Sunday, December 27, 2009
A Reunion to Remember
The kids were thrilled to finally be able to meet Annie. Because of H1N1 fears kids under 12 are not allowed to visit anyone in the hospital.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Pragmatism and the Pulpit by John MacArthur
What Is Pragmatism & Why Is It Bad?
Wednesday, Dec 16, 2009
By John MacArthur
"In a column published some years ago in a popular Christian magazine, a well-known preacher was venting his own loathing for long sermons. January 1 was coming, so he resolved to do better in the coming year. "That means wasting less time listening to long sermons and spending much more time preparing short ones," he wrote. "People, I've discovered, will forgive even poor theology as long as they get out before noon."1
Unfortunately, that perfectly sums up the predominant attitude behind much of ministry today. Bad doctrine is tolerable; a long sermon most certainly is not. The timing of the benediction is of far more concern to the average churchgoer than the content of the sermon. Sunday dinner and the feeding of our mouths takes precedence over Sunday school and the nourishment of our souls. Long-windedness has become a greater sin than heresy.
The church has imbibed the worldly philosophy of pragmatism, and we're just beginning to taste the bitter results.
What Is Pragmatism?
Pragmatism is the notion that meaning or worth is determined by practical consequences. It is closely akin to utilitarianism, the belief that usefulness is the standard of what is good. To a pragmatist/utilitarian, if a technique or course of action has the desired effect, it is good. If it doesn't seem to work, it must be wrong.
Pragmatism as a philosophy was developed and popularized at the end of the last century by philosopher William James, along with such other noted intellectuals as John Dewey and George Santayana. It was James who gave the new philosophy its name and shape. In 1907, he published a collection of lectures entitled Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, and thus defined a whole new approach to truth and life.
Pragmatism has roots in Darwinism and secular humanism. It is inherently relativistic, rejecting the notion of absolute right and wrong, good and evil, truth and error. Pragmatism ultimately defines truth as that which is useful, meaningful, helpful. Ideas that don't seem workable or relevant are rejected as false.
What's wrong with pragmatism?
After all, common sense involves a measure of legitimate pragmatism, doesn't it? If a dripping faucet works fine after you replace the washers, for example, it is reasonable to assume that bad washers were the problem. If the medicine your doctor prescribes produces harmful side effects or has no effect at all, you need to ask if there's a remedy that works. Such simple pragmatic realities are generally self-evident.
But when pragmatism is used to make judgments about right and wrong, or when it becomes a guiding philosophy of life and ministry, it inevitably clashes with Scripture. Spiritual and biblical truth is not determined by testing what "works" and what doesn't. We know from Scripture, for example, that the gospel often does not produce a positive response (1 Cor. 1:22, 23; 2:14). On the other hand, Satanic lies and deception can be quite effective (Matt. 24:23, 24; 2 Cor. 4:3, 4). Majority reaction is no test of validity (cf. Matt. 7:13, 14), and prosperity is no measure of truthfulness (cf. Job 12:6). Pragmatism as a guiding philosophy of ministry is inherently flawed. Pragmatism as a test of truth is nothing short of satanic.
Nevertheless, an overpowering surge of ardent pragmatism is sweeping through evangelicalism. Traditional methodology—most notably preaching—is being discarded or downplayed in favor of newer means, such as drama, dance, comedy, variety, side-show histrionics, pop-psychology, and other entertainment forms. The new methods supposedly are more "effective"—that is, they draw a bigger crowd. And since the chief criterion for gauging the success of a church has become attendance figures, whatever pulls in the most people is accepted without further analysis as good. That is pragmatism.
Perhaps the most visible signs of pragmatism are seen in the convulsive changes that have revolutionized the church worship service in the past two decades. Some of evangelicalism's largest and most influential churches now boast Sunday services that are designed purposely to be more rollicking than reverent.
Even worse, theology now takes a back seat to methodology. One author has written, "Formerly, a doctrinal statement represented the reason for a denomination's existence. Today, methodology is the glue that holds churches together. A statement of ministry defines them and their denominational existence."2 Incredibly, many believe this is a positive trend, a major advance for the contemporary church.
Some church leaders evidently think the four priorities of the early church—the apostles' teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42)—make a lame agenda for the church in this day and age. Churches are allowing drama, recreation, entertainment, self-help programs, and similar enterprises to eclipse the importance of traditional Sunday worship and fellowship. In fact, everything seems to be in fashion in the church today except biblical preaching. The new pragmatism sees preaching—particularly expository preaching—as pass‚. Plainly declaring the truth of God's Word is regarded as offensive and utterly ineffective. We're now told we can get better results by first amusing people or giving them pop-psychology and thus wooing them into the fold. Once they feel comfortable, they'll be ready to receive biblical truth in small, diluted doses.
Pastors are turning to books on marketing methods in search of new techniques to help churches grow. Many seminaries have shifted their pastoral training emphasis from Bible curriculum and theology to counseling technique and church-growth theory. All these trends reflect the church's growing commitment to pragmatism."
Wednesday, Dec 16, 2009
By John MacArthur
"In a column published some years ago in a popular Christian magazine, a well-known preacher was venting his own loathing for long sermons. January 1 was coming, so he resolved to do better in the coming year. "That means wasting less time listening to long sermons and spending much more time preparing short ones," he wrote. "People, I've discovered, will forgive even poor theology as long as they get out before noon."1
Unfortunately, that perfectly sums up the predominant attitude behind much of ministry today. Bad doctrine is tolerable; a long sermon most certainly is not. The timing of the benediction is of far more concern to the average churchgoer than the content of the sermon. Sunday dinner and the feeding of our mouths takes precedence over Sunday school and the nourishment of our souls. Long-windedness has become a greater sin than heresy.
The church has imbibed the worldly philosophy of pragmatism, and we're just beginning to taste the bitter results.
What Is Pragmatism?
Pragmatism is the notion that meaning or worth is determined by practical consequences. It is closely akin to utilitarianism, the belief that usefulness is the standard of what is good. To a pragmatist/utilitarian, if a technique or course of action has the desired effect, it is good. If it doesn't seem to work, it must be wrong.
Pragmatism as a philosophy was developed and popularized at the end of the last century by philosopher William James, along with such other noted intellectuals as John Dewey and George Santayana. It was James who gave the new philosophy its name and shape. In 1907, he published a collection of lectures entitled Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, and thus defined a whole new approach to truth and life.
Pragmatism has roots in Darwinism and secular humanism. It is inherently relativistic, rejecting the notion of absolute right and wrong, good and evil, truth and error. Pragmatism ultimately defines truth as that which is useful, meaningful, helpful. Ideas that don't seem workable or relevant are rejected as false.
What's wrong with pragmatism?
After all, common sense involves a measure of legitimate pragmatism, doesn't it? If a dripping faucet works fine after you replace the washers, for example, it is reasonable to assume that bad washers were the problem. If the medicine your doctor prescribes produces harmful side effects or has no effect at all, you need to ask if there's a remedy that works. Such simple pragmatic realities are generally self-evident.
But when pragmatism is used to make judgments about right and wrong, or when it becomes a guiding philosophy of life and ministry, it inevitably clashes with Scripture. Spiritual and biblical truth is not determined by testing what "works" and what doesn't. We know from Scripture, for example, that the gospel often does not produce a positive response (1 Cor. 1:22, 23; 2:14). On the other hand, Satanic lies and deception can be quite effective (Matt. 24:23, 24; 2 Cor. 4:3, 4). Majority reaction is no test of validity (cf. Matt. 7:13, 14), and prosperity is no measure of truthfulness (cf. Job 12:6). Pragmatism as a guiding philosophy of ministry is inherently flawed. Pragmatism as a test of truth is nothing short of satanic.
Nevertheless, an overpowering surge of ardent pragmatism is sweeping through evangelicalism. Traditional methodology—most notably preaching—is being discarded or downplayed in favor of newer means, such as drama, dance, comedy, variety, side-show histrionics, pop-psychology, and other entertainment forms. The new methods supposedly are more "effective"—that is, they draw a bigger crowd. And since the chief criterion for gauging the success of a church has become attendance figures, whatever pulls in the most people is accepted without further analysis as good. That is pragmatism.
Perhaps the most visible signs of pragmatism are seen in the convulsive changes that have revolutionized the church worship service in the past two decades. Some of evangelicalism's largest and most influential churches now boast Sunday services that are designed purposely to be more rollicking than reverent.
Even worse, theology now takes a back seat to methodology. One author has written, "Formerly, a doctrinal statement represented the reason for a denomination's existence. Today, methodology is the glue that holds churches together. A statement of ministry defines them and their denominational existence."2 Incredibly, many believe this is a positive trend, a major advance for the contemporary church.
Some church leaders evidently think the four priorities of the early church—the apostles' teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42)—make a lame agenda for the church in this day and age. Churches are allowing drama, recreation, entertainment, self-help programs, and similar enterprises to eclipse the importance of traditional Sunday worship and fellowship. In fact, everything seems to be in fashion in the church today except biblical preaching. The new pragmatism sees preaching—particularly expository preaching—as pass‚. Plainly declaring the truth of God's Word is regarded as offensive and utterly ineffective. We're now told we can get better results by first amusing people or giving them pop-psychology and thus wooing them into the fold. Once they feel comfortable, they'll be ready to receive biblical truth in small, diluted doses.
Pastors are turning to books on marketing methods in search of new techniques to help churches grow. Many seminaries have shifted their pastoral training emphasis from Bible curriculum and theology to counseling technique and church-growth theory. All these trends reflect the church's growing commitment to pragmatism."
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Welcome Anna! Praise the Lord
Our new little girl just a few minutes after God brought her into our world. :) We are praying that her lungs get strong soon so we can hold her!
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Will you sign the Manhattan Declaration? (No)
Dr. Sproul provides some good insight below.
"On November 20, 2009, a document called the Manhattan Declaration was presented to the public by a coalition of cobelligerents. The document is concerned primarily with three very important biblical and cultural issues: the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage, and the nature of religious liberty. Without question, these issues are up for grabs in our nation.
As anyone familiar with my ministry will know, I share the document’s concern for defending the unborn, defining heterosexual marriage biblically, and preserving a proper relationship between church and state. However, when the document was sent to me and my signature was requested a few weeks ago, I declined to sign it.
In answer to the question, “R.C., why didn’t you sign the Manhattan Declaration?” I offer the following answer: The Manhattan Declaration confuses common grace and special grace by combining them. While I would march with the bishop of Rome and an Orthodox prelate to resist the slaughter of innocents in the womb, I could never ground that cobelligerency on the assumption that we share a common faith and a unified understanding of the gospel.
The framers of the Manhattan Declaration seem to have calculated this objection into the language of the document itself. Likewise, some signers have stated that this is not a theological document. However, to make that statement accurate requires a redefinition of “theology” and serious equivocation on the biblical meaning of “the gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4).
The drafters of the document, Charles Colson, Robert George, and Timothy George, used deliberate language that is on par with the ecumenical language of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) movement that began in the 1990s. The Manhattan Declaration states, “Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s Word,” and it identifies “Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelicals” as “Christians.” The document calls Christians to unite in “the Gospel,” “the Gospel of costly grace,” and “the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness.” Moreover, the document says, “it is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season.”
Without question, biblical truth must be proclaimed and the gospel preached prophetically to our nation. But how could I sign something that confuses the gospel and obscures the very definition of who is and who is not a Christian? I have made this point again and again since the days of ECT. Though the framers of the Manhattan Declaration declaim any connection to ECT, it appears to me that the Manhattan Declaration is inescapably linked to that initiative, which I have strenuously resisted. More than that, this new document practically assumes the victory of ECT in using the term “the gospel” in reference to that which Roman Catholics are said to “proclaim” (Phil. 1:27).
The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of using studied ambiguity in order to win over opponents. Let me be unambiguous: Without a clear understanding of sola fide and the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, you do not have the gospel or gospel unity (1 Cor. 1:17; 2 Cor. 5:21). The ECT initiative repeatedly avowed that the signatories had a unity of faith in the gospel. This included Roman Catholic signers who affirm the canons and decrees of the sixteenth-century Council of Trent, which anathematizes sola fide. I believe there are true and sincere Christians within the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches. But these people are Christians in spite of their church’s official doctrinal positions.
At least one of the document’s framers, Mr. Colson, sees the Manhattan Declaration as a way to revitalize the church in America. In his commentary on November 25, Mr. Colson said the Manhattan Declaration is “a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith.” He suggests that the Manhattan Declaration is an antidote to “biblical and doctrinal ignorance” within the church. However, true reformation and revival within the church and the winning of our culture to Christ will come only through the power of the Holy Spirit and our clear, bold proclamation of the biblical gospel, not through joint ecumenical statements that equivocate on the most precious truths given to us. There is no other gospel than that which has already been given (Gal. 1:6–8).
The Manhattan Declaration puts evangelical Christians in a tight spot. I have dear friends in the ministry who have signed this document, and my soul plummeted when I saw their names. I think my friends were misled and that they made a mistake, and I want to carefully assert that I have spoken with some of them personally about their error and have expressed my hope that they will remove their signatures from this document. Nevertheless, I remain in fellowship with them at this time and believe they are men of integrity who affirm the biblical gospel and the biblical doctrines articulated in the Protestant Reformation.
Lastly, I stand with the sentiments expressed by my friends Alistair Begg, Michael Horton, and John MacArthur, and I appreciate their willingness to say “no” to the call to get aboard this bandwagon as they continue to stand firm in their proclamation of the gospel and the whole counsel of God as it pertains to all matters of faith and life, including the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage, and the nature of religious liberty. It is only in our united proclamation of the one, true gospel of Jesus Christ that any heart, any mind, or any nation will truly change, by God’s sovereign grace and for His glory alone."
"On November 20, 2009, a document called the Manhattan Declaration was presented to the public by a coalition of cobelligerents. The document is concerned primarily with three very important biblical and cultural issues: the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage, and the nature of religious liberty. Without question, these issues are up for grabs in our nation.
As anyone familiar with my ministry will know, I share the document’s concern for defending the unborn, defining heterosexual marriage biblically, and preserving a proper relationship between church and state. However, when the document was sent to me and my signature was requested a few weeks ago, I declined to sign it.
In answer to the question, “R.C., why didn’t you sign the Manhattan Declaration?” I offer the following answer: The Manhattan Declaration confuses common grace and special grace by combining them. While I would march with the bishop of Rome and an Orthodox prelate to resist the slaughter of innocents in the womb, I could never ground that cobelligerency on the assumption that we share a common faith and a unified understanding of the gospel.
The framers of the Manhattan Declaration seem to have calculated this objection into the language of the document itself. Likewise, some signers have stated that this is not a theological document. However, to make that statement accurate requires a redefinition of “theology” and serious equivocation on the biblical meaning of “the gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4).
The drafters of the document, Charles Colson, Robert George, and Timothy George, used deliberate language that is on par with the ecumenical language of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) movement that began in the 1990s. The Manhattan Declaration states, “Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s Word,” and it identifies “Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelicals” as “Christians.” The document calls Christians to unite in “the Gospel,” “the Gospel of costly grace,” and “the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness.” Moreover, the document says, “it is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season.”
Without question, biblical truth must be proclaimed and the gospel preached prophetically to our nation. But how could I sign something that confuses the gospel and obscures the very definition of who is and who is not a Christian? I have made this point again and again since the days of ECT. Though the framers of the Manhattan Declaration declaim any connection to ECT, it appears to me that the Manhattan Declaration is inescapably linked to that initiative, which I have strenuously resisted. More than that, this new document practically assumes the victory of ECT in using the term “the gospel” in reference to that which Roman Catholics are said to “proclaim” (Phil. 1:27).
The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of using studied ambiguity in order to win over opponents. Let me be unambiguous: Without a clear understanding of sola fide and the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, you do not have the gospel or gospel unity (1 Cor. 1:17; 2 Cor. 5:21). The ECT initiative repeatedly avowed that the signatories had a unity of faith in the gospel. This included Roman Catholic signers who affirm the canons and decrees of the sixteenth-century Council of Trent, which anathematizes sola fide. I believe there are true and sincere Christians within the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches. But these people are Christians in spite of their church’s official doctrinal positions.
At least one of the document’s framers, Mr. Colson, sees the Manhattan Declaration as a way to revitalize the church in America. In his commentary on November 25, Mr. Colson said the Manhattan Declaration is “a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith.” He suggests that the Manhattan Declaration is an antidote to “biblical and doctrinal ignorance” within the church. However, true reformation and revival within the church and the winning of our culture to Christ will come only through the power of the Holy Spirit and our clear, bold proclamation of the biblical gospel, not through joint ecumenical statements that equivocate on the most precious truths given to us. There is no other gospel than that which has already been given (Gal. 1:6–8).
The Manhattan Declaration puts evangelical Christians in a tight spot. I have dear friends in the ministry who have signed this document, and my soul plummeted when I saw their names. I think my friends were misled and that they made a mistake, and I want to carefully assert that I have spoken with some of them personally about their error and have expressed my hope that they will remove their signatures from this document. Nevertheless, I remain in fellowship with them at this time and believe they are men of integrity who affirm the biblical gospel and the biblical doctrines articulated in the Protestant Reformation.
Lastly, I stand with the sentiments expressed by my friends Alistair Begg, Michael Horton, and John MacArthur, and I appreciate their willingness to say “no” to the call to get aboard this bandwagon as they continue to stand firm in their proclamation of the gospel and the whole counsel of God as it pertains to all matters of faith and life, including the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage, and the nature of religious liberty. It is only in our united proclamation of the one, true gospel of Jesus Christ that any heart, any mind, or any nation will truly change, by God’s sovereign grace and for His glory alone."
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Will you sign the Manhattan Declaration Pastor? (No)
Helpful response #3 (by James White)
The Troubling Aspects of the Manhattan Declaration
11/23/2009
"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo¬destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti¬life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.
These words conclude the Manhattan Declaration, promulgated November 20, 2009. There is much in this document that any serious-minded Christian not only can agree with, but simply must agree with. There is no question that the forces of secularism are moving quickly, under the guise of "social advancement" and "equal rights," to attack, denigrate, and, in their highest hopes and aspirations, relegate the Christian worldview to the trash heap of history. Evil men, and women, hold positions of power in Western societies, and since it is inevitably true that the Christian witness enrages those who love the darkness (John 7:7), they are doing all they can to subvert and silence that witness which so exposes their consciences. The general statements of the document relating to life, abortion, marriage, sexuality, and religious liberty, are well stated and timely. There is something reassuring in realizing that the concerns we have had are shared across a broad spectrum.
But there are a number of troubling things that I cannot get past in examining this document and considering its implications. When I see some of the leading ecumenists in the forefront of the documents' production, I am made uneasy, and for good reason. Great damage has been done to the cause of Christ by those who have sought to promote the Kingdom by compromising the gospel, the only power given to the church that can change hearts, and hence change societies. By relegating the gospel to a matter of opinion and difference, but not something that defines the Christian faith, these ecumenists have left their followers with a cause without power, a quest without a solution. And though their open-mindedness fits better with our current post-modern culture, from a biblical perspective, they have truly betrayed the apostolic example.
This document presents a Christianity ostensibly based upon bare Trinitarianism. I listened to Chuck Colson speak on the Hugh Hewitt program this afternoon. He made it very clear that this is, in fact, a theological document, despite the assertions of others that it is not. He was asked why Jews, Mormons, and others, were not invited to sign the document. He said they were not asked because this is a specifically Christian statement, quoting from the Christian scriptures. Once again we are led to the inevitable conclusion that "Christian" then is "Trinitarianism plus agreed upon historical truths such as the crucifixion and resurrection, but, most importantly, without any gospel content." It does no good to muddle this discussion with "Well, what about the medieval church" questions, since we are talking about a day and age when the issues are well known. We are not talking about a dark period of biblical ignorance. There is more light available today than ever before. And for many, the gospel is simply no longer part of the "non-negotiables."
But I am left confused by the inconsistency of the document. Mormons are not invited. Understandable, given that the LDS faith is the most polytheistic faith I've ever encountered. Trinitarians only need apply. I can fully understand that. So...why are we told toward the end of this Declaration that Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote from an explicitly Christian perspective? A brief visit to Martin Luther King's writings will reveal he was hardly orthodox even using the limited definition utilized by this Declaration. For example, writing in a paper while in seminary, Martin Luther King, Jr. said:
The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadaquate. To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: "Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possible have." In other words, one could easily use this as a means to hide behind behind his failures. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.
So why put forth King as explicitly Christian, but not invite the Jehovah's Witnesses, who would "quite readily deny" the deity of Christ as well? Perhaps a document that identifies Papal actions as explicitly Christian actions can be excused for its inherent self-contradiction.
There is no question that all believers need to think seriously about the issues raised by this declaration. But what is the only solution to these issues? Is the solution to be found in presenting a unified front that implicitly says "the gospel does not unite us, but that is not important enough to divide us"? I do not think so. What is the only power given to the church to change hearts and minds? United political power? Or the gospel that is trampled under foot by every Roman Catholic priest when he "re-presents" the sacrifice of Christ upon the Roman altar, pretending to be a priest, an "alter Christus"? Am I glad when a Roman clergyman calls abortion murder? Of course. But it exhibits a real confusion, and not a small amount of cowardice, it seems, to stop identifying the man's false gospel and false teaching simply because you are glad to have a few more on the "right" side of a vitally important social issue.
This takes me back to my original response to the ECT document. I have seen so many re-organize their priorities in light of having made "common cause" with those who have a false gospel all in the name of doing social good. I am glad Rome retains elements of God's truth and morality. But when did being good or moral bring one salvation, as if anyone is ever truly good, or truly moral?
These are the matters that truly concern me about the Manhattan Declaration. Why does God have the right to determine human sexuality, marriage, and to define life itself? It all goes back to the gospel, does it not? If we are going to give a consistent, clear answer to our culture, we dare not find our power in a false unity that overshadows the gospel and cripples our witness."
The Troubling Aspects of the Manhattan Declaration
11/23/2009
"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo¬destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti¬life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.
These words conclude the Manhattan Declaration, promulgated November 20, 2009. There is much in this document that any serious-minded Christian not only can agree with, but simply must agree with. There is no question that the forces of secularism are moving quickly, under the guise of "social advancement" and "equal rights," to attack, denigrate, and, in their highest hopes and aspirations, relegate the Christian worldview to the trash heap of history. Evil men, and women, hold positions of power in Western societies, and since it is inevitably true that the Christian witness enrages those who love the darkness (John 7:7), they are doing all they can to subvert and silence that witness which so exposes their consciences. The general statements of the document relating to life, abortion, marriage, sexuality, and religious liberty, are well stated and timely. There is something reassuring in realizing that the concerns we have had are shared across a broad spectrum.
But there are a number of troubling things that I cannot get past in examining this document and considering its implications. When I see some of the leading ecumenists in the forefront of the documents' production, I am made uneasy, and for good reason. Great damage has been done to the cause of Christ by those who have sought to promote the Kingdom by compromising the gospel, the only power given to the church that can change hearts, and hence change societies. By relegating the gospel to a matter of opinion and difference, but not something that defines the Christian faith, these ecumenists have left their followers with a cause without power, a quest without a solution. And though their open-mindedness fits better with our current post-modern culture, from a biblical perspective, they have truly betrayed the apostolic example.
This document presents a Christianity ostensibly based upon bare Trinitarianism. I listened to Chuck Colson speak on the Hugh Hewitt program this afternoon. He made it very clear that this is, in fact, a theological document, despite the assertions of others that it is not. He was asked why Jews, Mormons, and others, were not invited to sign the document. He said they were not asked because this is a specifically Christian statement, quoting from the Christian scriptures. Once again we are led to the inevitable conclusion that "Christian" then is "Trinitarianism plus agreed upon historical truths such as the crucifixion and resurrection, but, most importantly, without any gospel content." It does no good to muddle this discussion with "Well, what about the medieval church" questions, since we are talking about a day and age when the issues are well known. We are not talking about a dark period of biblical ignorance. There is more light available today than ever before. And for many, the gospel is simply no longer part of the "non-negotiables."
But I am left confused by the inconsistency of the document. Mormons are not invited. Understandable, given that the LDS faith is the most polytheistic faith I've ever encountered. Trinitarians only need apply. I can fully understand that. So...why are we told toward the end of this Declaration that Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote from an explicitly Christian perspective? A brief visit to Martin Luther King's writings will reveal he was hardly orthodox even using the limited definition utilized by this Declaration. For example, writing in a paper while in seminary, Martin Luther King, Jr. said:
The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadaquate. To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: "Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possible have." In other words, one could easily use this as a means to hide behind behind his failures. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.
So why put forth King as explicitly Christian, but not invite the Jehovah's Witnesses, who would "quite readily deny" the deity of Christ as well? Perhaps a document that identifies Papal actions as explicitly Christian actions can be excused for its inherent self-contradiction.
There is no question that all believers need to think seriously about the issues raised by this declaration. But what is the only solution to these issues? Is the solution to be found in presenting a unified front that implicitly says "the gospel does not unite us, but that is not important enough to divide us"? I do not think so. What is the only power given to the church to change hearts and minds? United political power? Or the gospel that is trampled under foot by every Roman Catholic priest when he "re-presents" the sacrifice of Christ upon the Roman altar, pretending to be a priest, an "alter Christus"? Am I glad when a Roman clergyman calls abortion murder? Of course. But it exhibits a real confusion, and not a small amount of cowardice, it seems, to stop identifying the man's false gospel and false teaching simply because you are glad to have a few more on the "right" side of a vitally important social issue.
This takes me back to my original response to the ECT document. I have seen so many re-organize their priorities in light of having made "common cause" with those who have a false gospel all in the name of doing social good. I am glad Rome retains elements of God's truth and morality. But when did being good or moral bring one salvation, as if anyone is ever truly good, or truly moral?
These are the matters that truly concern me about the Manhattan Declaration. Why does God have the right to determine human sexuality, marriage, and to define life itself? It all goes back to the gospel, does it not? If we are going to give a consistent, clear answer to our culture, we dare not find our power in a false unity that overshadows the gospel and cripples our witness."
Will you sign the M.D.? (No)
Helpful Response #2 (by Pastor MacArthur)
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009
"Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:
• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.
• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.
• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.
• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.
• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.
In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals."
Post by John MacArthur
Here is a link to someone who is a Bible believing pastor that is in favor of this document.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2009/11/23/the-manhattan-declaration/
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009
"Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:
• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.
• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.
• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.
• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.
• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.
In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals."
Post by John MacArthur
Here is a link to someone who is a Bible believing pastor that is in favor of this document.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2009/11/23/the-manhattan-declaration/
Will you sign the Manhatten Declaration? (No)
A lot has already been posted on this topic. I am in agreement with ideas conveyed in the articles written by MacArthur, White, and Begg. I greatly disagree with men i greatly respect (Grudem, Mohler, and DeYoung).
Here are the reviews i found most helpful.
(Pastor Begg) "The release of The Manhattan Declaration (an ecumenical document addressing the issues of life, marriage, and religious liberty) has already generated significant discussion. Since I have been on the receiving end of many questions concerning it, I thought it best to address it directly. The declaration reads in part as follows:
“We are Christians who have joined together across historical lines of ecclesial differences… …to speak and act in defense of these truths.”
I was present at the meetings in Manhattan in October when the draft of this document was presented.
I listened carefully and was stirred by the ensuing discussions.
I share the concerns expressed in the document.
I also have respect for those who wrote the paper and also for many who have subsequently signed it.
Why then have I chosen not to append my name as one of the initial signers? Because of my convictions about the nature of the Gospel, and the importance of Christian co-belligerency being grounded in it. The activity of the Christian as a citizen engaging in co-belligerency over civic and moral issues is not the same as the declaration of Christians mutually recognizing the reality of each other’s faith. This is what I wrote to Chuck Colson:
“Thank you for sending me the amended document. I care deeply about these issues, but I cannot in conscience sign on with those with whom I have fundamental disagreements on the nature of the Gospel. (I just re-read Calvin in the Institutes, Book IV, section 18.)”
This particular section of Calvin’s Institutes provides us with his response to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass.
It was maintained at the meeting in New York that this document was not to be viewed as a product of ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together). However, in light of the evangelical leadership behind the declaration, it is hard not to take into consideration the most recent ECT paper on “The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Life and Faith”. In examining the place of Mary, the writers “acknowledge the primary authority of Holy Scripture.” This at least gives the impression of a concession to Roman Catholicism. Protestant theology affirms the sole authority of Scripture. Sadly contemporary evangelicalism seems little concerned with the solas of The Reformation and is therefore susceptible to initiatives, which make something other than the Gospel, the basis of unity and the focus of our declarations.
I am reminded in this connection of the declaration of Jude.
“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”
It is quite common for people to view The Reformation as simply a disagreement between two groups of men. The protestant martyrs and their monuments testify to the fact that they died, not on account of ecclesial differences, but because the issue was the way of salvation. (Interestingly, exactly the same was true of the Roman Catholic martyrs!)
Are we wise to lay aside crucial historical differences of eternal significance so as to secure temporal advantages? George Smeaton, in his classic work on the atonement observes, “To convert one sinner from his way is an event of greater importance than the deliverance of a whole kingdom from temporal evil.”
I do not believe it is possible to embrace the premises of ecumenical strategy and still draw the conclusions of evangelical orthodoxy.
In accord with others who have chosen not to sign, my reservation is not with the issues themselves, or in standing with others who share the same concerns, but it is in signing a declaration along with a group of leading churchmen, when I happen to believe that the teaching of some of their churches is in effect a denial of the biblical gospel. I wonder whether it might not have been more advantageous for evangelicals to unite on this matter, rather than seeking cooperation with segments from Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy and the Latter Day Saints. The necessary co-belligerence, as far as I’m concerned, can never be rooted in a Gospel other than that which has been given to us.
Alistair Begg
(updated and expanded November 25, 2009)"
Here are the reviews i found most helpful.
(Pastor Begg) "The release of The Manhattan Declaration (an ecumenical document addressing the issues of life, marriage, and religious liberty) has already generated significant discussion. Since I have been on the receiving end of many questions concerning it, I thought it best to address it directly. The declaration reads in part as follows:
“We are Christians who have joined together across historical lines of ecclesial differences… …to speak and act in defense of these truths.”
I was present at the meetings in Manhattan in October when the draft of this document was presented.
I listened carefully and was stirred by the ensuing discussions.
I share the concerns expressed in the document.
I also have respect for those who wrote the paper and also for many who have subsequently signed it.
Why then have I chosen not to append my name as one of the initial signers? Because of my convictions about the nature of the Gospel, and the importance of Christian co-belligerency being grounded in it. The activity of the Christian as a citizen engaging in co-belligerency over civic and moral issues is not the same as the declaration of Christians mutually recognizing the reality of each other’s faith. This is what I wrote to Chuck Colson:
“Thank you for sending me the amended document. I care deeply about these issues, but I cannot in conscience sign on with those with whom I have fundamental disagreements on the nature of the Gospel. (I just re-read Calvin in the Institutes, Book IV, section 18.)”
This particular section of Calvin’s Institutes provides us with his response to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass.
It was maintained at the meeting in New York that this document was not to be viewed as a product of ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together). However, in light of the evangelical leadership behind the declaration, it is hard not to take into consideration the most recent ECT paper on “The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Life and Faith”. In examining the place of Mary, the writers “acknowledge the primary authority of Holy Scripture.” This at least gives the impression of a concession to Roman Catholicism. Protestant theology affirms the sole authority of Scripture. Sadly contemporary evangelicalism seems little concerned with the solas of The Reformation and is therefore susceptible to initiatives, which make something other than the Gospel, the basis of unity and the focus of our declarations.
I am reminded in this connection of the declaration of Jude.
“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”
It is quite common for people to view The Reformation as simply a disagreement between two groups of men. The protestant martyrs and their monuments testify to the fact that they died, not on account of ecclesial differences, but because the issue was the way of salvation. (Interestingly, exactly the same was true of the Roman Catholic martyrs!)
Are we wise to lay aside crucial historical differences of eternal significance so as to secure temporal advantages? George Smeaton, in his classic work on the atonement observes, “To convert one sinner from his way is an event of greater importance than the deliverance of a whole kingdom from temporal evil.”
I do not believe it is possible to embrace the premises of ecumenical strategy and still draw the conclusions of evangelical orthodoxy.
In accord with others who have chosen not to sign, my reservation is not with the issues themselves, or in standing with others who share the same concerns, but it is in signing a declaration along with a group of leading churchmen, when I happen to believe that the teaching of some of their churches is in effect a denial of the biblical gospel. I wonder whether it might not have been more advantageous for evangelicals to unite on this matter, rather than seeking cooperation with segments from Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy and the Latter Day Saints. The necessary co-belligerence, as far as I’m concerned, can never be rooted in a Gospel other than that which has been given to us.
Alistair Begg
(updated and expanded November 25, 2009)"
Monday, November 09, 2009
2 Essentials to a God-honoring Pulpit Ministry
As a pastor’s kid growing up in a Christian home I have listened to more sermons than many believers twice my age. In addition to this privilege/stewardship I spent close to 13 years at the Grace Community Church (to borrow a humorous expression from Dr. Mohler). Besides sitting under the regular preaching ministries of John MacArthur, Rick Holland, Ken Ramey, Phil Johnson, Carey Hardy, and Jerry Wragg I also was exposed to the likes of W.A. Criswell, Al Mohler, John Piper, and Jim Boice. I have listened to far more sermons in my life than I have ever preached. As I’ve matured in my faith I realize that if the Word of God is faithfully taught (regardless of the preacher) the Spirit of God will use that Word in the life of all true believers (Col. 1:28-29). For those of us “Joe the plumber” preachers that is an encouraging thought!
It is my opinion that in biblical preaching God is most interested in two things: faithfulness and humility. Allow me to make a case for that assertion.
God does not give every saint (or preacher for that matter) the same measure of talent/spiritual giftedness. If I can borrow a principle or two from the Parable of the Talents I may be able to make this point more clearly. In Matthew 25 the text says, For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves, and entrusted his possessions to them. And to one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey. When I was in seminary it was obvious to me that all of us “pastors in training” had a lot in common. It was also obvious that not all of us were given the same measure of giftedness. Some of the men had photographic memories and crazy high IQ’s while others had golden tongues. One of the lessons God was trying to teach me during this time of ministry preparation was my personal need to grow in humility. Instead of being envious of the way God gifted a few of these exceptionally bright students I needed to be grateful. If biblical ministry is all about the glories of Christ then how God chooses to bless a man is His prerogative.
It is my opinion that God does not gift every preacher with the exact same spiritual gifts/talents nor does He give every pastor the same measure of gifts/talents. That is how I explain the difference between “Joe the plumber/preachers” and those unique preachers like Jim Boice. To some God has given one talent, to others two, and to a select few, five talents.
What encourages my heart is that God is most concerned about faithfulness not giftedness (that He alone controls, 1 Peter 4:10-11). Consider Luke 12:48 …And from everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more. Or take Matthew 25:23, ”His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave; you were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’
This is where I see Paul’s previous post coming in: “Are you growing in your preaching?” What are you doing to become a more faithful steward of God’s infallible Word? Take this common principle of sanctification and apply it to your preaching ministry. Philippians 2:12-13, So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
All of us have witnessed this principle fleshed out in the sports world. Not all athletes are created equal. I remember one guy in college who had so much athletic talent it made many of us wannabes green with envy. Yet this particular basketball player never applied himself and after four seasons never amounted to anything significant. Their were other players I remember who had a quarter of the talent this player had yet because of their hard work ethic, their ability to receive instruction, and their tremendous commitment took their ‘one talent’ of basketball skill to amazing levels. Of course then there are those players like Michael Jordan who receive ‘5 talents of athleticism’ and who discipline themselves as much or more than everyone else around them. The rest as they say is history. R.C. Sproul and Al Mohler are those type of Christians.
It is not profitable to sit around contemplating why God’s made me the way He’s made me or why He has chosen not to gift me as much as Pastor X or Christian Y. What is profitable is to discipline myself for the purpose of godliness. To strive to be a faithful prophet like Jeremiah. To preach the Word in season and out. To be a faithful workman who cuts the word straight each and every Sunday (2 Tim. 2:15). To understand and apply the weakness of power and the power of weakness paradox (2 Cor. 12)
I should not conclude this post without talking about the importance of humility. God will not share His glory with another. That is probably why in His plan of salvation He has chosen not to save many wise or mighty men (1 Cor 1-2). Consider the words of God from Isaiah 66:2, “But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.”
It is my opinion that in biblical preaching God is most interested in two things: faithfulness and humility.
It is my opinion that in biblical preaching God is most interested in two things: faithfulness and humility. Allow me to make a case for that assertion.
God does not give every saint (or preacher for that matter) the same measure of talent/spiritual giftedness. If I can borrow a principle or two from the Parable of the Talents I may be able to make this point more clearly. In Matthew 25 the text says, For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves, and entrusted his possessions to them. And to one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey. When I was in seminary it was obvious to me that all of us “pastors in training” had a lot in common. It was also obvious that not all of us were given the same measure of giftedness. Some of the men had photographic memories and crazy high IQ’s while others had golden tongues. One of the lessons God was trying to teach me during this time of ministry preparation was my personal need to grow in humility. Instead of being envious of the way God gifted a few of these exceptionally bright students I needed to be grateful. If biblical ministry is all about the glories of Christ then how God chooses to bless a man is His prerogative.
It is my opinion that God does not gift every preacher with the exact same spiritual gifts/talents nor does He give every pastor the same measure of gifts/talents. That is how I explain the difference between “Joe the plumber/preachers” and those unique preachers like Jim Boice. To some God has given one talent, to others two, and to a select few, five talents.
What encourages my heart is that God is most concerned about faithfulness not giftedness (that He alone controls, 1 Peter 4:10-11). Consider Luke 12:48 …And from everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more. Or take Matthew 25:23, ”His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave; you were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’
This is where I see Paul’s previous post coming in: “Are you growing in your preaching?” What are you doing to become a more faithful steward of God’s infallible Word? Take this common principle of sanctification and apply it to your preaching ministry. Philippians 2:12-13, So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
All of us have witnessed this principle fleshed out in the sports world. Not all athletes are created equal. I remember one guy in college who had so much athletic talent it made many of us wannabes green with envy. Yet this particular basketball player never applied himself and after four seasons never amounted to anything significant. Their were other players I remember who had a quarter of the talent this player had yet because of their hard work ethic, their ability to receive instruction, and their tremendous commitment took their ‘one talent’ of basketball skill to amazing levels. Of course then there are those players like Michael Jordan who receive ‘5 talents of athleticism’ and who discipline themselves as much or more than everyone else around them. The rest as they say is history. R.C. Sproul and Al Mohler are those type of Christians.
It is not profitable to sit around contemplating why God’s made me the way He’s made me or why He has chosen not to gift me as much as Pastor X or Christian Y. What is profitable is to discipline myself for the purpose of godliness. To strive to be a faithful prophet like Jeremiah. To preach the Word in season and out. To be a faithful workman who cuts the word straight each and every Sunday (2 Tim. 2:15). To understand and apply the weakness of power and the power of weakness paradox (2 Cor. 12)
I should not conclude this post without talking about the importance of humility. God will not share His glory with another. That is probably why in His plan of salvation He has chosen not to save many wise or mighty men (1 Cor 1-2). Consider the words of God from Isaiah 66:2, “But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.”
It is my opinion that in biblical preaching God is most interested in two things: faithfulness and humility.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Cussing Christian?!?
Article by Phil Johnson
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/search/label/language
Cussing is back on the table for debate again, it seems. Last week I was twitted by Twitterers, poked by Facebookers, IMed by chatmongers, and berated by bloggers on this subject. (Apparently there's a gang of angry people prepped and ready to throw down any time I breathe a sigh of disapproval about cussing—especially if some Christian celebrity is the one doing the cussing.)
Anyway, although we've dealt with that subject several times in the past, every time it comes up, the same tired arguments get trotted out to defend the casual use of crude slang, profane language, or perverse speech by Christians. The most popular arguments in favor of cussing seem to be 1) that to cuss or not to cuss is purely a matter of Christian liberty, not a biblical issue; 2) that cussing is necessary these days in order to contextualize our message and prove to the world that we're not "legalistic"; 3) that compared to being disagreeable, cussing is practically a virtue; and 4) that a more lenient attitude toward cussing would prove we really do care that AIDS and hunger are killing large numbers of people in Africa.
That fourth argument is the one that baffles me most. I'm not sure why anyone would think liberalizing our tolerance for vile language and recreational profanity among Christians might ease the AIDS crisis or do more to cure poverty than recruiting more people to serve alongside the thousands of non-cussing evangelical missionaries and relief organizations who are already providing medical services, food, and clothing for sick and impoverished people worldwide. But evidently some very vocal people are convinced that liberal use of scatology is the only valid badge of authenticity for one's social concerns. Bono was a pioneer in the use of such verbal emblems, of course, but Tony Campolo is the one who brought it into the evangelical mainstream and made a whole generation of students think of cussing as practically a sacrament. Now Derek Webb has canonized the idea in a song.
We often hear people suggest that because the apostle Paul used the word skubalon, (translated fittingly as "dung" in the KJV), scatology has thereby been sanctified. Have at it. If Paul could say that, nothing should be taboo. Christians nowadays likewise try to justify even worse kinds of crudeness on the grounds that Paul spoke harshly and indelicately about the Judaizers in Galatians 5:12. (He hinted that since they believed circumcision makes a person holier, they ought to take their doctrine to the next level and emasculate themselves.) I've responded to those arguments—repeatedly.
But notice what Paul himself said about lewd and off-color language. He classifies it as impurity in Ephesians 5:3-6, where he treats indecent language as one of several worldly substitutes for love. The Greek term Paul uses is akatharsia, a word that refers to every kind of filth and pollution—"uncleanness" in the KJV. Paul is talking about real spiritual uncleanness, not ceremonial defilement, but moral filth.
And when he gives some specific examples of akatharsia in verse 4, all of them have to do with the misuse of language: "obscenity," "foolish talk," and "coarse jesting." He is talking about the words we use, the things we talk about, and the spirit of our conversation. He covers all the bases.
Now, you might well wonder, if the context is dealing with genuine love vs. counterfeit love, how do smutty words, base conversations, and vulgar jokes fit into any category of phony love?
Think about it; those are the peculiar characteristics of worldly companionship: "filthiness . . . foolish talking . . . coarse jesting." Those are the main emblems of membership in any carnal brotherhood. Look at any of Satan's strongholds; any place where wickedness operates unrestrained; wherever you find a band of thieves or a federation of scoundrels—from the juvenile gangs that roam our streets to the old-men's club that hangs out at the neighborhood tavern. "Filthiness . . . foolish talk [and] crude joking" are always their main stock in trade. That's what will consume the leisure time they spend together. Because those are the main badges of fleshly fellowship, and that is the glue that substitutes for authentic love virtually every worldly fraternity. That is exactly what Paul is describing, and he says, Don't let such things characterize your fellowship with one another.
In order to obey the principle Paul sets forth here, we you need to be intentionally counter-cultural, because our culture values evil companionship much more than wholesome love. Have you ever considered the degree to which this is true? "Filthiness . . . silly talk, [and] coarse jesting" are virtually the trademarks of secular society. Vile language, crude subject matter, silly talk, and sheer folly are the main currency of the contemporary entertainment industry. The corrupt notion of brotherhood Paul is attacking here is exactly what most of our culture has substituted in the place of real love.
That's why movies are filled with dirty words and smutty themes. That's why contemporary comedy is so dependent on vile language and filthy subject matter to get a laugh. Situation comedies on television used to feature families and plot lines. Now they are shows about nothing dealing mainly with relationships between friends who are unmarried, unattached, and lacking any discernible direction in their lives. "Filthiness . . . foolish talk[, and] crude joking" describes about 99 percent of the content of programs like that.
Our culture insists those things are perfectly benign, but Paul says they are not. Carnal camaraderie is practically the antithesis of true, godly love. Crude language, filthy joking, and risque entertainment are "not fitting" for Christians. They have no place in the Christian's walk. Verse 12: "For it is a shame even to speak of those things which [they do in secret]." Keep those things out of your life. More than that, keep references to things like that out of your conversation, Paul says.
And notice this: he categorizes spicy talk about frivolous subject matter along with some of the most serious of all sins. Don't get addicted to that brand of language and humor, and especially don't allow that kind of companionship to characterize your own life.
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/search/label/language
Cussing is back on the table for debate again, it seems. Last week I was twitted by Twitterers, poked by Facebookers, IMed by chatmongers, and berated by bloggers on this subject. (Apparently there's a gang of angry people prepped and ready to throw down any time I breathe a sigh of disapproval about cussing—especially if some Christian celebrity is the one doing the cussing.)
Anyway, although we've dealt with that subject several times in the past, every time it comes up, the same tired arguments get trotted out to defend the casual use of crude slang, profane language, or perverse speech by Christians. The most popular arguments in favor of cussing seem to be 1) that to cuss or not to cuss is purely a matter of Christian liberty, not a biblical issue; 2) that cussing is necessary these days in order to contextualize our message and prove to the world that we're not "legalistic"; 3) that compared to being disagreeable, cussing is practically a virtue; and 4) that a more lenient attitude toward cussing would prove we really do care that AIDS and hunger are killing large numbers of people in Africa.
That fourth argument is the one that baffles me most. I'm not sure why anyone would think liberalizing our tolerance for vile language and recreational profanity among Christians might ease the AIDS crisis or do more to cure poverty than recruiting more people to serve alongside the thousands of non-cussing evangelical missionaries and relief organizations who are already providing medical services, food, and clothing for sick and impoverished people worldwide. But evidently some very vocal people are convinced that liberal use of scatology is the only valid badge of authenticity for one's social concerns. Bono was a pioneer in the use of such verbal emblems, of course, but Tony Campolo is the one who brought it into the evangelical mainstream and made a whole generation of students think of cussing as practically a sacrament. Now Derek Webb has canonized the idea in a song.
We often hear people suggest that because the apostle Paul used the word skubalon, (translated fittingly as "dung" in the KJV), scatology has thereby been sanctified. Have at it. If Paul could say that, nothing should be taboo. Christians nowadays likewise try to justify even worse kinds of crudeness on the grounds that Paul spoke harshly and indelicately about the Judaizers in Galatians 5:12. (He hinted that since they believed circumcision makes a person holier, they ought to take their doctrine to the next level and emasculate themselves.) I've responded to those arguments—repeatedly.
But notice what Paul himself said about lewd and off-color language. He classifies it as impurity in Ephesians 5:3-6, where he treats indecent language as one of several worldly substitutes for love. The Greek term Paul uses is akatharsia, a word that refers to every kind of filth and pollution—"uncleanness" in the KJV. Paul is talking about real spiritual uncleanness, not ceremonial defilement, but moral filth.
And when he gives some specific examples of akatharsia in verse 4, all of them have to do with the misuse of language: "obscenity," "foolish talk," and "coarse jesting." He is talking about the words we use, the things we talk about, and the spirit of our conversation. He covers all the bases.
Now, you might well wonder, if the context is dealing with genuine love vs. counterfeit love, how do smutty words, base conversations, and vulgar jokes fit into any category of phony love?
Think about it; those are the peculiar characteristics of worldly companionship: "filthiness . . . foolish talking . . . coarse jesting." Those are the main emblems of membership in any carnal brotherhood. Look at any of Satan's strongholds; any place where wickedness operates unrestrained; wherever you find a band of thieves or a federation of scoundrels—from the juvenile gangs that roam our streets to the old-men's club that hangs out at the neighborhood tavern. "Filthiness . . . foolish talk [and] crude joking" are always their main stock in trade. That's what will consume the leisure time they spend together. Because those are the main badges of fleshly fellowship, and that is the glue that substitutes for authentic love virtually every worldly fraternity. That is exactly what Paul is describing, and he says, Don't let such things characterize your fellowship with one another.
In order to obey the principle Paul sets forth here, we you need to be intentionally counter-cultural, because our culture values evil companionship much more than wholesome love. Have you ever considered the degree to which this is true? "Filthiness . . . silly talk, [and] coarse jesting" are virtually the trademarks of secular society. Vile language, crude subject matter, silly talk, and sheer folly are the main currency of the contemporary entertainment industry. The corrupt notion of brotherhood Paul is attacking here is exactly what most of our culture has substituted in the place of real love.
That's why movies are filled with dirty words and smutty themes. That's why contemporary comedy is so dependent on vile language and filthy subject matter to get a laugh. Situation comedies on television used to feature families and plot lines. Now they are shows about nothing dealing mainly with relationships between friends who are unmarried, unattached, and lacking any discernible direction in their lives. "Filthiness . . . foolish talk[, and] crude joking" describes about 99 percent of the content of programs like that.
Our culture insists those things are perfectly benign, but Paul says they are not. Carnal camaraderie is practically the antithesis of true, godly love. Crude language, filthy joking, and risque entertainment are "not fitting" for Christians. They have no place in the Christian's walk. Verse 12: "For it is a shame even to speak of those things which [they do in secret]." Keep those things out of your life. More than that, keep references to things like that out of your conversation, Paul says.
And notice this: he categorizes spicy talk about frivolous subject matter along with some of the most serious of all sins. Don't get addicted to that brand of language and humor, and especially don't allow that kind of companionship to characterize your own life.
Friday, October 09, 2009
What are you reading?
It has been some time since my last reading report. I must admit I have not been reading as much as i can/should lately. Too much TV i guess. What good books have you read lately?
Books I've recently read
1. Heroes by Iain H Murray
2. Jesus Christ: the Prince of Preachers by Mike Abendroth
3. Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate by Matt Waymeyer
4. The Rapture: 3 Views by various authors
Books I'm currently enjoying
1. Worship Matters by Bob Kauflin
2. Various Revelation commentaries and journal articles
3. 9 Marks of a Healthy Church by Mark Dever
4. 10 Questions to Diagnosing your Spiritual Health by Don Whitney
5. The Exemplary Husband by Stuart Scott
6. The Seven Last Things by David J Macleod
7. Toward An Exegetical Theology by Walter C Kaiser
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Preaching Revelation
I have been the Senior Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Freeport for close to a year and a half now. After a short topical series on "biblical preaching" i decided to take my new congregation through the book of Revelation. The most common response i get when sharing that bit of information with others is "Are you crazy, stupid, or a little bit of both, son?" OK not really, but i can see what many Christians are thinking when i tell them what I just told you.
When Christians talk about Revelation they often think of two common things: a very obscure New Testament book and lots and lots of prophecy charts. Yet the book of Revelation is one of the most Christ-centered books in all the Bible. Chapter 1 begins with a picture of Jesus Christ in all His post-resurrection glory! Chapters 2 & 3 are immensely practical instructions to the 7 churches (real churches that represent the type of churches/church goers that exist in every century of church history). Chapter 4 pictures Heaven's worship of the Sovereign Creator. Chapter 5 highlights the great Hero of Heaven, Jesus Christ. Some of the most theologically rich details about the gospel are presented in this magnificent 5th chapter. Chapters 6-18 describe the awful Tribulation period that is yet to come. Chapter 19 highlights the majestic return of Christ (as righteous Judge, Holy Warrior, and as KING of Kings and LORD of Lords). Chapter 20 describes the millennial Kingdom and the final judgment of all God's enemies. Chapters 21-22 showcases the New Heavens and the New Earth.
Last Sunday I preached my 48th sermon from this lengthy letter (I've preached 8 sermons on chapter 1, 23 sermons on chapters 2 and 3, 11 sermons on chapters 4 & 5, 2 sermons on chapters 6-18, and 4 sermons on chapter 19). My last message covered the famous battle of Armageddon (Rev 19:17-21). Instead of getting lost in the minutia of this final battle i tried to emphasize what I believe is a major theme of this section; Judgment without mercy. Those who reject the mercies of God in Christ will one day experience God's judgment without mercy. Talk about relevant sermons.
With that said, I have tried to walk a very thin line in preaching through this neglected Prophesy. I don't want this series to be an information drop that simply tickles the fancy of those prophesy chart pundits (you know who you are). At the same time i don't want to ignore the rich theology of the Apocalypse either. In other words, just because it is en vogue right now not to have strong convictions with regards to eschatology does not mean those major themes should/can be ignored when preaching through this inspired letter. For example, does Revelation 3:10 promising deliverance from the Tribulation? Does Revelation 6-18 describe a 7 year period of unparalleled evil (the Day of the Lord, the future Tribulation) or something else? Is the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 future or present? Is the First Resurrection physical or spiritual? Is the reign of Christ in Revelation 20 on earth or in heaven?
Bottom line: Pastors should consider preaching through the book of Revelation because of this book's profound Christology. The more I talk with unbelievers and the more I minister to American believers the more I see a need to preach the REAL Jesus. After all He is the Lion of Judah and the Lamb that was slaughtered to purchase a covenant people. He is Prophet, Priest, and King. He is the righteous Judge, the Holy Conqueror, & the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.
When Christians talk about Revelation they often think of two common things: a very obscure New Testament book and lots and lots of prophecy charts. Yet the book of Revelation is one of the most Christ-centered books in all the Bible. Chapter 1 begins with a picture of Jesus Christ in all His post-resurrection glory! Chapters 2 & 3 are immensely practical instructions to the 7 churches (real churches that represent the type of churches/church goers that exist in every century of church history). Chapter 4 pictures Heaven's worship of the Sovereign Creator. Chapter 5 highlights the great Hero of Heaven, Jesus Christ. Some of the most theologically rich details about the gospel are presented in this magnificent 5th chapter. Chapters 6-18 describe the awful Tribulation period that is yet to come. Chapter 19 highlights the majestic return of Christ (as righteous Judge, Holy Warrior, and as KING of Kings and LORD of Lords). Chapter 20 describes the millennial Kingdom and the final judgment of all God's enemies. Chapters 21-22 showcases the New Heavens and the New Earth.
Last Sunday I preached my 48th sermon from this lengthy letter (I've preached 8 sermons on chapter 1, 23 sermons on chapters 2 and 3, 11 sermons on chapters 4 & 5, 2 sermons on chapters 6-18, and 4 sermons on chapter 19). My last message covered the famous battle of Armageddon (Rev 19:17-21). Instead of getting lost in the minutia of this final battle i tried to emphasize what I believe is a major theme of this section; Judgment without mercy. Those who reject the mercies of God in Christ will one day experience God's judgment without mercy. Talk about relevant sermons.
With that said, I have tried to walk a very thin line in preaching through this neglected Prophesy. I don't want this series to be an information drop that simply tickles the fancy of those prophesy chart pundits (you know who you are). At the same time i don't want to ignore the rich theology of the Apocalypse either. In other words, just because it is en vogue right now not to have strong convictions with regards to eschatology does not mean those major themes should/can be ignored when preaching through this inspired letter. For example, does Revelation 3:10 promising deliverance from the Tribulation? Does Revelation 6-18 describe a 7 year period of unparalleled evil (the Day of the Lord, the future Tribulation) or something else? Is the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 future or present? Is the First Resurrection physical or spiritual? Is the reign of Christ in Revelation 20 on earth or in heaven?
Bottom line: Pastors should consider preaching through the book of Revelation because of this book's profound Christology. The more I talk with unbelievers and the more I minister to American believers the more I see a need to preach the REAL Jesus. After all He is the Lion of Judah and the Lamb that was slaughtered to purchase a covenant people. He is Prophet, Priest, and King. He is the righteous Judge, the Holy Conqueror, & the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
A Pastor's TONE in Preaching the Scriptures
In one of John Piper's finest sermons on preaching he said this, “God did not ordain the cross of Christ or create the lake of fire to communicate the insignificance of belittling his glory. The death of the Son of God and the damnation of unrepentant human beings are the LOUDEST SHOUTS under heaven that God is infinitely holy, and sin is infinitely offensive, and wrath is infinitely just, and grace is infinitely precious, and our brief life---and the life of every person---leads to everlasting joy OR everlasting suffering.
If our preaching does not carry the weight of these things to our people what will? Veggie Tales? Radio? Television? Discussion groups? Emergent conversations?
God planned for his to be crucified (Rev 13:8, 2 Tim 1:9) and for hell to be terrible (Matt 25:41) so that we would have the clearest witness to what is at stake when we preach. What gives preaching its seriousness is that the mantle of the preacher is soaked with the blood of Jesus and singed with the fires of hell. That is the mantle that turns mere talkers into preachers..."
If our preaching does not carry the weight of these things to our people what will? Veggie Tales? Radio? Television? Discussion groups? Emergent conversations?
God planned for his to be crucified (Rev 13:8, 2 Tim 1:9) and for hell to be terrible (Matt 25:41) so that we would have the clearest witness to what is at stake when we preach. What gives preaching its seriousness is that the mantle of the preacher is soaked with the blood of Jesus and singed with the fires of hell. That is the mantle that turns mere talkers into preachers..."
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
What are you Reading?
As a senior teaching pastor I find myself working very hard to stay afloat almost every single week. Throw a funeral or two into the mix and you have yourself a really exciting week. I find it challenging to prepare a Sunday AM sermon and a Sunday PM lesson week in and week out. Pastors have so much to do and so little time to do it in. Thank goodness God does not want us to accomplish these tasks according to human strength or worldly wisdom.
On a weekly basis the most important ministry task I face is the Sunday morning exposition. I find most of my extra reading time is used to supplement my sermon preparation or some other church related ministry.
For example, this past Sunday I preached through Revelation 5:9. Outside of Scripture, Bible Works, LOGOS, and numerous Revelation commentaries I used the following resources: John Gill’s Body of Divinity; R.B. Kuiper’s, For Whom Did Christ Die; D.A. Carson’s, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God; & the opening chapters of Elyse Fitzpatrick’s latest book, Counsel from the Cross.
At night I finished up Mike Abendroth’s Jesus Christ: The Prince of Preachers. This was a very application orientated book and one that I would recommend to our faithful readers. I am ashamed to say that during my first topical series on Biblical Preaching (I delivered these a year ago) that I did not spend a single Sunday talking about the model of Jesus. Abendroth’s book points out how most of the great books on preaching skip over His wonderful example.
Other than that I find myself rereading the books we’re using for our leadership training class (9 Marks of a Healthy Church, The Exemplary Husband, and 10 Questions to Diagnosing Your Spiritual Health) or reading books in preparation for my Sunday PM lessons (The Message of the Old Testament). I am so grateful for the Christian resources that are available today.
On a weekly basis the most important ministry task I face is the Sunday morning exposition. I find most of my extra reading time is used to supplement my sermon preparation or some other church related ministry.
For example, this past Sunday I preached through Revelation 5:9. Outside of Scripture, Bible Works, LOGOS, and numerous Revelation commentaries I used the following resources: John Gill’s Body of Divinity; R.B. Kuiper’s, For Whom Did Christ Die; D.A. Carson’s, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God; & the opening chapters of Elyse Fitzpatrick’s latest book, Counsel from the Cross.
At night I finished up Mike Abendroth’s Jesus Christ: The Prince of Preachers. This was a very application orientated book and one that I would recommend to our faithful readers. I am ashamed to say that during my first topical series on Biblical Preaching (I delivered these a year ago) that I did not spend a single Sunday talking about the model of Jesus. Abendroth’s book points out how most of the great books on preaching skip over His wonderful example.
Other than that I find myself rereading the books we’re using for our leadership training class (9 Marks of a Healthy Church, The Exemplary Husband, and 10 Questions to Diagnosing Your Spiritual Health) or reading books in preparation for my Sunday PM lessons (The Message of the Old Testament). I am so grateful for the Christian resources that are available today.
Monday, July 13, 2009
A New Home for the Kolstad Family
On August 1st, we will own our 2nd home (we sold our first home a little over a year ago). This "new" home was built in 1939 but has been kept up very well by the current homeowners of 31 years. We hope our out of town guests will drop by to see it very soon! We're certain our new house will be great for fellowship, rest, and hospitality. We praise the Lord for His many blessings!
Sunday, July 12, 2009
A Favorite New Hymn
How Sweet and Awful Is the Place
These lyrics were written by the great hymn-writer, Isaac Watts.
How sweet and awful is the place
With Christ within the doors
While everlasting love displays
The choicest of her stores.
While all our hearts and all our songs
Join to admire the feast
Each of us cry with thankful tongues,
"Lord, why was I a guest?"
"Why was I made to hear thy voice
and enter while there's room,
When thousands make a wretched choice
And rather starve than come?"
'Twas the same love that spread the feast
that sweetly drew us in;
Else we had still refused to taste
and perished in our sin
Pity the nations, O our God,
Constrain the earth to come;
Send thy victorious Word abroad
and bring the strangers home.
We long to see Thy churches full,
that all the chosen race
may with one voice and heart and soul
sing Thy redeeming grace.
These lyrics were written by the great hymn-writer, Isaac Watts.
How sweet and awful is the place
With Christ within the doors
While everlasting love displays
The choicest of her stores.
While all our hearts and all our songs
Join to admire the feast
Each of us cry with thankful tongues,
"Lord, why was I a guest?"
"Why was I made to hear thy voice
and enter while there's room,
When thousands make a wretched choice
And rather starve than come?"
'Twas the same love that spread the feast
that sweetly drew us in;
Else we had still refused to taste
and perished in our sin
Pity the nations, O our God,
Constrain the earth to come;
Send thy victorious Word abroad
and bring the strangers home.
We long to see Thy churches full,
that all the chosen race
may with one voice and heart and soul
sing Thy redeeming grace.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Kevin DeYoung on being relevant
"Whatever lasting impact John Calvin has had on the church of Jesus Christ, and on the whole world for that matter, is owing to his commitment to understanding and explaining the word of God. From sermons to lectures to letters to tracts to treatises to confessions to catechisms to books, his adult life was consumed with one thing: the word of God–the word as a summons to obedience, the word as a blueprint for reform, the word as the foundation for all truth.Calvin’s confidence was not in the world of technology and progress. He would have scoffed at Bultmann’s now laughable line from several generations ago that “it is impossible to use electric light and the wireless [radio] and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time believe in the New Testament world of demons and spirits.”Calvin’s confidence was not in man’s potential or the triumph of the human spirit.
He would have equally scoffed and been frankly embarrassed by the well-known Reformed Church pastor, Robert Schuller who argued that self-esteem was the New Reformation and that “Christians should hold to these truths: I affirm that I will never be defeated, because I will never quit...I affirm that if I’m totally dedicated I’ll eventually win.”Calvin’s confidence was in the Word of God, and that’s why his theology and vision of the world continues to capture the minds and hearts of people in the 21st century. That’s why five hundred years later we remember his birth. That’s why Calvin the preacher and expositor has millions more spiritual children than Erasmus the scholar and hermeneutical skeptic. Strive for relevance in your day, and you’ll may make a difference for a few years. Anchor yourself in what is eternal and you may influence the world for another five centuries.
I’m all for young people dreaming big dreams. Go out and change the world. Make a difference. Discover a cure for cancer. Write a best-selling novel. Become president. But remember, your “glory” (and mine) will not last. Your great accomplishments will fall away–either in your lifetime, or in a generation, or at the end of all things.No one will care about your GPA and SAT scores in ten years. If you win a state championship, you’ll be forgotten the next year you don’t. Your beauty will get wrinkles and trim figure plump. Write a great book and it will gather dust in a library some day. Have a big famous church, it won’t last forever. Be an important person in your field, you still be unknown to over 6 billion people in the world. Build an amazing house, it will crumble some day, if it doesn’t go into foreclosure first. All of our achievements and successes are destined to be like dead grass and faded flowers.But...the word of our God stands forever. The word about Babylon in Isaiah 40 stood firm. and so will his word in our generation. All God’s declarations about himself and his people are true. All his promises will come to pass. Our only confidence is in the word of God. John Calvin was a man, an imperfect, sinful man, but a man that God used enormously because he put his confidence in the word of God.
We do the memory of Calvin no disservice to admit that he had weaknesses. He was physically frail and could be emotionally volatile. No one lamented his own weaknesses–physical and spiritual–more than himself. And no one understand general human weakness better than Calvin. The universe of Calvin’s thought was one where man was small and God was very big. He had no problem being thought of as dust, or a worm, or grass, because he knew that’s what he was compared to the infinite glory, splendor, and holiness of a sovereign God.
In a culture like ours where everyone has their thing, their schtick, it’s worth remembering that Calvin’s thing was always the word of God and the glorious God he met there.God’s promises are sure and his declarations are always right. Opinion polls will come and go. Focus groups can say what they want. Pundits will wax eloquent on everything under the sun. God’s word will still be true. The word is our compass pointing us in the right direction. It’s the North Star, fixed and firm. We may wander and waver, but the word will remain. It’s like a stately evergreen in a field of grass and tulips. The grass will get green. The tulips will have their day. But the evergreen alone will survive the winter. It will not be moved. Humans are weak, failing, and temporal. The word is strong, abiding, eternal.
This is one of the great paradoxes of life. We all want significance. We all want affirmation. We all want to leave a legacy. Some seek significance in work, some in performance, others in stuff, a lot of people in family. Yet, we all have a God-given sense that for all our bluster and bravado we are still grass. But we all want to bloom. So we pour our lives into degrees, and professional advancement, into ministry, and business, and houses, and kids. All the while, knowing deep down that life is fleeting and passing us by and we desperately need to take hold of something that is eternal.
This is the paradox of permanence. The only way our lives will ever touch that which is eternal is to admit that our lives are hopelessly temporal. John Oswalt in his commentary on Isaiah remarked, “If I insist I am permanent, then I become nothing; if I admit that God alone is permanent, then he breathes his permanence on me.” You want a legacy? You want to transcend your own meager existence? Let go of your vain supposed success and grab hold of the word of our God.
“This is the one I esteem,” says the Lord, “he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word” (Isa. 66:2).The truly significant people in this world know that God is everything and they’re nothing. Fads and fashions will rise and fall, but the word will keep on accomplishing its purposes. It will outlast us all. So let our reading, memorizing, catechizing, and preaching be saturated with the word. Let our songs, ministries and mission submit to the word. May all of our theological questions, relationship questions, family questions look to the word. May every new doctrine, new movement, new church, and new book be tested against the word. May all our living and dying be undertaken with the firm conviction that God is true though everyone were a liar (Rom. 3:4). God's word is smarter, clearer, truer, and speaks to people's deepest needs more than you and I ever could. So try thinking a few less original thoughts and people just might find you relevant in 500 years. “A voice say, Cry out. And I said, What shall I cry? All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field. The grass withers and the flowers fall, because the breath of the Lord blows on them. Surely the people are grass. The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isa. 40:6-8)."
Posted by Kevin DeYoung
http://www.revkevindeyoung.com/
He would have equally scoffed and been frankly embarrassed by the well-known Reformed Church pastor, Robert Schuller who argued that self-esteem was the New Reformation and that “Christians should hold to these truths: I affirm that I will never be defeated, because I will never quit...I affirm that if I’m totally dedicated I’ll eventually win.”Calvin’s confidence was in the Word of God, and that’s why his theology and vision of the world continues to capture the minds and hearts of people in the 21st century. That’s why five hundred years later we remember his birth. That’s why Calvin the preacher and expositor has millions more spiritual children than Erasmus the scholar and hermeneutical skeptic. Strive for relevance in your day, and you’ll may make a difference for a few years. Anchor yourself in what is eternal and you may influence the world for another five centuries.
I’m all for young people dreaming big dreams. Go out and change the world. Make a difference. Discover a cure for cancer. Write a best-selling novel. Become president. But remember, your “glory” (and mine) will not last. Your great accomplishments will fall away–either in your lifetime, or in a generation, or at the end of all things.No one will care about your GPA and SAT scores in ten years. If you win a state championship, you’ll be forgotten the next year you don’t. Your beauty will get wrinkles and trim figure plump. Write a great book and it will gather dust in a library some day. Have a big famous church, it won’t last forever. Be an important person in your field, you still be unknown to over 6 billion people in the world. Build an amazing house, it will crumble some day, if it doesn’t go into foreclosure first. All of our achievements and successes are destined to be like dead grass and faded flowers.But...the word of our God stands forever. The word about Babylon in Isaiah 40 stood firm. and so will his word in our generation. All God’s declarations about himself and his people are true. All his promises will come to pass. Our only confidence is in the word of God. John Calvin was a man, an imperfect, sinful man, but a man that God used enormously because he put his confidence in the word of God.
We do the memory of Calvin no disservice to admit that he had weaknesses. He was physically frail and could be emotionally volatile. No one lamented his own weaknesses–physical and spiritual–more than himself. And no one understand general human weakness better than Calvin. The universe of Calvin’s thought was one where man was small and God was very big. He had no problem being thought of as dust, or a worm, or grass, because he knew that’s what he was compared to the infinite glory, splendor, and holiness of a sovereign God.
In a culture like ours where everyone has their thing, their schtick, it’s worth remembering that Calvin’s thing was always the word of God and the glorious God he met there.God’s promises are sure and his declarations are always right. Opinion polls will come and go. Focus groups can say what they want. Pundits will wax eloquent on everything under the sun. God’s word will still be true. The word is our compass pointing us in the right direction. It’s the North Star, fixed and firm. We may wander and waver, but the word will remain. It’s like a stately evergreen in a field of grass and tulips. The grass will get green. The tulips will have their day. But the evergreen alone will survive the winter. It will not be moved. Humans are weak, failing, and temporal. The word is strong, abiding, eternal.
This is one of the great paradoxes of life. We all want significance. We all want affirmation. We all want to leave a legacy. Some seek significance in work, some in performance, others in stuff, a lot of people in family. Yet, we all have a God-given sense that for all our bluster and bravado we are still grass. But we all want to bloom. So we pour our lives into degrees, and professional advancement, into ministry, and business, and houses, and kids. All the while, knowing deep down that life is fleeting and passing us by and we desperately need to take hold of something that is eternal.
This is the paradox of permanence. The only way our lives will ever touch that which is eternal is to admit that our lives are hopelessly temporal. John Oswalt in his commentary on Isaiah remarked, “If I insist I am permanent, then I become nothing; if I admit that God alone is permanent, then he breathes his permanence on me.” You want a legacy? You want to transcend your own meager existence? Let go of your vain supposed success and grab hold of the word of our God.
“This is the one I esteem,” says the Lord, “he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word” (Isa. 66:2).The truly significant people in this world know that God is everything and they’re nothing. Fads and fashions will rise and fall, but the word will keep on accomplishing its purposes. It will outlast us all. So let our reading, memorizing, catechizing, and preaching be saturated with the word. Let our songs, ministries and mission submit to the word. May all of our theological questions, relationship questions, family questions look to the word. May every new doctrine, new movement, new church, and new book be tested against the word. May all our living and dying be undertaken with the firm conviction that God is true though everyone were a liar (Rom. 3:4). God's word is smarter, clearer, truer, and speaks to people's deepest needs more than you and I ever could. So try thinking a few less original thoughts and people just might find you relevant in 500 years. “A voice say, Cry out. And I said, What shall I cry? All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field. The grass withers and the flowers fall, because the breath of the Lord blows on them. Surely the people are grass. The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isa. 40:6-8)."
Posted by Kevin DeYoung
http://www.revkevindeyoung.com/
Friday, July 03, 2009
1 Year and Counting
July 1st marks the 1 year anniversary of our time here in Freeport, Illinois. I have been a vocational pastor for just over 4 years now and a senior teaching pastor for a year. To serve Christ's precious church as an undershepherd is a tremendous delight and a great privilege indeed (1 Peter 5, Hebrews 13:17).I am blessed to have a fine group of fellow leaders working alongside me each and every week (our deacons, trustees, and church intern). Their humility is a wonderful model for our entire congregation (myself included). I am also blessed to have a like minded associate-pastor who is willing to get his hands dirty in the ministry "foxholes". Steve loves Jesus, the Word of God, and people.
Our congregation has put the entire focus of our church back on the Lord Jesus Christ and that has made all the difference. Biblical unity is grounded in the truth. Our fellowship in Christ is sweet and the common gospel confession we share is the bond that knits our heart's together.
The Word of God is again central in our morning and evening worship services. We have enjoyed 37 expositions from the book of Revelation. We are currently in chapter 5 and have been blessed to study every single verse (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Chapter 1 presents a vision of the glorified Christ in all of His post-resurrection glory. Chapters 2 & 3 are Jesus' letters to 7 churches and the type of congregations/people that exist in every century of church history. Chapters 4 & 5 illustrate heaven's worship of God, the Sovereign Creator and Jesus, our blessed Redeemer. We also have enjoyed an O.T. survey through much of the Older Testament, a series on a Biblical Theology of Worship, and a series of topical expositions on Biblical Preaching.
For those of you who continue to pray for us, thank you so very much! We know God continues to work through prayer and it is our delight to testify this day to His unchanging faithfulness.
My favorite verse in Scripture remains the same though its meaning grows sweeter every sing day. Joshua 1:9, Have i not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified and do not be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you may go.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Do you love the local church?
Here is a great quote from a new book linked below:
Perhaps Christians are leaving the church because it isn't tolerant and open-minded. But perhaps the church-leavers have their own intolerance too--intolerant of tradition, intolerant of authority, intolerant of imperfection except their own. Are you open-minded enough to give the church a chance--a chance for the church to be the church, not a coffee shop, not a mall, not a variety show, not Chuck E. Cheese, not a U2 concert, not a nature walk, but a wonderfully ordinary, blood-bought, Spirit-driven church with pastors, sermons, budgets, hymns, bad carpet and worse coffee?
The book Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion is now available.
Perhaps Christians are leaving the church because it isn't tolerant and open-minded. But perhaps the church-leavers have their own intolerance too--intolerant of tradition, intolerant of authority, intolerant of imperfection except their own. Are you open-minded enough to give the church a chance--a chance for the church to be the church, not a coffee shop, not a mall, not a variety show, not Chuck E. Cheese, not a U2 concert, not a nature walk, but a wonderfully ordinary, blood-bought, Spirit-driven church with pastors, sermons, budgets, hymns, bad carpet and worse coffee?
The book Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion is now available.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Evolution is Not Morally Neutral
One of the main reasons why the Holy Angels and the Holy Saints honor Holy, Holy, Holy God in heaven is because of His work of creation (see Revelation 4). The theory of evalution is not spiritually neutral! It is a slap in the face of the Omnipotent Creator. It questions the veracity of one of God’s greatest miracles. It detracts from God’s transcendent glory! So I repeat one more time, evolution is not morally neutral!
Revelation 4:9-11 And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying, "Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created."
Revelation 4:9-11 And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying, "Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created."
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Hero Worship and Holy Emulation
Hero Worship and Holy Emulation
By John Piper
I have unanswered questions about how to navigate the new world of media-driven celebrity attention to pastors. As Advance09 started in Durham, North Carolina, the News & Observer ran the headline “Celebrity Pastors Visit for Conference.” One might wish they had printed: “Imperfect, Passionate Pastors Come to Serve.” But that’s not news.
When I say media-driven attention, I am not mainly thinking about radio, TV, and newspapers. They are almost irrelevant. I mean Internet media. Most churches have websites. Sermons and articles and books are available. Often there is audio and video. Recently, for example, John MacArthur and Alistair Begg joined many others, including Desiring God, in making their online audio sermons free.
What happens then is that anywhere in the world people can read, watch, or listen. If they are helped, they can click in order to share it immediately with others anywhere in the world, who in turn share it again. This is what is meant by viral spreading.
Tens of thousands of linkings may take place almost instantly—through blogs, Twitter, texting, Facebook, and a dozen other sharing tools. This means that what a pastor does or says may be known in hours by hundreds of thousands of people around the world. This contributes to media-driven celebrity status.
Then stir into the mix that some pastors write books. There is a mystique about authors. “Author” connotes authority, or creativity, or wisdom. Authors are generally thought to be interesting people. I think very often these conceptions are not true. But for some, the fact that an author writes is more significant than what he writes.
What is the meaning of the attention given to well-known pastors? What does the desire for autographs and photographs mean? The negative meaning would be something akin to name-dropping. Our egos are massaged if we can say we know someone famous. You see this on blogs with words like “my friend Barack” and the like. And I presume that, for some, an autograph or a photo has the same ego-boost.
However, I don’t assume the worst of people. There are other possible motives. We will see this below. But it is good to emphasize that all of this is more dangerous to our souls than bullets and bombs. Pride is more fatal than death.
When I say “our souls” I mean all of us—the signature-seeker, the signer, and the cynic who condemns it all (on his very public blog). There is no escaping this new world. The question is, How do we navigate it for the glory of Christ, the crucifixion of self, the spread of truth, the deepening of faith, and the empowering of sacrificial love?
Here is one small contribution. In spite of all the legitimate warnings against hero worship, I want to risk waving a flag for holy emulation—which includes realistic admiration. Hero worship means admiring someone for unholy reasons and seeing all he does as admirable (whether it’s sin or not). Holy emulation, on the other hand, sees evidences of God’s grace, and admires them for Christ’s sake, and wants to learn from them and grow in them.
This theme is strong in the New Testament.
“Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1).
“Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us” (Philippians 3:17).
“What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you” (Philippians 4:9).
“And you became imitators of us and of the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 1:6).
“[Do] not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (Hebrews 6:12).
“You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness” (2 Timothy 3:10).
“Continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it” (2 Timothy 3:14).
“Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity” (Titus 2:7).
The old Puritan Thomas Brooks comments on holy emulation in The Secret Key to Heaven: Bad men are wonderfully in love with bad examples.... Oh, that we were as much in love with the examples of good men as others are in love with the examples of bad men. Shall we love to look upon the pictures of our friends; and shall we not love to look upon the pious examples of those that are the lively and lovely picture of Christ? The pious examples of others should be the mirrors by which we should dress ourselves. He is the best and wisest Christian...that imitates those Christians that are most imminent in grace.... It is noble to live by the examples of the most eminent saints.
It is right and risky to aim at being worthy of emulation. It is more foundationally right to aim at being helpful. It is essential in both that we be amazed that we are forgiven through Christ, and that we serve rather than seek to be served.
This does not answer all my questions about navigating these waters, but it helps.
Always in need of your prayers,
Pastor John Piper
By John Piper
I have unanswered questions about how to navigate the new world of media-driven celebrity attention to pastors. As Advance09 started in Durham, North Carolina, the News & Observer ran the headline “Celebrity Pastors Visit for Conference.” One might wish they had printed: “Imperfect, Passionate Pastors Come to Serve.” But that’s not news.
When I say media-driven attention, I am not mainly thinking about radio, TV, and newspapers. They are almost irrelevant. I mean Internet media. Most churches have websites. Sermons and articles and books are available. Often there is audio and video. Recently, for example, John MacArthur and Alistair Begg joined many others, including Desiring God, in making their online audio sermons free.
What happens then is that anywhere in the world people can read, watch, or listen. If they are helped, they can click in order to share it immediately with others anywhere in the world, who in turn share it again. This is what is meant by viral spreading.
Tens of thousands of linkings may take place almost instantly—through blogs, Twitter, texting, Facebook, and a dozen other sharing tools. This means that what a pastor does or says may be known in hours by hundreds of thousands of people around the world. This contributes to media-driven celebrity status.
Then stir into the mix that some pastors write books. There is a mystique about authors. “Author” connotes authority, or creativity, or wisdom. Authors are generally thought to be interesting people. I think very often these conceptions are not true. But for some, the fact that an author writes is more significant than what he writes.
What is the meaning of the attention given to well-known pastors? What does the desire for autographs and photographs mean? The negative meaning would be something akin to name-dropping. Our egos are massaged if we can say we know someone famous. You see this on blogs with words like “my friend Barack” and the like. And I presume that, for some, an autograph or a photo has the same ego-boost.
However, I don’t assume the worst of people. There are other possible motives. We will see this below. But it is good to emphasize that all of this is more dangerous to our souls than bullets and bombs. Pride is more fatal than death.
When I say “our souls” I mean all of us—the signature-seeker, the signer, and the cynic who condemns it all (on his very public blog). There is no escaping this new world. The question is, How do we navigate it for the glory of Christ, the crucifixion of self, the spread of truth, the deepening of faith, and the empowering of sacrificial love?
Here is one small contribution. In spite of all the legitimate warnings against hero worship, I want to risk waving a flag for holy emulation—which includes realistic admiration. Hero worship means admiring someone for unholy reasons and seeing all he does as admirable (whether it’s sin or not). Holy emulation, on the other hand, sees evidences of God’s grace, and admires them for Christ’s sake, and wants to learn from them and grow in them.
This theme is strong in the New Testament.
“Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1).
“Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us” (Philippians 3:17).
“What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you” (Philippians 4:9).
“And you became imitators of us and of the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 1:6).
“[Do] not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (Hebrews 6:12).
“You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness” (2 Timothy 3:10).
“Continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it” (2 Timothy 3:14).
“Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity” (Titus 2:7).
The old Puritan Thomas Brooks comments on holy emulation in The Secret Key to Heaven: Bad men are wonderfully in love with bad examples.... Oh, that we were as much in love with the examples of good men as others are in love with the examples of bad men. Shall we love to look upon the pictures of our friends; and shall we not love to look upon the pious examples of those that are the lively and lovely picture of Christ? The pious examples of others should be the mirrors by which we should dress ourselves. He is the best and wisest Christian...that imitates those Christians that are most imminent in grace.... It is noble to live by the examples of the most eminent saints.
It is right and risky to aim at being worthy of emulation. It is more foundationally right to aim at being helpful. It is essential in both that we be amazed that we are forgiven through Christ, and that we serve rather than seek to be served.
This does not answer all my questions about navigating these waters, but it helps.
Always in need of your prayers,
Pastor John Piper
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The Unwavering Resolve of Jonathan Edwards
Check out this book here http://www.ligonier.org/publishing_reformationtrust_catalog_unwaveringresolve.php
Jonathan Edwards is well known as perhaps the greatest theologian the United States has ever produced. He is equally noted for his preaching and writing. But in this Long Line Profile, Dr. Steven J. Lawson considers the unique focus and commitment with which Edwards sought to live out the Christian faith.
Lawson examines Edwards’ life through the lens of the seventy resolutions he penned in his late teens, shortly after his conversion. Lawson is quick to note that in writing these resolutions, Edwards was not merely seeking to bolster his own determination. As Edwards himself said before writing the first resolution, “Being sensible that I am unable to do anything without God’s help, I do humbly entreat him by his grace to enable me to keep these resolutions . . . for Christ’s sake.” Edwards knew he would never keep his resolutions in his own strength.
The resolutions cover everything from glorifying God to repenting of sin to managing time. Drawing on Edwards’ writings, as well as scholarly accounts of Edwards’ life and thought, Lawson shows how Edwards sought to live out these lofty goals he set for the management of his walk with Christ. In Edwards’ example, he finds helpful instruction for all believers.
Jonathan Edwards is well known as perhaps the greatest theologian the United States has ever produced. He is equally noted for his preaching and writing. But in this Long Line Profile, Dr. Steven J. Lawson considers the unique focus and commitment with which Edwards sought to live out the Christian faith.
Lawson examines Edwards’ life through the lens of the seventy resolutions he penned in his late teens, shortly after his conversion. Lawson is quick to note that in writing these resolutions, Edwards was not merely seeking to bolster his own determination. As Edwards himself said before writing the first resolution, “Being sensible that I am unable to do anything without God’s help, I do humbly entreat him by his grace to enable me to keep these resolutions . . . for Christ’s sake.” Edwards knew he would never keep his resolutions in his own strength.
The resolutions cover everything from glorifying God to repenting of sin to managing time. Drawing on Edwards’ writings, as well as scholarly accounts of Edwards’ life and thought, Lawson shows how Edwards sought to live out these lofty goals he set for the management of his walk with Christ. In Edwards’ example, he finds helpful instruction for all believers.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Why don't I blog more often?
Why don't I blog more often? That is a good question. Here is my short answer to a very fair question.
1. The primary reason is that each and every week my main writing project is the Sunday morning sermon. In total 15+ hours are spent trying to craft sermons from Biblical texts that will be doxological, edifying, and convicting. I normally don't have time to edit down the sermon manuscripts into helpful blog posts. My primary ministry is to my family and my church family.
2. I also have 2 children under 3 (Evelyn and Jude) with a third baby on the way (due date is Jan 15). Funny story. As i finished writing this blog my daughter brought me a broken glass. "Here dad!" As you well know, trying to be a good father and a loving husband requires lots of time.
3. When i do have spare time I am typically quite tired. Surfing the net, doing home improvement tasks, watching sports with my wife, reading a good book, or something like this normally takes precedence over blogging.
4. These days their are a million blogs out there to read. My personal favorites are Pyromanics and Albertmohler.com Some of these Christian blogs are very helpful and instructive. Plus my readership is quite modest.
1. The primary reason is that each and every week my main writing project is the Sunday morning sermon. In total 15+ hours are spent trying to craft sermons from Biblical texts that will be doxological, edifying, and convicting. I normally don't have time to edit down the sermon manuscripts into helpful blog posts. My primary ministry is to my family and my church family.
2. I also have 2 children under 3 (Evelyn and Jude) with a third baby on the way (due date is Jan 15). Funny story. As i finished writing this blog my daughter brought me a broken glass. "Here dad!" As you well know, trying to be a good father and a loving husband requires lots of time.
3. When i do have spare time I am typically quite tired. Surfing the net, doing home improvement tasks, watching sports with my wife, reading a good book, or something like this normally takes precedence over blogging.
4. These days their are a million blogs out there to read. My personal favorites are Pyromanics and Albertmohler.com Some of these Christian blogs are very helpful and instructive. Plus my readership is quite modest.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Some great advice
I came across this great quote today.
“I know the vanity of your heart, and that you will feel mortified that your congregation is very small, in comparison with those of your brethren around you; but assure yourself on the word of an old man, that when you come to give an account of them to the Lord Christ, at his judgment-seat, you will think you have had enough.” -- John Brown, to a newly ordained young pastor.
“I know the vanity of your heart, and that you will feel mortified that your congregation is very small, in comparison with those of your brethren around you; but assure yourself on the word of an old man, that when you come to give an account of them to the Lord Christ, at his judgment-seat, you will think you have had enough.” -- John Brown, to a newly ordained young pastor.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Attacks on Biblical Womanhood
Because the Days Are Evil
by Carolyn Mahaney
Biblical Womanhood Series Current Series
I was in bed with a stomach virus one morning and wanted to distract myself from how miserable I felt, so I turned on the Today Show. Co-Host Ann Curry was interviewing two moms who recently wrote a book entitled Getting to 50/50. The point of the book is this: A woman can have a great career, a great marriage, and be a great mother—all by getting her husband to share equally in the responsibilities in the home. Thus the title, Getting to 50/50.
These two authors were very pleasant and gracious. They were not the militant, angry type who can easily offend many. And they weren’t men bashers; in fact, they seemed to want to pursue a loving relationship with their husbands. And yet, the premise of their book is in direct contradiction to Scripture, which assigns men and women equally important, yet different roles (Gen. 1:26-27, 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor. 11:7-9, 1 Tim. 2:12-14). These women believe that there is no difference or distinction in the roles men and women are assigned. They want men to take on fifty percent of the woman’s role and women to assume fifty percent of a man’s role. Their assertions fly in the face of God’s creation design and mandate—and they do it all with a smile.After watching the interview, I turned the TV off. Instead of distracting myself from how sick I felt, now I felt sick and depressed!
Millions of people watch this show. And no doubt, many of the women watching were convinced of the rightness, the wisdom, and the attractiveness of these two woman’s assertions. “The days are evil” it says in Ephesians 5:16. And this form of evil is attractive and persuasive. We are living in days where biblical womanhood is being assaulted and undermined by feminism. Over the past fifty years, the ideology of the feminist movement has so permeated our culture and even the church, that today many of its tenets are simply assumed and accepted.
That’s why we blog about biblical womanhood. We want to help women discern the evil of feminist ideology gift-wrapped in pleasant and appealing words. We want to encourage women to receive God’s grace and strength to fulfill one hundred percent of the role to which He has called them.
by Carolyn Mahaney
Biblical Womanhood Series Current Series
I was in bed with a stomach virus one morning and wanted to distract myself from how miserable I felt, so I turned on the Today Show. Co-Host Ann Curry was interviewing two moms who recently wrote a book entitled Getting to 50/50. The point of the book is this: A woman can have a great career, a great marriage, and be a great mother—all by getting her husband to share equally in the responsibilities in the home. Thus the title, Getting to 50/50.
These two authors were very pleasant and gracious. They were not the militant, angry type who can easily offend many. And they weren’t men bashers; in fact, they seemed to want to pursue a loving relationship with their husbands. And yet, the premise of their book is in direct contradiction to Scripture, which assigns men and women equally important, yet different roles (Gen. 1:26-27, 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor. 11:7-9, 1 Tim. 2:12-14). These women believe that there is no difference or distinction in the roles men and women are assigned. They want men to take on fifty percent of the woman’s role and women to assume fifty percent of a man’s role. Their assertions fly in the face of God’s creation design and mandate—and they do it all with a smile.After watching the interview, I turned the TV off. Instead of distracting myself from how sick I felt, now I felt sick and depressed!
Millions of people watch this show. And no doubt, many of the women watching were convinced of the rightness, the wisdom, and the attractiveness of these two woman’s assertions. “The days are evil” it says in Ephesians 5:16. And this form of evil is attractive and persuasive. We are living in days where biblical womanhood is being assaulted and undermined by feminism. Over the past fifty years, the ideology of the feminist movement has so permeated our culture and even the church, that today many of its tenets are simply assumed and accepted.
That’s why we blog about biblical womanhood. We want to help women discern the evil of feminist ideology gift-wrapped in pleasant and appealing words. We want to encourage women to receive God’s grace and strength to fulfill one hundred percent of the role to which He has called them.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Is the President really saved?
From albertmohler.com
The issue of homosexuality presents all morally serious persons with an unavoidable question: What is the moral status of homosexual acts and relationships? One way or the other, some judgment on this matter will be made.
Are homosexual acts inherently wrong, dishonorable, and sinful? Or, is homosexuality morally neutral, with specific sexual acts and relationships determined to be either right or wrong by context and intention? Are homosexual acts morally good and honorable? These assertions of moral judgment represent something of the range of possibilities and cover most of the main alternatives.
Most Americans come to moral judgments by a complex and often confused process that combines moral intuition with emotivism and some (often quite minimal) knowledge of the history of moral judgment. Add to this the fact that most Americans are highly influenced by popular culture and mass opinion. In the end, as many observers have argued, most Americans are probably moral pragmatists at heart.
On an issue as controversial as homosexuality, moral confusion abounds. Americans respond to questions related to homosexuality with a range of often inconsistent and contradictory moral judgments. Ask a question about same-sex marriage one way and you get one answer. Change the question slightly, and you might get a very different response from the very same person.
President Barack Obama recently signed a proclamation designating the month of June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2009."
The President declared:
Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.
President Obama is not the first American president to make such a declaration. In 2000, President Bill Clinton signed a similar executive order declaring June of that year as "Gay and Lesbian Pride Month."
The issue of homosexuality presents all morally serious persons with an unavoidable question: What is the moral status of homosexual acts and relationships? One way or the other, some judgment on this matter will be made.
Are homosexual acts inherently wrong, dishonorable, and sinful? Or, is homosexuality morally neutral, with specific sexual acts and relationships determined to be either right or wrong by context and intention? Are homosexual acts morally good and honorable? These assertions of moral judgment represent something of the range of possibilities and cover most of the main alternatives.
Most Americans come to moral judgments by a complex and often confused process that combines moral intuition with emotivism and some (often quite minimal) knowledge of the history of moral judgment. Add to this the fact that most Americans are highly influenced by popular culture and mass opinion. In the end, as many observers have argued, most Americans are probably moral pragmatists at heart.
On an issue as controversial as homosexuality, moral confusion abounds. Americans respond to questions related to homosexuality with a range of often inconsistent and contradictory moral judgments. Ask a question about same-sex marriage one way and you get one answer. Change the question slightly, and you might get a very different response from the very same person.
President Barack Obama recently signed a proclamation designating the month of June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2009."
The President declared:
Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.
President Obama is not the first American president to make such a declaration. In 2000, President Bill Clinton signed a similar executive order declaring June of that year as "Gay and Lesbian Pride Month."
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Climbing the Mount of God
We are going to climb Mount Sinai this Sunday and begin Revelation 4 & 5. Pray for me!
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Where have we been???
My sister graduated from college on Friday and then we had our first Kolstad family reunion (since 2003).Thursday, April 30, 2009
How to View the Swine Flu
By Dr. Al Mohler for entire article click here http://www.albertmohler.com/
...The outbreak of swine flu now dominates the headlines and news programs, with at least 150 deaths in Mexico already recorded even as the disease is now confirmed around the world. For many years medical authorities have warned of a coming influenza pandemic -- a modern plague -- that could kill on a magnitude similar to the 1918 outbreak that killed over 100 million persons worldwide.
Writing in The Atlantic in 2005, Michael Specter called influenza "Nature's Bioterrorist." As Specter explains, "A pandemic is the viral equivalent of a perfect storm. There are three essential conditions, which rarely converge, and they are impossible to predict. But the requirements are clear. A new flu virus must emerge from the animal reservoirs that have always produced and harbored such viruses--one that has never infected human beings and therefore one to which no person would have antibodies. Second, the virus has to actually make humans sick (most don't). Finally, it must be able to spread efficiently--through coughing, sneezing, or a handshake."
Is this outbreak of swine flu the harbinger of a hellish pandemic? It is far too early to say, and there is no justification for jumping to that conclusion. Nevertheless, it is a clear warning. Even in a normal year 36,000 Americans die of the flu. We are made of fragile stuff.
Experts on pandemics suggest that the question is "when" and not "if" this threatened pandemic will come. Michael Specter offers a sober warning: "Infectious-disease experts talk about pandemics the way geologists talk about earthquakes; the discussion is never about whether 'the big one' will hit."
The public discussion about swine flu and the threat of a breakout pandemic should prompt Christians to think seriously and soberly about what all this means. Biblical Christianity has much to say about disease and sickness, and the Christian tradition is rich with thought about how Christians, churches, and pastors should think of sickness, disease, and death.
At the onset, we must remember that sickness and death are part of the curse. Every single disease and malady can be traced back to Genesis 3 and humanity's fall into sin. Adam and Eve were the first humans to taste life and, after their sin, they were also the first to taste sickness and death. While only a few sicknesses can be traced to specific sins (such as sexually transmitted diseases), in reality the whole enterprise of sickness and death is rightly traced to sin, both individual and corporate. The New Creation that is coming will know no sickness and death, for the curse is reversed in Christ. Yet, even as we await the coming of the Day of the Lord, in this life we will all know the pangs, pains, perplexities, and perniciousness of disease. We are headed for death.
Nevertheless, we should be thankful for modern medicine, and the invention of both antibiotics and antiseptics. The germ theory of disease is a relatively recent human achievement, and the widespread use of effective antibiotics dates back only to the midpoint of the last century. While thankful for these medical advances, we are reminded that humanity will never finally triumph over disease and death. The curse is beyond our power to reverse.
At the same time, Christians have honored Christ by ministering to the sick. As Thomas C. Oden reminds us, "Christian ministry prays in good conscience for healing, although it does not tempt God by making faith contingent upon a particular healing. Ministry never prays that sickness or pain be increased. Ministry consistently is on the side of fighting affliction, not increasing it. Meanwhile, it does not view pain as an absolute evil out of which no good could ever come."
Martin Luther, no stranger to sickness, taught his congregation to use medical means, but to place trust in God alone. "Rather you should go on in simple faith, and when you are in danger and trouble, you should use whatever means you can, lest you tempt God. But if you find that these means, which God has created to dispel danger or sickness, supply neither the desired help or the remedy, then cast your care and your life on God and commit yourself to the direction of His wisdom and goodness."
...The outbreak of swine flu now dominates the headlines and news programs, with at least 150 deaths in Mexico already recorded even as the disease is now confirmed around the world. For many years medical authorities have warned of a coming influenza pandemic -- a modern plague -- that could kill on a magnitude similar to the 1918 outbreak that killed over 100 million persons worldwide.
Writing in The Atlantic in 2005, Michael Specter called influenza "Nature's Bioterrorist." As Specter explains, "A pandemic is the viral equivalent of a perfect storm. There are three essential conditions, which rarely converge, and they are impossible to predict. But the requirements are clear. A new flu virus must emerge from the animal reservoirs that have always produced and harbored such viruses--one that has never infected human beings and therefore one to which no person would have antibodies. Second, the virus has to actually make humans sick (most don't). Finally, it must be able to spread efficiently--through coughing, sneezing, or a handshake."
Is this outbreak of swine flu the harbinger of a hellish pandemic? It is far too early to say, and there is no justification for jumping to that conclusion. Nevertheless, it is a clear warning. Even in a normal year 36,000 Americans die of the flu. We are made of fragile stuff.
Experts on pandemics suggest that the question is "when" and not "if" this threatened pandemic will come. Michael Specter offers a sober warning: "Infectious-disease experts talk about pandemics the way geologists talk about earthquakes; the discussion is never about whether 'the big one' will hit."
The public discussion about swine flu and the threat of a breakout pandemic should prompt Christians to think seriously and soberly about what all this means. Biblical Christianity has much to say about disease and sickness, and the Christian tradition is rich with thought about how Christians, churches, and pastors should think of sickness, disease, and death.
At the onset, we must remember that sickness and death are part of the curse. Every single disease and malady can be traced back to Genesis 3 and humanity's fall into sin. Adam and Eve were the first humans to taste life and, after their sin, they were also the first to taste sickness and death. While only a few sicknesses can be traced to specific sins (such as sexually transmitted diseases), in reality the whole enterprise of sickness and death is rightly traced to sin, both individual and corporate. The New Creation that is coming will know no sickness and death, for the curse is reversed in Christ. Yet, even as we await the coming of the Day of the Lord, in this life we will all know the pangs, pains, perplexities, and perniciousness of disease. We are headed for death.
Nevertheless, we should be thankful for modern medicine, and the invention of both antibiotics and antiseptics. The germ theory of disease is a relatively recent human achievement, and the widespread use of effective antibiotics dates back only to the midpoint of the last century. While thankful for these medical advances, we are reminded that humanity will never finally triumph over disease and death. The curse is beyond our power to reverse.
At the same time, Christians have honored Christ by ministering to the sick. As Thomas C. Oden reminds us, "Christian ministry prays in good conscience for healing, although it does not tempt God by making faith contingent upon a particular healing. Ministry never prays that sickness or pain be increased. Ministry consistently is on the side of fighting affliction, not increasing it. Meanwhile, it does not view pain as an absolute evil out of which no good could ever come."
Martin Luther, no stranger to sickness, taught his congregation to use medical means, but to place trust in God alone. "Rather you should go on in simple faith, and when you are in danger and trouble, you should use whatever means you can, lest you tempt God. But if you find that these means, which God has created to dispel danger or sickness, supply neither the desired help or the remedy, then cast your care and your life on God and commit yourself to the direction of His wisdom and goodness."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)