I have never been able to agree with limited atonement doctrine, for all kinds of reasons. Strict Calvinists believe that Christ died only for the sins of the elect, and no one else. There are a host of problems I see with the third leaf in the TULIP.
First and foremost is that there are certain verses which flat-out contradict it. Isaiah 53:6 says that the number of people who went astray is equal to the number of people whose iniquities fell upon Him. There's no getting around the grammar of the verse. Even if you limit that verse to the people of Israel, it's still saying that all the iniquities of all Israelites were laid on the Messiah.
1 John 2:2 says that Christ's death propitiated the sins of "the whole world". This is not saying that Christ propitiated the sins of Gentiles as well as Jews. This exact same phrase, "whole world", is used in 5:19 -- same book, same author. "The whole world" refers to everyone over whom Satan rules. In light of this explicit definition, "whole world" clearly does not mean "all races, as opposed to just the Jews." That's a dodge created by strict Calvinists to distort the meaning of the verse so it fits into the Procrustean bed of the system.
1 Corinthians 15:1-3, esp. 3, says that Paul preached to the unsaved Corinthians that Christ died for "our" sins. Paul wasn't retroactively modifying what he preached. He says that this is the same Gospel that he preached, past tense, to you, by which you were saved. Paul told all the unsaved Corinthians, the eternal destiny of whom he knew nothing, that Jesus Christ died for their sins. How could Paul make a promise like that? Paul didn't preach that Xhrist died for the vaguely-defined sins of artfully-undefined "sinners." That is the Sophist word trick that many Reformed preachers use. Paul didn't know who the elect were, but he told the Corinthians, without discrimination, that Christ died for their sins.
Limited atonement doctrine removes the Lord's redemptive right to offer forgiveness indiscriminately. In order for God to be both just and justifier (as Paul says in Romans 3:26), the Lord needs a redemptive ground on which to make an offer. The Lord cannot offer anyone forgiveness if He doesn't have the just right to do so. If Christ didn't die for everyone's sins, then the Lord is compromising His own holiness by making an indiscriminate offer of forgiveness. But Christ's cross frees God to offer forgiveness to everyone. Limited atonement doctrine also entangles God in dishonesty. He's offering something He did not provide, indeed never intended from all eternity to provide, and so is pretending. This is bad.
Limited atonement doctrine also removes the cross as an object of faith. Since we, not being God, can't know for whom Christ died, then that means we can't know if Christ died for us. We can't know if Christ died for us after believing Christ, any more than we could know before! After all, we still have no historical ground for faith. Contrary to some of the heretical things that Zane Hodges taught near the end of his life, the cross is not a dispensable part of the Gospel message.
Being mystically convinced within isn't knowing, and inward mystical insight is contradictory to how God communicates Gospel truth to men everywhere else in Scripture. The New Testament never turns the doubting Christian's mind inward, as the antidote to doubt. It always turns the doubting mind outward, to the objective facts of the cross and the resurrection. Considering that there is the problem of false faith and delusion, turning doubter's minds inward to navel-gaze whether or not their inward faith is actually faith is just to make matters worse.
I believe limited atonement is why Reformed Christians have a reputation of struggling so mightily with assurance of their own salvation. Limited atonement doctrine means you have no objective, historical way of knowing whether or not Christ died for your sins. If Christ died for everyone, then you can know He died for you. If Christ only died for the elect, and only God knows who the elect are (including whether or not you are among the elect), then it's impossible to know if Christ died for you, and as a result you can't be sure you're saved.
Answer to Derek, because my computer at work is acting funky and won't let me post a reply in the commbox: Usually the controversial stuff is the stuff that people care about, and so carries a lot of significance!
Unlimited in potential, limited only to those who exercise faith.
What strict Calvinists like Gerstner did was treat the atonement as a commercial exchange, like paying off somebody's mortgage at the bank with or without their co-signage.
But Romans 3:25 says that Christ's death only propitiates God's wrath for us on the condition of faith. The strict Reformed view (i.e., Sproul, Gerstner) makes faith a consequence of the atonement; Romans 3:25 makes faith the means by which one appropriates the atonement. Those are two really different ideas.
So the typical Reformed objections to general atonement, that it inevitably leads to universalism, or amounts to double jeopardy for the sinner in hell, are misguided. The atonement works just like the examples in the Old Testament. The paschal lamb was slain, but the blood had to be individually applied to the doorposts and lintels, otherwise the death angel would have struck down first-born Jews, too. The worshiper who brought a sacrifice to the tabernacle had to lay his hand on its head before the priest slayed it, thus signifying it as a stand-in. The bronze serpent on Moses' pole had the potential power to heal everyone without exception of snakebite, but the individual had to look at it. In no cases did the OT types of atomement work unilaterally.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The few true Christians left in The Episcopal Church need to get out of it!
From VirtueOnline:
The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori derided individual salvation calling it 'the great Western heresy: that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God.'
In her opening address to the church's General Conference in California, Jefferts Schori said it was a "heresy" to believe that an individual can be saved through personal faith and trust in Jesus Christ acknowledged in a prayer of repentance.
http://www.virtueonline.o...rticle.php?storyid=10782
The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori derided individual salvation calling it 'the great Western heresy: that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God.'
In her opening address to the church's General Conference in California, Jefferts Schori said it was a "heresy" to believe that an individual can be saved through personal faith and trust in Jesus Christ acknowledged in a prayer of repentance.
http://www.virtueonline.o...rticle.php?storyid=10782
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Mark Dever Accuses the EFCA of Sinning!
Well, not exactly. He says that any church group that requires an acceptance of premillennialism is sinning. My first impulse is to say that Mark Dever is sinning by not allowing infant baptism in his church, right? Or is that different for some reason?
Being accused of sin bugs me, especially when what I'm being accused of isn't a sin, and when the idea behind it -- that millennial view shave no practical impact on Christian spirituality or world missions -- is so wrong.
Millennial beliefs have practical consequences. Anyone who says they don't is ignorant of church history. The apostle Paul thought eschatology was so important that he excommunicated three men for being preterists. Alexander, Hymenaeus, and Philetus were three men who taught that the general resurrection had already taken place (2 Timothy 2:18), which is what preterism teaches. Paul compared this teaching to gangrene (v. 17). Their bizarre eschatological iudeas reflected their defective faith and bad consciences, and their faith was wrecked (1 Timothy 1:19). Eschatological error was so important in this case that Paul turned them over to Satan, so that they would learn not to blaspheme (v. 20).
So-called "partial" preterism, which teaches that most of the events described in the book of Revelation happened at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, maintains its partialness only by brute force of will. Partial preterists like R.C. Sproul still maintain a future return of Christ, and a future resurrection of the just and the unjust. This keeps the partial preterist just within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. But there is no good reason for it. The interpretive method that leads the partial preterist to say that everything described in Revelation 4-19 already happened back in 70 AD should be applied to Revelation 19-22 for the sake of consistency.
But the informed partial preterist knows that "Danger Lies There", and so they pull the horses up short at rRvelation 19. But there's no good logical reason that they should, given their method of interpretation and their hostility to premillennialism. Preterism was a bad enough error that Paul excommunicated 2-3 people by name for holding an ancient, protean form of it.
Postmillenialism teaches the Church that not only is it our task to conquer the world, but that we will be successful at doing so! This teaching results because the postmillennialist takes all of the Old Testament predictions of a militarily victorious Israel, and applies them to the Christian Church. This is the inevitable side-effect of post-millennialism, which is simply a tweak of amillennialism. Postmillennialism is a member of the amillennial "family." If amillennialism wasn't first accepted, postmillennialism wouldn't exist.
Under the influence of postmillennialism, it isn't long before the Christian Church pours millions of dollars and man-hours into a fruitless crusade to Christianize the existing world order. Somehow, we're told that we will turn the darkness to light, in spite of the fact that the unregenerate mind cannot obey the laws of God (Romans 8:6-9), and Satan rules the entire unregenerate world (1 John 5:18-19, Ephesians 2:1-2). Instead, amillennialism and postmillennialism teach us the dangerously stupid idea that Satan is bound.
Basically, postmillennialism teaches us that we are going to bring in the Millennium! This is insane. Eventually postmillennial Christians are forced to water down what the Millennium is supposed to look like, so that we can make lame claims that it was come, sort of, a little bit. As in one case, in which I was told that Jonas Salk discovering the vaccine for polio was an aspect of the Millennium. Please! We should not defame God's great and glorious future work this way!
Entire churches are being split into pieces by people following the radical teaching sof divisive organizations like Vision Forum, which is busily teaching postmillennialism to unsuspecting home school families all over the country. Vision Forum is a Theonomist organization, dedicated to the anti-Reformed/anti-Westminster Confession of Faith dogma that the civil laws of Israel should be imposed on Gentile nations. It is allied with their postmillennialism, which causes local churches to attack the civil order, not on the basis of being salt and light in the community, but with the goal of creating a Protestant theocracy now. The Christ who told Peter, "Put down your sword" is replaced with an avenging Christ clothed in garments stained purple with the blood of His enemies. This is the fruit postmillennialism eventually brings you. It regresses the church back to a European-style merger of church and style, which is everything the Free Church stands against!
Let no one be so dense as to preach that millennial views are irrelevant, or mere academic games, or that they have no vital, direct affect on the life and mission of the local church, or the mindset of the individual Christian! People who say that are quite flatly wrong. These are good and compelling reasons to maintain premillennialism as a standard of doctrine and fellowship. Premillennialism teaches us the right view of the future coming of Jesus Christ and our gathering together with Him. It represents the Reformation method of interpretation, the historical-grammatical method, but with this change -- it reflects that method when it is consistently applied to prophecy.
Premillennialism teaches us the right view of the relationship between Church and State, and keeps up from kingdom-on-earth dreams. What it's critics deride as pre-mil pessimism is, in reality, reality, and it is they who are infected with utopian fanaticism.
Being accused of sin bugs me, especially when what I'm being accused of isn't a sin, and when the idea behind it -- that millennial view shave no practical impact on Christian spirituality or world missions -- is so wrong.
Millennial beliefs have practical consequences. Anyone who says they don't is ignorant of church history. The apostle Paul thought eschatology was so important that he excommunicated three men for being preterists. Alexander, Hymenaeus, and Philetus were three men who taught that the general resurrection had already taken place (2 Timothy 2:18), which is what preterism teaches. Paul compared this teaching to gangrene (v. 17). Their bizarre eschatological iudeas reflected their defective faith and bad consciences, and their faith was wrecked (1 Timothy 1:19). Eschatological error was so important in this case that Paul turned them over to Satan, so that they would learn not to blaspheme (v. 20).
So-called "partial" preterism, which teaches that most of the events described in the book of Revelation happened at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, maintains its partialness only by brute force of will. Partial preterists like R.C. Sproul still maintain a future return of Christ, and a future resurrection of the just and the unjust. This keeps the partial preterist just within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. But there is no good reason for it. The interpretive method that leads the partial preterist to say that everything described in Revelation 4-19 already happened back in 70 AD should be applied to Revelation 19-22 for the sake of consistency.
But the informed partial preterist knows that "Danger Lies There", and so they pull the horses up short at rRvelation 19. But there's no good logical reason that they should, given their method of interpretation and their hostility to premillennialism. Preterism was a bad enough error that Paul excommunicated 2-3 people by name for holding an ancient, protean form of it.
Postmillenialism teaches the Church that not only is it our task to conquer the world, but that we will be successful at doing so! This teaching results because the postmillennialist takes all of the Old Testament predictions of a militarily victorious Israel, and applies them to the Christian Church. This is the inevitable side-effect of post-millennialism, which is simply a tweak of amillennialism. Postmillennialism is a member of the amillennial "family." If amillennialism wasn't first accepted, postmillennialism wouldn't exist.
Under the influence of postmillennialism, it isn't long before the Christian Church pours millions of dollars and man-hours into a fruitless crusade to Christianize the existing world order. Somehow, we're told that we will turn the darkness to light, in spite of the fact that the unregenerate mind cannot obey the laws of God (Romans 8:6-9), and Satan rules the entire unregenerate world (1 John 5:18-19, Ephesians 2:1-2). Instead, amillennialism and postmillennialism teach us the dangerously stupid idea that Satan is bound.
Basically, postmillennialism teaches us that we are going to bring in the Millennium! This is insane. Eventually postmillennial Christians are forced to water down what the Millennium is supposed to look like, so that we can make lame claims that it was come, sort of, a little bit. As in one case, in which I was told that Jonas Salk discovering the vaccine for polio was an aspect of the Millennium. Please! We should not defame God's great and glorious future work this way!
Entire churches are being split into pieces by people following the radical teaching sof divisive organizations like Vision Forum, which is busily teaching postmillennialism to unsuspecting home school families all over the country. Vision Forum is a Theonomist organization, dedicated to the anti-Reformed/anti-Westminster Confession of Faith dogma that the civil laws of Israel should be imposed on Gentile nations. It is allied with their postmillennialism, which causes local churches to attack the civil order, not on the basis of being salt and light in the community, but with the goal of creating a Protestant theocracy now. The Christ who told Peter, "Put down your sword" is replaced with an avenging Christ clothed in garments stained purple with the blood of His enemies. This is the fruit postmillennialism eventually brings you. It regresses the church back to a European-style merger of church and style, which is everything the Free Church stands against!
Let no one be so dense as to preach that millennial views are irrelevant, or mere academic games, or that they have no vital, direct affect on the life and mission of the local church, or the mindset of the individual Christian! People who say that are quite flatly wrong. These are good and compelling reasons to maintain premillennialism as a standard of doctrine and fellowship. Premillennialism teaches us the right view of the future coming of Jesus Christ and our gathering together with Him. It represents the Reformation method of interpretation, the historical-grammatical method, but with this change -- it reflects that method when it is consistently applied to prophecy.
Premillennialism teaches us the right view of the relationship between Church and State, and keeps up from kingdom-on-earth dreams. What it's critics deride as pre-mil pessimism is, in reality, reality, and it is they who are infected with utopian fanaticism.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Patience, Forbearance, and Self-Control
Patience: The ability to endure problems, obstacles, and hardships over a long period of time, in pursuit of a God-honoring goal.
Forbearance: The ability to graciously overlook the sins, faults, mistakes, and irritations committed by others against you.
Self-control: The ability to act on God's principles of right conduct rather than impulse, especially in the area of sexuality.
We Americans are drowning in a toxic sea of self-indulgence.
We expect all our wars to be all wrapped up by the next election cycle, that nothing is worth dying for, and if any soldiers are killed then we need to immediately quit.
We're taught that there's no connection whatsoever between how people act in the bedroom and their actual character. Then we're shocked when people who act like pigs in one part of their lives act like pigs in every other part of their lives.
Christians make millionaires out of preachers who claim they can teach you how to get instant power, instant prosperity, and infallibly successful churches.
We like patience, forbearance, and self-control when people show them toward us, but we dislike the process of achieving these qualities for ourselves.
We like hope, but we don't like troubles. "We glory in our troubles because we know that life's troubles brings about perseverance, perseverance brings about proven character, and proven character brings about hope" (Romans 5:3). The opposite of hope is despair, and who wants to live life in despair? That's a horrible way to live. So we know living a life filled with hope in God's goodness is a wonderful way to live -- but we don't like the training program.
We like maturity, but we don't like trials. "Consider it all joy, brothers, when you run into various trials, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance have its perfect result, so that you can be mature, complete, with no deficiencies" (James 1:2-4). The opposite of maturity is immaturity, and the opposite of completeness is deficiency. Does anyone want to be an immature, deficient person! I don't think so. But we sure do wish there was some other way to get there.
We love the assurance of our salvation, but we don't like the fiery testing of our faith. "For a little while you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, which is more precious than perishable gold, may be found to result in praise, glory, and honor at Christ's return" (1 Peter 1:6-7). When your faith in Christ survives the fire of life's problems, it proves that your faith was and is real. This is different from the rocky-soil Christian in Jesus' parable, whose false faith withers up to nothing as soon as the heat of life's trials hits it. So it's exciting to know that Christ will point to how our faith endured life's trials, as proof that we were real Christians and may enter Paradise. But that doesn't mean we like the trials.
Patience, forbearance, and self-control are what God expects out of us toward each other in the church.
Here's an old poem I read somewhere:
"To be above with saints we love,
Oh yes that will be glory.
But to be below, with the saints we know,
well, that's a different story!"
How does these qualities actually work out in real life?
We start by accepting the responsibility to control ourselves. "Exploding" is not an option. "Tearing into" or "lambasting" someone is not an option. Amusing ourselves at someone else's expense is not an option. There are some Christians who need to learn that it's not OK to yell at people. This was a very bad habit I developed at the Christian school in Houston, and it's taken me years to unlearn it.
We don't blame our temperaments. "Controlling myself" means I do what I should do in spite of my temperament. I might be a naturally timid person who dreads confrontation. I accept that I will be courageous and speak truth for the honor of Christ in spite of my selfish timidity. I might have sarcasm that just naturally spews out of my mouth. I accept that I will learn how to substitute soft words for harsh ones, and wipe the mockery out of my voice. I might have a flirtation gene that lights up within twenty paces of a pretty face. I accept that I'll control my thoughts, my tone, and my body language. I might be naturally strong-willed and independent. I accept that I will learn how to be a team player. In other words, it doesn't matter what my temperament is like. Self-control means doing whatever is right, regardless of what comes naturally. The Holy Spirit can conquer any temperament.
I also don't blame my physical body for my lack of self-control. I'm talking about normal people, not unusual cases like someone with a brain tumor that harms the brain. The physical body doesn't cause lust. Jesus had a fully physical male body, and He never lusted. It's that our souls are so weak, and our love of pleasure is so strong. It's like our soul is a child strapped to the back of a huge bucking bronco. Our souls are so weak, spiritually, we have almost no control of the horse. Lust is about releasing excitement chemicals into our brain. It's about self-centeredness and vanity. It's a godless way of alleviating boredom or loneliness. It's about novelty. It's about attention. It's about the adrenaline of thinking you're getting away with something. In other words, according to Solomon, it's an expression of our deeply-rooted foolishness.
Concluding Thoughts
This is what God is like. God is patient. In this chess-match with Satan, He's not playing speed chess, God is playing the "long game." God is forbearing. The Scripture says that God is "slow to anger." I believe He chooses to overlook 99% of our sinning. God is self-controlled. God never explodes, with either anger or tears. Unlike us, God never acts on impulses. So this morning I'm not just commending these positive qualities because they're beneficial, but because they're Godlike. So, if we're His children, it's right that we should have them.
Wisdom is how we attain these three qualities. Trials alone won't do it. Solomon said you can grind a fool in a wheat grinder, and you still won't grind the foolishness out of him (Pr. 27:22). You can suffer, but if you suffer with no wisdom, you won't learn anything. Solomon says in many of the early chapters of Proverbs that the reason a young man gives into lust is because of foolishness. People who are impatient, quick to take offense, and impulsive are that way because, first of all, they're foolish. This is why you must saturate your brain in the Bible. Foolishness is rooted in our minds, deep down like the root of a dandelion. Some churches just teach you to snip off the flower. We don't want that. We want you to dig all the roots of foolishness out of yourself.
Forbearance: The ability to graciously overlook the sins, faults, mistakes, and irritations committed by others against you.
Self-control: The ability to act on God's principles of right conduct rather than impulse, especially in the area of sexuality.
We Americans are drowning in a toxic sea of self-indulgence.
We expect all our wars to be all wrapped up by the next election cycle, that nothing is worth dying for, and if any soldiers are killed then we need to immediately quit.
We're taught that there's no connection whatsoever between how people act in the bedroom and their actual character. Then we're shocked when people who act like pigs in one part of their lives act like pigs in every other part of their lives.
Christians make millionaires out of preachers who claim they can teach you how to get instant power, instant prosperity, and infallibly successful churches.
We like patience, forbearance, and self-control when people show them toward us, but we dislike the process of achieving these qualities for ourselves.
We like hope, but we don't like troubles. "We glory in our troubles because we know that life's troubles brings about perseverance, perseverance brings about proven character, and proven character brings about hope" (Romans 5:3). The opposite of hope is despair, and who wants to live life in despair? That's a horrible way to live. So we know living a life filled with hope in God's goodness is a wonderful way to live -- but we don't like the training program.
We like maturity, but we don't like trials. "Consider it all joy, brothers, when you run into various trials, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance have its perfect result, so that you can be mature, complete, with no deficiencies" (James 1:2-4). The opposite of maturity is immaturity, and the opposite of completeness is deficiency. Does anyone want to be an immature, deficient person! I don't think so. But we sure do wish there was some other way to get there.
We love the assurance of our salvation, but we don't like the fiery testing of our faith. "For a little while you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, which is more precious than perishable gold, may be found to result in praise, glory, and honor at Christ's return" (1 Peter 1:6-7). When your faith in Christ survives the fire of life's problems, it proves that your faith was and is real. This is different from the rocky-soil Christian in Jesus' parable, whose false faith withers up to nothing as soon as the heat of life's trials hits it. So it's exciting to know that Christ will point to how our faith endured life's trials, as proof that we were real Christians and may enter Paradise. But that doesn't mean we like the trials.
Patience, forbearance, and self-control are what God expects out of us toward each other in the church.
Here's an old poem I read somewhere:
"To be above with saints we love,
Oh yes that will be glory.
But to be below, with the saints we know,
well, that's a different story!"
How does these qualities actually work out in real life?
We start by accepting the responsibility to control ourselves. "Exploding" is not an option. "Tearing into" or "lambasting" someone is not an option. Amusing ourselves at someone else's expense is not an option. There are some Christians who need to learn that it's not OK to yell at people. This was a very bad habit I developed at the Christian school in Houston, and it's taken me years to unlearn it.
We don't blame our temperaments. "Controlling myself" means I do what I should do in spite of my temperament. I might be a naturally timid person who dreads confrontation. I accept that I will be courageous and speak truth for the honor of Christ in spite of my selfish timidity. I might have sarcasm that just naturally spews out of my mouth. I accept that I will learn how to substitute soft words for harsh ones, and wipe the mockery out of my voice. I might have a flirtation gene that lights up within twenty paces of a pretty face. I accept that I'll control my thoughts, my tone, and my body language. I might be naturally strong-willed and independent. I accept that I will learn how to be a team player. In other words, it doesn't matter what my temperament is like. Self-control means doing whatever is right, regardless of what comes naturally. The Holy Spirit can conquer any temperament.
I also don't blame my physical body for my lack of self-control. I'm talking about normal people, not unusual cases like someone with a brain tumor that harms the brain. The physical body doesn't cause lust. Jesus had a fully physical male body, and He never lusted. It's that our souls are so weak, and our love of pleasure is so strong. It's like our soul is a child strapped to the back of a huge bucking bronco. Our souls are so weak, spiritually, we have almost no control of the horse. Lust is about releasing excitement chemicals into our brain. It's about self-centeredness and vanity. It's a godless way of alleviating boredom or loneliness. It's about novelty. It's about attention. It's about the adrenaline of thinking you're getting away with something. In other words, according to Solomon, it's an expression of our deeply-rooted foolishness.
Concluding Thoughts
This is what God is like. God is patient. In this chess-match with Satan, He's not playing speed chess, God is playing the "long game." God is forbearing. The Scripture says that God is "slow to anger." I believe He chooses to overlook 99% of our sinning. God is self-controlled. God never explodes, with either anger or tears. Unlike us, God never acts on impulses. So this morning I'm not just commending these positive qualities because they're beneficial, but because they're Godlike. So, if we're His children, it's right that we should have them.
Wisdom is how we attain these three qualities. Trials alone won't do it. Solomon said you can grind a fool in a wheat grinder, and you still won't grind the foolishness out of him (Pr. 27:22). You can suffer, but if you suffer with no wisdom, you won't learn anything. Solomon says in many of the early chapters of Proverbs that the reason a young man gives into lust is because of foolishness. People who are impatient, quick to take offense, and impulsive are that way because, first of all, they're foolish. This is why you must saturate your brain in the Bible. Foolishness is rooted in our minds, deep down like the root of a dandelion. Some churches just teach you to snip off the flower. We don't want that. We want you to dig all the roots of foolishness out of yourself.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Topical Preaching, Part II
This comes from Brad Bigney, the preaching pastor at Grace Fellowship Church of Florence, KY (EFCA). It can be found at their website.
Why Do You Preach More Topical Sermons than Exegetical (Verse by verse through books of the Bible)?
From time to time people will ask me why I do so many topical sermon series instead of picking a book of the Bible and preaching through it verse by verse.
Here are some of the reasons why I preach the way I do here at Grace Fellowship:
1. Jesus preached topical sermons – if Jesus thought it was effective… so do I! Seriously… when you read through the Gospels you don’t see Jesus gathering a crowd and then starting to preach or teach verse by verse through one of the Old Testament books of the Bible they had at that time. He used visual illustrations, and He met the people right where they were and taught using just a verse or two for the basis of His teaching. It was hard hitting, and did not compromise God’s truth, but it was not an in depth explanation verse by verse through a book of the Bible.
2. There is no biblical record of the Apostle Paul or any other disciples ever preaching exegetically, verse by verse, sermons from a book of the Bible. You can see examples of this with Paul’s sermons in the book of Acts (on Mars Hill and other places).
3. There is no command in the New Testament instructing pastors to preach or teach verse by verse through books of the Bible. In Paul’s letters to Timothy, he doesn’t take time to exhort him to preach in a certain manner. He simply says to preach the Word (2 Timothy 4:2).
4. Many times the emphasis on preaching verse by verse through books of the Bible is driven by a belief that Bible information is the key to changing lives. Paul tells us that knowledge alone puffs up, but love edifies (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1). Not always, but many times the preachers and churches that are characterized by verse by verse preaching through books of the Bible are heavy on information or Bible facts, and much lighter on how those Bible truths apply to your life. I think that Bible application is the key to changing lives. Sheer volume of Bible information is not what changes lives. In-depth Greek or Hebrew word studies is not what changes lives. Understanding how to apply God’s Word practically in our everyday lives is what produces a love and passion for changing & growing.
Too often the goal of exegetical preaching is simply “What?” “What does the Bible say?” Our goal at Grace Fellowship is not just “What?” but “So what?” and “How?” “How does that apply to your life today?” “How would you start doing what God’s Word says to do in that verse?” “What needs to happen for you to start obeying what is being taught there?”
The clear and practical application of God’s Word to a person’s life, in the power of the Holy Spirit, is what changes lives. As a communicator I certainly benefit from word studies, but I rarely choose to pass all the details of my study on to my listeners. Believe it or not… my goal is not the preaching or teaching itself… my goal is changed lives. I want to connect real people to a real God, through His life-changing Word.
5. Be sure you understand what I’m not saying. I’m not saying it’s wrong to preach verse by verse through books of the Bible, but I am saying if you choose to do that, be careful. Make sure you don’t get caught up in your exegesis, and the details of your word studies, and lose sight of the main thing… communicating for changed lives.
6. There seems to be an arrogance among Christians who prefer exegetical verse by verse teaching of the Bible… as if they’ve got the corner on the market… they love God more… and they honor God’s Word more. This isn’t true of everyone, but I run into it frequently when this question of preaching style comes up. I rarely hear any topical preachers criticizing exegetical preachers, but I do hear quite a bit of criticism from exegetical preachers, and Christians who prefer that format, towards preachers who preach more topical or expositional sermons.
7. Look at the end result. I can’t speak for every other pastor who’s chosen to preach topical sermon series, but God has been very good to us here at Grace Fellowship. People are changing and growing because of what they’re learning from God’s Word. So if changed lives for the glory of God is the final goal, then look at the fruit of our ministry. Are people being saved? Is the Gospel being preached? Is Christ being exalted? Is the cross central in the preaching and teaching? Rather than backing away or watering it down, do we preach and teach the whole counsel of God’s Word – even the hard places? Are believers being fed and grounded in God’s Word to know how to handle life effectively by handling God’s Word accurately? Are people more devoted followers of Christ? Is the Bible our source of authority for making decisions and setting direction in our church? Is sin being exposed?
If all of that is happening effectively, I see no reason for alarm or concern. The comment I hear more than any other at our church from new people is “I’ve never grown this much in my life at any other church.” If changing and growing more and more into the image of Christ is the goal (see Roman 8:29) then it appears that God in His mercy has been pleased to use both topical and exegetical sermons to get us there.
8. It could be that this question regarding the style or format of preaching is centered around a personal preference more than it is the issue of “right” or “wrong.” It is the same as people who want to argue hymns versus choruses. I’m aware of people that leave our church for this and other matters of personal preference, and they are not wrong to do so. However, God has been using the topical or expositional style of preaching here at Grace Fellowship to bring people to Christ and root them in His Word and His grace.
9. Preaching and teaching topical messages does not mean it’s lighter in theology or preparation time. My first priority is the sermon preparation; I spend more time each week preparing my sermon than anything else I do. Preaching a topical message does not mean that it was just thrown together at the last minute. Also, preachers who preach topical sermons are not more liberal in their theology, and they are not less committed to the authority of God’s Word. God has graciously used people to communicate His Word who have been more topical or expositional rather than exegetical. Charles Spurgeon was certainly not liberal in his theology or uncommitted to God’s Word, yet he rarely preached an exegetical sermon. However, he always preached a biblical sermon that was anchored by a verse or verses that he was driving home to the hearts of the people. He preached for changed lives, and God blessed.
10. Format or style of preaching is no indication of the level of love for God’s Word. I hope that my love for God’s Word and my submission to its authority is equal to any exegetical preacher. While my messages are not usually rooted in one passage that is being unpacked verse by verse they are rooted in the truth of God’s Word, and each point is anchored by a biblical truth or verse that from Scripture.
Why Do You Preach More Topical Sermons than Exegetical (Verse by verse through books of the Bible)?
From time to time people will ask me why I do so many topical sermon series instead of picking a book of the Bible and preaching through it verse by verse.
Here are some of the reasons why I preach the way I do here at Grace Fellowship:
1. Jesus preached topical sermons – if Jesus thought it was effective… so do I! Seriously… when you read through the Gospels you don’t see Jesus gathering a crowd and then starting to preach or teach verse by verse through one of the Old Testament books of the Bible they had at that time. He used visual illustrations, and He met the people right where they were and taught using just a verse or two for the basis of His teaching. It was hard hitting, and did not compromise God’s truth, but it was not an in depth explanation verse by verse through a book of the Bible.
2. There is no biblical record of the Apostle Paul or any other disciples ever preaching exegetically, verse by verse, sermons from a book of the Bible. You can see examples of this with Paul’s sermons in the book of Acts (on Mars Hill and other places).
3. There is no command in the New Testament instructing pastors to preach or teach verse by verse through books of the Bible. In Paul’s letters to Timothy, he doesn’t take time to exhort him to preach in a certain manner. He simply says to preach the Word (2 Timothy 4:2).
4. Many times the emphasis on preaching verse by verse through books of the Bible is driven by a belief that Bible information is the key to changing lives. Paul tells us that knowledge alone puffs up, but love edifies (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1). Not always, but many times the preachers and churches that are characterized by verse by verse preaching through books of the Bible are heavy on information or Bible facts, and much lighter on how those Bible truths apply to your life. I think that Bible application is the key to changing lives. Sheer volume of Bible information is not what changes lives. In-depth Greek or Hebrew word studies is not what changes lives. Understanding how to apply God’s Word practically in our everyday lives is what produces a love and passion for changing & growing.
Too often the goal of exegetical preaching is simply “What?” “What does the Bible say?” Our goal at Grace Fellowship is not just “What?” but “So what?” and “How?” “How does that apply to your life today?” “How would you start doing what God’s Word says to do in that verse?” “What needs to happen for you to start obeying what is being taught there?”
The clear and practical application of God’s Word to a person’s life, in the power of the Holy Spirit, is what changes lives. As a communicator I certainly benefit from word studies, but I rarely choose to pass all the details of my study on to my listeners. Believe it or not… my goal is not the preaching or teaching itself… my goal is changed lives. I want to connect real people to a real God, through His life-changing Word.
5. Be sure you understand what I’m not saying. I’m not saying it’s wrong to preach verse by verse through books of the Bible, but I am saying if you choose to do that, be careful. Make sure you don’t get caught up in your exegesis, and the details of your word studies, and lose sight of the main thing… communicating for changed lives.
6. There seems to be an arrogance among Christians who prefer exegetical verse by verse teaching of the Bible… as if they’ve got the corner on the market… they love God more… and they honor God’s Word more. This isn’t true of everyone, but I run into it frequently when this question of preaching style comes up. I rarely hear any topical preachers criticizing exegetical preachers, but I do hear quite a bit of criticism from exegetical preachers, and Christians who prefer that format, towards preachers who preach more topical or expositional sermons.
7. Look at the end result. I can’t speak for every other pastor who’s chosen to preach topical sermon series, but God has been very good to us here at Grace Fellowship. People are changing and growing because of what they’re learning from God’s Word. So if changed lives for the glory of God is the final goal, then look at the fruit of our ministry. Are people being saved? Is the Gospel being preached? Is Christ being exalted? Is the cross central in the preaching and teaching? Rather than backing away or watering it down, do we preach and teach the whole counsel of God’s Word – even the hard places? Are believers being fed and grounded in God’s Word to know how to handle life effectively by handling God’s Word accurately? Are people more devoted followers of Christ? Is the Bible our source of authority for making decisions and setting direction in our church? Is sin being exposed?
If all of that is happening effectively, I see no reason for alarm or concern. The comment I hear more than any other at our church from new people is “I’ve never grown this much in my life at any other church.” If changing and growing more and more into the image of Christ is the goal (see Roman 8:29) then it appears that God in His mercy has been pleased to use both topical and exegetical sermons to get us there.
8. It could be that this question regarding the style or format of preaching is centered around a personal preference more than it is the issue of “right” or “wrong.” It is the same as people who want to argue hymns versus choruses. I’m aware of people that leave our church for this and other matters of personal preference, and they are not wrong to do so. However, God has been using the topical or expositional style of preaching here at Grace Fellowship to bring people to Christ and root them in His Word and His grace.
9. Preaching and teaching topical messages does not mean it’s lighter in theology or preparation time. My first priority is the sermon preparation; I spend more time each week preparing my sermon than anything else I do. Preaching a topical message does not mean that it was just thrown together at the last minute. Also, preachers who preach topical sermons are not more liberal in their theology, and they are not less committed to the authority of God’s Word. God has graciously used people to communicate His Word who have been more topical or expositional rather than exegetical. Charles Spurgeon was certainly not liberal in his theology or uncommitted to God’s Word, yet he rarely preached an exegetical sermon. However, he always preached a biblical sermon that was anchored by a verse or verses that he was driving home to the hearts of the people. He preached for changed lives, and God blessed.
10. Format or style of preaching is no indication of the level of love for God’s Word. I hope that my love for God’s Word and my submission to its authority is equal to any exegetical preacher. While my messages are not usually rooted in one passage that is being unpacked verse by verse they are rooted in the truth of God’s Word, and each point is anchored by a biblical truth or verse that from Scripture.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Re-vamping Old, Boring Churches
I recently heard about a pastor in New England who insists that the church can't be named "1st Baptist" any more, because it's not a relevant name to the community, and carries bad PR baggage. I wonder, does this fellow know how many enormous "1st Baptist of Wherevers" there are throughout America? He's also cancelled Sunday morning worship services for the summer. They're doing an evening service combined with fellowship activities, like a BBQ cook-out.
I think it's true that there are lots of people who would be prejudiced against any Baptist church, simply because so many Baptists have such a poor reputation for legalism and fighting. If calling my church "Daystar Community Church" removed a mental obstacle to someone visiting, I would do it, too. But it really depends on the perceptions of the community. There are as many different Baptist ministries as there are stars in the sky. They're not all KJV-waving Pharisees, to be sure!
There's a huge kaleidoscope of factors that play into a church's numerical expansion. If you don't provide life-changing preaching, and an atmosphere faith, godliness and love, then a dog-n-pony act won't work.
Does updating the music help? People do pick churches partly based on the music, and that's hard to predict, too. The traditional hymns are as much a mixed bag as the contemporary praise music, and some of the contemporary stuff is more Biblical than many hymns. I find many of the traditional hymns to be sappily sentimental, some of it distastefully romantic (In The Garden -- blecch), and the music sounds like you should be poling in a skiff wearing your straw hat with Aimee Lou, twenty-three-skiddo.
I would be interested to know if this aforementioned pastor made his philosophies and approach known to his new church when he candidated. If they called him already knowing what he was likely to do, that's one thing. If he sprang all this on them, that's another.
Question, though: Even though one might study the way this man is going about re-vamping what sounds like an old, dull ministry, is it right to object to the idea of re-booting a church so that it's more appealing to the community? I've known a lot of conservative churches that seem to go out of their way to deliberately contradict the tastes of the community. They are even proud of how peculiar, dull (they call it "reverential") and out-of-step they are.
I do not believe that trying to be appealing -- whether musically appealing, or locating the building so that it's more visible and accessible to cars, or even just giving the place a fresh coat of paint -- automatically makes you a sell-out.
I don't think there's anything admirable about deliberately defying community tastes, any more than it's wise to always follow them. It's like, if the community was full of 1st gen Japanese immigrants, and they love sushi and rice balls for meals, it's not a virtue to deliberately serve them hot dogs and mac-n-cheese and call that "not selling out to the culture".
And it's the same thing with music. If nearly everyone else but your little group of thirty hate the style of music you use in worship service, I think you have to ask yourself whether it matters to you. Are you proud that they hate it? Do you take it as a mark of superior sanctification that people won't come to your church because the music is so blah? If so, then I don't know where your head is at. You've abandoned the mission Christ gave us.
I think it's true that there are lots of people who would be prejudiced against any Baptist church, simply because so many Baptists have such a poor reputation for legalism and fighting. If calling my church "Daystar Community Church" removed a mental obstacle to someone visiting, I would do it, too. But it really depends on the perceptions of the community. There are as many different Baptist ministries as there are stars in the sky. They're not all KJV-waving Pharisees, to be sure!
There's a huge kaleidoscope of factors that play into a church's numerical expansion. If you don't provide life-changing preaching, and an atmosphere faith, godliness and love, then a dog-n-pony act won't work.
Does updating the music help? People do pick churches partly based on the music, and that's hard to predict, too. The traditional hymns are as much a mixed bag as the contemporary praise music, and some of the contemporary stuff is more Biblical than many hymns. I find many of the traditional hymns to be sappily sentimental, some of it distastefully romantic (In The Garden -- blecch), and the music sounds like you should be poling in a skiff wearing your straw hat with Aimee Lou, twenty-three-skiddo.
I would be interested to know if this aforementioned pastor made his philosophies and approach known to his new church when he candidated. If they called him already knowing what he was likely to do, that's one thing. If he sprang all this on them, that's another.
Question, though: Even though one might study the way this man is going about re-vamping what sounds like an old, dull ministry, is it right to object to the idea of re-booting a church so that it's more appealing to the community? I've known a lot of conservative churches that seem to go out of their way to deliberately contradict the tastes of the community. They are even proud of how peculiar, dull (they call it "reverential") and out-of-step they are.
I do not believe that trying to be appealing -- whether musically appealing, or locating the building so that it's more visible and accessible to cars, or even just giving the place a fresh coat of paint -- automatically makes you a sell-out.
I don't think there's anything admirable about deliberately defying community tastes, any more than it's wise to always follow them. It's like, if the community was full of 1st gen Japanese immigrants, and they love sushi and rice balls for meals, it's not a virtue to deliberately serve them hot dogs and mac-n-cheese and call that "not selling out to the culture".
And it's the same thing with music. If nearly everyone else but your little group of thirty hate the style of music you use in worship service, I think you have to ask yourself whether it matters to you. Are you proud that they hate it? Do you take it as a mark of superior sanctification that people won't come to your church because the music is so blah? If so, then I don't know where your head is at. You've abandoned the mission Christ gave us.
Monday, June 29, 2009
The Practical Value of Topical Preaching
Just some thoughts about topical preaching -- that is, speaking on one verse, rather than preaching through a lengthy paragraph or an entire book of the Bible...
Topical preaching lends itself easier to application. Your focus is not so much on getting the material right, as it is on preaching it for some clearly defined pastoral goal. Often, the reason you pick the verse is because you see some are aof need or weakness in the congregation. I think you can be overly cautious as a pastor about not wanting to be too pointed in your choice of subjects. By avoiding being too pointed, it's possible to become too blunted and generic -- i.e., you preach through the Olivet Discourse or the Ten commandments even though that's not where the pains of life are pressing in most unbearably on your people. As a result, you've preached the Word, and there is always good that will come of that, but perhaps I've done it with less pastoral insight than I might have done.
Topical preaching is also expository. Spekaing on topics, or speaking based on just a verse or two, shouldn't be treated as the opposite of expository preaching. Expository preaching is not limited to a verse-by-verse explanation of lengthy passages. You can "exposit" anything, whether it be one verse out of the shortest Psalms, or preaching through the entire book of Romans. The challenge is to exposit any section of Scripture in a clear, accurate way.
Topical preaching can lend itself to a motivational emphasis more readily than long-passage exposition. There are lots of times when the congregation needs to be lifted up, or motivated in some other positive way.
It's good for a topical series to have one clear thread to hang on. By topical, I don't mean preaching like a circus performer who leaps from the back of one prancing horse to another every single week. For example, i'm now doing the fruit of the Spirit. I'm not jumping from topic to topic to topic.
Topical preaching allows you to show the congregation to breadth, harmony, and interrelatedness of the whole Bible. Where marching through a long section allows you to cover depth, the depth is just there at that point. The danger to beware is, again, jumping around a bit too much, or throwing too many Bible verses at the audience. I also need to preach at a moderate enough pace that the average listener can keep up in his mind, and not get confused.
Topical preaching lends itself easier to application. Your focus is not so much on getting the material right, as it is on preaching it for some clearly defined pastoral goal. Often, the reason you pick the verse is because you see some are aof need or weakness in the congregation. I think you can be overly cautious as a pastor about not wanting to be too pointed in your choice of subjects. By avoiding being too pointed, it's possible to become too blunted and generic -- i.e., you preach through the Olivet Discourse or the Ten commandments even though that's not where the pains of life are pressing in most unbearably on your people. As a result, you've preached the Word, and there is always good that will come of that, but perhaps I've done it with less pastoral insight than I might have done.
Topical preaching is also expository. Spekaing on topics, or speaking based on just a verse or two, shouldn't be treated as the opposite of expository preaching. Expository preaching is not limited to a verse-by-verse explanation of lengthy passages. You can "exposit" anything, whether it be one verse out of the shortest Psalms, or preaching through the entire book of Romans. The challenge is to exposit any section of Scripture in a clear, accurate way.
Topical preaching can lend itself to a motivational emphasis more readily than long-passage exposition. There are lots of times when the congregation needs to be lifted up, or motivated in some other positive way.
It's good for a topical series to have one clear thread to hang on. By topical, I don't mean preaching like a circus performer who leaps from the back of one prancing horse to another every single week. For example, i'm now doing the fruit of the Spirit. I'm not jumping from topic to topic to topic.
Topical preaching allows you to show the congregation to breadth, harmony, and interrelatedness of the whole Bible. Where marching through a long section allows you to cover depth, the depth is just there at that point. The danger to beware is, again, jumping around a bit too much, or throwing too many Bible verses at the audience. I also need to preach at a moderate enough pace that the average listener can keep up in his mind, and not get confused.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Faith, For People Who Are Already Christians
The Grace of Faith
I began this looking at Galatians 5:22. I encountered a translation issue! The KJV says that "faith" is one of the fruit of the Spirit. All the current Bibles translate it as "faithfulness" -- NASB, NIV, NJKV, even the Catholic Bible. As often happens in message preparation, one truth leads you to another. Even though I could see that "faithfulness" is probably the preferred meaning, I wondered if faith is a work of the Spirit in the heart of a Christian, too. I began to look for examples of "faith" as a part of Christian character.
Barnabas' example tells me that faith reflects us.
I found a verse about Barnabas, Acts 11:24. Barnabas was "a good man and full of the Holy Spirit and faith." Faith was woven into the fabric of Barnabas' character. Faith wasn't just pushing a button or flipping a switch.
I think we often hear preaching like, "Faith is a decision". That's an action; something you do. I once heard the president of Walk Through The Bible compare faith to deciding whether or not to sit on a chair. But this verse says that faith in Christ is more than just deciding to sit in a chair. Faith shines out of who we are, It's how we approach life.
This tells me that we elders should aim at developing your faith, as a vital part of our total approach to Christian growth. The same way we want to develop doctrinal discernment, or their emotional self-control, we need to develop your faith in Christ. In fact, I'd say that we should develop your faith, so that any of those other things can happen. Because how can we do any of those things happen without faith?
Barnabas' example also tells me we differ in our faith.
· Luke says that Barnabas was filled with faith. So Barnabas was exceptional. His strength of faith was so pronounced that he was known for it. "Filled" is a figure of speech. It means that Barnabas' mind was controlled by faith in Christ. When, for example, a person is filled with wine, their perceptions and emotions are controlled by the wine. Barnabas was filled with the wine of his faith. Your emotions are caused by your beliefs. You interpret experience through the filter of your beliefs. So what do our emotions reveal about our true, controlling beliefs?
· Not every one of Jesus' followers was like Barnabas. Peter often had a floating faith. It floated up high or down low, depending on what he believed. When he focused on Jesus Christ, his faith would surge way up high, like when he leaped out of the boat and walked to Jesus on the water. Other times his faith would sink way down low, like when he looked down at the ocean storming and foaming all around his feet. He became terrified, and plunged down into the waves. He believed that water molecules could not be altered so that they would support his weight. At that moment Peter believed that Christ was weaker than water molecules. As a result, he fell in.
· Then you have people torn back and forth between faith and unbelief. There was a father of a demon-possessed boy who had a flip-flop faith. He cried out to Christ, "I believe, help my unbelief!" He knew he needed to trust Christ, in order for his little boy to be saved from the demon. The boy was violently thrown about by the evil spirit. But the father was also violently thrown about in his heart, torn between faith and unbelief. He begged Christ to save him from his own doubting heart!
So the Christian life is like a ice skating rink, and we can see all levels of skaters moving around on the ice. Some of us can do amazing moves. Some can skate backwards, do figure-eights, perform all kinds of cool tricks. Others of us are just poking along, in a giant circle. Some of us have our laces tied too loosely. so our ankles are twisting back and forth. We're constantly falling, and just stumbling along, clinging for dear life to the guardrail.
Why faith in Christ matters to someone who's already saved:
· Faith is how miracles happen. Galatians 3:5: "Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?" God is never under our control, and He often does things unilaterally. For example, God created the world because He wanted to. Christ healed the man born blind, even when the man didn't even know who He was (John 9). But God has sovereignly chosen to hinge some of His actions on our faith. So, if we never see God's miraculous hand active and moving among us, is this not an indictment of us? Faith is how the believers of the past conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight, and received back their dead by resurrection. (Hebrews 11:32-35a). Faith in Christ is how miracles happen.
· Faith is also how we figure out what to do. How many times in life are we left standing with our mouths hanging open, at a total loss? We cry out, "I don't know what to do!" James 1:5 gives the encouraging answer, but then 6-8 adds a warning. If you believe that God won't show you what to do, then... He won't. Think about it: what parent wants to help a child who's howling right in his face, "I know you can't help me! I know you won't help me!" Faith in Christ is how we get the divine guidance we need.
· Faith is how our "if it be Thy will" prayers get answered. There was a centurion who came to Christ, on behalf of his sick servant. Christ told him that He would come and heal the servant. The centurion humbly replied that he didn't deserve the honor of Christ entering his home, but he knew that Christ could just utter the command from that spot, and the servant would be healed. Christ was amazed by the man's faith in His power. So Christ said to the centurion, "Go, let it be done for you as you have believed." "As you have believed". What if Christ said that to us this morning: "I am right now doing for you as you believe." Would we be delighted, or depressed? Now bear in mind, Christ isn't handing us a blank check here. Some things are not His will. He already told the centurion, personally, that, yes, it was His will to heal his servant. We don't have any such personal, individualized promises like that. But what if Christ is giving us what we believe He can do? What if our family, or this church, or our nation, is the way that it is because that's what we think Christ is capable of doing?
I began this looking at Galatians 5:22. I encountered a translation issue! The KJV says that "faith" is one of the fruit of the Spirit. All the current Bibles translate it as "faithfulness" -- NASB, NIV, NJKV, even the Catholic Bible. As often happens in message preparation, one truth leads you to another. Even though I could see that "faithfulness" is probably the preferred meaning, I wondered if faith is a work of the Spirit in the heart of a Christian, too. I began to look for examples of "faith" as a part of Christian character.
Barnabas' example tells me that faith reflects us.
I found a verse about Barnabas, Acts 11:24. Barnabas was "a good man and full of the Holy Spirit and faith." Faith was woven into the fabric of Barnabas' character. Faith wasn't just pushing a button or flipping a switch.
I think we often hear preaching like, "Faith is a decision". That's an action; something you do. I once heard the president of Walk Through The Bible compare faith to deciding whether or not to sit on a chair. But this verse says that faith in Christ is more than just deciding to sit in a chair. Faith shines out of who we are, It's how we approach life.
This tells me that we elders should aim at developing your faith, as a vital part of our total approach to Christian growth. The same way we want to develop doctrinal discernment, or their emotional self-control, we need to develop your faith in Christ. In fact, I'd say that we should develop your faith, so that any of those other things can happen. Because how can we do any of those things happen without faith?
Barnabas' example also tells me we differ in our faith.
· Luke says that Barnabas was filled with faith. So Barnabas was exceptional. His strength of faith was so pronounced that he was known for it. "Filled" is a figure of speech. It means that Barnabas' mind was controlled by faith in Christ. When, for example, a person is filled with wine, their perceptions and emotions are controlled by the wine. Barnabas was filled with the wine of his faith. Your emotions are caused by your beliefs. You interpret experience through the filter of your beliefs. So what do our emotions reveal about our true, controlling beliefs?
· Not every one of Jesus' followers was like Barnabas. Peter often had a floating faith. It floated up high or down low, depending on what he believed. When he focused on Jesus Christ, his faith would surge way up high, like when he leaped out of the boat and walked to Jesus on the water. Other times his faith would sink way down low, like when he looked down at the ocean storming and foaming all around his feet. He became terrified, and plunged down into the waves. He believed that water molecules could not be altered so that they would support his weight. At that moment Peter believed that Christ was weaker than water molecules. As a result, he fell in.
· Then you have people torn back and forth between faith and unbelief. There was a father of a demon-possessed boy who had a flip-flop faith. He cried out to Christ, "I believe, help my unbelief!" He knew he needed to trust Christ, in order for his little boy to be saved from the demon. The boy was violently thrown about by the evil spirit. But the father was also violently thrown about in his heart, torn between faith and unbelief. He begged Christ to save him from his own doubting heart!
So the Christian life is like a ice skating rink, and we can see all levels of skaters moving around on the ice. Some of us can do amazing moves. Some can skate backwards, do figure-eights, perform all kinds of cool tricks. Others of us are just poking along, in a giant circle. Some of us have our laces tied too loosely. so our ankles are twisting back and forth. We're constantly falling, and just stumbling along, clinging for dear life to the guardrail.
Why faith in Christ matters to someone who's already saved:
· Faith is how miracles happen. Galatians 3:5: "Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?" God is never under our control, and He often does things unilaterally. For example, God created the world because He wanted to. Christ healed the man born blind, even when the man didn't even know who He was (John 9). But God has sovereignly chosen to hinge some of His actions on our faith. So, if we never see God's miraculous hand active and moving among us, is this not an indictment of us? Faith is how the believers of the past conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight, and received back their dead by resurrection. (Hebrews 11:32-35a). Faith in Christ is how miracles happen.
· Faith is also how we figure out what to do. How many times in life are we left standing with our mouths hanging open, at a total loss? We cry out, "I don't know what to do!" James 1:5 gives the encouraging answer, but then 6-8 adds a warning. If you believe that God won't show you what to do, then... He won't. Think about it: what parent wants to help a child who's howling right in his face, "I know you can't help me! I know you won't help me!" Faith in Christ is how we get the divine guidance we need.
· Faith is how our "if it be Thy will" prayers get answered. There was a centurion who came to Christ, on behalf of his sick servant. Christ told him that He would come and heal the servant. The centurion humbly replied that he didn't deserve the honor of Christ entering his home, but he knew that Christ could just utter the command from that spot, and the servant would be healed. Christ was amazed by the man's faith in His power. So Christ said to the centurion, "Go, let it be done for you as you have believed." "As you have believed". What if Christ said that to us this morning: "I am right now doing for you as you believe." Would we be delighted, or depressed? Now bear in mind, Christ isn't handing us a blank check here. Some things are not His will. He already told the centurion, personally, that, yes, it was His will to heal his servant. We don't have any such personal, individualized promises like that. But what if Christ is giving us what we believe He can do? What if our family, or this church, or our nation, is the way that it is because that's what we think Christ is capable of doing?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
I've Got The Joy, Joy, Joy, Joy... (Where?)
Joy is a spiritual personality attribute. Galatians 5:22
It is not a natural attribute with which some people are born. It's not psyching ourselves into an upbeat mood through positive thinking. There are people born with naturally energetic, cheerful dispositions. There are others prone to melancholy. But the Scriptures that tell us to be joyful aren't limited to the upbeat folks. They're aimed at all of us, regardless of our natural tendencies. Because joy is a spiritual personality attribute...
o That means joy is a moral obligation. The Lord tells us, "Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say rejoice!" Philippians 4:4. Joy is as much a part of the Christian life as being loving or maritally faithful. It is a sin not to rejoice.
o That means our natural traits can change. You might say, "But I'm just a mopey, morose person by nature! I'm depressed, and happy to be that way!" So what? The Spirit is more powerful than our traits. He has the supernatural power to counteract our grouchy, depressive tendencies.
What causes joylessness?
1. Not being Spirit-filled. Eph. 5:18-20. A lot of Christians want to use the Holy Spirit as if He was electricity (either to fix their personality problems, force someone else to become a Christian, or maybe to work signs-and-wonders), but they don't want to be controlled by the Holy Spirit.
2. Unrepented sin. Specifically...
a. Anger. Ephesians 4:26-27. Anger is like a handle to your mind onto which Satan grips. Sometimes the anger is toward God. This type of anger is a form of unbelief toward the Gospel. We can be sure that if we are angry at God, then it's always we who are off-base.
b. Unforgiveness. Matt. 18:32-35. Christ in this parable singles out unforgiveness for special reprobation. There are Christians dragging through life in emotional misery, because of all the bitterness they carry around in their hearts.
3. Failure to draw upon the Lord. Isa. 40:31. Since "the joy of the Lord is our strength" (Nehemiah 8:10), then drawing upon the Lord through daily Bible reading and prayer renews joy, and the strength that comes from it. What would you think of a professional athlete who only drank water occasionally, and only occasionally ate nutritious food when he or she was in the mood?
4. Unbelief in heaven and your future place there. 1 Peter 1:3-8 Notice that the joy here results from faith in your living hope in your imperishable, undefiled, and unfading future inheritance in heaven.
5. Unwillingness to bow to God's will. Luke 10:21. This is also a form of unbelief. We're always happy when we get what we want. But are we also happy that God gets what He wants? For example, Christ thanked His heavenly Father that He had blinded the eyes of the wise, and instead opened the eyes of the humble. But instead of feeling miserable over those who rejected His message, Christ rejoiced, and said these words: "Let it be so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight."
Solutions to the problem.
1. Pray every day to be filled with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will not be used by you. He's not here for you. You're here for Him. He's not your partner. He's your Master. But He's not going to grab control of you, or distort you, like Satan does. He wants to guide you, fill you, and heal you. He gives joy as He gives Himself, but first you have to fully surrender yourself to Him.
2. Apply yourself to becoming a non-angry person. What do you need to do, to change from an angry person into a happy person? This might mean ending some of your friendships, as well as some of your viewing and listening habits. If you're depressed, and if it's not being caused by biological causes, then you are either sad, or angry, or both. Whatever the past event was that is still making you angry might merit disapproval. Ceasing from anger doesn't mean calling a bad thing good. But you will only be joyful when you learn not to go through life getting angry all the time.
3. Forgive everyone you believe owes you a moral debt. This mean that you, in the sight of God, give up any right to revenge or repayment. It also means you're going to let God handle, all by Himself, any score-settling that needs doing. God forgave us your billions of sins that we committed against Him. Now it's time for us to forgive the dozens of sins that have been committed against us.
4. Are you an unbelieving believer? Do you have a poster of Doubting Thomas up on your wall? What do you need to do to overcome your addiction to spiritual skepticism? Do you need to reconsider the evidences of the Bible's divine inspiration? Do you need to re-examine Christ's claims to be the Son of God? Should you read some good Christian apologetical material, to remind yourself why we believe that Jesus rose from the dead? When John the Baptist was in prison facing execution, and began to doubt Christ, Christ didn't chide him, but pointed him to proof (in that case, the proof of His miracles). When the anguished father cried out, "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief!", Jesus didn't chastise him. So what proofs of your faith do you need to go back and reconsider?
5. Joy will come when you submit to the way God wants things to be. You can't be happy as a Christian, and be constantly aggravated and chafing against what God either is or isn't doing. "A hope long deferred makes the heart sick", Solomon said, so the answer is to stop pining away for whatever it is. There is godless, hopeless fatalism that just throws up its hands to the all-powerful forces of nature. That's not what I'm counseling here. But there is a humble resignation of the situation and one's role in it over into God's sovereign hands, that is a precursor to joy.
It is not a natural attribute with which some people are born. It's not psyching ourselves into an upbeat mood through positive thinking. There are people born with naturally energetic, cheerful dispositions. There are others prone to melancholy. But the Scriptures that tell us to be joyful aren't limited to the upbeat folks. They're aimed at all of us, regardless of our natural tendencies. Because joy is a spiritual personality attribute...
o That means joy is a moral obligation. The Lord tells us, "Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say rejoice!" Philippians 4:4. Joy is as much a part of the Christian life as being loving or maritally faithful. It is a sin not to rejoice.
o That means our natural traits can change. You might say, "But I'm just a mopey, morose person by nature! I'm depressed, and happy to be that way!" So what? The Spirit is more powerful than our traits. He has the supernatural power to counteract our grouchy, depressive tendencies.
What causes joylessness?
1. Not being Spirit-filled. Eph. 5:18-20. A lot of Christians want to use the Holy Spirit as if He was electricity (either to fix their personality problems, force someone else to become a Christian, or maybe to work signs-and-wonders), but they don't want to be controlled by the Holy Spirit.
2. Unrepented sin. Specifically...
a. Anger. Ephesians 4:26-27. Anger is like a handle to your mind onto which Satan grips. Sometimes the anger is toward God. This type of anger is a form of unbelief toward the Gospel. We can be sure that if we are angry at God, then it's always we who are off-base.
b. Unforgiveness. Matt. 18:32-35. Christ in this parable singles out unforgiveness for special reprobation. There are Christians dragging through life in emotional misery, because of all the bitterness they carry around in their hearts.
3. Failure to draw upon the Lord. Isa. 40:31. Since "the joy of the Lord is our strength" (Nehemiah 8:10), then drawing upon the Lord through daily Bible reading and prayer renews joy, and the strength that comes from it. What would you think of a professional athlete who only drank water occasionally, and only occasionally ate nutritious food when he or she was in the mood?
4. Unbelief in heaven and your future place there. 1 Peter 1:3-8 Notice that the joy here results from faith in your living hope in your imperishable, undefiled, and unfading future inheritance in heaven.
5. Unwillingness to bow to God's will. Luke 10:21. This is also a form of unbelief. We're always happy when we get what we want. But are we also happy that God gets what He wants? For example, Christ thanked His heavenly Father that He had blinded the eyes of the wise, and instead opened the eyes of the humble. But instead of feeling miserable over those who rejected His message, Christ rejoiced, and said these words: "Let it be so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight."
Solutions to the problem.
1. Pray every day to be filled with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will not be used by you. He's not here for you. You're here for Him. He's not your partner. He's your Master. But He's not going to grab control of you, or distort you, like Satan does. He wants to guide you, fill you, and heal you. He gives joy as He gives Himself, but first you have to fully surrender yourself to Him.
2. Apply yourself to becoming a non-angry person. What do you need to do, to change from an angry person into a happy person? This might mean ending some of your friendships, as well as some of your viewing and listening habits. If you're depressed, and if it's not being caused by biological causes, then you are either sad, or angry, or both. Whatever the past event was that is still making you angry might merit disapproval. Ceasing from anger doesn't mean calling a bad thing good. But you will only be joyful when you learn not to go through life getting angry all the time.
3. Forgive everyone you believe owes you a moral debt. This mean that you, in the sight of God, give up any right to revenge or repayment. It also means you're going to let God handle, all by Himself, any score-settling that needs doing. God forgave us your billions of sins that we committed against Him. Now it's time for us to forgive the dozens of sins that have been committed against us.
4. Are you an unbelieving believer? Do you have a poster of Doubting Thomas up on your wall? What do you need to do to overcome your addiction to spiritual skepticism? Do you need to reconsider the evidences of the Bible's divine inspiration? Do you need to re-examine Christ's claims to be the Son of God? Should you read some good Christian apologetical material, to remind yourself why we believe that Jesus rose from the dead? When John the Baptist was in prison facing execution, and began to doubt Christ, Christ didn't chide him, but pointed him to proof (in that case, the proof of His miracles). When the anguished father cried out, "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief!", Jesus didn't chastise him. So what proofs of your faith do you need to go back and reconsider?
5. Joy will come when you submit to the way God wants things to be. You can't be happy as a Christian, and be constantly aggravated and chafing against what God either is or isn't doing. "A hope long deferred makes the heart sick", Solomon said, so the answer is to stop pining away for whatever it is. There is godless, hopeless fatalism that just throws up its hands to the all-powerful forces of nature. That's not what I'm counseling here. But there is a humble resignation of the situation and one's role in it over into God's sovereign hands, that is a precursor to joy.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Jesus' Radical View of Goodness
Jesus made two radical statement about goodness -- Mt. 19:16-17
"There is only one who is good".
o God is unique in His goodness. The Greek word for "one" carries with it the idea of "one distinctly", which is why some Bibles translate it as "No one" (NKJV) or "only one" (NIV). Jesus taught that God is the only Person in the entire universe who is good. I don't think even we Christians believe this. We have fairly wishy-washy ideas about goodness. We call people "good" if we enjoy their company, or if they do something we like. But Christ said that God alone is good. God is unique in His goodness.
o If Jesus is right, then all real goodness comes from God somehow. The holy angels are good. But their goodness comes from God. We know good Christians. Their goodness comes from God. There are even unbelievers who are devout and God-fearing. This reflects the hidden work of God in their hearts, too.
o The flip side is that human beings are not good! This is the part no one wants to hear. Not even Christians like to hear it. The psalmist said, "There is none who are righteous, no, not one; there is none who does good, no, not one" (Psalm 14, quoted by Paul in Romans 3:10, 12). What we call goodness is really only comparative -- some people outwardly act better than others. It is better to help the needy than to rob them; but if we do it to be admired by others, we have no praise from God. Man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart. What looks like goodness to our eyes might look quite intentions.
The second teaching Jesus gave about goodness was: "Keep the commandments, if you want to live forever" -- 19:17.
o Jesus gives goodness a clear, hard edge. "Goodness" isn't just some fuzzy-wuzzy geniality. Goodness means: Do not murder. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not lie. Honor your parents. Love your fellow man just as you love yourself. Elsewhere, Christ makes it clear that goodness includes the imagination. It's not enough not to commit adultery. We're required not to even imagine immoral acts. It's not enough not to murder. We're required not to hate. That is goodness.
o Jesus sharpens the edge of goodness as sharp as He can make it, in verse 21. Christ's standard of goodness is perfection. We're required to be perfectly good. If we break one commandment, then we've broken them all. If we break a small section of a single pane of glass, we've broken the whole pane of glass. This is God's Law. Break one of the laws, you've broken all of them. If I can keep all of God's commandments, all the time, then I have the right to consider myself a truly good person. Otherwise, I'm just comparatively better than some people in some ways, sometimes.
o Then Christ attaches high stakes to goodness. He says that eternal life hinges on us being good, that is, keeping the commandments. This means that (a) everyone isn't going to Heaven, and (b) we have to deserve to go there! Jesus Christ was no liberal! He was no Unitarian!
What does this mean for us?
o The teaching that I need to do good works in order gain eternal life some day, or to keep eternal life once God gives it to me, is impossible:
§ It waters down God's standard of holiness. God isn't asking for "our best". He isn't asking for "a good-faith effort." He requires moral and spiritual perfection. Our best isn't good enough. God's goodness doesn't bend. His requirement is perfection.
§ That teaching is an insult to Christ's death on the cross. It's like saying that my cartoon scribbling needs to be added to the Mona Lisa. Jesus Christ was the perfect Man. His death on the cross for sin was the perfect payment. His intercession on His people's behalf in Heaven right now is the perfect priesthood. For us to think that there's anything we could do that would add value to anything He did for us is totally wrong-headed.
o Jesus' teaching about goodness also means that it's possible to measure goodness. Christ defined goodness in the form of commandments. Goodness is definable. Committing adultery is bad. Loyalty to your spouse is good. Dishonoring our parents is bad. Respecting them is good. Goodness does not lie in the eye of the beholder. When the Lord's commandment speaks, there are no gray areas. This is an important principle, if we intend to make disciples. Christian disciples should be good people. The commandments tell us what is good.
o Goodness of heart is the antidote to temptation. Goodness comes from the Holy Spirit kneading God's goodness into the dough of our hearts. Remember, only God is good. We have no more natural power to be good after we trust in Christ than we had before. This is why Galatians calls goodness a fruit of the Spirit. We can't work it up.
The Holy Spirit is a tree-keeper -- an arborist. He is in the business of turning dead trees back into living trees, and then, once they're alive, curing them of the blight. We're like trees infected with blight. The Holy Spirit's ministry is to steadily cure us of our blight, from the inside. As He transmits God's unique goodness into us, the fruit of our lives automatically changes over from sour to sweet. Christian men will stop feeling drawn to pornography, because a good heart loves purity. Christian people will not be easily drawn into idolatry, because a good heart loves the Lord Jesus Christ. This is why we pray for the Spirit to make us good people -- because only the Holy Spirit can re-shape us back into God's image.
"There is only one who is good".
o God is unique in His goodness. The Greek word for "one" carries with it the idea of "one distinctly", which is why some Bibles translate it as "No one" (NKJV) or "only one" (NIV). Jesus taught that God is the only Person in the entire universe who is good. I don't think even we Christians believe this. We have fairly wishy-washy ideas about goodness. We call people "good" if we enjoy their company, or if they do something we like. But Christ said that God alone is good. God is unique in His goodness.
o If Jesus is right, then all real goodness comes from God somehow. The holy angels are good. But their goodness comes from God. We know good Christians. Their goodness comes from God. There are even unbelievers who are devout and God-fearing. This reflects the hidden work of God in their hearts, too.
o The flip side is that human beings are not good! This is the part no one wants to hear. Not even Christians like to hear it. The psalmist said, "There is none who are righteous, no, not one; there is none who does good, no, not one" (Psalm 14, quoted by Paul in Romans 3:10, 12). What we call goodness is really only comparative -- some people outwardly act better than others. It is better to help the needy than to rob them; but if we do it to be admired by others, we have no praise from God. Man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart. What looks like goodness to our eyes might look quite intentions.
The second teaching Jesus gave about goodness was: "Keep the commandments, if you want to live forever" -- 19:17.
o Jesus gives goodness a clear, hard edge. "Goodness" isn't just some fuzzy-wuzzy geniality. Goodness means: Do not murder. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not lie. Honor your parents. Love your fellow man just as you love yourself. Elsewhere, Christ makes it clear that goodness includes the imagination. It's not enough not to commit adultery. We're required not to even imagine immoral acts. It's not enough not to murder. We're required not to hate. That is goodness.
o Jesus sharpens the edge of goodness as sharp as He can make it, in verse 21. Christ's standard of goodness is perfection. We're required to be perfectly good. If we break one commandment, then we've broken them all. If we break a small section of a single pane of glass, we've broken the whole pane of glass. This is God's Law. Break one of the laws, you've broken all of them. If I can keep all of God's commandments, all the time, then I have the right to consider myself a truly good person. Otherwise, I'm just comparatively better than some people in some ways, sometimes.
o Then Christ attaches high stakes to goodness. He says that eternal life hinges on us being good, that is, keeping the commandments. This means that (a) everyone isn't going to Heaven, and (b) we have to deserve to go there! Jesus Christ was no liberal! He was no Unitarian!
What does this mean for us?
o The teaching that I need to do good works in order gain eternal life some day, or to keep eternal life once God gives it to me, is impossible:
§ It waters down God's standard of holiness. God isn't asking for "our best". He isn't asking for "a good-faith effort." He requires moral and spiritual perfection. Our best isn't good enough. God's goodness doesn't bend. His requirement is perfection.
§ That teaching is an insult to Christ's death on the cross. It's like saying that my cartoon scribbling needs to be added to the Mona Lisa. Jesus Christ was the perfect Man. His death on the cross for sin was the perfect payment. His intercession on His people's behalf in Heaven right now is the perfect priesthood. For us to think that there's anything we could do that would add value to anything He did for us is totally wrong-headed.
o Jesus' teaching about goodness also means that it's possible to measure goodness. Christ defined goodness in the form of commandments. Goodness is definable. Committing adultery is bad. Loyalty to your spouse is good. Dishonoring our parents is bad. Respecting them is good. Goodness does not lie in the eye of the beholder. When the Lord's commandment speaks, there are no gray areas. This is an important principle, if we intend to make disciples. Christian disciples should be good people. The commandments tell us what is good.
o Goodness of heart is the antidote to temptation. Goodness comes from the Holy Spirit kneading God's goodness into the dough of our hearts. Remember, only God is good. We have no more natural power to be good after we trust in Christ than we had before. This is why Galatians calls goodness a fruit of the Spirit. We can't work it up.
The Holy Spirit is a tree-keeper -- an arborist. He is in the business of turning dead trees back into living trees, and then, once they're alive, curing them of the blight. We're like trees infected with blight. The Holy Spirit's ministry is to steadily cure us of our blight, from the inside. As He transmits God's unique goodness into us, the fruit of our lives automatically changes over from sour to sweet. Christian men will stop feeling drawn to pornography, because a good heart loves purity. Christian people will not be easily drawn into idolatry, because a good heart loves the Lord Jesus Christ. This is why we pray for the Spirit to make us good people -- because only the Holy Spirit can re-shape us back into God's image.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Male-Female Relationships
If we had a clear vision of what true manhood and womanhood should be, both of ourselves as we ought to be, and of other people (whether our own sex, or the opposite sex) as they ought to be, we would not sink down so easily to the level of society around us in our tastes and expectations. Is this idealistic? Christian idealism is good, when it guards us against settling for the junkiness of the world, the flesh, and the devil.
I think we men need not only to reform our concept of ourselves, so that it comes into alignment with God's plan for manhood, we also need to steadily reform our view of women. This can be hard to do if you were raised surrounded by vixens, hysterics, and shrews. But, if that is the case, then it becomes even more important. So Christian men shouldn't excuse themselves from sitting in on teaching-series like "God's Plan For Womanhood", on the ground that it's a women's topic. It's the man who inherited a confused or horrible view of women who most needs to learn about women from God's Word.
There are people in terrible relationships who suffer from those relationships, but they have no real idea what a God-made relationship could be or should be, so they accept behavior that should be unacceptable.
Even we who have been Christians for some time are still only drawing closer to a full understanding of what a normal, God-formed male-female friendship should look like (such as between a brother and a sister), or a God-formed girlfriend-boyfriend relationship, or a God-formed marriage. We underestimate how much our expectations and tastes have been poisoned by sin and the world. If we could see with perfect clarity of insight what a normal human relationship looked like, according to God's design, we would desire it, since our hearts have been regenerated by the Spirit of God to like the right things.
Men and women, because of our lack of faith and knowledge, look to each other to fulfill needs in ourselves that God alone can ever meet. The need might be loneliness, or the need to feel like we matter, or that we're valued, or the fear that we could be abandoned, or that there's someone in the world who understands and sympathizes with us. Likes us. Other people become frustrated with us because they can never -- never -- satisfy those God-given needs, and we are not satisfying those needs in them, and we never will. So we all become infuriated or depressed by each other, unless we lift up our eyes to the hills of Heaven, from whence our help comes. Children look to their parents, for example, to be their rock of stability and compass of moral orientation. How disillusioned children must be when they realize that even the best parents can only approximate what they, the children, need. But then how comforting it can be to realize that , behind the wavering and inconsistent parent, is an unchanging and rock-steady God. Only this faith can mend the heartache and confusion caused by divorce.
Satan deceives us to confuse bad qualities with good, then cuts us with the jagged edge of the false. We mistake sarcasm for wholesome wit, a rebellious spirit for objective strength of will, contrariness for independence of judgment, seductiveness for modest beauty, parasitic neediness for the normal interdependence that any human being should has for another, or cold detachment for a healthy sense of balanced composure. If we could grow in discernment, we would recognize (applying discernment first to ourselves) that many of our personality qualities that we think are good, or at least benign, are not as innocent as we think they are. We would also begin to appreciate people that perhaps we did not appreciate before as much as we should.
I pray that the Lord would continue to give me the eyes to see what is truly good, in myself and other people.
I think we men need not only to reform our concept of ourselves, so that it comes into alignment with God's plan for manhood, we also need to steadily reform our view of women. This can be hard to do if you were raised surrounded by vixens, hysterics, and shrews. But, if that is the case, then it becomes even more important. So Christian men shouldn't excuse themselves from sitting in on teaching-series like "God's Plan For Womanhood", on the ground that it's a women's topic. It's the man who inherited a confused or horrible view of women who most needs to learn about women from God's Word.
There are people in terrible relationships who suffer from those relationships, but they have no real idea what a God-made relationship could be or should be, so they accept behavior that should be unacceptable.
Even we who have been Christians for some time are still only drawing closer to a full understanding of what a normal, God-formed male-female friendship should look like (such as between a brother and a sister), or a God-formed girlfriend-boyfriend relationship, or a God-formed marriage. We underestimate how much our expectations and tastes have been poisoned by sin and the world. If we could see with perfect clarity of insight what a normal human relationship looked like, according to God's design, we would desire it, since our hearts have been regenerated by the Spirit of God to like the right things.
Men and women, because of our lack of faith and knowledge, look to each other to fulfill needs in ourselves that God alone can ever meet. The need might be loneliness, or the need to feel like we matter, or that we're valued, or the fear that we could be abandoned, or that there's someone in the world who understands and sympathizes with us. Likes us. Other people become frustrated with us because they can never -- never -- satisfy those God-given needs, and we are not satisfying those needs in them, and we never will. So we all become infuriated or depressed by each other, unless we lift up our eyes to the hills of Heaven, from whence our help comes. Children look to their parents, for example, to be their rock of stability and compass of moral orientation. How disillusioned children must be when they realize that even the best parents can only approximate what they, the children, need. But then how comforting it can be to realize that , behind the wavering and inconsistent parent, is an unchanging and rock-steady God. Only this faith can mend the heartache and confusion caused by divorce.
Satan deceives us to confuse bad qualities with good, then cuts us with the jagged edge of the false. We mistake sarcasm for wholesome wit, a rebellious spirit for objective strength of will, contrariness for independence of judgment, seductiveness for modest beauty, parasitic neediness for the normal interdependence that any human being should has for another, or cold detachment for a healthy sense of balanced composure. If we could grow in discernment, we would recognize (applying discernment first to ourselves) that many of our personality qualities that we think are good, or at least benign, are not as innocent as we think they are. We would also begin to appreciate people that perhaps we did not appreciate before as much as we should.
I pray that the Lord would continue to give me the eyes to see what is truly good, in myself and other people.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
"My Heart Tells Me"
One reason we need to be cautious about what our hearts supposedly tell us, is because we are often astoundingly wrong. Even the apostle Paul's heart told him wrong, at least one time of which we know. in II Corinthians 1:9, he relays how he and his team felt sure they were going to die as a result of persecution in Asia. Yet -- they did not die. God rescued them, and continued to rescue them to that very day (v. 10). Paul was optimistic that God would continue to rescue them from Satan's deadly perils.
Our hearts do not send reliable signals to us about what God is doing, or will do. Their impulses could be the result of a bit of undigested beef. Scrooge wasn't wrong, at least at that point. There is more gravy than grave in many of our fears. Self-trust leads to states of great fear (see II Cor. 1:9). Our heartsa deceive us. What we expect to happen is not a divine revelation of what is in fact going to happen. A man's steps are ordered by the Lord, but the Lord nowhere says that He gives us a heads-up through our hearts. We should concentrate on what is wise to do in the situation, and what the Lord ethically requires of us, and not waste time exploring our innards for clues of the future.
Our hearts do not send reliable signals to us about what God is doing, or will do. Their impulses could be the result of a bit of undigested beef. Scrooge wasn't wrong, at least at that point. There is more gravy than grave in many of our fears. Self-trust leads to states of great fear (see II Cor. 1:9). Our heartsa deceive us. What we expect to happen is not a divine revelation of what is in fact going to happen. A man's steps are ordered by the Lord, but the Lord nowhere says that He gives us a heads-up through our hearts. We should concentrate on what is wise to do in the situation, and what the Lord ethically requires of us, and not waste time exploring our innards for clues of the future.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Quality & Popularity in Ministry
I've decided that, among the many other untrue things I was taught in Church Growth 501 class at seminary, there is almost no connection between quality of pastoral ministry and attendance figures. Here's what I mean:
The appeal of preachers varies wildly from one part of the country to another, and it has almost nothing to do with whether the preacher is any good. Chuck Swindoll was fired from his first pastorate in Waltham, Massachusetts, only stayed a short time at his second pastorate someplace in Texas (where you would have thought he would shine, him being from El Campo), and only became "Chuck Swindoll" after he arrived at Fullerton. A good friend of mine, who pastors the church where my wife and I were married, is a much sounder preacher than his predecessor, yet Sunday attendance is less than half of what it was. Using Christian doctrinal orthodoxy as a yardstick, Lakewood Church is one of the worst churches in America, and Joel Osteen does not deserve the title "shepherd". Yet Lakewood has tens of thousands of people in enthusiastic attendance.
I think this is what Jesus meant when he said, "Many who are first will be last, and the last shall be first" -- meaning, the preachers of some of the most celebrated, large, powerful, and wealthy churches in America will end up being called "unprofitable servants" by Christ, and the pastors of some of the most obscure, feeble, poor, struggling, and 'unsuccessful' churches on earth will be given ten cities to rule. MacGavran and C. Peter Wagner are wrong; there is almost no connection between quantity and popularity. Popularity is an unpredictable alchemy of personality, gift, circumstance, and setting, under the direction of the hand of God. I believe that you could take some of the most popular preachers in America, and geographically move them, and in many if not most cases they would fail. You could pluck certain faithful preachers out of the time stream, unheralded and even disliked in their time, equip them with the ability to speak with modern Americans, place them somewhere right now, and they could be world-altering successes. There is no way to predict it.
If there was a direct and reliable connection between quality and popularity, then Twinkies, Big Macs, Andy Warhol art, and rap music would all be failures. Instead, they are all fabulous market successes, despite being mediocre at best and drek at worst.
Also contrary to the quasi-Pelagian man-centeredness of MacGavran, it is the hand of the Lord that alone makes a ministry fruitful. Nehemiah successfully built Jerusalem's wall because the hand of the Lord was with him. Peter had a powerful ministry at Joppa because the hand of the Lord was with him. The real cause, the foundational cause, of ministry fruit was the hand of the Lord. Fruitfulness wasn't ultimately caused by better organization, a different style of illustrating points, better technology, or a different style of music. These methods all might be what theologians call instrumental causes of success. God works through means. One method might be wiser than another. One method might fit the situation better than another. But no method is the originating cause of fruit in church ministry, just as power drills, saws, or lathes do not produce fine pieces of furniture. The mind, skill, and energy of the carpenter builds the piece. Finney was wrong about revival, just as he was wrong about almost everything else he ever said: You can't cause revivals or conversions by the scientific application of psychological principles. Revivals happen because of the hand of the Lord.
The appeal of preachers varies wildly from one part of the country to another, and it has almost nothing to do with whether the preacher is any good. Chuck Swindoll was fired from his first pastorate in Waltham, Massachusetts, only stayed a short time at his second pastorate someplace in Texas (where you would have thought he would shine, him being from El Campo), and only became "Chuck Swindoll" after he arrived at Fullerton. A good friend of mine, who pastors the church where my wife and I were married, is a much sounder preacher than his predecessor, yet Sunday attendance is less than half of what it was. Using Christian doctrinal orthodoxy as a yardstick, Lakewood Church is one of the worst churches in America, and Joel Osteen does not deserve the title "shepherd". Yet Lakewood has tens of thousands of people in enthusiastic attendance.
I think this is what Jesus meant when he said, "Many who are first will be last, and the last shall be first" -- meaning, the preachers of some of the most celebrated, large, powerful, and wealthy churches in America will end up being called "unprofitable servants" by Christ, and the pastors of some of the most obscure, feeble, poor, struggling, and 'unsuccessful' churches on earth will be given ten cities to rule. MacGavran and C. Peter Wagner are wrong; there is almost no connection between quantity and popularity. Popularity is an unpredictable alchemy of personality, gift, circumstance, and setting, under the direction of the hand of God. I believe that you could take some of the most popular preachers in America, and geographically move them, and in many if not most cases they would fail. You could pluck certain faithful preachers out of the time stream, unheralded and even disliked in their time, equip them with the ability to speak with modern Americans, place them somewhere right now, and they could be world-altering successes. There is no way to predict it.
If there was a direct and reliable connection between quality and popularity, then Twinkies, Big Macs, Andy Warhol art, and rap music would all be failures. Instead, they are all fabulous market successes, despite being mediocre at best and drek at worst.
Also contrary to the quasi-Pelagian man-centeredness of MacGavran, it is the hand of the Lord that alone makes a ministry fruitful. Nehemiah successfully built Jerusalem's wall because the hand of the Lord was with him. Peter had a powerful ministry at Joppa because the hand of the Lord was with him. The real cause, the foundational cause, of ministry fruit was the hand of the Lord. Fruitfulness wasn't ultimately caused by better organization, a different style of illustrating points, better technology, or a different style of music. These methods all might be what theologians call instrumental causes of success. God works through means. One method might be wiser than another. One method might fit the situation better than another. But no method is the originating cause of fruit in church ministry, just as power drills, saws, or lathes do not produce fine pieces of furniture. The mind, skill, and energy of the carpenter builds the piece. Finney was wrong about revival, just as he was wrong about almost everything else he ever said: You can't cause revivals or conversions by the scientific application of psychological principles. Revivals happen because of the hand of the Lord.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Visions
There are nine vision recorded in the 30-odd years covered by the Book of Acts.
The first vision is that of Stephen, in 7:55-56. Stephen saw Jesus Christ exalted in heaven, standing at God's right hand.
The second vision was of the risen Christ, rebuking Paul for persecuting the believers (Acts 9:1-9). The men with Paul heard a sound but didn't understand what the sound meant, and did not see anything. This indicates that Paul didn't have a stroke or a hallucination. Paul addresses the vision as "Lord."
The third vision was of Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight (Acts 9:11-12). This third vision further verified that Paul's vision was truly from God, and not just some sort of heat-stroke, since Ananias did indeed come.
The fourth vision was given to Cornelius the centurion (10:3-6). An angel appeared to him and told him to send a delegation to Joppa for Peter. Peter would explain to Cornelius the words of God.
The fifth vision coincided with the fourth vision. Peter received a vision of unclean animals lowered down from heaven in a sheet (10:9-16). This was a picture-story of God declaring the Gentiles "clean", i.e., it was now OK for the Jews to enter Gentile homes or socialize with them.
The sixth vision is of a man of Macedonia, calling Paul and his evangelistic team to come across the Aegean Sea from Troas (16:6-10).
The seventh vision was related by Paul to the Jerusalem mob (Acts 22:17-21). The Lord warned Paul to flee Jerusalem, because He knew they would reject Paul's testimony about Christ. He sent Paul to the Gentiles instead.
The eighth vision was of the Lord assuring Paul that he would not die or be trapped in Jerusalem, but would bear witness in Rome as well (23:11).
The ninth vision was of an angel that assured Paul that he would not die in the storm-tossed ship. Instead, he assured Paul that he would stand before Caesar, and that they would all survive the storm (Acts 27:21-26).
What do we learn from these nine visions?
Not all of them were given to apostles. Stephen, Ananias, and Cornelius each received a vision. Cornelius wasn't even a believer in Christ yet.
All of them are Christ-centered in some way. Stephen's vision exalted the equality of Christ with God (since no mere man or angel is qualified to stand at God's right hand). Paul's Damascus Road vision glorified Christ as the One who chooses His vessels of service. Ananias' vision, and subsequent visit to Paul, helped prove that Paul's vision of Christ hadn't been some sort of hallucination or heat stroke. Cornelius' vision completed his journey to saving faith in Christ. All the rest of the visions facilitated, in some manner, the apostles' missionary work of spreading the message of Christ throughout the world.
Considering that Acts covers about thirty years of activity, the fact that there are only nine visions recorded suggests that visions weren't a commonplace event.
The various circumstances of the visions also suggest that the recipients had no control over them. You could not cause God to give you a vision by following certain steps. Sometimes God gave someone a vision to a man while he was praying, but presumably the believers prayed and fasted other times (since Christians are commanded to "pray always", and to "pray without ceasing") and visions did not incessantly occur every time. Visions happened spontaneously, whenever and wherever God Almighty willed that one should be granted.
Visions did not always reveal new doctrines. The ascension and enthronement of Messiah at God's right hand (seen by Stephen) wasn't a new doctrine. It had already been prophesied in Daniel 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1-2. The social acceptibility of the Gentiles (with the corresponding suspending of the ceremonial laws of Moses) was a new doctrine, though it was implied by certain OT prediction cited later by James in Acts 15. Most of the visions were a-doctrinal, and pertained to guidance, e.g., Paul and his team decided to cross the Aegean into southern Macedonia because of the vision of the Macedonian man.
When visions made predictions, they always came true, and God supplied other kinds of objective verification. Paul and Ananias' mutual visions about one another confirmed each other's veracity. The men traveling with Paul in Acts 9 heard a sound, even though they couldn't understand it as a voice. Cornelius and Peter's visions also confirmed each other.
Visions from God always included words. They were not just picture-symbols lacking explanation, and they certainly weren't "inner impressions."
Acts 2:17 links prophecy with visions ("...in the last days, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and daughters will prophesy; your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams..."). The epistles don't say anything about God stopping the possibility of visions, so this would be a support for the continuation of prophecy as well, since visions are a mode of prophecy.
Application for today would be that God can and does grant visions, when and where He sees fit. We can't cause them to happen, and there is no light from Scripture about frequency, or if they would ever happen. A true vision from God will glorify the Lord Jesus Christ in all His sympathetic humanity, eternal deity, and sovereign authority, and, of course, would never contradict the Scriptures. The Lord also made a habit of building verifiers into visions, so that the recipient had the means to discern true visions from false ones.
The first vision is that of Stephen, in 7:55-56. Stephen saw Jesus Christ exalted in heaven, standing at God's right hand.
The second vision was of the risen Christ, rebuking Paul for persecuting the believers (Acts 9:1-9). The men with Paul heard a sound but didn't understand what the sound meant, and did not see anything. This indicates that Paul didn't have a stroke or a hallucination. Paul addresses the vision as "Lord."
The third vision was of Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight (Acts 9:11-12). This third vision further verified that Paul's vision was truly from God, and not just some sort of heat-stroke, since Ananias did indeed come.
The fourth vision was given to Cornelius the centurion (10:3-6). An angel appeared to him and told him to send a delegation to Joppa for Peter. Peter would explain to Cornelius the words of God.
The fifth vision coincided with the fourth vision. Peter received a vision of unclean animals lowered down from heaven in a sheet (10:9-16). This was a picture-story of God declaring the Gentiles "clean", i.e., it was now OK for the Jews to enter Gentile homes or socialize with them.
The sixth vision is of a man of Macedonia, calling Paul and his evangelistic team to come across the Aegean Sea from Troas (16:6-10).
The seventh vision was related by Paul to the Jerusalem mob (Acts 22:17-21). The Lord warned Paul to flee Jerusalem, because He knew they would reject Paul's testimony about Christ. He sent Paul to the Gentiles instead.
The eighth vision was of the Lord assuring Paul that he would not die or be trapped in Jerusalem, but would bear witness in Rome as well (23:11).
The ninth vision was of an angel that assured Paul that he would not die in the storm-tossed ship. Instead, he assured Paul that he would stand before Caesar, and that they would all survive the storm (Acts 27:21-26).
What do we learn from these nine visions?
Not all of them were given to apostles. Stephen, Ananias, and Cornelius each received a vision. Cornelius wasn't even a believer in Christ yet.
All of them are Christ-centered in some way. Stephen's vision exalted the equality of Christ with God (since no mere man or angel is qualified to stand at God's right hand). Paul's Damascus Road vision glorified Christ as the One who chooses His vessels of service. Ananias' vision, and subsequent visit to Paul, helped prove that Paul's vision of Christ hadn't been some sort of hallucination or heat stroke. Cornelius' vision completed his journey to saving faith in Christ. All the rest of the visions facilitated, in some manner, the apostles' missionary work of spreading the message of Christ throughout the world.
Considering that Acts covers about thirty years of activity, the fact that there are only nine visions recorded suggests that visions weren't a commonplace event.
The various circumstances of the visions also suggest that the recipients had no control over them. You could not cause God to give you a vision by following certain steps. Sometimes God gave someone a vision to a man while he was praying, but presumably the believers prayed and fasted other times (since Christians are commanded to "pray always", and to "pray without ceasing") and visions did not incessantly occur every time. Visions happened spontaneously, whenever and wherever God Almighty willed that one should be granted.
Visions did not always reveal new doctrines. The ascension and enthronement of Messiah at God's right hand (seen by Stephen) wasn't a new doctrine. It had already been prophesied in Daniel 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1-2. The social acceptibility of the Gentiles (with the corresponding suspending of the ceremonial laws of Moses) was a new doctrine, though it was implied by certain OT prediction cited later by James in Acts 15. Most of the visions were a-doctrinal, and pertained to guidance, e.g., Paul and his team decided to cross the Aegean into southern Macedonia because of the vision of the Macedonian man.
When visions made predictions, they always came true, and God supplied other kinds of objective verification. Paul and Ananias' mutual visions about one another confirmed each other's veracity. The men traveling with Paul in Acts 9 heard a sound, even though they couldn't understand it as a voice. Cornelius and Peter's visions also confirmed each other.
Visions from God always included words. They were not just picture-symbols lacking explanation, and they certainly weren't "inner impressions."
Acts 2:17 links prophecy with visions ("...in the last days, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and daughters will prophesy; your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams..."). The epistles don't say anything about God stopping the possibility of visions, so this would be a support for the continuation of prophecy as well, since visions are a mode of prophecy.
Application for today would be that God can and does grant visions, when and where He sees fit. We can't cause them to happen, and there is no light from Scripture about frequency, or if they would ever happen. A true vision from God will glorify the Lord Jesus Christ in all His sympathetic humanity, eternal deity, and sovereign authority, and, of course, would never contradict the Scriptures. The Lord also made a habit of building verifiers into visions, so that the recipient had the means to discern true visions from false ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
