, I believe that a good breakdown would be:

Primary Doctrines (Doctrines that all Christians should agree on) – Salvation through Christ alone through grace alone by faith alone. A proper understanding of God (Trinitarian, Human/Divine Nature of Christ). The physical resurrection of Christ.

Secondary Doctrines – (Doctrines that we must agree on to cooperate denominationally) – Biblical Inerrancy, The meaning, nature, and method of the ordinances (Baptism & Lord’s Supper). Security of the Believer. Gender Roles in church leadership.

3rd Tier Doctrines – (Doctrines that that we must agree on in order to cooperate within a local church) – Polity. Church Discipline. Tongues.

4th Tier Doctrines – (Doctrines that we can "agree to disagree" and still remain in the same local church) – Issues of Practical Holiness (Such as alcohol use). Millennial Views. Political Affiliation. Issues surrounding God’s sovereignty.

I think that this is a fair and balanced breakdown of Christian doctrines. However, In order for Christians to cooperate and not fight over tertiary (3rd & 4th tier doctrines), we must all agree on their proper place on the spectrum of triage – something that I seriously doubt will ever happen.

Take for example the issue of tongues – an issue that, in my opinion, gets discussed way too much given the fact that it is a tertiary doctrine.

I have met many people who have assigned this doctrine to very different places on the triage spectrum.

I have friends from college who hail from a Fundamentalist Pentecostal position, who argue that because tongues illustrates the receipt of the Holy Spirit, all people who are saved will speak in tongues – thus elevating the doctrine to a primary position.
Even though I see tongues as a tertiary doctrine, I cannot cooperate with these people in spiritual endeavors.

I have other friends who feel that one can be saved and not speak in tongues. However, they feel that glossolalia is normative and all Christians should seek out the gift – elevating the doctrine to a secondary doctrine.
I have an easier time cooperating with these people, but still, we should probably remain in different denominations

I also have friends who are of the "3rd wave charismatic" persuasion – people who agree that tongues is a tertiary doctrine - but for some reason they think that everyone must see glossolalia as possible, so they talk about it and argue about it every chance they get.
I do have a hard time cooperating with these people. Not so much because of their theological position, but because they’re jerks about it.

Agreeing on the proper place of our doctrines on the spectrum of theological triage (and treating said doctrines accordingly) will do much to help us cooperate with others who disagree with us over tertiary doctrines. I believe that agreement in this area will also help us to define the "size of the tent" in the SBC.

Has the gifts of tongues ceased?

2006-10-16T19:37:00.000-07:00

First – an important note – there are no true cessasionists in the church. All believe that the Holy Spirit continues to work in the life of the church guiding, convicting, and bringing Biblical teaching to the mind of the believer. Equally, there are also no true continuationists either. All agree that not all of the abilities given to New Testament personalities are still given today. Things like being able to read people’s minds, knowing the condition of their hearts, and pronouncing judgement on them.

That being said, we must ask what continues now and what has ceased.

My position is that glossolalia; the speaking of tongues as ecstatic worship and as a personal prayer language has ceased in the church. I will support this position through a historical analysis of the phenomenon and a Biblical explanation of the purpose and use of glossolalia.

HISTORY

The use of tongues (a typically unknown or angelic language) may not have been prevalent in the early church, but was present. (Its purpose will be discussed later) 1 Corinthians provides us with ample evidence of the practice’s presence in the early church. It has been noted before that most scholars agree that the term tongues (glw,ssaij) did mean ecstatic speech.
However, after the apostolic period ended, there were no further credible accounts of the use of tongues in the church. In fact the only account of the use of tongues outside of the apostolic era came from a monk in the mid 6th century. He claimed to have spoken in tongues - but since he also claimed to have evangelized wild beasts, tamed dragons, and converted demons into angels, this account is less than credible.
For almost 1900 years of church history the issue of tongues was settled – it had ceased. No one ever claimed to have spoken in tongues. Not Popes, not heretics, not the reformers, not the "revolutionary" anabaptists, not even in the mystical Catholic sects led by Teresa of Avila or John of the Cross. Tongues was not an issue for 1900 years, they had stopped.
But, in 1900, the "gift of tongues" was rediscovered in Kansas, taken to Texas, before being made popular at Azusa Street in California. I think that most of us know the history from there.
From this we see that the question that charismatics must answer is not whether or not the gift of tongues has continued, but why did it cease for 1900 years before reemerging at Azusa St.?
The earliest Pentecostals had a somewhat reasonable answer to this question. They reasoned that the time had come when "young men have visions & old men dream dreams." They figured that the Spirit was now being poured out because Christ’s second coming was eminent. However, 106 years has passed since then & now few people will argue this reasoning. Now they suggest that the gift of tongues has always existed in the church. But this ignores the historical record & the question remains, why did tongues cease for 1900 years before reemerging at Azusa St.?

BIBLICAL

Typically a discussion on glossolalia centers on 1 Corinthians 14. Here Paul outlines the proper uses of tongues in the church.
In verses 1 – 27 he shows how they should be used in an orderly fashion. He then goes on to state in vs 28 – 33 to explain how the gift should be used when not in order (when no interpreter is present).
But one verse in this passage is usually dismissed by the charismatics I know, verse 6, in which Paul outlines the purpose of tongues. He states:
1 Corinthians 14:6 6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? (Emphasis added)
Here Paul shows us that the purpose of tongues is providing direct revelation from God that is authoritative and binding upon the church. (For a full discussion on these terms, please refer to the Barclay Newman Greek English Dictionary, Friberg Analytical Greek Lexicon, Gingrich Greek NT Lexicon, Liddell Scott Abridged Lexicon, Louw Nida Greek English Lexicon of the NT, and the Thayer Greek English Lexicon of the NT, all agree that these terms were used to describe authoritative revelation from God).

Unlike the Corinthian church, we now have a complete revelation from God, the Bible. The need for direct authoritative communication from God to His church is no longer needed, thus the gift of tongues is no longer needed.
This principle can also be applied to other biblical precedents that have now ceased, such as the office of Apostle.
(note: I am aware that some denominations do confer the title Apostle upon some of their leaders. However, these denominations recognize that these people are Apostles in the general sense of the term (messengers), not Apostles in the technical sense of the term (as applied to the twelve and Paul).
The qualifications of being an Apostle are found in Acts 1:22, that they walked with Jesus in the flesh and witnessed his resurrection. Today, no one can meet the qualifications of the office, thus the office of Apostle has ceased.
Equally, the need for tongues has ceased, thus the gift has as well.

Can this happy cessasionist become a happy continuationist when it comes to glossolalia? Absolutely, but I’ll need some help on the way. Three questions must be answered.

First, why did tongues cease for 1900 years before reemerging at Azusa St.?

Second, does the modern use the tongues fit the purposes outlined in 1 Corinthians 14:6? Are they providing direct revelation from God that is authoritative and binding upon the church?

Third (from #2), if the Bible is sufficient for holiness, then why do we need a gift that is providing direct revelation from God that is authoritative and binding upon the church?

I’ve asked these questions to every continuationist I’ve met for the past I don’t know how many years. Usually I just get blown off. If someone could provide an answer I am willing to listen.

A Parental Theology

2006-10-09T21:13:00.000-07:00

I started pastoring my current church about 4 months ago. In that time my congregation has generously embraced many of my quirks – like making up words and phrases that some times sounds like gibberish. I figure I should have some latitude in my use of the language – my undergraduate degree is in English after all – that makes me an authority if the field right?
One of the phrases I catch myself using quite a bit is the phrase "scary exciting". I use it to define a goal that is so big and lofty that the work, time, and luck required to make it a success is, well, scary. But at the same time the rewards of meeting that goal are so equally large that you can help but being excited about it. That’s scary exciting.
I had a scary exciting moment today with the birth of my first child.
As I looked at my boy I saw so much potential – potential that may be unlocked or squandered through my parenting.
As I looked at him, I couldn’t help but to ask myself, how on earth am I suppose to raise him? How should Christians parent their children?
This may seem like an elementary question to some, but for me this idea of being a Christian parent is a great quandary – mainly because I have never seen a consistent example of Christian parenting.
My father is a Christian man of the highest caliber. When he accepted Christ his life turned on a dime. Today he is an example godliness and dedication. The only problem with this is that he accepted Christ in 2000, while I was attending college 3 hours away from home and pastoring my first church. I accepted Christ nearly 15 years earlier and immediately became a Christian island in my community. Outside of my church that I attended for a few hours on Sundays, I never had any contact with another Christian. My family was lost; my neighbors were lost, as were my friends and their families as well. And so as I grew up, the only parenting that I ever saw was worldly parenting. Parents raising children based on principles that were family traditions or that "got them through life." Parents disciplining their children with punitive discipline done in anger as opposed to discipline that guides to righteousness.
As a teen I started to associate with other Christian families through my youth group. This gave me a chance to see some Christian parenting from a distance, but hardly enough to guide me now.
So now I ask myself, how should Christians raise their children? Below I list the 4 principles that I came up with. These principles are hardly exhaustive, but they should provide us with a foundation and a starting point to help us as we seed to become godly parents.

1 – Model the Christian life through your life.

Titus 2:7-8 7 in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, 8 sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.

In my house the phrase "do what I say, not what I do" was almost a mantra. My parents realized that they had bad habits ingrained into their lives that they did not want to pass on to me. Accordingly, I was taught that such things were wrong. But I still did them. Why? Because I saw my parents doing them. The morals that we teach our children will have only a limited effect on their lives, but the morals we model for our children will be embraced and imitated by our children throughout their lives. We must model the Christian life for them through our life because ultimately more is caught than taught.

2 – Use every opportunity to teach your children the full counsel of God.

Deuteronomy 11:18-19 18 "You shall therefore impress these words of mine on your heart and on your soul; and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. 19 "You shall teach them to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up.

When it comes to a child’s education, no one is more important than a child’s parents. This is even more true when it comes to a child’s spiritual education. God’s word and its implications are sometimes difficult to grasp, especially for small children. Therefore parents, especially fathers, should constantly be on the lookout for opportunities to teach their children about God in their day to day lives.

3 – Discipline your children as a means of teaching and restoring them.

Unfortunately, at some point in time in a child’s life, they will "color outside the lines" and do something that they know is wrong. At those times, we must discipline our children as a way of loving them. Proverbs 13:24 says he who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.
But what is the purpose of discipline? We disciple to correct. We discipline to teach boundaries. We discipline to bring our children willingly back into God given guidelines for living.
When the Bible speaks of discipline, it speaks of a restorative discipline. Speaking on church discipline, Matthew 18:15 says "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. Equally in our families, if a child does something wrong, show him his fault & guide him out if it to righteousness.

4 – Realize that ultimately God is in full control of their lives.

Psalm 127:1 Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman keeps awake in vain.

A wise man once said; "You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink." In life there is so much that a person can do. We can teach our children about God, we can model faith to them, we can pray for them and put them on the path of righteousness, but we cannot force them to become Christians or follow after God. When we look in the lives of the Old Testament saints we see people who were put on the right path by their parents, but only became faithful men or women by seeking and following God. The best example of this is the life of Samuel. Samuel’s family dedicated him to the Lord – they set him on the right path, but it was God who led him.

Father God, tonight I pray that you would build me into a God honoring father. Help me to never forget that my son is both a gift from you and a gift to you. Please help me be a wise steward of his life as I guide him to you.

Why Another Blog?

2006-10-07T17:58:00.000-07:00

As I sit here writing my first blog, I ask myself why on earth do we need another blog? My mind wanders to one of my guilty pleasures in life, watching the Simpsons. In one episode, Lisa takes on the media-industrial-complex by publishing her own newspaper. Her endeavor fails, but it inspires everyone else to start writing and distributing their own papers. As he is handed several papers, Homer gets the in last word when he says "finally, now everyone with access to a photocopier can spread their worthless ideas."
That’s how I have felt about blogs for a long time (still do to some extent). But, it is a valuable tool, and if everyone else is going to publish their ideas, then I might as well get in on it too.
My hope is to publish one thought per week, on Mondays, on theological issues we face as Christians as a whole, and Southern Baptists in particular. Given that I am a new pastor with way too much on my plate and my first child due in a week or so I cannot promise consistency, but that is my hope.
Quick note – I really just want to deal with topics, but inevitably names will get attached to those topics. As Christians we must keep our comments dignified and respectable. That too will be a goal of mine.
Blessings