The One-Man Peanut Gallery

An Apology

2012-02-13T22:08:00.002-06:00

A few of my recent entries have disappeared. Upon further reflection, I believe I should not have posted them, so I took them down. It was a matter that should have remained in-house on my part. I was wrong to take it public. I apologize.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, move along. Thanks.

Rage Against God

2012-02-08T22:26:00.000-06:00

Proverbs 19:3 - When a man's folly brings his way to ruin, his heart rages against the LORD.

First, what is the situation? A man makes a foolish choice - or more likely, a long series of foolish decisions, a foolish lifestyle. Is he mad at himself for doing this? Of course not. He's mad at God!

It's easy for some of us to picture this. We have the friend or relative or coworker who constantly does ridiculous things, pays the consequences, and says something like "God must really hate me, huh?" Whether it's the drug addict, the person whose investment plan is the lottery, the serial fornicator whose entire paycheck goes to child support, or whatever example you prefer, a long streak of foolish living brings the expected consequences, and somehow it's God's "fault".

So we all probably know that kind of person. Well, what can we learn from the proverb? I've got a few things.

1. What is folly or foolishness, anyway? Is it not living without fear of God? The fear of YHWH is the beginning of wisdom - the fool lacks both. So living in folly is not making a bad decision or two. It's persistent rebellion against God's word. This person lives as though God doesn't exist, until the payment comes due for his sin. Then, suddenly, God exists, and He's to blame for the mess the fool is in.

We have a saying around church - choose to sin, choose to suffer. This man chooses persistent, unrelenting sin, so we cannot be the least bit surprised when consequences come. Acting opposed to God's revealed will brings the consequences God promised. So the fool is apparently mad at God for determining the right way to live, and being faithful to his word about those who rebel against it. Nothing angers a fool quite like God's holiness and honesty.

2. What about the wise? What would it look like to flip the proverb around? I think we would get something like this: When a man's wisdom brings blessing, his heart praises the LORD. Praise Him for what? For making an orderly world where the path of wisdom (obedience) is blessed. For making us wise in spite of ourselves. For being true to His word. Etc etc.

As the fool never blames himself for his ruin, the wise man never boasts of himself for blessing. Whether the blessing is physical, material, or spiritual, the wise man does not boast, but credits God. "What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?"

How are you doing on this, by the way? On a scale of "God is gracious" to "Look at what my hands have built!", where do you rank?

3. I thought I had a point 3, but...

Oh, I remember! Take this proverb and apply it to modern psychobabble ideas of things we know to be sin. If you want the clearest example, go with the sin cause celebre du jour, homosexuality. There is hardly a stronger expression of rage over sin than "God made me this way!" More and more sins are using that as an excuse. "It's not my fault I do this wicked deed, God made me that way. Blame him!" Rather than repenting, he shifts blame onto God, and continues along in his sinful folly, blissfully unaware of the oncoming ruin.

I don't believe such things are an attempt to excuse the behavior so much as an expression of rage against God for declaring it wrong in the first place. It's not, "Oh, I would change this if only I could, but God made it so I can't." It's, "I want to do this sin, and I hate God for what He says about it and how He will punish me for it."

[Something way too snarky was here. It's gone now.]

Proverbs Take 2

2011-12-23T23:52:00.000-06:00

A few weeks ago I started what I hope to be an occasional series on Proverbs. Lately Tricia and I have been talking through them over meals, during long car rides, etc, and it's been a great way to study and apply scripture together. This time I want to revisit 15:17 and show some of the thoughts we had on it, then maybe throw out another one for discussion.

Better is a dinner of herbs where love is
than a fattened ox and hatred with it. (Proverbs 15:17)

The proverb compares two extreme situations, likely meant to be families, although obviously proverbial wisdom extends far beyond that. The first family is poor - for dinner, all they can scratch together is a plate of herbs. They have a barely subsistence level lifestyle. Eating meat is a luxury they can barely imagine; they'd be overjoyed to get some fresh fruit or a loaf of bread. But they love each other, and despite crushing poverty, they have a happy, supportive home. Dad would do anything for Mom, Mom respects Dad despite his lack of wealth, and the kids are committed to serving and helping the family as much as they can.

The second family is rich beyond belief, eating the equivalent of Wagyu beef for an average dinner. A fattened calf was something so valuable, rich people reserved them for special occasions (see Luke 15), yet this family routinely downs them for occasions like "it's Wednesday!" We're talking royal-level material blessing. Problem is, they hate each other. Mom doesn't respect Dad, Dad doesn't even like Mom, and the kids wouldn't mind if their parents just died so they could get their inheritance and move on already. Dinner's considered a success if nobody even talks, because at least they're not yelling or throwing things. They're a family in name only.

These are the extremes - dirt poor with genuine love, and unthinkable wealth without so much as a shred of common courtesy. And Solomon says, given the choice between the two, it's better to choose love than wealth.

Now obviously few if any will come close to either extreme. But purt near all of us will face situations which mirror the choice. We will have to weigh decisions based on "what will this mean for me financially" and "what effect will this have on my marriage/family" - and sometimes we'll find that mo money means mo problems. When making a decision, some factors are a whole lot more important than "how much money will we make?"

OK, so having your marriage and family be a model of Biblical love is better than being rich (it should go without saying that contrary to the absurdities (I won't even dignify them by calling them 'opinions') of the Useful Idiot types (#OWS, Wallis, etc), you can be both). The follow-up question this Proverb begs is, how do you get that type of loving family? This is where thinking of specific choices can bring the wisdom to home - often in the form of a punch to the gut of my past/present idiocy. Some areas we thought of where this proverb could apply:

Dating/Spouse selection. News flash: who you marry will have a significant impact on your marriage and family life. (You can't get insight like that just anywhere, folks!) So what do you look for in a spouse - or what do you train your kids to most desire? Let me put it this way - if one of my daughters ever says anything like "Well, he makes me miserable and I don't really like him, but he's going to be a doctor so we'll at least be financially secure," she may need to stay in a stone tower until her hair grows long enough for an escape. (For further reflection, this.)

Workaholics. In many jobs, your pay will be somewhat proportional to your workload. You can provide better financially by working longer hours, bringing extra work home, etc - but at what cost? Is the extra money worth it if it means burdening your wife and neglecting the kids? Sometimes it would be foolish to take on more work - and sometimes it would be sinful neglect of duty to not work more (1 Tim 5:8).

Going from 20 to 40 hours may be a necessity, from 40 to 50 can provide tremendous financial blessing with minimal effect on the family, but from 50 to 90 can be familial suicide. This proverb warns against working so much to provide insane riches, while driving the family to hate you. Finding the right balance is a struggle that'll be all too familiar for many who read this - including the one writing it.

Contentment. Closely related to the above. Is the increase in lifestyle or net worth going to be enough to justify the effect it will have on the family? Can you be content with what you have, even as your friends or coworkers are making more and flaunting it? Anyone in his right mind would rather eat a fattened ox than salad. But what will it take to get there, and is it worth it?

Unethical/Illegal Behavior. Sometimes the quick path to wealth will be unethical or outright illegal. Guess what? If you become a shyster at work, it'll follow you home. Loan sharks and thieves don't tend to have great marriages or tremendous relationships with their kids. Know why? Because they're the type of men who can be loan sharks and thieves. Depravity doesn't start when you punch the time clock in and stay at the office when you leave.

How about a current-events example? Here in Illinois, we recently had yet another governor convicted on corruption charges. Blago wasn't content with a great salary and pension; he wanted to raise his family as if they had vastly more wealth than they did. He shook down everyone he could for the money to support the lavish lifestyle. Now how much do you think his family will care about the fancy dinners and vacations and expensive clothes and cars while he spends the next decade or more in prison? And how great must it be knowing your father is the type of guy who'd withhold funding from a children's hospital until they pay a bribe? Think that kind of character just may spill over into parenting or marriage, just a little?

Helpmate Suitable. Much of this so far has been primarily at the men, because I are one. So this is for the ladies. How do you best support your man as he tries to provide for the family? How can you best help him balance his duties at work, home, and church, without belittling or berating? Can you be the voice of contentment instead of the voice of more, more, more - especially if your current standard of living is significantly lower than daddy provided? (I will not elaborate on that for now, except to say I've seen that issue far too frequently, and there are few ways to destroy your husband faster than telling him he doesn't live up to your dad.)

So there's where I went with that proverb. Feel free to chime in more applications or expound on these some more.

And for next time, let's think through Proverbs 19:3. "When a man's folly brings his way to ruin, his heart rages against the Lord."

Oddball Verses

2011-12-21T21:44:00.001-06:00

Every once in a while, you encounter a paragraph in scripture where one line doesn't seem to entirely fit. Every verse is about one topic, but another verse or sentence is about something else entirely.

Or is it?

For those of us who believe that the Bible is God's Word, we must affirm that the scripture is a coherent piece, and that the seemingly oddball verse is integral to the passage. (Actually, that's just common courtesy to believe of an even slightly competent author - knowing that scripture was written by men as carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21) only solidifies it as an absolute.) The question to axe is not "what in the world is this doing where it doesn't belong?", but "how does this verse inform the meaning of the whole passage?"

An example of this is found in Romans 12:14-21. Here is the passage, minus the seemingly oddball verse 16.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep... Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Over and over again, this passage makes the same point from different angles: When people are evil to you, be good to them. Don't take revenge or do evil in return; trust God, and do good.

And what is verse 16, which doesn't seem at first to fit? "Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight." A call to humility and a warning about pride.

So here is where you come in, dear reader. How does verse 16 fit with the rest of the paragraph - actually, how does it form the foundation?

Church on Christmas?

2011-12-11T21:19:00.001-06:00

This year, Christmas falls on a Sunday, which means it's time once again for the debate about what to do with church services. Some churches will meet on Sunday as scheduled or on a modified schedule, and some others will shift everything to Saturday.

What do I think? Of course churches should meet on Christmas Sunday. Why in the world wouldn't we? Because it's a holiday - a holy day? Yes, why would we want to gather together as the body of Christ to worship God on a holy day? That would be silly.

Just so I'm clear - I don't just disagree with the opposing position. I don't even understand why it's a question in the first place. I cannot think of one solitary reason why we should move services when Christmas falls on a Sunday. In fact, in years where Christmas falls on some other day, I would love to have an extra service on Christmas morning (granted, many churches will have Christmas Eve services instead, which is nice).

So here's my request - if you have a reason why we shouldn't meet on Sunday, let me know. Particularly if you favor moving from Sunday, I would love to hear the reasoning. And then we can take those reasons and ask whether we should meet on Easter.

I do not understand. I do not comprehend. Please help. Thanks.

Pharisees?

2011-12-08T15:40:00.001-06:00

You may have noticed that it's become fairly commonplace to describe "religious people" as Pharisees (if you can't think of an example, wait a week). Generally the pattern is like so. A church or pastor wants to do something different, maybe something fairly innocuous (more modern musical style), but more often pushing the boundaries or even outright blasphemous (examples far too numerous). Someone objects that it's inappropriate, in bad taste, etc. That person is derided as a Pharisee. As an added bonus, we are often then told that the church should - no, must - do these kinds of things to shock the Pharisees, because after all, Jesus went out of his way to upset them in his day.

Does that argument hold up? Is it legit to compare those with more conservative taste - even those who can get downright legalistic about it - to the Pharisees? I've got some issues with that, starting with...

1) Most often, the objector is a God-fearer. The Pharisees were not. In case you forgot, the Pharisees were the chief earthly opponents of Jesus Christ and his church. They were so evil that they hated Jesus when sinners were reconciled to God through him, and when they could no longer deny that Jesus was Messiah, they plotted to kill him and bury the evidence.

Mildred (because it's always a little old lady named Mildred, usually with a big hat) has been faithfully attending the church for 70 years, leading Sunday School classes and spending hours a week in prayer for the manifold needs of the church. She doesn't think that playing the song "Kill Your Mother, Stab a Baby, Rape a Goat" by the hot new band "Christ-Punchers" was really appropriate for opening worship at the Christmas Eve service.

Yeah, they're basically the same.

In sum, one group loves Jesus and wants to serve him the best they can (even if they might be wrong on the specifics of how). The other hated Jesus and did everything in their power to silence and kill him. Even thinking about equating the two is nauseating.

2) If anything, the objector is the weaker brother. Let's take an example where the deck's not so stacked - in this one, the objector may even be wrong. Good ole Larry's church decided recently to switch to a more modern worship style. The organ is being phased out and will soon be gone, replaced with electric instruments - guitars, keyboards, those guitars that are like double guitars, maybe even a keytar. Larry objects, and not just due to a difference of taste. He's been taught that such instruments are evil, and are not fit for Christian use.

Now, assuming you believe (as I do) that electric guitars are not necessarily evil, it's not entirely cromulent to compare Larry to a God-hating, Christ-hating son of the devil like the Pharisees. A much more appropriate comparison is found in Romans 14.

In this passage, Paul considers the case of the weaker brother. This person has come to faith in Christ, but is not yet mature enough in his knowledge to understand the full extent of his freedom. Regarding dietary laws, some in the church understood that they were now free to eat, while some less mature ones didn't yet fully appreciate that freedom. What does Paul say to do? Deride the vegetarian as a Christ-hating Pharisee? Publicly ridicule him for being stuck in old dietary rules mode? Flaunt your freedom by eating a medium rare ribeye or a cheeseburger in front of him every chance you get? Go out of your way to tick him off?

Quite the opposite. We are to make reasonable accommodations where possible, and while working to bring the weaker brother to maturity in that area, strive to avoid harming his weaker faith. If he is in Christ, he deserves the same grace you received when you were an immature newbie (or immature-in-that-area 45-year veteran). Work to build up, not to destroy.

The situation where the objector is wrong will most often fall under this scenario. Rather than slandering him as a Pharisee (about the worst epithet conceivable) and making him the object of public scorn, we should overflow with grace and patience towards him. Even when he's wrong. Especially when he's wrong.

3) Intentionally ticking people off? To hear some talk about it, Jesus thought his main mission was to seek and savor every opportunity to stick his finger in a Pharisee's eye. Thus, they see it as their duty to intentionally aggravate the Pharisees in their midst - who are most often probably weaker brothers who need to be built up, but no worries. In fact, some will claim their boundary-pushing actions are designed primarily, if not solely, to annoy the uptight conservative old ladies in big hats. Does that really reflect what Jesus did?

Now of course, Jesus did frequently upset a lot of people. But it's highly debatable that he ever upset someone as an end in itself, or even as his primary goal. He healed on the Sabbath not to taunt the Pharisees, but because it was the Sabbath and people needed healing. He axed the Samaritan woman about her serial marriages, not looking to mock her while she went scurrying off in shame, but to cut right to the heart of her need to repent. He taught hard truths not because they were offensive, but because they were true.

Of course, the truth about God and us is always offensive. Those who are Satan's children will of course be offended by the gospel. Is it necessary, or even wise, to intentionally add offense on top of that? Let them be upset at Christ, and not upset at you for being a jerk.

So there ya go. If you've used this ridiculous argument to smear opponents, repent of it and stop.

Thinking Through Proverbs, Take 1

2011-12-06T22:46:00.001-06:00

My second-favorite book I read this year was God's Wisdom in Proverbs by Dan Phillips. Coincidentally, the best was The World-Tilting Gospel, also by Dan Phillips. Basically, you should buy several copies of each, read one and give away the others. If you get nothing else from this post, that's fine, go do that and be blessed.

For those who chose to soldier on, this is the most important thing I learned from GWiP: as long as I can remember, I've been reading Proverbs wrong. I'd always struggled to really benefit from Proverbs because I'd been reading it no differently from an epistle or history book - in large chunks, often several chapters at a time. Every time I read it, it was as part of a reading plan that focused on quantity, getting through the books in a reasonable time. I would read through the Bible in a year (generally 3-4 chapters in a day on those plans) or do the famous "this month has 31 days, read a chapter of Proverbs a day" plan.

The problem is, Proverbs is not meant to be read that way. Rather than reading a large quantity and looking for a unifying theme, following the flow of the argument, or following a narrative account, each Proverb is a standalone nugget of truth to be mined and savored. Don't blow through a whole chapter, barely pausing for a "oh, that's deep" before flying on to the next. Take one proverb, mull it over, think on it some more, imagine the scenario(s) being described (come up with a short story or parable if you can), and work it over for every ounce of truth and application you can glean from it. Talk it over with your family, friends, or Bible study, and work on it some more. You will be amazed at how much application can be made from a short 2-line saying.

Don't believe me? Let's try one together. Proverbs 15:17 - "Better a dinner of herbs where love is / than a fattened ox and hatred with it."

Think about it and post your thoughts in the comments. Some of the applications I thought of include spouse selection/what to train my daughters to value in a husband, workaholism, contentment, helpmate suitable issues, and the meaning of "provision". Let's see what you come up with in those categories, as well as others I missed.

One More Night With The Frogs

2011-10-31T23:55:00.000-05:00

Have you ever noticed this in Exodus? The second plague God unleashed on Egypt was to completely overwhelm it with frogs. Pharaoh had his magicians try to help, but all they could do was replicate the problem and make it marginally worse - they were utterly powerless to stop it. Finally, Pharaoh gives in and decides to axe Moses for help...

Then Pharaoh called Moses and Aaron and said, "Plead with the LORD to take away the frogs from me and from my people, and I will let the people go to sacrifice to the LORD." Moses said to Pharaoh, "Be pleased to command me when I am to plead for you and for your servants and for your people, that the frogs be cut off from you and your houses and be left only in the Nile." And he said, "Tomorrow." Moses said, "Be it as you say, so that you may know that there is no one like the LORD our God. (Exodus 8:8-10)

Wait, what?

Tomorrow?!

What about, oh, I dunno, right now?

Pharaoh had a thoroughly disgusting problem he had exactly zero hope of solving, and a standing offer of help from the only person in the entire world who actually could stop it. And he decided to spend one more night with the frogs.

When it comes to dealing with sin, how often do we do the same thing?

Be Ready

2011-09-18T08:14:00.000-05:00

I recently read 1 Thessalonians again and was reminded of a neat little quirk about the book. Aside from a few lines of goodbye at the end, the end of each of the five chapters is a reminder that Jesus is coming back. Check it out:

Chapter 1: ...and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

Chapter 2: For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you? For you are our glory and joy.

Chapter 3: ...so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

Chapter 4: For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words.

Chapter 5: Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.

Neat, huh? Now obviously the chapter breaks are not inspired, etc, but still, it gets the point across. Whatever Paul had to say to this church - every encouragement and exhortation, every command or rebuke, all theology and practice - was to be seen in light of the fact that Jesus is coming back to claim his people and judge the world.

So what does this mean for us?

For those who have repented of their sin and embraced the salvation which is in Jesus Christ alone, this is a great encouragement, greater even than grief over the death of a loved one (4:13-18). All the wrongs of this world are coming to an end, all persecution we face will meet ultimate justice, and all our hope will be fulfilled beyond our wildest imaginations. No matter what we've sacrificed in this world or how difficult the struggle may be, the glory at the end is exceedingly worth it. And the commands are not given in a vacuum - they are to be received in the knowledge that Jesus will judge his enemies and reward his people.

The big question facing Christians is whether we remember this well enough. How often do we remind ourselves and each other that Jesus is coming back? Are we living in light of this fact - and doing all we can to prepare others as well? Are we warning those who are still rebelling against God, and exhorting them to be reconciled through Jesus, with the necessary urgency while they still have time?

And for those who are still rebelling against their creator? This truth is the most dreadful news they could ever hear. I was reflecting on this during the 9/11 remembrance news we just went through, and found the juxtaposition rather jarring. The utter fear of another round of terrorist attacks, the kvetching about our emergency response readiness, the endless debates about if something else is coming, how severe it would be, and what we can do about it - all the while pretending to be blissfully unaware that Jesus Christ is definitely returning, it will be millions of times more severe than every terrorist attack and natural disaster in the history of the world combined, and while there's nothing anyone can do to stop it, God has graciously told us the only place to find shelter.

Jesus Christ is coming again. Be ready.

Abigail Faith

2011-08-28T02:54:00.001-05:00

Abigail Faith Machel, born 8/28/11, 7 lb 11 oz.

She's awesome.

Family of 4.

Learning to Like It

2011-08-13T16:44:00.000-05:00

If you've paid the tiniest bit of attention to the Christian blogosphere or publishing world this year, you probably heard about Rob Bell's fancy new update of George MacDonald-style universalism (that 'hell' is temporary (in Bell's update, it's temporal as well) and restorative rather than punitive - it's God's redeeming/purifying fire rather than his wrathful punishment of sin). Hopefully if that book was even the slightest bit intriguing to you, you first (or better, instead) read Kevin DeYoung's outstanding critique affirming the Biblical doctrine of God's judgment.

But this isn't about any of that, per se.

One interesting phenomenon which arose from the discussion of hell was the tone of many of the defenses of the doctrine - "I may not like the idea of hell, but the Bible teaches it, so I guess I have to believe it". Now this is clearly superior to outright disobedience, but it's short of what Christian maturity requires. DeYoung recently posted two articles which deal with this issue, and these I also wholeheartedly commend to you.

It boils down to this: scripture teaches us the character and will of God. God is good, and everything He does is good. Our goal in sanctification is to become more like Christ, which involves renewal of our minds to love the things God loves. Now, begrudging acceptance is certainly better than rejection of any kind, but we can do better. Consider four possible responses to Biblical teachings, ranked from worst to best:

1) Hypocrisy/Sabotage. Someone who claims to believe, but actively works against the Biblical doctrine. Often accomplished by using familiar Biblical terms in new, unbiblical ways (any similarity between this description and Bell's entire modus operandi is totally not accidental). This is the lowest of the low, worse than outright atheism - these are the wolves, the false teachers that we are so frequently warned about.

2) Defiant rejection. Better than the first class, because at least it's honest. The Bible clearly teaches it, but we reject it because we don't like it. This is the default state of fallen humanity.

3) Begrudging acceptance. "I may not like or understand it, but scripture plainly teaches it, so I have to believe it." Clearly and unquestionably better than the previous, but still not where we need to be. It still trusts my own sense of goodness more than God's, and places myself as judge over him, which is obviously wrong. The acceptance at best comes from a commendable knowledge that God's Word is true, but lacks the conviction that God's way is good.

4) Conformed affection. This is where we need to get. Not only accepting the truth of God's Word, but being fully convinced of its goodness. We learn to love what God loves.

Now the big challenge is to identify areas where you, personally, are still stuck in group 3 and need to grow up, to mature to response 4 (if you're in response 1 or 2, your biggest need isn't maturity but repentance). In my experience, there are three big doctrinal areas where the Biblical teaching is abundantly clear, but acceptance for many is begrudging at best.

God's righteous judgment/hell. See the DeYoung articles. Far too many of us 'defend' the doctrine as if it's detestable. And the thought of any person willingly bearing God's wrath rather than repenting and believing in Jesus Christ is horrific. Yet scripture is clear that glorified saints in heaven will cry out for God's judgment on the wicked and rejoice when it happens. What do we need to understand about hell and judgment to bring our attitude closer to the perfected saints in heaven?

God's sovereign election. I spent a long time as a begrudging believer, after a long time trying to rationalize away the scriptural evidence. The big change for me came through a better understanding of our depraved nature as well as God's gracious display of his glory.

Complementarianism. I think I'm detecting more begrudgingness in defenses of God's created order. Not just with complementary roles for male and female, but also with sexuality in general. Why is it good that the genders are designed have different roles in the church and home? Why is it good that boys should like girls, and why is it good that boys should not like other boys? Maybe it's just my imagination, but I'm hearing a bit too much "Well, sorry you can't be a pastor, but rules are rules, ya know?" and "Gee, it sure would be great if you could indulge those sexual desires, but God says it's bad, so you have to resist, I guess", and not enough faithful proclamation of the glorious way God created us male and female.

What doctrines do you struggle to wholeheartedly accept? With what other doctrines do you too often see timid, begrudging acceptance?

The Blessed Miracle of Utter Failure

2011-08-06T16:37:00.000-05:00

Have you ever noticed how the mission Jesus initially gave to his first disciples is the same as the mission he gave the church right before his ascension? Jesus is all about making disciples, true worshipers of God throughout all the world. From the call of the sons of Jonah and Zebedee, to the last words he uttered on earth until his glorious return, the mission is unchanged.

So it seems fitting that one of Jesus' great miracles would be repeated at each end of his earthly ministry. Luke 5:1-11 and John 21:1-14 contain the same basic story, although in different contexts. In one case he had just come on the scene and was starting to call people to himself, in the other his devoted followers were trying to figure out what the resurrection meant and answer the all-important question, "So, now what?" But both miracles were essentially the same: professional fishermen spent all night fishing in the Sea of Galilee without catching a single thing, Jesus told them to throw the nets out once more, and the catch was completely overwhelming. In both cases, the disciples immediately recognized this as nothing less than the power of God.

Until recently I was inclined to think of the miracle as the huge catch, and indeed I've often seen it referred to as the "miraculous catch" or something similar. But I think the miracle actually starts much earlier - how in the world could these guys fish all night in those waters and catch nothing?

I had the privilege to go to Israel a few years ago, and spent a little time around the Sea of Galilee (which is really not that big of a lake). The first thing that jumped out was the fish - literally, actually. This lake was absolutely teeming with fish everywhere. The first night walking close to the shore, they were jumping up from the water. They were so tightly packed in there that you could have thrust your hand in and had a decent chance of grabbing one. A child with a handheld net could swipe it through the water and have a pretty good catch rate.

I can't imagine professional fishermen casting a net measuring a couple hundred square feet into the water and pulling up nothing. Doing it once would be a real head-scratcher. Doing it again, and again, and again, and again, and again.... all through the night, all through the best fishing times, over and over and over and over... All this, all night, dozens of casts, throwing out bait, trying new spots, trying again and again until they were beyond exhausted, seeing fish by the thousands swimming down there, practically jumping into their boats - and not a single fish landed in their nets. Not even one.

This utter failure could not be natural. This was the setup for a miracle, but it could easily be classified as a miracle itself. The two parts go together: first the longest, most miserable and frustrating night of fishing ever, an epic fail if there ever was one. Then, a single cast into the same water brought more fish than they can handle. The combined effect was powerful - Jesus, who made it happen, must be divine. And not one fisherman involved could possibly have believed the result was due to his own mad skillz.

That last part is especially important to remember in light of what would happen merely weeks after the second event. Peter, who had been a recipient of both miracles, would deliver his first sermon. What was the result? "So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls."

Peter had fished for men, and had enjoyed unimaginable success on the very first attempt. Could he possibly imagine that this tremendous work of God was due to his own skillz? Of course not. Rather, he could attribute all the success to the one who was truly deserving.

"As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies - in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." (1 Peter 4:10-11)

And I hope the lesson isn't lost on us. We could believe that success in ministry will be a result of our own awexomeness, and act like it, finding all sorts of ways to help the gospel out with our wisdom and clever tactics. Or we could believe that success is by Christ's power and blessing, and minister faithfully how he commanded.

Yesterday, Today, and Forever

2011-08-03T22:33:00.001-05:00

So apparently Mark Driscoll recently went on a rant that was just silly, ignorant, and flat-out stupid. Frank Turk as usual does a masterful job of dissecting the absurdity. It's worth a read. Pack a lunch.

Now, out of that whole mess, there's one particular argument I'd like to take a closer look at. The discussion regards the issue of cessationism, the idea that miraculous spiritual gifts ceased with the end of the apostolic period. After effectively calling the vast multitudes of Christians throughout the ages who've held this position the same as atheists and deists, Driscoll backs it up with this:

"So within that God's not really speaking, God's not really working and the supernatural gifts are not in operation; Healing, revelation, speaking in tongues, those kinds of things they are over in the God-used-to box. Even though I was reading this book that said he was the same yesterday, today and forever."

The 'book' he read that said that is of course Hebrews, specifically 13:8. His argument seems to be that based on this verse, if God has ever done something some way, He must forever keep doing the same thing the same way.

The book of Hebrews has 303 verses. This attempt to use this verse is so spectacularly awful, you have to wonder if he's ever read any of the other 302.

Honestly, if you were going to make this argument, is there a worse book you could possibly use than Hebrews? OK, maybe Revelation might be up there with it, but Hebrews is about as bad as it can get for this position. It's hard to find a portion of the book which doesn't fight against this silly argument. Consider:

Hebrews 8:13 - "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Though God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, he apparently had no problem replacing the obsolete old covenant with a new, better one.

Hebrews 7:11ff - Remember the Levitical priesthood? The unchanging God gladly replaced it with the superior Melchizedekian priesthood of Jesus.

Hebrews 10:1-18 - Based on Driscoll's argument, we should still be worthlessly sacrificing bulls and goats, and verses 9 and 18 are practically atheistic or deistic.

Hebrews 9:11ff - That old tabernacle and associated stuff? Gone. Buh bye. Replaced with the heavenly, better versions. But I thought God was the same yesterday, today, and forever...?

So yeah, the meat of the book is all about the old and obsolete being replaced with the new and better. What else do we find?

Hebrews 10:19-20 - "Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh..." Whoa, wait a second, what's all this "new and living way" stuff? I thought God was unchanging!

Hebrews 3:7-11 - "Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says..." What does he say? A long scripture quote! Interesting, isn't it? It's almost as if Driscoll's larger argument, that if you don't believe in perpetually ongoing fresh revelation you believe God is silent, is completely and utterly demolished by this single passage. But that would be a silly thought, that God speaks through scripture, AKA His Word.

Oh, how about one more? Let's look at the first couple verses of chapter 2, with my comments in brackets.

Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels [the Mosaic law, Acts 7:53] proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It [the gospel] was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard [the apostles], while God also bore witness [to what? the gospel proclamation of 'those who heard' Jesus!] by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

Folks, this is perhaps the #1 cessationist passage regarding the purpose of the miraculous gifts. It very explicitly ties them to the initial proclamation of the gospel by those who heard it directly from Jesus.

So this book, basically from beginning to end, is opposed to the point Driscoll tried to make from one poorly-applied verse. That leaves us with a couple options.

(1) He simply doesn't know any better. The pastor is so unfamiliar with this magnificent tome of Christology that he has no idea how contrary his point is to the central themes of the book.
(2) He knows better, but is fine with completely misusing scripture to make a minor rhetorical point.
(3) I'm so completely far off in my understanding of these fairly plain and straightforward passages from Hebrews that I should really just give up blogging, teaching, or even commenting on scripture until I get my mind right.
(4) ???? I dunno, help me out here.

I'm fairly sure it's not 3 - otherwise, I wouldn't have written this all. 1 and 2 are both simply ghastly options, completely unfitting for a pastor, and really could disqualify one from eldership at all. So someone please tell me it's 4, and figure out what that could possibly be. 'Coz I'm kinda stumped.

Nature

2011-07-30T08:52:00.000-05:00

Today we're taking Rebekah to the zoo, for possibly our last trip with only one child. I'm really looking forward to it, seeing as how she's generally incredibly happy, especially when she's watching animals do cute animal things. Should be a great time.

And how can she not be entertained? She'll get to see butterflies swinging from the trees and climbing on vines. Turtles will be on the prowl, waiting for an unsuspecting antelope to walk by - and then they'll pounce! The tigers will gently float along in their little pond, waiting for little kids to drop in a handful of food pellets. And don't forget the sheep putting on their amazing aquatic show, with the jumping through hoops and synchronized swimming and doing tricks and being rewarded with fish!

What's that? Ridiculous, you say? Well, yeah, that's kind of the point. Obviously these animals don't do those things - you could say it's against their nature. Butterflies do butterfly things, turtles act like turtles, etc. If something looks like a monkey and acts like a monkey, it doesn't matter if it calls itself a zebra, or if someone labeled it a horse, it's a monkey. Animals act according to their natures.

With that in mind, let's take a look at what Peter had to say:

"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire." (2 Peter 1:3-4)

This text was the basis for our sermon last Sunday, and it's worth repeating. If you are in Christ, you are a partaker of the divine nature. You've been born again, you are a new creation, you have been raised from death to life. Is it possible that the new, living nature can be the same as the dead, old one? A person with a new nature will have the appropriate new appetites. A person with the divine nature will have new, fitting behaviors.

The challenge is to examine yourself. Do you actually show the signs being a partaker of the divine nature? Do your thoughts, desires, attitudes, actions, environments, and affections appropriately represent new birth in Christ and transferal from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of Jesus Christ? If not, are you really in the faith? Then today is the day to repent and believe the gospel.

Oh yeah, that's me

2011-07-16T23:34:00.000-05:00

Read this. Personalize it, because it definitely applies to you. Me, too.

It's real easy to read the Bible and see myself as the good guys (in the places where there are any, of course). I can somehow relate to David, but can't imagine being one of the faithless multitudes cowering because of Goliath. I can see what all those people in scripture did wrong, and wonder how they cold be so foolish. Pointing out people making the same mistakes today? Oh, that's easy - far too easy.

But actually using scripture as a mirror and seeing reflections of my own sinfulness? Now that's a lot more of a challenge - not because it's difficult, but because it's painful. It also happens to be blessed and beneficial.

Sure, it's more fun to read scripture (or an open letter) and think of how awful those other guys are. But it's significantly better to diagnose my own sin, repent of it, and kill it.

Praise the Lord? I would certainly hope so!

2011-07-09T23:12:00.001-05:00

Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens;
praise him in the heights!
Praise him, all his angels;
praise him, all his hosts!
Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars!
Praise him, you highest heavens,
and you waters above the heavens!
Let them praise the name of the LORD!
For he commanded and they were created.
(Psalm 148:1-5)

Yep. That's pretty straightforward.

Now, God deserves praise (to say the least!) from everything and everyone because He made them all - not only did He make it all, He continually sustains the entire universe by the word of His power, holding all things together and supplying all needs. Given that, what does it say about those who refuse to praise Him, obey Him, submit to Him, or even acknowledge that He exists?

What would be a fitting response from God to such insolence?

Who, would you say, has a better understanding of reality and how things work - us or God? What is the proper response when my view of reality clashes with what God says about it?

When the one who caused and sustains your very existence issues a command, what are the acceptable reasons for not obeying?

Just axing some questions, maybe a little something in there to think about.

Going Solo

2011-07-03T12:02:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, I was listening to Dave Ramsey on a Friday afternoon drive. The show is about financial responsibility, with a particular focus on eliminating debt, and Friday's shows are largely dedicated to celebrating with people who have recently escaped debt. One debt-free story that day caught my attention. This couple had begun the process in earnest, after however many months of budgeting and sacrificing, they had grown a little weary. Intellectually it made sense to get out of debt, they believed it was a good idea to go about it so intensely, but the process was really, really hard. So when they saw that a live show was coming to their area, they went and gathered with thousands of others who were fighting the same debt battle they were. Refreshed and encouraged, they were able to continue the fight with renewed energy and persevere to victory.

When I heard them tell their story, all I could think was, I know where I really need to be Sunday morning!

This couple clearly understood that when you're in a difficult struggle, it helps tremendously to be mutually encouraged with others in the same situation. Share your victories and failures, help each other put the past behind them and move on, encourage one another to persevere. Without that, it's easy for a good idea to fall apart when things get too rough.

Many others in all sorts of circumstances get this concept as well. Substance abuse support groups, divorce recovery groups, playgroups for little kids (really, so their moms can get together), people training for marathons together, whatever. If it's a hard but worthwhile goal, people everywhere know they need to support each other.

So why is it that so many supposed self-professed Christians don't seem to get this? Or they understand and just don't care?

We've seen stats about how many claim to be Christians yet never go to church. I'm sure we've all heard cries of LEGALISM!!!1! whenever someone suggests that Christians should commit to a church and actually attend. Heaven help you if you suggest something like joining a small group or doing anything beyond attending on Sunday morning. The voices clamoring against church membership (or the organized church itself!) are legion, many of which belong to people who profess to be in Christ!

And this is where we could recount the many Biblical arguments for church membership - the myriad 'one another' commands, the fact that the church is where Jesus hangs out, the incongruity between claiming to love Jesus while despising his bride, the illustration of being part of the body, the occasional outright command, etc.

But even if none of this was true, not even a single bit, claiming to be a Christian and not being committed to a church would still be colossally stupid. Look, the Christian life is hard. There are bound to be numerous times where you're tempted to give up entirely. All the other things listed above that people know they need help to persevere through - living as a faithful Christian is harder than any of them, maybe all of them combined. So who would ever think it's a good idea to make a go of it alone?

I would suspect that if your life as a Christian is easy enough without being mutually committed to a congregation of fellow believers, your life isn't remotely Christian.

If you're for some reason claiming to follow Jesus, yet remain defiantly disobedient and utterly foolish regarding his church, I urge you to stop pretending and finally choose one. Either obey Jesus and be part of the chosen vessel for displaying God's glory, or stop claiming his name.

I Hadn't Noticed

2011-06-17T09:53:00.000-05:00

For some reason I followed a link to the latest blasphemy from the Emergent Village, Doug Pagitt's explanation of why he's jumped headlong into the 'process theology' heresy. It's the same combination of nonsense and wickedness that permeates pretty much everything that comes from there, so I don't recommend spending much time on it, any longer than it takes to utter "I am shocked - SHOCKED - that Doug Pagitt would openly embrace wickedly anti-Biblical teaching".

But, I did notice something interesting while I was there. Look at the logo in the top left. Compare it to the logo at this site. Coincidence?

A Few Quick Airline Security Questions

2011-05-22T13:02:00.000-05:00

I'm sure we've all heard about the new strict 'security' measures that popped up in airports over the last half a year or so. In most cases, to get on a plane now, you must first go through a new type of X-ray machine, using 'backscatter radiation'. Of course we've been assured it's perfectly safe, although since they've already been caught lying about the amount of radiation absorbed, a fair amount of skepticism is not unreasonable. You're given the chance to 'opt out' of this radiation detection, but to do so, you may be required to submit to a sexual assault by a government agent.

Of course, this is absolutely necessary for national security, and if even one passenger gets through without a full-body X-ray or a molestation, it will be awful beyond imagination. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. Total protonic reversal. Yeah, it's that bad.

Except, not.

See, there are a few things that undermine this little story, including a few anecdotes from our recent vacation. First, not all airports are equipped with the full-body X-rays. Second, before the flight out, we axed the agent whether the radiation was safe for my pregnant wife. He just had us go through the normal metal detector, no X-rays or sexual assault required. Third, on the way back, the security line was insanely long, causing flight delays as passengers couldn't get to their flights. So they shut down the backscatter radiation machines, suspended the molestations, and just rushed a bunch of us through the normal security.

Now...

If the new, tight security measures are actually necessary, why would they ever, even for one passenger, suspend the measures? Why, if they are necessary, are there entire airports where they are not in place at all, ever? Why, if they are necessary, would the measures be suspended for an entire terminal at LaGuardia, just to get the line down to a more manageable level? Or if they're necessary, why would they be suspended around Thanksgiving in order to short-circuit any possible protests?

Maybe it's just me, but maybe these types of things might, just a little, possibly, show that the official line about them being absolutely necessary is a total lie.

See, here's the thing. There are certain things that are actually necessary - and you never go without them. In air travel, for example, it is necessary to have enough fuel to make it to your destination. You wouldn't dream of taking off with only half the fuel you need, just because passengers might be complaining about the delays. It is necessary that the wings be properly attached. Sure, it may be inconvenient to switch planes just because one little wing might fall off, but, well, you know, you probably shouldn't risk it, just in case.

To sum: if it's actually necessary, you don't do without it. If you ever do without it, it's not necessary. And this 'enhanced security' garbage is most definitely not necessary.

A Prayer on May 21

2011-05-21T06:36:00.000-05:00

Heavenly Father,

We thank you for making us alive and saving us through the precious blood of your Son. We praise you for your incomparable grace, for atoning for our sin, and making us righteous in Christ. We thank you for saving us from the judgment to come, not because of anything we have done or any good in us, but only because it pleased you. Thank you for putting our sin to death with Jesus, and raising us to new life in Him. And we look longingly towards the day of His return, when we will be together with you forever. We pray that when you do return to judge the world, that we will be found ready. Keep us from stumbling and present us blameless before the presence of your glory with great joy. To the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

We pray for those who have been deluded by the cult of Harold Camping, who have put their hopes in a man acting directly contrary to your clear, unambiguous word. Have mercy on them, and grant them repentance and knowledge of the truth. Allow us, your church, to be instruments of grace to them, pointing them to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Let us not join in the inevitable mocking, but let us proclaim the truth in love.

And we pray for the mockers, the scoffers, and all those who are still in rebellion against you, our Creator and Sovereign. You are not slow to keep your promise, but patient, not wishing any to perish, but all to come to knowledge of the truth. They presume on the riches of your kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that your kindness is meant to lead them to repentance. But because of their hard and impenitent heart they are storing up wrath for themselves on the day of wrath when your righteous judgment will be revealed. We pray that you would grant them repentance and knowledge of the truth, that you would open their eyes to your glory and let them flee from the wrath that is to come into the safe shelter of the blood of Christ.

Amen. Come Lord Jesus.

Restaurant:Impossible and You

2011-05-18T07:17:00.000-05:00

We didn't mean to go there. We really didn't.

There are some shows on Food Network and similar programs that are pretty reliable guides to finding a great restaurant to visit. For example, if you visit an Iron Chef's restaurant, you can be sure it'll be top-notch (such as Mesa Grill, where we went Sunday evening). Shows like Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives or Best Thing I Ever Ate profile a lot of restaurants around the country that are worth a visit if you're in the area. But one show profiles places that we would never intentionally seek out - Restaurant:Impossible.

We really, really didn't mean to.

For those unfamiliar with the show, the concept is pretty simple. A restaurant is really struggling, and doomed to fail if things don't change drastically. They beg for help from an expert chef/restaurateur, who has two days, a small budget, and free reign to suggest whatever changes are necessary. After a whirlwind of renovations to the facility, staff, and menu, the place reopens. (It's the same concept as Kitchen Nightmares, except without the perpetual vileness of Gordon Ramsey, so it's significantly more watchable.) It's a pretty neat show, but not one where I would ever plan to go to any of the restaurants or anything.

We were staying one night in the little town of Mystic, CT, and just went over to grab dinner at our hotel's restaurant. The name seemed familiar, but I didn't know why. The inside looked sort of familiar, which was odd since we'd never been there before, and there was something about the show kitchen that made me think I'd seen it before. And when I saw that the chef looked really familiar, too, it clicked - this place had been one of the renovation projects on R:I. Totally unintentional, but hey, might as well see how the turnaround went, right?

It was excellent. Some Chicagoans might not believe me when I say the calamari was the best we've ever had, better even than Harry Caray's, but it was. Everything we had was delicious. The place was fairly busy, and I noticed that on the walls, they had some awards displayed. They had won quite a few (Best in County/State awards from various publications), seemingly every year up through about 2007, but then there was a gap of a few years, until their proudly-displayed 2011 award. Once good, the quality had slipped and brought them to the verge of failure, but it's completely turned around. Good for them.

So what does this have to do with us, or you?

At the end of each episode, there is a quick update about how the restaurant is doing several months after filming. Some places, like this one, are booming. Others went right back to where they had been, and at least one of them had already closed. These restaurant owners put out a desperate plea for help, bring in an expert to straighten them out, but then it's up to them how to proceed. Those that make the suggested changes tend to do well. Others fight against it the whole way, revert to what they had been doing, and fail.

We are no different. Consider this familiar passage from James 1:22ff: "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing."

Or Proverbs 26:11: Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly.

Or Hebrews 13:17: Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

When you go to scripture looking for promises to break the power of sin, when you beg your pastor and/or small group for help, do you intend to actually do what you're told? Or will you forget the authoritative word, and scoff at the advice of the experts?

This Week...

2011-05-17T00:17:00.000-05:00

So this week the wife and I are on vacation for the first time in several years, and it is absolutely wonderful. The only question we really have is, will the world still be here when we're done?

As you may have heard, a punk named Harold Camping is shooting his big mouth off about how the Bible supposedly guarantees that judgment day will be May 21. Right about the time we're going to be watching a play starring Jack Bauer, Jim Gaffigan, and one of the original cops from Law & Order, Jesus is guaranteed to return, because it's some certain time after the flood, and based on some numerology and awful theology, Camping has cracked the Bible code. And between the omnipresent billboards and the interviews with every media type willing to slander the church (by claiming he's part of us and speaks for us), his message is getting out. May 21 is judgment day.

So what is the Christian response to this?

First, understand that Harold Camping is a vile blasphemer. Jesus could not have been more clear that we cannot, will not, and have no business trying to figure out the date. Whenever he was asked about this, his response was always direct and unambiguous - it's none of our business, and we cannot know. Harold Camping claims that not only does he know, it is the duty of every Christian to know. In other words, he's calling Jesus Christ a liar. This is utter blasphemy. (For more on Camping's devolution, see this excellent five-part series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Second, we can't say for sure that May 21 is not the day (at least the day that everything starts, or the day of the rapture, or whatever your eschatology holds) any more than this guy can say that it is. Look - I understand the temptation to say that if some crackpot is predicting Christ's return on a certain date, we can be sure it won't be that date. But that simply doesn't follow. We won't know either way - we can never predict when it will be, nor can we say with certainty that it won't.

While we don't want to endorse Camping's sinful bluster in any way, we also don't want to go too far the other way, and pretend that Christ's return is not imminent. In denouncing Camping, it's far too easy to sound like the mockers and scoffers of 2 Peter 3. Jesus may not come back on May 21 - it may be May 17, or May 22, or some other day. We don't know - and it is a tragedy when our lack of knowledge here causes us to give comfort to the lost, or get complacent and act like it couldn't happen any moment. Jesus very explicitly warned against this, and Peter was clear about how we should live in light of Christ's imminent return.

Jesus could come back at any time - be ready! Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation!

(Postscript: as usual, Al Mohler is right. Had I seen that before I wrote this, I might not have. Such is life.)

Because I Said So

2011-04-27T23:37:00.000-05:00

In the book of Leviticus, we read...

I know, I know, everyone hates reading Leviticus, that great derailer of Bible-in-a-year plans everywhere. I'll keep it short, I promise.

Anyway, Leviticus has numerous laws for Israel to obey, covering everything from the sacrifices to mildew. Once you get to chapter 18, you may notice an interesting phenomenon. Many commands from there on are punctuated with the following explanation: I am YHWH.

Why should we have only appropriate sexual relations? I am YHWH.
Why should we leave some of our crop for the poor and sojourner? I am YHWH.
Why should we honor the elderly? I am YHWH.
Why should we have just balances? I am YHWH.

And on and on it goes. Do this, because I am YHWH. Live like that, because I am YHWH.

Why follow that law? Because God said so.

So here's your deep thought for the day. God is the one being for whom "because I said so" is always a completely legitimate reason. And here's a bonus corollary: to demand more explanation than that is sin.

Digest and discuss.

A Politimical Aside - Taxes

2011-04-18T22:07:00.000-05:00

Since today is tax day and all, I figured I would throw out my crazy two-step solution to many of the problems in our tax/political system. Overspending, budget woes, abuse of the tax code for social engineering/punishment? Two simple steps can make a major dent in these issues and more. The first idea I hear fairly often, the second I don't recall hearing many rants about. Here goes.

1) Move tax day back six months, to October 15. Keep elections the first week of November. Anyone need the logic of this one spelled out? I've heard numerous people recommend this or something similar (move elections to late April) over the years, but by itself it wouldn't be nearly as effective as you would think. I suggest adding the second step to really keep them in line...

2) End backup withholding. Depending on how you look at it, backup withholding is either truly brilliant or devious. I believe that this, more than any other single factor, has allowed tax rates to rise to the current ridiculous levels without the wrath of the electorate being unleashed. Consider the following two cases:

Person A makes $5000 a month, or $60,000 a year. Every three months, he writes the government a check for $3000 (by April 15, he must have paid the government a total of $12,000).
Person B also makes $5000 a month, or $60,000 a year. He has taxes withheld at a 25% rate ($1250), taking home $3750 a month. Every year around April 15, he gets a check from the government for $3000.

Both of these people earn the same income, and pay the same net taxes. However, their feelings about their tax bills will be completely different. When it's time for A to do his taxes, he will be rather upset at having to write such a large check. When B does his taxes, however, he'll most likely be thrilled to be 'getting' so much money from the government. He has grown used to living on the smaller take-home amount (smaller than A, who takes it all home but has to set aside the 20% for taxes), and while he may see how much is withheld from his paycheck, it lacks the emotional sting of having the money, then having to write the check and send it away. Plus he has come to see the tax refund as a gift of the benevolent government (don't ya know how much the generous IRS is stimulating the economy by giving your money back?), and sadly many view the tax refund as a sort of savings account!

People in category A include those who have to file quarterlies (small business owners, self-employed, etc); they get their money without withholding, but have to set it aside to cover the tax bill. Shockingly, these people tend to be the most upset at tax increases - and since they are generally society's producers, they also are the target of the taxes. Category B people are generally less upset at tax increases, having been conditioned to the lower take-home pay and the 'gift' of a refund, the repayment of an interest-free, mandatory loan to Uncle Sam.

End backup withholding and put tax day and election day close together, and not only will tax rates drop, but absurd spending (such as the government-funded Ponzi schemes) will be dramatically and immediately reduced, as elected officials will finally be held to account for every dollar they waste.

Be Careful What You Wish For - The Hallelujah Chorus

2011-04-09T12:05:00.000-05:00

The Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's Messiah is one of the most striking musical numbers ever written, and it's now one of the most recognizable. Every December this chorus becomes nearly ubiquitous, appearing in numerous Christmas movies and specials, being performed by 'flash mobs', getting played on PA systems in malls throughout the land, and of course being used to hawk all sorts of stuff in commercials of all types. Luxury cars? Discounted name-brand clothing? Lottery tickets? If the commercial airs in December, they just slap the Halleluah Chorus in there and roll with it. Now I'm even hearing it forced into service hawking - are you ready - turkey cold cuts. The song is treated as if totally pliable, performed by anyone, for any purpose, to get a cheap laugh or celebrate the majesty of a 3-day carpet sale. The term "hallelujah" itself is used as a throwaway exclamation, a sacred version of "sussudio".

I would just like to caution those who casually toss around "hallelujah" or break out the chorus - be really careful what you wish for.

Let's take a quick look at the term hallelujah. It basically means "Praise God!", from the Hebrew hallel (praise) and Yahweh. So it's not just a generic exclamation or to a general 'god', it's specifically an acclamation of the greatness of Yahweh. That should be plenty of warning to those who deny or rebel against him, but there's more.

Consider that hallelujah is only used four times in the entire New Testament - all of which are in Revelation 19:1-8:

After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, crying out,

"Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
   for his judgments are true and just;
for he has judged the great prostitute
   who corrupted the earth with her immorality,
and has avenged on her the blood of his servants."

Once more they cried out,

"Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up forever and ever."

And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who was seated on the throne, saying, "Amen. Hallelujah!" And from the throne came a voice saying,

"Praise our God,
   all you his servants,
you who fear him,
   small and great."

Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out,

"Hallelujah! For the Lord our God
   the Almighty reigns.
Let us rejoice and exult
   and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
   and his Bride has made herself ready;
it was granted her to clothe herself
   with fine linen, bright and pure"—
for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.

So the term "Hallelujah" is directly associated with the following things - the judgment and destruction of Babylon, marked by such a great outpouring of God's wrath that the smoke rises forever and ever, the final union of Christ with his church, and the accompanying destruction of Christ's enemies, where he is completely exalted to reign over all forever. The prospect of this does not seem like something that those who set themselves as enemies of God should celebrate.

Oh, and what comes immediately after the four hallelujahs? You really, really, really do not want to be on the wrong side.

So please, for your own sake, if you're foolish enough to have not repented and placed your faith in Christ alone, do yourself a favor and stop exclaiming 'hallelujah!' Because the worst thing that could possibly happen to you is that God could hear you and grant your wish.

The Marvel of the Gospel

2011-04-09T10:52:00.000-05:00

R.C. Sproul:

God set forth Christ as a propitiation by his blood through faith that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:26). There is no such thing as cheap grace. The gospel is not simply an announcement of pardon. In justification God does not merely decide unilaterally to forgive us our sins. That is the prevailing idea, that what happens in the gospel is that God freely forgives us of sin because he is such a loving, dear, wonderful God, and it does not disturb him that we violate everything that is holy. God never negotiates his righteousness. God will never lay aside his holiness to save us. God demands and requires that sin be punished. That is why the cross is the universal symbol of Christianity. Christ had to die because, according to God, the propitiation had to be made; sin had to be punished. Our sin had to be punished.

In the drama of justification, God remains just. He does not set aside his justice. He does not waive his righteousness; he insists upon it. We cannot be justified without righteousness, but the glory of his grace is that his justice is served vicariously by a substitute that he appointed. God's mercy is shown in that what saves us is not our righteousness. It is somebody else's. We get in on someone else's coattails - that is grace. That somebody, our Redeemer, is perfectly righteous and has fulfilled the justice of God for us perfectly. That is the glory of justification. God demonstrates that he is both just and justifier. If all he did was maintain his righteousness without extending the imputation of that righteousness to us, he would not be the justifier. He is both just and justifier, which is the marvel of the gospel.

(Sproul, Romans, page 104)

New Glasses

2011-04-08T22:06:00.000-05:00

Last week I got some new glasses. It had been a few years, and during that time my prescription had gotten somewhat worse. So the new glasses obviously allowed me to see better - just the same up close, but much sharper at a distance.

Funny thing, though. When I first put on the new glasses, my body had a hard time adjusting to them, even though they were helping me see better than I had been for years. They were good for me, a significant improvement over what I had been doing, but it still hurt a little bit to wear them at first. I got a little bit of a headache, and my eyes strained to make the adjustment. Although the new glasses were instantly and obviously better, my eyes had gotten so used to the old, inferior way that the improvement hurt.

There just has to be a lesson in there somewhere, I know it.

One Body, Many Members

2011-03-26T01:00:00.000-05:00

"If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together."

I think I may have been missing something on a familiar passage of scripture for years. Not that I've been getting it wrong, but I think my understanding of it has been far too limited, and only recently have I started to reconsider.

In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul begins a dissertation on spiritual gifts, their proper use, the perspective to keep regarding them, etc. In this chapter he exhorts the Corinthian church to understand their gifts in relation to each other - they are gifts assigned by God (11) for mutual edification (7). They are not given in isolation, but each member has something to contribute to the whole, and is in turn dependent upon the whole (12ff). He makes his point by comparing the church to a body, where every part contributes to the others and needs the others. A body without hands or eyes would not be functioning properly, nor would a pancreas on its own be very useful. Similarly, the church is functioning sub-optimally if genuine gifts are suppressed or withheld, and those who isolate themselves from the church are about as useful as a chunk of liver doing its own thing. Those of us in the church both contribute to each other and need each other, and are united as members of one body, with Christ as our head. When one part suffers, we all do; when one rejoices, we all do as well.

Nothing too controversial there, I think. Anyway, here's where I think I had been missing the boat. I've always read this as concerning individuals within a single local congregation. And it certainly does mean that! In fact, just take a moment to consider all the implications of this truth for your local church - an end of jealousy and factions, sacrificial love for each other, total devotion to each other and commitment to work for the good of the whole. When this truth takes hold, it is a beautiful thing to see.

But what I believe I was missing was the universal application of this passage. That is, we are not just part of the body consisting of our local congregations. We are part of the body of Christ, joined together with all other believers in all the world, now, in all history, and forever. While I am joined in Christ to the fellow members of my church, I am also united to those in the church a few blocks away, and that other church across the city, and one in Kansas, and Mexico, and France, India, and the furthest reaches of the earth. If we are in Christ we are united, regardless of where we live or which congregation we attend. So here are a few implications:

1) I have a closer bond to fellow Christians I've never met than I do to unbelieving friends and even family. If you are in Christ, the same is true for you as well.

2) When one part is honored, all rejoice with it. There is no room for jealousy or rivalry among true churches. When legitimate good news comes regarding another church, we should rejoice. No jealous "why them and not us?" No sniping or backbiting. Just rejoicing for the way God has blessed our brothers.

3) If one part suffers, we all suffer. This was the attitude of the Macedonian church which, when they heard about the extreme suffering of the church in Jerusalem, gave extremely generously despite their own poverty. It 's an attitude that is once again being put at the forefront today, as a devastating tragedy hit Japan. The churches there, the people we are closer to than a brother, who we are united together with us in Christ, are suffering greatly. And we, their brothers, have a chance to help them out. This is what Churches Helping Churches was created for - to help the brethren in time of need. If you don't give through them, please consider another charity or way to help our hurting fellow believers, in Japan and elsewhere.

Seeking to Undermine

2011-03-16T22:51:00.000-05:00

A while ago, I started tagging any post that mentions Brian McLaren with the 'atheists' tag. I don't know if anyone noticed. Anyway, the reason I started doing that is that I had this thought - if you didn't know anything about the author, and read one of McLaren's books, which of these would you think is more likely?

A) It was written by a Christian seeking to strengthen the church, or

B) It was written by an atheist seeking to develop a counterfeit religion to undermine the true faith and weaken the church.

I don't think there's any doubt that someone truly versed in the Biblical gospel would conclude B. His stuff is wrapped in Christianesque language, but every aspect is designed to be just close enough to fool people and lead them astray from the true faith. So since his 'theology' is so close to what a devious atheist would develop, might as well treat him as such.

It seems I'm in good company with this observation. Ray Ortlund, a pastor significantly my better in so many ways, has made the same point with regards to the heretic du'jour, Rob Bell. And he's exactly right.

Just One Eyewitness

2011-03-09T22:30:00.000-06:00

Here in Illinois, we're getting ready to start what seems like an annual tradition. No, not welcoming an influx of crybaby legislators from neighboring states when their governors want to govern like actual adults - that's not quite a tradition yet. What I'm talking about is the upcoming trial, or re-trial, of one of our criminal former governors.

For those who've lost track of which Illinois politician is on trial when, this time it's Rod Blagojevich, back on trial for a couple dozen corruption charges. Honestly, I sort of miss having him as governor. His replacement is just as incompetent and ideologically absurd, but he's just plain boring. Blago had sort of a Jerry Springer appeal, where you were bound to pay attention to see what insanity would happen next. If you're going to be a lousy governor, at least be interesting, right?

Anyway, at the last trial, Blago was convicted on only one of twenty-some charges. What was the big problem with the prosecution's case that allowed him to avoid conviction on so many charges? Many observers pointed to the lack of a compelling eyewitness. There was plenty of evidence, but it was piecemeal and largely circumstantial, and in the end it failed to convince at least one holdout juror. There was no smoking gun, no single person who could explain "this is what they did and how they did it" from planning to consummation. It's fairly safe to say the prosecutors would have traded hundreds of hours of phone tap recordings for just one credible eyewitness who knew everything and could report what was done.

I can't help but think of how different attitudes are towards eyewitness testimony when it comes to the creation of the world.

Suppose you would like to know about the how the universe came to be. Wouldn't it be nice if there had been someone there to observe it - more than that, to actually do it - who was willing to share his completely trustworthy firsthand account? Oh, there is? Huh. Doesn't it seem odd, then, that so many despise his account of the event, particularly those who claim to be devoted to him? I'd like to make a crazy suggestion - since we have the clear testimony of the only possible witness, one who cannot lie, we might want to believe him.

Inside the Statistics

2011-03-05T15:25:00.000-06:00

This article made the rounds of the ol' blogosphere the last few weeks, looking at the widely-quoted statistics about divorce rates among Christians. Essentially, someone sometime threw out a stat that Christians divorce at the same rate as unbelievers, so apparently we're a bunch of hypocrites with no moral authority to talk about mawwiage, and blah blah blah. It became a nearly universally-accepted claim even among Christian - some would say, especially among Christians - that apparently nobody bothered to check to see if it's even remotely true.

Turns out, not so much.

So of course the many people who linked to it drew attention to the conclusion - those who are actually legitimately serious about their faith live like it, and therefore have significantly lower divorce rates. Yep. Should be pretty obvious.

But I don't know that I saw anyone draw attention to another line in the article, one that seems almost like a throwaway. Consider this: "Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent more likely to divorce, compared to secular Americans." Whaaaa??? Not just that the 'nominal' folk are identical to unbelievers - they're actually worse? Huh.

Based on this, I would like to propose the following about 'nominal Christians', where 'nominal Christians' is another way of saying 'unbelievers pretending to be Christians':

Pretending to be a Christian is worse than being open and honest about unbelief.

Too bold of a statement based on a single data point? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Discuss.

Something I Learned Last Week

2011-01-30T14:01:00.000-06:00

If you want to prove yourself to be Truly Reformed(TM) and show how fully you've broken away from the Catholic church, you need to quote various catechisms and confessions as if they're infallible proclamations from an infallible magisterium.

Declaring a Moratorium

2011-01-23T15:09:00.000-06:00

Today I would like to submit a modest proposal.

I believe we should declare a five-year moratorium on pretending Brian McLaren is a Christian and letting his anti-faith teachings have any influence in the church. If, after five years, no clear evidence of repentance has been displayed, the moratorium will be extended.

Depravity On Full Display

2011-01-19T20:12:00.000-06:00

This is one of the most disgusting crimes I've ever heard about: Pa. abortion doc killed 7 babies with scissors. I have a few thoughts about this.

1) This act is unconscionably evil and despicable. I cannot understand how someone can start out as a doctor and end up stabbing babies to death.

2) That said, the only thing illegal about this is the way he killed them. Had he left them in the womb when he stabbed these babies to death, it would have been perfectly legal. God have mercy on us for allowing such a thing.

3) It will be interesting to see how the pro-abort crowd reacts to this story, if they even acknowledge it. On what grounds could they possibly condemn this ghoul? How could they possibly object to this obvious evil while remaining consistent to their position? The only way is if there is a magic barrier at the entrance to the birth canal, which the baby becomes a person when it crosses. Kill the child one inch before, and it's a wonderful thing, a 'choice', the most holy sacrament of feminism. Kill the child one inch beyond, and you're a murderer. Such nonsense is what you're reduced to when you sanction murder.

4) Don't believe me? Consider the quote from the ADA: "He does not know how to do an abortion. Once he got them there, he saw dollar signs and did abortions that other people wouldn't do." That's the problem - he just didn't do the abortions right. If he had, well, who cares about seven dead babies, so long as they were killed in the womb?

5) Well has it been said that the evil of abortion has surpassed the Holocaust, both in number and in number of people who are aware and approve. This same crime is repeated 800,000 times in America every year. This fiend will go to prison for killing seven (and other assorted crimes), but there are legions of other 'doctors' who are on killing sprees far exceeding that total - and what they do is perfectly legal. There are plenty of places in this country (and one entire political party) where any politician bold enough to oppose the murder of unborn children has virtually zero chance of being elected. Accusations of hatred are reserved for people who don't want babies to be slaughtered. The situation is as backwards as the most insane Monty Python sketch or Twilight Zone episode - but there is nothing the least bit amusing about it. We, as a nation, sanction the murder of babies. This should not be.

Pray for repentance, and work to bring about an end to this abomination. Come, Lord Jesus.

Eagerly Waiting

2010-12-25T22:38:00.000-06:00

Christmas. Who doesn't love it? How can you not enjoy reflecting on the most amazing miracle ever recorded, when transcendent God stooped to associate with humanity? But Christmas calls us to do more than look back. It calls us to look ahead with joy - or dread.

We cannot reflect on Jesus's birth without remembering why he came. He was not born just so we could have neat nativity scenes and songs about sweet baby Jesus. His main goal in life was not that we could get presents in his honor. His mission was set from before creation - he came to save sinners. Jesus was born to go to the cross, and to rise again and be glorified.

And we know that the story does not end there - Jesus is coming again! Christmas should remind us to not just look back on this wondrous event, but to look forward to its spectacular consummation. He came the first time to humbly go to the cross and die for our sin, but the second advent will have a significantly different goal:

"Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." (Hebrews 9:25-28)

Christmas rightly taught should bring about two distinct reactions, depending on our standing before God. Those of us who are in Christ, who have had our sin dealt with, should experience both joy and eager expectation. We rejoice in what Jesus has done "by the sacrifice of himself", and long for the day when he returns to bring our salvation to its ultimate consummation. One of the all-too-often neglected marks of a Christian is an eager waiting for Christ's return. So this Christmas, if you are in Christ, ask yourself if you properly love the imminent second coming of Jesus Christ.

For those who are not saved, however, there is no such longing for his return. The thought of Jesus returning can bring only the dreadful realization that he is not coming again to deal with sin yet again. He is coming to judge, to crush his enemies beneath his feet, to slaughter the rebels who refused to submit to his righteous rule. They know that the second coming marks the end of the time of forbearance, that there will no longer be a chance to deal with sin, and that it is time to face the appointed judgment. No wonder they will do anything to turn the focus of the holiday away from Christ! Who wants to be reminded of such a fate?

This Christmas, I would encourage you to ponder what your attitude towards Christ's return says about the state of your soul. Are you eagerly longing for it? Horrifically dreading it? Or perhaps totally apathetic towards it?

You're not moving? You're not moving. I can't believe you're not moving.

2010-12-13T21:48:00.000-06:00

Recently I read through 1 Samuel, thinking a look at the life of David would be good preparation for the Christmas season. Sure enough, I noticed one parallel I hadn't picked out before - not with David per se, but with the ancillary characters.

Early on in 1 Samuel, we read about the lazy, apathetic priest Eli. He of course would go on to lose the priesthood due to his extreme passivity. Others have noted how frequently the scripture mentions him sitting or lying, a subtle way to illustrate that he wasn't exactly a man of action. The most extreme example of this is found in 1 Samuel 3.

Samuel had been given by his parents to tabernacle service, and he was sleeping in the tabernacle when God called to him. Thinking it was Eli, he kept going to ask the old priest what he wanted. The third time, Eli figured out that it was God speaking. Don't let that slip by too quickly - the creator of the universe was speaking! What an incredible occurrence! And Eli, the high priest, whose whole life's work was to be devoted to serving God - when he perceived that God was speaking audibly, how did he respond?

Then Eli perceived that the LORD was calling the young man. Therefore Eli said to Samuel, "Go, lie down, and if he calls you, you shall say, 'Speak, LORD, for your servant hears.'" So Samuel went and lay down in his place.

Yeah, okay. The one person on earth who should have been most excited about this spectacular, earth-shattering news that God was speaking basically said "God called? Take a message. I'm going back to sleep." Oy.

Fast forward a thousand years, give or take. The parallel I see in the Christmas narrative? Can you imagine what the Jewish religious leaders were thinking in Matthew 2 when the magi showed up? Here were people who had traveled a long, long way because they were certain the long-awaited hope of Israel, the Messiah, had been born. The greatest announcement they could imagine had just been made, and how did they respond? At best, they just pointed the magi in the right direction and asked for a report of what they found. Where was the excitement and urgency? Was there no one to celebrate and go with them? This was what they had supposedly been wanting for generations, they even had the promise on the tip of their tongues, and when it was finally here, at best they couldn't be bothered to walk a couple thousand feet to Bethlehem.

And total apathy about the Messiah is the best possible spin. Notice this shocking phrase in verse 3: "When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." Far from being their hope, it seems they found news of the Messiah's birth was terrifying. We could analyze why - fear of Herod trumping fear of God, lack of faith that the Messiah would do what God said he would, love of status with the Romans (a theme which would come back later). Regardless, rather than longing for Messiah's appearing, these guys were at best apathetic towards it and more likely in dread of it.

So what about us?

We have perpetual access to God's word. The creator and sovereign Lord of all that is has spoken - and we have a record of it in the Bible! Is our attitude towards that any better than Eli's apathetic laziness? Is it similar to the Jewish leaders' dread? Do we pay lip service to admiring God's revelation, yet cringe at the thought of actually listening because of what it may cost us? Are we waiting for something 'better' than God's word (I speak as a fool)?

If the fact that God has spoken isn't enough to get us moving, what could it possibly take?

Thanksgiving

2010-12-04T20:58:00.000-06:00

OK, so this is a bit late - think of it more as a Thanksgiving retrospective than a preview. After what was essentially no-post November, I may actually have a few minutes here and there to post this month. So here we go.

I love Thanksgiving. Not because of any of the 'traditional' aspects - although I do love the meal and watching the Lions lose - but because it may be the holiday that most directly illustrates the absurdity of atheism and all forms of godlessness.

We hear so much around the holiday about the importance of being thankful. Even secular, anti-Christian sources remind you to think of all that you have to be thankful for. Yet these folks apparently never stop to think that thankfulness is meaningless unless it's directed: it makes no sense whatsoever to be thankful for some provision unless you are also thankful to its provider.

To whom can an atheist (whether admitted or merely in practice) possibly be thankful for the myriad graces they enjoy? Random chance? Millions of generations of genetic mutations that somehow proved to be beneficial? Uncontrollable chemical reactions in the brains of people they'll never meet that have a butterfly effect on their lives? String theory and the particular variation of the multiverse in which they happened to spawn? Their best possible answers make it seem like I'm hacking merrily through a field full of men of straw.

Consider one of the great Psalms of praise, Psalm 100. I had to memorize this in children's chapel way back in the day, so I'll quote it in the KJV like I remember it. At the center of a great exhortation to praise God and give Him the thanks He deserves, we find this as the ultimate reason for our thankfulness:

Know ye that the LORD, He is God:
It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves;
We are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

He is God. He made us. We are His. Everything we have, all that we are, is owing to God creating, sustaining, and providing for us. As Paul asks, "What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?"

Small wonder, then, that when Paul begins his great indictment of humanity, he starts by recounting our thanklessness: "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." Nowadays we don't just have people refusing to thank God, but openly pretending He doesn't exist. They're trying to be thankful for the gifts without acknowledging the giver. Tragic and suicidal.

So this Thanksgiving - and every day - remember not only for what we should be thankful, but to whom we need to be thankful. "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change."

Stuff I Never Got Around To - Part 1

2010-11-13T17:01:00.000-06:00

The past couple weeks have been absolutely crazy with work. If I had stopped after one week and taken the rest of the month off, it would've been considered a pretty decent month. Two weeks in it's a really good month, and there's still plenty to go. But between the massive workload, long hours, some travel, and wanting to actually see my family at some point, I haven't had much time to write. Sorry, sometimes it happens.

So now that I have a few minutes free, I thought I'd search through my list of 'blog ideas' and write about something that I just never got around to. I've got quite a long list, so this could be a running item - if I get around to it. Today's entry from the dustbin of ideas comes from November of 2009. Here goes.

You may recall - well, you probably don't at this point - hearing news of this study about the noticeable effects of single parenting. In short, some scienticians took some rodents that normally are dual-parented. They removed the fathers from some of the families, and compared development of the control group with the single-parent rodents. To the utter shock and amazement of everyone who heard the results, taking away the fathers was bad, mmmkay?

A few commentators picked up on this study at the time, bringing it up just long enough to issue a collective "Well, DUH!!!" before moving on. I mean seriously, is it even the least bit surprising to anyone who knows anything about anything that having a father is better than not? I first read about this from the great Al Mohler, who does a nice enough job connecting the study to Biblical data, especially the emphasis on the vulnerability of the fatherless and our mandate to care for them.

But I wonder if the obviousness of the study's findings made it too easy to rush past without pondering the most significant aspect of the study - and how it obliterates a line of argumentation on a seemingly-unrelated social issue.

When I first read this article, my first reaction was amazement at the main finding - that a 'nurture' condition had been conclusively shown to alter the physical structure of the brain.

Now why is this significant? Ponder that, dear readers, and see if you can identify which issue this applies to. Leave thoughts in the comments; I'll provide hints of where I'm going if you need.

Dry Springs

2010-10-30T10:29:00.000-05:00

In stark contrast to the perpetually annoying chorus of voices within the church today that urge us to play patty-cake with false teachers, to 'engage in open dialogue' and 'learn from each other', we have the book of 2 Peter. Well, we actually have a whole lot of scripture, but 2 Peter is what I just read, so here we are. This short letter displays the difference between true and false teachers, and pulls no punches in condemning those who pervert or undermine the gospel. The next time someone urges you to 'hear out' a rank heretic like Brian McLaren, take a quick look at 2 Peter 2 instead.

This chapter contains a few colorful descriptions of false teachers that just caught my eye this last time through. The metastasizing heretics are "waterless springs and mists driven by a storm". These descriptions are a bit more vivid for me after having been to Israel and other parts of the Middle East, places where it's largely dry. The south of Israel is a barren wasteland, and much of the rest of the region only gets rain a few times a year. A good source of water can mean the difference between life and death. A reliable spring (such as En Gedi) in the middle of the desert is resource precious beyond words. Throughout the region, cisterns holding thousands or even tens of millions of gallons catch as much rain as possible, not wanting to waste a drop of the rain that may not return for a year or more. In that part of the world perhaps more than any other, water equals life.

So imagine you're a traveling through one of the deserts, and as is to be expected, you're getting thirsty. As the miles add up with no sign of water, you're getting increasingly desperate and think this might be it. But then you see off in the distance a big sign for the "En Bell" desert spring and oasis. At last, water! You turn off the road and divert towards the oasis, expecting to find refreshment and nourishment to save your life. As you draw near you see the green plants all around it, and you believe your prayers have been answered. But then you get to the spring and go to drink, and find nothing but dust. The spring is completely dry! Just then you look around and see that the plants are all plastic. There's no actual life here - just a big, phony display meant to make you think there is. Whoever set this up sucked you into his trap, and by now it may be too late for you to get back to the road and find the actual water supply.

Or imagine you're a farmer, and you desperately need the rain to come or all of your crops will die - and possibly your family as well. Off in the distance you see the clouds forming, and they're big! Huge black thunderheads hundreds of miles wide are header your way (the local weatherman calls it the "El Osteen" phenomenon). Finally, water is coming! The clouds get closer, the lightning gets brighter, the thunder is deafening - it's going to be a big one for sure. The crops will be watered, and the cisterns will be full enough to last for several years. But when this huge storm passes over, not a single drop of rain falls. It's all lightning and thunder, all pomp and show, but none of the life-giving substance.

And that's how Peter describes false teachers. Their fate is well-deserved. Those who intentionally deceive, who promise life and give false hope while spectacularly failing to deliver - have nothing to do with them. Find a good church where the life-giving Word is preached without compromise and lived out without fear. And don't be cowed by the PC police into giving a platform to those who scripture explicitly condemns. If they preach a false gospel, treat them accordingly. Love the church (and yourself) enough to take a stand.

Workplace Safety and Response to Correction

2010-10-16T19:10:00.000-05:00

This morning I was walking through a jobsite with the site superintendent when we saw one of the dumbest things I can ever remember seeing. At this site, they've cut several shafts for new stairways and elevators, and of course they have guardrails up all around them. One of the ironworkers on the 4th floor was trying to get some equipment to a guy on a lower floor, so he had tied it to a rope and was trying to swing it down to him. When it didn't work well, he stepped out through the guardrails, and was leaning out over the unprotected elevator shaft, swinging this heavy equipment at the end of the rope, with no fall protection at all. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong?

The superintendent saw this guy narrowly escaping a 50-foot plunge to his death and persisting in his stupidity, and of course went over to talk some sense into him (i.e. if I see anything that stupid again, you're getting kicked off all our sites forever). And of course the guy was thrilled that someone cared enough to warn him about how dangerous his situation was, and expressed tremendous gratitude to the superintendent for correcting him rather than letting him fall to his death. Not only that, the ironworkers' manager came over a few minutes later to express how grateful he was that one of his workers had been spared the consequences of his stupidity, and to declare how excited he was to be working on a jobsite where they care enough about worker safety to take corrective measures.

Nah, just kidding.

You know what happened. The worker responded to the rebuke with indignation, declaring that he was perfectly fine as he was, merely a gentle breeze away from a plunge to his death. He complained to his manager, who registered his disgust at all the [many, many expletives] rules on this site that keep anything from getting done, and threatened to take his company off the site if things didn't change (an offer that was very nearly accepted). No gratitude for likely saving the dude's life, but anger at the oppressive rules.

How much can you relate to that? If you care enough to warn someone about the dangers of their perversion, greed, hatred, unwillingness to forgive, indifference to the things of God, persistent disobedience, refusal to do the good they know they should do, or any of other sins, how often does he thank you for caring more about his life (both here and eternally) than he cares for himself? Or is it more likely that you'll be the bad guy, the judgmental one, derided as the holier-than-thou jerk who butts in where he doesn't belong?

It reminds me of the image of the spider lowering itself into a bonfire. A caring person sees it happening, and grabs the spider to save it and put it onto good ground. The spider, far from being grateful for this intervention, lashes out in anger and bites the hand that's trying to save it.

Of course, this is nothing new. We see this same type of reaction throughout scripture. God rebukes his people to get their attention and turn them back from their self-destructive ways, and rather than being thankful for the call back to the right path, they are angry and rebel even more. A frequent complaint God registers through the prophets is Israel's terrible response to judgment. As Isaiah says, "The people did not turn to him who struck them, nor inquire of the LORD of hosts" (Isa 9:13). Or consider this lament of Amos:

"I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities,
   and lack of bread in all your places,
yet you did not return to me,"
   declares the LORD.
"I also(C) withheld the rain from you
   when there were yet three months to the harvest;
I would send rain on one city,
   and send no rain on another city;
one field would have rain,
   and the field on which it did not rain would wither;
so two or three cities would wander to another city
   to drink water, and would not be satisfied;
yet you did not return to me,"
   declares the LORD.

"I struck you with blight and mildew;
   your many gardens and your vineyards,
   your fig trees and your olive trees the locust devoured;
yet you did not return to me,"
   declares the LORD.

"I sent among you a pestilence after the manner of Egypt;
   I killed your young men with the sword,
and carried away your horses,
   and I made the stench of your camp go up into your nostrils;
yet you did not return to me,"
   declares the LORD.

"I overthrew some of you,
   as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah,
   and you were as a brand plucked out of the burning;
yet you did not return to me,"
   declares the LORD. (Amos 4:6-11)

Or as Hebrews begins a discussion of this issue, "My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him."

Two takeaways from this:
1) When rebuked, take it seriously and learn what you need from it. Be thankful for the brother who loves you enough to risk losing your friendship by putting himself between you and the sin you love.
2) If you're on the other end, care enough that you risk the spite. Remember the end of James: "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." People are stepping outside the guardrails and dangling over the precipice. Love them enough to tell them to come back.

Agreement in Principle

2010-10-10T17:05:00.000-05:00

Commenting on John 20:24-29, Don Carson offers this:

We must also reflect on the repeated little word "my". Thomas does not say, "Our Lord and our God," as if he were reciting some sort of liturgical slogan. His confession is intensely personal: "My Lord and my God!" It is never enough merely to confess the truth of something that is out there in the public arena. Even the Devil himself could affirm, however begrudgingly, that Jesus is both Lord and God. But a true child of God is making more than a public statement about a public truth. The Christian is not simply affirming that Jesus Christ is the Lord and God of the universe but that in the most intimate sense he is the Christian's Lord and God. The confession is intensely personal. If you cannot utter the words of this confession with similar deeply personal commitment, you have no part of Jesus and the salvation that flows from his death and resurrection. Your heart and mind must confess with wonder, "My Lord and my God!" (Scandalous, 163)

This morning in church, the sermon was on Exodus 4, where Moses agrees in principle that delivering Israel from slavery and back to the promised land is a good thing, but has no end of lame excuses for not wanting to be involved personally. The point was made: Beware of agreeing with God in general, but denying in reality.

Evangelism? Yeah, it's a great thing to do. How long has it been since I've actually done it? Umm.....
Knowing the Word? Of course it's a worthwhile pursuit. For someone else, right?
Forgiving? Forgiveness is a wonderful, blessed thing! Until I have something to forgive, that is.
Husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her? Oh, how much better of a place the world would be if more men did that! What, me? Well, I, uh...
Caring for the alien, the fatherless, and the widow? Yeah, I think the church should do something about that. Or the government should tax evil rich people to take care of that. Yeah, that'll do it.
Keeping myself from even a hint of sexual immorality? Oh, that would be great if that could happen! What, it's not supposed to really happen, is it?
World missions and loving our enemies? Great! Who, me?

And on and on we could go. There's a lot in scripture that we - I -might think is a great idea. But am I willing to actually own it and do it? It starts with submitting to Jesus as Lord and God, and continues through all the dozens of implications of his Lordship. Do I personally not just acknowledge that Jesus is Lord and Savior, but submit to his lordship and embrace his salvation? Am I genuinely saved, and do I live like it? How about you?

Samson and Biologos

2010-10-08T22:16:00.000-05:00

I recently was reading through the story of Samson again, and one incident in particular stood out this time. I've always found this vignette a little puzzling:

Samson went to Gaza, and there he saw a prostitute, and he went in to her. The Gazites were told, "Samson has come here." And they surrounded the place and set an ambush for him all night at the gate of the city. They kept quiet all night, saying, "Let us wait till the light of the morning; then we will kill him." But Samson lay till midnight, and at midnight he arose and took hold of the doors of the gate of the city and the two posts, and pulled them up, bar and all, and put them on his shoulders and carried them to the top of the hill that is in front of Hebron. (Judges 16:1-3)

What exactly is the point of this story? To illustrate Samson's great strength? Check that - supernatural strength. The gates of a walled city of that era would have weighed many tons. To rip them out of the wall and carry them miles away and up a hill - I don't know that any modern construction equipment could even do that! So if the author wanted to describe God's empowering of Samson, and tearing a lion apart by hand or single-handedly killing 1000 Philistines with a jawbone didn't get the point across, this would certainly hammer it home.

But there's much more than that going on here. More than just bragging about his God-given strength, this passage is a lament over how pointlessly he squandered it. Samson's God-ordained, angelically-announced mission in life was to kill Philistines, and as this an many other incidents from his life show, God had thoroughly equipped him for the task. He was given physical strength like nothing the world has seen before or since, and he should have been using it to fight for God's people and against God's enemies. Instead, we see over and over again throughout Samson's life that he wanted to be buddies with the Philistines, wanted to marry one even. Instead of fighting them, he was constantly trying to win their approval.

Consider the absurdity of this situation. Samson went to Gaza, one of the chief Philistine cities. To fight? No, to shack up with a Philistine prostitute. When the Philistines figure out he's there, they send a bunch of soldiers to set an ambush for him. When Samson wakes up, what does he do? Go out and kill them? No, he uses his supernatural strength to do tricks for them! As he rips the gates out of the city wall, it's hard not to picture him acting like a 5th grader trying to impress the cool high school kids. "Hey guys, look at what I can do! Please like me!" Instead of using his divine gift to fight God's enemies, he uses it to try to win their approval.

And for some reason, it seems awfully similar to what they're doing at Biologos.

Wisdom and Knowledge

2010-10-01T22:36:00.000-05:00

Sometimes when you read multiple sections of the Bible concurrently, unexpected connections jump out at you that you hadn't made before. For example, one day last week I was reading the beginnings of Proverbs and Ephesians. Now in the first section of Proverbs, we are implored over and over and over to seek wisdom and knowledge and understanding. In the first few verses of chapter 2, we are implored to receive, treasure, make our ears attentive, incline our hearts, call out, raise our voices, seek, and search like treasure for wisdom. At the risk of understatement, it's really, really, really, really, really mega-important.

Then in 2:6ff we find the source of wisdom. Where should we go with all our seeking, searching, treasuring, calling out for wisdom? "For the LORD* gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding; he stores up sound wisdom for the upright...". Which makes sense - if you truly want wisdom, go to the only wise God.

Anyway, later I was reading the first few chapters of Ephesians. Towards the end of chapter 1, we read Paul's great prayer for the Ephesian church, "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him...."

Whoa! That's just what I had been implored over and over to seek with tremendous urgency. Having just read of how vitally important it is to seek wisdom, and that it ultimately comes from God alone, it caught my eye (much more than usual) that Paul here beseeches God to grant the Ephesians wisdom. Just made it stand out a bit, you know? But Paul's prayer doesn't end there - he defines the wisdom that he prays unceasingly for God to grant this church:

"...that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all."

That is, true wisdom consists of the gospel of the glory of Jesus Christ. If you want to be wise, know the gospel. Any 'wisdom' and 'knowledge' and 'understanding' that doesn't point to Jesus is tragically deficient. Above all else, know Jesus.

An Anchor for the Soul

2010-09-23T20:56:00.000-05:00

So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 6:17-20)

What is it that ultimately provides stability for our lives? What will keep us steady through the highs and lows, the ups and downs of life? The author of Hebrews points at several things in this passage. First, the character of God - that it is impossible for Him to lie. Second, God's promise. What can God not lie about? His intention to call a people to Himself and bless them, as first promised to Abraham and now received by the heirs of the promise. Third, the method God has used to bring this about - the eternal priesthood of Jesus on behalf of his people.

In short, the anchor for the soul is the gospel.

Now why would he point there instead of, say, their experience or feelings? These converts were enduring persecution, and the threat of apostasy was seemingly constant. What kind of spiritual malpractice - nay, cruelty - would be required to exhort these people to search their feelings and try to discern what God is telling them through their circumstances? How crazy would it be to trust your feelings when your family is disowning you, you're being kicked out of the synagogue, thrown in prison, and everything you own is being confiscated? Thankfully, we have a more reliable guide than our wildly swinging emotions - we have the unchangeable nature of God, the certainty of His promise, and the complete work of Christ.

As Jesus himself said, pointing us squarely to Him: In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world!

On Sermons

2010-09-19T07:14:00.000-05:00

"Church leavers think of the traditional sermon as boring, modern monologue. But the early Christians, not to mention the Reformers, had a more corporate understanding of the ministry of the Word. The preacher may have been the only one speaking (except for the occasional and welcome "amen"), but the time was still considered corporate worship because preacher and listener would exult in the Word together. The preacher worshiped as he spoke the Word and the congregation worshiped just as much to hear the Word. If our preaching seems like an oration or a simple lecture and the hearers see themselves as passive pew-warmers, then we are to blame, not the nature of preaching itself."
-Kevin DeYoung, Why We Love The Church, 174

"Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near." Revelation 1:3

Are you prepared to listen to the sermon in a manner that could rightly be called 'worship', that will bring a blessing to you, that will allow you to better obey God's Word?

How low will you go?

2010-09-18T11:14:00.000-05:00

Stephen Hawking is known for many things, not least of which is stealing his idea for a donut-shaped universe from Homer Simpson. As you may have heard, he has a new book about the beginning of the universe which, sadly, makes you think he'd be better off getting more of his ideas from Springfield.

The quote which has been headlining the promotional material for this book - what they view as the strongest selling point, the message they most want to get out - is utterly absurd. Consider the intellectual dishonesty and intentional self-deception required for a physicist like Hawking to write something like this:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."

This is beyond ridiculous, and Hawking has to know it. What he knows - what everyone who has even the slightest knowledge of gravity knows - is that gravity describes the forces of attraction between things. In classical Newtonian form, the force is proportional to the product of the masses divided by the square of the distance between them. General relativity covers extreme cases such as singularities and massless particles, but even in these cases the objects involved must exist (they have mass, momentum, spin, energy, etc). Where there is no mass/momentum/energy, there is no gravity. For Hawking to pretend otherwise, to claim that a description of interaction between things matters when there is nothing, is delusional beyond imagination (well, almost).

Hawking's nonsensical idea of gravity mattering when there is nothing would be laughable - if not for the tragic ending of those so determined to be 'free' from our sovereign creator.

Oh noes - have I been misusing this scripture?

2010-09-11T22:27:00.000-05:00

A verse that I've quoted quite often is Psalm 14:1 (also 53:1) - "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Like many, I've used it in reference to atheists, and used the terms 'atheist' and 'fool' interchangeably. But lately I've been thinking that maybe I've been using this scripture inappropriately, and that this comparison is unfair to fools.

See, the verses say that the fool says there is no God - but he only says it in his heart. And the rest of these psalms show the result of such folly - living as if there is no God produces nothing good, to say the least. The fool of the psalms simply pretends there is no God, and proceeds to live like it.

And yet, even in his insane wickedness, there is no indication that the fool would actually be stupid enough to say there is no God. He wishes there is no God, he lives as if there is no God, but to say it out loud? Even that seems to be too ridiculous for the fool.

But in the race towards insane depravity, the modern atheist leaves the biblical fool in the dust. In his wicked quest to spread his rage against his Creator from his own heart to the public, there is nothing so obvious he won't deny it, no line so clear he won't cross it, no rationalization so flimsy he won't cling to it and bet eternity on it. (Case in point - Stephen Hawking. But that'll have to wait for next time.)

So perhaps I owe an apology to all you fools out there. Sorry 'bout that. But you still desperately need to repent.

The Final Beatitudes

2010-09-05T23:08:00.000-05:00

When the Biblically-literate hear the word "beatitude", they almost always think first of the opening of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. And for good reason - this series of blessings pronounced by Jesus is the introduction to his gospel, and works as a very brief summary of his teaching ministry. Volumes have been written analyzing these beatitudes (and the rest of the sermon), and it would be well worth your time to master this passage of scripture - and especially to live it out.

But as we've been going through Revelation over the last year at church, another set of beatitudes has stood out. Seven times in this book, Jesus pronounces a blessing on his people. Given the importance of this book as the capstone of God's revelation and the presentation of our hope in Christ, I think these blessings are worth more than a little effort to meditate on. Here they are; read, think, and discuss.

(Rev 1:3) Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.

(Rev 14:13) And I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." "Blessed indeed," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!"

(Rev 16:15) "Behold, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake, keeping his garments on, that he may not go about naked and be seen exposed!"

(Rev 19:9) And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are the true words of God."

(Rev 20:6) Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

(Rev 22:7) "And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book."

(Rev 22:14) Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.

A little about Stephen

2010-08-29T08:00:00.000-05:00

Stephen story in the New Testament isn't very long, but he makes quite an impression in only two chapters. This guy was such a powerful speaker that his most learned opponents "could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking", and resorted to lying about him to try to shut him up. When he was brought before the rulers, he delivered an incredibly bold, convicting, smoldering sermon that left the listeners with only two choices - repent, or kill him. They chose poorly, and Stephen became the first martyr for Jesus. Unwilling to be silenced or compromise the truth, he stands forever as a model to those who would rather die than disown their Lord.

Yet despite his obvious oratory gifts, what do we first see him doing in the Jerusalem church? He's in charge of making sure that when food is distributed to widows, the Jews don't get more than the Gentiles. This incredible preacher is assigned lunch duty, and he does it without complaint.

I was thinking about this recently as I was contemplating those who don't serve anywhere in the church. Specifically, those who are waiting to find "the right place" to use their gifts. Maybe they have musical talent, but there are no openings for 'worship leader'. They want to be teachers, but no opportunities have been made available. Or they look at the known service opportunities, find nothing interesting, and forget about it.

To them, I present Stephen. He was a powerful preacher, but the preaching calendar in the Jerusalem church would be rather full (at best, he would be #13 in line). But rather than sit on his hands or pout, he dove into the ministry that was offered to him - caring for widows and keeping the peace. And when his chance to preach came, he made the most of it.

If you're in a church where you can't serve in your ideal role, be like Stephen. There are so many needs in the body. Find one, and help fill it.

No true Scotsman would write a post like this

2010-08-23T16:05:00.000-05:00

There is a logical fallacy commonly known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. For those who aren't familiar with it, here's the classic story used to illustrate it:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

Why bring this up? It seems that NTS has become the accusation du jour for atheists/fools to hurl at Christians. A typical exchange will go a little something a-like-a this-a.

Atheist: There are many Christians who are evil, wicked, immoral, reprehensible, etc.

Christian: Anyone who does such things has shown himself to not be a Christian.

Fool: A-ha! It's the No True Scotsman fallacy! By relying on such a fallacy you show the weakness of your position, and admit defeat! You lose, sucka!

So the question before us today is, is this a proper place to cry 'fallacy'? Let's break down the fallacy and see what exactly is being said.

What you have is group A with essential and necessary membership requirements; everyone who meets the requirements is part of the group, and everyone who is in the group meets all the requirements. In math proof speak, they are "if and only if". In the Scotsman fallacy, the requirement is "being Scottish" (whether born in Scotland, born of Scottish parents and/or just lives in Scotland, the exact definition is beyond the scope of this paper). A man born of Scottish parents in Glasgow is a Scotsman, a German born in Berlin or New Zealand is not. For the group "Pitchers for the Atlanta Braves", the requirements would be (1) a Major League Baseball player (2) for the Atlanta Braves (3) who plays the position of pitcher. Anyone who meets all three requirements is in the group, anyone who meets zero, one, or two isn't. Clear? Mmmmkay.

Next, you have some separate, unrelated issue B, usually a negative condition, such as the acts of the Aberdeen man in the example above. Finally, you put them together - someone who meets all requirements for A, but also does negative B. Is he still in group A? Of course. But someone else in group A could say no, which would be the fallacy.

Now how does that apply to the exchange with the atheist fool? In this case, group A would be "Christians", and issue B would be wickedness/immorality. His claim is that when the Christian asserts that wanton, unrepentant sin reveals someone to not truly be a Christian, he is committing this fallacy. Does this hold up? In order to work, the fallacy requires B to be a completely separate issue from group identity. In other words, whether or not someone is so evil that even an atheist is willing to call it evil must be completely unrelated to whether or not he is actually a Christian.

But if something like, oh, say, submission to the Lordship of Christ is a necessary requirement of Christianity, the objection completely falls apart. (See, among numerous examples, Mat 7:15-27, Romans 6, like, all of 1 John, etc etc.)

A few closing observations.

1) I have no idea how the no-Lordship folks would respond to this. But that's way down on the list of objectionable things about no-Lordship theology, so whatever.

2) Take a gander at the introduction to John Piper's excellent little book, Finally Alive (pdf). Go ahead and read the rest of it too - but for now just the intro will suffice. Note that both the atheist fool and the Barna group begin with the same premise: that someone professing to be a Christian or born again actually is, and that his behavior has no bearing on the validity of the claim. To them, the only requirement for being in A is claiming to be in A. Not surprisingly, both reach a similar anti-Biblical conclusion (that being born again does not result in sanctification). Just something to keep in mind when reading the next Barna book about how we need to reform the church or church growth wizardry or whatever.

For Dan Phillips

2010-08-20T14:25:00.000-05:00

By popular demand. Since we're both fans of Justin Taylor, I thought this might be appropriate. Here you go.

Earlier this week, Justin linked to an article based on the logical proposition that calling something by a different name doesn't change what it is. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so, etc.

Several weeks ago, he linked to the Poythress article on modern spiritual gifts, calling it the best essay on the topic ever. (For DJP's evisceration of that essay, see here, here, here, and here.)

So did you notice how the logic of the former completely destroys the main premise of the latter? Fun.

Introducing....

2010-05-04T10:26:00.000-05:00

Rebekah Grace Machel, born May 3, weighing in at 7 pounds, 2 ounces. Behold her majesty:

Question On Dealing With Cultists

2010-04-25T21:52:00.001-05:00

This weekend we got a visit from some Jehovah's Witnesses. Occasionally we'll get some Mormons and representatives from other cults to stop by. So it got me to thinking, what's the best way to deal with them? I can think of three basic options.

1) Just get rid of them as fast as possible. Say you don't want to talk to them, make excuses, just don't answer the doorbell, etc.

2) Apparently the J-Dubs were busy this weekend, since they also visited my pastor. You can hear his method here, starting at about 7:00. (Go ahead and listen to the rest of the sermon too, there's hardly a better use of an hour.) Basically he let them know right up front that he knew who they were and what they believed, pronounced Biblical judgments on them unless they repent, and drove them out of the neighborhood.

3) The third option would be to engage them in conversation, letting it be clear that they are under condemnation according to scripture, and taking the opportunity to present the gospel as clearly as possible. Make it clear that you don't regard them as Christian brothers, but as people in need of salvation from God's wrath. They think they're recruiting you, but instead you hit them with gospel truth.

I'd like some input on which is the best approach. I think we can safely say that #1 is the least optimal - there are very few occasions where I'd recommend just getting rid of them. There have been times I've used #2 and #3 and I can see the strengths of both, but I'd like to figure out if one is generally superior to the other.

So what do you think?

Lesson From A Fig-Picker

2010-02-20T00:12:00.000-06:00

One of my favorite little vignettes in all of scripture occurs in the little, oft-neglected book of Amos. The northern kingdom of Israel was enjoying one last burst of prosperity (just a few years before being vanquished by Assyria), and they had started to believe they were blessed, safe, and secure. But Amos saw their rampant sin and impending doom, and he proclaimed a message calling them to repent or face judgment. His message had been made known to the king's inner circle, and they were none too pleased with it. We pick up in Amos 7:10.

Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent to Jeroboam king of Israel, saying, “Amos has conspired against you in the midst of the house of Israel. The land is not able to bear all his words. For thus Amos has said,

“‘Jeroboam shall die by the sword,
and Israel must go into exile
away from his land.’”

And Amaziah said to Amos, “O seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah, and eat bread there, and prophesy there, but never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king's sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom.”

Amaziah the 'priest' was nothing more than a yes-man, one of the false prophets the kings of Israel surrounded themselves with to pretend they had the Lord's blessing. (This trend did not die with them, by the way.) When he heard what Amos had been preaching, he had the king bring Amos in so they could intimidate him into silence or, better yet, make him go away. So Amaziah gave him a dressing down, telling him to get in line or take his message south to Judah where that sort of thing was more acceptable. It's easy to imagine Amaziah axing "Who do you think you are? Don't you know what we're supposed to tell the king? Don't rock the boat! Get with the program or go away."

Amos had an answer that Amaziah and King Jeroboam probably weren't expecting:

Then Amos answered and said to Amaziah, "I was no prophet, nor a prophet’s son, but I was a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore figs."

Interesting, eh? In response to the "who do you think you are?" challenge, Amos essentially answered, "Me? I'm nobody. I'm not of royal descent or noble birth, I don't have a great job, I'm just a lowly shepherd and occasional fig picker." So if Amos was nothing special, why did he go around challenging the status quo? By what authority did he pronounce judgment on the king and contradict all the king's hand-picked prophets and advisors?

"But the LORD took me from following the flock, and the LORD said to me, 'Go, prophesy to my people Israel.' Now therefore hear the word of the LORD."

Amos knew the truth, that he was nobody special. But he had what none of the supposed priests and prophets of Israel did - the word of God. He was fully aware that his authority did not come from his own greatness, skill, charisma, or persuasiveness. Like Paul, Amos had no illusion of his own grandeur, but he knew the grandeur of the message that was entrusted to him by God.

And so he spoke boldly, pronouncing judgment on Amaziah, continuing to preach God's word even when threatened by the king. God had spoken, and that message was to be proclaimed, regardless of how it would be received, regardless of any opposition. What mattered was not the greatness of the messenger, but the divine authority of the message. It was too important to be compromised, molded to the acceptable standards of the day. What God had said, Amos would say. He would preach the whole counsel of God, because only in God's word was there hope for Israel.

Perhaps we should go and do likewise.

Questions on the NPP

2010-02-13T09:26:00.000-06:00

Last night our church hosted a lecture on the New Perspective on Paul, and unfortunately I was not able to attend. This is a teaching I've read a bit about and frankly still don't understand tremendously well, so I was hoping to get some of my questions answered. Since I couldn't go last night and I know some brilliant, well-informed people read the stuff I write (for reasons I can't quite comprehend), I thought I'd throw some of my questions out there and see if anyone can help me out.

1) What if the NPP is correct - how exactly does that change anything about the faith from how it's been passed down (specifically in reformed/protestant/evangelical circles)? How would it change evangelism?

2) If the NPP interpretation of early Romans is correct, how does that lead to the objection of Romans 6? For example, when I'm teaching about the doctrine election, people will generally raise several objections. Frequently these objections will perfectly match the objections Paul raises and answers about election in Romans 9. I think this is a good confirmation that the way I'm presenting this doctrine tracks well with how scripture does, because it brings about the same responses.

Similarly, when teaching through the first five chapters of Romans (or presenting the gospel) in the 'traditional' understanding, one big objection frequently comes up - that we might as well sin all we want if we're forgiven anyway. A natural/logical response to the ideas of sin/wrath/atonement/forgiveness is for people to latch onto the 'forgiveness' part and pervert it into a license to sin (an accusation papists still bring against Christians - much as early unbelievers apparently leveled it against Paul). Romans 6 is Paul's presentation of this objection and his response to it. If Romans 1-5 are understood in the 'traditional' way, it makes perfect sense for this objection to be raised. My question is, if the NPP is true, how does its understanding of 1-5 lead to the objection of 6?

3) Whenever a 'traditional' scholar critiques the NPP, its best-known proponent (NT Wright) will respond by claiming they just don't understand it. Not that they understand and don't agree, nor even that they're intentionally distorting his teachings; no, they're giving a good-faith effort, but they somehow fall short of comprehending. This has come out most clearly in his interactions with John Piper, who Wright credits for diligently studying the NPP and writing the best critique he could, but apparently for some reason he just can't grasp what's being taught (otherwise he'd agree, of course). Don Carson has received similar commendations and rebukes.

Now, by any reasonable measure, Piper and Carson would be considered intelligent and well-educated. Yet both are supposedly incapable of comprehending what the NPP actually says. You will note that never does Wright accuse them of intentional misrepresentation or intellectual laziness. He credits them with honest, good-faith efforts to understand. But they are supposedly incapable of doing so.

So my question is.... can such teaching possibly be the gospel?

Should this not be a huge red flag? The gospel was understood by those who were "not wise according to worldly standards." The poor, uneducated, illiterate slaves of the Roman Empire were fully capable of intellectually grasping the message. It was proclaimed by fishermen who weren't exactly Harvard-edumacated. Those who rejected it are never portrayed as lacking the intellect to comprehend, but lacking the spiritual eyes to embrace. They regard it as folly, not as unintelligible technobabble that flies over their heads.

But in this case, a form of the gospel is presented. Godly scholars, well-educated and intelligent by any measure, make a diligent study of it in order to faithfully re-present its claims. And when they disagree, it's supposedly because the message flies over their heads. Let that sink in. The Bible claims the gospel was easily understood by children and uneducated slaves. This gospel supposedly cannot be understood by godly scholars of the highest order. Something don't line up.

Haiti - A Way to Help

2010-01-17T20:15:00.000-06:00

There's obviously a lot that could be said about Haiti now. For example, if I find the time, I'd like to look at why Pat Robertson is at the very least an idiot, or at Luke 13:1-5 and the context which leads to it, which in this instance the topics happen to overlap with the first point.

But for now, I just want to inform you of a way to help in Haiti. My pastor first wrote about his passion here, explaining (correctly) that the first priority in giving aid as Christians is to help our brethren. To that end, Harvest is partnering with Mars Hill out of Seattle in a new venture - Churches Helping Churches. Every penny that is donated will be passed through directly to churches in need in Haiti (or wherever the next disaster or persecution outburst strikes); Harvest and Mars Hill are eating all the administration costs to ensure that all gifts go to the intended recipients.

So please, give as you're able, and give as you're willing to sacrifice. God has blessed us materially beyond comprehension - let us use our blessings to bless our brothers in their time of need.

Complete and Discuss

2010-01-07T21:45:00.000-06:00

OK, here's a new little challenge for you. I'll start a verse, see if you can complete it without looking it up. Then feel free to discuss the implications. We'll start with an easy one, something Jesus said. Ready?

"Those whom I love, I...."

Did you get it? What do you think?

Look here if you get stumped, or see the context here.

Unofficial TeamPyro Insane Comment Rant O' The Year Contest

2010-01-02T16:59:00.000-06:00

I'd like to take a moment and announce a new semi-running feature: the insane comment thread rant contest, focusing on the comment threads over at TeamPyro. Those guys do a great job unapologetically expounding God's word, and of course whenever that happens it brings out some real wonderful responses, the type that deserve to be brought to light more than buried in a comment thread. The type that provides a great lesson on how not to argue if you wish to be taken seriously.

Every couple of weeks someone will just go on a rant which is completely devoid of coherent thought, or completely misrepresents scripture in a particularly amusing way, or otherwise was written on a typewriter in a shack in Montana. When that happens and I remember to get around to it, I'll reproduce it here for posterity and maybe add some comments on why it's so bad. Then if you want to be taken seriously, just don't write your comments like that. Think of it like How to Write Badly Well, only for theology comment threads.

Our first entry for 2010 comes just two days into the year. Well done. It's a response to this post by DJP, in which he lays out some basic theology on how our plans and God's sovereignty intersect. This prompted a beauty of a rant from (new?) commenter 'healtheland' which gets our year in insanity off to a strong start (at 9:29 AM, January 2!). Some of the great elements of a terrible comment that get squeezed into this one rant include:

1) Start off with a horrible interpretation of scripture, and a passage that's especially hard to misinterpret at that! Somehow the clear teaching of Matthew 6 becomes something opposed to "act wisely and trust God's sovereignty". Ooooookay.....
2) An appeal to "ethnocentric" issues, because somehow what God says is different based on where you live or something.
3) The horrible interpretation seems to become horrible application, as he insinuates that there's something holy about just wingin' it through life and/or living in abject poverty and stone age conditions. Shane Claiborne would be proud.
4) Politics! Can't have a good insane rant without bringing in completely-unrelated political issues now, can we?
5) Katrina (?!?)
6) R-rated Movies and Blackberries
7) A passive-aggressive accusation that all Christians in the West (except the author, of course) are worldly, syncretistic pagans

Wow. Not a bad start. I give it a 6 points for awful handling of scripture, +2 for the attempted appearance of political neutrality, +1 for being so Claiborne-esque, a solid 9. It'll be tough top that one, but I'm sure it'll be done. If nothing else, we'll have our monthly update from Russ the Reformed Charismatic, which is always nice, and I'm sure someone else out there will step up to the plate. The gauntlet has been thrown down, and the trolls are getting their keyboards ready. Let's rock.
____________________________________________________

First, I would have liked to see your analysis attempt to deal with Matthew 6:24-34. Also, there is an ethnocentric issue here, as the preoccupation with planning is far greater in modern western cultures than they are in other times and places, where people are much less likely to have the idea that they have very much control over their lives or circumstances, where lives do not move according to schedules (except for very rudimentary agricultural ones), and even their very concept of time is different. And yes, the culture that produced the Bible - one where wars, plagues, droughts, famines, etc. were very capable of altering best laid plans - is a lot closer to those than it is to our modern, technologically driven American culture. (Keep in mind: the very reason why paganism, animism and spiritism were such a snare to those in Biblical times was the FALSE promise of being able to impose a spiritual system of control over uncertain and chaotic lives. But where those cultures relied on the false gods of heathen religions, our culture has its own idols: our economic, political, military and technological systems. And yes, Christians are very much wedded to those. Witness the ferocious anger of so many Christians at Obama's threats to change our economic, military and cultural traditions. And yes, there was similar anger directed at George W. Bush.

A classic example is the "conspiracy theory" stuff. Rather than admitting the temporary, precarious nature of things, it is far more easier for one group of Christians with a foot in this world to believe that Obama is weakening our economy and throwing open the door to terrorists on purpose. And on the other hand, Christians of a different political stripe would rather believe that George Bush allowed black people to die in New Orleans because of some alleged racial animus rather than admit that there is only so much a government can do when a historic hurricane like Katrina strikes such a vulnerable area. While people may have legitimate grievances with the ideology and competence of Bush and Obama, the main point is how "the American way of life" is idolatry and how so many American Christians are heavily steeped in it.

Well, most of the Christians in the world cannot afford such delusions, because most Christians now live in the third world, with daily lives not much different from those who lived in Israel at the time of Jesus Christ. And while those Christians still have to deal with the very strong temptations of their traditional local primitive religions - especially when they are syncretized with Christianity - they do not have to deal with the temptations associated with Blackberries and daily planners and our own Tower of Babel-esque myths that we have so much power, influence and control within our own borders and exert it throughout the world.

Worldliness is a huge enemy, and in order to prevent being esnared by it, Matthew 6:24-34 and Romans 12:1-2 are vital. So many of us Christians view "worldliness" as listening to rock music or watching R-rated movies (or, as it were, patronizing "Christianized" versions of those forms of entertainment), but it really goes much further and deeper than that into a person's entire values and worldview.
http://healtheland.wordpress.com

Resolution Time

2010-01-01T00:16:00.000-06:00

Round about this time, people make their resolutions for the upcoming year. Most likely by now you've seen people axing about it via facebook status, or you've been dragged into a "what's your resolution?" conversation. It's just the way we are - the promise of a new year holds out hope that things will change for the better. So we resolve to do things better this year than we had in years previous.

Many of us make resolutions about how we'll take care of our bodies. We resolve to eat better, to lose x pounds, to join a gym and work out four times a week. Some of us decide we're going to really focus on improving relationships - we resolve to spend more time with our kids, or pay attention to our spouses, or get to know the neighbors. Sometimes it's a resolve to finish that long-dormant project, to read certain books, to take work more seriously, to stop wasting so much time reading stupid blogs, whatever. This season provides a convenient opportunity to look back over the past year(s), see where we'd like to improve, and feel like we can get a fresh start. We resolve to do all sorts of things that we think will make us better people.

With this thought lurking in the background, something I read in the gospel of Luke grabbed my attention. Consider this rebuke Jesus laid on the Pharisees:

While Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, so he went in and reclined at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner. And the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? But give as alms those things that are within, and behold, everything is clean for you." (Luke 11:37-41)

The Pharisees would have been masters of the new years' resolution game. Frankly, we're nothing but rank amateurs compared to them. They followed the minutiae of the law and their traditions to the tiniest detail. As we see in this and numerous other examples, they fully believed that their observance of self-improvement rituals made them righteous, and they despised those who didn't live up to that standard. If there was something that could be done to make them look more holy, they'd do it, and condemn those who didn't.

And yet as Jesus rebukes them, we can see that they were missing the point entirely. They were living out their rules and ceremonies, yet were internally wicked, merciless, greedy, adulterous, idolatrous, wretched sinners. What they needed was not another ritual, another rule to follow, another behavior to improve. They needed to be changed from the inside out. They needed to be born again, to repent, to love God and fall on his mercy and rely on his grace and live in faith. They needed to repent of their sin and trust in Jesus alone as the sovereign creator and lord of all. If that interior change were to occur, if their self-righteous, prideful rebellion was transformed into humble faithful submission to God, their exterior actions would be truly holy.

I wonder how many of us fall into the same trap as the Pharisees. How many of our resolutions are based on the goal of making ourselves better people by improving our behavior - ignoring the fact that our hearts are stubbornly rebelling against our creator? How does it help us to lose twenty pounds, quit smoking, or limit our TV intake if we persist in rebellion against God, refuse to come to Jesus in faith, and fail to be so overwhelmed by his grace that it overflows in joy and love and mercy to our fellow man? Modifying a behavior does me precious little good if I am still dead in sin and condemned to forfeit my soul.

Behold, now is the time of the Lord's favor. Now is the time of salvation. Stop fooling around with things that are temporary, and pursue what is eternal. Lay aside the silly resolutions, and get right with God! Hear and respond to the blessed invitation God spoke through his prophet Isaiah:

Come, everyone who thirsts,
   come to the waters;
and he who has no money,
   come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
   without money and without price.
Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread,
   and your labor for that which does not satisfy?
Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good,
   and delight yourselves in rich food.
Incline your ear, and come to me;
   hear, that your soul may live;
and I will make with you an everlasting covenant,
   my steadfast, sure love for David.
Behold, I made him a witness to the peoples,
   a leader and commander for the peoples.
Behold, you shall call a nation that you do not know,
   and a nation that did not know you shall run to you,
because of the LORD your God, and of the Holy One of Israel,
   for he has glorified you.

Seek the LORD while he may be found;
   call upon him while he is near;
let the wicked forsake his way,
   and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him,
   and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
   neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
   so are my ways higher than your ways
   and my thoughts than your thoughts.

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
   and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
   giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
   it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
   and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

For you shall go out in joy
   and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and the hills before you
   shall break forth into singing,
   and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.
Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress;
   instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle;
and it shall make a name for the LORD,
   an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.

Monuments to Failure

2009-12-30T12:24:00.000-06:00

Since I work in the construction industry in Chicago, I've with some interest followed the saga of the Chicago Spire. This magnificent structure will, when completed, stand over two thousand feet tall! Situated right on the lakefront, this building will dwarf the ~~Sears~~ Willis Tower, Trump Tower, Hancock Building, Aon Center, and all the other massive skyscrapers this beautiful city has to offer. It will be the tallest building in the US by far, and may be the tallest in the world.

The excitement over this spectacular project hit a fever pitch in July of 2007, when ground was broken and the massive foundation was being dug. The foundation extends more than eighty feet deep into the ground, the sort of undertaking required to support such an enormous tower. More than two years ago the excavators started removing dirt by the truckload, leaving a spectacularly huge hole in the ground to make way for a ginormous concrete pour.

Today, two and a half years later, there's nothing at the site but a spectacularly huge hole in the ground. Oh, and a small fence to keep people from falling in.

What happened? From the start this project had problems securing funding, and really never should have begun. They never even got to the point of hiring contractors for anything other than the foundation - nobody who could handle something of this scope was willing to commit to such an unfunded and poorly-conceived project. But they pressed ahead and started the foundation work, dug a big hole, poured some concrete, and just figured they'd raise the rest of the money as they went. That didn't work so well, and the site's been dormant since May of 2008. Then that little housing/economic/credit crisis hit, and suddenly lending $2.4 billion to build mega-expensive high rise condos in a city that's already oversaturated with crazy-expensive high rise condos seems like an even worse idea. So the project is now essentially dead, and everyone who's done any work for it is suing to get whatever they can from the funds previously raised.

I worked at several sites nearby, close enough to see the Spire site from higher floors. When riding the lifts up the side of the building, it's fairly common for someone to point out the big hole in the ground with a sarcastic quip about how great and wonderful the Spire is, and how it's blessed everyone who's associated with it. At other sites around the city, it's become a laughingstock, a sort of mutual joke that no matter how bad things are at this site, at least we're not working the Spire. The project was poorly conceived and started without adequate preparations, and now it's become a source of derision and mockery, and a disaster for everyone who bought into it.

I couldn't help but think of the Spire this morning as I read this in Luke 14: For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’

The Spire project began foolishly, and the cost so far has been tens of millions of dollars wasted, countless hours of time wasted, and a big, mockable hole in the ground. Those who pressed on with this short-sighted silliness are ridiculed, and rightly so. But the disaster they've left in their wake is infinitesimal compared to the disaster Jesus warns about - people who make a start of following him, then quit.

One of the worst products of the American church has been an easy-believism which fails to take the demands of Jesus in the gospel seriously. Jesus condemns this unserious view of his call to discipleship, and declares those who make a profession of faith but don't follow through to be a disaster worthy of mockery. Yet so much of popular American evangelicalism seems geared towards producing and encouraging such spurious confessions. Our evangelism produces 'decisions' which affect no change in the person; we proudly proclaim that "five hundred people received Christ!" at an event, yet a month later only a handful are anywhere near a gathering of God's people. We speak of people who "are Christians but not living anything like it", and encourage people that their salvation is secure based on what they said at one time in the distant past, even as their years of subsequent living deny Christ with every word and deed. (Obviously I hold to the fully-biblical doctrine of eternal security, but utterly denounce the bastardized version of it which removes from it any notion of sanctification or perseverance.) Those who began without counting the cost and turned back are encouraged as if they are going to heaven rather than called to repentance and real, persevering, disciple-making faith.

I'll close by asking you to compare the message of the easy-believe church with the demands Jesus places on all who would follow him. This is not for a super-special level of disciple beyond the regular believers; this is the bare-level commitment of all who would be saved. Here's what Jesus had to say:

Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

“Salt is good, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is of no use either for the soil or for the manure pile. It is thrown away. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

A Most Severe Remedy

2009-12-19T23:54:00.000-06:00

You can tell a lot about how serious a disease is by the severity of the treatment. You would never consider amputation for a broken wrist, but for a gangrenous arm that threatens your life, it's a distinct possibility. Some chemotherapy drugs are so dangerous that if a few drops are spilled a hazmat unit must clean it up. Yet people willingly have them injected into their veins, because it's the only chance they have to stop the cancer. But if you just have a cold? No thanks, I'll take my chances with the illness. The severity of the remedy you're willing to undergo is proportional to the threat of the disease.

So then, what does it say about us and how sick we are when Jesus tells us that "You must be born again"?

There is no cure for our disease other than complete renewal. Each of us is so completely sinful to the very core of our being, nothing short of total regeneration will save us. No moral program, no good that we can do, no accomplishments or philosophy or religion or intellect or wealth or power, none of it can purify us from our sin and make us righteous before a holy God. We are so desperately sinful, there is nothing - nothing! - we can do to get better. The only remedy is to be born again, completely made new by the grace of God.

For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:3-7)

Have you been born again to faith in Jesus Christ? There is no question more vital, more urgent than this. The stakes are eternal - on one side is the hope of eternal life, on the other is eternal damnation. There is no other way. Which side are you on?

Are you sure? Tragically, there are many who are under the delusion that they are genuinely born again simply by claiming to be, despite all evidence to the contrary. Few things could be more tragic than having false assurance. So how do you know? What does it actually mean to be born again, and evidence could there be that you are - or aren't? Check out this short but powerful book (available free online) about what it means to be born again. Dig into scripture to see what it says about those who are God's children and those who aren't - 1 John or Ephesians are great places to start. And examine yourself for the signs of the newness of life which regeneration brings. If you truly are born again, boldly proclaim the gospel in word and deed. If not, repent and believe. Nothing you can do could ever be more important than this.

Felix's Folly

2009-11-25T20:32:00.000-06:00

I just finished reading through Acts, and was really struck by this passage. It describes Paul's interaction with Felix, the Roman governor of Judea. Felix was married to a Jewish woman and was at least somewhat familiar with "the Way". Paul had been imprisoned and was under Felix's authority, and Felix decided to check into this newfangled Christianity he'd heard about.

After some days Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. And as he reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment, Felix was alarmed and said, "Go away for the present. When I get an opportunity I will summon you." (Acts 24:24-25)

Fascinating. Felix couldn't wait to hear about this Jesus fellow and all the neat things he did. I bet he really enjoyed hearing about God's love, and all about grace, and how he works all things for good to those who love him, and maybe even about heaven. Oh, how interesting and intellectually stimulating and compelling all this was! Felix may have even been emotionally moved and felt downright 'worshipful'.

And then Paul had to ruin it by bringing up that pesky "righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment". Once the inescapably personal demand for repentance and warning of God's wrath came, Felix was outta there. Not very seeker-sensitive there, Paul.

Obviously Paul did the right thing in preaching the whole counsel of God, the whole gospel. What good would it do to entertain Felix with stories about Jesus, to tickle his itching ears and satisfy his curiosity, if he was never called to true faith and was left dead in his sin? How many of our churches need to follow Paul's example here and resist the temptation to entertain the lost, stop leaving the call for repentance unspoken for fear of offending them and driving them away, and boldly preach the whole gospel?

But this isn't about them. It's about us. You, and me, and everyone who sits in the pews on Sunday and listens to the word of God being proclaimed and expounded. What do we do with it? Do we enjoy it as long as it's an entertaining story, or intellectually stimulating discourse on God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, or a message about God's wonderful promises to his people - and then, like Felix, check out when the demand to repentance and holiness comes? Do we receive the message only until it personally challenges us to get rid of our hidden idolatries, root out our pet sin, and actually obey God by living in radical love? Are we content to soak up the fascinating knowledge of all the deep things of God, so long as it leaves us completely unchanged?

What do we do with a message like this? We can be happy to learn about the theory of being lukewarm, acknowledge the theoretical need to repent, and gain some conceptual understanding of honoring Jesus rather than making him vomit. Or we can examine our lives for evidence of lukewarmness, repent, and live to glorify Jesus. Like Felix, many choose the former. How about you? How about me? We know the truth - what will we do with it?

Is it too late?

2009-11-13T21:30:00.000-06:00

Recently I read through the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah. The two prophets had very similar messages for Judah, but being over a hundred years apart their messages took on a different spin.

Isaiah prophesied during the time when the northern kingdom of Israel was judged by God, conquered by Assyria, carried into exile, and re-settled with the half-breed Samaritans. He begged and pleaded with the southern kingdom of Judah to repent and be faithful, lest God judge them as well. The response was at least good enough (particularly when Hezekiah was king) that God postponed the judgment for a century or so.

Which is where Jeremiah came in. He preached a message essentially the same as Isaiah's - Repent! Believe! Worship God alone! - but his message was thoroughly rejected by almost everyone. His book actually records more respect for the prophet coming from foreigners (such as the conquering Babylonian pagans) than from any Jew except Baruch (and maybe Gedaliah). As the rejection mounts, the message shifts focus from an Isaiah-like "Repent or God will judge us", to something more like "It's too late to repent - judgment is coming!". During the last few years before judgment finally came in the form of the Babylonian army and a 70-year exile, Jeremiah's message was focused on how best to survive and endure the impending judgment, and no hope of avoiding it remained. They had reached a point where it was simply too late to repent.

There's no doubt that America as a nation has some major sins on our record. We are fully deserving of God's judgment (some would say we're already experiencing some of it), and there are calls for repentance that we seriously need to heed. The godlessness of our nation requires a response no less than Assyria in Jonah's day. And yet, even as the calls for repentance go out, it's becoming easier to suspect that we're more in the Jeremiah stage, where we're so far gone and so hardened that we simply will not repent, that it's too late.

For instance, when you see something truly ghastly like this. Lord, have mercy.

Seven Letters for Seven Churches

2009-10-16T22:48:00.000-05:00

Our church recently started going through Revelation, and we should be in there for a year or more. It's truly fascinating stuff, a book that we are truly blessed to read and take to heart (1:3). As the title says, it is the revelation of Jesus Christ.

To go along with this study, my small group is memorizing the first three chapters. These chapters contain the introduction where John encounters the resurrected, glorified Christ, who is seen walking amongst seven golden lampstands which represent seven churches. As sovereign ruler of the universe and particularly of the churches, Jesus has a few words for them - some of commendation, some of condemnation. While all the messages are different, each begins and ends the same way. First Jesus declares something about himself and the authority behind his words to the churches. Then each letter closes with a promise "to the one who conquers". It's worth taking some time to reflect on these statements of Christ's glory and the incredible promises he holds out to those who persevere in the faith.

Jesus is:

Him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven lampstands;
The first and the last, who died and came to life;
Him who has the sharp two-edged sword;
The Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze;
Him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars;
The holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one will open;
The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.

The one who conquers:

Jesus will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God;
Will not be hurt by the second death;
Jesus will give some of the hidden manna, and Jesus will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it;
Jesus will give him authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as Jesus has received authority from his Father. And Jesus will give him the morning star;
Will be clothed thus in white garments, and Jesus will never blot his name out of the book of life. Jesus will confess his name before his Father and before his angels;
Jesus will make him a pillar in the temple of his God. Never shall he go out of it, and Jesus will write on him the name of his God, and the name of the city of his God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from his God out of heaven, and Christ's own new name;
Jesus will grant him to sit with him on him throne, as Jesus also conquered and sat down with his Father on his throne.

Reflect and consider how great and awesome our Lord is, and how wonderful the inheritance of those who remain faithful to him.

Stuff Someone Else Said

2009-09-26T19:59:00.000-05:00

"A false teacher isn't revealed just by the error he preaches, but also by the truth he leaves out."

James MacDonald, sermonizing on Revelation 2:2

Comfortable Darkness

2009-09-07T23:23:00.000-05:00

About a year ago the wife and I took a tour of Israel. One of the things that really hit us hard was the spiritual lostness we encountered throughout the country. Whether it was the Jews still openly putting their faith in symbols or people worshiping relics, even when filled with awe and wonder at many sites there was often revulsion at the gross idolatry.

But the worst feelings came when we ventured into muslim-controlled areas of Jerusalem. Both of us had spent time in muslim countries before, and we felt the same sense of extreme darkness in Israel as we had previously. There's just something about being immersed such utter lostness, such open, unapologetic rebellion against God, it's an oppressive type of spiritual warfare you can feel constantly pressing on you. It's a really tough thing to describe, just a non-stop loathing of God and his people that continually wears on you, as if it's physically assaulting you. The constant heartbreak for those utterly trapped in evil, compassion mixed with despair, continually praying for many that surround you and are totally lost in darkness, it's downright exhausting.

One night at dinner we were discussing this with a few people, about how thoroughly our hearts were breaking for the muslims who were so thoroughly lost. One of the women made a really insightful observation that honestly stung quite a bit. I wish I could remember the exact quote, but it was roughly "the darkness we're not used to always seems darker than the darkness we're familiar with". Ouch.

Here's the thing. Being surrounded by muslims, seeing them openly mock Jesus, knowing their passionate hatred for God's truth, it was easy to be moved to compassion and anger and prayer. They are so utterly, obviously lost in sin. But how many people am I surrounded by every day who are every bit as lost? Why is it that being surrounded by muslims moves me to tears for their rebellious plight, yet I can see hundreds of people every day who are just as desperately rebellious and feel next to nothing? Is it just because their particular rebellions - materialism, humanism, practical atheism, whatever - are somehow less serious? Are their sins somehow less offensive to God, more acceptable and less severe?

Or is it just that I'm more comfortable with this type of sin? Is it that I've been immersed in this type of rebellion against God for my whole life, so it just seems natural and I barely take notice of it? I can very quickly get worked up about muslims despising Christ's work, but my neighbors who live as if there's no God, somehow that doesn't seem to bother me. The darkness around me every day is every bit as dark, but apparently it's just something I've gotten used to. I may even regard it as a more respectable type of sin, a way of hating God that somehow doesn't offend me or break my heart.

I say this to my own shame. What I want now is for my spirit to be provoked within me by all manner of sin, and not just by strange idols. To be so consumed by a passion for God that all rebellion, all sin, is clearly seen for what it is. To have my heart break for lost neighbors and friends and family. To see beyond the cultural issues that make muslim and hindu and buddhist and animist sin so obvious, yet make Western-style humanistic atheistic materialism seem not so bad. To see and proclaim the gospel as the solution to all this sin, no matter what form the idolatry takes. My neighbors are no less lost than the most virulent Christian-hating persecutor, and both need Jesus and the truth of the gospel more than anything. May I see that every day and live in light of that truth.

Esau: Don't Be Like Him

2009-09-05T08:56:00.003-05:00

Sometimes a few sentences tell you all you need to know about a man. Consider this little snippet about Esau from Genesis 25:

Once when Jacob was cooking stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was exhausted. And Esau said to Jacob, "Let me eat some of that red stew, for I am exhausted!" (Therefore his name was called Edom.) Jacob said, "Sell me your birthright now." Esau said, "I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?" Jacob said, "Swear to me now." So he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.

Esau and Jacob were twin sons of Isaac, an extremely wealthy man who had inherited the Abrahamic covenant of God's blessing. As the older son, Esau was entitled to the birthright - that is, when Isaac died, Esau would get a double share of the inheritance. For some families the birthright didn't amount to much, but when your father is possibly the richest in the world, a double share translates to a ton of wealth.

But one day Esau had been out hunting, and when he got back to the camp he was hungry. His deceitful brother Jacob offered an utterly ridiculous trade - some lentil stew for the birthright. Can you imagine, say, two of Warren Buffet's kids making a trade like this? "Sure, I'll buy that bowl of chili for thirty billion dollars. I'd be stupid not to!" It's not even like Jacob was out in the middle of nowhere - he hung around the camp and was cooking. Which means Esau could have easily just called one of their many servants and had food brought to him (and probably something better than lentil stew). Honestly, it's tough to imagine that Jacob wasn't kidding when he made the offer, and tough to believe he kept a straight face while doing so. How absurd can you get, asking for immeasurable riches for a measly bowl of stew?

Esau traded in a heartbeat.

No wonder the text says he "despised his birthright." There's simply no other way to explain such a foolish trade. No rational defense for Esau's idiocy can possibly be offered - even the slightest bit of thought reveals this trade to be beyond lunacy. We read this and wonder how Esau could possibly do something so stupid.

And yet, how many of us have done infinitely worse?

Consider this warning from Hebrews 12. Esau's reprehensible trade is an illustration of the sheer lunacy of making an even worse trade:

See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

The book of Hebrews is a massive warning to Jewish believers who, largely because of persecution, were considering abandoning the faith and returning to the old system. The author systematically shows the superiority of Jesus to the old system, proves that since Jesus came the old system is obsolete, and warns about the exclusivity of Jesus - if you abandon him, there is no hope to be found anywhere else. Writing to those who have lost family, property, power, freedom, and reputation, he encourages them to continue in faith, that is, to be so assured of their glorious future in Christ that current troubles pale in comparison, to count the riches of Christ as more valuable than all the pleasures of sin, and to persevere whatever the cost. Continue in Jesus because he's worth it, and to turn back is to abandon all hope.

With that backdrop, he introduces Esau as a model of what not to do. Esau looked at all the incredible wealth that could one day be his. He looked at a bowl of soup that would satisfy his hunger for a few hours. And he decided he would rather have the soup. Utter foolishness - and a perfect picture of what we do when we abandon Jesus.

We could have eternal glory and riches in heaven far beyond our imagination. Yet we decide we would rather enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. We would trade eternal glory for a few months of illicit sex. We would abandon heaven for a little money. We would deny God so we can enjoy a better reputation among peers or family or the intelligentsia. We denounce our faith to avoid persecution and live more comfortably. In all this, we are making a trade far worse than Esau's lunacy.

What is your bowl of stew? What is so precious to you that you would gladly abandon eternal joy and embrace eternal wrath? What in this world could possibly be so great that you would deny Jesus to have it?

Discernment and Yardwork

2009-08-29T17:54:00.003-05:00

One of the most sorely lacking disciplines in American evangelicalism today is the discipline of discernment, simply knowing the difference between right and wrong. The proliferation of prominent false teachers and faulty gospels (prosperity gospel, oneness pentacostalism, openness, etc) speak to the general disinterest among professing Christians towards sound Biblical teaching. In fact, one of the fastest ways to find yourself on an island is to question a popular teaching or teacher by comparing their ideas to scripture.

It's not a fun thing to do my any means, but it's completely necessary if you care about your own spiritual development or your church's health. In fact, one of the strongest warning passages in the Bible harshly rebukes those who do not "have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil" as immature unrighteous infants. So God takes the practice of discernment very seriously, and it's worth taking some time to look at here.

But first, some musings on my life as a homeowner.

After we got married two years and a couple days ago, Tricia made the move out to Chicago with me. We stayed in my tiny one-bedroom apartment a few feet from the train tracks for a couple months, then took the plunge and bought our first house. This of course introduced me to a whole new world of responsibility - maintenance, especially the yard.

We had looked at this house several times before buying it, and it seemed that some landscaping work had been done by the previous owners. But because we were looking in late fall and early winter in Chicago, we never actually saw the yard before buying it. Every time we looked, it was covered in snow. Even the day we moved in, there was a major blizzard. It wasn't until around March that all the snow finally melted while we were there (it may have gone away a few weekends while we were out of town, and promptly snowed again), whereupon we discovered additional landscaping in the back yard. Nice.

Here's the thing though. That spring, when plants started growing in the landscaped area, we had no idea what was what. We had never seen what plants were supposed to be in there, so we didn't recognize which sprouts were good and which were weeds. So that first year while we were learning to recognize what belonged and what was an invader, we had to let things grow a bit longer before trying to pull the weeds. This year, now that we know the good plants and some of the weeds look awfully familiar, we can get the evil ones rooted out much faster. And new types of weeds we didn't have last year - well, they're clearly not the good plants we want, so they're easy to spot and make go away.

That's not to say weeding is easy now. Far from it - it's one of the most persistently annoying things we have to do. Getting them all up takes effort, and it hurts, and some of them have nasty thorns, and there's a lot of other things we'd rather be spending our time on, but if we want our garden and flowers and stuff to be healthy and productive, we need to eliminate the weeds that choke the life out of them. It's hard work, but it must be done.

Oh, and the weeds keep growing back. This is especially true if you just pluck what's above the surface and don't dig down to get the root. If you just deal with the visible surface, it'll keep growing back in the same place over and over and over and over and over and over... No, if you really want to get rid of it, you need to dig out the root. Find the place where it draws its strength, and attack it with a vengeance. That'll stop it from growing back there immediately, and just as importantly keep it from reproducing and spreading.

But no matter how well you clear your yard, weeds will come back. All it takes is one kid in the neighborhood blowing dandelion seeds in the air, and you'll find them. You can have a pristine yard with nothing but full healthy grass, but if you let your guard down at all, you'll have nasty weeds before you know it. Diligence is key. It's not enough to root out the weeds once and be done with it. It's something you have to continuously watch for, and every time it looks like they're coming back, you need to put a stop to it before it takes root and reproduces. Know what your lawn and garden are supposed to look like, and aggressively attack anything that doesn't belong.

Oh yeah, discernment? See above.

Any way you want it?

2009-08-21T22:22:00.003-05:00

The story of Cain and Abel has always fascinated me. The lightning-fast descent of humanity from the purity of the Eden is astounding. By generation two, we had already sunk from true communion with God, all the way to murder. Think about that. You can start reading our history from the time before sin, and within about two minutes you get to where we're killing each other. If you want a good illustration of the depths of our depravity, there you have it.

There's something in this story that's real easy to gloss over, but if you slow down and think, it can reveal a lot about our natural state. We'll pick up the story in verse 3:

In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard.

This is the first thing we read about after Adam and Eve rebelled and were banished from the garden. They had kids including Cain and Abel, who then grew up and offered sacrifices to God. Why did they start sacrificing? Scripture doesn't explicitly tell us, but there's no reason to think they came up with the idea themselves. Most certainly God told them what to do and how to do it - He was the one to institute the sacrifice.

Now why did God regard Abel's offering and not regard Cain's? Although we don't know exactly what they were commanded, the most reasonable conclusion is that Abel obeyed and Cain didn't. This is reinforced in the NT, where we are told plainly that Cain was evil and Abel righteous. Abel obeyed God and worshiped the way God commanded, while Cain disobeyed and worshiped the way Cain wanted. And God only accepted Abel's worship, while completely rejecting Cain's.

Now how would you react if God had clearly let you know that your actions were disobedient and unacceptable? Would you be repentant? Ashamed? Convicted? Or perhaps the reaction would be denial, self-justifying, trying to make excuses? Let's see how Cain responded:

So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. The LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it."

Interesting. Cain disobeyed, God called him out on it, so Cain was very angry. Now who was this anger directed at? Certainly Abel to some degree - no doubt he was jealous that little brother was the one God accepted, and this jealous anger led to the first murder.

But above all, Cain was angry at God. 'Who does God think He is, not accepting my sacrifice? Sure, it's not what he told me to do. But isn't my way good enough? I should be able to worship Him however I want!' Again we see how quickly and thoroughly we were corrupted. Just a couple chapters ago we were created out of dust, and already Cain is trying to dictate terms to God, and upset when God doesn't bow to his wishes. The clay is furious at the potter.

Cain's reaction should make us vomit in terror. The audacity of being angry with God, as though He were in any way answerable to us... And yet, how easy is it to see this same thing going on today? All you have to do is point out the Biblical teaching that salvation is only through faith in Jesus, and watch the fur fly. Oh, that's so unfair! What about people who do this and that other thing? God wouldn't reject them! If God is truly good, he wouldn't be so cruel as to condemn people just for rejecting Jesus. Well fine, if God won't accept such and such, then I don't want anything to do with him! Who does God think he is, anyway?

God's amazingly gracious response to Cain says it all. If you obey, will you not be accepted? It's really not that complicated. God will decide how God is to be worshiped. What right do we have to complain or get angry at the rules our sovereign creator has established? Is it not enough that, while we are all deserving of instant death and condemnation, He has graciously provided a means for salvation and worship? When we complain that the way God has appointed is insufficient, that He should accept worship any way we offer it (as long as it's sincere!), we are no different from Cain.

God owes us nothing. We have earned nothing from Him except wrath. The most spectacular news the universe has ever seen is that God has graciously placed our sin on Jesus on the cross, pouring out on him the fullness of wrath due to us, has counted us as righteous with Christ's own righteousness, and though we had been His enemies, He has through no merit of our own raised us up with Christ to bless us now and forever.

Let us be overwhelmed by the matchless grace God has provided, and stop insisting that we deserve more and better options. We don't even deserve this. Don't be like Cain and think God had better be happy with whatever we offer. Let's be like Abel and glory in the grace and goodness of what God has done.

Coincidentally, it cost the same as the next stimulus bill

2009-07-17T06:54:00.003-05:00

A guy goes out to buy a pack of smokes, charges them on his Visa. Goes home, checks his finances, and notices something a bit off. Instead of costing a couple bucks, the cigarettes he bought apparently cost more than everything in the world combined. That's right, apparently his cigarettes cost a hair over $23 quadrillion. There are some important things we can learn from this.

1) Smoking is an expensive habit.

2) Always check your credit card transactions against your receipts. You never know when a waiter will throw a couple extra bucks on your tip, or McDonald's might try to charge a couple extra billion for the large fries. As a general rule, if the amount on your statement is at least fifteen digits longer than what you expected, you should complain.

3) It took over two hours on the phone with his bank to sort this out. Let that one sink in for a while, and consider whether you want anything to do with Bank of America.

4) At first they refused to remove the overdraft fee. Well obviously, since he charged several times more money than the entire world has, they're entitled to that extra $15.

5) I'm actually somewhat afraid that the government will see this story and get an idea.

Ah, Toledo, How I Miss Thee

2009-06-27T11:37:00.002-05:00

Living in the Chicago area has been a non-stop barrage of government so bad you sometimes can't tell the difference between corruption and incompetence. You have former governors in prison or awaiting trial. You have multiple suburbs voting overwhelmingly to leave Cook County and form our own, followed by the board president calling us uneducated ingrates who just don't understand how much they do for us (so far the list of things I've come up with is "collecting our taxes" and "????").

Recently the fun story has been Chicago leasing control of all the parking meters to a private company, a deal that was rammed through with less than two days of debate and before anyone really knew what it entailed (there's been a lot of that going in lately, it seems). They had a budget deficit of roundabouts $150 million, so they sold off control of the parking meters for a payment of $1.2 billion. Sound great, right? Sure, until you find out that the lease is for 75 years, or an average of $16 million per year. With approximately 36,000 meters in Chicago (so I hear - haven't been able to find an official count), that works out to $444 per meter per year, or just over a dollar per meter per day. Lemme put it this way: before this deal, a lot of the meters downtown were already at $3 per hour (other parts of the city were obviously less), and they were continually packed. Even without maintenance costs, they're taking way, way less than they would've made by holding on. The inspector general released a report saying as much, estimating that the market value for this lease was at least double what was settled on. So one of the aldermen responsible went on the radio to defend the lease (audio I would love to have right about now), and he made two very salient points. It doesn't matter how much money we're giving up long-term because we gots billz to pay now. And we really shouldn't matter how this will affect the city long-term, because none of us will be around by the end of the lease. Well, thanks for clearing that up! Oh, and did we mention that the mayor's nephew just happens to work for the company that bought the lease and stands to make millions in bonuses? Just a coincidence, no doubt.

So just when I start to think it can't get any more ridiculous, it's always good to see my former home Toledo make the national news. Because nobody, I mean nobody, can top the combo of incompetent, corrupt, and just plain crazy that is mayor Carty Finkbeiner. Just watch, and pray your mayor doesn't get any similar stupid ideas. (Which is worse - using garbage men to write illegal tickets, or using workers for a voter fraud and extortion organization to conduct a census?)

One more that isn't so much about bad Toledo government, but it did make the national news, so here you go. So a house is on fire, and the firement can't get into it because of a pitbull guarding it. The good news is it only took a few minutes to get past, but any delay if there was someone inside is too much. If it's me, I'm letting the pit bull drink from the fire hose, and be done with it (bonus vids: here and here). But that would no doubt upset the PETA folks (not the good ones from People for Eating Tasty Animals (keep being awesome), the insane ones), and pointing out that they could've used the axe instead or just shot the dog wouldn't satisfy them. But then again, I'm the crazy type that values human life, so what do I know?

More evidence that we're doomed

2009-06-22T19:09:00.003-05:00

Today my drive home took a bit over an hour. I kept checking to a local news/talk radio station to see which stories they'd be discussing. So many interesting topics to choose from, what would it be?

Would they talk about the major upheaval in Iran, where the masses are possibly a step away from undoing Carter's folly, and kicking out the suicidal/genocidal mullahs? Where violent oppression has come to the fore, and new media has allowed the story to get out despite government censorship? Would they talk about how the mullahs grossly erred in rigging the 'election' (with 125% voter turnout, and 40 million votes counted in an hour by hand!) for Ahmadinejad, when all of the candidates were their puppets anyway, and the 'reformer' Mousavi is every bit as genocidally anti-Semitic as Ahmadinejad and only a hair's breadth away from him on most other issues? How the mullahs overplayed their hand in a pointless show of power for only marginal gain? How the Supreme Leader has issued edicts that are being blatantly disobeyed for the first time in decades? Or perhaps discussing what, if any, role the US should play in this uprising that could drastically alter the face of the Middle East?

Or maybe a little something about North Korea. You know, the ones that recently test-fired an ICBM over Japan, and our response was to cry to the UN, who warned Kim Jong Il to stop, or else. Or else what? Or else we will be very angry with you, and we will write you a nasty letter saying just how angry we are! Predictably, several weeks later they did an atomic test, detonating a nuke roughly the size of the ones that Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oh, and then they threatened to obliterate Seoul. Then they threatened to nuke Hawaii on July 4th, which they apparently have the capability to do now. And then Kim Jong Il appointed a son as his successor, as if he's ready to go out in a blaze of glory. Then they quite possibly loaded a ship full of nuclear material and missile parts and are planning to send it to destination unknown, a move that actually got the US to publicly respond, and may lead to a serious escalation any moment. Perhaps they would talk about something along those lines.

Or maybe they'd go economic, seeing as how we're still in a world-wide recession (which, as much as people try to blame it on us, actually hit Europe several months earlier and much harder, but I digress). Maybe something on the recklessly high deficits Bush and the Republicans (and Democrats the last two years) ran up, leading to their ouster, and how the Democrats led by Obama have about quadrupled that already. Or the insane amount of nationalization that has taken place already, so much so that Hugo Chavez is joking to Fidel Castro that Obama is making them look conservative by comparison. (Let that one sink in for a minute. Ready? OK.) And now in the midst of this, despite claiming that we're already out of money, he wants to spend another hundred billion or so to provide health insurance (NOTE: not health care. There is a huge difference between health insurance and health care. Much of the debate on this issue is clouded by people confusing/blending the two, which is almost certainly intentional.) for less than half of the uninsured (even when you remove illegals from the 'uninsured' totals), at a cost more than double what it would be to just buy a health insurance plan for them from a current provider. And a massive debate is raging over which proposed reforms to enact, most of which will almost certainly lead to the eventual nationalization of over 1/6th of the economy. Or perhaps they'd talk about the media's role in this, since one of the four largest 'independent' networks is planning to devote Wednesday to a day-long infomercial promoting the President's health insurance reform agenda, complete with refusal to acknowledge any dissenting viewpoints. (Note the contrast with Iran, where people are risking their lives to get the word out about what their state-run media isn't telling.) Surely there's something interesting there to talk about?

Or maybe they'd go for more local news. Like how the mayor of Chicago had for years refused to commit to a financial guarantee for the Olympics, then last week changed his mind and offered the completely non-corrupt IOC a blank check signed by the taxpayer. Or how yet another Alderman was arrested on corruption charges. Or how our new governor is furiously campaigning to raise taxes, because when you've got a budget deficit, the only thing you can do is raise revenue. (Oh wait, there is another option, but... nah, that would never work.) Or perhaps something more about our lovely Senator Burris, who somehow will not be charged with perjury for lying under oath and changing his story, let's see, I think he's on story number eight now. Or Senator Durbin, who was in a meeting last year before the horrible, awful bailouts were enacted, where they were being discussed. Immediately after leaving the meeting wherein specific troubled firms were discussed as being on the verge of failure despite public news to the contrary, the honorable senator sold all his stock in these firms, saving himself six-figure losses based on insider information. You may think that sounds like insider trading, but you'd only be right if you were a textbook trying to provide a clear example of insider trading, or maybe a dictionary trying to define it. But not if you were, say, a Senator, or perhaps the justice department of the same party's administration who would be tasked with investigating such a thing.

So with all this potential news to choose from - Iran, North Korea, the economy, the nationalization of ABC, the health insurance debate, local issues and corruption on a scale that makes New Orleans jealous, plus many other local and interesting stories - it could be really hard to choose what to talk about. There's just so much rich stuff there, what to choose, what to choose. So what did they talk about the entire hour?

Apparently some guy named Perez Hilton, who is famous for something or other, got into a fight with someone from the Black Eyed Peas, who were last heard from every twelve seconds during the 2004 NBA playoffs.

We're doomed.

Huh. I still have a blog. How 'bout that?

2009-06-02T19:59:00.004-05:00

It's been a while since I've written anything, and this will be somewhat short. Oh well, life happens.

A few weeks ago I was reading a new book by John Piper called Finally Alive, about what it means to be born again. It was awesome. Then I flew somewhere for work, and left it on the plane. Curses and drat. It's available free online, but something about that just isn't the same, so I'll probably finish it once I get another copy. Anyway, one of the first things that really stood out to me was an observation I don't recall ever making before. Piper asks a really basic question - why must we be born again? Why is that the only way?

Part of the answer he gives is based on this analogy - the severity of the cure is proportional to the severity of the disease. Nobody would undergo radiation therapy for a tummyache, or get your leg amputated for a sore toe. For measures that extreme to even be considered, the disease has to be incredibly dangerous. Bad enough that if these last-resort measures aren't taken, you will die.

So consider what that means with regards to regeneration. No other remedy will suffice - we must be born again. We must be completely made new. There is no other way. We cannot just be made better. We can't work really hard and improve. We can't be reformed. The command originally was given to Nicodemus, a Pharisee, in the top percentile of righteous men among the most righteous nation on earth (for what that's worth). Yet even he could not just do better, so that he could stand on account of his own righteousness. No, the only way we can ever be brought into right standing with God, and see the kingdom, is to be born again.

What does that say about how we are before Christ makes us alive? How desperately sinful are we if no reformation could ever be enough, if we must be made completely new? That simple command - "You must be born again" - is about as strong a statement of total depravity as you'll find in scripture (and that's saying something!). If the only possible solution is to be born again, there is truly nothing commendable in us. Truly, salvation is completely of the Lord.

On Interfaith Prayer Services

2009-05-06T12:29:00.003-05:00

In America, one of the more common methods of promoting unity is to hold something known as an "interfaith prayer service". These were particularly common following 9/11 (for anyone from the Obama administration reading this, that was the day when... oh nevermind, you wouldn't be interested), when people of all faiths were called to set aside their differences and call out to God together - Christians, Jews, muslims, whatever Apu is, etc. Sometimes an interfaith prayer service will be called for a community, a college (by the 'interfaith council'), or in extreme circumstances, the whole nation. Annually, there is the National Day of Prayer (apparently it's this week - as usual, Dan Phillips offers an outstanding take on it), in which all Americans all axed to take time to call out to God on behalf of the nation.

My question is, should Christians participate?

Consider for a moment what these events are saying. The fundamental assumption central to an interfaith prayer service is that we all worship the same god and what we believe makes no difference at all. The whole concept necessarily assumes that all prayers are equal, that they are simply generic petitions to generic deity/energy field/life force/gaia. Without this assumption, the entire idea is patently absurd. What business would a Jew and a muslim have praying together, or a Christian and a mormon, or a hindu and a j-dub? If any of those faiths are true, all others are necessarily false (well, hindu and mormonism might be compatible), so why would we think their prayers are of any value?

Frankly, the idea of a Christian claiming that his faith is no different from any other should be nauseating. How dare we set aside the exclusivity of Christ in order to pretend that Islam is just as valid and their prayers are just as effectual? How dare we give false witness to those of other faiths and undermine the gospel by pretending that [generic belief or moralism] is no different than salvation through the death and resurrection of the Son of God for his church? How can we profane the blood of Christ by declaring it to be of no more worth than... whatever it is hindus do?

Can you imagine Paul participating in an interfaith prayer service in Corinth or Athens? Sure, his spirit was provoked within him by all the idols, and he risked his life to confront their pagan idolatry, but maybe for one day he could lead a generic prayer to generic deity, because it's all really the same anyway. Right.

Or maybe Jesus would be willing to participate in one. Perhaps after saying this:

"If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

...he could have extended the invitation. Now let's pray together, because our prayers all go to the same place, right? Right. Yeah, I can totally see that happening.

So here's the challenge: provide one scriptural justification for Christians participating in an interfaith prayer service. Surely if one exists, my Biblically-knowledgable readership (at least a dozen strong!) should be able to find it, no problem. Perhaps an example of such a service in scripture would suffice?

I could only think of one scriptural example of an interfaith prayer service. You can find it in 1 Kings 18. How'd that work out?

Veritable Bouillabaisse

2009-05-01T21:02:00.004-05:00

The first in an occasional series in which I throw a few short items together when I don't feel like writing anything long or deep.

*** Recently, on a tip from Frank Turk, I read through the book What He Must Be ...If He Wants To Marry My Daughter. Sometime around page 12 or so, it was clear we'd be loaning it out to other people who need to read it. After further reflection, that turned into buying additional copies to get it into necessary hands more quickly. So you might be able to gather that I liked it and thought it was insanely useful. Very, very challenging stuff.

As you might be able to tell from the title, the book is a guide to help fathers screen potential suitors for their daughters - the non-negotiable traits he absolutely must have if he's going to be allowed to pursue her. But with just a little reflection, it's clear that the book would be useful for plenty of other types of people. For example, single men who need to develop these qualities. Single women who should know what to look for. Married men who can see where they're falling short. Women who are mentoring younger women. Folks in youth ministry, students and leaders alike. Basically anyone who could potentially date or is in a position to influence such a person. So go buy it - in fact, buy two and give one away to someone who needs it.

*** You may have heard about this thing going around called "swine flu". Excuse me, H1N1 A or whatever it's called now. A few days ago, The Obama apparently called it that in a press conference I didn't watch, and the next day I heard a bunch of news people calling it that, so I figured they were just being butt-kissing lapdogs as usual. Well, they probably still are, but eventually I heard one of them explain the change from the simple, common name to its unwieldy laboratory designation: apparently a lot of people - in spite of repeated announcements to the contrary - thought you could get it from eating pork, so they were boycotting pork products.

This is, quite frankly, an idiotic reason to change the name. A bunch of people can't be bothered to read all the way to the second paragraph of a news story, or listen for more than eight seconds, to get the information that's clearly being told, and they foolishly overreact? So why, exactly, are we supposed to accommodate them? Listen - if someone is stupid enough to give up bacon without even doing the three seconds worth of research it would take to show that such a move is unnecessary, they deserve to go without bacon. It's a harsh penalty, I know, but stupidity must have consequences. Besides, the decrease in demand would drive the price of pork down. Which means those of us who actually pay attention would be able to buy cheap bacon! I say we keep calling it "swine flu" until the price is low enough to justify buying a separate freezer just to hold all the bacon I'd buy.

But under my plan, those who take the initiative to be well-informed, make wise decisions, and act responsibly would benefit, while those who are ignorant, moronic, utterly short-sighted, and rush unthinkingly into bad decisions would miss out. And that simply can't happen in today's America!

*** Occasionally I'll read something in the Bible that brings up a mental image that I can't help but laugh at. Sometimes it's just a case of unfamiliarity with ancient ritual, where something that'd be perfectly obvious to the original readers is not explained, so that when it's read today it sounds sort of funny. Such was the case when I read through Numbers recently, and came to a section with a wave offering. Best I can tell, a wave offering was generally part of a larger offering. The priest would take a prescribed part of the animal (for example, a ram shoulder for the Nazirite vow closing), pick it up, and wave it. So imagine my surprise when I read this in Numbers 8:

⁵And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ⁶"Take the Levites from among the people of Israel and cleanse them... And you shall bring the Levites before the tent of meeting and assemble the whole congregation of the people of Israel. ¹⁰When you bring the Levites before the LORD, the people of Israel shall lay their hands on the Levites, ¹¹and Aaron shall offer the Levites before the LORD as a wave offering from the people of Israel, that they may do the service of the LORD... ¹³And you shall set the Levites before Aaron and his sons, and shall offer them as a wave offering to the LORD.

Alrighty then. So was the elderly Aaron supposed to pick up each of these 8500-odd men and wave them in the air? I suppose it's possible, but... I'm guessing there's something about this ancient ritual that I just don't see, but it made perfect sense back then. Still, the image of Aaron picking up each of these thousands of grown men, and waving them around, well, it amuses me.

*** Today I finally started reading the latest John Piper book, Finally Alive. I'm only in the introduction, and already it's been totally worth it. Makes me wonder why I went so long since the last time I read a Piper book. It's about what it means to be born again - the real, Biblical use of the term, not the shallow, pathetic perversion of the term common today. The little vignette wherein he takes the Barna research group to task for their horrible handling of the term "born again" is simply must-read. I have a feeling this is going to be well worth reading.

Oh, and I should also mention that last week we went to see Piper and Don Carson give a little seminar on the intersecting interests of the pastor and scholar. My theory is, whenever you get a chance to go see one of these guys teach, it's probably going to be worth it. If they're both speaking, it's a safe bet that it'll be extraordinarily edifying, challenging, intellectually stimulating, and worshipful. Perhaps I shall write about that event soon. Perhaps.

*** Just checked my RSS not too long ago, and saw this post (follow the links there to his earlier posts - they're all good, and I've probably linked them before). It's commentary on an interview Christianity Today did with Rob Bell to pimp his newest book, during part of which Bell is asked to explain the gospel. The article's title: "Not the Gospel of Jesus. Not Anywhere Near It." That really sums it up quite well - much of the interview was downright nauseating, but the supposed gospel presentation was beyond terrible, being something any New Age spiritualist or TM guru could easily affirm, albeit with one oblique reference to Jesus. Yet another opportunity to ask: how exactly is this guy considered a Christian leader? What am I missing exactly? How can anyone read his stuff without klaxons blaring and red warning lights flashing?

Despicable King Ahaz

2009-04-20T21:07:00.003-05:00

Reading through 1 and 2 Kings, it's tough not to notice that a lot of the kings were just wretched. One that really stuck out to me the last time through was King Ahaz, whose story we find in 2 Kings 16. He's the first of the Ahaz-Hezekiah-Manasseh troika that should drive certain people crazy, namely those who believe that children perfectly reflect the way they're raised (giving credit to the father for the child's righteousness, and blaming him for the child's rebellion). Ahaz was incredibly wicked, his son Hezekiah was the most righteous king Judah ever knew, then Manasseh was beyond evil. But that's a head-scratcher for another day.

As for Ahaz, scripture doesn't really have anything good to say about him. This passage starts off with a description of his wicked idolatry. He was so evil he even sacrificed one of his sons, an act the Bible calls "despicable". In order to obtain a material blessing from a god - usually an abundant crop or healthy livestock - the parents would sacrifice their newborn child to their 'god', killing their child so that they could be better off financially. I'll let you draw your own parallel to a modern abomination. Suffice to say, God does not approve.

Next, we read about when Israel and Syria teamed up to invade Judah. Ahaz got out of it by paying Assyria to attack them, not an uncommon practice in those days. So what's so wrong about that? Well, we read elsewhere a little more of the story. In short, Israel and Syria threatened to attack, and Ahaz freaked out. So God sent Isaiah with a message to Ahaz - don't worry, I'll deliver you, have faith. And Ahaz was told to ask for a sign - anything he could imagine, God would do for him. Just pause and let the magnitude of that offer sink in. Now, consider this - Ahaz blew it off! Instead of asking God for - well, anything - and trusting God to deliver them as He promised, Ahaz decided it would be better to loot the temple and treasury, send the gold to Assyria, and let them handle things. Now that is pure wickedness. (As for the sign that was offered - God decided to give one anyway, one that's a tad bit better than anything Ahaz could have ever dreamed).

Which brings us to the third abomination Ahaz committed, which is what really caught my eye this time through. It's a sin that never gets mentioned in any list of the worst sins, but really, it can make a good case for being among the most nauseating. What did Ahaz do that was so bad this time?

He made a new altar for the temple.

Wait, that's it? That's what gets me so worked up? Surely that isn't really all that bad, is it? Why yes, yes it is. Just on the surface, we see the heart of Ahaz turned to other gods. He saw the altar at Damascus, a pagan altar to imaginary deities. The altar in the temple at Jerusalem was a pretty plain design, pretty much just a big bronze square, but the pagan altar he saw in Damascus was apparently ornate and beautiful. So Ahaz rejected the altar of God, deciding he'd rather have the better-looking altar of the pagans. To Ahaz, God was just one of many, and it didn't really matter which god he worshipped, or how he did it. An altar was an altar, all the offerings go to the same place, right? What difference did it really make - God's altar, a pagan altar, they're all basically the same. In this act, Ahaz completely rejected God's covenant, despised the call to be a holy people and worship him only. Instead, Ahaz wanted to be just like all the other nations. So he rejected God's altar, and made an altar just like the other nations had. In doing so, he rejected God as well.

That's wicked enough, but there's more. Consider this passage from Hebrews 8:

Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain."

See there why God would be so offended by the altar Ahaz built? When God gave Moses the designs for the tabernacle and its furnishings, it wasn't accidental or random. Everything in the tabernacle/temple was modeled after the heavenly reality. This includes the altar. As God designed it, the altar was a temporal, physical model of a piece of heaven. So when Ahaz spurned God's altar, he was ultimately rejecting heaven. He looked at the temple furnishings, saw a glimpse of heaven, and decided he'd rather have what the Syrians had. In rejecting the altar, he was rejecting heaven itself. Now that is a sin!

God's design for the tabernacle was deliberate. He gave specific patterns for specific furnishings, because these earthly furnishings were to clearly reflect heavenly glory. Because of the awesome, eternal truth represented by these furnishings, God demanded that all worship be directed through these approved channels. You could not just worship God anywhere in any way and expect Him to accept it. No, to truly worship God, it must be through the way God appointed. God will be worshipped how God wants to be worshipped, and no other.

To equivocate and insist that another way was just as good as the God-appointed way is wickedly insane. When Ahaz insisted that the pagan altar of Damascus was essentially the same as God's altar, he committed blasphemy of the highest order. God had clearly revealed how He would be approached; to claim that another method was just as good was wicked arrogance - to think that sinful man can approach God however we want! To imagine that we set the terms of interaction with God transcendent, our creator! No, we can only approach God as He says, and when He has clearly revealed how we are to approach Him, we need to obey. Trying another method is sinful folly.

So when Ahaz rejected God's clear direction (as did Uriah the priest, who sinned through spinelessness) and insisted the Syrian way was just as good or better, Ahaz was guilty of a heinous sin.

And so are many in the church today, those who are infecting the church with ideas of pluralism and inclusivism. Pluralism is the idea that all faiths are basically equal, all ways lead to God, blah blah blah. Inclusivism teaches that, while Jesus is the preferred way to God, there may be other ways as well, albeit inferior and more difficult ways. Both of these run afoul of the clear scriptural proclamation that we can only approach God through Jesus. God has made it abundantly clear that salvation is through Christ alone. What sort of blasphemous arrogance is required to pretend that another way is just as good? Who do we think we are, if we believe that we choose the terms of the covenant, that we decide how God is to be worshipped?

But that sort of teaching is everywhere today, spurred on largely by modernism and greatly accelerated by postmodernism. Few doctrines are less popular that the exclusivity of Christ, and few questions are intended to hurt and embarrass more than "Do you really believe that good [fill in the religion] are going to hell?" We are derided for believing that one major flaw outweighs all the 'good' they do. Yet this is exactly what God has declared - who are we to think we know better than God?

And so, we are constantly assaulted with the mocking of modern-day Ahaz. We are told that the altar in Damascus is just as good as the one God designed for Jerusalem, and it's purtier, too. And the world will like us more if we stop being so... exclusive. So we need to stand firm, and let God be true though every man a liar. Let us believe God, reject all substitutes, and present the full hope of the true gospel.

The First Witnesses

2009-04-11T22:13:00.004-05:00

This Sunday is Easter, and of course I've been thinking quite a bit about what Jesus accomplished on the cross and by his resurrection (not just because of Tony Jones's latest heretical rantings, either). As often happens, when meditating on a familiar passage of scripture again, something strikes me differently than ever before. This time, I've really been thinking a lot about the first witnesses to the resurrection.

All across America tomorrow, many preachers will mention that the first witnesses to Christ's resurrection were women. They'll give the usual spiel about the view of women in that culture, how they weren't regarded as reliable witnesses, how if this was a fictional account there's no way they'd make up women as the first witnesses, etc etc. All well and good. What hit me recently, though, is that there's one thing not quite right here.

They weren't the first.

Oh, they were the first to respond positively. The first who saw Jesus and believed. The first to tell the apostles and start proclaiming the marvelous truth that Jesus had conquered death and had risen to glorious life. But they weren't the first ones to know about the resurrection.

That honor fell to an even less likely group - the Roman soldiers. And what they did with this amazing knowledge is a sad commentary on us. That's right, us. You and me. How so? Let's set the scene...

Jesus had been performing his public ministry for about three years. In that time he'd shown through miraculous signs and authoritative teaching that he was the long-awaited Messiah, and had gathered a large enough following. The Jewish ruling authorities, knowing full well that he was the Christ, but treasuring their wealth and power above God's promise, became increasingly jealous until they finally plotted to murder Jesus (as well as those who gave indisputable evidence of his divine power). All through his ministry, Jesus clearly and publicly claimed that he would be killed, but would rise again on the third day. So after they successfully orchestrated his murder, the Jewish leaders also wanted to ensure that his body would stay put. They axed Pilate for a guard, and he granted their request, ordering a group of soldiers to seal and guard the tomb to make sure none of his disciples stole the body.

The soldiers no doubt knew why they were to guard this tomb. Most likely Pilate or the Jews had explained their mission to them, but even if not, they surely had heard of this latest would-be Messiah. They had heard of his ministry, the miracles, the claims to divinity. They would have known that he had talked about his own resurrection, and would have been on high alert for anyone who would steal the body and pretend he had risen. The city would go berserk if that happened, and that was something Rome just wouldn't allow. These soldiers would have been determined - nothing like that was going to happen on their watch! This man who claimed to be God in the flesh, who claimed he would burst forth from the grave victorious over death - they would make sure his corpse stayed right where it was.

That was before they ran away.

We don't know exactly how long they stuck around or what all they saw, though it seems they were gone long before the women got there. We can only imagine what their conversation that night was like - probably mocking Jesus, laughing at the idea that someone could come back from the dead. Possibly ridiculing the idea of anything supernatural at all - why, all those healings and miracles he did were probably just parlor tricks. He was just a man, and he was just as dead as all the other would-be saviors of Israel, and he'd stay that way. But then:

And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.

Can you imagine? Assigned to guard a tomb to make sure someone stays inside of it. Mocking the very idea of someone coming back to life. Cursing the backwoods hicks of Israel that would actually believe such a story, making this stupid waste of time assignment neccesary. And then - an angel descends from heaven. Their reaction is the typical response to an angelic appearance, absolute dread and despair. No doubt there was an added element of incredulity - can this truly be happening? They watched as the terrifyingly awesome angel descended from heaven. They got out of his way as he walked to the tomb, grabbed the multi-ton stone, and effortlessly flung it aside. We don't know exactly when they fled. Did they wait to see Jesus actually walk out of the tomb, fully alive in his glorious resurrection body? Did they run away before then, when they saw the angel and knew what was coming? We don't know for sure.

We do know this: they knew that Jesus had risen, just as he said. They were the first people to know that Jesus had conquered the grave and had broken the power of sin and death. They had beheld irrefutable proof that Jesus is who he said he is, that God's word is absolutely sure, that Jesus is truly the Son of God. They knew all this, and yet what was their response?

While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, "Tell people, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.

Yikes. In the face of irrefutable proof that God's word is absolutely true, that all Jesus said would come to pass, they despised it all, agreeing to lie about it in exchange for money. And the priests, who knew even better than the guards what the resurrection meant, gladly paid them to lie. Now that is depravity!

And the truly sobering thought is, we're not any different. Apart from God's saving, sealing grace, every one of us would gladly deny God for money or power or acceptance. Starting with Adam, who knew God but didn't care and threw it all away, down through the Pharisees and priests of Jesus' day, who knew who Jesus is and refused to accept it, we all would find some excuse for not believing, Unless, that is, God's regenerating grace makes us alive. But for the grace of God, that would be me. This Easter as we reflect on what Jesus did on the cross, as we celebrate his triumph over the grave, as we praise him for all his wonderful works, take some time out to truly thank God for making you alive. Because without his grace poured out on the elect, we would be there with the crowd shouting for his crucifixion, or knowing full well he had risen yet offering to lie for money, or knowing the truth yet trying desperately to distract from it or pretend it never happened. Let it sink in - if not for God's grace, we'd gladly trade his promises for our fame or power or wealth or just because we felt like it. We are as depraved as the soldiers or priests who killed him or wished to keep his rising a secret. If you've come to genuine faith in Christ, the praise for this belongs to God alone.

Which leads to the next point. "Skeptics" are seemingly everywhere nowadays, showing up on blogs and all other media, pretending that they'd believe if only there was some evidence. The guards shoot a massive hole in that idea. They were in the best position to examine the evidence, and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that what Jesus had said was true. They received the best evidence imaginable, and still refused to believe. If the preponderance of evidence here wasn't enough for the soldiers, how can any amount of evidence available today convince a modern skeptic? It simply will not happen - apart from God's grace. "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."

Of course, the gospel must be proclaimed boldly and cleanly. We must present it clearly, as it should be. And when necessary, we must be apologetically prepared. But we must never fall into thinking that our argument or evidence will win over someone who is lost. Compared to the tomb guards and high priest, no evidence we could present is as compelling. A skeptic will not be won over any more than the guards were. If one is to come to faith, it won't be from a clever argument or awesome evidence. It will be the work of God in them, convincing them of sin, bringing them repentance, and making them alive through faith. Apologetics and stuff have their place, but true conversion only comes from the regenerating grace of God.

So praise God that he made you alive. Praise him that he has set you free from sin and death. And pray for those still blinded by the darkness. God is their only hope, just as he has been ours. And don't get too worked up over apologetics or methods, as if your words had the power of God to save. God alone can bring conversion, not your words or promises. Never stop praising God, for he has done the same and more for you.

2009-04-10T22:45:00.003-05:00

These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you." And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,

"Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'"

When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
"This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,"

Then he adds,

"I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."

Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Congregational Government

2009-04-08T21:40:00.003-05:00

Frank Turk has an awesome post up at Pyro, which included this beauty in the comments. Give 'em a read.

One theme that comes up a few times is the dispute between elder-governed and congregational-governed churches. Not wanting to derail the thread too much, I figured I'd just post this here instead. Plus, it gives a nice easy four-minute update (perfect for those busy work weeks), and the timing is quite cromulent all around, oddly enough.

When we were in Israel, at one of the sites James MacDonald taught a lesson from Mark 15 et al about the many grave injustices involved in sentencing Jesus to death. Seemingly at every step, someone broke the law or acted deceitfully or used extreme cowardice, in order to railroad the innocent man to the cross. In so many ways, this was a spectacular sin.

At one point, he talked about the crowd turning against Jesus. Just days before, they had praised him as he entered Jerusalem through the east gate from the Mount of Olives, shouting Hosannah and greeting him as the king he is. Yet here they were not even a week later, a bloodthirsty mob calling for his death. Quite a sobering look at how fickle and depraved we are, and how it's only by the grace of God that those of us who are in Christ remain in him.

But here James took a minor tangent, and pointed out that this was just par for the course for large crowds in the Bible. The challenge - name a time a right decision was made by the crowd. Let's see... give us a king so we can be just like everyone else... we're too afraid to enter the Promised Land, take us back to Egypt... make us an idol, Aaron... who does Moses think he is, let's follow Korah... crucify him! There may be a counter-example somewhere I can't think of offhand, but so far the congregation's track record is looking exceptionally bad. So commenting on this trend, that in scripture decisions made by the congregation are (almost?) always horrible, James revealed the title of a book he hopes to publish someday:

Congregational Government is from Satan

It's pretty hard to tell where he stands on some of these issues, isn't it? So anyway, aside from the clear commands throughout the NT (particularly in the pastorals) that the church is to be elder-led, this maybe sheds some extra light on the case against congregational rule. Or maybe it doesn't. Whatever, I thought it was an awesome title, even if there's almost zero chance someone will publish it.

A little follow-up

2009-03-30T22:08:00.003-05:00

Saturday night I posted about the severity of sin, and how a faulty view here leads to patently anti-Biblical views of the atonement and of hell. Sunday we went to church, and listened to a very, very convicting sermon on hell. Give it a listen this week (unfortunately, they only keep them up for a week, no free archive).

The intro in particular struck a chord with me, as Pastor MacDonald described the tremendous sorrow that always accompanies discussing the reality of hell. I may have been particularly sensitive to that point because I was had just read this snippet from the Rob Bell interview I linked to, where he responds to a question about whether he believes in a literal hell, and his response was still stickin' in my craw. He says:

"...I don’t know why as a Christian you would have to make such declarative statements. Like your friend, does he want there to be a literal hell? I am a bit skeptical of somebody who argues that passionately for a literal hell, why would you be on that side? Like if you are going to pick causes, if you’re literally going to say these are the lines in the sand, I’ve got to know that people are going to burn forever, this is one of the things that you drive your stake in the ground on. I don’t understand that."

This paragraph illustrates so well why I can't stomach much of what Bell says. First off, you have the postmodernism shining through loud and clear (far more clearly than even the most postmodern secularist would ever dream of, by the way). The question is a simple "is there a hell", and somehow his answer is all about what people believe. Wow. This is postmodernism on steroids and crack. His response assumes that whether or not there's a hell is not an objective reality, and turns into a "whatever you think is true for you" nonsense. Somehow, this type of thinking is supposedly compatible with Christianity. Still waiting for an explanation of how.

Then you have the combo ad hominem/strawman attack. This is really a beauty, actually. Falsely assuming that there's no objective reality, Bell then claims that anyone who claims that there is a literal hell is only doing so because they really want there to be (hello, Mr. Strawman!), and then based on this attacks their character. This is beyond absurd. Compare his strawman Christian to an actual godly man such as James MacDonald or Alistair Begg, men who weep over the thought of people suffering eternally, yet still proclaim the message. Obviously, the strawman claim of them just really wanting people to burn isn't anywhere near true.

So why would such men preach about hell if they don't (yet) rejoice in the eternal suffering of others? What possible reason would they have to preach about something they don't enjoy thinking about, that moves them to tears? Could it be.... that it's TRUE? Memo to Rob Bell: God's Word clearly proclaims the reality of hell. No matter how much the thought disturbs us, it is true. For a Christian to believe God is hardly a character flaw.

Ironically, in questioning the character of those of us who believe God, Bell shines a light on his own deficiency. By attacking us for believing God, he reveals his own deliberate, overwhelming doubt. See, Bell is definitely a smart man, well-educated, certainly capable of reading with comprehension, and he's read the Bible a few times at least. There is simply no way an honest reading of scripture could leave the question of hell unsettled. The evidence for a real, eternal hell of torment is utterly overwhelming. His doubt is not an accidental mistake, but can only be intentional, stubborn refusal to believe God.

In his accusation, Bell essentially calls us sadists - we just really, really want people to burn and suffer forever, apparently. The truth is, we simply believe God and act accordingly, no matter how it makes us feel or how much the message offends (talking about hell certainly isn't popular!). Bell, on the other hand, surely must know the truth, but insists on pretending otherwise. Possibly it's because of how it feels, perhaps it's so people will like him more, maybe some of both. The end result is not unlike a doctor who sees his patient has cancer, but because he doesn't like talking about it, and the patient really doesn't want to hear it, he never says anything. Apparently to Rob Bell, that doctor exhibits great character, while the doctor who does his job despite the sorrow is a wicked sadist who just wants people to have cancer and suffer.

And with that, I go to pray for my own repentance from any doubt or ungodly attitude, then for Rob Bell. First for his repentance, and if that won't happen, then for his poison influence on the church to cease. May God grant us more faithful preachers of the Word and less peddlers of doubt.

More From Isaiah

2009-03-29T00:46:00.004-05:00

One of the most well-known passages from Isaiah comes from chapter 9. Many even among the unsaved are familiar with verses 6 and 7 from their annual Christmas church visit - "For to us a son is born..." It's the conclusion of an oracle that spans several chapters telling of the future for Judah, warning of impending judgment but concluding with a promise of incredible hope - the Messiah is coming!

So it's a bit jarring to read on, and see that in verse 8 the message of judgment starts up again. This time it's a message for the northern kingdom of Israel, and it ain't pretty. God promises to raise up enemies for them, to crush them, to throw them into civil war, to destroy them (before restoring them through Jesus and the faithful remnant, 10:20 through 11:16). In every earthly way imaginable, they will be brought down, crushed, and defeated. This was soon fulfilled when Assyria conquered them, scattered them into exile, and desecrated their land with Samaritans. It was as awful as anything any people has ever experienced.

Which makes this phrase all the more chilling:

For all this his anger has not turned away,
and his hand is stretched out still.

In the short passage introducing the coming judgment, from 9:8 to 10:4, this phrase is repeated four times. This means that four times God pronounces terrible judgment on Israel, and says even that's not enough. Unimaginable earthly suffering wasn't enough to satisfy His wrath. Bringing them to complete ruin wasn't able to satisfy the demands of divine justice. For all that God did to them, even after all the pain and suffering He unleashed on them for their sins, He was still angry with them and His hand was still stretched out against them.

Which brings us to the cross and to hell.

See, there are some major errors being taught in the church about God's wrath. A lot of them put forth a faulty view of hell, while others misrepresent the cross. One common erroneous view of hell is that it's simply earthly suffering; it's common to talk of AIDS sufferers as experiencing "hell on earth" (f'r instance, Rob Bell does this in Velvet Elvis chapter 6, in interviews, etc). Another common view is that God does not punish sin, but suffering is merely the natural result of sin (recently put forth in The Shack, among others). He has no wrath against sin, only sadness at the mess we get ourselves into. But this passage (and many, many more like it) clearly refutes both ideas - God clearly portrays Himself as actively punishing sin, declares His burning anger against it, and proclaims that no matter how much wrath He may pour out on sin in this lifetime, it doesn't come close to satisfying His anger or ending the judgment. No, hell is not earthly suffering. No, God does not just sadly look on passively while we endure the unwanted side-effects of sin. He is angry with sin, and pours out wrath on it that far exceeds the worst we could take in this life.

Which brings us to the cross. It seems that lately there have been a lot of attacks on the Biblical teaching of penal substitutionary atonement. That is, the Bible clearly teaches that on the cross, Jesus took on the sins of his people, and God unleashed all of His wrath for those sins upon him. By doing this, Jesus made a perfect propitiatory sacrifice (the wrath of God against those sins was completely satisfied forever), and those of us who are in Christ are forgiven and no longer face God's wrath. This is the heart of the gospel. And of course, it's constantly under attack. Among other attacks, emerg* guru and universalist heretic Brian MacLaren has dug up an old line ridiculing the Biblical teaching on substitutionary atonement as "divine child abuse", while William Young (author of The Shack) finally admitted in a recent interview that he denies the Biblical teaching.

What all these errors have in common is a serious refusal to believe God regarding the seriousness of sin. They all come from the same starting point, the foolish belief that sin really isn't that bad. The problem, of course, is that God's word is perfectly consistent: yes, sin really is that bad, and the fitting punishment is eternally great. And the solution is the infinitely great sacrifice of Christ, satisfying the wrath of God and providing salvation for his church. The Word of God is perfectly clear on this; these errors don't arise from a misunderstanding of ambiguous scripture. They come from a stubborn, arrogant, insolent, rebellious refusal to believe what God has clearly proclaimed. I implore you, do not fall into the same trap as these men and many others like them. Believe God. He knows what He's talking about.

Thoughts from Isaiah

2009-03-26T21:58:00.005-05:00

I've been reading Isaiah the past few weeks. It's got quite a few well-known passages, and this entry isn't about any of them. Just a few reflections on things that caught my eye.

First up, Isaiah 3:9. This verse is in the midst of an orcale pronouncing judgment on Judah:

For the look on their faces bears witness against them;
they proclaim their sin like Sodom;
they do not hide it.
Woe to them!
For they have brought evil on themselves.

This just gripped me. What an amazing description of the depths of depravity they had sunk into. It's one thing to sin. But they had become so entrenched in their sin, they had lost all sense of shame. They even took pride in it - proclaiming it like Sodom. At this point, there's roughly zero chance of repentance. When a conscience is so seared that sin is proudly and openly celebrated, when there's no remorse, no sense that it might even be wrong, the end is imminent. This verse profoundly illustrates just how richly deserved Judah's punishment was.

So the question is, am I like that? When I sin, do I care? Does the shame and sorrow drive me to repentance, or to self-justification? Am I getting so comfortable with my sin that I may one day not even consider it to be sin anymore? Will I reason that it's not really so bad, and then even come to think it's good? Will I, like Judah, and like Sodom, even become proud of my sin, and show it on my face? But for the grace of God...

I'd planned to do two, but I think I'll leave it there for now. Discuss.

Random Thought

2009-03-24T22:40:00.003-05:00

I was thinking of something recently that illustrates just how incredibly blessed we are. It's a simple question: do you consider calories to be a nutrient or a nuisance?

I'd be willing to bet that almost everyone who's reading this has thought of calories as a nuisance. They're something you have to count, so that you don't eat too much and get fat. They're something you intentionally limit so you can lose weight. They're listed on the nutritional information almost as a warning.

And we take for granted what an amazing blessing it is that we even have to consider such things. So much of the world would do anything to have such problems! For so much of human history, and much of the world even today, the biggest food-related problem has been finding enough. How can I consume enough calories to live? See, calories are a nutrient - in fact, they're the single most important one. Without enough of certain vitamins or minerals or other compounds, certain bodily processes won't work at full efficiency, and may eventually develop more severe problems. Without enough calories, you die.

God's blessing on us has truly been incredible. So many people have lived not knowing where their next meal will come from, whether their bodies will have enough energy to make it through another day without shutting down internal organs. We have so much food, obesity-related diseases are much more common than malnutrition. We despise foods that have too much fat - so highly prized elsewhere because of its high caloric content, we pass laws to limit it. Even in the midst of a tough economic time, it'll be a long time before most of us ever consider the possibility of starving to death.

Keep that in mind when bad economic news hits. Yes, things have gotten bad, much worse than we're used to. But still, simply by being well-fed, we're much better off than most people who have ever lived. As bad as we may think it is, we really need to thank God for his abundant provision, and pray that we don't abuse it or take Him for granted.

How Not To Respond

2009-03-09T22:43:00.004-05:00

Last week was the annual Shepherd's Conference, hosted by John MacArthur's church. If you know anything about John MacArthur, you know to expect that this conference exists to proclaim the word of God without compromise. Actually, if you don't know about MacArthur, now would be a great time for you to pick up a copy of The Gospel According to Jesus or Hard to Believe (only four bucks! I may buy a few more at that price just to give away), and just read it. You absolutely will not regret it.

MacArthur believes that the Bible is God's word, and actually acts like it. He preaches like it. And this conference exists to proclaim it. I've heard that Al Mohler's message is a beauty - that's currently downloading for tomorrow's listening pleasure.

The first conference message I got to listen to, and perhaps the most instantly notorious one (for this year, anyway), was a beauty by Phil Johnson. Phil examines what scripture has to say about the recent trend he calls the "pornification of the church", churches using graphic sexual speech (and images) and other gutter language in the name of being relevant. This behavior obviously falls extremely far short of the standard set by scripture, and as expected Phil brings the full weight and authority of the Word to bear against those who shame the church by promoting such filth.

Now, after listening to this message, one of the conference attendees - an audience consisting largely of pastors, mind you - was so furious that he vandalized a bathroom, with some incredibly obscene graffiti. A few questions immediately leap to mind here. Was he just trying to clearly illustrate Phil's point? What exactly was he expecting to hear at this conference, if not the Word of God brought fully to bear on the issues affecting the church? Could there be a worse response when sin is exposed than to revel more fully in it? Am I any different?

OK, that last question might be a surprise. But it's ultimately the most important one, isn't it? See, it's easy to shake my head at this guy, whose response to conviction is frankly beyond parody. I mean, he goes to a conference to hear God's word proclaimed boldly, and when it comes to a part he doesn't like, he flies off the handle and sins boldly and shamelessly. Phil's message was in session 7. I can picture this guy sitting through the first six, cheering on as MacArthur and Mohler and the other speakers bring the word, and call people out for the various ways they fall short of their calling as pastors. One of the speakers tears into emerg*s? You tell 'em! Taking apart easy-believism? Go get 'em, take no prisoners! Soft-peddling the Word, going easy on sin and repentance? Bring it! Keep going, this stuff is great!

Tarnishing the pulpit with filthy language and inappropriate material? Whoa, hold on now, why'd you have to go there? And so when his pet sin is hit, he can either repent or rebel. In this case, he chose to rebel.

Again I ask, am I any different? Are you?

It's so easy to cheer when the preacher brings the Word, when it's something they need to hear. When it's something I don't struggle with, but I see it running rampant in the church or society as a whole, oh yeah, I can listen to that preaching all day. But what happens when he hits my favorite sins? Do I zone out, just sort of skip over that part? Do I seek to self-justify, and explain how scripture doesn't really mean that, and even if it does it's not like what I'm doing is so bad, right? Do I go into full-on rebellion, and flaunt the sin because of my 'freedom in Christ', and take on the "Oh yeah? I'll show you!" attitude of a particularly immature three-year-old?

Or do I accept the Word of God as it is, and humbly confess my sin, and repent of it?

Yes, what this guy did is stupid on so many levels. It's foolish, moronic, disgusting, completely indefensible. But in the rush to (rightly) condemn his sin, let's examine our own hearts and how we respond to conviction. What he's done is obviously shameful. Let's not join him. When sin is exposed, let's repent of it and put it to death by the grace of God.

(Related: I was just cleaning out the RSS feed and saw this. Wow. Now that is how to respond to temptation and conviction of sin! So to sum up: be like this guy, not like vile graffiti guy.)

I Don't Want Every Post To Be About Them, But....

2009-03-07T10:37:00.002-06:00

Yesterday (via Justin Taylor) I read a retrospective of the last ten years of the Emerg* Church movement (also see the expanded interviews if you care). One story recounted there does a great job of illustrating exactly why I have a major problem with this movement. As an added bonus, the money quote is straight from the mouth of Tony Jones. Normally, when a critic of emerg* makes this claim it's dismissed as hateful nonsense, so it's great to see Jones unapologetically claim exactly what critics have been suggesting. Well, great that he's being honest about it, not so great that he actually believes it and teaches it.

Anyway, it's from a meeting between emerg* leaders Jones and Doug Pagitt and the most definitely non-emerg* and all-around awesome John Piper. They all work in Minneapolis (Pagitt 'pastors' or 'facilitates' (not sure which term they use this week) Solomon's Porch, and Piper pastors Bethlehem Baptist Church), and the emerg*s wanted to try to form some sort of coalition and work together. From the article:

But it appeared that John believed that there had to be some foundational theological agreement before any kind of partnership could be struck. Their conversation centered on the meaning of the atonement, specifically, the penal substitutionary theory. Tony and Doug did not believe that agreement on this specific doctrine was necessary for mutual endeavor. Tony used the incident to illustrate his Dispatch #7 in his recent book The New Christians:

Emergents believe that an envelope of friendship and reconciliation must surround all debates about doctrine and dogma.

Tony reiterated this principal in our interview with him: “It concerns me when leaders who were formerly friends of mine back away from me and from emergent because they find my theology too risky. I think that’s sin, plain and simple. Friendship should trump doctrinal differences, and I’m quite sure that Jesus would agree with me on that”.

So yeah. The emerg*s wanted to work together. Before doing so, Piper wanted to know that they at least agree on the heart of the gospel. The emerg*s didn't see the point in agreeing on the gospel. Why not just set such things aside and work together? Apparently to them, the gospel just isn't nearly as important as getting everyone to work together and be friends. (The same could of course also be said of "ecumenical" ideas such as ECT.) But the real meat comes from the Jones quote. Let's see, where to begin...

"It concerns me when leaders who were formerly friends of mine back away from me and from emergent because they find my theology too risky". I object to the term risky. Risk implies that there is a chance of either reward or consequence. That is simply not the case with Jones's theology. We know what the Bible says, we know what Jones teaches, and they are far, far apart. There is no "risk" involved in accepting his theology, any more than there is "risk" in putting your head in a hydraulic press and turning it on. We know exactly where it leads. Rejecting such a foolish course of action is not fear of risk, but an absence of stupidity.

"I think that’s sin, plain and simple." In the world of Tony Jones, standing firm for the gospel is sin. Got it. I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the irony of a man who has dedicated his life to promoting the denial of sin and an "anything goes" view of sanctification - because we can't really actually understand what the Bible says, and we can't know what truth really is, so who can say that something is a sin anyway, right? - calling something a sin. Apparently to Jones, the only real sin is believing the gospel as proclaimed by Jesus, attested by the apostles, and confirmed by the Father through signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

"Friendship should trump doctrinal differences, and I’m quite sure that Jesus would agree with me on that.” Why should the gospel matter? Why can't we just be friends? Again, when concerned Christians claim that emerg* leads to such places, we are ridiculed as spiteful haters. So in a way, it's refreshing to see such an influential emerg* as Jones come right out and say it. (See another prime example here).

And of course, Jesus would agree with this. He has no concern for truth whatsoever, he's just interested in getting us together to hold hands and light candles and sing Kum Ba Yah. Well, let's see how this picture of Jesus just wanting us to be friends without regard to faith or practice lines up with scripture. Hmmm. Nope. Not here. Or here. Nah. Maybe... nope. What about... nuh-uh. No. No. Repeatedly and clearly, no. Well, I'm sure that somewhere in the world, there's a Jesus who agrees with Jones here. It's just not Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who Jones claims to worship.

Well, maybe Jesus thinks that what we believe is slightly important - you know, important enough to determine whether we spend eternity rejoicing in heaven or suffering in hell. But surely elsewhere in scripture there's gotta be license for what Jones wants to do, right? I mean, just because someone may deny the heart of the gospel, there's no reason we can't overlook that and be the church together, right? No reason we can't church up together and be friends just because they're totally off on the gospel. What say ye, Paul?

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Well then. It seems that maybe friendship doesn't quite overrule the gospel. Huh. Of course, this quote is from the introduction to Galatians, where Paul takes the church to task for allowing false teachers to peddle their heresy. It doesn't matter if they're friends, or Paul himself, or even an angel. If they teach something other than the true gospel, they are cursed, and the church should not tolerate them.

I end with something tragically humorous. This post imagines what the response would be if Galatians was published in Christianity Today. Of course, as Dan Phillips points out, there's exactly zero chance that CT would publish something so good, so it would be merely fantasy. And the letters don't come close to matching the histrionics the perpetually offended crowd would no doubt produce. But it is a pretty accurate snapshot of the response whenever discernment is applied. Check the comment thread on any critical review of The Shack, f'r'instance. So it's humorous in that it captures the self-parody of the evanjellybean crowd so well, which completely expresses the "doctrine doesn't matter as long as we get along!" rubbish spouted by Jones. And it's tragic that this garbage has so completely infiltrated the church.

The Bachelor - Apparently Surprising

2009-03-03T19:23:00.002-06:00

I have no idea what happened on the season finale of The Bachelor. I was barely aware that the show is even still around. But judging by the 925 Facebook status updates (approximately) that all hit at the same time last night, apparently it was the last episode, and the guy did something extremely sleazy.

Well, I for one am shocked - shocked! - that someone associated with that show would have anything less than the highest moral integrity. I mean really, who could've seen it coming? To think that someone who'd go on that show could possibly be a sleazeball... My faith in humanity is - well, exactly where it was before.

So yeah, if you're one of those folks who was just stunned that the guy's a scumbag, could you please try to explain why you were even the least bit surprised? What, exactly, did you expect?

Reflections on the Weekend

2009-02-24T20:08:00.005-06:00

This past Sunday, our church had the privilege of hearing from guest speaker Greg Laurie. He's the pastor of Harvest Christian Fellowship out in California (one of the largest churches in the US), and a prolific evangelist. First we saw a short film that recounts his life story (after watching it, I'll be shocked if I don't wind up reading the book), then he gave a message from Luke 15 and gave an altar call. Here are a few of my thoughts...

1) Greg's story is really amazing. Without getting into too many details, it's hard to imagine a worse childhood - his mother was married at least seven different times (I believe he was from the 4th marriage, when she was still in her early 20's), she was a drunk, there was abuse, Greg had to stop one of her boyfriends from killing her, etc. With so many people blaming their parents/culture for their sins today, or believing that children always necessarily turn out as they are raised (good or bad), it's a good reminder that this is just a general principle, not an absolute rule.

Yes, the sins of the fathers are often visited on their descendants. Yes, good and godly parenting often produces good and godly children. But not always. Sometimes parents can do everything right, and the kid turns out to be a jerk anyway. And sometimes even with the worst parenting imaginable, God intervenes and turns the family around.

2) The way Greg was converted is truly convicting and awesome. He had become a hippie, and in high school he'd been doing some severe drugs. And he didn't care about God in the least. But he did have a crush on this girl who had become a Christian, and she'd gotten involved with the "Jesus movement" at school. So one day at lunch, the group was meeting out on the courtyard, and Greg sat close enough to keep an eye on the girl without being a part of the Jesus meeting.

Then the strangest thing happened. The leader started reading scripture, and explaining what it said. Greg wasn't paying attention, until something caught his ear: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters" (Mat 12:30). Not a verse you're likely to find in any evangelistic material. But one that cut him straight to the heart and brought him to repentance. Within a matter of days, he went from pothead Christ-mocking rebel to vocal Christian.

And what brought that radical change about? Nothing but the word of God. Not a message dressed up in relevance, not an attempt to appeal to things he liked, not someone trying to infiltrate his culture, just a man faithfully proclaiming God's word. He just overheard one verse, and the conviction it brought completely changed his life. I feel like there's a lesson in there somewhere...

3) After his conversion, one of the other believers invited him to church. They went to a place called Calvary Chapel, led by a man named Chuck Smith. A lot of the members were converted hippies, youthful, rebellious, not trusting anyone over 30. And this is the guy who led them. That picture doesn't look too much different from the ones of him in the 70's - he was a bald, older dumpy white guy in a suit or polo shirt, with hundreds of long-haired hippies listening to him.

How? How is such a thing possible? After all, nary a day goes by without me reading about how if we want to reach a certain culture, we need to immerse in it. If we want to reach artists, we need to become artists. If we want to reach goths, it'll never happen unless we dress and act and talk like goths. Yet here was a guy who looked like everything the hippies would oppose, yet God used him to bring hundreds of them to faith and repentance. How? Here's a hint: in every clip of him that was shown, he was reading from his Bible. It seems that maybe, just maybe, the key isn't to become more 'relevant', but to faithfully preach the message that applies to all men everywhere at all times, that transcends all racial, ethnic, cultural, socioeconomic barriers, and proclaims the greatest problem we face and God's perfect solution.

Nah. Never get a book deal like that. Who would believe that God's word is actually more imminently relevant than our hairstyles and musical tastes? I must be a crazy fundie or something.

4) Now, about the altar call and invitation. I know these things are controversial and all, but if done properly, they can be very useful and mitigate against the dangers (i.e. false assurance). So anyway, I remember the first time I was at Harvest for one, and frankly it should be its own "Why I Love James MacDonald" post. He was finishing his message and giving the challenge, and started like he was going to do the "every head bowed, eyes closed" thing... then stopped and said "Forget that - every head up, eyes open, look around. If you want to claim to follow Christ, you do it publicly and let everyone know!" Amen to that! No more of these 'I'll just slip my hand up while nobody's looking and I'll be covered' phony professions of 'faith', please. If you're even the least bit sincere, letting the people around you know is the very least you can do.

So anyway, this weekend Greg Laurie gave the invitation to submit to Jesus. He did the typical way, which would've been really disappointing had I not known what was coming. After that, the challenge was issued - if you professed faith, come on down! As he put it, "Put feet to your faith." If you are ashamed to come up front and be seen, that's a really good sign your faith isn't genuine and you can't believe you're saved. No doubt just that simple act caused a few false professors to drop out only a few seconds into their supposed new life in Christ. And no doubt they are better off for it - better to have your 'faith' proved phony right away rather than be deluded about it for no one knows how long.

Next, those who came forward were sent off to meet individually with various ministry leaders - some elders, small group leaders, pastors, etc. Somehow the wife and I were invited to participate as well. We basically met with them just to get a feel for where they stood, make sure they understood what they were doing and its implications, that sort of thing. The aim was to get the point across that this isn't just a one-time purchase of fire insurance. Coming to faith in Christ means submitting to his Lordship in all of life, as long as you live. I pray that this message came across loud and clear, and that these folks are genuine brothers and sisters in Christ gearing up for a life-long journey of sanctification and fruit-bearing communion. The last thing we ever want to do is give someone false assurance, that raising a hand or coming forward or meeting with a counselor, if that's where it ends, is evidence of genuine faith.

5) While I was writing this up, this article came across my RSS. It's James MacDonald's reflections on the news from this weekend, and in the process he lays some serious smack down on the "relevance is everything" crowd. Definitely worth a read. It brings to mind something Phil Johnson has often pointed out - strange how the only 'cultures' worth 'engaging' are the ones they want to be a part of. You never hear one of the relevance warriors talking about engaging the, say, chess team culture, or the Polish polka-dancing culture. No, somehow it's always the cool, edgy cultures that they just need to immerse in. How odd. It's almost like they're less concerned about actually reaching people for Christ, and more in finding a sanctified excuse to do what they really want to do. But.... nah, that couldn't be it. Could it?

Random Thought

2009-02-18T13:54:00.002-06:00

By the time they're done, who will have told more different versions of their stories - Roland Burris or Alex Rodriguez? I currently have it at Burris 4, A-Rod 3.

Don't Be Like These Guys

2009-02-09T21:11:00.005-06:00

I was reading through Exodus this past weekend, and came to a very interesting passage. There aren't all that many recorded instances of people getting the opportunity to see God, so every such encounter is worthy of close examination. This one rings an alarm loud and clear, and I pray we listen.

Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank. (Exodus 24:9-11)

We need to know that seeing God is a tremendous act of grace. It's the great hope of the people of God for all eternity, the joy set before us - to see God in all his glory and beauty. For God to allow people on earth, still in their sins, to see him in any measure - that is unimaginable grace. It is such an awesome and wonderful privilege that, for instance, when God pronounces a judgment on King Solomon for turning away from God despite incredible blessings, the greatest imaginable blessing is that God had appeared to him twice. Greater than all his wealth, all his fame, all his privilege and wisdom and power, God had appeared to him, yet Solomon turned his heart away anyway. The weight of the indictment is shown by the majesty of the blessing: he had actually gotten to see God, and yet he worshipped idols.

God's appearing is an act of grace not just because of the infinite greatness of his presence, but also because of how anti-deserving the recipients are. Note that I don't say "undeserving", as if it's just something we haven't earned or we're just not good enough for. No, we're anti-deserving; we have proven ourselves not just to be unworthy of beholding his glory, but to be completely worthy of receiving his wrath. Throughout scripture, whenever people get even a glimpse of the divine, the reaction is one of overwhelming dread (this'll be its own post soon enough), and deservedly so. We are sinners, and the divine light reveals the depths of our darkness, making us keenly aware of how much we deserve wrath. This is intimated in this passage as well: they saw God, yet "he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank." Of all the miracles recorded in Exodus, perhaps none is greater than this. They saw God, yet he didn't kill them.

Now to really see the warning in this passage, we need to look at the background a bit first. This takes place in Exodus 24. What's been leading up to this? Short version: Israel was enslaved in Egypt. God sent Moses (and Aaron with him) to perform miracle after miracle, striking Egypt with tremendous plagues and bringing the nation to its knees. Finally the Egyptians have had enough and drive the Israelites away - not just letting them go, but piling money and goods onto them, begging Israel to loot them on their way out. Following this miraculous deliverance, God guides Israel through the wilderness, and when Egypt has a change of heart and decides to kill Israel, God again saves his people and wipes out the Egyptian army in the Red Sea. Then God continues to lead Israel, providing miraculous bread from heaven daily, providing water when needed. He brings them to Mount Sinai, where God makes a covenant with them - they will be his people, and he will be their God. In Exodus 24 the covenant is confirmed and enacted. At the height of the festivities, after all these amazing blessings God has lavished upon his people already, he provides one more unspeakably great grace - he calls the leaders of Israel to the mountain, and lets them see him!

Among those who were chosen for this incredible honor: Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu.

Many people know what became of Aaron barely even a month later. Moses and Joshua head up the mountain to meet with God again and further understand the covenant, leaving Aaron in charge of the people down below. The people got antsy, so Aaron - who had been involved in all these miracles and had just seen God - took gold from them and made them a calf idol to worship. (Favorite line from that story - when confronted by Moses, Aaron tries to deflect blame to.... the fire? "So they gave it to me, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf.") It was barely over a month since he had seen God, and he had performed miracles, and he could look up and see the cloud/fire of God's presence while eating the manna God was miraculously providing - yet already Aaron was turned to idols.

No doubt fewer people know the story of Nadab and Abihu, seeing as how it's nestled there in Leviticus, and it's not a shiny-happy story to teach. You won't find many Nadab and Abihu flannelgraphs, that's for sure. Basically, it's not that long after the golden calf incident. They are freshly appointed priests, among the very first batch of priests ever appointed in Israel. They had been told in great detail how they were to make sacrifices, and warned about the consequences of sin. Yet possibly from even the first sacrifice they offered, they screwed around and offered "unauthorized fire". So God struck them down immediately, and they died.

Now what is the warning here? Consider. Aaron saw God, knew the truth about God as well as anyone at that time possibly could have. Yet Aaron abandoned the true God for a false god, commanding people to worship a silly statue instead of the glorious God he had just seen. Nadab and Abihu saw God, and knew that it was only by his mercy that they or anyone could come into his presence. Yet they were so frivolous, careless, and/or rebellious about the sacrifices they offered in the presence of God, that he struck them dead instantly. These men all had seen God, and they knew the truth about him, and should have had a righteous fear of him. Yet they were careless and rebellious, and they paid the price for it.

Now consider what we know, and how we should respond to such knowledge. We have seen the glory of God in the person of Jesus, in the work of the Spirit, and in the majesty of his word. We see the eternal plan of redemption, the revelation of mysteries kept hidden throughout the ages. We see evidence (much more than any previous generation could) of his infinite greatness revealed in his creation. We have clearly proclaimed for us the hope of eternal joy in knowing God, being clothed in the righteousness of Christ, being forgiven of our sin and blessed beyond our capacity to imagine.

So what do we do with this knowledge?

Are we like Aaron, casually tossing it all aside as soon as things get difficult? Do we exchange the glory of the immortal God for what we know to be insufficient imitations? Or are we like Nadab and Abihu, treating God casually like a plaything despite knowing he is capable of destroying us at any moment (and would be perfectly just in doing so!)? Have we become so accustomed to receiving God's grace that we take it for granted and presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead us to repentance?

This is serious business. Life or death doesn't even fully capture the significance; we're talking about heaven or hell. Do not presume that you can play with God indefinitely, or turn away from him whenever his demands are inconvenient. You do not know when his mercy will give way to justice, and your time will be up. As Hebrews exhorts and warns over and over, pay more careful attention lest you drift away. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The day is coming. Be ready. Stop playing around, and be ready.

Dual Conviction

2009-02-02T20:28:00.002-06:00

In the past few weeks I've been convicted in two major areas where I've been a slacker. First, yesterday at church the sermon (by guest preacher Crawford Loritts) was based on 1 Thessalonians 5:17. No doubt you can figure out where this part is going. Anyway, what really hit me more than anything was in the introduction, when he made the point that prayer is an acknowledgment of our total dependence on God. There is an inverse relationship between prayer and sinful, self-satisfying pride; the more prideful we are, the less we will pray.

The second area I've been really challenged in has been the study, and especially memorizing, of scripture. As my incredibly awesome wife has described, the importance of scripture memory has been hammered home to her, and she's been doing an incredible job of it (in just the past few months, she's memorized Hebrews, 1 2 and 3 John, several Psalms, and is now working on Colossians). So I've been inspired by how quickly she's been able to do this just by working at it in a disciplined manner. She's quite amazing, you know.

But what really brought the point home was seeing this. Adorable kid, and absolutely convicting. Just by listening to the same chapter every day for a few weeks, he was able to recite it basically word-perfect. And he's only four! I don't know how many times I've heard people use the excuse that they just can't memorize scripture (yet learning song lyrics or fantasy football stats never seems to be a problem) - well, this just blows that excuse completely away, doesn't it? As for me, I doubt anyone who's known me longer than a few minutes would ever buy that excuse from me anyway. No, the reason I haven't memorized long passages or whole books like that is sheer laziness.

So guess what I'll be making a lot more time for from now on.

Judging a Book By Its Cover

2009-01-31T21:34:00.003-06:00

Over the years I've built up a decent collection of books, primarily of a theological nature. Many of them have incredibly deep insights from scholars who have devoted their lives to digging deep into the scriptures and knowing as much about God as he has revealed. Quite a few have been life-shapers, challenging my worldview, changing the way I understand the truth about God and people. These books are well worth the effort to dig into them and mine the valuable truths contained within - classics from Calvin and Edwards and Luther and Charnock, modern titles from Piper and Packer and MacArthur and White. These books have so much good material in them, being so thoroughly scripture-soaked, I never regret cracking one open, reading, meditating, and letting the truth of scripture as explained by these godly men change my life.

But this isn't about any of the deep truths found in any of those books. I started a new book this week, and the first big challenge came before I'd even opened it up. Right on the front cover, the title of the book: Discovering The God Who Is. It's a new edition of an old book by RC Sproul (a tremendous author - you simply can't go wrong reading his stuff), and the title just captured my attention.

Perhaps more than at any other time in history, our age is a spiritual smorgassbord. With so much knowledge of the world's religions readily available, and with postmodern "whatever you believe is true" nonsense being crammed down our throats and taught as "enlightenment", it's no wonder that so many people believe (as evidenced by the way they talk about God and how they act) that God is whoever they want him to be. Don't like the part about hell? It's optional. Don't like being subject to an absolute sovereign? Invent limits for his sovereignty, or pretend he doesn't know the future, or just don't bother thinking about it. Generally in favor of God's judgment, but have a pet sin you want to remain a slave to? Take a big ol' plate of condemnation for other sins, and ignore the serving of justice for your favorite sin. Maybe all people go to heaven, or a lot do and the rest just go into soul sleep, or almost everyone goes to heaven and hell is reserved for the Hitlers and Stalins and Urkels, or maybe salvation is found only in Jesus and all who remain in open rebellion against God go to hell. Whatever works for you is fine (well, except the last one - if you believe that, you're just a hater), and we can't really know what's true anyway, right?

Well, that's where this book title gets it exactly right. See, if there's a God - and there absolutely is - then he is who he is. What we believe about him and about what he does has no effect on who he is or what he does. God is objective reality. Our thoughts, musings, desires, hopes, and fears about who we want God to be simply don't make it so. We may all mentally create our own idols, but that doesn't make God conform to our expectations. He is who he is, and it is our imperative to know him as he is. My mental image of God may be nice, logically consistent, and comforting to me - but if it doesn't accord with who God actually is, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

There are things God has clearly revealed about himself that offend us to the core of our beings - his sovereignty over all, his righteousness in judgment. But though we may enshrine our own ideas, invent a God of our many understandings, imagine a God who is not sovereign and who doesn't judge - at the end of the day, who wins? If God is sovereign, he is sovereign no matter how much we object. If God judges, he judges no matter how much we ignore or oppose it. Let God be true and every man a liar.

So when we come to study God as he has revealed himself in scripture, we need to remember this first and foremost. We are not creating the God we would like. We are learning about the God who actually is. And the time will come when those who form God in their own image will discover the truth and be sorely disappointed - actually, horrified and aghast. Besides, God is most certainly better in every way than the best we could ever hope to imagine. Let us press on to know God - the real God, the one who is.

Why I love James MacDonald

2009-01-17T09:42:00.003-06:00

Tricia and I are members of Harvest Bible Chapel in Rolling Meadows, IL, which is pastored by James MacDonald. I'm an unabashed fan - the guy's just awesome. You can hear his messages through his Walk in the Word radio ministry, or check out some of his books, or maybe read up at his blog. I thought I would also occasionally post on random bits of MacDonald awesomeness. First up:

So we were on the Sea of Galilee, taking a little boat ride. Lots o' cool stuff happened there, but one thing in particular made me laugh. At some point the conversation turned to false doctrines and weak watered-down churches, and I mentioned something about the emergent church. At which point Pastor James said, "If I ever join an emerging church, I want to be Pastor of Candles."

Now THAT is comedy. Unfortunately, it's funny because it's pretty much true. For the record, I would want to be Pastor of Inventing New Ancient Traditions.

Relevance! Catch the fever!

2009-01-09T21:38:00.002-06:00

When a church is looking to be "relevant", there are few ways it can better accomplish this than through its music. Many such churches believe the ultimate in relevance is achieved by singing secular songs as praise, but others choose a different route: taking the same songs but changing a word here or there to "Christian them up". When the latter method is chosen, you often get a true masterpiece of 'worship'.

As you might expect, I have a few comments on this.

1) If you're going to take an atrocity and pretend it's worship, at least don't imitate the exact plot of a South Park episode ridiculing the practice (and since this church is clearly hyper-relevant, certainly someone on the 'worship' team has seen this episode - come to think of it, maybe that's where they got the idea). According to one plot synopsis, Cartman forms a Christian band that "rocketed to the top of the Christian rock charts, with Cartman simply tweaking the lyrics of love ballads, changing words such as "Baby" to "Jesus". While effective, the band eventually comes under some scrutiny when one of the songs involves more passionate lyrics. Cartman manages to manipulate his way out and the band continues in its success."

If you're familiar with the original tune by Dead or Alive, you'll note that there was exactly one lyric change - from Baby to Jesus. Yeesh. Also, you no doubt see that the changed lyrics make this song a lot of things - sickening, sacrilege, disgusting, creepy, disturbing, and blasphemous come to mind - but worship is not one of them.

2) What was the deal with the socks? Spinning socks = praise? Alllllrighty then. I did think of one potential use for the spinning, though. If you were to place a heavy object in the sock - say, a cue ball, or a big rock, or maybe a stadium or quarry - you could spin it, release it, and hit one of the people responsible for this atrocity.

3) It can often be difficult to know when exactly to walk out of a church. When in doubt, you can't go wrong leaving at the first mention of the "Holy Spirit Hoedown". Although I think Spurgeon might've used that phrase a time or two, and John MacArthur uses that as a sermon title every other week, so maybe I'm jumping the gun here.

4) Isn't the point of "relevance" to make the gospel "more appealing" to the lost? Who, exactly, is this going to appeal to? Dead or Alive plus a square dance plus the O'Jays, all with swirling footwear? Sounds great! I'm so impressed, I need to hear more about Jesus!

HT: Luke MacDonald, who is one of our worship leaders at Harvest. Thankfully, we can be certain he'll never subject us to anything like this.