the lower case

the lowercase has moved!

2008-07-12T16:49:00.009-04:00

i first started a blog in the summer of 2005 during one of my recurring bouts of insomnia.

3 years, 200 posts, and over 20,000 visits later, i have moved from blogger.com over to wordpress.
for various reasons, all of which i am sure you do not care about, i think this will be a better fit.

so please change any bookmarks, feeds, links, etc. to reflect the new address:http://www.thelowercase.wordpress.com/

sbc-southern baptist christian

2008-07-09T18:30:00.003-04:00

continuing the discussion from yesterday- there are distinctives that are necessary to be a christian, and there are others that make one a particular demographic of christian. none of these "denominational" (for lack of a better word) distinctives undermine or contradict the primary christian distinctives.

at the blog between the times, nathan finn, professor of church history at southeastern seminary in wake forest, north carolina, highlights what beliefs make southern baptists christian, and also what makes these christians "baptist".

an excerpt:

Because our Christian identity is essential to our Baptist identity, we share a number of convictions with the wider catholic tradition, whether in its Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant forms:

1. Baptists believe in the Triune God who exists
eternallyas Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

2. Baptists believe that this Triune God created
the world good,but that his good world has been
corrupted because of the sin ofthe first human beings.

3. Baptists believe that Jesus Christ is the unique
God-Man, theincarnate Son of God, the second person
of the Trinity, both trulydivine and genuinely human.

4. Baptists believe that God is redeeming the world
and rescuinglost sinners through the person and work
of Jesus Christ.

5. Baptists believe that every human being will spend
eternity in eitherHeaven or Hell, and each person’s eternal
destination is based upon howthat person responds to God’s
revelation in Christ.

6. Most Baptists believe that all Christians everywhere are
adopted into God’s family and are part of his universal church,
a groupwhich includes all presently living believers as well
as all the redeemedof all the ages.

7. Baptists believe that all of these truths are taught in the
Bible, whichis God’s authoritative written word to humanity.

he continues...

Because of our historic milieu, Baptists embrace a number
ofconvictions that are embraced by most other Protestant
Christians:

1. Baptists believe that salvation comes by grace
through faithand that sinners are justified by faith
rather than by good works.

2. Baptists believe in the supreme authority of Scripture,
arguingthat the Bible is the ultimate norm for faith and
practice and is thusof a greater authority than traditions,
creeds, confessions, and individual opinions.

3. Most Baptists believe in only two ordinances (or sacraments),
baptismand the Lord’s Supper, and reject a sacerdotal understanding
of salvation.

4. Baptists believe in the priesthood of all believers,
claiming that everybeliever has direct access to God as
a result of the high priestly ministryof Jesus Christ.

5. Baptists argue against the existence of a special
priestly class of Christians,arguing that all believers are
spiritually equipped for the work of the gospel
ministry within their unique vocations.

Baptists are Christians. Even more specifically, Baptists are a type of Protestant Christian. The vast majority of our beliefs are not unique to Baptists, which is a good thing; when too many of your beliefs are different from other Christians, what you have is likely an alternative to Christianity.

Having established that most of our beliefs are shared with other types of Christians, I want to briefly consider those beliefs that are typically associated with Baptist Christians. There are at least five distinctives that are uniquely emphasized by Baptists:

1. Regenerate church membership
2. Believer’s baptism
by immersion
3. Congregational church polity
4. Local church autonomy
5. Liberty of conscience

i highly encourage you (especially any baptists) to read this whole article.

i believe...

2008-07-08T18:52:00.004-04:00

my last few posts, and a recurring theme here at the lowercase has been on the issue of orthodoxy.

webster's defines orthodox as "conforming to established doctrine especially in religion". when someone says they are a christian, what they should mean is that they believe and affirm the most basic tenents of the christian faith as historically recognized by christians. obviously there are differences among christians. baptists, methodists, presbyterians, anglicans, etc. can all legitimately be true christians, despite their differences in certain areas. (baptism, church structure, etc.)

but certain things are not negotiable. there are some things that one cannot deny, or must affirm in order to be a christian.

one such summary of non-negotiable christian beliefs is the nicene creed. affirmed by the council of nicea in 325 a.d. , this document affirmed the core beliefs of christianity in an effort to combat the heresies of that day. in doing so, the council has recorded for us a very succinct record of non-negotiable affirmations of the christian faith.

two quick notes.
1) creeds have no authority of their own. they are only accurate insofar as they accurately reflect the teachings of scripture. having said that, creeds and confessions of faith can be very helpful in helping us learn and retain what scripture teaches.

2) the nicene creed speaks of "one holy catholic and apostolic church". the use of the word "catholic" is not a reference to roman catholicism-but rather the church universal.

the nicene creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of
God,begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our
salvation came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the
Virgin Mary,and was made man; and was
crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried;and the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures,and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,to judge both
the quick and the dead;whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets.

And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.

when the truth hurts...

2008-07-01T22:26:00.006-04:00

i can't think of a better way to celebrate the 200th post at the lowercase than to post a sermon, that, the first time i heard it, ripped me to the core.

this video is a of a sermon given by paul washer at a 2002 youth conference. if you have ever been to a youth conference, you know how seriously most youth do *not* take what they hear. i was one of them. i went to one almost every year between 7th grade and my senior year of high school. i was the youth minister's son. i was a christian. but the sermons were my (and all of my friends) least favorite part... and a lot of ungodly behavior took place (secretly and in public)while on those trips. i know i never heard a sermon like this... but i sure wish i had.

incidentally, washer was not invited back. the truth will do that sometimes.

get an hour to yourself and watch this hour long sermon. if you do watch it, you will not be the same afterward.

"what do you mean by that?"

2008-06-30T21:26:00.007-04:00

i hesitate to post the following because this blog has never been about pushing a political agenda.
that is not what this post is about either. it is about the mis-use of the label "christian".

jesus was not a "white middle class republican", so i do not think that "good christians" can only vote republican, or even that a candidate's religious beliefs should be the litmus test for their ability to lead. while i would hope that all politicians would accept the gospel and live lives of obedience to christ, i do not withhold my vote for them solely on the basis of their faith (or lack of).

because much is being made about senator barack obama's faith, and with his current campaign openly seeking to reach the "evangelical vote", information about his beliefs and his commentary on them is easily available... one could almost say it is constantly presenting itself.

i can honestly say that if (when?) similar contradictions between professed faith and actual beliefs present themselves about john mccain, i will address it with the same scrutiny. again, this post is *not* about why someone should or should not vote for obama, but rather it is about why we must be clear that christianity has specific beliefs that cannot be compromised and maintain the name "christian".

that being said.... consider the following from a 2004 chicago -sun times interview with senator barack obama.
i will present them without commentary. simply read his own words (the whole interview is linked for context) and see if his description of being a christian leaves wondering what he means by "christian".

"I am a Christian..."So, I have a deep faith," Obama continues.
"I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are
many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there
is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.
...[t]hat there are values that transcend race or
culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for
all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility
to make those values lived."

........

"The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity,
is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize.
There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people
haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior,
they're going to hell."

Obama doesn't believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell.
But he's not sure if he'll be going to heaven, either.

"I don't presume to have knowledge of
what happens after I die," he says. "When I tuck in my
daughters at night, and I feel like I've been a good father
to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values
that I got from my mother and that they're kind people
and that they're honest people, and they're curious people,
that's a little piece of heaven."

the blame game

2008-06-25T19:43:00.005-04:00

i ran across this guest post by over at the desiring god blog. honestly, i saw myself in many of the "excuses". i pass it on for purposes of encouragement and improvement.
i will reprint the full article here, but highly encourage visiting desiring god's website and blog for a wealth of articles, sermons, books, and other resources... many can be downloaded for free.

12 Sins We Blame On Others
The following is a guest post [at desiring god's blog]by Ben Reaoch,
pastor of Three Rivers Grace Church in downtown Pittsburgh, PA.

It started in the Garden. Adam said to God,

The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate. (Genesis 3:12)

The first man, caught in the first sin, turns to blame his wife. And he extends the blame to God as well! He implies that he would have remained innocent if God hadn’t put Eve in the garden with him.

The blame-shifting in the Garden continues today. Our proud hearts send us desperately looking for someone else to point to every time we’re confronted with our own sin. There must be someone else—our spouse, sibling, parent, boss, co-worker, pastor, friend, or God, himself.

We are so desperate to justify ourselves that we become irrational. Here are 12 examples.

1) Anger
I wouldn’t lose my temper if my co-workers were easier to get along with,
or if my kids behaved better, or if my spouse were more considerate.

2) Impatience
I would be a very patient person if it weren’t for traffic jams and long lines
in the grocery store. If I didn’t have so many things to do, and if the people
around me weren’t so slow, I would never become impatient!

3) Lust
I would have a pure mind if there weren’t so many sensual images in our culture.

4) Anxiety
I wouldn’t worry about the future if my life were just a little more secure—
if I had more money, and no health problems.

5) Spiritual Apathy
My spiritual life would be so much more vibrant and I would struggle with
sin less if my small group were more encouraging, or if Sunday school were
more engaging, or if the music in the worship service were more lively, or
if the sermons were better.

6) Insubordination
If my parents/bosses/elders were godly leaders, then I would joyfully follow them.

7) A Critical Spirit
It’s not my fault that the people around me are ignorant and inexperienced.

8) Bitterness
If you knew what that person did to me, you would understand my bitterness.
How could I forgive something like that?

9) Gluttony
My wife/husband/roommate/friend is a wonderful cook! The things they
make are impossible to resist.

10) Gossip
It’s the people around me who start the conversations. There’s no way to
avoid hearing what others happen to say. And when others ask me questions,
I can’t avoid sharing what I know.

11) Self-Pity
I’ll never be happy, because my marriage/family/job/ministry is so difficult.

12) Selfishness
I would be more generous if we had more money.

Making excuses like this is arrogant and foolish.
It’s a proud way of trying to justify our actions and
pacify our guilty consciences. And it keeps us from
humbling ourselves before God to repent of our sins
and seek his forgiveness.

Consider James 1:13-15, which leaves us with no way
of escaping our own sin and guilt. We cannot blame God,
for he “cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.”

Instead, we have to accept the humbling truth that “each
person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.”
This will end the blame game, and it will send us pleading for Christ’s
mercy and grace.

obama reads my blog

2008-06-24T20:38:00.008-04:00

hope and change: the lowercase for vice president!!

it would seem senator barack obama reads my blog!
from worldnet daily:

Some have been taking issue with largely unnoticed
comments made last year by Sen. Barack Obama
declaring the U.S. is "no longer a Christian
nation" but is also a nation of others, including Muslims and
nonbelievers.
...
"Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian
nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation,
a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu
nation, and a nation of nonbelievers," Obama said
during a June 2007 speech available on YouTube

see! i told you .. just go back and read yesterdays post! i said these words
"this notion of america being a christian has got to go. that label is not true."

so.. you heard it here first... "barack obama reads the lowercase and agrees with stephen cavness."

obviously i am joking. (among other reasons...his remarks were made last year) the senator's purpose for his remarks is not in the pursuit of religious truth, but rather political gain. (just as any politician of any
party is prone to do)
he goes on to say:

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped
being used to bring us together and started being used
to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it's because of
the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been
all too eager to exploit what divides us," he said

now, many people who are lumped into the "christian right" i have little in common with, so my purpose is not to defend that label. my point is to show yet another example of tolerance being redefined as "do not say anyone is wrong, much less live as if your moral claims are absolutes".

i am all for being "together" with my fellow americans. we can and should be cordial and friendly with those with different beliefs. we can disagree without hating those we disagree with. but let us move past this silly notion that tolerating something or someone means we must validate those beliefs- and that anything less is "intolerable".

american religion:"3,000 miles wide and...three inches deep"

2008-06-23T22:17:00.012-04:00

a new survey was just released further exposing the astonishing (and tragic) state of this one nation "under god".

the pew forum on religion and public life has released part II of its study of america's religious beliefs and practices. (i referenced findings from part I here).

among the findings [quoted from this associated press article] of 35,000 u.s. adults:

America remains a nation of believers, but a new survey
finds most Americans don't feel their religion is the only
way to eternal life — even if their faith tradition teaches
otherwise.

In all, 70 percent of Americans with a religious affiliation
shared that view, and 68 percent said there is more than
one true way to interpret the teachings of their own religion.

Nearly across the board, the majority of religious Americans
believe many religions can lead to eternal life:
mainline Protestants (83 percent), members of historic black
Protestant churches (59 percent), Roman Catholics
(79 percent), Jews (82 percent) and Muslims (56 percent).

By similar margins, people in those faith groups believe in multiple
interpretations of their own traditions' teachings. Yet 44 percent
of the religiously affiliated also said their religion should preserve
its traditional beliefs and practices.

d. michael lindsay sums up these findings quite well by saying:
"The survey shows religion in America is, indeed, 3,000 miles
wide and only three inches deep"

the report has generated among some the notion that the findings may be a
positive indication of a healthy growing "tolerance" in america - a view held
by c. welton gaddy, president of the interfaith alliance who was quoted in the associated press article as saying:

"It shows increased religious security. People are
comfortable with other traditions even if they're
different... It indicates a level of humility about
religion that would be of great benefit to everyone."

i guess i fail to see how being comfortable with other religions is somehow at odds with my caring more about the state and eternal destiny of their soul.

roger s. oldham, vice president for convention relations of the southern baptist convention (and my friend and former pastor) expresses a similar exasperation of the misuse of the idea of "tolerance".

"If by tolerance we mean we're willing to engage or embrace
a multitude of ways to salvation, that's no longer evangelical
belief," he said. "The word 'evangelical' has been stretched so
broadly, it's almost an elastic term."

our culture seems to celebrate being "open" to the possibility that religions other than one's own are just as valid and that more than one claim to religious truth need not be in opposition.
that is utter nonsense. i have written about this before here, here, and here, so for now i will not rehash this absurd redefining of the word "tolerance".

the issue here is the notion of being able to apply one's own meaning to words and labels.
it is not by saying "i am a christian" -whatever that means to the individual that one goes to heaven. it is by faith in alone in christ alone that we are saved. if what we mean when we say "christian" is not what the bible means when it teaches of being a follower of christ, then we are not, in the true and historic sense of the word a christian. but our culture has given us the bravado to redefine and determine meanings of words-to be as inclusive as possible. accept everyone into everything, reject no one from anything (except those who reject your beliefs).

what these reports are making more and more clear is not "new" news. the bible tells us that there will be people who expect that they have found the way to god, but because they did not repent of their sins and believe in the lord jesus christ (and him alone) that they will spend an eternity in hell. (yes.. i said the hell word.. it is real.. it exists. we ought not be ashamed to believe in that which jesus spoke very frequently of).

this notion of america being a "christian nation" has got to go. that label is not true. when overwhelming numbers of people who claim to be christian deny the basic and non-negotiable aspects of christianity we should stop using that label as a badge of honor and instead be broken over it.

the next time we are at a ballgame or gathering where "god bless america" is sung... instead of taking pride in being a "christian nation", perhaps we should be terrified that our nation is rapidly becoming one of the most spiritually lost and confused nations in the world... more corinth than paradise. and rather than sing/pray "god bless america" maybe we should fall to our knees and pray "god, have mercy on and save america".

christians who deny the deity of christ?

2008-06-20T18:28:00.003-04:00

over the past 15 months i have preached through the gospel of john, 1, 2, and 3 john. john had a lot to say about the deity of christ and who he was. he also had a lot to say about avoiding false teachers and teachings.

with that in mind, take a look at some quotes from the cooperative baptist fellowship general assembly in memphis, tn. this past week. (read the whole story here from baptist press)

"Now we are reevaluating and we're approaching
everything with a humbler perspective and seeing
God's hand working in Christ, but not necessarily
as the incarnate God in our midst," Killinger said.
"Now, that may be hard for you to hear depending
on where you are coming from, but we can talk
more about it."

"Doctrine isn't the driving force to many people today"
except "to the fundamentalists who insist on it," Killinger said.
"But doctrine is a thing of the past now religiously".

There's an altered view of Scripture and of the role of Christ,"
he said of Christianity in today's world. "Christ is still Savior
to most of us, but maybe in a slightly different way than before."

"I'm just suggesting that I think we need to be a little less
certain about what Jesus meant, what He was about, what
His life and work were about. I think we're reevaluating all that.
"For example, Jesus did not conceive of Himself as the Savior
of the world and may not have viewed Himself a sacrifice at
all until the crucifixion, Killinger said

Killinger said he benefits from the mystical experience of
reading John's Gospel privately but cannot advocate John's
high view of Christ in serious preaching or scholarship.
"There are moments when I can do that privately and
mystically myself," Killinger said of benefiting from John.
"But at the same time, in terms of the cultural development
of Christianity, I have to look at what the scholars are saying
about the first three Gospels."

The pastors also said they did not disbelieve in an afterlife
but were not overly concerned about it, Killinger said. When
asked whether they thought people of other world religions
are going to hell, the pastors replied that they did not think
in terms of heaven and hell, he said.

During the same workshop June 19, Killinger said the Old
Testament book of Daniel "fibbed a lot." Even though Daniel
claims to be written earlier, it was actually written in the
second century B.C., he said, and pretends to prophesy
about events that occurred previously.

"The scholars almost all admit Daniel fibbed a lot because,
as a book, it was actually written in one time and set back
in time to make it look as if the prophecies it made came true,"
Killinger said. "That would validate other prophecies it
was going to include, you see. So that's cheating a bit."

i am not sure what "scholars" this man is speaking of, but i know that it is not "almost all".

i have said it before and i say it again, we must be *clear* about who god is, who jesus is, and what the gospel is. there are many false teachers and teachings out in teh world that are disguised as "christian". let us not be led astray, and seek to keep others from being led astray as we seek the truth in the bible that does not "fib".

free book wednesday

2008-06-18T17:38:00.005-04:00

i am a firm believer in and promoter of the reading of good books. if i could enact one major change in today's church, it would be that church members would embrace reading good books that are healthy for the soul-books that inform, teach, answer, and compel us onward in growth.

unfortunately, a lot of people who hear that react as if i had recommended a strict diet of prunes and castor oil. i understand that not everyone is an avid reader or even enjoys reading in their spare time. i am not suggesting that everyone build a personal library of hundreds of books. but surely the care and nurture of our souls and coming to a better understanding of our faith is something that we can apply the same amount of time and energy that we devote to televison, internet, or other recreational time consumption. even the slowest reader can read an above average length book in one month if they just read ten pages a day.

[over on the side bar is a link to view books from my own library. feel free to browse the titles and authors and ask for suggestions. some books i have read because i disagree with the author or viewpoint, so because a book is in my library does not necessairily mean i would recommend it.]

so in the spirit of reading, i will be giving away books from time to time starting today with this one:

"Five Who Changed the World is a compelling book by
Daniel Akin that walks believers through five key texts
of Scripture, illustrating the truths contained therein by
sharing the biographies of five missionaries who changed
the world through their dedication to the Great Commission.
You will meet and learn from the lives of William Carey,
Adoniram Judson, Lottie Moon, Bill Wallace, and Jim Elliot."
-from the southeastern seminary president's page

reading about church history is one of the best ways to develop an understanding and appreciation for the church and the truths that it stands for as well as the importance of its mission.

the first person to respond to this post will get a free copy of this book. the only cost is promising you'll read the whole thing!

"conventional" thoughts

2008-06-12T21:31:00.008-04:00

monday through wednesday of this past week my wife christi and i were in indianapolis for the annual meeting of the southern baptist convention.

i have been a southern baptist my whole life, my great-grandfather and grandfather were southern baptist ministers, as is my father. but as a 4th generation baptist minister, this was the first convention i have attended.

over 7,000 messengers attended the convention from all over the country. it was a sight to see... but made me wonder what an overwhelming sight the convention must have been in the past, when their have been upwards of 30 and 40,000.
from an informal "visual" survey, i would say that at least 60% of those attending were over 50 years old. that should say something about the state of involvement (attitude of apathy?) of the younger sbc generation.

my resolution on the public disassociation with fred phelps and westboro baptist church (full text here) did not make it through the committee and onto the floor, but some of the westboro folks showed up at the convention.

[of all of the sad things about these people who have been deceived and are so filled with hate, one of the worst is the children in these photos... being raised to believe this venom... lord please open their hearts... (2 thes. 3:5) ]

my wife and i were able to meet up with my dad, her aunt and uncle, and several friends and also made some new acquaintances. dr. tom nettles, who has been a great professor, mentor, and friend for several years now, graciously gave us tickets to the southern seminary luncheon and asked us to be guests at his table. we were glad to accept and while at the table we were able to meet and converse with, among others, tom ascol and his wife donna, and bill and karen ascol. it was a wonderful lunch filled with both serious discussion and laughter (some of which was due to my knocking my water over.)

dr. ascol's efforts to have an sbc resolution calling for repentance for the failure to maintain integrity in church membership finally came to fruition as an estimated 2/3 of the messengers voted to accept this much needed resolution. i encourage everyone to read the resolution in full and spread the word to your local church and pastor.
read the full resolution here.

other resolutions were made and passed. those can be found here.

there were 23 motions made, which can be found here, some of which were passed on to committee, some of which were not.

i did not agree with everything said, done, or decisions to affirm or decline (like the decline of my own resolution!)- but what i did come away with was a desire to see more southern baptists, especially those under 50 yrs. old involved in the process.

next year's convention will be in louisville, ky. i encourage anyone who is a member of a southern baptist church ask to be a messenger to the convention for your church or at least to make sure that your church sends its full number of messengers. it would be wonderful to have 40,000 in louisville in 2009 as southern baptists seek to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth.

lost in translations...

2008-06-04T17:27:00.003-04:00

another common question i receive is..

How Should I Choose a Bible Translation?

Should be based on the best available and most reliable
Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
Based on the latest (most accurate) knowledge of
language and culture.
Maintains a healthy balance of accuracy and
understandability.***
Remains dignified. (no irreverence in the way
content is treated or delivered)
Avoids bias

***types of approaches to translations:

Formal Equivalency - a word for word translation (New King James, New American Standard, English Standard Version)

Dynamic Equivalency - a thought-by-thought translation (New International Version, New Living Translation)

Paraphrase – A translation based on a “how I would say it” approach not usually dependent on original languages. (The Message and the like)

as for me, i most often use the nasb or esv for bible study because i want to know word for word what was said. sometimes meaning can become less clear when translated thought by thought. this does not mean that dynamic equivalency is bad or useless. i will often read parts of the old testament (leviticus through deuteronomy and sometimes the psalms) from the new living translation.

regardless of which translation you use (assuming it is a valid translation-one of the ones mentioned above or based on similar criteria) the point is spending time reading, meditating and applying the scriptures. only then will we be "...transformed by the renewing of our minds"

learning how to read...

2008-05-30T18:15:00.007-04:00

[continuing the discussion started here, and continued here and here]

along with "where did the bible come from?", i am often asked related questions pertaining to bible study.
"how do i study scripture?"
"how do i understand what i read?"
"how can i know i am not doing it wrong?"

below is an outline of things to keep in mind when studying scripture. i will break each point down over the course of the next week or so...

How Do I Read/Study the Bible?

The starting point is NOT
“What does this verse mean to me ?”
Avoid this type of interpretation
in your own Bible study and from others.
Context is king! to ensure that you are
properly understanding the point of the
passage, keep the following things in mind
as you read:
Who was the author?
Who was he writing to?
Why was he writing this?
Know the literary genre (poetry,
wisdom literature, hyperbole, parable,
personal correspondence, apocalyptic, etc.)
Each genre has its own rules of interpretation.
Meaning - Based on the above criteria,
determine what message the original author
wanted his original audience to get-that is what
the passage means.
Seek out implications for your life from what
the text means. (as opposed to making the meaning
an implication)

Recommended Resource:
A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules. Robert Stein. Baker, 1997.

According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible. Graeme Goldsworthy. Intervarsity Press, 2002.

"it's greek (and hebrew) to me!"

2008-05-27T22:24:00.006-04:00

part 3 of series starting here , read part II here

FROM HEBREW AND GREEK MANUSCRIPTS TO MODERN ENGLISH

We have briefly covered the origins of scripture, but how did it get from hebrew and greek to the english version we own? The following is a brief outline of the history of the Bible came to be translated into English.

· 315 A.D. - Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27
books of the New Testament

· 405 – Jerome translates the Latin Bible (Vulgate)

· The Bible of the “common people” took shape in the form
of wood carvings, stain glass windows, etc.

· 1382 – 1st English translation by John Wycliffe (handwritten)

· 1414 – Capital Punishment is declared for reading Scripture in
one’s native tongue. In 1428, Wycliffe’s bones were dug up and burned

· 1454 – printing press invented

· 1526 – William Tyndale published first printed New Testament

· 1530’s – Martin Luther works on German Bible

· 1535 - Miles Coverdale prints first full English Bible, burned
at the stake in 1536

· 1560 – Geneva Bible : first Bible in America, used by Pilgrims
and the Puritans, also by Shakespeare

· 1611 – after Henry VIII's breaking away from the Roman
Catholic Church and the formation of the Anglican church,
they printed their own Bible under the reign of James-the
King James Version. (many errors made, revised many times[i])

· 1881 – English Revised edition

· 1901 – The American Standard

· 1952 – Revised Standard Version

· 1963 – New American Standard

· 1978 – New International Version

· 1982 – New King James Version

· 1989 – New Revised Standard Version

· 2001 – English Standard Version

· 2004 – Holman Christian Standard Version

As Americans, the fact that we have our own Bibles, and for many of us,
multiple copies, should give us pause. People were killed for trying to give
a copy of the Bible to people in their own language. There are people who
are killed for owning copies, and who make great sacrifices just to read a
few pages.

Last year, a professor last year read an email account from a missionary
telling of a boy with no arms who walked miles through the jungle to get
just a portion of the new testament. he made his way through the jungle
(with no arms!) to the river where the missionaries were, had them place
a copy on his shoulder where he tilted his head down to hold it, and started
on his journey back home.

We are greatly blessed to be able to have copies of God’s revelation
readily available. Shame on us if we take it for granted, do not read it,
or do not live it.

For further Reasearch and Study:
The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and
Development of the Bible, Paul D. Wegner, Baker Academic, 2004.

The Story of Christianity Justo Gonzalez, Prine Press, 1999.

The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development,
and Significance, Bruce Metzger. Oxford University Press, 1997.

Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bibles Accuracy, Authority and
Authenticity, James R. White. Bethany House, 2004.

Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine R.C. Sproul and
Keith Mathison. P&R Publishing, 2005.

[i] See James R. White’s The King James Only Controversey,
Bethany House, 1995.

the old and the new

2008-05-23T22:30:00.009-04:00

[continued from this post...]

What we refer to, as “the Bible” are the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.
Those books are:
Old Testament
Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy
Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 2Samuel 1Kings 2Kings
1Chronicles 2Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalms
Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah
Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah
Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah
Malachi

New Testament
Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians
2Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians
1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy
Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter
1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation

The bible is divided into two sections known as The Old Testament and
The New Testament. (“Testament” is just another word for “Covenant”).
Thus, the Old Testament is the account and record of God and His people
during the Time of the Old Covenant (Adam and Eve to Abraham up until
approximately 400 years before the birth of Christ), and the New Testament
covers the life, death, and ressurection of Christ, through the ministry of the
Apostles.

The Old Testament

The Old Testament (“tanak”, formed by taking the first letter of each section;
“torah”, “nevii”, and “kethuvim”) was originally written in Hebrew,
with some sections in Aramaic. The “torah” or books of the law were written
by Moses around 1400 B.C. The law is made up of the first five books of the
Old Testament, Genesis through Deuteronomy. The books of the prophets
or “neviim, were finished around 430 B.C., with Malachi.
The “writings”, the poetry and wisdom literature known as the “kethuvim”,
round out the Old Testament.

In the New Testament, the Old Testament is often referred to by Jesus
and the apostles as “the law and the prophets”, “the writings”, or “as Moses
said” (the law).
(Matt 23:1-3; Luke 16:28-31; Luke 24:25, 44 for just a small sample)

The Old Testament as we have it has been recognized as complete and
authoritative from as early as 170 A.D. -as can be demonstrated by the
writings of Melito, Bishop of Sardis:
When I came to the east and reached the place where
these things were preached and done, and learnt
accurately the books of the Old Testament, I set
down the facts and sent them to you. These are
their names: five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus,
Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son
of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kingdoms, two
books of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs
of Solomon and his Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of
Songs, Job, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, the
Twelve in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra. [i]

The order that Christians follow in our Old Testament is the order of
the early Greek translation called the Septuagint (“LXX”), translated
about 250 B.C.

So what were the criteria for counting certain writings Scripture
and not others? In summary, the following were essentials:
· Anything revealed by God and recorded by Moses
· Books written by true Prophets (as defined by Deuteronomy 18)
· Writings that were consistent with the character of God
· Books received and used by the congregation of the people of Israel.

These sacred writings were carefully copied and preserved by Jewish scribes.
In 1947, fragments of every Old Testament book but Esther were found in
caves in Qumran dating as far back as the 3rd century B.C.

The New Testament
Originally written in Greek, with some Aramaic, the books of
the New Testament are:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians,
2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,
1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus,
Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter 1 John, 2 John, 3 John,
Jude, Revelation.

Why these books? F.F. Bruce puts it best when he writes:
What is particularly important to notice is that the
New Testament canon was not demarcated by the
arbitrary decree of any Church Council. When at last
a Church Council – the Synod of Hippo in AD 393 –
listed the 27 books of the New Testament,
it did not confer upon them any authority which
they did not already possess, but simply recorded
their previously established canonicity.
(The Books and the Parchments, pp. 112-113.)[ii]
This is an important point to make and so bears repeating. The Church did not arbitrarily decide what was scripture and what was not. Rather, they tookthe collections of writings that they had and simply recognized what already
possessed authority. Authority was derived from:

having been written by an Apostle or a close associate of
an apostle (Luke with Paul and mark with Peter)
having been in continuous use by the Church
having unity/agreement with the rest of Scripture

While there are no original copies of these documents, consider this:

There are 5, 300 known copies and fragments in the
original Greek, nearly 800 of which were copied before 1000 A.D.
By contrast, Homer’s Iliad, one of the most famous literary
works of Western civilization has 643 copies of manuscript
support. Within those, there are 764 lines of text that are
disputed as to the accuracy, whereas there are only 40 lines
in all of the New Testament that are disputed, none of which
would compromise a major doctrine of Scripture.[iii]
In fact, many people are unaware that each of William
Shakespeare’s 37 plays (written in the 1600’s) have gaps
in the surviving manuscripts, forcing scholars to “fill in the blanks”.
This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,300
copies and fragments of the New Testament that, together,
assure us that nothing is lost.
All of the New Testament except eleven verses can be
reconstructed from the writings of the early church fathers
in the second and third centuries.[iv]

With these things in mind, not to mention the wealth of internal testimony
of Scripture, we can be sure that the Scriptures we have have been kept
from dilution or error.

It is important to note that these 66 books are the only ones recognized by
the Early Church as authoritative. Some other religions or denominations
may include other books collected under the title “Apocrypha”, or have
additional authoritative books or manuals such as the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints’ (the non-christian religion known as the
Mormons) Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.

Also made popular by the recent Davinci Code book and movie of the same
name, the Gnostic gospels have been getting a lot of attention-particularly
the so-called "Gospel" of Thomas. These books are not Scripture, and as
such, are not binding as the word of God. To explore these other writings
and discuss why they are not Scripture is a worthy task, and has been done
elsewhere.

[i] Cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.26.14
[ii] F.F. Bruce,The Books and the Parchments,Fleming
H. Revell Company; Rev Updated edition, 1984, pp. 112-113
[iii] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody, Chicago, 1986, p.367.
[iv] Ibid, Ch.24

to be continued....

pray for steven curtis chapman and his family...

2008-05-22T02:01:00.003-04:00

one of the daughters, age 5, of steven curtis chapman and his wife, mary beth, was struck by a car driven by their son, and died wednesday.

read the story here

i cannot imagine the grief of losing a child in any circumstance... and my heart especially goes out to the brother who will no doubt live with "what if"'s for the rest of his life.

the song, "with hope", written by chapman after the heath high school shootings in paducah, ky. in 1997 resonate again ...

"with hope"
This is not at all
how we thought it was supposed to be
We had so many plans for you
We had so many dreams
And now you've gone away
And left us with the memories of your smile
And nothing we can say
And nothing we can do
Can take away the pain
The pain of losing you, but ...

We can cry with hope
We can say goodbye with hope'
Cause we know our goodbye is not the end, oh no
And we can grieve with hope'
Cause we believe with hope
(There's a place by God's grace)
There's a place
where we'll see your face again

And never have I known
Anything so hard to understand
And never have I questioned more
The wisdom of God's plan
But through the cloud of tears
I see the Father's smile and say well done
And I imagine you Where you wanted most to be
Seeing all your dreams come true'
Cause now you're home And now you're free,

We can cry with hope
We can say goodbye with hope'
Cause we know our goodbye is not the end, oh no
And we can grieve with hope'
Cause we believe with hope
(There's a place by God's grace)
There's a place
where we'll see your face again

We have this hope as an anchor'
Cause we believe that everything
God promised us is true,
So we can cry with hope
And say goodbye with hope

We wait with hope
And we ache with hope
We hold on with hope
We let go with hope

the b-i-b-l-e

2008-05-20T18:32:00.003-04:00

as a pastor and seminary student, i am often asked which bible translation i use and why, and what i recommend for others.

in recommending bible translations, another question that comes up is "how did what moses, the old testament prophets, jesus, and the apostles wrote make it into my leather bound copy of "the bible".

i have written about this topic before for an on-line magazine, http://www.justthesimpletruth.com/, but will revisit it here.

i will divide this up into more than one post, but to get us started...
________________________________________________

As Evangelical Christians, inheritors of the Protestant Reformation,
which reclaimed the truth of “Sola Scriptura” (scripture alone), the
Bible is our sole source of Authority. No Popes, creeds, councils, or

other decrees of man supercede the authority of what God has revealed

to us through His word.

God has not left His people to wander aimlessly through life wondering
what it is they are to do and how they are to do it. We are not like the

prophets of Baal who cut themselves in a desperate attempt to

communicate with their God.

We know what pleases Him, and we know what displeases Him.

Our God has spoken clearly to us through His Word, the Bible.

We can know God because He has revealed Himself. We can feel

confident in what we know because neither He nor His word ever

change. We are not governed by emotions or opinions that are always

coming and going and developing. We are not left
under the dictates of men who age, die, and make mistakes.

As John Armstrong puts it;

The authority of the Scripture, then, is not located
in human brilliance or witness. It is not found in the
person of Moses, Paul, or Peter. The authority is f
ound in the sovereign God Himself. The God who
"breathed out"4 the words through human writers
stands behind every statement, every doctrine,
every promise and every command written in
the Scripture.[i]

Scripture itself speaks to the importance of God’s Word. in its existance, uses and application. For example:

…and that from childhood you have known

the sacred writings which are able to give

you the wisdom that leads to salvation

through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is inspired by God and

profitable for teaching, for reproof, for

correction, for training in righteousness;

so that the man of God may be adequate,

equipped for every good work

(2 Timothy 3:15-17)

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the

prophets in many portions and in many ways, in

these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom

He appointed heir of all things, through whom also

He made the world (Hebrews 1:1-2)

Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. (John 17:17)

For the word of God is living and active and

sharper than any two-edged sword, and

piercing as far as the division of soul and

spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able

to judge the thoughts and intentions of the

heart (Hebrews 4:12)

The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul;

The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise

the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right,

rejoicing the heart;The commandment of the

LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear

of the LORD is clean, enduring forever;The

judgments of the LORD are true; they are

righteous altogether.(Psalm 19:7-9)

Now these were more noble-minded than those in

Thessalonica, for they received the word with great

eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see

whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11)

How can we be obedient to God when we don’t know what is asked of us?

How can we worship a God we do not know? How can we be saved without

the Gospel being explained? All of these answers are found in the Bible.

Indeed, most of us would agree Scripture is essential to the Christian life.

But how can we be sure that the book that we carry to Church with us and

read during our devotional times is what God intended for us to have?

How did God’s word go from old parchments written in foreign languages

to nice and neatly bound books in our own language? Why are there so

many different versions?

to be continued.....

[i] John H. Armstrong .Chapter 4 Sola Scriptura!:The Protestant Position on the Bible. Don Kistler,
General Editor ,Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994.

fred phelps, hating homosexuals, and sbc resolutions

2008-05-07T18:37:00.012-04:00

this week i will be submitting a resolution to be considered for vote at this years annual meeting of the southern baptist convention. i have posted before about the disgraceful westboro baptist church and their "leader" fred phelps here. as they continue to pop up in the news, i couldn't help but wonder about the potential thousands (millions) who see the name "westboro road baptist church" and assume that they belong and are an accurate representation of every other baptist church they know of. so, i drew up this proposal:

ON A PUBLIC DISASSOCIATION WITH FRED PHELPS
AND WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH

WHEREAS, Fred Phelps and members of the Westboro Baptist
Church frequently picket funerals with hate filled language and signage; and

WHEREAS, The highly publicized website for this Baptist church
is http://www.godhatesfags.com/ ; and

WHEREAS, The attitude, approach, language, and behavior displayed
publicly and in the media by Mr. Phelps and members of his congregation
are frequently in violation of explicit commands of Scripture of holy and
righteous living above reproach, even when confronting sin; and

WHEREAS, The designation of “Baptist” in the name of such an
organization and its claim to be “..the mouth of God”[i] can bring
shame and reproach on the Gospel, as well as other entities with
the name Baptist; and

WHEREAS, The national media fails to distinguish between churches
belonging to the Southern Baptist Convention and Westboro Baptist
Church; now, therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention
meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, June 10-11, 2008, firmly and publicly
clarify that neither Fred Phelps nor Westboro Baptist Church are
members of or representatives of the Southern Baptist Convention, nor
do we recognize their methods of protest or as appropriate or biblical.

[i] http://www.godhatesfags.com/ - front page under “Welcome, Depraved Sons and Daughters of Adam”

i don't know if the committee will pass this through or not, but we'll see.
we can be against sin without speaking against it sinfully. i would hate
for someone to dismiss me (or worse, the gospel!) because some
other "baptist" or "church" (both terms used very loosely) is acting
disgracefully.

from my earlier post on this topic :

the web address to the westboro baptist church is
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
yes... that's what it says. it is a site full of the most disgusting
perversions of the truth i have ever read and it makes me furious,
and it makes me want to weep. they dishonor the name of christ
with what they say and teach. it breaks my heart to think of how
many people will refuse to listen to the gospel because of what these
"christians" and "baptists" have said, which is neither baptist nor christian.

yes homosexuality is a sin, but so is the hate and vitriol that
they have made the cornerstone of their ministry. the death
of homosexuals need not be picketed and jeered with such
repulsive signs and slogans. rather we should reach out with
compassion and extend the offer of grace even
as we demonstrate the grace shown to us.

this is one example of why we must be clear about what we
believe. this is why we must define our terms. this is why
we must know doctrine and theology. if we dont, then what
do we say to someone who's only encounter with christianity
is with these hatemongers who spew false teachings and
venom through their website, picket signs, and their church?
what do we say when they ask what is different from us and
these other christians (and baptists)?

this church disgusts me and it saddens me. i pray that the lord would
grant for them repentance and for me a heart that wants to pray for
grace rather than judgment on them. praise god that he is in control and
no one, no matter how outrageous and contrived can thwart his will.

if there are any homosexuals who read this blog, please hear me.
this church and their teachings are *NOT* an accurate representation
of christianity or more specifically, of baptists. the bible does teach that
homosexuality is a sin. but all men are sinners in need of the grace of god.

true christianity will never insult you, or ridicule you, or rejoice in
your death. jesus taught love and compassion as well as repentance.
as a christian and baptist pastor i would say to you as a homosexual,
that i am in as much need for grace as you are. i am no better than
you. we are all in need of the grace of god that is available only through
faith in jesus christ.
i do not hate you. i want to share with you how to experience the
greatest love imaginable, not so that you would be like me, but so
that you can know god. please contact me at anytime and i would
love to share with you how. please do not reject christ because of
those who wrongfully go by his name.

free books and daily prayer..

2008-05-05T22:52:00.005-04:00

a couple of housekeeping things..

i have wanted to give away copies of some of the books that i reference here or that i have found to be very beneficial in my own spiritual growth. while i wont be able to do this very often, i hope to be able to do this at least 3 or four times a year. sometimes it may be more frequently than others.. so just keep a look out for it.

secondly, i have added a link to the right side of this site that gives a unreached people group to pray for each day. i hope that you will find it useful. we often forget about all of the nations that are not on the nightly news each week. hopefully this will help you as well as me in remembering to pray for the spread of the gospel over the whole world.

my semester is winding down and i hope to be able to post with more regularity. i appreciate the comments, emails, and other interactions. in less than two years this site has received almost 15,000 visits. thanks so much for stopping by.

...but it does show god's love

2008-05-02T00:55:00.004-04:00

to show the proverbial "other side of (the same) coin... "

i maintain everything i wrote in the last post... but i do want to emphasize that the gospel being about god's glory is not at odds with his love for us.
we are indeed loved by god-and we can't even fathom the extent of it. (ephesians 3:14-19)
one of my favorite hymns is "how deep the father's love fo rus" by stuart townend. if you arent familiar with him, or his often collabrative friends keith and kristyn getty, go ye therefore and educate thyself.
this song gives us a scriptural, and therefore god exalting reminder of the lord's love for us.

"how deep the father's love for us"
words and music by stuart townend

How deep the Father's love for us,
How vast beyond all measure
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure

How great the pain of searing loss,
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the chosen One,
Bring many sons to glory

Behold the Man upon a cross,
My sin upon His shoulders
Ashamed I hear my mocking voice,
Call out among the scoffers

It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath has brought me life
I know that it is finished

I will not boast in anything
No gifts, no power, no wisdom
But I will boast in Jesus Christ
His death and resurrection

Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom

the gospel is not all about you

2008-04-29T23:14:00.014-04:00

as any pastor can tell you, the amount of weekly " preacher junk mail" can be staggering. i am convinced that catalogues full of merchandise guaranteed to "grow my church" that come to my church or my home address are the single largest cause of deforestation.

in a sad commentary on how much we are willing to compromise the gospel in order to get people in the pews, i present to you one such product.. meant to be mailed out close to easter to get the unchurched in to church on easter sunday.

even worse, here is the "suggested message" for the reverse side of the card:

discover a love that was all about you
the 'me' generation, myspace, ipods, internet
sites that instantly recognize your login and
preferences-in this day and age the focus
seems to be on self. and, sometimes we
question whether that is a good thing. but, on
easter long ago, even god made it all about you.
jesus came to earth out of a great love-for you.
join us this easter at (your church name)
as we make it all about you-in the very best of ways.

i am not at all opposed to missions and evangelism. how could i be? our lord commands it, and christian love compels it. i am not opposed to unbelievers coming to my church. i have visited many homes and written many letters in hopes that they would.

but i draw the line at compromising the gospel in order to convince someone to come to church. the church does not exist to make much of man, but to make much of the glory of god.

yes, i believe john 3:16, as well as the many, many other verses that speak of god's love for us are 100% true. the lord has a greater love for his children than we could ever imagine. but the cross was not first and foremost about me or you. it was and is about god.

you see, the gospel is not "jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life". the gospel is not "come to jesus and he will take away all of your troubles". you will not find those presentations of the gospel anywhere in scripture. we need to stop getting our theology from cheesey christian music lyrics and bumper stickers and get the gospel from the bible.

every person who has ever been born, has been born a sinner, an enemy of god and an object of god's wrath deserving of hell by virtue of their being a sinner. that is biblical fact. (rom. 3:10-12;6:23; john 3:36; eph. 2:3)

gospel means "good news". the good news is not that we were so lovable that god saved us from bad circumstances. the good news is that "... while we were yet sinners, christ died for us." (rom. 5:8) we deserved the wrath of god, but jesus went to the cross to appease that wrath, to endure the punishment, so that "whosoever would believe in him" would have eternal life. (rom. 3:21-25 ; john 3:16) jesus took on the consequences of sin, and his righteousness is credited to the believer.(1 peter 3:18)

so what happens when we tell the unbeliever that easter and the cross is all about them? they come to our church and find that we sing songs about, pray to, give money to, and (hopefully) preach about christ, *not* them. we have given them false advertisement. we promised to make much of them, then fell through on our end of the deal. then we scratch our heads and wonder why they don't come back.

yes, salvation is a sign of the love god has for us, but the cross is not about *us*. the cross makes much of god's justice and mercy and glory and grace. god gets the glory, and we get the benefit. the cross is about the wonder of an infinitely holy god providing salvation for unworthy sinners who deserve nothing but justice-hell.

so let us be honest about the gospel. by all means, we should evangelize. but the good news is not "its all about you".
the good news is that:

"though we are all sinners who deserve nothing but hell, christ has died so that if anyone will repent of their sins and believe that he is the lord of lords, who lived a perfect life, was crucified, died, and was buried, and on the third day rose again, having satisfied the wrath of god for their sins and having his righteousness applied to them, then they can be saved". (rom. 5:18;10:9)

*that* is the gospel. it needs to be shared indiscrimmantly with everyone. it is a matter of life and death, and we dare not get it wrong.

why i'm not simply "christian"

2008-04-26T15:37:00.006-04:00

in the day of on-line communities and our cultures obsession with self-evaluation and list making, it is curious that one can so easily identify themselves by selecting ready made profile from a list of pre-labeled adjectives.

on facebook, myspace, or a host of other message boards, blogs, and other communities, it is not uncommon to see several people involved who have labeled themselves "christian", but who never seem to agree on anything regarding religious beliefs.

this has come into play in my life as well. when people ask me to come speak or preach, or write something for them, they usually ask for some kind of spiritual biography and statement of what i believe. this includes those within my own "denomination", the southern baptist convention.

unfortunately, those who have labeled themselves christian can disagree over the infallibility and sufficiency of scripture, not to mention varying views of what is and isn't sin.

there are churches who talk about "resurrection" who do not believe christ physically rose from the dead. but if you were to ask "do you believe in christ's resurrection?" "of course i do!" would be the enthusiastic response. this is because when they say christ was resurrected, they mean his spirit and teachings lived on through his disciples.. giving them "life".

of course words to have meaning. there is intended meaning, historical meaning and usage and others ways to know what is meant by words used. if this were not the case, communication through language would effectivley break down.
however, the fact remains that though words do have meaning, misuse and misapplied meanings result in confusion and misunderstanding which in turn demands the need for clarification.

because of this and the different circumstances this places me in, i have prepared a document that i send out when people inquire about my beliefs as a pastor.
(i added emphasis and links to references for purposes of this post...and because the situations in which i send this document are usually formal... the document uses capitalization.. i hope you are not disappointed, however, feel free to leave "sell-out" comments).

my hope is that this will encourage anyone who reads to think carefully about being clear when someone asks us what we believe. we may not always have time to go through an entire historical and theological presentation, but we can be careful to be explicit about our beliefs, and to not assume people understand what we mean if we just say "christian."

***this document is not meant to convey that only southern baptists can be christians, only to more accurately and directly represent my views on basic matters of the faith.
__________________________________

As a boy, I became a Christian when I repented of my
sins and placed my faith in Jesus Christ alone as my only
hope of salvation. Were it an ideal world, simply having the
title “Christian” would be sufficient enough to know what I
as a “Christian” believe and what I as a “Christian pastor”
teach.

Unfortunately, for thousands of years there have been
disagreements between those calling themselves “Christian”
on what should be even the most basic of Christian beliefs.
Because of this, it has become necessary to make further
distinctions in order to know with more certainty what a specific
“Christian” believes. One of these distinctions is made with the
title of Baptist.

I am a fourth generation Southern Baptist minister. My father
is a Southern Baptist minister, as was his father and my father’s
grandfather. As a Southern Baptist, I hold to and teach in
accordance with historic Southern Baptist beliefs such as
those represented in The Baptist Faith and Message.

Due to the length of The Baptist Faith and Message , it's wide
range of topics, and potential confusion over previous revisions,
I have found it helpful to reproduce the enclosed document,
the Abstract of Principles, as an additional yet more concise
historic Southern Baptist confession and representation of my
doctrinal and theological views.

The Abstract of Principles is a document that was prepared by
James Boyce, the first president of the first seminary of the
Southern Baptist Convention - The Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary. This document was the first official confession
of faith ever endorsed by Southern Baptists. Its message
and integrity has remained biblically solid throughout its 150 years.

It is my prayer that this document will assist you in knowing the
most basic of my beliefs and teachings as a Christian, a Southern
Baptist, and a pastor.

To God alone Be the Glory,
Stephen Lee Cavness

the results are in...and they sting a little

2008-04-23T22:21:00.004-04:00

the anuual church profile of the southern baptist convention has released the findings from the year 2007. view the report here.

among the results:

number of churches: up 1.06% (473 new churches)
worship attendance: up 0.16% (up 10,092 people attending weekly worship services)
church membership: down 0.24% (down by 39,326 members)
number of baptisms: down 5.46% (down by 18,885 baptisms)

dr. roger s. ("sing") oldham, vice president for convention relations for the s.b.c.'s executive committee, offers a balanced look at the results here.

some excerpts:

The statistical profile generated from the Annual Church Profile
reports submitted by cooperating Baptist churches each year is a
numerical snapshot of what is happening at the local church level.
Though these numbers do not tell the whole story of ministry,
they have value for the Southern Baptist Convention in a number
of ways.
First, these numbers help us measure our overall
effectiveness in terms of church planting and evangelism...
Second, these numbers help us see the continuing
faithfulness of our churches in discipleship and nurture...
Third, these numbers help us gauge various levels of
participation in specific ministries of the church...
Fourth, these numbers enable us to monitor church
giving, stewardship and support for our primary
ministries of missions at home and abroad...
Fifth, these numbers help us measure the total number
of individuals who actively relate to churches as members...
he concludes:
Clearly, some of these numbers are disappointing. They
will provide an additional catalyst for evaluating how we
can better assist churches in fulfilling their ministries on
the local level. Other numbers continue to be encouraging.
At every level of Baptist life -– local church, associational,
state convention, and SBC -– we will be examining what
we can learn from these numbers as we seek to fulfill the
Great Commission of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

ed stetzer, the director of research at lifeway christian resources and missiologist in residence offers his assessment here.
some highlights from his point of view:

Three issues rise to the top.
* First, we have to deal with the continued
loss of SBC leaders...

*second issue is the infighting which defines so
much of the SBC—its meetings, its churches, and its blogs.
It is public knowledge that we do not always settle our
differences amicably....

*The third, and most important, issue is our loss of focus
on the Gospel. I find it difficult to even say such a thing,
but, I believe it to be true.
We must recover a gospel centrality and cooperate in
proclaiming that gospel locally and globally...
The Conservative Resurgence failed to
produce a Great Commission Resurgence. It restored our
denomination’s value of Scripture but application is often
absent, at least in the area of evangelism.

i am sure that there will be much discussion in the coming weeks and month before the sbc annual meeting in indianapolis june 10-11. the reasons for decline in membership and baptisms will be as diverse as the number of people offering them.

as for me, pastor of a small church and seminary student, i have my own ideas and opinions.
one number that looks negative may, at least in part, actually be a positive-the decrease in membership.
i hope and pray that churches are starting to take membership seriously(read:"biblically") and are removing names from their church rolls of people who haven't been seen in years or are unwilling to actively participate as members. in the instances that this is the case, i would say that those instances are a sign of health.

of course even if churches being more honest about their actual membership is the reason for the decline, this decline can only be viewed as a positive if it is temporary. perhaps the lord will grant repentance and restoration to those who were dropped from the rolls and they would return back into fellowship as active and committed church members. additionally the numbers should increase due to those who are converted as a result of the proclamation of the gospel. we should pray to that end.

one thing is for sure, our time of bragging "16 million members strong" should cease, and hopefully be replaced with an urgency to learn, know, and spread the gospel.

the man of god...

2008-04-22T01:20:00.003-04:00

[thank you for all of the prayers for my back. praise the lord he has sustained me and my back.. and the sensations that were making me nervous have subsided.. please continue with me in prayer that my back will be totally healed]

i recently came across this treasure from baptist preacher a.w. pink's (1886-1952) introduction to his book "the sovereignty of god".

i was equal parts rebuked, encouraged and blessed. may it have the same affect on you as well.

"...the man of faith brings in God, looks at everything from His
standpoint, estimates values by spiritual standards, and views
life in the light of eternity. Doing this, he receives whatever comes
as from the hand of God. Doing this, his heart is calm in the midst
of the storm. Doing this, he 'rejoices in hope of the glory of God.'"

back (again)

2008-04-09T11:52:00.001-04:00

i try not to post too much "personal information" on this blog, but i hope you dont mind this time...

as most of you know, i had a second back surgery in october of last year. (the first was in 1999).
since the surgery, things have gone extremely well. i completed a 6 week physical therapy effort and was released by them and then by my surgeon. (this was by the end of feb./first of march).

again, all has been well up until about a week ago. for the past week i have been feeling pain and discomfort in my lower back and some pain in my right leg. i think this is due to reaching over charlie's crib and picking him up while he was sleeping 6 times in one night (that is an even longer and traumatic story...just know that i had to.. didnt want to).

since then the pain has been growing in intensity and in the area affected.

after the surgery, the neurosurgeon was very confident that he had completey cleaned up the problem area in my lower back. so this leads me to believe that my current pain is due to a combination of things leading to the irritating of the nerve root that had received so much damage prior to surgery. because i have been mostly inactive since last july (when my back first went out) the added weight i have put on is causing too much stress on my lower back and bending over to get charlie so many times in one night caused the muscles to get weak, therefore causing any movements sense to irritate that nerve root. add to this the many, many hours i spend sitting in class, studying, and while at work, there is little "relief" for my lower back.

the chaos it puts me and my family in when my back goes out (missing work, school, preaching and other responsibilities at church [and the resulting loss of income]and my being unable to help with charlie) makes us cringe to even think that this current flare up may be indicative of anything worse to come.

i would like to ask all of you to join with me and christi in focused, concentrated prayer that the lord would heal and completely restore my back. i know that he is able. i also know that the lord uses prayer to accomplish his means.
(james 5:13-16; psalm 40:1; romans 8:26- 28).

i know each of you have a lot going on in your lives, so i do not think lightly of asking you to commit to this. i know that the lord is in control of this situation, and it is my prayer that he will use your prayers to heal my back and to bring glory to himself.

thank you all so much,
-stephen

give me christ or else i die...

2008-04-05T14:53:00.003-04:00

on the heels of the last couple of posts.. i think this hymn will make a nice book end..

Christ, Or Else I Die
Taken from the Gadsby Hymnal # 737
Words - William Hammond, 1719-1783
Music - Drew Holcomb, 2004

Gracious Lord, incline thy ear;
My requests vouchsafe to hear;
Hear my never-ceasing cry;
Give me Christ, or else I die.

Wealth and honor I disdain,
Earthly comforts, Lord are vain;
These can never satisfy:
Give me Christ, or else I die.

All unholy and unclean,
I am nothing else but sin;
On thy mercy I rely;
Give me Christ, or else I die.

Thou dost freely save the lost;
In thy grace alone I trust.
With my earnest suit comply;
Give me Christ, or else I die.

Thou dost promise to forgive
All who in thy Son believe;
Lord, I know thou canst not lie;
Give me Christ, or else I die.

All unholy and unclean,
I am nothing else but sin;
On thy mercy I rely;
Give me Christ, or else I die.

© 2005 Red Mountain Music
www.redmountainmusic.com

for more amazing hymns set to more modern,[but not "contemporary"] music, check out the good folks at indelible grace and red mountain music.

america is deathly sick... and we are spreading the germs

2008-03-29T12:38:00.009-04:00

***warning, the following is the 2nd half of a long word document ramble that i have been writing for over 2 weeks...part I was posted before this one...it is unedited and not at all *tidied up*, but i do hope you will join in conversation with me in the comments...

"america is deathly sick..."
our country celebrates a culture that embraces promiscuity, convenient divorces and remarriages, children outside of marriage, cohabitation, and sexual promiscuity. television, movies and even music are filled with images/imagery that contain language and /or images that would have caused outrage just twenty years ago (that would be 1988- not quite ozzie and harriet territory).

whether one thinks of these as positive, negative, or neutral indicators of our society, it cannot be denied that the rate at which our culture changes and becomes comfortable with those changes is remarkably fast. it has taken roughly two generations for our country to embrace what once repulsed it.

then there is the spiritual element. last month a report came out that included the following information:

** the number of people who say they are unaffiliated
with any particular faith today (16.1%) is more than
double the number who say they were not affiliated with
any particular religion as children

**Among Americans ages 18-29, one-in-four say they are
not currently affiliated with any particular religion.

**the United States is on the verge of becoming a minority
Protestant country

**one-quarter of [those calling themselves unaffiliated with
any religion] consists of those who describe themselves as
either atheist or agnostic
(1.6% and 2.4% of the adult population overall, respectively)

**the majority of the unaffiliated population (12.1% of
the adult population overall) is made up of people who
simply describe their religion as "nothing in particular."

even by our own admission, within southern baptist churches,
less than 40% of those on the church roll actually attend that church
where they are listed as a "member".

this is the "state of the union".

jeremiah wright's recent comments sparked a still raging outcry due to their anti-american and racially charged content- yet where is the outrage that the gospel was virtually absent from these sermons?

wright is by far not the only one. when we have "christian" preachers preaching everything else but the gospel, then we should spend little time wondering why the country is in such moral and spiritual decline.

"... and we are spreading the germs"
lest we, lest * i * place all of the blame at the feet of others... lets look inwardly...

how often do we spend even five minutes a day contemplating the state of our
own souls? (per 2 cor. 13:5; philippians 2:12;1 tim. 6:20-21)
how often do we take inventory of our lives and evaluate how our lives stand
up to what scriptures says a genuine believer looks like.
(see rom. 12, gal. 5, col. 3, james, etc.)
how much of what we knowingly do or don't do is contrary to the lord's will?

how often do we wait for someone in public office, on the school board, or at church to address those things that are wrong with other people - all the while being perfectly comfortable with our own hypocrisy? how much stock and emotional zeal do we exert convincing ourselves and others that candidate _______ or if only certain legislation would pass - that will restore america?

the only hope for america is jesus christ. and he is not on the ballot. but he is available to change and save lives if we would show less excitement for who won what ball game and more zeal for seeing our relatives care more about christ and holiness than seeing the next "must see" televison show or movie.

if you are sick of the direction america is taking... make a stand. don't be the friend or family member that excuses the spiritual laziness of the believers in your life. do not be the one who would rather feel accepted than plead with your friends or family to embrace christ every day of the week, not just those sundays that they make it to church. join with me in refusing to laugh at the inappropriate jokes and remarks made at family or friend gatherings and instead initiating conversations about those things of the lord.

and when the objections come- and they will... simply remind yourself and your hearers that one day, unless the lord comes first, we will die. our bodies will fail and we will stop breathing be but into a box and placed into a hole in the ground. and our souls -and the souls of those we care about - will go to either to heaven or hell.

if we , or they are believers, our souls will enter into the presence of the one true holy and mighty god... and he will not want to talk about last night's ball game or the scene in the movie that was pretty bad, but you just "had to laugh".

if we, or they, are not believers, there will be an eternity of deserved wrath, which may include an eternal replaying of all of the times we chose to amuse ourselves with finite mindless drivel rather than have a conversation about god or the gospel.

symptoms of a lifelong "madness"

2008-03-26T19:42:00.004-04:00

***warning, the following is only half of a long word document ramble i have been writing for over 2 weeks...it is unedited and not at all *tidied up*, but i do hope you will join in conversation with me in the comments...

i am a lifelong sports fan. as far back as i can remember, i have played sports of some sort, whether it be for recreation, exercise, or for a team. my three favorites are baseball, basketball, and football.

i love sports. i love to play them. and i love to watch them. (except golf ).

i have attended a couple of nba games, one including the all time greatest player in basketball history, michael jordan. i have watched nfl teams from nosebleed seats in the end zone.
i have been to knoxville to see the mighty tennessee volunteers dominate lesser teams (i even endured watching peyton manning before he was on every other commercial on t.v.)

but my all-time favorite team is the st. louis cardinals. i can distinctly remember watching them on t.v. and collecting the baseball cards when i was a boy. my first major league game was in st. louis between my 4th and 5th grade years in elementary school. i was able to meet my life long baseball hero, ozzie smith, when i was in 7th grade. my gracious wife even lets me hang all of my st. louis cardinal memorabilia in a hallway in our house. i literally shed tears when the cardinals won the world series in 2006.

so i truly do understand the love and loyalty millions of people in our country and others have for sports and specific teams.

"march madness" is a time of year unlike any other in sports. starting with 64 teams, countless brackets are filled out after time spent agonizing over who the upsets will be and how far the greatest "cinderella" story of the year will make it. it is fascinating to see people root hard for other teams just so their bracket will be more accurate. some people will even root for teams they ordinarily loathe. it really is a fascinating time in american culture.

i say all of this for a reason. the thought struck me earlier last week as i was rooting for tennessee to not wait until the final 10 minutes of a game to start playing - my emotions, my adrenaline, my whole life was consumed for a whole weekend by basketball.

facts, figures, stats, highlights came to me easily. discussions over every meal and with most people from thursday until sunday somehow found their way to basketball.

thursday past. friday. until late saturday afternoon, i had no conversations about the gospel, christ, or the glory of god.

did i mention that last weekend was easter? lthat ast weekend marked the celebration of the most victorious moment in all of history?

and what did all of my conversations revolve around from thursday afternoon to saturday night?
basketball.

and *i* am a pastor.

oh i studied for my sermon. i read the bible. i even paused and reflected on good friday. but everytime i got around anyone else... all basketball.

there is nothing wrong with enjoying sports. but we have to ask ourselves, "do i ever get as excited about the lord and his work, his glory, his grace, as i get about what teams beats who or wins what game?"

those who say that they aren't very emotional win it comes to matters of faith can be seen screaming like their rear end is on fire at a television that cant hear them come playoff time.

why is that?

we all deserve the eternal wrath of god in an eternity spent in hell. all of us without distinction.
yet those who have placed their faith in the life and work of christ have been redeemed and have been given eternal life... yet we get uncomfortable when someone turns the conversation over family dinner to what the lord is doing/has done.
we would rather be able to laugh at inappropriate jokes or movie quotes than reflect on the majesty of god with those we love.
we get irritated when someone doesn't find it funny when, to get a laugh, we say words or phrases that we would never dare say if we were in public and first had to announce "i am a christian...".

i guess what has been bothering me is my own lack of consistency. and as i have been dealing with it in my own life i have been noticing how prevalent it is all around me...

what if we kept a record of how much we compromise in one week? how many times we do, say, or think things that we make a conscious decision *not* to do what we know we should do?

and for what? a laugh? to fit in at work. to be thought of as "relevant" or "fun". or to prove that we are not "too religious" or unable to be fun?

where does it stop- and why doesnt it bother me more?

to be continued....

he is risen, death is defetaed..

2008-03-22T11:57:00.004-04:00

from easter weekend last year... may these same truths move us every easter and every day...
___________________________________________
i received my bachelor's degree in music. i also have a philosophy minor, and now i am in the school of theology in seminary [and a pastor.] but still, music holds a special place in my heart.

over my years of study in music (which is more than most) i performed hundreds of pieces of music as a soloist, member of several ensembles, and with opera companies and combined orchestras and choirs. one of my favorites is the brahms requiem. it is by far one of the most beautiful pieces of music i have ever performed. we performed it in 1999, about two weeks after the columbine shootings. i remember singing the sixth movement and being blown away, almost unable to sing from choking back tears as we sang:

Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting?
O grave, where is thy victory? (text from1 Corinthians 15 )

just thinking about the victory over death that believers can take comfort in gave me chills as we sang that text over such beautiful music that was so powerful and deliberate...defiant music. i remember feeling like i was staring satan in the face with my eyes squinted, shaking my fist in his face! how did we get this boldness, the comfort, this confidence?

as andrew peterson put it so powerfully in his song "high noon":
And the demons, they danced in the darkness
When that last ragged breath left his lungs
And they reveled and howled at the
war that they thought they had won

But then, in the dark of the grave
The stone rolled away
In the still of the dawn on the greatest of days
It was high noon in the valley of the shadow
When the shadows were shot through with light
When Jesus took in that breath
And shattered all death with his life

Be gone, you wages of sin
Go on, don't you come back again
I've been raised and redeemed
You've lost all your sting...

Let the people rejoice
Let the heavens resound
Let the name of Jesus,
who sought us and freed us f
orever ring out
All praise to the fighter of the night
who rides on the light
Whose gun is the grace of the God of the sky!

...in the valley of the shadow
When the shadows were shot through with light
When the mouth of the tomb shouted,
"Glory, the Groom is alive"
Be gone, you wages of sin
Go on, don't you come back again
I've been raised and redeemed,
all praise to the king
The victor of the battle...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
can you feel that? "when jesus took in that breath and shattered all death with his life"
there was a cold, dead, lifeless body on a slab of stone from friday until sunday. and then it breathed! jesus took in a big breath and defeated the sting of death!
"the mouth of the tomb shouted glory, the groom is alive!!!!"
can't you just picture satan and his angels... standing with mouths open... thinking that they had won, celebrating! when all at once jesus stands up and walks out of the tomb and ruins their party!

i have written, taught and preached a lot about the death of christ. why he died. what he accomplished when he died. and those things are so very important. but we often neglect *why* they are important. how glorious that it does not end with death, but jesus christ who died in our place overcame the power of death and walked out of that grave victorious! the father's wrath against the sins that killed his son was fully exhausted, totally satisfied. and jesus rose from the grave. may you have a blessed weekend where you think often about the risen lord and savior, who lives and reigns yesterday, today, and forever.

america is not a "christian nation"

2008-03-15T11:50:00.008-04:00

here are a couple of figures i have run across in recent weeks. with the sbc annie armstrong easter offering for home missions in full swing, let these facts and figures wake us from the pipe dreams that america is god's favorite country....

"...the first and most important statistic is that there
are a lot of americans who don't go to church - and
their numbers are increasing. the figure has jumped
from just 21 percent of the population in 1991 to 33
percent [in 2003]. In fact, if all the unchurched people
in the u.s. were to establish their own country, they
would form the eleventh most populated nation on
the planet."
george barna, "unchurched nation" moody magazine (july-august
2003) -read in the radical reformission by mark driscoll

- America's Protestant majority -- a mainstay of American life from the
  colonial era to the present -- is in decline and Protestant Christians will soon become a minority. The survey revealed that only 51.3% of Americans now identify as Protestants.
- Mainline Protestant churches and denominations continue to lose membership and now represent only 18.1% of the population.
- Those identifying as "unaffiliated" represent a fast-growing segment of the population (16.1%), including atheists (1.6%), agnostics (2.4%) and "nothing in particular" (12.1%).
- At least 27% of families are interfaith to some extent. The percentage rises to 37% if spouses of different Protestant denominations are included.
- Among younger Americans (ages 18-29) almost a quarter claim no religious affiliation.
reflections by albert mohler on a recent survey by the
the pew forum on religion & public life

no throne at 1600 pennsylvania ave.

2008-03-10T19:50:00.011-04:00

in the past few weeks the headlines have been full of shocking uncertainties. random acts of violence in shopping malls and schools, murders, rapes, and natural disasters. today it even came out that our drinking water is doing its best "walgreens" impression.

add to this the on going war, the daily murdering of babies in the womb, the uncertain economy, and the fact that a gallon of gas costs more than an entire meal from mcdonalds (which of course, will kill you if eaten more than twice a week).

in the midst of this chaos and uncertainty, we find ourselves in the midst of a presidential race. the recurring themes from more than one camp are "change" and "hope" and "progress". no matter what one's political ideologies are, the tendency during a campaign is to present a candidate as the one who will usher in the age of "better".

and maybe things will get better. maybe for awhile. but the trajectory of our culture shows no signs of a moral, ethical, or spiritual upswing.

it is not wrong for us to want to exercise our right to vote and participate in the process of government to better our country. but we must remember that until the lord comes, there is no perfect candidate. there will never be a ballot with one who can solve all of our problems, make all things right, and make us all safe with no uncertainties.

at the end of the day, america is just another in a long list of countries that may prosper for a season, but is eternally short of the glory of heaven. whoever wins the next election, what laws are passed or vetoed- one day it will simply be "history".

but our standing with god, our relationship with christ, those we chose to witness to or chose not to share christ with, the family members we felt too awkward to confront about their laziness in the faith, the friends we compromised with so they wouldn't think less of us...
those things will remain.

the president of the united states will not... cannot "fix" america. nor will any congressman, governor, mayor, sheriff, or school superintendent.

our hope for "the good life" must come from outside of any human institution or illusion of security. we can be good citizens, but we must never behave as if we have no hope if things do not happen the way we wish.

christ is not moving into the mansion at 1600 pennsylvania ave. - but he is waiting to take up residence in every inch of real estate of our lives. and therein lies our only hope.

a tale of two gospels...

2008-03-04T17:26:00.004-05:00

i have linked to both of these short videos before on this blog, (justin taylor linked to the 2nd one today) but because we cannot be reminded enough...

the official "said at southern" logo

2008-02-20T18:02:00.006-05:00

a truer truth has never been drawn!!!

[said at southern is a website that
"...helps...connect with other theologically minded Christians. We track over 150 blogs from students, faculty and alumni of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary."
feel free to chek them out at www.saidatsouthern.com ]

(this plank in my eye ..it itches!!)
-stephen

an open letter to my fellow seminary students...

2008-02-14T21:32:00.003-05:00

as i sat down to read today in the small commons area on campus, i struggled to find a place to sit my coffee and newspaper on the table in front of me.
why?
because the person across from me had his feet propped up on the table meant to be shared by the four chairs surrounding it.
another person joined the two of us with arms full of books, laptop, etc., and after several seconds of awkwardly waiting for the 1st person to move his feet, sat down bewildered. he eventually left still looking bewildered..

unfortunately, this is not uncommon behavior at a school that "equips pastors" and other ministers. i have been in seminary for four years, and these are a few of what i thought were "common sense" courtesy issues that are embarrassingly ignored on a regular basis.

men, anytime you are going through a doorway, always look behind you to see if their is a lady or older person that you may hold the door for.
anyone, if someone holds the door for you, "thank you" is the appropriate response.
if you are strolling down the hallway or sidewalk with friends, it is impolite to not give way to someone walking the opposite direction and force them into the wall or mud because of your "offensive line" (see what i did there??)
in the hallways and at the top and bottom of stairwells, particularly between classes, recognize that with so many students and so little space, that you may need to move your conversation from standing in the middle of the hallway to against the wall or somewhere else out of the way of the hundreds of people trying to get around you.
in the classroom, once the professor steps up to the lectern, please stop talking.
during the lecture... stop talking at a normal volume to your neighbor when you agree/disagree/have another thought about the topic. students are paying a lot of money and spending a lot of time expecting to be able to hear a professor without being distracted or unable to hear the lecture.
before you ask a question in class, ask yourself "am i wanting to ask this question so everyone will see how much i know. or because i truly need clarification?"
along those same lines, if you do have a legitimate question, but it is beginning to take up a large amount of classroom time, be considerate of the professor who has a syllabus to get through and the students who are paying to learn the information prepared for them by the professor and ask if the conversation can be continued after class sometime.
(obviously, class discussion is part of the learning experience and the professor can discern if it is beneficial to continue the discussion during class or not)
propping your feet up on the chair in front of you or on the partition is disrespectful to the professor/lecturer and to the custodial staff who has to clean up after you.
guys, it is in the campus handbook... no hats in the classroom. if you didn't know that, now you do. if you did know that and you still do it, then you are not saying much for your integrity.
ladies - take a look at this link and give your wardrobe a run down. i have seen many ladies on campus whose dress is a model of dignity and class. but unfortunately i have seen many who, intentionally or not, seem oblivious to the fact that their low cut and/or tight fitting tops and their tight and/or low cut pants/skirts that show or outline their undergarments are at best distasteful and at worse a stumbling block.

i started seminary in january of 2004. i am a lot different now than i was when i got here.
needless to say, we all go through changes. we mature. time moves on and for the most part... so do we. one thing anyone learns from living in an environment that includes so many different people from so many different backgrounds and cultures is that people are different. and different is not always bad! people are raised with different values and norms. i am not saying that we lose our personality and give up our freedoms to a bunch of "rules" or even preferences.

but if we are in seminary to be trained as ministers and servants, we might as well practice some door holding and ettiquitte while we are here. who knows... we may just have to use some of that in ministry.

"be open minded so i can keep mine closed"

2008-02-13T21:10:00.003-05:00

in another display of the double standard that perfectly illustrates our cultures incessant misuse of the concept of "tolerance" i refer you to this story....

When a same-sex couple asked Christian photographer
Elaine Huguenin to photograph their commitment ceremony,
Huguenin declined, citing conflicts with her personal beliefs.
The couple took action, however, filing a
complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division.
Now Huguenin’s studio Elane Photography is being tried
under state anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation
discrimination.

to recap, a couple asked if a photographer would photograph their wedding.the photographer (who is not obligated to accept any offer from anyone) says no because the content of the photo shoot conflicted with her "personal beliefs".

so now the couple is filing an injunction that would prohibit this photographer from ever refusing her services to same sex couples.

so the personal beliefs of the photographer in how she runs her own business are less important than the couple's values who were never promised service in the first place?

lets look at what has happened in finer detail.

a same sex couple were denied services of a photographer, because the photographer disagrees with their lifestyle. the photographer did not try to keep them from their having their 'commitment ceremony'. she simply turned down their offer to pay her money to photograph this event.

notice this... the event will take place anyway. the couple did not lose the ability to have their ceremony photographed. they were not forced to not have their ceremony because the photographer did not agree with their lifestyle. they can simply move on and ask someone else to take pictures. their "right to have pictures taken" at their same sex ceremony was not taken away.

but what about the photographer. if the plantiffs have their way, she will be forced to act against her conscience. her right to disagree with and not contribute to same sex unions would be overruled. she faces loss of income, fines, or worse if she refuses to live in a way that she believes is contrary to her value system.

this goes beyond issues of homosexuality. change the "social situation" to whatever you want.
if a muslim photographer were asked to photograph a christian baptism, he would be well within his rights to refuse his services. can you imagine the outcry if he was forced by law to photograph this ceremony that was contrary to his faith?

it is becoming more and more acceptable in the court of public opinion for one party's belief system to be violated so that another's can have their ***wants***.

it seems everyone's "rights" to not have their "rights" to be denied applies to everyone except those who disagree with you!

as john mellencamp put it"...this is ouuuuur country!!"

foundations of sbc churches..

2008-02-08T19:51:00.000-05:00

following my last post on the "baptist" (by name) meetings held in atlanta recently, i have read and had some discussions on what it is that southern baptists believe.

over 150 years have passed since the SBC formed, but we can take a look at what the churches who started the convention believed.

church historian timothy george writes:

By the nineteenth century, Baptists had produced
many [confessions such as]... the Philadelphia Confession
of Faith, a document printed for the Philadelphia Baptist
Association by Benjamin Franklin in 1742.
By the 1830s it exerted a magisterial influence
among Baptists North and South. At the founding meeting
of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845, each of the 293
"delegates," as they were then called, who gathered in Augusta,
Georgia, belonged to churches that embraced this confessional standard.
[full article in its entireity is found here]
-Copyright (c) 1999 First Things 93 (May 1999): 17-24.

to read the confession of faith that represented the churches who formed the southern baptist convention, click here:

ht: tom ascol

baptist by name; relativist by belief

2008-02-05T19:48:00.000-05:00

in my "history of the baptists" class today, my professor, dr. tom nettles shared excerpts from this news story concerning the new covenant baptist celebration assembly of baptists in atlanta last week led by former president jimmy carter.

here are some excerpts:

Baptists must stop trying to convert everyone to faith in Jesus Christ
and realize that there are multiple "good" interpretations of Bible
passages that appear to exalt Jesus as the only way of salvation,
panelists said Jan. 31 at a session called "Can We All Get Along?
Finding Common Ground with Other Faiths."

In dialogue with people of other faiths, Christians must appreciate
diversity and recognize that trying to bring all people to faith in
Jesus ruins what Gerald Durley, pastor of Providence Missionary
Baptist Church in Atlanta, described as the beautiful mixture of
religions in the world. He compared the religions of the world
to a vegetable soup in which diversity enhances the flavor.

while we should not persecute or hate anyone because of their religious beliefs, it is outrageous that a self-professed christian would say that religions of false gods whose practioners are headed for an eternal torment are "flavor enhancing.

i am dumbfounded when, at a baptist gathering, the idea that there are other valid interpretations of the scriptures that "appear" to claim jesus is the only way of salvation is uttered as an acceptable way of thinking.

All Christian witnessing must be based on personal experience
rather than dogmatic appeal to absolute truths, [david]Currie said.

"It is never appropriate to be dogmatic in one's convictions," he said.
"God is truth. I don't know all truth. So what I bear witness to is what
I have experienced in my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and
that's as far as I can take it."

my question to mr. currie would be:
"if christian witnessing should be based on personal experience rather than a 'dogmatic appeal" to absolute truth', how can you be certain that your personal experience is valid? what if someone else claims to have salvation based off of their faith in islam? how can you know that your assurance that you are saved is worth anything? how do you know that your "experience" was valid? what is your personal relationship with jesus based on? how do you know what is pleasing to jesus? how do you know what disobedience is?"

When audience members asked about evangelism, Currie said Jesus
did not tell people what to do with their lives until they asked. He said
the most effective evangelistic technique is to remain silent until an
unbeliever specifically asks about the Gospel.

"For the most part ... the most effective evangelism slogan I know is
'love people and shut up.' That is good evangelism. And when you love
them, ultimately they'll ask you why and then you can tell them.
But if you start telling them before they ask, they're not going to
hear you."

ummm... "jesus did not tell people what to do with their lives until they asked"?
have you *read* the new testament?
sure there are instances where non-believers are searching and when they know they are around a believer they may ask some questions- but what we see in the new testament is the believing community being intentional about sharing the gospel, not waiting for someone to ask.
yes we should love people unconditionally, but part of loving them is being concerned for their soul. i have loved and cared for many people who were lost who never asked about the gospel except to tell me they dont want to hear it.

i wasn't sure what to expect from this gathering. i had my guesses, but i certainly had no idea that this type of post-modern, relativistic conversation would take place. not only is this kind of talk not baptist, it isn't even christian.

people do not have to be southern baptist to be christian. but they must at least affirm the exclusivity of the gospel.

for more on this meeting go here:

the "hard" questions -rape and abortion...

2008-02-04T18:11:00.000-05:00

one of the more common objections to a pro-life stance is

"what about cases such as rape, incest, etc.?"

these are questions that do not have easy answers, but they have answers none the less.
rape and incest are horrible tragedies and ones we should never take lightly. for a woman to be violated in any way is a horrible and terrible thing. so we should never respond to these questions coldly or callously, as if the integrity and person hood of a woman who was raped is less important than an unborn child.

one response ,among others, is that rape and incest are horrible evils, but the answer is not to commit a second evil by killing a human life.

along these lines, there is more helpful information found here. i hope this article and its parent site can prove helpful to you as you engage in this delicate and often passionate discussion.

...it is critical to remember that the vast majority of abortions
do not happen as a result of any of these [rape, incest, fetal
abnormalities]reasons.
In fact, according to a study in Family Planning
Perspectives (published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute,
which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood), less
than 6% of all abortions done in the United States are done for
all of these reasons combined.

If the woman does become pregnant, a rare but possible occurrence,
she may be made to feel twice as tainted when society is not prepared
to cope with the circumstances of this child's conception. Counselors
and abortion providers encourage abortion as the perfect "solution."
Irrationally, society expects her to kill her unborn child, not for
something the child has done, but for the crime of his/her father.
Once again the mother is pitted against her child.

Subjecting her to an abortion only compounds the initial violence
of the rape. Only in this second tragedy, the woman becomes the
aggressor against her own child.

Although research in this area is limited, at least two studies done
with women who've become pregnant following a rape have clearly
shown that women who aborted their children feel twice victimized
and angry about the abortion (Mahkom, "Pregnancy and Sexual
Assault," Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University Publishers
of America [1979], pp. 53-72).

Women in one study who carried their babies to term,
although frightened at first, felt they had done the more
positive thing by giving their children life; they felt they
had turned something awful into something good
(Mahkom and Dolan, "Sexual Assault and Pregnancy,
" New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University
Publishers of America [1981], pp. 182-199).

barbaro and roe vs. wade

2008-01-29T21:15:00.000-05:00

because barbaro is back in the media spotlight and last week was the 35th anniversary of roe v. wade, i am re-posting this post that i wrote a year ago ...
[edit:] in case the youtube link at the bottom does not work for you, you can still get a much less gruesome but very much powerful reminder of what is at stake, take a look at this. ]
________________________________________________

in case you missed it, barbaro, last year's kentucky derby winner was euthanized yesterday. if you missed it, you're power must have gone out, and your paperboy must have called in sick.i was literally amazed yesterday, when for over the course of several hours there was a continuous "ticker" running at the bottom of the t.v. screen giving the apparently earth shattering news that barbaro was dead.

granted, i live in louisville kentucky, home of the kentucky derby in the land of horse racing. but as i got online, it was on the front page of all of the major news sites. then as i turned on the television is was on *all* of the major networks. today, it was on the cover of national newspapers.in the span of 12 hours i saw two separate "heart wrenching" stories of how the death of barbaro was profoundly impacting the country. fans in tears. endless flowers, and countless over sized cards expressing condolences.

i have nothing against animals. i would even call myself an animal lover (except for snakes).my best friend from my childhood was my black lab, "buffy". i found her when i was seven years old, and we were thick as thieves until she died after my sophomore year in college. we had to have her "euthanized" after she was hit by a car. old age and a bad leg had made her too slow to run from the cars that she was usually scared of. there was no way for her to recover, her body had been crushed, so we had her put to sleep. and i cried. i was over 20 years old and i sobbed.

i say this to make clear that i understand loyalty and devotion to animals. i know what it is like to love an animal.but yet i do not understand how our country can show so much grief and attention to a horse that was by and large unknown to anyone outside of its owners and caregivers a year ago.here are some excerpts written on the death of this horse :

Barbaro's death is not for the sports pages. It goes on page
one and also Editorial. People who haven't been to a horse
race in their lives feel undone by the loss.
Animals get hurt being what they are. Horses run on stilts for legs.
If horses didn't run on ideal conditions on a race track, they would
try to split the wind on a lumpy field on the other side of nowhere.

The loss of Barbaro's life is unsettling for two reasons. One, we got
to know the horse. We saw him blast through the starting gate, then
shake off that violent encounter, and start running as best he was
able again. We saw him fall. We saw him taken from the track by van.

We followed the surgeries and were gladdened by the rehabilitation.
We saw him wobble from a barn with casts on both right-side legs.
We saw the limp. The appetite. The bright eyes. We saw what was left
of the one hoof, it looked like a peg.

Another reason the loss felt so heavy was because we've
had animals. Few animals are cowards. Some are born sneaky.
But not even chickens are chicken.
– jay cronley espn.com

So many people felt a stake in Barbaro's recovery. They imagined
his pain, grimaced each time he faltered, took heart as each day
passed and he was still alive, making painfully slow progress.

The 2006 Kentucky Derby winner's fight for survival was their fight,
a symbol of strength, courage and comfort -- and, more than anything
else, a source of inspiration. He was, after all, winner of the world's
most famous race, in a sport desperate for a superstar...

"Certainly, grief is the price we all pay for love," co-owner
Gretchen Jackson said. We just reached a point where it was
goingto be difficult for him to go on without pain," Roy Jackson said.
"It was the right decision, it was the right thing to do. We said
all along if there was a situation where it would become more
difficult for him, then it would be time."
When Barbaro broke down... [w]ithin 24 hours fans across the
country seemed to be caught up in a "Barbaro watch." Well-wishers
young and old showed up at the New Bolton Center withcards,
flowers, gifts, goodies and even religious medals, and thousands
of e-mails poured into the hospital's Web site. The biggest gift has
been the $1.2 million raised since early June for the Barbaro Fund,
money to be put toward needed equipment such as an operating room
table and a raft and sling for the same pool recovery Barbaro used
after his surgeries.
- associated press

and now... the contrast:

As we soberly mark the 34th anniversary of the judicial atrocity
known as Roe v.Wade, the sheer number of innocent victims of
that act of judicial tyranny overwhelms our everyday experience.
Even under the most conservative of estimates (and we lack
certainty because we do not have a national, uniform mandatory
abortion reporting requirement), somewhere between 40 and
50 million unborn children have died under this nation’s regime
of abortion.
To put that number in some context, the best estimateis that the
total war dead, of all causes, for all of America’s major and minor
wars since 1775 is 1,329,991 or an amount equal to just one year
of Roe’s infernal tally.

.- Nikolas T. Nikas ,president and general counsel of the Bioethics Defense Fund,
a public interest law firm that advocates for life-affirming policies regarding abortion,
human cloning and embryo research, and end-of-life issues.

i understand loving an animal. i understand people reacting to it. i understand the public display of sadness.what i do not understand, is with as much outcry against the war in iraq, the rising death toll of our troops, and the demands to get out to save lives...i do not understand the relative silence where there should be outrage, grief, and action.

the following is not for the weak or faint of heart. i debated whether or not to even link to it.
but i do so with hopes that these images will spread and help stop the killing of human beings... babies, whose worth is not determined by success on a race track, but by being an image bearer of god.

i cannot stress enough the sensitive nature of this video. it is graphic. it shows aborted children. the only reason i link to it is for the purpose of showing it to those you know who hear abortion and think "woman's choice" with no thought of the death of a human. i am repulsed by the images. but i am more repulsed that what is shown in these images is legal.i strongly advise expectant parents not to watch.a graphic video of the horror and violence of abortion. viewer discretion is advised.

HT: justin taylor

2 former presidents and a novelist = new baptist identity?

2008-01-29T18:35:00.000-05:00

former presidents jimmy carter, bill clinton, and crime novelist john grisham will be among those in atlanta this week to discuss unity among baptists.

Carter said he had been praying for a new willingness
among Baptists to come together and even set an
example for other denominations that are on the
brink of dividing over conflicting issues such as the
ordination of gays.

read the full story here

im not sure if the national media will pick up on this or ignore it, but it should be interesting.

stop with the forwards!! -email integrity

2008-01-23T15:36:00.001-05:00

i have recently been receiving a ton of email forwards about how america should rally together and stand against a muslim being president, yet another reason not to vote for barack obama.

let me set the record straight...

barack obama is not muslim. in fact...(from CTV)

"I've been to the same church -- the same Christian
church -- for almost 20 years," Obama said, stressing
the word Christian and drawing cheers from the faithful
in reply. "I was sworn in with my hand on the
family Bible.
Whenever I'm in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United States of America. So if you get some
silly email ... send it back to whoever sent it and tell them this
is all crazy. Educate."

Obama is referring to a debunked chain email circulating
widely on the Internet that suggests he is hiding his Islamic
roots and may be a terrorist in disguise. It says he was sworn
into the Senate on the Quran and turns his back on the flag
during the pledge.

There are some truths in the email's details. Obama's middle
name is Hussein. His father and stepfather were Muslim. And
he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, a largely Muslim
country. But he attended secular and Catholic schools, not a
radical madrassa.

though it could be debated whether or not the "christian church"
obama attends is what most people think of when they hear
"christian church" - it is not a muslim organization.
the chicago sun-times reports

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama belongs to the United
Church of Christ, one of the country's most racially diverse
and liberal Protestant denominations -- the first to ordain
an openly gay minister and to call for equal marriage rights
for all people, regardless of gender.

The UCC prides itself as being "out front" on social justice
issues, battling civil rights, women's rights and gay rights ahead of
the mainstream. One Sunday hymnal equally celebrates male and
female images of God.

The UCC was formed in 1957 by a merger of churches
from Congregational, Christian, Evangelical and Reformed
traditions. The denomination traces its roots to Christians
who ordained the first African-American minister (1785)
and the first woman minister (1853).
It's also home to the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, the world's
largest gay and lesbian church. Obama and his wife, Michelle,
are members of Trinity United Church of Christ,
a South Side [chicago] church led by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr...

so obama is not the picture of conservative evangelical christianity, but he is not a muslim.
so now that we are informed, it would be irresponsible,slanderous, and lying if we continue to perpetuate these false facts via conversational gossip at the water cooler,church, or by email.

we don't have to like obama, and we don't have to vote for him. but if we are christians, we are obligated to tell the truth when confronted with error-not pass it on.

getting past the credentials...

2008-01-18T22:39:00.000-05:00

any commentary on candidates for the 2008 presidential election should not be considered an endorsement or otherwise.. this is simply an exercise in promoting informed decision making.

mike huckabee, a favorite of many evangelicals for u.s. president, was a former baptist pastor before he was the governor of arkansas. because huckabee has "baptist minister" in his credentials, many evangelicals have hitched their wagon to his campaign. but does simply having held a position mean what we assume it means?

a friend passed along this article [baptists not on board]on candidate mike huckabee and after reading it, i came across this one [the false conservative]. both of them raised my eyebrows because i had never heard much of this information. and i wonder if many of huckabee's supporters have heard it either.

granted, the tone of the articles will be colored by the agenda of the author, but at the most basic level, facts are facts and certain actions of the past do not seem to line up with what assumes from a "conservative" nominee.

the lower case - capitalized...

2008-01-16T13:36:00.001-05:00

a while back i was asked by the editor of collegiate magazine, a publiczation of life way christian resources, to write an article for their magazine on blogging.
i just received the latest issue in the mail and saw that it was included. (yes.. they made me capitalize appropriately... but what can you do?)
to read the article, check with your local church student ministry or bsu/bcm to see if they have a subscription to collegiate magazine.
if you or someone you know would benefit from a magazine written for christian college students that includes daily bible studies and articles on missions, culture, and other things, visit here .

love/ hate relationships...

2008-01-15T19:10:00.000-05:00

this past sunday i preached from john 15. in verses 18 - 20a jesus says:

"If the world hates you,
know that it has hated mebefore it hated you.
If you were of the world, theworld would love
you as its own; but because youare not of the world,
but I chose you out of the world,therefore the world
hates you. Remember the word thatI said to you:'A servant
is not greater than his master.'If they persecuted me,
they will also persecute you"

in a time when our churches are scrambling to find the best way to
reach out to our culture,these words from jesus serve as a sharp
reminder that as we seek the lost we need not revert to becoming l
ike the world to do so.

jesus doesnt say that we seek to be hated, but rather if we are living
the life of a follower of christ, the differences will be noticed. and
where we refuse to compromise there will be division and dissention.

we would do well as individuals and as churches to frequently
self-examine ourselves.
do i look so much like the world that they do not notice a difference?
am i trying harder to be loved and accepted by the world than i am to be fully devoted to christ?

this applies in regards to how we *do* church as well. do we seek to be culturally relevant at the expense of fidelity to our message?

this quote from the great (some say greatest) baptist preacher, charles spurgeon rings true:

"I believe that one reason why the church of God at this present moment
has so little influence over the world is because the world has so much
influence over the church."

if the only difference the world sees between themselves and believers is our sunday schedules then we will have little headway in convincing them of their need for the gospel.

may the lord grant us hearts that burn to love and serve him in a way that does not leave to us the option to seek the love (or approval) of the world at the gospels expense.

the most pro-abortion canidate ever?

2008-01-09T19:42:00.000-05:00

is barack obama the most pro-abortion canidate ever?
read terrence jeffrey's answer at townhall.com here

HT: justin taylor

***disclaimer***
it is not the purpose of this website to endorse any candidate for president.
-however-,
i do feel that before voting, one should be informed of the positions held by
those running. for that reason i will from time to time comment on positions
held by various candidates for the purpose of promoting "informed voting".

what is your church/life known for?

2008-01-08T01:34:00.000-05:00

i recently finished a book for pastors on simplifying the way your church does things. based on research and polls over a broad range of churches, the authors found the the most vibrant and biblically healthy churches were those that simplified the way they do things. i gleaned a lot of good information from it.

one of the things the book pointed out was the need for clarity in the church's purpose. it examined different purpose or mission statements of different churches and then asked the churches themselves how clearly that vision or purpose was being lived out and how all of the ministries and programs contribute to meeting that purpose.

at the church i pastor, our purpose statement is:
"pursuing the glory of god through the gospel of jesus christ".

in that we hope to communicate that everything we do is for the glory of god, and that thing through which we channel everything- worship, bible study, and evangelism, flows through the gospel.

after reading this book, i have been more aware of church purpose statements and slogans. not that my church's is the model or perfect, but i find myself when hearing a new mission statement "what does that *mean* ?"

one church's slogan that i hear everyday on the radio is " [so and so church]: where diversity is central".

when i first heard it, i thought it was odd. and as i continued thinking about it, it became more odd. on a secular radio station, you have one small radio spot to tell people what your church is about, and the message is "diversity is central". no mention of god, jesus, or even the bible.

i visited the website and my suspicions were confirmed. the site goes out of its way to make clear that it does not judge (or even think wrongly about) things that the bible speaks clearly about. if you have read this blog long at all, you should no that i do not hate gay or lesbian people. in fact, i have had and do have many friends that i care a lot about who are practicing homosexuals. i would never tell them that they could not come to my church. i would love it if they would attend in hopes that they would obtain the freedom from the bondage of a sinful lifestyle. but i would make clear that to be a church member, certain things are not acceptable, such as living openly in sin without remorse. the same is true whether it be homosexuality, adultery, drunkenness, etc.

we have got to get past the notion that speaking the truth, when it speaks contrary to some one's lifestyle is "mean" or closed-minded. why bother being a "christian church" if we are willing to change the teachings of christianity in order to be culturally relevant?

yes, jesus ate and spent time with sinners. i am thankful for that, because i am a sinner! but when jesus did spend time with those living a sinful lifestyle, his message was not "i'm ok/you're ok, we are just different". it was "go and sin no more". he offered true peace and joy that comes only through a relationship with god, not being accepting of the fleeting impulses of satisfaction that come from sin.

so as christian churches and individual believers, what is our message? though we are fallible and make mistakes, does our overall message invite people to hear, know, and love the gospel, or do we make it easier for people to be comfortable in their sin?

the worthlessness of infinite value

2007-12-27T19:16:00.001-05:00

The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field,
which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he
goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.

matt. 13:44

according to the national retail foundation, of an estimated 26.3 billion dollars will be spent on gift cards in 2007, 8 billion or more will never be used.

this is a great money maker for companies who offer the cards. everytime someone spends any amount of money on a gift card that is lost, forgotten, or just never used, that is 100% profit for that company. they already have the money -if no one ever buys any merchandise, all the better for them!

it seems foolish to think that someone would have in their possession something of value, yet never make use of it.

as christians, we have something of infinite value. we have the gospel- the good news of the life, death, and resurrection of jesus christ. but do we share it? i know that i dont as often as i should... and more often than not, its not that i choose *not* to share, its just that i dont pursue opportunities. many times i have walked a way from a conversation or encounter and moments later thought "why didnt i realize that that was a perfect opportunity to share with them?"

we dont want to make people out to be science projects or treat them as means to an end. but if we do care for them, then we should be compelled to give them the source of infinite value and joy!

if they do not accept the gospel, it does not devalue the gift. just as a $10 starbucks card is still worth $10 at starbucks whether or not it is used, the gospel of jesus christ is just as true and just as saving if it is rejected. but let us offer it in hopes that it will be received with joy!

as the new year approaches, may we be intentional about sharing the greatest thing we possess with those around us.

response to the mormon response...

2007-12-19T23:36:00.000-05:00

in case you missed it, fox news sent a list of 21 questions about the beliefs of the mormon church to officials of the church of latter-day saints. they replied, question by question. (you can view the questions and responses here).

at first glance, the answers may seem satisfactory. but upon close inspection, it seems that the answers given by the mormon church are not complete.. or completely honest.

rob bowman, of the southern baptist convention's north america mission board examines the answers given by the mormon church and points out the need to "say what we mean, and mean what we say". read his eyebrow raising assessment of the latter day saints answers here.

rob's bio from www.reclaimingthemind.org begins...
Robert M. Bowman Jr. (M.A., Fuller Theological Seminary) is the manager of Apologetics and Interfaith Evangelism for the North American Mission Board. For five years he was a lecturer in the M.A. in Christian Apologetics program at Biola University. Rob has published over fifty articles in such periodicals as the Christian Research Journal, Moody Monthly, Pastoral Renewal, and Areopagus Journal. He has also authored or co-authored a dozen books, including two that won the Gold Medallion Award...

fresh prince gets it wrong...

2007-12-17T00:00:00.000-05:00

i am closing in on my 30th birthday. but one of the things that keeps me from feeling "all grown up" is re-runs of shows that were popular when i was a teenager. one of those shows is "the fresh prince of bel-air". while it wasnt groundbreaking television (though the theme song may be!) it is still entertaining to watch all of these years later- if for nothing else but the clothing and hairstyles!

i like will smith's acting. i find most of his movies enjoyable. he seems like someone who would really be fun to know. but on one important issue, he is dreadfully and fearfully wrong.

recently he has been speaking of a growing interest in and study of scientology. through his wife's (jada pinkett-smith) work with well known scientologist, tom cruise, smith has become more vocal about his research into this false religion...

[smith] told [access hollywood]: "I was introduced [
to] [scientology] by Tom and I’m a student of world
religion. I was raised in a Baptist household, I went to
a Catholic school, but the ideas of the Bible are
98 percent the same ideas of Scientology, 98
percent the same ideas of Hinduism and Buddhism."

i hate to break it to you will, but any religion that denies that there is but one god who is creator of all things and exists as the father , son, and holy spirit, and denies that the only hope of salvation is faith in the life, death, and resurrection of jesus christ is not even close to christianity. if any other teaching does not have these things at its core, then it is 100% *not* like christianity.

this doesn't mean that we boycott anything having to do with will smith or any scientologist... but we can become more informed about what scientology is so that if we hear someone say " i heard will smith is looking into scientology and that it is not that different than christianity" that we would seize that opportunity to make the gospel clear. we can also pray for will smith and other celebrities that have been or perhaps are being seduced by this false religion. (tom crusie, john travolta, lisa marie presley, etc.)

i will do some research on sources pertaining to scientology and post them here so check back in the next few days...

milestones and talking with god..

2007-12-09T23:31:00.000-05:00

this is the 150th post on "the lowercase" and as of last week, this site has received of 10,000 visits in the last 18 months. thanks to all who visit and participate. i know keeping this blog has helped me in thinking through issues and writing discipline, and i hope it has been beneficial to you as well.

as the new year wraps down, i thought i would share a challenge i saw over on said at southern, a website corralling many blogs of southern seminary students (like myself) and faculty.

tony kummer shares an opportunity to start a new years resolution early and complete it by february!

if you are like me, each year you may have good intentions of reading the bible all the way through, or at least reading it more. by mid february i am usually so far behind trying to keep up seems futile. well tony has provided a plan that if you can spare a little over an hr. a day (cumulative) we can read the entire bible by jan. 31st if we start on dec. 10th!

here is his plan...

I took the page numbers from my ESV
Reference Bible and the time required from
my Max McLean ESV audio Bible.
You can modify these numbers for your favorite
Bible translation.

Start Now ( dec. 10) and Read It All by January
31st
...start on December 10th for a total of 53 days.
* Read 21 minutes or 5 ½ pages of NT per day
* Read 54 ½ minutes or 18 ½ pages of OT per day

So, by spending only 1 hour and 16 minutes per day,
24 pages, you can read through the entire ESV Bible
between now and February. Just over 1 hour a day!

you may think, " i don't have an hour a day!!!" well.. maybe you do.
think of your whole day.

what else do you do while you eat your meals that you cant put off for 53 days?
what if you get to work 15 minutes early to read for 15 minutes, spend the first or last 15 minutes of your lunch break reading, and watch one less program on television?
carry a bible to read while waiting in line christmas shopping, grocery shopping, etc.

i'm sure if we think about it, we can find 60 minutes throughout the day to spend time in god's word.. to hear him speak to us.
i'm going to give it a try. maybe ill get it done by jan. 31st, maybe not, but it is worth it to me to try. if you want to join me, leave me a comment (no need to sign up for anything) and let me know, and we can pray for and encourage one another.

jesus and satan; sibling rivalry?

2007-12-07T13:02:00.001-05:00

they have "feel good" commercials.

they have nice looking buildings

they are exemplary citizens

but are mormons christians?

this has been a hot topic of conversation since former massachusetts governor mitt romney announced that he was running for presidency of the united states.

yesterday, romney made a speech in which he addressed the concerns of those who were worried that his loyalty to his faith may play too large of a role in his presidency if elected. (which can be read here)

in it he references jesus christ, god as creator, and so forth. in a recent debate, when the canidates were asked " do you believe the bible is literally true" he answered:

"I believe it's the Word of God...I mean, I might
interpret the Word differently than you interpret the Word,
but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the Word of God.
I don't disagree with the Bible. I try and live by it."

again, this sounds like a safe christian answer.

but what is it that mormons believe? are they just another denomination like the baptists, methodists or presbyterians? or are they another branch of christianity like the roman catholic church or the anglicans?

here are some examples of the teachings and beliefs of the church of jesus christ of latter days saints, the mormons:

there are many gods, and the head of them rules the universe along with his council
(joseph smith teachings of the prophet joseph smith pp.348-49)
god has wives ("a mother in heaven,") and they live on a planet near a star named kolab.
through endless sexual encounters, "elohim" and his wives produce billions of spirit children
god has and is limited by a physical body. he is not omnipresent, in fact, it is impossible for him to be in more than one place at once
adam is identified as michael the archangel
jesus and satan are brothers
jesus was given savior status of earth, enraging lucifer, who revolted.
jesus was not born of a virgin, because god had sex with mary, which produced jesus
jesus was married
humans can acheive god status
the bible (unless it is the mormon approved version) is incomplete and contains errors, and is only one of four holy books
all churches except LDS (mormon) churches are false churches
the final judgment is in the presence of jospeh smith, the mormon jesus, and "elohim".
[sources: book of mormon; mormonism: what you need to know by ed decker; fast facts on false teachings by ron carlson and ed decker; mormonism unmasked by r. phillip roberts, and mormons answered verse by verse by david a. reed and john r. farkas]

at the bare minimum, to be a christian one has to confess that:

there is but one god, who exists in three persons (father, son, and holy spirit)
jesus was/is god incarnate-born of a virgin
there is no salvation outside of faith in jesus christ- and only those who place their faith in him will be saved

mormonism denies all three of these. there is obviously much more to the mormon faith than outlined above, but just from scratching the surface we can see that mormonism is not a part, branch, or denomination of christianity.

does that mean we cant be friends with mormons? of course not. i have had and currently do have mormon friends who are genuinely nice, caring, and wonderful friends.

does that mean christians cannot vote for mitt romney for president. i dont think so. [*however, this post or its content should not be viewed as an endorsement for or against voting for romney]

what it does mean is that when we have conversations with people who are discussing mr. romney or any mormon, that we do not let it slide when people equate mormonism with christianity. we should do so in love and with gentleness, but we should make sure that there is no confusion. mormons-the church of jesus christ of latter day saints are no more christian than muslims, buddhists, or jehovah's witnesses.
so let us be compelled to love them by sharing the true gospel with them.

for further reading see sources cited above as well as:
1) solving the mormon puzzle dvd by the north american mission board
2) john devito, former mormon, has a blog here

more on the "compass.."

2007-12-04T22:34:00.000-05:00

dr. albert mohler, president of the southern baptist theological seminary writes on the controversial movie, "the golden compass" on his blog.

it is well worth the read and is an example of how to handle "controversy" without adding to it.

separation anxiety...

2007-11-28T19:49:00.000-05:00

here is a great article written about the issue/abuse of "separation of church and state". it is very well written and informative without getting overly technical.

from the writings of congressman and presidential canidate ron paul: (FYI:this post does not necessairily mean an endorsement)

The entire nation seemed to condemn [the] federal court
ruling that the pledge of allegiance cannot be recited in schools.
The notion that the phrase "one nation under God" renders the
pledge unconstitutional is ridiculous to most Americans, who
strongly believe that expressions of religious belief should be
an integral part of public life. Yet although the public outcry
against this terrible ruling is understandable, the real issue
of religious freedom has not been addressed by Congress or
the media.

The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not
understand the First amendment. It does not bar religious
expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it
expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression
of religion.

Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars
the federal government from prohibiting the pledge of allegiance,
school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians
and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are
violating the First amendment, not upholding it.

It’s important to recognize that the First amendment applies
only to Congress. Remember, the first sentence starts with
"Congress shall make no law..." This means that matters of
religious freedom and expression should be decided by the
states, with disputes settled in state courts. The First amendment
acts as a simple check on federal power, ensuring that the federal
government has no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever over religious
issues.
The phony "incorporation" doctrine, dreamed up by activist
judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was
used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a
case that constitutionally was none of its business.
Similarly, the mythical separation of church and state doctrine
has no historical or constitutional basis.
Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative
history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the
authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge
Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to
"Almighty God" in their writings, including the Declaration of
Independence. It is only in the last 50 years that federal courts
have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to
unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue
to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions
to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights.

behold...

2007-11-23T23:09:00.000-05:00

here in 2007, i am the pastor of a baptist church, but it has only been in the last 4 years that being a pastor has even been on my radar.

i grew up the son of a music minister. i sang in *every* church musical from the time i was in elementary school through college. i received my undergraduate degree in music (classical voice).

aside from all of that, i sang and played guitar in different settings in front of countless people over the course of 5 years, including a stint in the nasvhille area playing music "for a living" (a meager one!) i even opened for derek webb a couple of times in 2004. i have played in churches, in bars, on college campuses, coffee houses, and outdoor events and concert series galore.

i say all of that only to make the point that as much music as i have been exposed to (classical, instrumental, christian, and "music not sold in christian stores" music), andrew peterson's "behold the lamb of god" is by far one of the most amazing albums i have ever heard in my life and would be on my desert island list without hesitation. (a list including the beatles, nirvana, U2, r.e.m., andrew osenga and caedmons call among others...its a long list...)

it is not a collection of old christmas 'favorites", it is all original material written by andrew himself, including the best song you have never heard - "labor of love".

the theology is sharp, the music is heart wrenching, and the lyrics themselves are some of the best songwriting i have ever heard. and not just a few of the songs.. the whole album is a work of literary art.(appearing on the album with peterson are such artists as derek webb, sandra mccracken, andrew osenga, randall goodgame, jill phillips, among others)

every music loving believer needs this album. it will make you listen to "christmas music" all year long because you can't get enough of it.
you will listen to it throughout the year because your heart will become so attached to it, you will find yourself *needing* to hear it -much like i did shortly after my son was born and my back went out. i was exhausted emotionally and mentally, so i would put my ipod on and gain much comfort from this album as i fell asleep each night.

i have written about this album here before, and i "implore" you again , go to andrew peterson's website and buy this album. it has had a profound impact on my life and many others. so much in fact, that 3 out of the last 4 years i have made the trip to nashville for the "behold the lamb of god" concert at the ryman auditorium in nashville to meet up with friends from north carolina, alabama, south carolina, kentucky, georgia, missouri, pennsylvania, delaware, texas, mississippi, arkansas, and even *MORE* places just to experience this music in person.

(peterson does tour this show, you can see if it is coming close to you here, including a free show in memphis tn. at bellvue!)

just trust me, buy this album. it will profoundly affect (and effect) the way you view not just christmas, but "the author of the faith that could make the mountains move".

the outrage of religous intolerance

2007-11-20T12:12:00.000-05:00

those crazy christians. more cries of "intolerance" are surely swirling over those texas skies in recent days.

a church in texas is taking some heat because it refused to allow an "interfaith" thanksgiving meal and prayer service involving christians, muslims, hindus, jews and other religions.
the gathering was scheduled to be on the property of hyde park baptist church, but upon receiving information that the event was to contain prayers of other religions (thereby to gods that would be considered false gods to the church who owned the property), the church pulled out of the event. (read the whole story here)

"They notified us four days before to say that we
could not have the Thanksgiving service on their
property," said [AAIM Interim Executive
Director]".They said they did not realize
that we'd have non-Christians at the service."
Church officials told her they thought "interfaith"
meant different sects of Christianity.

we cannot know what was said and the exact circumstances that went on that led to the churches decision to not allow the service to be held on their church property.

the wording in the above paragraph is crucial, and we must remember that the events being described are being interpreted by the person writing the article.

to say "they did not realize there would be non-christians at the service" sounds very bigoted and just plain mean. but i think it is safe to say that the concern was that there would be non-christian religions using a christian church property to pray to false gods-not just that "non-christians" would be there.
i would dare say that no true christian church refuses non-christians...in fact any true christian church that is behaving in a scriptural way would welcome non-believers into their midst every week and celebrate the fact that they came.

another phrase worth examining is "Church officials told her they thought "interfaith" meant different sects of Christianity."

when i was in college, there was a student center called "interfaith student center". it was a religious organization (like b.s.u./b.c.m. or r.u.f.) that did not have a denominational affiliation. the students that made up that organization were catholic, methodist, pentecostal, etc. but all of the groups represented were christian groups.
in addition, often times "interfaith worship services' or "bible studies" were advertised around campus. these, too, were made up of many denominations within christianity.

so it is not a stretch to say that when the church initially received a request for an interfaith thanksgiving prayer service on their property, that they assumed it was a group made up of different christian denominations.

should they have found out exactly who was in charge and what the event was before giving the ok? most definitely. but to simply state "the church thought interfaith meant different christian groups" is misleading and can come off as a condescending comment.

now.. what actually happened at the service?

The Interreligious Ministries service blended traditions
from the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Baha'i, Sikh
and Buddhist faiths, among others. It began with a procession
of leaders of a variety of religions, followed by customary
Muslim and Jewish calls to prayer, and a Christian bell
choir signaling the start of worship. There were offers of
gratitude to God in the Christian, Muslim and Hindu
traditions. A Buddhist ritual closed the hour-and-
15-minute celebration.

i am all for dialogue with other faiths. in fact, as christians we are called to share our faith with unbelievers. to do this well takes more than just handing someone a "tract and a weak-faced smile", but that we actually are able to talk *with* the person, not *at* them.

we should not be scared of people of otehr faiths. i have friends of ther faiths who have been great friends. so we should not close ourselves off from anyone who is "different".

so i am not at all against the idea of discussion and conversation, and even understanding with other religions.

but the line is drawn when anything resembling an act of worship or honor is given to another god. the muslim god is not the christian god. jews are not christians. hinduism and buddhism are false religions. this doesn't mean we cannot get along with people of other faiths, but to worship with them as other/false gods are given homage and prayed to is wrong.

we do nothing but muddy the gospel when we blur the lines of christianity in this way. we need to be clear that there is no god except the god of the bible (old and new testaments), that there is no salvation outside of faith in jesus christ, and that while we can get along with people of other faiths, we will not dishonor our god by participating in services where people worship false gods, and in doing so dishonor the one true god.

rather than join in on an inter-religious(a better term i think) service, perhaps we should take the time to befriend those of other faiths around us and share with them the good news of jesus christ so that they may spend an eternity in the presence of the glory of god. we may hurt their feelings by not joining in their worship, but perhaps the lord will save their soul because we don't.

"friends of god" his worst enemies?

2007-11-13T00:57:00.000-05:00

[this is part 3 of a discussion started here]

"friends of god" is a documentary aired on HBO that explores some of the more visible, as well as lesser known "evangelicals" in america and their message.

HBO describes the show as follows: (its worth reading to get a feel for what the content was)

The estimated 50 to 80 million evangelical Christians
living in America today have become a formidable force
in our culture and democracy.

But the evangelical movement is a big tent. To try and
get a better understanding of the range and diversity
of this community, intrepid filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi
hit the road to meet some evangelicals and learn about
what their influence may mean for the future of the country

Pelosi ventures out over a year-long period for up-close and
personal encounters with some influential members of the
evangelical community, from Joel Osteen, the most-watched
TV minister in America, to pastor Ron Luce, the founder of
"Battle Cry," a concert tour that has drawn more than two
million young people to its events nationwide.

Pelosi also visits with a spectrum of others who embody a
wide range of evangelical experiences, among them visitors at
religion-themed parks, a Christian comic, creationist educators,
Liberty University students and activists in Washington, D.C.

...Pelosi travels to the red states and beyond to meet an array
of open and forthright evangelicals who represent a broad
sampling of the community. Many are pro-life and against
gay marriage, and believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible,
rebuking Darwinism.

Among them is Pastor Ted Haggard, who recently stepped down
as president of the 30-million strong National Association of
Evangelicals - the largest evangelical group in the U.S. - following
allegations that he had sex with a male prostitute and bought illegal
drugs...
...
During her journey, Pelosi also visits with Rev. Jerry Falwell,
leader of The Moral Majority and chancellor and founder of
Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., who articulates a
commitment to change the country and urges his congregation
to "vote your values" in elections.
"Evangelicals are the largest minority block in this country," he says.
"It's not a majority, but I don't think you can win without them.
John Kerry learned that. Al Gore learned that. And Hillary will learn
that in 2008."

i happened to have the t.v. on while i was reading a book (i know.. i need background noise to concentrate..weird but true) and i heard the intro the program. i happened to have a blank tape in the v.c.r so i recorded as i watched. i sat in disbelief at how foolish it was.
my initial reaction was shock and disbelief, then frustration, then border line anger.

i watched it again about two weeks later after it had a chance to simmer and my reaction was similar, albeit with several audible laughs. it seemed it was better to laugh than throw a perfectly good television through a perfectly good window. fruits of the spirit and all.

you may be thinking that my anger was directed at the filmamker, alexandra pelosi (and yes, she is related to speaker of the house nancy pelosi, alexandra is her daughter-though i must point out that i did not know who the filmmaker was until after the second time i watched the program)

but in truth, all she did was ask people questions about what they believe and filmed them doing what they do. it wasn't the filmmaker that made evangelicals look so closed minded, ignorant, and absurd- it was [a lot of but not all of] the "evangelicals" that were interviewed.

i won't hit (much) on ted haggard as his downfall has been very public and it couldn't be ignored as he was interviewed for the film before the scandal broke (but unfortunately not before it was released with comment).

some of the"highlights" were
* the flagrant mixture of the gospel and "church" with american patriotism to the point where the two could not be distinguished. (this shameful aspect was the most prevalent theme in the film)

* laughable if it weren't so pathetic and shameful "gimmicks" such as a drive through bank window converted into a "drive through church".

* a christian "comic" who bemoans the fact that christians aren't allowed to perform in the broader media while pontificating and stomping his soap box about politics and patriotism and christianity - but not doing what stand up comedians do -namely doing stand-up comedy.

* a pastor, when confronted with a chance to explain the gospel to an unbelieving film crew instead unbelievably chooses to "explain" that christians have better sex lives than non-christians, and takes a random survey about the intimate details of some of his congregants bed room lives.

there are more and perhaps i'll cover them in more detail another time.

lest i be leveled with the charge that i cannot see anything positive, there were some neutral and even enduring moments in the documentary. but overall, if i were an unbeliever and saw this documentary, i would be stupefied that anyone would care what an evangelical thought or believed.

and i say this in light of the fact that scripture clearly teaches that the gospel is foolishness to the unbeliever and is not discerned by the darkened mind. (1Cor. 1:23; eph. 4:18)

but if i were an unbeliever, it wouldn't be the gospel i would reject, because amazingly enough, after an hour of examining what evangelicals believe, what comes across loudly is not that we as a human race are fallen creatures in need of a savior who calls all to accept the gift of eternal life and freely gives it to all who come.

unfortunately and sadly, the message that comes across loud and clear is that "evangelical christians" are mad that the liberals, homosexuals, and pro-choicers have taken over god's chosen country and we want it back.

this is a tragedy and i fear the repercussions could be severe. not because of a 60 minute HBO special, but because if this is really the prevailing view of "evangelicals" in our country...we are in big trouble... and we are failing in our mission as christians.

no life in the best life now

2007-11-05T23:18:00.000-05:00

[this is a continuation of a discussion started here]

the first program i saw that made me wonder why anyone in our country, let alone the world, would take american evangelical christians seriously was the episode of 60 minutes that aired sunday night, october 14th.
one of the segments was devoted to joel osteen. now i can hear some of you saying "ok stephen, we know, you hate joel osteen... give the guy a break."

while i have discussed joel osteen in the past on this blog, it is not true that i hate him. in fact, i honestly believe that he is sincere in what he is doing and what he teaches. i also believe that he means no harm and has all of the best intentions in the world. i do not believe that he would deliberately lead people astray.

but sincerity can be sincerely wrong.

the fact that he has a large church is not the primary reason that i am so wary of him. some of my greatest influences(spurgeon, piper, etc.) pastor or pastored churches with thousands in attendance.

large crowds do not an evil preacher make.

the fact is, i do not hate joel osteen. i fear him. more accurately, i fear the effect he has on the thousands who are given a hopeless hope.

why?
for starters, here is how 60 minutes started their program:

Joel Osteen's positive, upbeat can-do message has turned
him into America's most popular preacher and earned him
the title of most influential Christian in the country.
He pastors the biggest and fastest growing
American church and his services are the most watched
religious broadcast in the country

so what is it that america's "most popular preacher" and the "most influential christian in the country" teaches?

Osteen preaches his own version of what is known as the
"prosperity gospel" -- that God is a loving, forgiving
God who will reward believers with health, wealth and
happiness. It's the centerpiece of every sermon

as stated before on this blog, it is hard to reconcile this with the scores of passages that promise suffering and for some, torture and death for the sake of the gospel. what would the believers in third world countries who go to bed hungry or are persecuted by their government for their faith think of osteen's message that god will reward believers with health, wealth and prosperity?

quoting osteen, the interviewer notices what i hope you have noticed by now..

" [quoting osteen]
'To become a better you, you must be positive towards
yourself, develop better relationships, embrace the place
where you are.'[end quote]

Not one mention of God in that. Not one mention of
Jesus Christ in that," [the interviewer] remarks. "

"That's just my message. There is scripture in there
that backs it all up. But I feel like, Byron, I'm called
to help people…how do we walk out the Christian life?
How do we live it? And these are principles that can
help you. I mean, there’s a lot better people qualified
to say, 'Here’s a book that going to explain the scriptures
to you.' I don’t think that’s my gifting," Osteen says.

the problem is, pastors and preachers in the new testament are called to use scripture, to teach their hearers the word of god.
paul told timothy "preach the word" jesus commanded to "teach them to observe all things i have commanded". the new testament is full of passages speaking of "preaching" being the proclamation of the gospel to unbelievers and the reiterating of the need for the gospel in the lives of the believers. the new testament is a collection of books written to believers with its emphasis being the glory of god in the gospel of jesus christ. our need for the gospel isn't over after conversion!

so i guess therein lies the root of my problem with joel osteen. what he does is not preaching.
now you may ask... why does that matter?

here is why it matters.

"I like to see myself as a life coach, a motivator to
help them experience the life of God that God has
for them. People don’t like to be beat down and told '
You’ve done wrong... think that most people already
know what they’re doing wrong. And for me to get in
here and just beat ‘em down and talk down to ‘em,
I just don’t think that inspires anybody to rise higher.
But I want to motivate. I wanna motivate every person
to leave here to be a better father, a better husband, to
break addictions to come up higher in their walk with the Lord "

if joel were simply on the speaking circuit doing motivational speeches, with teh same content, at conferences, business luncheons and trainings, self help groups, etc., for the most part, i wouldn't bother being worried about the content of what he teaches.

but the rub comes in here. people don't go to motivational speakers with an idea that what they are hearing will make them right with god. the preacher doesn't have to "beat people down" with what they have done wrong. but he is called to make people aware that their sin separates them from god and nothing they can do will ever be enough to earn his favor or mercy. this opens the door for teaching of grace and mercy!

osteen's message is that we are good people who haven't reached the goodness of our internal potential because of external problems.
the bible's message is that the problem is internal and the remedy is external.. in christ.

these are two different messages.

the gospel as presented by jesus and his disciples is this "repent and believe".
yet osteen himself in this 60 minute special and in an interview with larry king has explicitly stated that he tries to steer clear of speaking of sin or guilt.
how can one in need of the gospel "repent" if they have never been told they are in need of it and what it *means* to be a sinner in need of repentance?

so how is it that those who need the gospel can hear it at one of osteen's services?

these verses from romans are quite troubling in light of what osteen *isn't* saying:

rom. 10:13-15
For "everyone who calls on the name of
the Lord will be saved." How then will they
call on him in whom they have not believed?
And how are they to believe in him of
whom they have never heard? And how are they to
hear without someone preaching? And how are
they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written,
"How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the
good news!"

suppose someone goes to osteen's church. the are motivated by what they hear. they may even take great steps in improving their lifestyle. that is a credit to the way osteen seeks to encourage his hearers to take responsibility for their lives.

but what if they are lost?

will they ever hear the call to "repent and believe"? do they even know their need for the gospel? or is what they hear convincing them that the secret to happiness lies within themselves and their own efforts? hopefully you can see how dangerous this is.

osteen is not unaware of his critics. he responds to the charge that his teaching is dangerous by saying:

"I don’t know what can be so dangerous about giving
people hope...Causing people to have better relationships.
I'm not leading them to some false God or something like that."

osteen may not be preaching a "false god", but is he building up the "self" to the detriment of the realization for the need for the gospel?

i occasionally will watch osteen's services late on sunday nights. its true that he will hold up his bible and say (with those in attendance repeating after him):

This is my Bible.
I am what it says I am.
I have what it says I have.
I can do what it says I can do.
Today I will be taught the Word of
God.
I boldly confess my mind is alert, my heart is receptive.
I will never be the same.
I am about to receive the incorruptible, indestructible,
ever-living seed of the Word of God.
I will never be the same. Never, never, never.
I will never be the same. In Jesus name.
Amen

after reciting this (notice the power of what "i" can do), osteen goes on to give clever jokes, some anecdotes, and some encouraging comments after having read a passage of scripture. but he never preaches the word of god.

i am scared for the lost persons (perhaps in the hundreds or thousands) who attend lakewood's services or watch on television and think that because they have heard and sincerely believe what osteen has said, that their attendance or assent to the "message" makes them right with god.

so what you have is a 20 or 30 minute motivational talk that encourages people to try hard and not give up, that god wants good things for them, then says "if you want to become a christian say this..."

this is terrifying.

certainly the bible does speak to what are called "practical matters" of life; love, finances, work, relationships, etc. but from genesis to revelation the emphasis of scripture is living life for the glory of god. (1 cor. 10:31 for example). when the emphasis is always on "me", how can we expect anyone to know that the greatest joy in life is joy in christ?

john piper asks a great question in his book, god is the gospel

"Would you be happy to go to heaven... to have all
your family there, to be free from all diseases, to
have every kind of pleasure you desire, etc....
would you be happy to go to heaven... if God were not there?"

if the message heard week end and week out is absent of the call for finding fulfillment in joy in christ, how can the heaer answer yes to that question.. or even know that they should?

to be sure, christians are to have blessings and pleasure. but if at the root of our blessings and pleasure the joy is in the gifts and not the giver, then we are idolaters.

having our best life now is recognizing that any and all good things in our lives are the result of the grace and mercy of god, the chief of which is the salvation of undeserving sinners offered freely by god through the life, death, burial and resurrection of jesus christ. this is teh message of christianity. we can be better husbands and wives, better parents, better employees, have better relationships with our friends and families, even put in a lot of hard work and effort to improve our lifestyles. but if the foundation of our joy is not rooted in joy in christ, then how will we view our lives if all the "stuff" goes away? when thieves steal and moth and rust destroy?

our best life is the gospel- and the benefit comes not from our trying harder, but from our recognition of our inability to satisfy our deepest desires and the utter ability of christ to do just that. but not because of the lifestyle he can give us- but because of the life he gives.

so no, i do not think joel osteen is evil, or the anti-christ, or even a mean person. i mean no disrespect of his person and i do not call in to question his character.
but the message of joel osteen makes me fear for those who hear it and assume it is the gospel. rather than getting their "best life now.." they may be missing any chance of life at all.

(for previous discussions and further concerns regarding this matter see here and here)

are we serious?

2007-11-05T01:11:00.000-05:00

in the 3 weeks since i had back surgery, i have spent a lot of time doing 2 things. reading and watching television. i have been able to read more than usual since i am at home 24/7 and i have enjoyed that. but the major difference is the amount of t.v. i have watched.

normally, my schedule is such that if i watch television at all, it is either early morning sportscenter and/or news, or late at night (around 11:30 pm) when i get home from work before i go to bed. before my back went out, i had, besides news and sports, 2 shows that i intentionally tried to watch (or at least record) each week. over the last three weeks i have been amazed at how easy it is to get sucked into television habits.

bare with me, this is not going to be a rant against television...(though i suppose that wouldnt be entirley bad)

there were two programs that i came across recently that made me wonder why anyone in this country would take evangelical christians seriously at all.

it wasn't due to an unfair summary of a biased news anchor, it wasn't because a reporter mis-represented the views of the estimated 50-80 million american evangelicals.

nope. what made evangelicals look so ridiculous were the evangelicals that did all of the talking.

the two programs were the october 14th edition of 60 minutes and a documentary on HBO called ""friends of god".

over the next few posts, i will review and explore what it means if the evangelicalism presented by these two programs are representative of the actual substance .

a mighty fortress

2007-10-31T00:02:00.000-04:00

in honor of the 490th anniversary of the beginning of the reformation, i give you the words of a hymn by one of the greatest reformers, martin luther.

i encourage you to read these words carefully and thoughtfully with the realization of the facts of yesterdays post about martin luther and in light of the fact that he wrote these words as a man excommunicated from what the world knew as "the church" and a marked man under penalty of death.

our god is indeed a mighty fortress...may we all have the humility to take refuge inside his walls.

A MIGHTY FORTRESS IS OUR GOD

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing;
Our helper He, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe;
His craft and power are great, and, armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not his equal

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God’s own choosing:
Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He;
Lord Sabaoth, His Name, from age to age the same,
And He must win the battle.

And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;His rage we can endure,
for lo, his doom is sure,One little word shall fell him.

That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;The body they may kill:
God’s truth abideth still,His kingdom is forever.

christianity and october 31st

2007-10-29T22:49:00.000-04:00

this will not be a post railing against the evil's of halloween and trick-or-treating. my son, too young to go door to door, will nonetheless be a "smashing" pumpkin for his first halloween. (yes, that was intentional...)

rather, i wanted to take this chance to again remind us about our heritage as christians, particularly protestant christians. if october 31st doesnt remind you of more than ghosts and goblins, then let this be the last year that is the case, and the first of a lifetime of writing "reformation day" on our calanders every october 31st.

[aside from this article, i also recommend a very short but informative book that every christian should own and read:
the reformation: how a monk and a mallet changed the world by stephen j. nichols]

from jim elliff's website- christian communications online

It was October 31st, 1517 in Wittenburg, Germany.
Martin grasped a hammer and a long piece of paper
coveredwith his writing. He walked out into
the street and straight overto the castle church door.
It was here that community messageswere often posted.

Martin nailed his 95 points of discussion on the door. He
onlywanted to lay out his newly discovered views of the
Bible to other church leaders in the Medieval Catholic church.
He thought he was free to do so even though his thoughts were
radical. After all, he was an Augustinian monk and a professor
of theology.

Martin called himself a “stinking bag of maggots,” and certainly
did not dream of being a leader in a revolution of thinking
in Germany and across Europe that shaped history in a
powerful way. But God had determined something far bigger
than the monk Martin Luther expected when he penned
those 95 Theses.

Without his knowledge someone printed his words on the
newly invented Gutenburg press, distributing it all over
Germany.
Within a very few days, Martin found that he was the
subject of everyone’s thoughts. In the cathedrals and great
stone castles of his homeland, the pubs and peasant’s
cottageseveryone was talking about the views of Luther.
Withouta signal to announce it, the Protestant Reformation
hadbegun.

Just what was the Protestant Reformation all about? What did
Luther and others protest?

The protesters were seeing something new about how a
personis accepted by God that is, new to them. They protested
that the church had been teaching the wrong view about the most
important issue of life. They discovered that the Bible says we
are not accepted on the basis of our religious deeds, or even
our good deeds along with our faith, but that we are accepted
before a holy God only through faith in Christ.

“Through faith alone in Christ alone” began to be heard all
over Europe. The people must transfer their confidence for
salvation in the church’s religious traditions to Christ alone.
The reformers wanted the people to return to the Bible’s plain
teaching on how to be a true Christian.
Because heaven andhell were at stake, the passions rose very high.
Many would be persecuted and some even killed for this truth.

But through it all, tens of thousands of people were converted to
Christ andwere assured of heaven.

We have been feeling the effects of the Protestant Reformation
ever since. Many of our churches have their historical roots in
the Reformation. Returning to the Bible as the source of understanding
about how we are to relate to God has shaped nations.
Perhaps no other religious period since the coming of Christ
has been so influential as this one.

But many people, and even many churches, have forgotten the
great lessons that were made so clear beginning on October 31, 1517.

What difference can this mean to you nearly 500 years
later?
This passage from the Bible is a good place to start. It describes
God’s way to understand salvation:
For by grace you have been saved through faith,
andthat not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of
works, lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2: 8-9)

Through these 500 years since the Protestant Reformation,
andthroughout time, men and women, youth and children have
come to Christ in this simple way through faith alone in
Christ alone. Placing our full confidence in Christ’s perfect life
and sacrificial death for sinful people is the only way to God.

It is not that good works are not important they are a result of
true faith in every believer’s life. But those works cannot save.
Salvation is a gift of grace, not a reward for trying to be good.

Like Martin Luther, you may come by faith alone to Christ
alone even now, all these years later. In fact, this is the very
way the first New Testament believers came to Him!

Copyright © 2002 Jim Elliff
Permission granted to copy in full
for non-profit use, including all
copyright information. Other uses require
written permission.
print out as many as you want for free here!

the anti narnia

2007-10-28T18:19:00.000-04:00

according to snopes.com (a site that researches , verifies, and denies those claims we all get in our email boxes) regarding the new movie, the golden compass, set to release this holiday season is in fact based on a set of books by an author who says "my books are about killing god".

go here for the whole story.

now having said this, i am not saying that we should picket movie theatres who show this film, or start picket lines and write angry letters to the editor over this. i may still watch it to see what an atheist thinks about god in order to better understand and remind myself that when i speak about my "faith" or "god", that i can be speaking with very intelligent people with their own ideas and preconceived notions- and i need to be clear about the truth.

i pass this on simply because this link has sources for its quotes. one of the worst things we christians can do is start railing against a movie, book, etc. with claims that have no foundation.

so if a co-worker asks if you know anything about this movie, you can say "i know a little bit.." and share what you do know-not what we have heard from a frantic email forward with no support for its claims.

i'll be "back"

2007-10-11T14:57:00.000-04:00

well its official...
i am having back surgery this coming tuesday, oct. 16th.

ill be unable to sit for awhile, and as my laptop is less reliable than my old atari, i will be unable to be around these parts for a while.

but, i don't want anyone reading to abandon this place altogether, so please feel free to look through the archives. there are plenty of topics and posts from the past two years and comments can be made on any post, old or new.

since i wont be doing much beyond laying in bed for awhile, i hope to do quite a bit of reading. so in that spirit, may i recommend two books to you.

the first is mark dever's newest one the gospel and personal evangelism
this book just came out in the past few weeks or so. i picked up today and read about the first 40 pages in less than an hour. it reads quickly and is a pretty short book.
in it, dever discusses how to, why we don't evangelize and what is, and what isn't evangelism.
it is a very helpful book and very practical. for less than $10, i "commend" it to you.

the second is a daily devotional book. it is divided into over 100 daily meditations. they are kind of like "brain starters" for the day. i have come to it many times and use it often when i need to spend time with the lord in prayer, but don't know where to start. it also makes a good small group discussion starter.
the book is taste and see: savoring the supremacy of god in all of life , and the author is john piper.

i hope everyone enjoys a blessed month or so ahead, and that the passion for jesus christ will so consume your heart and mine, that the gospel will spread everywhere we go.

moma's, dont let your babies grow up dressed like man eaters

2007-10-04T16:53:00.000-04:00

an excellent free printable brochure for young ladies speaking to dressing in a way that honors the lord and doesn't knowingly create temptation for men. (without dictating your wardrobe)
get it here

while for the most part i think this list is right on, i am sure there are some aspects that we could argue are a bit too demanding. i would love to get some discussion going about this in the comments...

................................................................................................................

"Modesty Check"
by
Carolyn Mahaney
Nicole Whitacre
Kristin Chesemore
Janelle Bradshaw
“…Women should adorn themselves in respectable
apparel, with modesty and self-control ...
with what is proper for women
who profess godliness—with good works.”
~1 Timothy 2:

Start with a Heart Check…
“How does a woman discern the sometimes fine line between proper dress
and dressing to be the center of attention? The answer starts in the intent
of the heart. A woman should examine her motives and goals for the way
she dresses.

Is her intent to show the grace and beauty of womanhood? Is
it to reveal a humble heart devoted to worshipping God? Or is it to call
attention to herself and flaunt her beauty? Or worse, to attempt to lure
men sexually?

A woman who focuses on worshipping God will consider carefully how she
is dressed, because her heart will dictate her wardrobe and appearance.”

-John MacArthur

* What statement do my clothes make about my heart?

*In choosing what clothes to wear today, whose attention do I desire
and whose approval do I crave? Am I seeking to please God or
impress others?

*Is what I wear consistent with biblical values of modesty, selfcontrol
and respectable apparel, or does my dress reveal an inordinate
identification and fascination with sinful cultural values?

*Who am I trying to identify with through my dress? Is the Word of
God my standard or is the latest fashion?

*Have I asked other godly individuals to evaluate my wardrobe?

*Does my clothing reveal an allegiance to the gospel or is there any
contradiction between my profession of faith and my practice of
godliness?

Before you leave the house, do a modesty check.
(What aresome things you should look for as you stand
in front of your mirror?)

From the top…
*When I am wearing a loose-fitting blouse or scoop-neck, can I see
anything when I lean over? If so, I need to remember to place my
hand against my neckline when I bend down.

*If I am wearing a button-down top, I need to turn sideways and
move around to see if there are any gaping holes that expose my
chest. If there are, I’ve got to grab the sewing box and pin
between the buttons.

(The same check is needed if I am wearing a sleeveless shirt.)

*When I move around, can I see my bra? If I do, I need the pins
again.

*Am I wearing a spaghetti-strap, halter, or sheer blouse? Not even
pins will fix this problem! Most guys find these a hindrance in
their struggle with lust. It’s time to go back to the closet.

*Can I see the lace or seam of my bra through my shirt? In this
case, seamless bras are a better option.

More key questions:

*Does my shirt reveal any part of mycleavage?

*Does my midriff show when I raise my hands above
my head?

*Is my shirt just plain too tight?

If the answer to any oneof these questions is yes,
then I need to change my outfit.

Moving on down…
*Does my midriff (or underwear) show when I bend
over or lift my hands? If so, is it because my skirt or
my pants are too low? Either my shirt needs to be longer
or I need to find a skirt or pants that sit higher.

*I also have to turn around to see if what I’m wearing is too tight
around my back side, or if the outline of my underwear shows. If so,
I know what I have to do!

*And as for shorts – I can’t just check them standing up. I need to see
how much they reveal when I sit down. If I see too much leg, I need
a longer pair.

*The “sit-down” check applies to my skirt or dress as well. And I must
remember to keep my skirt pulled down and my knees together when
I’m seated.

*And speaking of skirts, watch out for those slits! Does it reveal too
much when I walk? Pins are also helpful here.

*Before I leave, I need to give my skirt a sunlight check. Is it seethrough?
If so, I need a slip.

* Finally, I must remember to do this modesty check with my shoes on.
High-heels make my dress or skirt appear shorter.
And don’t forget – this applies to formal wear as well.

*A note on swimwear: It’s not easy but you can still strive to be
modest at the pool or beach. Look for one-piece bathing suits that
aren’t cut high on the leg and don’t have low necklines.

Modesty Check © 2002 Sovereign Grace Ministries
Republished in Girl Talk: Mother-Daughter Conversations on Biblical Womanhood
by Carolyn Mahaney and Nicole Whitacre (Crossway Books)

why "religion" is ridiculous

2007-09-29T12:04:00.000-04:00

[note: this is an older story, but i have had
it filed away as a topic for awhile.]

"2 + 2 = 4. 2+2 also equals 1."

"i believe that gravity will pull me towards the earth if i hurl myself off of any object at any hight (assuming i have no assistance). i believe gravity will not pull me towards the earth if i hurl myself off of any object at any hight. (assuming i have no assistance)

"i believe that wearing the color purple is a sin, forbidden by god. i also believe the color purple is what god wants me to wear every day."

all of these statements are absurd. they are self -contradictory, and both assertions in each statement cannot be true at the same time.

i have another one.. except this time i am not making this up.

there is a priest in seattle who claims to be a christian and muslim.

read the story here

christianity (orthodox and historical )claims that jesus is deity, who came to give his life as a ransom for sin, died on a cross, rose again, and ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of god the father. christianity teaches that the only way to heaven is the belief that jesus is god, and belief in his work as the christ. we know this from the only inspired revelation from god, the bible (66 books of the old and new testaments)

islam teaches : (from http://www.soundvision.com/; a site for islamic information and products)

The Islamic and Christian views of Jesus:
a comparison
The person of Jesus or Isa in Arabic (peace be upon
him) is of great significance in both Islam and Christianity.
However, there are differences in terms of beliefs about the
nature and life occurrences of this noble Messenger.

Source of information about Jesus in Islam :
Most of the Islamic information about
Jesus is actually found in the Quran.
The Quran was revealed by God to
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
be upon him), and memorized and
written down in his lifetime.
Today, anyone who calls him or herself a
Muslim believes in the complete authenticity
of the Quran as the original revealed guidance
from God.

Indeed, they have disbelieved who have said,
“God is the Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary.”
The Messiah said, “Children of Israel, worship
God, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever associates
partners in worship with God, then God has forbidden
Paradise for him, and his home is the Fire
(Hell). For the wrongdoers,there will be no helpers.”
(Quran, 5:72)

"The Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary, was no more
than a Messenger before whom many Messengers
have passed away; and his mother adhered wholly
to truthfulness, and they both ate food (as other
mortals do). See how We make Our signs clear to
them; and see where they are turning away!"
(Quran 5:75)

"Say: "God is Unique! God, the Source [of everything].
He has not fathered anyone nor was He fathered,
and there is nothing comparable to Him!"
(Quran 112:1-4)

"Such was Jesus, the son of Mary;
it is a statement of truth, about which
they vainly dispute. It is not befitting to the
majesty of God, that He should beget a son.
Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter,
He only says to it, ‘Be' and it is"
(Quran 19:34-35)

"“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him,
but they thought
they did.” (Quran 4:156)

so what are the beliefs of the woman who claims she is both a christian and a practicing muslim?
from the article:

She believes the Trinity is an idea about God
and cannot be taken literally.

She does not believe Jesus and God are the same,
but rather that God is more than Jesus.

She believes Jesus is the son of God
insofar as all humans are the children of God,
and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are
divine — because God dwells in all
humans.

What makes Jesus unique, she believes, is that
out of all humans, he most embodied being filled
with God and identifying completely with God's will.

She does believe that Jesus died on the cross and was
resurrected, and acknowledges those beliefs conflict with
the teachings of the Quran. "That's something I'll find a
challenge the rest of my life," she said.

She considers Jesus her savior. At times of despair,
because she knows Jesus suffered and overcame suffering, "
he has connected me with God," she said.
That's not to say she couldn't develop as deep a relationship with
Mohammed. "I'm still getting to know him," she said.

consider richard- a man who is 6" 2', 195 lbs. he has brown hair and green eyes. he wears a t-shirt and blue jeans to a state university. he studies american history because he grew up near a civil war battlefield. his great-great grandparents parents were both born and raised in america. he loves baseball, apple pie, and country music.

for all intents and purposes we would all probably agree that this guy is an american.

unless we throw in the fact that he was born and raised in canada and moved to america with his canadian parents when he was 8 yrs. old.

richard is not an american citizen.

according to the u.s. citizenship and immigration services :

Most people become U.S. citizens in one of two ways:
By birth, either within the territory of the United States or
to U.S. citizen parents, or by Naturalization.

richard looks, sounds and "acts" american. he speaks the language, knows the history, and has tremendous affection for america. yet he is not a citizen.

the same holds true for christianity. you are only a christian if you believe the teachings of christianity, including that there is one god in three persons- father son and holy spirit. through jesus christ the son, and only through him, is there salvation because of his life, death, and resurection. there are no other ways to god. (god and allah are not the same person, see here)

if this is rejected, then what is left is a person who may love the history of christianity, christian ideals, participate in christian activities, owns and has read the bible, but is not a christian.

words have meaning. words have a definition. if you are a christian then you believe and adhere to the beliefs of christianity, which are exclusive to any other religion.

anything else is simply "religion", in which there is no salvation.

does god repent like a man?

2007-09-25T19:49:00.000-04:00

here is an article by dr. john piper addressing a specific issue and scripture used by open theists to prove their position. i hope you find it useful and helpful.
................................................................................

God Does Not Repent Like a Man
By John Piper.
© Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

After Saul disobeys Samuel, God says, "I regret [= repent]
that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from
following Me and has not carried out My commands"
(1 Samuel 15:11). Some have argued that since God
"repents" of things he has done, therefore he could
not have foreseen what was coming. Else why would
he repent or regret, if he knew in advance
the consequence of his decision?

However, this is not a compelling argument against God's
foreknowledge. First of all, the argument assumes that God
could not, or would not, lament over a state of affairs he
himself chose to bring about. That not true to human
experience; and more importantly, God's heart is
capable of complex combinations of emotions infinitely more
remarkable that ours. He may well be capable of lamenting
over something he chose to bring about.

Not only that, God may also be capable of looking back on
the very act of bringing something about and lamenting
that act in one regard, while affirming it as best in another
regard. For example, if I spank my son for blatant
disobedience and he runs away from home because
I spanked him, I may feel some remorse over the spanking -
not in the sense that I disapprove of what I did, but in the
sense that I feel some sorrow that spanking was a
necessary part of a wise way of dealing with this situation,
and that it led to his running away. If I had it to do over again,
I would still spank him. It was the right thing to do. Even knowing
that one consequence would be alienation for a season, I
approve the spanking, and at the same time regret the
spanking. If such a combination of emotions can accompany
my own decisions, it is not hard to imagine that God's infinite
mind may be capable of something similar.

Now the question is: Does the Bible teach that God laments
some of his decisions in the sense that I have described above
(which does not imply that He is ignorant of their future
consequences), or does the Bible teach that God laments
some of his decisions because he did not see what was
coming?

The answer is given later in 1 Samuel 15. After God says in
verse 11, "I repent that I have made Saul king," Samuel says
in verse 29, as if to clarify, "The Strength of Israel will not lie
nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent" (KJV).

The point of this verse seems to be that, even though there is
a sense in which God does repent (verse 11), there is another
sense in which he does not repent (verse 29). The difference
would naturally be that God's repentance happens in spite of
perfect foreknowledge, while most human repentance happens
because we lack foreknowledge. God's way of "repenting"
is unique to God: "God is not a man that he should repent"
(the way a man repents in his ignorance of the future).

For God to say, "I feel sorrow that I made Saul king," is not
the same as saying, "I would not make him king if I had it to
do over." God is able to feel sorrow for an act in view of
foreknown evil and pain, and yet go ahead and will to do
it for wise reasons. And so later, when he looks
back on the act, he can feel the sorrow for the act that was leading
to the sad conditions, such as Saul's disobedience.

Hence we have our precious fighter verse in Numbers 23:19 -
"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that
He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has
He spoken, and will He not make it good?" I say it is precious,
because here God's commitment to his promises hangs on his
not repenting like a man. In other words, God's promises are
not in jeopardy, because God can foresee all circumstances, he
knows that nothing will occur that will cause him to take them back.

Resting in the confidence of God's all-knowing promises,
Pastor
John

"a god who cannot know the future cannot control the future"

2007-09-23T23:48:00.000-04:00

here is the final segment of the interview with dr. ron nash on open theism.
after this post, i will wrap up our discussion on open theism with one or two more posts. feel free to make comments or ask questions to regarding ideas or issues that have or have not been addressed so far.

...........................................................................................................
Open Theism: An Interview with Dr. Ronald Nash
part 3

Michael Collender: Thank you Dr. Nash. I have a
few final questions for you. Now Greg Boyd, in his book
God of the Possible writes,

"Next to the central doctrines of the Christian faith,
the issue of whether the future is exhaustibly settled
or partially open, is relatively unimportant. It is
certainly not a doctrine that Christians should ever
divide over."

Now, Dr. Nash, is open theism merely an intra-church debate
about the future, and thus, in the words of Dr. Boyd, relatively
unimportant, or is more at stake?

Ron Nash: With all due respect to Dr. Boyd, this
is a move that has been made by every heretic in the
history of the church.
When the Jehovah's witnesses or other Unitarians have said
the deity of Christ is not something that we should fight about.
Or the substitutionary atonement. This is a classic move.

Now I'm not imputing heresy to my friends who are open theists
in any kind of straightforward way, but once we know where the
church has always stood on these issues, when someone comes
along with what amounts to a new way of understanding these
things and says "now this is nothing to really get excited about,
don't split churches over this, don't leave my church" , then I'm
sorry, this is a matter where we have to take a stand. The last
group of people who's advice we follow on this matter are the
people who are deviating and departing from the church's
long-held position on this.

MC: What exactly is at stake in this issue?

RN: Good question. What is at stake is, number one, our
understanding of God and the kind of God upon whom our
faith is based. What's also at stake here is our firm belief,
or what is the belief of people who are not open theists, that
God is sovereign, and that God is in control of all of human
history, and God will bring His will to pass. One of the points
that I argue in my book Life's Ultimate Questions is that a God
who cannot know the future cannot control the future. And thus,
if we follow the open theist very far down his road, we end up
with a God who cannot give us the confidence that we need to
believe that His will will prevail in human history.

We're dealing, frankly, as I sometimes say to audiences; when
I understand with the God of open theism, I want to pray for that
God because He needs help. Right now the world series starts this
week. The God of open theism has no idea which team is going to
win the world series. The God of open theism who's going to win
the battle against terrorism. That is not my God. That is a different
God. And it is not the God of the Christian worldview.
The very integrity, the heart of our faith is at stake with this
issue, and this is not a minor, trivial matter that says "well, you can
continue to go to this church and worship this alternate God and so on".

MC: You said before that you didn't want to call this heresy.
But is sounds like you're being very kind to your friends who
would hold this position as well.

RN: There are two kinds of heresy. One kind of heresy is illustrated
by a serious error called "Socinianism". And many of the beliefs of
Socinianism are actually taught by these open theists. Their position
is not new. The Socinians lived during the years of the Reformation
and they denied God's knowledge of future contingent events, but
they also then followed that belief down the road to other beliefs
that were specifically heretical.
So one kind of heresy is where you really are out to change the nature
of the Christian faith in to a totally different religion. I'm not accusing
open theists of that.

But there is a second kind of heresy where, without knowing it,
without thinking it, maybe because they're afraid to think through
thing to their end, good people, honorable people, say things that
entail conclusions that are utterly inconsistent with the historic
Christian faith. And that's where I think the open theists are.

MC: What should we as a church do then?

RN: Well, in about a month the Evangelical Theological Society
is going to meet in Colorado Springs and the members of the
ETS are going to debate the question of whether people who
believe this way are holding beliefs that are inconsistent with
the doctrinal stance of the Evangelical Theological Society. And
if their beliefs are inconsistent with the doctrinal stance of the
Evangelical Theological Society, then they should leave.

If the ETS does not reach the proper conclusion here, I think it's
time for a whole lot of people to leave the ETS because it clearly
will no longer stand for the theological foundation upon which it
was based. If that means there is a battle within the church, well,
that's hardly new. The reason the church got to this point is that
when errors crept into the church over the centuries, brave and
honorable people stood up and said "God help me, I can
do no other",to quote Martin Luther there.
Every time the church - Christians, leaders, thinkers - have failed
to take a stand against error, one error multiplies into another.

During the 18th century, people who claimed to believe in the
inerrancy of the Bible in New England began to deny the Deity
of Christ and they did so on the basis of a spurious of false
interpretations of Scripture. That heresy was not rooted out,
and before you knew it all of those congregational churches in
New England that had failed to take a stand decades earlier
were committed to a full blown Unitarian and Universalist
position. You nip it in the bud and if you don't, then the errors
that are implied in this position will eventually creep in and take
over, and then we've lost a serious battle.

open theism interview part 2

2007-09-21T08:41:00.000-04:00

part 2 of 3, an interview with philosopher dr. ron nash on open theism. (see previous post for part one)

.....................................................................................
Open Theism: An Interview with Dr. Ronald Nash

part 2

Michael Collender: Now stepping from philosophy to the
way that we handle Scripture, open theists claim their God is
very much the God of the Bible and they sight passages from
Scripture that teach that God can change His mind.
Passages like 1 Samuel 15:35, "And the LORD regretted
(literally repented) that He had made Saul king over Israel".
It seems this passage and others, like Genesis 5 and 6 teach that
God can make choices that He regrets; that He can be surprised.
Now, how can historic Christian orthodoxy deal with passages like
this?

Ron Nash: There's no need for a new answer. The church, ever
since the Reformation and probably some of the predecessors of
the Reformation, clearly recognized that when human beings use
language about God there will be times when they cannot
use language in a literal way.
For example, when Jesus said "This is My body", He did not
mean that text to be interpreted in a straightforward or literal
way. Likewise when He said "This is My blood" or "I am the door".
What we call non-literal or anthropomorphic (human-like) language
attributed to God appears throughout the Bible. And it creates far
fewer problems with respect to passages like those you sighted when
we recognized that they are not to be taken in a straightforward way.
In fact, what's interesting is that many of the passages cited by open
theists as support for their position turn out to be passages where the straightforward interpretation of the passage leads to a disaster.
Let me give you a couple of examples, and these examples appear
in their [open theists] writings.

In Genesis 22:12, as we know, God told Abraham to
take his son Isaac up to the top of the mount and there offer him
as a sacrifice. And God says "Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not
do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, since you
have not withheld from me your son, your only. . ."

Surprise! Here is a classic case where open theists say "God learned
something new. God is surprised." But notice the implications here.
This is what open theists can't trace out. Remember, open theists
say God can't know the future, but they insist, as they had better,
that God can know both the past and the present. But the open
theists' straightforward reading of Genesis 22:12 actually implies
that poor God couldn't know the present. He did not know at that
moment that Abraham really trusted Him. God's knowledge was
lacking not only with respect to the future, it was lacking with
respect to the present. And moreover, it was also lacking with
respect to the past.

Now clearly, when our God can't know the past and the present,
He really is a finite deity, and that is an implication of their position.
Let me give you one more text here.

Consider Genesis 3:9 where God is seeking Adam in the garden and
the verse reads "Then the LORD called to the man and said to him,
'Where art thou?'." Now, even when I was a 12 year old kid in Sunday
school, I knew that was not literal language. But open theists have to
interpret that as literal language because they want to attack the full
compliment of God's knowledge.
But the problem again here is that if you take that passage literally,
God didn't know where Adam was at that particular moment in God's
present. In fact, God didn't even know His geography, where Adam
was in the garden. So these people are really playing games, I suggest.
They condemn us for not interpreting passages straightforwardly,
when they themselves can't do the same thing.

Now listen; it is wrong to interpret any of these anthropomorphic
texts to say that God learns something new from changed situations.
It is wrong to interpret them to say that God changed His mind.
Instead of understanding them in that way, we should recognize
that what may seem to be changes of mind may actually be just new
stages in the working out of God's plan.

An example of this would be the offering of salvation to the Gentiles.
Well, as part of God's original plan it represented a rather sharp break
with what had preceded. Some other apparent changes of mind in the
Bible are changes of orientation resulting from man's move into a
different relationship with God.

God didn't change when Adam sinned. Rather, man had moved into
God's disfavor. This works the other way as well.
Take the case of Ninevah. God said "Forty days and Ninevah will be
destroyed unless they repent". Okay, Ninevah repented and it was
spared. But it was man that had changed and not God that had
changed.
Now philosophers have a technical term for this; they call it a
"Cambridge change." That is, it's a situation where we use the
language of change but no real serious or essential change has
taken place.

Now, if I have the time, let me address the passage in 1 Samuel.
Actually, let me address two passage because they're both relevant
to this. And if your people hear nothing else from me today other
than the books they ought to read they ought to pay attention to the
next three or four minutes.

Let me quote Numbers 23:19; "God is not a man, that He
should lie, nor a son of man that He should change His mind.
Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?"

Now this is what people should notice; two serious errors are
combined in that verse - changing one's mind, and lying. And here
is the implication. If God can change His mind, then He should also
be able lie. You can't separate those.
Jump from Numbers 23:19 to 1 Samuel 15:29. It's the same kind
of parallel that's set up, "He who is the glory if Israel does not
lie or change His mind. For He is not a man that He should change
His mind". What's interesting is that's the same text from which the
earlier passage you quoted comes from.
Now here is the interpretive principle that needs to be
applied here. If God can really change, then God can also lie.
You can't separate those. But if there is a literal, straightforward
text in Scripture that tells us that God can't do one of those things,
then it follows that He cannot do the other thing either. And
Hebrews 6 makes it very clear in straightforward, literal,
non-anthropomorphic language that God cannot lie.
So if it is impossible for God to lie, as Scripture tell us it is, then
it must also be impossible for God to change His mind. And therefore,
these texts that appear to tell us that God can change His mind, are anthropomorphic texts which should not be taken in a straightforward
way.

an interview on open theism

2007-09-19T22:08:00.000-04:00

to close out the discussion of open theism, i will post over the next few days the transcript from a radio interview with dr. ron nash (posted at monergism)

philosopher ronald h. nash (phd from syracuse university), who passed away in march of 2006, was a professor at western kentucky university, reformed theological seminary, and the southern baptist theological seminary. he authored many books which are widely read in many social and academic settings.

part 1
............................................................................................................

Open Theism: An Interview with Dr. Ronald Nash

Michael Collender: Representing the traditional
Christian view of God we have with us Dr. Ronald Nash,
professor of philosophy and theology at Reformed
Theological seminary. Author and co-author of over 30
books and numerous journal articles, Dr. Nash has
sought to apply Christian theology as the foundation of his
study in both history and philosophy. Within
this great body of work he has also written
on open theism and its consequences on our view of history,
theology, and ultimately God Himself. Dr. Nash, thank you for
joining us.

Dr. Ronald Nash: Glad to talk.

MC: First off, what is your assessment of open theism?

RN: Well, as a part of my answer to that general
question,
let me advise your listeners about what I always tell students
is an important process of coming to grips with any difficult
subject and that is, to read the best material available on the
subject. Fortunately there have just been three or four very
good books published on the subject of open theism. One of
them just reached my desk yesterday as a matter of fact.

They all ought to be available from http://www.amazon.com/
or http://www.barnesandnoble.com/ and it just makes sense
to me that anyone who really is serious about this stuff
ought to get some of these books and read them. Let me
quickly tick off those titles and the authors.

The first, and I think the best of these books is titled
God's Lesser Glory and the author is Bruce Ware. He
happens to be a colleague of mine, he teaches at Southern
Baptist Seminary in Louisville where I also teach.

The second book is written by another colleague of
mine who teaches at Reformed Seminary in Florida,
which is where I teach as well, that book is called No
Other God and the author is John Frame.

There's another book that's a compilation of essays edited
by Doug Wilson, it's title is Bound Only Once.

And the fourth book is written by one of my favorite
authors, the title is Life's Ultimate Questions and some
of the points that I'll make today are going to appear in
that book.

Now, one of my major problems with open
theism is that I think the proponents of this view fail
to track out the logical consequences of their beliefs.

Now they are hardly alone in this. This is a rather common
practice. Now what I mean by tracing out the logical complications
is looking at your beliefs and then asking if that is true, then what
else follows logically from it?

Now let me show you how that works. Open theists proclaim
that God cannot know future contingent events. That is the
fancy way of referring to events in the future, which result
from human beings making free choices. Now that claim
sounds innocent enough, but let me show you some of the
consequences of that.

Think back to the moment when Jesus Christ was dying
on the cross. Incidentally, let me tell you what John Sanders,
one open theist, says about the cross. He says that God the
Father had no knowledge that His Son would end up being
crucified. And at that particular moment, when God the Father
looks down from heaven and sees His Son hanging on the cross,
John Sanders put it in language somewhat like this, "Oops,
I guess we have to switch to plan B."

Because, you see, to these open theists, God is completely
surprised by any large number of events that happened
in the world. But this poor, impotent deity, who is described
by the open theists, this finite God of open theism, had no way
of knowing at the time that Jesus was dying if even one human
being would accept His Son as Savior.
This poor, impotent deity faced the possibility that the suffering
of His Son on the cross would bring about the salvation of no one.

Another open theist, who happens to be a friend of mine, Bill
Hasker, teaches at a college in Indiana, says that the very fact
that there is a church of God is a matter of God's dumb blind luck
because God had no way of controlling whatever outcome might
follow the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross.

Now I believe all of these consequences are absurd, but I believe
that they all follow logically from the presuppositions of open
theists, and they constitute at least one major reason why
Christians should be looking elsewhere than open theism for
the answers of their world view to questions like the ones we've
been considering on this tape.

MC: Thank you Dr. Nash. Some open theists accuse
historic Christianity of borrowing its view of God from the
Greeks. And in your book The Gospel and the Greeks you
address the connection between Greek culture and the Christian
religion.
Are they right? Did Christianity borrow its view of God
from the Greeks?

RN: What really troubles me about this allegation, that
orthodox theology has been strongly influenced by Greek
thought, is that in this particular case it is open theism that
manifests the influence of Greek thinking.
The idea of a finite God; that is the territory of Plato and
Aristotle. If you're looking at least at the idea that a
supreme being cannot know the future, that comes directly
from Aristotle.

So far as I know that particular idea was originated by
Aristotle in his book on interpretation. Aristotle asked
the question "Will there be a sea-fight tomorrow?"
One navy is going to attack another navy and which fleet will win?
And Aristotle says there is no way for any being to know that
because no proposition about the future can be true.

Therefore if the proposition "The Greek navy will win the
battle tomorrow" is offered by someone and it's a proposition
about the future, that proposition cannot be true, that proposition
cannot be false until tomorrow. Therefore no one can know it.

And that constitutes one of the major reasons why open theists
like Clark Pinnock and John Sanders and a lot of these other
fellows say that poor God can't know the future. Well, I'm
sorry; if God can't know the future, then God cannot predict
the future.

Now I'm confident that a large number of your
listeners are immediately thinking of all kinds of prophecies
in the Old Testament and New Testament in which God
Almighty predicts precisely what will happen in the future,
and that's something that can't be possible in a universe in
which God cannot know future, free human actions.

So if we ask the question "will the real Greek please
stand up?" I think it would be the Open Theists that
have to rise to their feet on this issues.

a new feature

2007-09-17T17:48:00.000-04:00

i am often asked about book recommendations for certain topics, so i have added a feature to this blog that will allow anyone to search my own personal library by topic, or you can click on "my library" and see the whole thing.

this feature is on the right side bar about halfway down, under the "links" bar.

if you are curious as to what i have that speaks about theology, then click "theology" and it will take you to an online catalog of the theology books in my library. same with any other topic or category.

just know 2 things:

1.) because i own a book does not necessarily mean that i agree with everyything or even anything in that book or by that author. it is often helpful to read different and/or opposing views. so do not freak out when you see i own a mormon bible or "blue like jazz"

2.) after years of learning the hard way, no... you may not borrow any books from me. but i am sure your local library or bookstore would love to see you! (i can recommend some good websites with good books and great prices.)

undermining god

2007-09-17T01:59:00.000-04:00

continuing our discussion of open theism, i turn to pastor tom ascol who points out at least five areas of the christian faith undermined by belief in open theism...

* undermines confidence in scripture
* undermines confidence in god
* undermines faith in christ
* undermines prayer
* undermines confident living

here is his conclusion...

The devotional house in which one lives will be largely determined
by the doctrinal foundation on which he builds. The vibrant, joyful
life of faith which marked the New Testament church was rooted
in a steadfast commitment to the "apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42).

The Apostle Paul regularly structured his arguments in his letters
to the early churches so that his imperatives rested upon his indicatives.
First, he laid a doctrinal foundation (for example in Romans 1-11 and
Ephesians 1-3); then he exhorted his readers to live up to what they
believed (as in Romans 12-16 and Ephesians 4-6).
Right believing leads to right living.

It is hard to understand, then, the almost nonchalant attitude of Boyd
when he writes, "Next to the central doctrines of the Christian faith,
the issue of whether the future is exhaustively settled or partially open
is relatively unimportant. It is certainly not a doctrine Christians should
ever divide over."[48]

Contrary to the way Boyd makes it sound, Open Theism is not
simply a philosopher's debate. Redefine reality and the God of
reality changes with it. What is at stake is the very doctrine of God,
and with that, every aspect of the Christian life.

As A. W. Tozer noted in the middle of the last century,

"The gravest question before the Church is always God
Himself, and the most portentous fact about any man is
not what he at a given time may say or do, but what he
in his deep heart conceives God to be like."

He goes on to observe,

"Were we able to extract from any man a
complete answer to the question, 'What comes into your
mind when you think about God?' we might predict with
certainty the spiritual future of that man."[49]

Open Theism's redefinition of God bodes ill for those who embrace it.
If our vision of God is diminished, vital godliness is sure to shrink with
it.

read the whole article here. it is well written and well documented with footnotes for further research.

open theism = idolatry?

2007-09-14T01:57:00.000-04:00

here is an article on one of the logical ends of the open theism view of god's foreknowledge and sovereignty from 2002...

How Open Theism Helps Us Conceal Our Hidden Idolatries
By John Piper April 10, 2002

Open theism may help conceal deep idolatry in the soul.
One of the great needs of our souls is to know if we treasure
anything on earth more than we treasure Christ. Treasuring
anyone or anything more than Christ is idolatry.

Paul said in Colossians 3:5, "Put to death therefore what is
earthly in you . . . covetousness, which is idolatry." If covetousness
is idolatry, then desiring earthly things more than we desire God
is idolatry. That means we must be more satisfied in Christ and
his wisdom than we are in all our relationships and accomplishments
and possessions on earth.

Now how does Open Theism help us conceal from ourselves the
idolatries in our souls. It ascribes ultimate causality for many
calamities and evils to Satan or the autonomous will of man,
not finally to the all-disposing counsel and wisdom of God
above and behind Satan.

For example, Greg Boyd says:
When an individual inflicts pain on another individual,
I do not think we can go looking for "the purpose of
God" in the event. . . . I know Christians frequently
speak about 'the purpose of God' in the midst of a
tragedy caused by someone else. . . . But this I regard
to simply be a piously confused way of thinking
(Letters from a Skeptic [Colorado Springs:
Chariot Victor Publishing, 1994], p. 47).

Similarly, John Sanders writes:
God does not have a specific divine purpose for each
and every occurrence of evil. . . . When a two-month
-old child contracts a painful, incurable bone cancer
that means suffering and death, it is pointless evil.
The Holocaust is pointless evil. The rape and
dismemberment of a young girl is pointless evil.
The accident that caused the death of my brother
was a tragedy. God does not have a specific purpose
in mind for these occurrences (The God Who Risks
[Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998], p. 262).

If not "the purpose of God," what then is ultimate? Either man's will
which is ultimately "self-determining" and can even surprise God
(as Open Theists believe), or the will of an evil spirit which is also
ultimately "self-determining." For example, after admitting that
"God can sometimes use the evil wills of personal beings, human
or divine, to his own ends," Boyd then says, "This by no means entails
that there is a divine will behind every activity of an evil spirit"
(God at War [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997],
p. 154, cf. 57, 141).
"A self-determining, supremely evil being rules the world" (p. 54).
"The ultimate reason behind all evil in the world is found in Satan,
not God" (p. 54, my italics).

How does this worldview help us conceal the idolatry of our soul?
It works like this. Open Theism denies that God is the final, purposive
disposer of all things (Job 2:10; Amos 3:6; Rom. 8:28; Eph. 1:11).
Therefore it asserts that God's wisdom does not hold final sway
(Rom. 11:33-36), and thus God is not fulfilling a plan for our good
in all our miseries (Jeremiah 29:11; 32:40).

Open Theism implies, therefore, that we should not think about
the wisdom of God's purpose in causing or permitting our calamities.
In other words, Open Theism discourages us from asking what
sanctifying purpose God may have in ordaining that our misery come about.

But in reality our pain and losses are always a test of how much
we treasure the all-wise, all-governing God in comparison to what
we have lost. We see this merciful testing of God throughout the
Scriptures. For example, in Deuteronomy 8:3 Moses said, "And
[God] humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna,
which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might
make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives
by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord." In other words,
God ordains the hard times ("he . . . let you hunger") to see if good times
are our god. Do we love bread, or do we love God? Do we treasure
God and trust his good purposes in pain, or do we love his gifts more,
and get angry when he takes them away?

We see this testing in Psalm 66:10-12, "For you, O God, have tested us;
you have tried us as silver is tried. You brought us into the net; you laid
a crushing burden on our backs; you let men ride over our heads; we
went through fire and through water." And we see it in the life of Paul.
When he prayed for his thorn in the flesh to be taken away Christ told
him what the purpose of the pain was. "Three times I pleaded with the
Lord about this, that it should leave me. But he said to me, 'My grace is
sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness'"
(2 Corinthians 12:8-9). The test for Paul was: Will you value the
magnifying of Christ's power more than a pain-free life?

We see this testing in 1 Peter 1:6-7, "In this you rejoice, though
now for a little while, as was necessary, you have been grieved
by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith –
more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire –
may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the
revelation of Jesus Christ." God ordains trials to refine our
faith and prove that we really trust his wisdom and grace and
power, when hard times come.

Similarly in James 1:2-3, "Count it all joy, my brothers, when
you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing
of your faith produces steadfastness. . . . Blessed is the man who
remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he
will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those
who love him." Do we love God? That is the point of the test.
Do we cherish him and the merciful wisdom of his painful purposes,
more than we cherish pain-free lives? That is the point of God's testing.

Our trials reveal the measure of our affection for this earth –
both its good things and bad things. Our troubles expose our
latent idolatry.

For those who believe that God rules purposefully and wisely over
all things, our response to loss is a signal of how much idolatry is in
our souls. Do we really treasure what we have lost more than God
and his wisdom? If we find ourselves excessively angry or resentful
or bitter, it may well show that we love God less that what we lost.
This is a very precious discovery, because it enables us to repent
and seek to cherish Christ as we ought, rather than being deceived
into thinking all is well.

But Open Theism denies that God always has a wise purpose
in our calamities ("God does not have a specific divine purpose
for each and every occurrence of evil"), and so it obscures the
test of our idolatrous hearts. Open Theism does not encourage
us to see or savor the merciful designs of God in our pain. It
teaches that there is either no design or that the design of the
evil done against us is ultimately owing to Satan or evil men
("The ultimate reason behind all evil in the world is found in
Satan, not God").

Therefore, we may be so angry with Satan and with evil people
(which is legitimate up to a point), that we fail to ask whether
our anger reflects an excessive attachment to what we just lost.
But if, contrary to Open Theism, we must reckon with the fact
that God's wisdom is the ultimate reason we lost our treasure,
then we will be forced to do the very valuable act of testing our
hearts to see if we loved something on earth more than the
wisdom of God.

All of life is meant to be lived to reflect the infinite value of
Christ (Philippians 1:20). We show his infinite worth by treasuring
him above all things and all persons. Believing in his all-ruling, all-
wise sovereignty helps reveal our idolatries in times of pain and loss.

Not believing that God has a wise purpose for every event helps
conceal our idolatries. Thus Open Theism, against all its conscious
designs, tends to undermine a means of grace that our deceptive
hearts need.

© Desiring God

the gospel in 6 minutes...

2007-09-13T02:01:00.000-04:00

http://www.desiringgod.org/ has placed on its website a free link to john piper giving a gospel presentation in 6 minutes.

they are encouraging the widespread distribution of this video. they want people to download, link to it, email it, etc.

if you have friends, family, or co-workers, etc. who are asking questions about the gospel, then send them this link, or better yet, watch it with them.

click here for the gospel in 6 minutes

you can also read, forward, etc. the manuscript found here

may the spirit of the lord open hearts to receive the good news.

small god??

2007-09-11T23:44:00.000-04:00

i just finished reading a book by dr. bruce ware entitled "their god is too small: open theism and the undermining of confidence in god"

the book is a small paperback, less than 130 pages. it is a good introduction to what open theism is, what its proponents have written, and the consequences that such a belief demand.
if you are at all interested in this topic, i recommend it as a starting point. it is a pretty quick read, but covers a lot of ground.

to give you an idea, here is a link to the introduction to the book which, itself, is an excellent statement on why the god of open theism is a much smaller (i.e. different) god than the god of scripture.

read the introduction for free here

purchase the book here. (get a used copy for $6!)

as always, comments are welcome after you read the intro.

more on god's "ignornace"

2007-09-10T12:43:00.001-04:00

there has been a good discussion going on in the comments section of the last post. feel free to participate and carry that conversation over to the comments on this post.

as an update on my back, i have disc fragments floating around in my spinal cord which are digging into and pinching nerves in my spine. i am supposed to rest for two weeks, and if there is no marked difference, i willprobably have my second back surgery in less than 10 years. your prayers are appreciated.

i will pick up where i left off re-posting from tim challies blog on open theism .
.......................................................................................................................................

Chief Proponents
The best-known proponents of open theism are:

Clark Pinnock -
Clark Pinnock spent 25 years preaching,
teaching, and writing at McMaster Divinity College after
having served previously at the University of Manchester,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School, and Regent College in Vancouver. He is best-
known for his contribution to the book The Openness of God:
A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of
God.

Greg Boyd -
Greg Boyd is the Senior Pastor at Woodland Hills
Church in St. Paul, Minnesota and previously served as a
Professor of Theology at Bethel College for sixteen years.
In 2000, Dr. Boyd founded Christus Victor Ministries, a
nonprofit organization that promotes faith which satisfies
the mind and inspires the heart. Dr. Boyd regularly speaks
at academic and religious conferences, college campuses, and
churches throughout the United States and abroad. His most
popular book is God of the Possible which is a popular defense
of open theism.

In Their Own Words
There is no better way of understanding a doctrine than through
the words of those who believe and teach it. So let’s turn to some
of the prominent Open Theists and hear them in their own words.
I[tim challies] will provide brief commentary [in green]where
appropriate.

We must wonder how the Lord could truly experience
regret for making Saul king if he was absolutely certain
that Saul would act the way he did.
Could God genuinely confess, “I regret that I made Saul
king” if he could in the same breath also proclaim, “I was
certain of what Saul would do when I made him king?”
Common sense tells us that we can only regreta decision
we made if the decision resulted in an outcome other than
what we expected or hoped for when the decision was made.
Gregory Boyd – God of the Possible, page 56.

Boyd tells us of a God who regrets - a God who
sorrows over decisions He has made as He is
genuinely saddened by the results of His poor
decision.

God makes a covenant with his creation that never again
will virtually everything be annihilated. The sign of the
rainbow that God gives us a reminder to himself that he
will never again tread this path. It may be the case that
although human evil caused God great pain, the destruction
of what he had made caused him even greater suffering.
Although his judgment was righteous, God decides to try
different courses of action in the future.
John Sanders – The God Who Risks, page 50.

In this quote we are told that God regrets. God
suffered greatly as a result of a decision He made
- a decision that may have been rash.
It may have been an over-reaction.

I suggested to her that God felt as much regret
over the confirmation [of marriage] he had given
Suzanne as he did about his decision to make Saul
king of Israel. Not that it was a bad decision - at the
time, her ex-husband was a good man with a godly
character.
The prospects that he and Suzanne would have a
happy marriage and fruitful ministry were, at the
time, very good. Indeed, I strongly suspect that he
had influenced Suzanne and her ex-husband
[toward] their marriage.

Because her ex-husband was a free agent, however,
even the best decisions have sad results.
Over time…[he] had opened himself up to the enemy’s
influence and became involved in an immoral relationship.
Initially, all was not lost, and God and others tried to restore
him, but he chose to resist the prompting of the Spirit.

By framing the ordeal within the context of an open future,
Suzanne was able to understand the tragedy of her life in a
new way. She didn’t have to abandon all confidence in her
ability to hear God and didn’t have to accept that somehow
God intended this ordeal “for her own good.” … This isn’t a
testimony to [God’s] exhaustive definite foreknowledge; it’s
a testimony to his unfathomable wisdom.
Gregory Boyd – God of the Possible, pages 105-106.

This has become one of the best-known defenses of
open theism and is a story that is told often.
God did the best with the information
He had at the time and confirmed a woman’s choice of
husband. But God was later surprised to see this man
prove himself anything but a good husband. God did His
best to restore this man, but was unable.
God had ultimately made a mistake in confirming
Suzanne’s choice of a spouse.

The overarching structures of creation are purposed
by God, but not every single detail that occurs within
them. Within general providence it makes sense to say
that God intends an overall purpose for the creation and
that God does not specifically intend each and every action
within the creation. Thus God does not have a specific
divine purpose for each and every occurence of evil.
The “greater good” of establishing the conditions of
fellowship between God and creatures does not mean
that gratuitous evil has a point. Rather, the possibility
of gratuitous evil has a point but its actuality does not. …
When a two-month-old child contracts a painful, incurable
bone cancer that means suffering and death, it is pointless
evil. The Holocaust is pointless evil. .. God does not have
a specific purpose in mind of these occurences.
John Sanders – The God Who Risks, pages 261-262.

Quotes like this one were used to comfort a shocked
world during the aftermath of the Tsunami of 2004.
Many professed Christians denied that God had a hand
in this disaster, and that He had foreknowledge of it.
According to Open theology, there is no purpose
in gratutious suffering and evil, and it occurs outside
the will and foreknowledge of God.

It is God’s desire that we enter into a give-and-take
relationship of love, and this is not accomplished by
God’s forcing his blueprint on us. Rather, God wants
us to go through life together with him, making decisions
together.
Together we decide the actual course of my life.
God’s will for my life does not reside in a list of specific
activities but in a personal relationship. As lover and friend,
God works with us wherever we go and whatever we do.
To a large extent our future is open and we are to determine
what it will be in dialogue with God.
John Sanders – The God Who Risks, page 277.

This quote emphasizes the reciprocal nature of the
relationship between men and God espoused by Open
Theists. Humans and God work together
to create, know and understand the future. When it
comes to the future, God is no further ahead we are
and no more responsible for what will happen.

[W]e must acknowledge that divine guidance, from
our perspective, cannot be considered a means of
discovering exactly what will be best in the long run
- as a means of discovering the very best long-term
option. Divine guidance, rather, must be viewed
primarily as a means of determining what is best
for us now.
…
[S]ince God does not necessarily know exactly what
will happen in the future, it is always possible that
even that which God in his unparalleled wisdom
believes to be the best course of action at any given
time may not produce the anticipated results in the
long run.David Basinger – The Openness
of God, pages 163 & 165.

Basinger tells us that God’s guidance is accurate
only for the present - only with a view to the knowledge
God currently posesses. Because God does not know the
future, His guidance cannot extend beyond the
present. Even the best of God’s wisdom can only
anticipate results based on current conditions.

..........................................................................................................................

i hope these quotes were helpful in understanding what it is that open theists believe. i also hope that it helps you to see the consequences of such a belief. that god knows no more about the future than you or i do, that things happen without reason and against god's will, that god can make mistakes, etc.

please feel free to comment..

does god know?

2007-09-07T00:17:00.000-04:00

i am having another bout with my back. i am currently unable to sit for longer than a few minutes, and require the assistance of a cane to walk very far. however, i have received by way of phone calls and emails lots of encouragement to pursue the topics in my last post. as always, i welcome any form of communication and dialogue, but encourage them in teh form of comments on this blog.

since i am unable to sit very long, i will just cut and paste from tim challies, who has a reputable blog with a wealth of information. the following is taken from this post from 2005.
.....................................................................................................................................................

Open theism is a relatively new doctrine that has only gained
popular prominence since 1994 with the release of the book
The Openness of God which was written by five evangelical
scholars and edited by Clark Pinnock. What began on the fringes
of scholarship has quickly gained a popular following, in part because
of the publication of entry-level titles such as Gregory Boyd’s
God of the Possible and in part because of the acceptance of the
doctrine by various popular authors.

While many evangelicals do not embrace this doctrine themselves,
they may regard it as an optional doctrine that remains within the
pale of orthodox evangelicalism. This article will define the doctrine,
describe its chief characteristics, introduce its proponents and explain
the challenge to the church.

A Definition
This is a definition I have adapted from Monergism.com.
“open theism is a sub-Christian theological construct which
claims that God’s highest goal is to enter into a reciprocal relationship
with man. In this scheme, the Bible is interpreted without any
anthropomorphisms - that is, all references to God’s feelings, surprise
and lack of knowledge are literal and the result of His choice to create a
world where He can be affected by man’s choices. God’s exhaustive
knowledge does not include future free will choices by mankind because
they have not yet occurred.”

One of the leading spokesmen of open theism, Clark Pinnock,
in describing how libertarian freedom trumps God’s omniscience
says, “Decisions not yet made do not exist anywhere to be known
even by God. They are potential—yet to be realized but not yet
actual. God can predict a great deal of what we will choose to do,
but not all of it, because some of it remains hidden in the mystery
of human freedom … The God of the Bible displays an openness
to the future (i.e. ignorance of the future) that the traditional view
of omniscience simply cannot accommodate.”
(Pinnock, “Augustine to Arminius, ” 25-26)

Defining Characteristics
Open theism is characterized in several ways:
God’s greatest attribute is love. God’s love
so overshadowsHis other characteristics that He
could never allow or condone
evil or suffering to befall mankind.

Man has libertarian free will. Man’s will has not been so effected
by the Fall that he is unable to make a choice to follow God. God
respects man’s freedom of choice and would not infringe upon it.

God does not have exhaustive knowledge of the future. Indeed,
He cannot know certain future events because the future exists
only as possibility. God is unable to see what depends on the choices
of free will agents simply because this future does not yet exist, so
it unknowable. In this way open theists attempt to reconcile this
doctrine with God’s ominiscience.

God takes risks. Because God cannot know the future,
He takes risks in many ways - creating people, giving
them gifts and abilities, and so on. Where possibilities
exist, so does risk.

God learns. Because God does not know the future
exhaustively, He learns, just as we do.

God is reactive. Because He is learning, God is constantly
reacting to the decisions we make.

God makes mistakes. Because He is learning and reacting,
always dealing with limited information, God can and does
make errors in judgment which later require re-evaluation.

God can change His mind. When God realizes He has made
an error in judgment or that things did not unfold as He supposed,
He can change His mind.

The most important thing to note is that God knows the future only
as it is not dependent on human, free-will decisions. God does not
know what any free-will agents (ie humans) will do, because those
decisions do not yet exist and God cannot know what does not exist.
God decided, in Creation, that He would limit Himself in this way in
order to give complete freedom to human beings. Therefore, God does
not know or control the future - He learns from our decisions and
constantly adapts as necessary. He often needs to change His mind
or re-evaluate His options as the future unfolds.

........................................................................................................................................

i hope you have found tim's summary helpful... and appalling.
next post we'll pick up with some of the chief proponents of this view and what they say about it.. do you see any troubling implications if this doctrine is true? do you know of any biblical support for it?

but before we get there, i would love to get your initial reactions to this doctrine that is taught in pulpits and written about in books sold in your local christian churches and bookstores.

current issues...

2007-08-31T21:37:00.000-04:00

do you know anything about...

open theism?

what about the emergent church movement?

the "new perspective" on paul?

all of these are hot button theological issues swirling around the church today.

one teaches that god does not know the future and does not have total control over the universe.

another teaches that the traditional understanding of "justification by faith alone" has been misunderstood for over 500 years.

sound unbelievable? surely no true christian would believe these... much less teach these things, right?

well... be careful what you buy in your local christian bookstore. if you're not careful you could be buying a book written by a proponent of open theism, the new perspective, the emergent church, etc.

the term "christian" has become so broad that i literally shudder to think of what people may purchase in a bookstore that they think is safe.

i intend to devote my next few posts to these issues and others. if you have any topics you would like to discuss or to understand a little better, please feel free to leave it in the comment section.
(by the way.. leaving comments does *not* require you to sign up for anything or cause you to start getting spam. you do not have to register to leave comments... i know some have had that concern)

dead dogs and dead babies...

2007-08-25T10:50:00.000-04:00

justin taylor makes a very brief yet stunning post over at his blog (which i read every day)

read it here

the nfl suspends indefinitely, michael vick for participating in the deaths of dogs.

yet the nfl team, jacksonville jaguars just donated $30,000 to planned parenthood, which supports and encourages aborting human babies.

america is a very confused and sad nation.

our willingness to overlook such glaring inconsistencies is worse..

gun control??...

2007-08-22T07:17:00.001-04:00

now those are two things id never put together...blowguns and incense...

god's name is NOT "allah"

2007-08-15T17:33:00.000-04:00

this story hit the news today...
Roman Catholic Bishop Wants Everyone to Call God 'Allah'
A proposal by a Roman Catholic bishop in the Netherlands that people of all faiths refer to God as "Allah" is not sitting well with the Catholic community. Tiny Muskens, an outgoing bishop who is retiring in a few weeks from the southern diocese of Breda, said God doesn't care what he is called. "Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? ... What does God care what we call him? It is our problem," Muskens told Dutch television.....
...Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington, D.C.-based Islamic civil liberties and advocacy group, backs the idea as a way to help interfaith understanding...."It reinforces the fact that Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same God," Hooper told FOXNews.com. "I don't think the name is as important as the belief in God and following God's moral principles. I think that's true for all faiths."

read the entire story here
here it is, folks. this is what happens when we are not clear and intentional about who we worship. the object of worship for islam, "allah" is *NOT* the same god that christians worship. the god of islam is not triune, nor did he send his son, jesus christ, to provide salvation for all who would believe.
they are NOT the same god. we must be clear about this. it is imperative to getting the gospel right.
i was actually going to blog about a slogan that has been made increasingly popular by U2 singer bono. in case you havent seen it on a t-shirt or bumper sticker, here it is.

the signs of islam, judaism, and christianity put together to form the word "coexist".

insofar as the sentiment is that among diasgreement, we should still strive to live among each other with love, i agree. but where i vehemently disagree is the notion, as it is often presented, that it doesnt matter which faith is yours, they are all equal.

this is simply not true. and the thing is, not one of these three religions, if taken from their orthodox and historic positions, would agree that any other religion is valid. each one claims that it is the only true way to god.

the words of the apostle paul in galations 1 serve us well here...

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. (gal. 1:6-9)

let us refuse to further this nonsense that all religions are equal as long as they are sincerely believed. of course we should point these truths out in a spirit of love and with patience. but we are not loving anyone by letting them believe a lie that will send them to hell to endure the wrath of god for eternity.

i would rather offend someone's sense of "tolerance" than further this lie.

i'm not "reverend"

2007-08-14T19:59:00.000-04:00

my ordination council meeting was this past sunday afternoon.
for over 90 minutes i was questioned and examined by laymen, local ministers and renowned theologians who were attempting to discern whether or not i am truly called by the lord to be a minister of the gospel. it was a most humbling experience. by the grace of god and by his calling the council approved me and recommended me for ordination.

some may wonder why such scrutiny? why such examination? if someone feels called by the lord to be a pastor, shouldn't we just be thankful and send them on their way?

well, if the large and ever growing list of people who "used" to be a pastor is any indication, we should worry less about being too careful and be much more concerned that we are too quick to affirm that someone is indeed called. also long is the list of those who introduce themselves with a title denoting ministry, yet live live marked by other things.

i was reading a news story earlier and two names that are frequently in the news appeared. they are both designated as christian leaders/preachers with the title "reverend" in front of their name. but i would venture to say that what these men are known for is far removed from the gospel of christ. that is not to say that ministers cannot be involved in causes of human and equal rights.. our own nation's history, indeed world history, is a testament that they have been and should be. but in the cases of these two men (and there are others), though they have "rev." in front of their name, what they are known for is not the gospel.

the difficulty is that examination must not stop with public figures.

i have been and will continue to go to great lengths to emphasize that after my ordination this week that i will be no more special or loved by god than those to whom i preach every week. but as a minister, my reputation should be first and foremost "one who is a minister of the gospel of jesus christ". but even if i were not a pastor, simply by being a christian, one who "is a follower of jesus christ", i should be known as one who promotes the gospel of my namesake.
ministers aren't the only ones who should be known as those who point to christ.

if we are known by anyone as "christian", when they observe our lives what are we pointing them to? if they were to give a description of us, would "love of god with heart soul mind and strength" be mentioned as what makes us who we are?

are we known more for the causes we are against, the things we hate, issues that make us angry, or our favorite sports team, music, movies, tv shows? or are we known as people who love and strive to obey christ?

we need to stop compartmentalizing our lives. "christian" is not part of who we are.. it *is* who we are. it is not one item on a list of our hobbies or interests.

we are not doctors, teachers, students, school board members, office employees, athletes, or musicians who are christians.

rather, we are christians who are doctors, teachers, students, school board members, office employees, athletes, and musicians.

there is a difference, and that difference is what changes lives.

may god grant us this grace...

by this my father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so
prove to be my disciples- john 15:8

rest...

2007-08-07T00:15:00.000-04:00

i have received emails inquiring about my lack of posting recently. there are several answers to the question, so i thought i would answer them all at once.

#1- i have a 10 week old baby boy....enough said

#2 - this summer i took a class that required over 1,500 pages of reading in addition to a lengthy position paper that has consumed the bulk of any free time i have had since may.

#3 - i had to finish another writing assignment for a lifeway publication

#4 - i have degenerative disc disease. i had surgery in 1999, and from time to time have flare ups. for the first couple of weeks of july i was in bed due to a major flare up in the form of a herniated disc that was/is rubbing against nerve endings in my spine that cause burning and numbness in my leg. i start 12 weeks of physical therapy tomorrow. i would appreciate your prayers that the lord would see fit to heal me totally so that i may return to a "normal" lifestyle, despite my undeservingness.

i appreciate all of the emails and other contacts i regularly receive because of this blog. what began as an attempt to cure a bout with insomnia has become a regular part of my life. though i rarely (if ever) have any original thoughts, i am amazed that so many people read this blog. since july of last year, this blog has been visited over 7,500 times and from all across the globe. (some of these were surely lost travelers on the information superhighway!) it is a humble reminder to me that if i am to speak with confidence, to speak the truths of god's word. i am sure i may have failed at times, but i pray that my intentions are always to honor the lord with the content of this blog.

my final year of seminary begins one week from today. i will be taking the rest of this week off in order to just rest and continue to recover from this back injury. lord willing, i am also being ordained in two weeks (assuming that i pass my ordination council this week!), so i need to study and prepare for that as well.

that said, i do intend to begin posting regularly soon. in 2005 (starting in june) i posted only 24 times. last year, 36 times. already this year i am over 50. i have no number that i am shooting for, but it has been a good exercise for ordering my thoughts and thinking through certain issues. thank you for thinking through them with me. please continue to send feedback. i get quite a bit through email, but please feel free to leave a comment on the blog itself.

since i will be taking an intentional break from posting for the next week, i wanted to leave you with some links of blogs that i have found to be very informative without feeling like i am doing homework.

justin taylor

desiring god

al mohler

enjoy these sites, and i hope that you will return here in a week or so. in the meantime, i ask that you pray for my back, as well that colossians 1:9-10 would be true in my life as i strive to be a better follower of christ, and a better husband, father, pastor, teacher, writer, and friend.

in christ alone,
stephen

when bridges fall and people die

2007-08-02T00:26:00.000-04:00

why give my own thoughts on this tragedy when pastor piper has said it all...
i post his blog post in its entireity.

At about 6 PM tonight the bridge of Interstate 35W over the
Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed. I am writing this
about three hours after the bridge fell. The bridge is located
within sight of Bethlehem Baptist Church. Most of us
who minister at the church cross this bridge several times a week.
At this point I don’t know if any staff was on the bridge.
Desiring God offices are about a mile from the bridge.

There are no firm facts at this point about the total number
of injuries and fatalities. When we crossed the bridge Tuesday
on our way out of town, there was extensive repair work
happening on the surface of the bridge with single lane traffic.
One speculates about the unusual stresses on the bridge with
jackhammers and other surface replacement equipment. This was
the fortieth anniversary of the bridge.

Tonight for our family devotions our appointed reading was
Luke 13:1-9. It was not my choice. This is surely no coincidence.
O that all of the Twin Cities, in shock at this major calamity, would
hear what Jesus has to say about it from Luke 13:1-5. People came
to Jesus with heart-wrenching news about the slaughter of worshipers
by Pilate. Here is what he said.

There were some present at that very time who told him about
the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he
answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all
the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but
unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the
tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse
offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless
you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Jesus implies that those who brought him this news thought
he would say that those who died, deserved to die, and that
those who didn’t die did not deserve to die. That is not what
he said.
He said, everyone deserves to die. And if you and I don’t
repent, we too will perish. This is a stunning response. It
only makes sense from a view of reality that is radically oriented on God.

All of us have sinned against God, not just against man. This is an outrage ten thousand times worse than the collapse of the 35W bridge. That any human is breathing at this minute on this planet is sheer mercy from God. God makes the sun rise and the rain fall on those who do not treasure him above all else. He causes the heart to beat and the lungs to work for millions of people who deserve his wrath. This a view of reality that desperately needs to be taught in our churches, so that we are prepared for the calamities of the world.

The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that John Piper is a sinner and should repent or forfeit his life forever. That means I should turn from the silly preoccupations of my life and focus my mind’s attention and my heart’s affection on God and embrace Jesus Christ as my only hope for the forgiveness of my sins and for the hope of eternal life. That is God’s message in the collapse of this bridge. That is his most merciful message: there is still time to turn from sin and unbelief and destruction for those of us who live. If we could see the eternal calamity from which he is offering escape we would hear this as the most precious message in the world.

We prayed during our family devotions. Talitha (11 years old)
and Noel and I prayed earnestly for the families affected by the
calamity and for the others in our city. Talitha prayed “Please don’t
let anyone blame God for this but give thanks that they were saved.”
When I sat on her bed and tucked her in and blessed her
and sang over her a few minutes ago, I said, “You know, Talitha, that was
a good prayer, because when people ‘blame’ God for something, they are
angry with him, and they are saying that he has done something wrong.
That’s what “blame” means: accuse somebody of wrongdoing. But you and I know that God did not do anything wrong. God always does what is wise. And you and I know that God could have held up that bridge with one hand.” Talitha said, “With his pinky.” “Yes,” I said, “with his pinky. Which means that God had a purpose for not holding up that bridge, knowing all that would happen, and he is infinitely wise in all that he wills.”

Talitha said, “Maybe he let it fall because he wanted all the people
of Minneapolis to fear him.” “Yes, Talitha,” I said, “I am sure that is one of
the reasons God let the bridge fall.”

I sang to her the song I always sing,

Come rest your head and nestle gently
And do not fear the dark of night.
Almighty God keeps watch intently,
And guards your life with all his might.
Doubt not his love, nor power to keep,
He never fails, nor does he sleep.

I said, “You know, Talitha, that is true whether you die in a bridge
collapse, or in a car accident, or from cancer, or terrorism, or old age. God
always keeps you, even when you die. So you don’t need to be afraid, do you.”
“No,” she shook her head. I leaned down and kissed her. “Good night. I love
you.”

Tonight across the Twin Cities families are wondering if they will
ever kiss a loved one good night again. Some will not. I am praying that they
will find Jesus Christ to be their Rock and Refuge in these agonizing hours of
uncertainty and even loss.

The word “bridge” does not occur in the Bible.
There may be two reasons. One is that God doesn’t build bridges, he divides
seas. The other is that usually his people must pass through the deadly currents
of suffering and death, not simply ride over them. “When you pass through the
waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm
you” (Isaiah 43:2). They may drown you. But I will be with you in life and
death.
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or
distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is
written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as
sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors
through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life . . .
will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Killed all day long. But not separated from Christ. We go through the river.
Not over it. He went before us, crucified. He came out on the other side. He
knows the way through. With him we will make it. That is the message we have for
the precious sinners in the Twin Cities. He died for your sins. He rose again.
He saves all who trust him. We die, but because of him, we do not die.
Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he
die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never
die.”

Talitha is sleeping now. But one day she will die. I teach her this. I
will not always be there to bless her. But Jesus is alive and is the same
yesterday today and forever. He will be with her because she trusts him. And she
will make it through the river.
Weeping with those who weep, and those who should,
Pastor John

Psalm 71:20 You who have made me see many troubles
and calamities will revive me again.

on the need to read...

2007-07-21T12:38:00.000-04:00

i often reference books and authors on this site and to members of my church and others who i come into contact with.

often i get a response of "i don't like to read" or some variation of it.

while i understand the sentiment of not doing things that one doesn't enjoy, i am becoming more and more convinced as i get older that reading is in a category that is exempt from "i don't like it so i don't do it".

i am tempted to compare it to eating vegetables even when you don't like them, but that is too negative of a comparison. i think a lot of times we say we don't like something without knowing if we do or not. (again.. the food comparison).

how do we continually grow in our faith if we don't read? we can listen to sermons and participate in dialogue, but those are, for the most part, passive interactions and where they are more active, they are dependent on information we already have.

how are we continuing to learn and grow and sharpen our minds?

at least one answer is "by reading."

i came across this excellent article over at the desiring god blog. here are some excerpts:

Christians are people of the book: God purposely chose
the medium of typography to deliver his revelation to us.
In that book, we are commanded to love God with our
hearts and our minds (Matthew 22:34-40). This gives
Christians a clear command to use their intellects —
to be, in other words, a kind of intellectual.

Reading is one of the best ways to develop our minds.
It can help us to know God and ourselves, gain vicarious
experience, increase our perception and imagination,
train our minds to think critically and logically, and
teach us self-discipline. (For more on this, see Neil
Postman's excellent Amusing Ourselves to Death.)

But we have a problem: our culture is becoming aliterate.
We have the ability to read but not the desire.
Or maybe some of us have the desire but not the time.
We make time to watch television and surf
the Internet for the latest triviality, but we
can't seem to make the time to sit down and read for an hour.

Christians should be readers. We should read and meditate
on the Bible, of course, but we should also read theology.
Good theology systematizes and explains the Bible in ways
we would be pressed to come up with on our own. Few of us
are a Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, J. I. Packer or John Piper,
and we would be wise to learn from them.

...

to be a reader doesn't mean you have to read only large books with hundreds of pages full of words that you don't understand. there are many books written specifically for those who want to grow in their understanding without demanding a degree in literature or theology.

if you were to only read 20 pages a day, a great number of books could be read in less than 2 weeks.

here are a few that contain a wealth of information good for the heart and mind that are easily accessible. (click titles for links)

the dangerous duty of delight by john piper

knowing god by j.i. packer

the holiness of god by r.c. sproul

what is a healthy church? by mark dever

according to plan by graeme goldsworthy

christian beliefs:20 basics every christian should know by wayne grudem

the pope says my church is not a church...

2007-07-18T21:13:00.000-04:00

this is some old news, but i have been having a battle with my back the past two weeks and haven't been at the computer often.

in case you missed it, in the last week or so, pope benedict made the declaration (or, more accurately, reaffirmed the catholic churches teaching) that the only true church is the roman catholic church.

read news article here[HT:brandon hall]

the argument is that the catholic church is the true church based, at least in part, on its misinterpretation of matthew 16:16-19.

this is another instance where as christians who are not roman catholic need to learn our church history! why aren't we catholic? what events led to the split? who were the key figures and why? what were the major doctrines that were in question? what has happened since then?

for answers and very intriguing reading, i suggest stephen j. nichols' book, the reformation:how a monk and a mallet changed the world , and timothy george's theology of the reformers.

these are things we need to know in order to discuss these issues. if someone were to ask you why you are not roman catholic, could you answer them coherently?

i will say this for the pope (as others have), i admire his unflinching fist wave in the face of the postmodern thought of "accept everyone as they are!!" if only we as protestants would have such firm conviction.

here's the church, here's the steeple, open it up, where's the gospel?

2007-07-12T05:57:00.000-04:00

less than 200 yards from my house is a large church building. i have nothing against large church buildings. no matter what the size, as long as the gospel is proclaimed and the god who is worshipped is the one true god, it matters little if the building seats thousands or barely 100, as my own does.

the size of this church is not what bothers me. what does bother me is that this past sunday, they cancelled their morning "worship services" and instead showed the movie "evan almighty". if thats not enough, you had to pay to get in.

set aside for a moment whether or not the movie itself is worth seeing. i have no idea, i haven't seen it, though i have said i would like to. whether or not the movie is good or not isn't the point.

the point is this. what in the world does it say about our view of god and his deservingness of our worship when we cancel services said aside to corporately proclaim his glory and majesty and to spend time in his word in order to show a movie?

what does it tell church members about the priority of the leadership? what does it tell visitors about the god the church claims to worship and his holiness? what does it say to the lost about the need for christ? what does it say to the community about the value of this church's worship?

i am not anti-hollywood. i am not anti "evan almighty". but i am anti trivialization of the worship of the holy and mighty god of the universe who demands that we worship him in spirit and in truth - not in technicolor, surround sound and high definition.

here is another blogpost concerning the same event

HT: ron kinzel

baptist press with a log in its eye...

2007-06-30T16:10:00.000-04:00

i have posted several times about the large contrast between the southern baptist convention's reported membership of over 16 million, and the actual reported attendance of just over 6 million. [see here] and here]

the past two years at the annual sbc meeting, the executive committee has decided *not* to allow a vote calling the churches to integrity in church membership.

if almost 2/3 of our "members" on the rolls do not attend, why do we count them as members?

yet when mentioned in national media reports the SBC, is always described with the "16 million member" designation.

for an example, see this article written june 16 of this month, note the "16.3 million-strong" designation in the second paragraph.

16.3 million strong? how is it "strong" when over 10 million out of 16 do not go to church?

where do these media outlets get this number?

from the SBC.

with this in mind, i find it interesting that the SBC's own media outlet, baptist press, chose to run an article on the lack of honesty in the reporting of numbers in another baptist denomination [read story here]

hello, pot?
meet kettle.

when i read this article, i couldn't help but think of jesus' words in matthew 7:2-5 :

For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by
your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye,
but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how
can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of
your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You
hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then
you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

may the lord grant our denomination the integrity to be honest about our own numbers, and humility when seeing the same lack of in others.

[HT: tom ascol/founder's blog]

exposed in public

2007-06-25T22:33:00.000-04:00

what if we all had to wear signs listing our sins?

A Tennessee mother fed up with her daughter's misbehavior
took an unusual tack in for latest punishment, making her
stand on a busy street corner with an attention-getting sign.
Tashara Wilkins, 13, held a sign Sunday reading, "I don't obey
my parents, I'm a liar. I steal from my mom. I
have a bad attitude."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286676,00.html

those who have grown up in church have heard it said a million times that god sees everything, even what we do in private.

but why is it that we cringe at the thought of publicly displaying our sins but knowing that the lord sees all doesnt phase us?
we go through our day so care free when no one else knows of the hatred, resentment, jealousy, lust, in our hearts. how do we get through our day without feeling mortified?
we shudder and feel sick at the shame we would feel if anyone knew *everything* we have done, still do, think and feel.

yet someone does know.

why do *i* do these things?

it is because we fear what other finite people think of us. we want to protect our reputation. we want to be liked. we want to be thought well of. and as long as we can keep these things secret, we can have them.

its not the shame of the actions, attitude, or thought.. its the shame of being caught. as long as we can keep them hidden, we are ok with doing these things.

so what does that say about how much we value god ?

do we fear god because of his holiness or are we simply scared of being caught and being punished?

do we hate sin because it makes us feel guilty, or because god calls us to be holy and sin keeps us from that?

o that the lord (who sees what is done in secret [matt.6]) would grant me a hatred for sin, and that i would be more humiliated for sinning once against my god than a thousand evil deeds exposed before men.