heggthought

The Pastoral Office

2012-01-11T16:16:00.000-08:00

In the past months several churches with which I am familiar have seen their pastors resign and move away. This has left each church to start the process of finding their next undershepherd. And along the way each church will probably take the time to think through just what kind of man they want, and what they expect him to do.

But just how do we understand the pastoral office? Today it is almost a given that the pastor is to have a "shepherd's heart." After all, that's what "pastor" literally means. But I think it is a grave mistake to shape the form and function of the office according to only one of the three terms the New Testament uses to describe it.

It is clear that the Apostles used three different labels to designate the one leadership office in the church. In Acts 20:17, 28 we find Paul calling the "elders" of Ephesus together, imploring them as "overseers" to "pastor" the church of God. The same three words are found referring to the pastoral office in 1 Peter 5:1, 2. Statistically, the term "elder" is used the most in reference to the pastoral office (16 times), with "overseer" coming in second (6 times), and "pastor" a distant third (3 times, with the noun only found in Ephesians 4:11). Yet, despite its scarcity among the apostolic writings, the image of "shepherd" has come to be the dominant figure in defining the modern pastoral office and tasks.

If we allow our personal theological frameworks to be reformed according to Scripture, we'll certainly have to consider that the apostles had a purpose in referring to the pastoral office using three terms rather than only one.

The idea behind "elder" is wisdom, and especially the wisdom that comes through age. "Overseer" brings the idea of management, of making sure that all the parts are aligned and running smoothly. "Pastor" speaks to leading, feeding, and caring for a flock. My concern is that, by downsizing the church leadership task to shepherding alone we have created two major problems in the church. The first damages the pastor, while the second damages the flock.

The first problem with seeing the leadership office in the church as primarily a "shepherding" office is that it makes it appear that one man can handle all the things that are demanded of church leadership. After all, the scenes of flocks usually show one man, dressed in a nice white robe, carrying a little lamb, while the flock of happy, contented sheep are joyfully following along behind him. But this picture has no relation at all to a church congregation as defined in the Bible.

The New Testament is clear that the leadership of the local church is to be committed into the hands of a plurality of godly men who serve together as a team. And even when one is delegated to be the primary visionary leader, it is simply foolish to think that one man could carry out all that the elder/overseer/pastor triad depicts as necessary for the health of the flock and the expansion of the Kingdom. I sincerely believe that the leadership tasks imposed by the Chief Shepherd on the under shepherds of the church are so much more than any one man can effectively accomplish. And we only really come to understand the reality of this when we refuse to see the office as anything less that what all three terms describe.

The consequences of a myopic view of the church's leadership office range from poorly managed flocks to burned out shepherds. We have far too many of both, and the answer is to re-think just how we have imaged the office itself, versus the way the New Testament teaches that the office be understood and occupied by a plurality of qualified, gifted men working together.

But the second problem is just as harmful. The image of the shepherd engenders the idea that he is the primary care giver in the congregation. It is not uncommon for congregations to believe it is the pastor's responsibility to do the visiting, the counseling, the hand holding, the greeting, the encouraging, and the comforting, in addition to the teaching, writing, planning, organizing, managing, and strategic visioneering. Can you say "superman?" Of course, this is not only ridiculous in practical terms, but it is also a blatant misunderstanding of the New Testament's directions on the how the body of Christ is to function.

In every church there is a large group and a small group. We'll call the large group the "congregation" and the small group the "leadership." In lots of churches, the big group wants to be involved in the leadership decision, while expecting the small group to do the caring and helping. But this is backwards! It also just plain won't work.

Let's plug in some numbers. Suppose you're in a church of 400 people, with a leadership team of 8 men. If the 400 expect the 8 to take care of them, to care for their needs, to basically live life with them, they will certainly be disappointed. The ratios just won't allow it. But many pastors think it is their duty to meet these expectations, and they try their best to do so all the while knowing that more and more of their time and energy are being directed away from the primary things they entered ministry to do. They have less and less time to study, read, write, pray, plan, and make disciples, as hospital visits, phone calls, and committee meetings clog their schedules.

Just as bad, if the 400 decide that the leadership decisions must pass through their hands before being implemented, there will be such gridlock that things will seldom get accomplished in a timely manner. Sadly, too many churches today have let this happen, and they continue to muddle along with increasingly burned out staff, and ineffective ministries while they become less and less relevant to the lost in their community.

But there is a better way. Over 40 times in the New Testament the apostles call the large group to mutual care through a series of "one anothers". And this only makes sense! The large group is in the best position to care for one another, encourage one another, love one another, and about 37 more. The pastoral staff have, as one of their primary tasks, the equipping of the large group to do this "work of service", according to Ephesians 4:11,12.

The conclusion is this: leaders need to lead, and equip, and the congregation needs to use their gifts to care for, and build up one another. In this way the church grows together, matures together, and maintains the health necessary to be salt and light in a dark world. And one more thing: the leadership group must always remember that they actually are part of the large group as well. They are not to be isolated and insulated from the sheep. Just because they do not bear all the responsibility for the flock's wellbeing doesn't mean that they don't bear the same individual responsibility for one-anothering as the rest. As pastoral player-coaches they coach while also being actively in the game.

Hope this helps,

David

Old Earth and the New Earth

2011-12-20T14:36:00.000-08:00

Recently my preaching has taken me into the future as we looked ahead from the incarnational coming of Jesus the Savior to the future coming of Jesus the King of All. One of the more pleasant discoveries was that our future home, where God will dwell with us, will be the New Earth. Revelation 21:1ff makes it clear that the old earth will pass away, and that God will create a new one for us to live on for eternity.

This whole New Earth thing got me to thinking. And while my thinking is still in the "discovery" stage, I thought I'd give a shot at trying to lay some of it out for review. Here goes:

I have two basic suppositions. First, we know that Peter was looking forward to the New Earth as he explained in 2 Peter 3:13: But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. I take these "new heavens" to be a new version of the universe, while the new earth will be a sin-free creation with some kind of similarity to our present sin-drenched one.

Secondly, it appears that our resurrected, spiritual bodies will be able to inhabit this new earth. I take this from the fact that Jesus walked and lived on this earth after his resurrection. This also follows from the fact that Moses and Elijah returned to join Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. I know this is less than scientific, but nevertheless it does suggest that our glorified bodies will be fitted to occupy whatever sphere of existence is normal on the new earth.

So, my big question here is this: How does the concept of a new, inhabitable earth relate to the present discussion about origins and the age of our present planet?

I have done some very cursory research and found that the "Old Earth" school of thought believes that our present planet was formed 4.54 billion years ago, but was not inhabitable by mammals until a mere 200 million years ago. So, my question is this:

Are we to believe that God will take just as long to create the New Earth? If so, we'd better settle in for a very long time before Jesus returns. Or can we assume that God could create the New Earth in a shorter time? perhaps in a hundred billion years? or a hundred years? or in a nanosecond?

My point is this: If we believe that God can create the New Earth in a moment, then we must also believe that He could have created our present one in a moment, including all those things that appear to have aged over billions and billions of years. It cannot be that creating something with the appearance of age is the one thing the Almighty can't do!

Lastly, there is great evidence that God did, in fact, create in a second something that appeared quite old. When He turned water into wine, He turned it into great wine. And as any wine drinker knows, the best wine is old wine!

Just thinking out loud,

David

Just Say It

2011-12-12T11:31:00.000-08:00

We're all aware of the iconic Nike slogan "just do it." I'd like to nominate another slogan for all people everywhere who have made a hobby out of critiquing others, and then bottling up their disappointment and frustration: Just say it!

One of the things I prize most is direct, honest communication. But increasingly in our day concerns are not being voiced either at a time or in a way that can be beneficial. It seems that as much as people love to critique, they also love to store up their concerns. They layer them on one another until the mole hill becomes that mountain that just can't be climbed any more. Then they explode, grasping at anything they can find and trying to pull it apart.

There has to be a better way. I'm suggesting that we get back to the simple principle of "just say it." If you see something that is amiss, or you sense that it might be, just say it. Of course, if it is really inconsequential, and can just be dismissed, that is always the best first option. But even then, make sure it doesn't come back later as a grievance. If you can flush it, do so; if you can't then do something about it. Just say it, directly, honestly, winsomely, and in a timely fashion, but by all means, say it!

Perhaps it is cowardice that keeps us from acting in the most honorable way when it comes to speaking honestly and directly to someone about things that are out of sync. I certainly have felt the pull of rationalization when I knew that I should speak directly to someone about a problem. I have succumbed to the temptation to avoid conflict at all cost. But I have seldom if ever found that such behavior solves the problem. Instead, it usually creates in me a ledger where I continue to pile up negatives against that person. It is almost as though I am punishing them for my own unwillingness to deal with the problem when it first arose.

And that's the real point here. If we don't deal with things when they are small, we often watch them pile up until we feel they are almost impossible to deal with at all. This creates another whole level of frustration. We convince ourselves that the problem has reached such tragic proportions that simple answers no longer exist. It is at this point that the biggest crime occurs: we move from frustration about the problem to an almost organic hatred of the person. We take the perceived problem, fertilize it with our frustration, and end up with a whole different kind of plant. We now think the problem is moral, embedded in the very character of the one whose actions we detest. Now the only solution seems to be to get rid of the person. And it all may have been avoided if, at the very beginning, we had summoned up the courage to "just say it."

So, here's my plea: If you see something in me, or in someone else in your life that you feel isn't best for them, you should have only two options. If it is small, and without consequence, and you are able to fully dismiss it from your mental ledger, than do it. But if it is significant, deal with it when it is still in its infancy. I'd suggest these three words as your introduction when you enter into that direct conversation: "Help me understand ..." And then listen. And in the end, just say it. Say it without generalizations, or pejorative language; say it without shouting, or name-calling; say it without a condemning tone, but just say it. Don't represent others who aren't present, and don't take up offenses for others, but just say what you believe to be true and needs to be said.

Bottom line: Don't become a storehouse of evidence against the people in your life. If you do, you'll find that negative evidence is corrosive. Like an acid, eventually it will eat its way through its container, and spill over into the rest of your life. And once you become known as a person whose outlook is mostly negative, you'll start finding yourself alone most of the time. And come to think of it, maybe that's best for those who decide to bottle up their frustrations rather than dealing with them in a way that is beneficial to all. Maybe if they are always alone they will be less able to inflict damage on the rest of us.

Hope this helps,

David

The Source of Love

2011-11-21T10:33:00.000-08:00

In John 13:35 we find one of Jesus' most famous statements: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." It is often assumed then, that love for others is the primary characteristic of true Christ-followers. And certainly love ranks among the most essential of the family traits that are to be found among the children of God. And yet, it is too often the case that this "love" goes unexamined, and can often become synonymous with acts of benevolence, acceptance, and compassion. It is also assumed often that this "love" is more of the heart than the head, more "relational" than intellectual. This is not only unfortunate, but actually so wrong as to be dangerous because, taken too far, this kind of thinking separates two things that the Bible does not separate. This kind of thinking attempts to pit the mind against the heart, thinking against feeling, truth against relationship. But Scripture doesn't allow for this bifurcation. Scripture never considers the one to be sufficient without the other. When Christ enters the life through the Indwelling Spirit, there is both a transformed mind and a transformed life. Faith without works turns out to be no faith as all, even as works without truth turn out to be the surest sign of hypocrisy and a modern brand of Pharisaical legalism. To show this, we'll have to head to the Scriptures.

The first point to be made is that love in the Scriptures is never merely a feeling. We insist on this when we counsel those wishing to be married. We tell them "love is more than a good feeling; it is a commitment to love even when the object seems unloveable." When we say this we are admitting that love is the product of something else, something that produces it. It is not merely a feeling of compassion, or acceptance, although these things can easily masquerade as love. Rather, the love we are to have is the end result of a commitment that is itself the result of a process of analysis, and intellectual comprehension. To ever consider that truth is the enemy of love is to shortchange the very concept of real, sacrificial, committed love. But too often that is what happens when the church decides that all it needs to display is a compassionate, accepting heart. When this compassion is not the result of biblical teaching, theological understanding, and intentional commitment, it can easily deteriorate into an external show that makes us feel better about ourselves when the real reason behind it should be a passion to see God's glory radiate through more and more worshippers. This will demand that we understand love not as an emotion, but as the fruit of an intentional commitment to live out the truth of God's Word.

Second, it must be understood that Scripture itself describes the process whereby love becomes a reality. In 1 Timothy 1:5 Paul writes: "But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith." Notice the divine order: First instruction, and then love. Understanding the truth of God's Word is the necessary prerequisite to a proper living out of what we call love. The priority in the church must always be the proclamation of the Word, and its theological consequences.

To often today the church has been pulled away from intellectual pursuits under the guise of becoming more relevant, more relational, more accepting, more compassionate. Yet, if this relevant relational and accepting form of compassion is not fueled by biblical truth and theological thinking, it isn't the love that Paul is expecting Timothy's teaching to produce. What is needed to day is for the church to stop the pendulum swing right in the middle and affirm daily that we need both a solid biblical, theological foundation in every Christ-follower, as well as the radical expectation that every Christ-follower will live out the fruits of regeneration to the fullest. In other words, we must be a church where people care, and truth matters, and neither is considered sufficient apart from the other.

Also notice that the love we want to produce in ourselves and our churches is love that springs from a "pure heart." This obviously means that there is a kind of love that is produced by an "impure" heart. This impure kind of love will be manipulative, self-serving, and hypocritical. It can be produced by those with little or no connection to Christ, or to His Word. If we settle for this kind of "love" we are actually allowing those who don't know Christ to masquerade as those who do. This is dangerous for the church, but it is eternally tragic for those who believe their acts of compassion can make up for a lack of true self-denial, cross-bearing, and consistent following of Christ. It is hugely important for us to admit that acts of love can be committed by those who don't know Christ. This is true both outside, and inside the church. We have to ask for much more than acts of love, though we can never ask for less. We must insist that love be the product of biblical instruction, and flow from a pure heart that has been cleansed by the Spirit and the Word.

In summary then, let me make two points. First, the ongoing, cyclical process must look like this: biblical truth and instruction is the starting place, and the priority of the church. From this instruction must come transformed lives that joyfully and consistently live out their faith in genuine acts of love, which include both compassion and righteous confrontation, both serving and forgiving, both sacrificial giving of self, and courageous defending of the faith. While the priority is instruction, success will depend on the production of the fruit of lives overwhelmed by the love of Christ, and overflowing with that love to a watching world.

Second, we the church must never settle for anything less than excellence in both areas. We must demand strong, consistent biblical teaching, and the theological formulations that must flow from it. In this there can be no compromise, no downgrade, no corruption. Why? Because such instruction is the means by which God transforms lives into fountains of love. The first is necessary but not sufficient. Truth alone is dead truth. But truth alone can produce love from a pure heart, and this love is what makes the truth sufficient.

The time when churches could be either a "teaching" church or a "reaching" church must end. Neither fulfills the biblical mandate. Neither produces the kind of transformed Christ-follower that the Scriptures picture. We must be churches that insist on the priority of biblical truth while recognizing that only transformed, loving lives matter to God. If truth is the root, then love is the fruit. And never forget that Jesus also said "My Father is glorified in this, that you produce much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples" (John 15:8).

Hope this helps,

David

What Kind of Church?

2011-11-03T14:39:00.001-07:00

Since coming to Grace the question I’ve been asked the most is this one: What is your vision for Grace? Here’s my answer: I believe that a church where people care and truth matters is the only kind of church the New Testament prescribes.

We’ve all seen churches where the people were caring, loving, and involved in doing good in their community while being satisfied with shallow teaching and a lack of theological thinking. On the other hand, we probably know some churches that are great at getting people to think biblically and theologically but seem to have no time to love people, care for them, and be active as transformational agents in their neighborhoods.

I’ve said all along that I’m greedy! I believe Grace has to be both. We have to be a place where people care, and truth matters. And, as importantly, we can’t let the two fight against each other. We can’t see ourselves as a group where some think, and others do; where some know the Bible, and other know how to love and care and reach out to the world. That just isn’t the way the New Testament describes the Body of Christ. We all are to be maturing as Christ-followers which means that what we know must shape who we are and how we love.

For evidence we need go no further than the verse we’ve adopted as a summary of our mission. Note well what Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:5: But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith. Did you see the connection between an instructed person and a transformed life? It is obvious that biblical instruction is a priority, but it turns out such instruction isn’t an end in itself. It has as its purpose the fueling of love from hearts that are pure, as well as consciences that are properly taught and active, and a faith that is authentic to its core. Taken together these form a conspicuously transformed life that is able to be an agent of transformation in our world. That’s our goal! And my vision for Grace is that we work and pray tirelessly so that we become more and more the church where people really care, and truth really matters!

Hope this helps,

David

Obstruction!

2011-11-03T09:04:00.000-07:00

I love soccer. I love the beauty of its fluidity, its athleticism, its passion. I love that the rules of the game are called "laws" and that the officials are simply there to enforce them. I especially love that, in soccer, it is illegal to "obstruct" another player's path to the ball. A mutual shoulder to shoulder charge is permissible because it is seen that each player has an equal footing. But when one player obstructs the path and play of another, it violates the law.

I sure wish this law carried over into life, and specifically into group decision-making. It ought to be that decisions are made on the basis of the best arguments, the best ideas, the best outcomes. It ought to be that everyone plays according to the same rules of listening, analyzing, and agreeing. What should not be allowed is obstruction. By this I mean the intentional opposing of an idea just for the sake of making sure nothing is ever done without opposition. I get it that it is always good to have free-flowing discussion before a decision is made. But when the decision is obvious, and already mutually agreed upon, ongoing obstruction ought to be called out. Too bad we don't have an official with a whistle to help us see the facts. Even better would be an official with a yellow card to stop play and caution the offender that such behavior won't be tolerated.

Like I said, I love soccer. And the fact that I can't play the beautiful game anymore only heightens my feeling that real life should be more like soccer. But alas, it isn't to be. I guess I'l just have to get better at my own skills like ball control, and tackling.

Thanks for listening,

David

Ephesians 2:1,2: Who We Were, Part 2

2011-10-27T15:57:00.000-07:00

When Paul thinks of his readers he can't help but remember who they were before the sovereign grace of God reached out and rescued them. He reminds them in these verses: "you were dead!" Their relationship with almighty God was lifeless. Their essential nature was so polluted by sin and its effects that they were without any spiritual ability either to regain relationship with God or in any way make themselves more attractive to Him.

But as bad as that declaration was, it didn't tell the whole story. It wasn't just their nature that was polluted by sin. So were their lives, their thoughts, words, and deeds. Turns out the character of their lives was aligned with that sin soaked nature. They acted like who they were. In the court of Heaven, where the records are kept, it was evident that their bad records were the consequences of their bad hearts.

In a clever use of words Paul states that, though dead, they were still living. And these lives bore daily testimony to the fact that they were of this world. They were conformed to the culture, captivated by the great enemy of God whose spirit continues to work through all who prefer unrighteousness.

As Christ-followers it is so important that we understand the significant difference that is supposed to exist between those aligned with this world, and those who are citizens of Heaven. I am not here arguing for perfection in this life, but I am saying that those in whom the Spirit dwells must certainly demonstrate a different heart and life than those still in league with the Devil.

This isn't a popular subject today. We seldom settle down and think about the fact that churches today are more and more filled with people who really don't want to follow Christ if it means radical change in the way they think, dream, love, and live. But that is exactly what Jesus said: "If you want to come after Me, you'll have to deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me."

Now, the whole "deny yourself" thing is pretty inviting if you really understand the "self" you were when dead in trespasses and sins. When the Spirit opens our eyes to the reality of our deadness, how hard should it be to run the other way in stark terror? For me that's what it means to repent, and turn in faith to the outstretched arms of our waiting Savior. And if I read my Bible right, I think that's the way it is supposed to be.

But a strange thing happens if we never thought of ourselves as "that bad" If we just needed a conversion rather than a whole new life, if we just needed some help, some repair, some better advice, and a better group of friends, then the gracious gift of God in Christ simply won't be seen as the monumental value it really is. If the disease appears incurable, then any remedy will leave the patient marveling for a lifetime. But if the disease seems common and average, then the cure won't seem special.

Jesus taught that there is a relationship between how much we have been forgiven, and how much we love (Luke 7:47). A great problem in the church today is the compromising of the sinfulness of sin in our presentation of the Gospel. We start off with "God loves you" instead of "God is holy, holy, holy, and you as a sinner are under His righteous wrath." Today we are having to deal with the consequences of decades of "gospel lite" in which people were never told that they were hopelessly corrupt, without any spiritual life, and on the road to eternal judgment. Consequently, their reasons for "accepting Jesus" were almost entirely self-centered, and focused on gaining better relationships, happiness, wealth, or simply escaping the fires of hell (though the idea of hell seems out of place in a Gospel that so minimizes sin). What ends up happening is those who have "trusted Christ" for selfish reasons fail miserably at the "deny" stage, rebel at the "take up the cross" stage, and re-define "follow Me" as "Jesus, I've hired you to be my Life Coach." How can their love be deeper than this when they have almost no concept of being graciously forgiven for an eternity's worth of wickedness and rebellion?

Paul lays out a great pattern for understanding the Gospel here in Ephesians 2. He recognizes that the Good News is only good against the backdrop of the bad news. Our bad hearts have earned us a bad record in the Court of the Almighty. We weren't charged with misdemeanors that could easily be plea bargained away. Neither were we found guilty of petty crimes or minor offenses. No! Our entire nature was intoxicated with sin, our desires completely focused on self rather than God, and our wills held captive by Satan himself (see: 2 Timothy 2:24-26). And, not content to be sinful by nature, we also demonstrated our internal corruption through our daily actions. We were sinful and we were sinners and unless God changed the trajectory of our lives, we would end up bearing the eternal consequences of divine wrath.

Paul's main point here is to show that, in our sins, we were on Satan's side. We weren't the independent individuals we thought we were. We were walking his path, doing his will, with no desire for God. And God could have justly let us keep going, walking away from Him. But, turns out God is a competitor! He determined that sin would not win, and so embarked on the greatest rescue mission ever attempted. He sent Jesus, and those whom He calls to new life in Christ will recognize the monumental mess they were in, and seeing how much they were forgiven, will love in a way that is progressively more satisfying and more radical. And that's the way it is supposed to be.

Hope this helps,

David

Look before you leap

2011-10-26T10:31:00.000-07:00

Recently I watched as some who claim to follow Christ acted in a most unchristian way. It seems they determined to make a series of decisions that ultimately impacted other believers in significantly hurtful ways. Along the way they rationalized appearances and circumstances so as to create in themselves the belief that they were doing the right thing. But ultimately they acted out of self-interest, and not in a manner worthy of the Gospel of Christ.

Their actions will certainly have consequences for others but I am concerned here about the fact that they did not take time to consider deeply the consequences their actions will have on them. If you fire a bullet in close quarters, you had better first determine the risk of ricochet.

In the arena of interpersonal relationships many times hurtful actions can have far-reaching and unintended consequences. If you hit me, I will try hard to forgive you, but it doesn't mean that our relationship will ever really be the same. I may at some point trust you again, but in the back of my mind I will be ready to put up my arms in defense at the first sight of danger. This illustrates a huge and important point. Forgiveness on my part does not effect reconciliation apart from repentance on your end. And even where both exist, it will take time for me to test the sincerity of your repentance. In any event it will be some time before I stop seeing you as potentially dangerous. Trust is built over time while suspicion is born in a moment, and can make the re-building of trust a long, long process.

As Christ followers we are called upon to "be diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3). This means many things but it certainly includes the mindset that I am going to think carefully and righteously before I initiate any process that might bring division between believers. I am going to recognize the long-term consequences of my short-term decisions, and I am going to make sure that what I am about to do is both righteous, and being done in a manner worthy of the Gospel of Christ.

This episode has been a good reminder to me. We all better look before we leap, especially if we're looking to leap in a way that will hurt other believers. We have to be aware that when we leap, we've left the place of sure footing, and are in grave danger of hitting the rocks below ourselves.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 2:1,2: Who We Were, Part 1

2011-10-26T10:14:00.000-07:00

"And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Ephesians 2:1,2

Having detailed the wondrous privilege of salvation through Christ Jesus from the heavenly point of view in chapter 1, Paul now turns to view the same process from the vantage point of earth. Chapter 1 gave us God's perspective; here we begin with the perspective of sinful mankind. And the view is pretty ugly.

For centuries Christians have discussed the essential question: "How does a sinner gain acceptance before a holy God?" But if Paul were to answer the question the way it is framed here he would say boldly "A sinner can never gain acceptance before a holy God because he is spiritually dead; any 'gain' must come about through the gracious activity of God." This is the point Paul is making in Ephesians 2:1,2.

When Paul declares that his readers were "dead" in their trespasses and sins he is saying they are completely devoid of any spiritual life. This is one of 3 illustrations that are used in the New Testament to describe the state in which unregenerate people find themselves. Perhaps the most common one is that they are blind. Paul knew this one first hand. As a Pharisee he believed he knew the truth. After all, he was so zealous that he travelled far and wide to find the enemies of God and put them in jail. Consequently, it was the height of irony that Christ, in order to show him just how spiritually blind he was, struck him with physical blindness! It was only after the scales fell from his eyes that he could truly see clearly. And when he did, he realized that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and the only Savior of the soul.

The third illustration was used by Jesus Himself when He told Nicodemus that He had to be "born again." Here the picture is of the process by which a baby is conceived, matured, and finally born. It is the picture of a new life coming into this world. Obviously, this one aligns nicely with the first one (being dead) in that both speak of a new life coming into being.

If we look carefully at these three illustrations we find that they all have at least one essential trait in common. In all three, the necessary action comes from outside. That is, the dead cannot raise themselves, the blind cannot bring about their sight, and the unborn cannot cause themselves to be born. All need the power and action of something outside of themselves. And so it is with salvation. Being dead, we are wholly dependent upon God to initiate and consummate our spiritual rescue.

Paul starts his explanation of the cure (salvation) with a direct assessment of the disease (sin and its effects on the human animal). And, as we will see next time, our spiritual "deadness" is more than a mere characteristic; it actually determines how we live our lives.

Hope this helps,

David

Faithful Wounds

2011-10-24T10:21:00.000-07:00

I was recently reminded of a powerful verse from the book of Proverbs: "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy" (Proverbs 27:6). It caused me to wonder what Solomon had experienced that brought this powerful truth out of his life and into written form.

While I'll never know what Solomon went through, I do know the times in my life when this proverb proves itself to be true. As a somewhat public figure I know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of bombs lobbed from a distance. The advent of email has made this particularly easy. People can sit far away, and whenever it suits them, they can fire off criticisms and negative perceptions based on nothing more than their own analysis, faulty as it may be.

Over time I have learned that even the most antagonistic critic can offer some truth that needs to be heeded. If fact, it actually helps me withstand criticism if I find something valuable in it. This turns a certain negative into somewhat of a positive. But I have to be direct and honest here: criticisms from those who are invested and engaged in the mission of Christ through the church to the world carry much more value in my eyes. Even more, those who have decided to partner - not merely join - with us here at Grace Baptist occupy a position in my heart that grants them the highest level of attention, regardless of whether their thoughts are critical or encouraging. The wounds of those who are friends and partners are worth so much more because of their faithfulness to our shared mission.

Some people just don't understand this. They think I should be as receptive to their criticisms as I am to the concerns of those pulling the plow alongside me. And, as stated above, I do believe that the Lord wants me to analyze every suggestion that comes my way to see what helpful truth might be there. But, the simple truth is this: if you're sitting in the stands watching the rest of us fight the battles, your perception and suggestions and criticisms just don't carry much weight. If you're not a real friend and partner, I may not really have time to heed your words. You can still send them my way, but if you really want me to stop everything and consider what you're seeing and saying, sign on, step up, and join the struggle.

On the opposite side of the equation, if you're throwing kisses from up in the stands recognize that those of us in the battle are wise not to fully trust your motives. If you really appreciated what we were doing, you'd join us. So please excuse us if we're less than giddy about your long-range commendations. As a good friend has said "compliments are like perfume; a little is nice but you should never drink it."

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:22,23: Our Sovereign Savior

2011-10-24T10:01:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 1:22, 23: "And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all."

We in America bristle at the thought of absolute authority. Our history is built on a united opposition to the rule of a monarch, and if you want to stir up a real argument just suggest that certain "rights" ought to be restricted. We are a nations of individuals who believe we are entitled not only to personal freedom, but also to our own personal definition of that freedom. This is why we American Christ-followers find it so hard to believe and trust in the concept of Christ's absolute sovereignty over His church.

The concept of sovereignty - that Christ has both the right and power to do whatever pleases Him - falls on our ears in a harsh way. But such would not have been the case in first century Ephesus. For Paul's readers, the question was not about the rightness of living under sovereign rule; the question was all about finding the best sovereign ruler. And for those who have been chosen in Christ, redeemed through His death, and are sealed with the Spirit, the good news was that they were now in the Kingdom of God, completely subject to Jesus Christ in the same way that the body was ruled over by the head.

In our day this is hard to understand and largely we have Lord Acton to blame. He is the author of that now famous statement "Power corrupts, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." We've taken that to heart and decided that no one - not even God! - should be entrusted with absolute power. A second problem is that we have no human models of truly righteous sovereignty. No man has ever possessed the attributes of absolute power and infinite righteousness. Given this, we have a very hard time imagining how this combination looks, even when Scriptures present it boldly in the nature of God.

And so the question is this: what do we do when our natural inclinations are at odds with God's Word? What are we to do when what we believe deeply conflicts what what the Scriptures command us to believe? This first chapter of Ephesians has tested this all along. We've been told that God chose some in Christ for salvation before time even began. We been told that our salvation was not effected because of things we could do, but completely because of what Christ has done. Furthermore Paul has not stopped to defend these concepts a though they would be offensive; on the contrary, he apparently is listing these and other facts of God's gracious rescue of sinners as though we ought to be rejoicing in them. Paul certainly is asking us to realign our natural inclinations about fairness and democracy with the sovereign actions of our God who always does what is best and right.

So what does Paul want us to take away from these concluding verses in Ephesians 1? Just this: It is a grand privilege to be in the body over which Christ is the Head. There is great protection here, and even greater provision. To be under the sovereign rule of Christ is to be plucked out of the domain of darkness and transferred into the Kingdom of the Beloved Son (Colossians 1:13,14). To be under the feet of Jesus Christ, God's King, is to be in the greatest place of blessing, as power and knowledge and love and faith flow down, through the Spirit, to nourish and mature our souls. Stay close, stay submitted, and stay thankful.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:20, 21: The Pre-Eminence of Christ

2011-09-19T11:18:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 1:20, 21: "... and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come."

Sometimes I wonder how today's gospel got so far away from the biblical Christ. In an effort to make Jesus the ultimate Life Coach we have packaged His power, love, and accepting compassion together, forgetting His true position. In this closing part of a great benediction, Paul reminds the Ephesians of something David had long ago written.

In Psalm 110:1 David wrote: The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for Your feet. I can't help but think that Paul had this verse in mind when he wrote Ephesians 1:20,21. Notice that Paul declares Jesus' present position to be at the right hand of God, and that this position sets Him far above every other kind of authority. It is, as David put it, a position where all of those who would or could oppose Him are just like a footstool upon which He could prop His feet should He so choose. They are not a worry, nor a threat.

Sadly, this glorified position of Jesus Christ is missing from many of the present day presentations of Jesus. He is the friend, the loving God, the Savior, the One who accepts you, the Care-giver, and especially today, the Life Coach. He comes to you, accepts you just as you are, but helps you understand life better, make better choices, and become a much better person. Your relationships are now more satisfying, and your life has more purpose. You feel better because you are better, and you have Jesus the Life Coach to thank! He has come to you, and ministered to you. How great it is to have the Creator of the Universe as your personal coach and teacher. You really are the center of the universe!

But the Bible actually knows nothing of this. Yes, Jesus is the Savior, the Lover of our Souls, and the Friend of sinners. But He is all these things as a consequence of first being God the Son, the King of Heaven who has come bringing all the authority of Heaven to earth in order to rescue the perishing. And why has He done so? Has He saved us for us? or has He saved us for Him? Certainly God has not enacted His eternal redemptive plan so that we can feel better. Actually, He has done it so He can look good; that is, so His glory might be displayed through the church as a group of reclaimed, reformed, and redeemed people. Yes, He saves, and seals, and sends the indwelling Spirit through whom we are taught to walk in wisdom and truth. Yes, the redeemed life is much better, more purposeful and satisfying. Yes, Jesus cares and loves. But all of this is only truly magnificent if we first understand who He really is!

It is a hard balance to remember that Jesus is not only a loving friend and counselor, guide and provider. He is also God of very God, holy, just, and worthy of our most humble approaches in worship and service. Perhaps if we meditated more on the two natures of Christ it would help. His perfect humanity makes Him the perfect friend; His complete deity makes Him the holy God. May our lives, and our Gospel display them both before a watching world.

Hope this helps,

David

David wrote:

The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

Ephesians 1:19b, 20: Resurrection Power

2011-08-25T13:38:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 1:19b, 20: "These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places ..."

Paul's prayer for the Ephesian believers was both precise and powerful. He was very specific in asking on their behalf that God would open the eyes of their hearts and minds. His hope was that they would come to see more fully and more clearly the hope they could count on in Christ. He also asked that they would recognize the vast riches of their new inheritance, and lastly, that they would experience the great power of God granted to those who believe.

At this point every reader would have been so overjoyed at the prospect of the delights and privileges found in Christ that they could scarcely think any more could be added. But amazingly, Paul isn't through!

He now writes that all of these - the hope, rich inheritance, and divine power - are to be compared in scope and grandeur to the mighty work of God in raising Jesus Christ from the dead and restoring Him to His place in heaven. You thing the resurrection was amazing? Guess what: the same power and might and divine work that went into accomplishing this centerpiece of our worldview has gone into creating, extending, and preserving the blessings Paul has just described. He is saying "your hope, your inheritance, and your experience of the power of God are a demonstration of the same strength that raised Christ from the dead!"

As I have been writing these devotionals one thing has happened over and over again. I have been surrounded with amazement. There is no other way to put it. Reading what Paul is declaring, and then realizing that it is true for me has often left me greatly saddened that I haven't appreciated all this to the level I should have. I am so amazed at the expense God has gone to, the depth of love He has shown, and the great generosity He has extended to me. These are epic blessings that Paul lists, and yet too often I forget these treasures are mine, and will be forever. May the Lord help us all to make these things the place to which we retreat when things in this sad world don't turn out to our benefit. Just know that our Heavenly Father has granted us a rich inheritance, and is working within us through His Spirit to fit us to enjoy it forever. Now that's a hope to cling to.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:19: Knowing God's Surpassing Power

2011-08-24T10:02:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 1:19: "(so that you will know) ... what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe."

The Ephesian believers were called of God to live out a redeemed lifestyle in the midst of a pagan city where idolatry and sexual promiscuity were considered cultural values. Now they had been delivered from the realm of darkness and transferred into the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. Yet, their everyday lives were still surrounded by the darkness with all of its temptations which were fueled by the force of habit. Against this constant pressure Paul declares his fervency in prayer for them, specifically for three things: First, that they would know the very real hope brought to them by the Indwelling Spirit that could carry them through every circumstance; second, that they would understand the riches of their heavenly inheritance to be eternally greater than anything the world could offer them; and lastly, that they would recognize and experience the dynamic power of God in their struggle to persevere and grow in faith despite the opposition of sin and culture.

The power of God here is certainly the power granted to us via the Indwelling Spirit of God. Paul elsewhere declares that it is this power that enables his ministry. But the real question for us is: "how do we know the power of God? How do we harness it? How do we lose it to work in our lives, and what is the relationship between our working and God's working in and through us?"

Perhaps the best answer to this set of questions is found in Paul's own assessment, given to us in Colossians 1:29: For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me. Notice that Paul does not consider the power of God to be something that is somehow separate from his own diligent obedience and passionate activity. He labors! He strives! Yet, in all of his running he is ever resting in the fact that only that which is enveloped in the power of God will succeed. It is the power of God that is at work, fulfilling the plan of God through the discipline and persevering labor of those who are passionate about fulfilling the call of God on their lives. Simply put, we will know that the power of God is at work in us when we are laboring, striving to do His will, His way, and always for His glory.

Lastly, note that the power Paul prays for in Ephesians 1:19 is not available to everyone. It is not indiscriminately granted to all who desire something from God. Rather, it is pointed "toward us who believe." Those who reject the Son of God have no claim on the power of God. This blessing is reserved for the family, for those to whom the Indwelling Spirit has brought new life, and who are now going back into the realm of darkness as agents of rescue.

The Ephesian believers lived in a culture that posed two dangers to them. First, it was tempting. It put beautiful, enjoyable sins right in front of the everyday. Second, it was antagonistic. It hated the fact that, in Christ, believers had a stable foundation and standard by which to judge the culture and find it wanting. Against this set of challenges the Christ-followers would be quite weak if not for the presence of the Spirit of God. Paul's prayer aligns with this as he asks God to enlighten their spiritual eyes so that they can see, understand, appreciate and appropriate the treasures that are theirs; namely, hope, riches, and power.

Our days are not much different from theirs. We live facing the challenges of temptation and opposition everyday, if we're truly denying self, taking up the cross and following Jesus closely. And the very same blessings Paul wanted the Ephesians to know are ours as well. The hope, riches, and power available to us in Christ, through the Spirit, are God's way of facilitating our perseverance through trying times and circumstances. If God is for us, who can prevail against us?

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:18: What the Enlightened Heart Knows: A Rich Inheritance

2011-08-23T10:10:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 1:18: "I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints ..."

When Paul enters the presence of God in prayer for his Ephesian friends he comes bearing three requests on their behalf. The first one is that they would know the "hope of His calling" in their lives. The second is that their hearts would be enlightened to see the "riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints."

Remember that the city of Ephesus was one of the wealthiest cities in the region. Their constant dredging of the harbor meant that they were a bustling commercial center. The greatest tribute to their wealth was the Temple of Diana that towered over the city with its white marble being visible for miles. Consequently, the people of Ephesus maintained a very high standard of living. They were rich, and their wealth allowed them to enjoy many of the world's pleasures.

Against this backdrop we can better understand Paul's prayer. Having come to understand their sin, and the call of God to follow Christ in faith, the Ephesian believers had also recognized that many of the things - the "riches" of this world - they had considered so valuable were now to be left behind. Their sinful sexual practices, their deceitful relationships, and their pagan worship were all now understood to be just so much garbage compared to the value of knowing Christ Jesus as Lord (see: Philippians 3:1-10). It was also certainly the case that some who came from wealthy families would have forfeited their inheritance, and standing in the family in leaving behind the pagan lifestyles of the family to follow Jesus.

But Paul insists that an ever greater wealth is now theirs to own. His prayer is that they would be enabled by God to see through the temporal haze and fully appreciate the inheritance that they had in Christ. The One who had called them, and so instilled a living hope in them, had also granted them an inheritance whose glory declared its intrinsic value. Far above anything this world could promise in the way of money, possessions, position, or power, God has guaranteed eternally to those who are in Christ.

And, unlike so many of the Gospel presentations in our day, the benefit of being "in Christ" is not merely a fire insurance policy whereby we escape the horrors of Hell. Paul says this inheritance is now enjoyable "in the saints." The life that we are promised eternally has already begun, and it is a new kind of life, and "eternal" life. When we speak of "eternal life" we are not merely talking about a life that never ends. We are also talking about a life with a whole new kind of value, purpose, and satisfaction. We are talking about a life that has begun already, and will progressively become more and more aligned with the original purpose of our creation: bringing glory to God! This means that right now - today! - those in Christ are enjoying a progressive sense of improvement away from who sin wants us to be, and toward a fuller demonstration of who we really are as sons and daughters of the Almighty. The truth is that those in whom the Spirit dwells will be becoming more and more godly, more and more satisfied with holiness, more and more passionate about being channels of God's ethic, message, compassion, and grace. And all this is just the beginning of the enjoyments to be found in the riches of the inheritance we have been granted as those called to faith in Christ.

So where are you today? Where is your focus? Are your eyes seeing clearly that what you have in Christ is of far more value than gold and silver? Are you passionate to explore, enjoy, and showcase the transforming power of Christ in your life? Is it real to you, and becoming more and more real every day? That was Paul's prayer for his Ephesian brothers and sisters. May it be ours as well, for ourselves and for the Christ-followers in our own circle.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:18: What the Enlightened Heart Knows: Hope

2011-08-18T12:58:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 1:18: "I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling ..."

It is increasingly evident that many Christ-followers have only a beginning level of knowledge about their position in Christ. Perhaps this is because we are by nature prone to be complacent rather that diligent in our pursuit of knowledge. Perhaps it stems from the shallow gospel that is so prevalent today. Perhaps it is a consequence of the growing anti-intellectual bent in our world that promotes experience over knowledge. Whatever the reason, it is not unusual for believers to know only the "first things" about their salvation. They know they are saved, and on their way to heaven. They know they are forgiven, and that it has something to do with Jesus and the cross. They know they are loved and that God is really great. But they also know that this world is filled with tragedy and evil and heartache and pain. They know just enough to feel good when times are good, but not enough to joyfully persevere when they aren't.

It is interesting that the first thing Paul prays for in terms of the enlightened heart's ability to really know and appreciate the blessings of redemption is hope. And it is not just any hope. It is the hope of His calling. It is a hope that is unique. It is a hope that is anchored in the calling of God on our lives. It is a hope that recognizes, glories in, and holds on to, as its foundational security, the result God intends to bring about in us. Our hope is to be focused on what God has purposed to accomplish through His rescue of our souls.

The whole idea of our "calling" often gets lost or pushed to the margins of our lives today. We may hear some talk about the "call" upon their lives in terms of career or ministry direction. But seldom do we think deeply about the fundamental "call" God has placed on our lives as those in whom He has placed His Spirit. Simply put, He now owns us. He has redeemed us out of slavery, and transferred us into His Kingdom. He has gone even further and adopted us into His family and granted us the eternal inheritance of heaven. And He has done all of this so that His glory might be demonstrated through us as examples of what His power and love can do. God saved us, not so we could feel good, but so that He could look good. And yet - amazingly - when He looks good in us, we will feel the best in Him.

Paul knew the Ephesians were heading for tough times. They were living the redeemed life in the midst of a pagan culture bent on destroying any worldview that challenged the legitimacy of theirs. What would Paul want for them? Would he pray that they would be happy? that they wouldn't feel the pain of persecution or societal rejection? Apparently not. Rather, he prayed that their eyes of their hearts would be opened to see that their only real hope was the guarantee that God was working through everything - even trials and tragedy - to shape and fit them to be instruments of His glory, in this life and the next. That was the "hope" they could have in the surety of God's call on their lives. That even in this life the fact of their positional righteousness in Christ and the guarantee of eternal life could offer them real, substantial security against despair. Despite what might be true in the temporal world, they were safe and secure in the arms of their Almighty Savior Jesus Christ.

Where do you turn for security? When circumstances are overwhelming and your plans fail to materialize, where do you look for hope? History has shown that those who look to wealth or human success or even the blessings of family and relationship will eventually be sorely disappointed. But when the eyes of our hearts are truly open to the magnificence of God's call - His eternal loving grasp! - on our lives, nothing this world can throw against us can rob us of the joy of being part of the redeemed family of God.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:17, 18a: A Prayer for an Enlightened Heart

2011-08-17T09:59:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 1:17, 18a: "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened."

Here we get to the content of Paul's prayer for the Ephesian believers. In essence he is praying that they would come to really know and understand and appreciate all that they now possess in Christ. He has listed the spiritual blessings that are theirs, but now we see that he prays unceasingly that what is real in them may become an experiential reality to them. He prays that their understanding would be deepened more and more to appreciate what God has granted to them in Christ.

If you have small children you know how exciting Christmas morning can be. All of the packages under the tree holding the promise of great joy. I remember when our kids were young and we would try to get each of them one special gift to open on Christmas. But all too often, especially when they were very young, they would open that gift and be much less excited than we hoped. My wife would rush over and start explaining why the child should be whooping and hollering and jumping up and down. After all, we had given them this amazing toy! In essence, we were trying to enlighten the heart and mind of our child to the magnificence of the gift they had been given.

I imagine that is what Paul is doing here in this verse. He recognizes, both from his own experience and that of other Christ-followers, that the grandeur and monumental worth of the treasure we have in Christ is so often overlooked, or minimized due to our shallowness, our lack of spiritual perception.

Let's unpack Paul's prayer in these verses. First, not that his petition is aimed at "God ... the Father of glory."Paul is ever mindful that God alone is glorious. He makes sure that, from the beginning, it is clear that if and when God does answer this prayer in the affirmative, the purpose will be to recognize and magnify the glory of God.

Second, recognize that as believers we still need to have our hearts "enlightened." That is, as justified sinners privileged to be in the family of God, we have only just begun to perceive and understand and appreciate all that God is, and has done for us in Christ. We are just nibbling around the edges of His magnificence, just beginning to feast on His truth, just starting to drink from the fountain of His grace. What is available to us in Christ is so much more than deliverance from the power and penalty of sin, although that is so wonderful. But beyond escape from sin's bondage, Christ offers real life in fellowship with our Maker, endowed once again with the ability to love righteousness, to pursue goodness and greatness as those being restored in the image of God.

It is here that Paul directs his prayer for the Ephesians. He prays that God, the Father of glory would continue to do the work of enlightenment in the hearts of the readers. We will get a fuller explanation of what this entails in the following verses, but for now, let this wash over you. Do you long for a great experience of the truth of your salvation? Do you desire a greater recognition of God's grace in your life, a deeper delight in the blessings He has bestowed on you? Or are you content just to be on the bus to heaven? Like a child that plays with the box instead of the amazing toy, we all are prone to complacency. We are satisfied with pennies while the dollar bills are just around the corner.

Third, see just how Paul prays. He asks that God would "give to (them) a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him." Paul recognizes that spiritual discernment and the maturity that follows is not merely a human accomplishment. While it is ours to pursue righteousness and truth with diligence, we must understand that success is dependent upon God granting us His favor. We run even as we rest in the knowledge that He is doing the work in us, and giving us the will to work harder for His glory. When was the last time you prayed for yourself or for others that God would grant them a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of God Himself? How about today?

But what does it mean when Paul says "a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him?" Let's start backwards. Understand from the start that the purpose here is a great knowledge of God. It is not a request for some ecstatic experience or emotional sense of well-being. It is not a request for God to do something for us. It is a request for God to do something for us so that we can have a greater understanding of the truth He has revealed about Himself. Don't miss this. Paul isn't praying that the Ephesians will have some special "spirit" that will elevate them above other believers. He isn't praying that they will gain something not available to all. Rather, he is asking God to broaden their knowledge of God, and deepen their appreciation of His blessings, through the work of the indwelling Spirit. And I believe that wherever this prayer is offered in sincerity, God is pleased to affirm it since it is always His will for His children to grow in the knowledge of the truth.

Wisdom is understood in the Old Testament sense as the skill of righteous living. Paul is praying not only for their increase in knowledge, but also that the knowledge of God will work its way out in righteous living. Revelation is the divine work of making known what cannot be known apart from God. This shows that the knowledge Paul hopes they will gain is not mere factual knowledge, but the whole sense of meaning that God intends us to find in the facts.

All of this comes together in Paul's short prayer, and is summed up in his hope that the
eyes of their hearts will be enlightened. That is, that their dullness of spiritual vision will be removed, and the true light of the knowledge and truth of God will fill their hearts and minds, producing lives that follow Christ with great joy. Now that's a prayer worth repeating!

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:16: Praying Thankfully

2011-08-16T10:52:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 1:16: "do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers."

Have you ever considered that praying is one of the most deeply theological things we do? To pray is actually to express the deepest trust in the sovereign God, that He can do the impossible. It is the sincerest form of worship by which we extol His perfect knowledge and all-encompassing providence, asking Him to align our hearts with His actions which are always right and best. Unfortunately, if we fail to recognize prayer as essentially theological, we can easily turn it into a selfish "ask" fest. It becomes the means by which we make our will known in heaven rather than what it is supposed to be: a means whereby God's will is done on earth, through us.

To counter our natural tendency to see prayer as primarily selfish the biblical writers persistently stress the element of thankfulness in their admonitions to pray. Two examples from the writings of Paul demonstrate this. In Philippians 4:6 he writes "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God." And again in Colossians 4:2 we read "Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving." And in the text for today we see that Paul not only exhorts us to be thankful in praying but actually practices what he preaches. In his prayers for the Ephesian believers Paul "does not cease giving thanks" for them.

It is important that we learn the lesson here. Our prayers, no matter our situation, must be seasoned always with thanksgiving in our hearts before God. It is this essential, foundational attitude that represents our mind's recognition that we are privileged to be in the very presence of a holy, omnipotent God. Because Christ has brought us near, we can talk directly to our Maker without fear of being banished or worse. To enter into His presence without an overwhelming sense of gratitude is to admit that we take His glory and grace for granted, and have developed an attitude of entitlement. This must not happen. We must be ever mindful that our God is great, and greatly to be praised, and that the love by which He has drawn us to His heart is also to be a constant source of overflowing thanksgiving.

Next time you engage with God in prayer do so with a sense of sincere thankfulness. Express your heart's appreciation for His person, His power, His provision and protection. And most of all, thank and praise Him for His redemptive love lavished upon you in so many ways. Surround all your petitions with thanksgiving and so enter into His courts with praise. It may just turn prayer into a relationship rather than a shopping trip. God knows all that you need, and all that is best for you. What He really wants is for you to know Him, and come in sincere appreciation for all He has - and will! - do through you for His glory.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:15,16: Unceasing Thanks for God's People

2011-08-15T10:32:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 1:15,16: "For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you and your love for all the saints, do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayer;"

Having now completed his list of the spiritual blessings all those in Christ are privileged to enjoy, Paul now turns to his prayer for the Ephesian believers. Let's take note of the reason behind his prayers for them, the attitude of his prayer, and then finally, the content of his prayer.

Today we look at the reason behind Paul's unceasing thankfulness for these Gentile believers. It is not simply because they have made some profession of faith in Jesus Christ. It is not only because they have formed a congregation and are now a church. It is also not because they have demonstrated some excitement over the message of Jesus that Paul has brought to them. Paul is very clear: he is unceasing in his thankful prayers for them because the reality of the indwelling Spirit is evident in their lives. Notice that Paul makes mention of the love they are demonstrating for all the saints.

First, recognize that love is one of the greatest evidences of new life. And while there are many kinds of love, the love Paul is here describing is a hard love, a "counter-intuitive" love that acts in kindness and acceptance toward those who are not normally appreciated. It is a love that models God's love for us: "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). God's love looked past our unloveliness in order to manifest His glory in our salvation. In the same way, Christ-followers are to look past the outside appearance, and all other temporal labels and categories in order to see in their fellow believers what God sees! It is clear that the Ephesians were doing just that.

Second, think carefully about the fact that the "saints" here are probably a reference to the Jewish believers. Gentiles and Jews had never felt good about one another. The Jews considered the Gentiles to be only slightly above dogs in the created order. For their part, Gentiles considered the Jews to be arrogant without cause and racially prejudice without reason. Things weren't good between them, and then along comes the message of Christ declaring that "in Christ" all were equally justified and made heirs of eternal life.

Today the divisions in Christianity are many, and the watching world considers this proof that the message we declare doesn't work in our own circles. As Thomas Manton stated so well: Division in the church breeds atheism in the world." Paul looked at the demeanor and actions of the Ephesians believers and saw an unnatural kind of love. It was a love that seemed to swim upstream against the tide of popular culture. It was a love for those in Christ that transcended the racial hatred and bigotry of the age.

May the Lord be pleased to raise up in His church an overflowing love that pursues the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace!

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:14: God's Own Possession

2011-08-10T15:04:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 1:14: " ... with a view to the redemption of [God’s own] possession, to the praise of His glory."

At some point in our lives I imagine we all have dreamed about finding out that we were the heir to some long lost rich relative's estate. We suddenly were wealthy, with money to burn, only to wake up to reality far too soon. If you're like me, the only inheritance you're going to get is some old furniture and some family keepsakes. But wouldn't it be great if ...

In his preamble to the epistle to the Ephesians - that is what vs. 1-23 really are - Paul makes a point of saying, in Christ, the Gentiles have an eternal inheritance among all the saints. And this inheritance is guaranteed by the indwelling Spirit of God.

But what exactly is this inheritance? At this point we have to deconstruct some of the misleading, emotional feelings we have about our salvation. I hope I don't burst your bubble, but turns out the reason God has saved you (if you are a true Christ-follower in whom the Spirit dwells) wasn't for you! God did not save you so you could feel good; He saved you, and me and everyone else who has called upon the Name of the Lord in saving faith, so He could look good! He saved us for Himself! I like to remember the most important facts about my salvation by making use of this little sentence:

"I am saved from the wrath of God, by the grace of God, for the glory of God."

The prepositions make all the difference, and they keep me focused on the real purpose for which Christ died, rose again, and captured my heart through the gospel. He did it all to assemble a people for His own possession who could be the means whereby His glory could resonate throughout all creation. And once we understand this, we can understand what the "inheritance" is that has been reserved in heaven for us (see: 1 Peter 1:4).

Too often we think of our "inheritance" as purely personal. "I get forgiveness. I get eternal life. I get blessing." Perhaps this is the natural conclusion that we come to if we make too much out of the common statement that we need to have a "personal" relationship with Christ. The problem is that we've made it completely personal, and in so doing, have corrupted the huge biblical theme that salvation is really about being joined to a community of redeemed folk who together make up the Body of Christ.

The inheritance Paul talks about in Ephesians 1:14 is called "the redemption of God's own possession." If we took the time we would find that this "possession" is not a person, but a people. Peter says it quite clearly in 1 Peter 2:9, 10: "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for [God’s] own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God ..."

Read that description again, and notice that the words are corporate and not merely individual: "race ... priesthood ... nation ... people for God's own possession ... the people of God." The privileges of salvation are not merely personal. They are personal, but only because we are part of a redeemed race, a nation, a people that God Himself possesses.

The great inheritance we have is that, one day, we will be united with all those down through time who have been called into God's family. Our inheritance centers on the fact that we will finally be fully redeemed, a perfected new race of people, living in unobstructed fellowship with Almighty God, enjoying His perfect creation (New Earth), and in all of this, displaying the glorious power of His gracious activity in rescuing us from deserved judgement, through Christ.

And here' something to think about: the church today is supposed to be a preview of that great fulfillment! We are to be the visible Body of Christ, the touchable, knowable, race of redeemed people that are God's own possession. In fact, we already have part of our inheritance - the downpayment! - in the Spirit who indwells us. Consequently, we should act like it.

Understand that church isn't a service, it is a people. Attendance isn't for personal benefit first, but actually for the purpose of encouraging and serving others in the Body, and the world, of displaying the greatness of a God who would rescue those deserving judgement and make them His masterpiece. And when that comes first, the personal benefit will not be far behind.

We have our priorities mixed up. We come to church for us when we should come out of gratitude to be with that race of redeemed people God calls His own. We should see the gathered church as a rehearsal for heaven, the foretaste of what it will be like when sin is overcome, and we are together praising Him with one voice. If our inheritance is about our unity, and this brings glory to God, then we had better learn better how to do it, and do it right.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:13, 14: Sealed with the Holy Spirit

2011-08-09T17:34:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 1:13c, 14a: " ... you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise who is given as a pledge of our inheritance ..."

I remember when I was a child that my older brother thought it would be cool to start sealing his notes and letters with a wax seal. He went to the hobby shop, bought some sticks of red sealing wax, and a plastic seal with the letter "H" on it. I watched as he enclosed a letter in an envelope and then dripped melted wax over the flap. He carefully pushed the "H" seal down on the wax and held it until the wax cooled. After a few tries he got the hang of it, and it looked really royal, or so he said.

In the ancient world it was the norm for important letters and packages to be sealed with wax, and bear the seal of the sender. This seal protected the message from being opened, warning all but the intended reader . To keep counterfeiters at bay, the seals became more and more elaborate, and those belonging to rulers were especially impressive. A letter sealed with the King's moniker meant that the message it contained was very important. In a way, the authority of the King resided in the seal, and it was a clear warning that no one but the intended reader should dare open the letter.

As you can see, the seal performed two tasks. First, it kept the letter securely closed. It protected what the letter contained from those who had no business reading it. But it also performed a second function: it declared to everyone that the letter belonged to the one represented by the seal. In these two short verses Paul is telling us that the Holy Spirit functions as a seal on the lives of those who follow Christ, and does so in the same two ways.

Paul paints his own picture of something very important being sealed. That "something" is the Christ-follower. Paul has pictured the believer as possessing every spiritual blessing available from Almighty God. Certainly the question was rising in the minds of the readers: "Can these blessings be forfeited? Can they leak out? Can they be lost? And if these blessings are found 'in Christ' is there a chance that - somehow - we might fall out of Christ? What keeps us 'in Christ' and also keeps the blessings ours?"

Have you ever wondered about these same questions? I'm pretty sure every believer has asked them at some point. And to these unspoken, but important questions Paul answers: "You have been sealed with a most important seal, and this seal represents the eternal power of heaven itself." The blessings that are ours in Christ are being protected by the Holy Spirit. They will never dissipate nor are we ever in danger of losing them. God the Spirit protects in us what God the Father has lavished upon us in God the Son.

Furthermore, Paul announces that it is the Holy Spirit that keeps us in Christ. We are "sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise." This is extremely important. In Philippians 2:12,13 Paul unpacks this idea a bit more. After encouraging the Philippian believers to "work out their salvation with fear and trembling" he states in no uncertain terms that "it is God who is at work in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure." What does this mean? Only that the indwelling Spirit is at work in the Christ-follower to make obedience beautiful to our eyes. He is at work, using the Word, and growing us in spiritual maturity and strong faith. He is the agent of our sanctification, and it is through this progressive, sanctifying work that He "seals" us in Christ. He is the reason the Christ-follower will never sin so much as to forfeit salvation, nor fall away from saving grace. While we often speak of the "perseverance of the Saints" as the doctrine that establishes our eternal security, it is technically more correct to speak of the "perseverance of God the Spirit in His saints" that is the grounds for our eternal assurance.

Secondly, the Holy Spirit also declares to all that we belong to God, and are therefore heirs of eternal glory. In fact, a very good description of a Christ-follower is "one in whom the presence of the Holy Spirit can be readily seen." This doesn't mean that those who give little or no evidence of the indwelling Spirit are not believers, but it does allow us to say to those whose lives do not display a characteristic righteousness, joy, and perseverance that they had better examine themselves to determine if they are really "in the faith" (see: 2 Corinthians 13:5).

But Paul isn't satisfied merely to use the "seal" to describe the blessings we enjoy from the Holy Spirit. He has an eye to our eternal future, and again he hears his readers perhaps wondering just how they can be sure that the promises of God will be fulfilled. "How can we know that one day we will be with Him, fully re-created, and enabled to live in God's perfect New Creation quite apart from any possibility of sin? How can we know that, at the final judgement, God will keep the promise to declare that we are righteous, that our sentence has already been paid in full, and that we are welcomed for all eternity into the presence and possessions of the family of God?" Paul's answer involves another illustration from the culture of his day.

In many of the transactions of Paul's day the buyer would give an amount to the seller as a demonstration of good faith that the whole sum would be paid as agreed. We know this today as a downpayment, and if you've ever purchased a house, you know it all too well. And we also know that the bigger the downpayment, the greater is the assurance that the total will be paid as promised.

Not only is the Holy Spirit a seal, it turns out He represents a divine downpayment as well. And He is a huge one at that! He is the earnest money of heaven, given to the Christ-follower as a guarantee that one day, the entire inheritance of eternal life will be granted. This is the inheritance promised to everyone in the family of God, and it is guaranteed by the presence of the indwelling Spirit.

In our day God the Spirit often gets overlooked. But in these verses Paul shows just how important He is! In addition to convicting us of our sin, gifting us for service, guiding our hearts into obedience, and a host of other important tasks, God the Spirit is also busy protecting what God has granted us in Christ while at the same time testifying to our own doubts that God will keep His promise.

Why not take some time right now to thank God for the indescribable gift of the Holy Spirit, who is even now securing you in Christ, while guaranteeing your final redemption. Soli deo gloria!

Hope this helps,

David

Near Death Experiences

2011-08-08T16:55:00.000-07:00

According to the rather newly formed International Association of Near-Death Studies (IANDS), there have been over 900 accounts of these events, with 280 of these being reported in the last year. And the number of stories that are finding their way into book form, and for sale in the Christian world is increasing. What concerns me is that so many in the evangelical world are finding stories about these near death experiences to be credible, and even great enhancements to their faith in God. Now you may ask why anything that aids faith could be something I am concerned about, and I'm going to tell you.

First, it concerns me that the only divinely inspired, and reliably true source of information concerning the after life is not enough to bolster our faith and build in us the "blessed hope." Of course I am speaking about the Bible.

If we believe that the Word of God is sufficient for us to live as God asks us to live, and to have a hope that will fuel our perseverance here on earth, then we will find these stories as faith-building only because we don't fully know, understand, and appreciate the biblical material on the subject. And I guess, into this void of our own making, the subjective, experience-driven stories of those we don't know can bring a sense of comfort and increased peace. The only problem here is that our faith is to be grounded in the revealed truth of God, and not in the experiences of those whose accounts can never be fully substantiated.

Second, it concerns me that so many assume these near death stories are real simply because they don't contradict Scripture. But, consider this: If they add things that the Bible does not contain, they are adding to Scripture. For example, in Heaven is for Real we find the assertion that everyone in heaven has wings, that no one is old, that heaven is filled with animals, and a number of other things never mentioned in Scripture. But worst of all, this account speaks of gates of gold and pearls, which the Bible declares are elements of the New Earth, which won't be created until the present one is destroyed. In other words, some of what the little Colton Burpo saw in his 3 minutes in heaven hasn't been created yet.

But also consider this: just because my story doesn't contradict Scripture, and just because my main points align with Scripture still doesn't make the essential suppositions of my story true! I could make up a story of how Jesus appeared to me one night, and talked with me for 8 hours. I could declare all that He taught me, and make sure it was aligned in every way with the Bible. It still would not substantiate my assertion that Jesus appeared to me! It pains me greatly that evangelical Christians are so thirsty for an experiential enhancement to their faith that they fail to use their minds. Perhaps we have forgotten how to think given that most of our pulpits are telling stories designed to pull at the heart rather than invigorate the mind. Certainly we are in grave danger of losing the ability to think critically in our churches today.

Third, the reaction by so many Christ-followers to these near death experience books on heaven and the like demonstrates more about us than about the authors or stories of the books themselves. It shows just how inadequately we view and use the Bible. If our faith is bolstered by these experientially driven stories, what does it say about the depth of our spiritual maturity? What does it say about our appreciation for, and understanding of, the Word of God? I liken it to a starving person who comes upon some straw drizzled with whipped cream. He is famished, and devours it, and actually thinks it is good and nutritious. But just steps away is a banquet table filled with the best tasting and most nourishing food. He prefers the straw because it is near him, and more accessible, while the banquet will require him to walk further. The Bible is right here, but to understand it we have to think, and contemplate, and study, and grasp the text in its own time while applying its principles in ours. The Bible takes work, and we too often choose to use other means to satiate our spiritual hunger. We turn down the objective truth of God's Word for experientially crafted junk food.

Fourth, and perhaps most cogently, Christians are not the only ones having these experiences. They are occurring with increasing regularity in all areas. Mormons are writing about going to heaven and seeing Joseph Smith with Jesus; Muslims are writing about the wonders of sitting at Mohammad's feet in the celestial palace; and I could mention others as well, including atheists who are now declaring that their near death experiences have brought to light irrefutable proof that there is no God at all. We even have a book out now about a man who died and spent 23 minutes in hell, and has come back to write about it!

What do we say to all these? Only "ours" are real? On what basis do we deny those that counter our views? My point is simple: Where something is utterly unable to be substantiated beyond rational doubt, it can never become part of our faith's foundation. What all of these stories do is play into the hands of the enemy of faith who would like nothing more that to have us believe what we believe based on some subjective experience. At that point, we're most of the way to a theology that has God made in our image.

Lastly, consider this: If a story is perfectly aligned with Scripture - and by this I mean that it adds nothing and contradicts nothing in the Bible - then we actually don't need it, because we already have all the information it carries in our divinely inspired and preserved Bible. If, on the other hand, it adds to, or contradicts the Bible, then we don't want it. Either way, these stories are simply a waste of time. My advice: Don't waste your time on them!

And here let me put in a plug for John Piper's newest book: Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God. In it he shows the problems we encounter when we fail to love God with all our mind! The current descent into a sloppy subjectivism is doing ruinous things to the church, and as well is causing us to shape a Gospel that fits the felt needs around us but doesn't address the greatest need: the corruption of the heart, will and mind through sin! Only the Holy Spirit can open our eyes to God's truth, and apparently, God has given us what we need in the Bible.

Thanks for bearing with me!

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:13: Listening and Believing

2011-08-08T10:41:00.000-07:00

Ephesians 1:13: "In you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation -- having also believed ..."

As every parent knows, there is a huge difference between hearing and obeying. Have you ever asked your son to do something and heard the response "I know, Dad"? And then, when days go by and the task is still undone, have you ever wondered what he meant by "I know"? The gap between hearing and doing, between knowing and acting is the gap Paul addresses in this verse. Notice well: the Ephesians Christ-followers first listened and then they also believed. They first took in the message, the story of God's redemptive activity in Christ for the purpose of forming a people for His own name. Then they believed it! This means that they agreed with the message, and took appropriate action. They exercised true, saving faith.

To get a better understanding of this process we can look at Paul's fuller explanation of it in Romans 10:13-14: "For 'Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.' How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?"

Did you notice the progression? We have to move backwards through the verses to see it in the order it actually happens: First we hear, then we believe, and then we call upon the name of the Lord.

John Calvin is very helpful here. He suggests that the first step is to hear. He even gives us a Latin word for this - noticia. You see how this is almost like "notice" and that's important. The first step in God's drawing of the heart to love Him is that we are made to "notice" the message of the Gospel. Maybe we've heard it a hundred times, but at some point we begin to take notice of it. We hear it and it doesn't bounce off the ear. We take it in. We mull it over, and determine that it is worth contemplating.

The next step is that we come to find some benefit in the message, in the facts about God and Jesus, and the redemptive story of the cross and the empty tomb. We agree with the facts as being true. We believe. Again, Calvin is helpful in defining this step with the Latin word assensus. As you can see, it means we give our mental assent to the facts. We acknowledge their truthfulness, that they align with the facts of history and of our hearts.

And at this point you might think you've reached faith. But the awful truth is that the demons themselves have gotten this far (James 2:19). The demons may be the most learned theologians in the universe. They know for sure the truth about God, about Jesus, and about all that He has done, and promised to do. They believe. It doesn't take any help from God the Spirit to get this far, and that is probably the reason so many say they are believers while having no change in their lives. But, there is one more step. Saving faith includes the action of trust, or calling as we will see. The demons believe, but their belief drives them to hatred and rebellion rather than faith and trust.

To be sure, the word believe is used in many ways in Scripture (check out John 8:30, 31 and compare it to vs. 59. The same group that believed latter took up stones to kill Him.) Only the context can determine if it means saving faith rather than mere mental assent. In Ephesians 1:13 it means both as we can see: they believed, and they also acted on that belief in the way demanded by God, and so entered into salvation and inherited all of God's blessings.

The last step in Paul's process is to call: Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Given that the natural, sin-corrupted heart is both unable and unwilling to obey God (see: 1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7), we understand that this last step is made actual only as the Holy Spirit does the miraculous work of regeneration. The Holy Spirit rides in on the Gospel, opening blind eyes fully to bring about true repentance and saving faith. And this faith is what Paul here describes as the call.

Calvin defined this call as fiducia. When I was in the banking industry we were always talking about having a fiduciary responsibility toward our clients and their money. The word means "trust." They entrusted us with their money and we were responsible to handle it in a way that was trustworthy. In the process of faith, to call is to entrust your soul to God on the basis of His promises in Christ. It is an action of the mind and heart that turns away from other objects of trust to entrust all that we are and will be to God alone, because of Christ. It is to take into account all that we have heard about our sin and the wrath we deserve, the promises and saving activity of God in Christ, and then to believe what we now understand and agree with as true, and finally to call upon the name of the Lord in complete trust that He will keep the promises He has made. He will consider Christ's death for sin as though it were ours, and as well consider Christ's righteousness as though it were ours. And on that basis, He will declare that we are no longer enemies, but friends; no longer criminals, but justified; no longer outcasts, but beloved sons and daughters making up a people for His own possession through whom He intends to declare the light of the Gospel to the nations. On the basis of what we have heard, and believed, we now call upon the Lord, declaring that we are entrusting our lives into His hands.

Paul recognized in the Ephesians believers that this had taken place. Their lives demonstrated it, even though they were not perfectly holy, or at times even close (see: 4:17). Yet, since their position in Christ was grounded on the love of God the Father and the redemptive work of God the Son, they were secure. Their trust in God, while not perfected, was nevertheless real. As a result, Paul could declare that they were heirs of the greatest set of blessings the universe would ever know, and had been granted the indwelling presence of God the Spirit as proof.

My question for you is this: have you called upon the name of the Lord? I expect that you have heard the story, and probably you already believe that it is true. But have you entrusted your life, your well-being both now and for eternity to God on the basis of His promises in Christ? Do you understand those promises? Have you really heard them in truth, analyzed them fully and come to believe them to be absolutely true? Have you truly denied other avenues of trust, to follow Jesus and follow closely? My prayer is that your heart is full of joy and able to answer "yes" today.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:13: The Message of Truth

2011-08-05T13:25:00.000-07:00

"In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation ..."

As I write this I am on vacation, surrounded by natural beauty and a long list of books I want to read. Two of them intend to answer the question "what is the Gospel?' And I just finished listening to Alistair Begg's sermon of the same title! Seems the whole idea of the Gospel is big right now. But what is startling is the fact that the books and sermons asking the question are doing so because it appears the Christian public at large is in need of the answer.

My personal opinion is that the church has gotten caught up in so many things the last few decades that we've either marginalized the Gospel, or forgotten it all together. In the "marginalized" category would be those well-intentioned folks who view the Gospel as " the minimum amount of truth you have to believe to get into heaven." This has led to things like dehydrating the glorious story of God's redemptive work in Christ down into 4 statements, or 5 questions, or some concise paragraph that will fit on a 3 X 5 card. And unfortunately in the process, things like sin and God's wrath have largely given way to an undefined statement of God's love, and the benefits of "trying" Jesus. We've reduced Jesus to a personal consultant - a Life Coach - that will help us make better decisions, and thereby helping us enjoy a more prosperous, satisfying life.

Or in some cases, we've left the Gospel out all together. Some believe that giving food to the hungry and clothes to the naked actually fulfills the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). Apparently, these folks don't comprehend the difference between common grace, and the saving grace which alone can redeem, forgive, reform, and fit for eternity. Giving to the needy in abundant, sacrificial ways is certainly part of our calling. But Jesus said to go, and preach the Gospel, not only feed and clothe. And Paul reminds us that he wasn't "ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation" (Romans 1:16). Food and clothes may satisfy the body, but on the Gospel can satisfy the soul.

The Gospel is essential, and it is essential that we know what it is. If the Gospel is the tool the Holy Spirit uses to bring about saving faith and repentance, then we'd better take care to get it right. In Ephesians 1:13 Paul makes a brief but cogent mention of the Gospel when he refers to it as the "message of truth" and "the gospel of your salvation." The Gospel, through which God grants salvation to undeserving sinners is, first and foremost, a message of truth. It isn't sly. It isn't concocted. It isn't polluted by the cultural needs of the day. It isn't part truth and part wishful thinking. It isn't even truth with chocolate sauce poured over the hard parts. It is a message that is thoroughly, fully, completely, and positively true. And the measure of this truth is the God who has authored it, and the Scriptures in which He has extended it to us. Simply put, the truthfulness of our Gospel with be measured by our faithfulness to the revealed story of God in the Bible.

Paul was very much aware that his primary responsibility in declaring the Gospel was not to the hearer. He didn't change the truth to suit the issues and desires of his audience. Nothing could be further from the truth, even though in our day this happens most of the time. Too often our "gospel" is presented as a remedy to the felt needs of those we encounter. Are you sad? Jesus will make you happy. Are you lonely? Follow Jesus and get the fellowship of the church. Are you poor? sick? or despairing? Try Jesus and see if your life doesn't improve!

In Paul's case, he realized that the message had been given to him by Christ, and he was expected to "herald" that message without compromise, under the watchful eyes of his Master (1 Thessalonians 2:4). Further, as previously mentioned, Paul knew that the Gospel was the power God used to bring about salvation (Romans 1:16). He labored hard not to compromise the message not only because it was God's message, but also because it was the means by which God would reclaim hard, sin soaked hearts, and transform them in vessels of beauty and grace for His glory.

Our world is starved for the truth of God in the Gospel. Sadly, the people entrusted with this message are largely either uninformed, or unprepared to share the story of God in Christ with others in a way that is natural, winsome, and most of all, true. Why else would all these books and sermons be flooding the market? And worse, why else would we see the church becoming less and less holy, and more and more weak? We need the Gospel, not only on our lips, but even more importantly, in our hearts, and on our minds. And not only at the beginning of the life of faith, but every day, as we seek to walk in a manner that is worthy of the calling of Christ on our lives.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:13,14: Sealed for His glory

2011-08-03T10:07:00.000-07:00

"In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation -- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory."

I think it was at the five year mark of married life that my wife and I concluded we would never own a home. We had started a family, and I was still trying to figure out what I wanted to be when I grew up, only I was already grown up. Things didn't look great.

Thanks to a friend who only saw the world through the lens of possibility, we managed to scrape enough money together for a down payment on a wonderful little house - all 998 square feet of it! We took our savings, and some dollars from my parents, and put it all down as a pledge that we would pay off the mortgage loan we had took from the bank. On that day I learned about downpayments, and the risk you take if you put money down and then have to back out of the deal. You lose the money you put down. Turns out the size of the downpayment translates into just how committed you are to keep your promise to pay. We put down all we had, and that meant we would let nothing stand in the way of keeping our promise.

In these verses, Paul declares that the "downpayment" God has pledged as a sign that He will keep His promise to redeem us fully and finally from this sin drenched world is the 3rd Person of the Trinity - the Holy Spirit Himself. Pretty big downpayment! And yet, the biggest shocker in this text is the fact that Paul insists that Gentiles now can possess this downpayment. Let me explain:

As Paul transitions from enumerating the divine blessings God grants in salvation, to the more specific topic of the inclusion of the Gentile believers in those blessings, perhaps the greatest evidence is their possession of the Holy Spirit. The same was true when Peter returned to Jerusalem to explain just why he - a Jew - had gone into the house of a Roman centurion - Cornelius - and not only preached the Gospel, but also witnessed the pouring out of the Spirit on these Gentiles. Standing in front of the Jewish council in Jerusalem Peter described the scene:

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' Therefore, if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" (Acts 11:15-17).

And while this may not be shocking in our day, it certainly was in Paul's day! This changed the very paradigm the Jews used to explain God, His work in the world, and more to the point, their prized position as nation. If the Gentiles could now possess the Holy Spirit, and be united to Christ, then God was openly fulfilling the promise of Genesis 12:3: "And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed." The gracious redemptive activity of God was now extended to all who would believe and follow Christ, regardless of their ethnicity.

And Paul now asserts this privilege with the little words in vs. 13: "In Him YOU ALSO ..." In chapter 2 he will more fully explain the significance of all this, but here let's just take a minute to pause and reflect. The "you also" includes every Christ-follower who lies outside of ethnic Jewry. We can now be numbered among God's chosen people; we are now part of Christ's body, members of a people called to be God's own possession, a chosen race, a holy nation, a royal priesthood unto God (see: 1 Peter 2:9). No longer is it necessary to come to a people (Israel) or a building (The Temple) to enter into relationship with God. No longer are we required to be circumcised, to keep the Sabbath, to adhere to the Mosaic Law, or any other prescriptive act in order to be part of the covenant community. Now, that community - including Jews and non-Jews - is recognized only by their repentance for sin and faith in Jesus Christ. Now we come to a Person, not a people, for inclusion in the family of God. And the proof is the presence of the indwelling Spirit of God. In chapter 2 Paul will declare that this new covenant community, formed in Christ Jesus alone, is now the "temple" in which God Himself dwells, and from which His glory shines into all the world.

What a great privilege is ours who, though once without God and without hope in this world, are now numbered among those He has chosen to be His own. And the evidence is the presence of the Holy Spirit in us. But just how did this "downpayment" come to be ours?

Notice the progression Paul illustrates in these verses: 1) you listened to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation; 2) having also believed 3) you were sealed in Him 4) with the Holy Spirit of promise 5) who is given as a pledge of our inheritance 6) with a view to God's own possession 7) to the praise of His glory.

Tomorrow's blog will take up these particulars because there is too much here to miss. But for now, glory in the fact of God's mercy. It is wide in that it includes every tribe and tongue and ethnicity under heaven. Yet, it is also narrow in that all must come through Jesus Christ, having heard and believed the message of truth, the gospel of salvation.

Hope this helps,

David

Thoughts on Critics

2011-07-31T17:38:00.000-07:00

As I sit here on vacation I find that my mind has time to reflect on many things that are pushed into the corners during the usual busyness of my life. I was sifting around in those corners today and came across a couple thoughts on critics and criticism that I had conjured up and set aside for a better time. That better time is now, so here goes.

We all receive criticism. Maybe its the driver behind you who doesn't like your driving and lets you know with an annoying honk. Maybe its your kids who seem more and more to be experts on everything and never miss a chance to let you know just how lame you are. Maybe its more serious than either of these because it happens at work when your boss or your customers start complaining about your work or customer service. Maybe its your spouse, or your neighbor, or even a close friend who gets frustrated and goes off on you. Then again maybe it isn't personal criticism. Maybe its someone who starts complaining about your company or your town or something else that you've poured your heart into. Maybe the criticism is aimed at someone you love and respect, or even as some ideology or platform you support. No matter the package it comes in, we all are on the receiving end of criticism, and understand that critics are all around us just waiting for the chance to show how wrong we are, and how much better we'd be if we adopted their view of things.

Every weekend I stand up before over 2000 people and preach. And each of them has the right to be critical. Add to that the fact that, in the public eye, I'm responsible for everything that goes on at Grace Baptist Church, and I seem to be fair game for criticism of all kinds. And then I go and write an opinion column for the local newspaper and that opens me up to a whole new arena of critics. By nature I have always assumed that people would both like and agree with me. What's not to like? LOL But apparently I say and do things that others don't like, or at least think could be vastly improved. So, what to do? What strategy can I employ that will take the inevitable criticism that comes my way and both keep it from being a grave discouragement, and turn it into a useful tool?

I've come up with some rules I try to follow, and even as I write this I realize that some will now be able to critique these rules and the way I employ them. O well ...

Rule #1: Consider the comment before considering the source.

By this I mean that in every criticism there may be some truth that needs to be heard and learned. Even if it comes from a recalcitrant, closed-minded, ignorant, venomous, and well-known enemy, there still might be some truth to it. I can't let "commitment bias" keep me from benefitting from what truth there may be in the criticism. And I can't let the fact that the critic is an idiot keep me from finding whatever necessary truth there may be in the criticism.

Rule #2: Recognize that what is being said is not usually the real problem.

I have found that people most often criticize a "presenting symptom" which they feel represents what is really wrong. They probably aren't going to tell me what the real problem is at first, but they want me to ask them. An example: Every year on certain political holidays I get critical emails asking why we didn't sing the National Anthem or some other patriotic song in our weekend worship services. But the real problem is that they think patriotism is dying, and that we as a society aren't recognizing the sacrifice our service men and women are making. Even more, those who send the emails feel that they aren't being lauded enough for their military service. It isn't really about what we sang or didn't sing; it is about their sense of personal value.

Rule #3: Criticism from those who love you carries more weight than that of those who rejoice in your shortcomings.

Some folks just don't like me. I don't know why, and it probably is the case that they don't even know me, have never really spent time with me, and don't know my heart. But they see me as representing some change, or some new idea, or some ideology, or some movement, or something they don't like. And so I become the target of their criticism. And truthfully, they really are glad that I give them something to criticize because this allows them to feel justified in their dislike of me. They love seeing what, in their judgment, I am doing wrong. These chinks in my armor are evidence that they are right in not liking me. Now all of this doesn't mean that I don't sift through their comments to find some truth to use. What it does mean is that I don't let myself get discouraged on their account.

Over my years in ministry I have found that I just can't let myself dwell on the criticism of those trying to tear me apart. I can't stop focusing on what I have to do in order to chase down these folks and try to change their minds. I am not told by God to defend my character; I am commissioned by Him to pursue the tasks He has assigned, and to live a life that silences those trying to defame me. And if their criticism helps me improve my service to Him, so much the better. If it doesn't, I am going to flush it. In either case, I will refuse to let them rent space in my heart for very long.

On the other hand, those who are solid partners with me in the mission of Christ are vital to me and to our ministry. When they have a criticism, I consider it as new fuel for improvement.

Rule #4: Most critics just want to be heard.

I think most critics just want to express themselves, and know that they've been heard and and that their thoughts have been honorably considered. And many times they voice their criticism in the heat of some moment, and after a time of consideration, they will temper their words. If I get back to them in a few days and invite them into my world, giving them some information they maybe lacked, and as well, thanking them for their concerns, and for their insights, I find that most feel that the situation was handled well. They just wanted to be heard and valued.

Rule #5: Almost never respond to a critic via email.

I've learned the hard way that email is too quick, too prone to misinterpretation, and too easily a tool for anger and strident reprisal to be useful in dealing with critics. I do use email in dealing with ongoing critics, those I know and who know me, and with whom I have a relationship. But I have found that initially, email can be like pouring gas on a fire. Most of my critics use email, and I know that they often come with more of a sting than the writer intended. Email just doesn't allow us to express the proper level of emotion and intensity, and usually it is interpreted as more negative than is meant.

Rule #6: Where change is needed, make it; where it is not, flush the criticism.

One of the things that I've learned about criticism is that I need to deal with it within a week or so to keep it from festering. If I move too quickly, I may act rashly, but if I delay too long, it burrows into my mind and becomes a greater problem than at first because I keep ruminating on it. So, my ideal is to take a couple days (if warranted), sift out whatever helpful insights are in the criticism, devise a plan to deal with the critic, and then flush the whole thing. Life is too short to be burdened with bags and bags of unresolved criticism.

Rule #7: Be ever striving to be a better critic yourself.

As the target of criticism, I know how hurtful, how debilitating, how frustrating and discouraging, and downright overwhelming criticism can be. That means I ought to be the best kind of critic. I ought to pick only those spots where my criticism can make the most difference, bring the most benefit, improve something the most. And I ought to be the guy whose criticism lands with the best hope of being understood and welcomed, and not like a knife in the back. Here is an area where I greatly need improvement!

So, there you go. We all get criticized, and we all hate it. But, to the extent that we can manage it, and gain from it, just maybe we can turn criticism and critics into the stepping stones to improvement.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1: We and You

2011-07-31T16:40:00.000-07:00

In the first 12 verses of Ephesians Paul has listed the many divine benefits enjoyed by those whom God has made objects of His divine and gracious activity. And in every case Paul has used the word "us" or "we." If you go back and look carefully you'll see that Paul apparently has a particular group of people in mind. They aren't defined. The readers apparently know Paul and know who the "we" are. But in vs. 13 it changes. Now Paul suddenly includes "you" as being recipients of these many blessings. And if we search further we'll find that the "we" are the Jewish believers, and the "you" are the Gentile believers. In fact, 2:11-22 is Paul's masterful declaration that God has brought both Jew and Gentile into the same body, the same Temple, so that they are no longer two peoples but "one new man" in Christ.

This bringing of the two into one new community is the foundation of Paul's ministry. If Gentiles were not "in Christ" they could never benefit from His work, and never enjoy the blessings enumerated in this opening section. But Paul's joy is to preach that God has included the Gentiles, and that all who are "in Christ" enjoy the same blessings, the same position, the same redemption, forgiveness, and inheritance. And, as we will see, this is evidenced by the fact that both enjoy the same indwelling Spirit of God.

What does this mean? Simply this. In Christ there is no room for those who want to rank the races as though one had more merit than another. There is no room for racial prejudice, no room for any kind of class system, no room for any of the many ways we humans critique one another so as to assume great things about ourselves. In Paul's day it was common for Jews to consider themselves morally and spiritually superior to all other races. After all, they were the chosen people! Paul himself had lived this, and excelled in that special brand of arrogance. But on the road to Damascus he met Jesus, and it rocked his worldview, as well as his view of the Gentiles. God showed him that He was not partial to any ethnicity, and in fact, had chosen Paul to take the message of grace to the Gentile world.

In fulfilling his mission, Paul faced two huge challenges. First, the Jews believed that their ethnic distinction, made possible and visible through their keeping of the Mosaic Law, meant that they were superior to the Gentiles. They even included a prayer in all of their synagogue services that went something like this: "Lord, I thank you that I am neither a woman nor a Gentile." And without getting carried away on the "woman" part, here we need to understand just how real was the enmity between Jew and Gentile.

Second, the Gentiles hated the Jews because of the way they were looked down on by them. Again, the Mosaic Law was the symbol of the hatred. The Jews measured everything by the law and found themselves to be excellent, and the Gentiles to be pagans. The enmity was great, and in some ways, has continued down through modern history as the persecution of the Jews in many countries over the last century illustrates. Into this hostile environment Paul went boldly proclaiming that the God of all Blessing had poured out His redemption and forgiveness in Christ Jesus. All who were "in Christ" were now mutual recipients of all of God's blessings, whether Jew or non-Jew. And if we read Ephesians with this in mind we will find that the work of Christ was not merely so that we as individuals could be adopted into the family of God, but even more, so that God could create for Himself a chosen people, from every tribe and tongue under heaven. The only hope for unity among the diverse races and cultures of the world is to be found in Jesus Christ. No other plan will work simply because no other plan can rid our hearts of the natural enmity that exists as a result of our inborn selfishness and sin.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:11, 12: Heirs for His Glory

2011-07-30T10:58:00.000-07:00

"In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purposes who works all things after the counsel of His will to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory."

Here Paul is near the end of the blessings God the Father has bestowed on those "chosen in Christ". The concept of an inheritance was well-known in Paul's day, and its spiritual connotations were fundamental to the Jewish concept of their divine right as the people of God. They felt entitled to all that their Heavenly Father possessed, and considered this a privilege reserved for them alone. But here Paul insists that the inheritance belongs rightly to all who are "in Him." This is ground breaking news! And the rest of the Epistle will rest on this foundation, that the gracious, benevolent redemptive activity of God has not been restricted to those who are in Israel, but has from the beginning of time been focused on those who are "in Christ."

But Paul has more to say that is even more shocking. Read the verses above again and see if you can catch the sting Paul puts in. Did you notice that the inheritance is not something we are waiting for, but something Paul says we have already "obtained"? Yet, in vs. 14 he will tell us that the Spirit is a "downpayment" on that inheritance.

For Paul, the inheritance of those in Christ is tied to our being "sons of Abraham" (see: Galatians 3:27-29). Yet, Paul nowhere suggests that the inheritance is something that is fulfilled in this world. It is not the land, it is not the law. The inheritance here spoken of by Paul is so much greater than those Old Testaments preview and is, in fact, a fulfillment of them. The inheritance is the "already and not yet" union with Christ that has begun through the Spirit and will culminate in the last days when we will be fully redeemed, and living in the new heavens and earth in full fellowship with our God, quite above even the possibility of sin. The New Earth is the land we have been promised, and the very presence of Christ is the law that will eternally rejoice our hearts.

Paul can say that we have obtained this inheritance since we already have union with Christ, with the Spirit being the downpayment. But the fulness of our inherited, blessed, fully-restored relationship with God in Christ awaits His return and the glorious culmination of His Kingdom work on earth.

How can Paul be so sure that we will, in fact, obtain the fulness of this wonderful promised inheritance? Simply because God has so predestined it to be. What God determines cannot fail to come about. He is both the source and the goal of history, and His providence so superintends all things that the end is sure. And lest we begin to think that His actions are conditioned on our wills, Paul reminds us that God works all things "after the counsel of His own will." God is His only counselor. He is not dependent nor in need of any advice outside of His own. In fact, if God could be even slightly moved or influenced from outside of Himself He would cease to be sovereign and unchangeable, thus ceasing to be God.

Paul ends this amazing section with a reminder that all of God's works are purposed to declare and display His glory. Here Paul insists that the goal of His work among the Jews - the "first to hope in Christ (Messiah)" - was that His glory would be praised. But the Jews turned it around, and used the gifts of God (the Law, the prophets, the sacrificial system, etc) as reasons for arrogance and a national sense of entitlement. But God always had a remnant that was faithful, and these now turn out to be those among Israel who were "chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world."

Today, if you are "in Christ" by faith you are an heir of the eternal salvation promised first in Genesis, and worked out through Israel's Messiah -- Jesus Christ. All of the blessings Paul has listed are yours, and not one of them is deserved, merited, or earned. Yet, the gracious attitude of God has extended them all to you, without cost, simply to make His glory known to you, and through you to the world. May His work in your heart not be in vain today. Go show the world how wonderful your Lord is, by doing His will in your world, from the heart and with fulness of joy.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:9,10: The Mystery of His Will

2011-07-26T13:35:00.000-07:00

One of the greatest privileges of the Christ-follower is that, having been adopted into God's family, we are now able to know the very will of God. Now, I don't mean that we can know all that God knows, or that we now know all the whats and hows and whys of the universe. What I do mean is that we are no longer in the dark as to the fact that God is in charge of the world, and is carefully working all things "according to the kind intention of His will" (vs. 5). Paul will later say that our God "works all things after the counsel of His will" (vs. 11). And here in vs. 9, 10 Paul goes so far as to say that God has revealed to those chosen in Christ, and now redeemed, just what lies at the very center of this will.

Paul's use of "mystery" in Ephesians has been the topic of much study by thousands of commentators. He uses it 6 times, and each time it refers so something that was previously unknown or not completely understood but has now been revealed by God to us. Think about that: Almighty God has taken us into His confidence. He has opened His mind to us, and our heart to Him to understand the very core of His will in regard to this world. We are here thinking God's thoughts after Him!

The "mystery" of God's will here refers directly to the means by which God intends to reclaim and reform all creation, restoring it to its original creative intention. He created all things to magnify Himself, and sin brought ruin and corruption to this plan. But God determined that His glory would best be seen in rescuing a lost creation from bondage to sin. And so He set about the plan that had, in reality, been determined in eternity past. And now that plan has been revealed to us. God intends that all things, whether in heaven or on earth will ultimately be "summed up in Christ" (vs. 10). The will of God for all of history revolves around this man Jesus. In and through Him, God will accomplish every bit of His redemptive plan, on time. God has determined that sin will never win the day, and has initiated in Christ a rescue and reclamation plan that cannot fail, and is guaranteed to re-establish God's creation as God's masterpiece. Included in this "mystery" is the inclusion of the Gentiles which will form the core of this epistle (see: 3:4-10).

But, before Paul unfolds the elements and nuances of this great mystery of God's will he first just wants to glory in the fact that God has let us into His mind. This is an amazing privilege! No longer are we in the dark. No longer do we have to wonder where history is going, or what the end of time will bring. We need not worry that the utter sinfulness of mankind or their best laid plans could ever overcome or prevent God from accomplishing all that He determines to do. God has made known to us, in the Gospel of Christ, the way He will administrate all of human history.

Too often we forget this privilege, especially when the events of the day seem to indicate that history is spiraling out of control. It is at those times that our theology is most important. We must not only remember the privileges we have "in Christ" but also determine to live in light of them, never lacking the courage and compassion that must come from knowing the very mind of God.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:7: We have Redemption

2011-07-25T10:01:00.000-07:00

Up to this point Paul has listed those blessings that pertain to God's actions in eternity passed. It is certain in Paul's mind that all the elements of our salvation find their source in the sovereign and kind will of God Himself. As Jonah was to find out the hard way "salvation is of the Lord."

In verse 7 Paul shifts into the present possessions those chosen in Christ are privileged to own. First up is redemption, and he is definite: we have it! We have been redeemed, the action has been completed, and the consequences are ongoing. Paul uses a Greek word (apolutrosis) that describes the release of a captive on the payment of a ransom. In a passage that appears quite parallel, Paul puts it this way: He rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins (Colossians 1:13,14). While the word regularly pertained to buying the release of a slave, it also was used of soldiers who were captured and became prisoners of war. They often were forced into slavery as well, until they could be redeemed by their original king or general. This is precisely how Paul uses the word in regard to individual Christ-followers. In Adam we were made in the image of God, part of His creation, intended to display His glory. But, also in Adam, we became sinners, slaves to sin, held captive by Satan to do his will (see: 2 Timothy 2:24-26). We were prisoners of war, sold into slavery as a result of our sin. But, in Christ, we have been redeemed!

Paul goes on to say that the "ransom" that was paid was the very blood of Christ. It is here that we see the metaphor usually associated with "redemption" has broken down. It is clear that the ransom price - blood - was never intended to be paid to the one who held us fast. God did not pay Satan for the privilege of making us His own. Rather, the blood element reminds us of the Old Testament sacrificial system where the blood of the sacrificial lamb "covered" the sin, releasing the sinner from God's judgment. And so it is here. The ransom price of blood was paid, not to Satan, but to the Judge of All, as a covering for sin, a payment on the account of those owing justice a sentence they could neither pay nor escape.

We understand this even better when we add the next phrase: the forgiveness of sins. The redemption of those held captive by Satan was effected, not by paying Satan's asking price, but by eliminating the sinful record by which Satan was empowered. By covering our sin with His blood, Jesus Christ has effected forgiveness, and where forgiveness is granted, Satan is disarmed. This whole concept lies behind Paul's lengthy argument in Romans 6 that those who have died to sin must no longer walk in it. How can those who have been released from bondage to sin and Satan now choose to walk in sinful ways? To do so is radically incongruent with their redeemed position in Christ.

Lastly, Paul once again returns to the "why" behind all of God's redeeming activity. Was it because He saw something in us that He needed? Was it pity? Was it merited on our part? To all these, and any other possible motives, Paul gives an unwavering answer. It was all sourced in the graciousness of God. It was freely bestowed on us (vs. 6). Here, it was "lavished"upon us (vs. 8). All that we enjoy from the hand of God is ours because God is so good, and so gracious, and so intent on displaying His glory through the rescue of those who, if left to themselves, would have gone willingly - and justly! - into eternal torment for their life-long rejection of God's free gift.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:6: To the praise of the glory of His grace

2011-07-21T15:42:00.000-07:00

I was reading recently about the various ways we humans are motivated. It appears that we fall into 3 basic categories: affiliation, achievement, and recognition. Some folks are excited just to be part of the team. They are "affiliation" driven. Others find the greatest satisfaction, not just by being on the team, but in achieving success. I guess that means winning. But there are still others aren't really satisfied until they are recognized for winning. They are motivated by recognition. I think all this is pretty interesting, and probably relevant as well, but in reality, doesn't everyone really, deep down want recognition? Don't we long for someone to come along and affirm that we're worth something, that we're appreciated and recognized as bringing worth to this world? When I look in the mirror I have to put myself in the "recognition" category. While I love being on the team, the am not satisfied just try hard, I'll admit that the satisfaction in winning comes when everyone has to acknowledge that my team won!

As we read all the blessings God has bestowed on us in Christ it is so easy to start feeling very proud to be the recipients of such gracious gifts. And when we realize that there are those around who don't share these blessings, a bit of pride can creep in. If we're not careful, we'll start feeling that our well-being was the end-goal of God's redemptive plan. That God has done all this for our benefit, and that we're so special! We might even begin growing a sense of entitlement, since now that we've entrusted our lives to Jesus, He has a certain responsibility to make sure our lives turn out the way we want them to.

Of course, this is way off track. Somewhere we missed a crucial point in this whole salvation story. But here Paul corrects our thinking before we even have the chance to run down the "its all for me" path. Paul declares that all the blessings of our salvation - God's gracious choice and sovereign predestination - were done "to the praise of the glory of His grace." Don't miss this! God has done all of this, not so you and I will be recognized and praised, but so that He will be!

Jesus put it this way, long before Paul: "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 5:16). What Jesus and Paul are saying, if we put it into contemporary illustrative language is this: "Go out as part of the team, play the game to win, and when you do, make sure all the glory goes to the Coach!" And I know what you're thinking: "that doesn't seem quite fair, after all we did all the work, scored all the points, did all the running. Shouldn't we get some of the credit?"

But remember, when the game started we were dead. We were unable and unwilling to play at all, let alone win. And the Coach breathed His own life into us, gave us both the will and the power to work out His game plan, and was in, under and around our every move. It was only our pride that kept us thinking we were doing it all independently.

This is only the first of many places in Ephesians where Paul will feel the need to remind his readers that God's glory is the end purpose of God's redemptive plan. Turns out God didn't really save us for us, but for Him. And before you go thinking that this means we'll miss out on something, remember John Piper's great distillation of an essential truth: We will be most satisfied when God is most glorified. When all the glory flows to Him, we will overflow with the gladness and joy that can only come from being recognized as a reflection of His grace. Now that's a motivating recognition!

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:5: Predestined to Adoption by Kindness

2011-07-19T07:53:00.000-07:00

Predestination. I don't know another word that brings out the fangs of controversy as readily as this word. And since I believe robust dialogue is a great learning tool, that's okay. But the problem isn't the controversy. The problem usually is that those engaged in the debate are unaware of the real issues. Let's take a look at this verse to see if we can clarify some things.

1) Whatever "predestined" means, God did it, according to Paul. That means whoever you are, and whatever theological track you're treading, you have to believe in the doctrine of predestination if you want to be square with the Bible. We are all "predestinarians."

2) In deciding what "predestined" means we can't start with our own desires for what it needs to mean in order to satisfy our hearts, or our perspective on who God needs to be. We have to ask: what does Paul think it means when he uses it? and what does Peter think it means when he uses it? It is essential to recognize that the beginning place of meaning in any piece of literature is" what did the original author intend the original audience to understand from the words that he used?"

So, what did Paul mean here? Let's take a look at the word itself. Predestined translates the Greek word "proorizo" which generally means "to predetermine, to decide beforehand". In Romans 8:29,30 Paul links this term in a series and in so doing shows us that when God "predetermines" something, it always happens: "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to become] conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified."

Did you notice that the "whom" that are foreknown and predestined end up being justified and glorified? If this were five lengths of garden hose all linked together, there would be no leakage; whatever goes in the front is guaranteed to come out the end. So it is with the redemption of sinners. Those whom God "predetermines" run no risk of missing out on justification in this life, and glorification in the next. It is also clear here that not all are predestined since we must agree that not all are justified and glorified. Predestination is God's determination to act redemptively toward those who have been "chosen in HIm" (vs. 4). And remember, Paul is listing these as the "blessings" God has for us!

3) The real challenge is determining the basis for God's predestination of some to salvation. Just why did God predetermine to save some and not others? This is so hard for us to even think about simply because, on the face of it, it appears to be unfair and even capricious on God's part. And so we often come up with reasons that we feel make it easier to accept, and that make God out to be fair.

The first option is that God predetermined to save those who He knew would one day act in faith, believing the message of the Gospel. He looked ahead in history to see who would believe, and then predetermined to grant them salvation. This has the benefit of making God act fairly in granting the blessings of forgiveness because it is conditioned on belief. But, will this idea stand up to the evidence?

First of all, we have to agree that, in Romans 8:29 where "foreknew" precedes "presdestined" and forms the basis for the action of predestination, it does not say that God foreknew something about them. It simply says He foreknew them.

Secondly, when we look at Peter's use of the term "foreknew" in Acts 2:23 we see that the object of God's "foreknowing" was the Cross. If "foreknow" means to look ahead into human history to see what human's will decide so that God can make it part of His predetermined plan, then we have some real problems with the Cross. The crucifixion of Christ becomes something that God put into the plan because He looked ahead an saw that wicked men would kill His Son. But this goes against the very argument Peter is making here. Peter is adamant that the Cross was God's idea. It wasn't a concession to the evil of mankind; it was God's designed instrument to overthrow the Devil, remove the wrath of God for sin, and redeem those chosen in Christ before time even began.

So, if the "looked ahead to see belief" theory can't stand up, just what is the reason behind God's predestination? What did He "foreknow?" The answer is found in the meaning of "foreknow." Biblically, the work "know" can speak of intimate relationship (see: Genesis 4:1; Amos 3:2). Simply said, God chose us in Christ, and in so doing entered into an intimate relationship with us as those He determined to be objects of His redeeming love. That's Paul's point, and he considers it at the top of the "blessings" list.

The verse ends with Paul's comment on the disposition of God in all this. It may surprise you to recognize that Paul ascribes the action of predestination to God's kindness. His will in predestination is here described as having a kind intention. Be sure to take this in! Too often predestination and election are used to suggest that, understood in the way I have shown, God is made out to be a tyrannt, a despot, an unfeeling and capricioius God. Not so! Paul looks at what those in Christ have been granted while undeserving and considers them all to be the recipients of God's great kindness.

Paul understood that, unless God intervened powerfully in his life he would never have seen the light, never had heard the call of Christ, never have known forgiveness, and never have entered into life eternal. Why? As he will tell us in Chapter 2, it was because he was spiritually dead, unwilling and unable to right himself, or bring himself savingly to the One who could. All of his days Paul considered God's loving and redemptive action toward him to be unmerited, and the greatest blessing of all.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:4: Holy and Blameless

2011-07-18T09:42:00.001-07:00

The doctrine of Election includes not only God's gracious choice to rescue underserving sinners. It also includes the goal or purpose behind that choice and that rescue. Paul is very clear. God's purpose in salvation is the reformation of the life. In fact, God's whole plan of redemption is aimed at reclaiming and reforming all that sin corrupted so that creation, and the souls of men and women, boys and girls might once again fulfill their original creative design. God created all things to declare His glory, but sin marred God's masterpiece and the corruption has been ongoing and thorough. The depravity of the human soul, though kept in check by vehicles of God's common grace such as conscience and government, is dramatically displayed everywhere we look. Man's heart is wicked, and he is desperate to prove it.

At the first, in Genesis 3, God had provided all that Adam and Eve needed for life and happiness. They had only one law and absolutely no need to transgress it. But Satan pushed the button of independence and pride and they responded in rebellion against God. Sin came rushing into God's creation, though at this point in the story we aren't sure just what the will mean.

In the wake of Adam's insolence, God certainly could have turned away. He could have allowed the full consequence of sin to run its course through his creation, including humanity. But it turns out God is a competitor! He had already determined that sin would not win, and immediately set in motion the greatest rescue mission in history. He determined that He would reclaim and restore creation through the seed of the woman, the 'He' of Genesis 3:15.

The entire story of the Bible can legitimately be summarized as the rescue mission of God through the "He" ... Jesus Christ! And now in Ephesians 1, as Paul begins to enumerate the many blessings enjoyed in Christ, we find among the first this promise: "He chose us in Him ... that we would be holy and blameless before Him." God's saving action in and through Jesus Christ reforms our lives, and promises to make us conspicuously holy. And even though we will never match the perfection of the holiness of Christ, it is still to be the case that those who are in Christ are becoming more and more like Him.

The New Testament knows nothing of invisible Christians. The idea that a God-chosen, Christ-enveloped, Spirit-indwelt person could fail to give off the aroma of holiness, truth and love is a modern fiction, not a biblical description. And while we do understand that the "young" in the faith may lack definitive fruit at first, can we truly allow someone to remain a baby over time? The fact is God has chosen us for the purpose of transformation. His saving power doesn't stop at the time of first faith. Rather, it continues by Word and Spirit to root out sin, build up knowledge, and live out the traits of the family of God. God continues to work in us so that first faith becomes firm faith, and firm faith overflows in conspicuous Christ-exalting lives. And that is what God loves. In fact, it is in holy living that we begin once again to live up to our original created purpose. We once again reflect the glory of our Creator.

This conspicuous holiness, while pleasing to God, will not always be admired among men. Our holiness, while not ever to be a source of pride, certainly will be a distinguishing characteristic that separates the Christ-follower from the unbeliever in real ways. Our loves will differ, as will our virtues, our goals, and our pleasures. When Paul asserts that God's choice to save had as a further purpose to make us "blameless" he certainly wasn't talking about the world's opinion of us. God's choice was intended to so transform our lives that we are no longer blameworthy before the court of Heaven. And it is here that we must be clear. Our own holy living will never be the foundation of our acceptance before God. While necessary, our holiness is only the evidence of a change that has taken place wholly by God's grace, as the death and righteousness of Christ are imputed to our account. We are blameless before God because of Christ, and the holiness of our lives is the definitive evidence that God has chosen us in Christ, gifted us the indwelling Spirit, and adopted us into His family forever.

Ephesians 1:4 Chosen in Christ

2011-07-14T13:53:00.000-07:00

I remember a friend describing a prominent pastor/theologian this way: "you have to hate him a lot not to love him a little." Since that day I've used that catchy line more than a few times, and never has it been more true than when the discussion turns to the doctrine of Election. If you really understand what is being taught by Paul and others in the Bible concerning the pre-time decision by God to choose some to salvation, then you have to hate the whole concept a lot not to love it at least a little bit.

In Ephesians 1:4 Paul starts the long list of spiritual blessings enjoyed by Christ-followers with this one: "He chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world." Notice several things here before trying to re-define what Paul is saying.

First, Paul thinks this "choosing" is a blessing, a divine enjoyment, a wonderful and delightful action enjoyed by the believer. To be chosen is a good thing, a blessed thing. Paul doesn't see this as something relegated only to shadows and whispers. He starts with it, as though it is that without which none of the other blessings could become ours.

Secondly, Paul doesn't stop to defend it. He doesn't say "now I know some of you think the idea of God choosing some is unfair, and maybe it looks that way, but basically we have to put up with it because the Bible says so." Paul doesn't do any of that. He also doesn't stop and go on for several pages giving a definition and explanation of God's choosing that in the end turns the whole thing on its head and makes God's choice of us really the result of our choice of Him. More on this in a moment.

Thirdly, notice that we were chosen "in Him." That means that the choice by God was vitally connected to our being united to Christ. His choice of us brought us into union with Christ. And it was this union in the mind of God that would mean that Christ's death was also ours, along with His resurrection. Paul talks about this in Romans 6:3-10 and Colossians 2:9-15.

Fourthly, notice that this choice by God was completed before anything was created. Before God spoke the world into existence, we were on His mind, in His heart, and already included in His redemptive plan ... in Christ. And again I remind you, Paul doesn't think this is odd enough, or hard enough to understand so as to demand that he pause here and give a further definition or explanation or defense of God's actions. That's probably because Paul considered this such a great privilege, a great enjoyment, a monumental blessing that every Christ-follower intuitively understands. Of course we owe our relationship to God to his sovereign actions toward us! How else could we, dead in our sins and hostile toward God, ever work up either the desire or the ability to bring our sinful selves savingly to God? He had to initiate the action, and he had to complete it because, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:1ff we were "dead in our trespasses and sins." We were dead, without ability spiritually to reverse the effects of our sin on our will.

Fifthly, don't fall for the humanistic explanation that God's choice of us was really his reaction to the knowledge he had of us, that at some point, we would choose to believe and trust in his Gospel and surrender our lives to Christ. We were chosen because he knew we would choose him. But think about it. If God's choice was really sourced in our choice, how does it qualify as a magnificent blessing? Isn't it really just the obligatory response of God to our actions? And further, doesn't it make us sovereign over God's actions since he chose us only because we chose him? And lastly, does this really solve the supposed problem here? Let me explain.

Those who reject the doctrine of Election seem to think that it isn't fair because it violates man's free will. And without going into a whole long explanation of the Free Will doctrine, just slow down a bit and really think about this: if God looked ahead with his omniscient telescope and saw, down through the corridors of history, that I would one day hear the Gospel, choose to believe it, repent of my sins and trust in Christ, then my decision was already certain. If God knew it, and based his choice of me on the certainty of my faith, then my faith decision was already certain and my personal history could never turn out otherwise. So how in the world can that be a defense of my free will, if long before I was born, my history was already set?

My point is this: Any explanation of Election other than the clear truth that God, according to his own counsel and motivated by nothing outside himself, chose to make some the object of his redeeming love, and did so before creation even began ... Any other explanation fails to really solve the supposed problems, and actually creates many more, not the least of which is that is re-defines God's sovereignty by making his choosing subservient to ours, his will dependent upon knowledge of our actions.

For Paul the simple truth that God, for reasons known only to himself, determined not only to permit sin to ruin his creation, but also to rescue an undeserving, sinful people and make them his treasured masterpieces, is the highest and most spectacular blessing God has ever bestowed on us. And I think our best choice is to join Paul in the rejoicing, and stop trying to defend God for an action that both grants us salvation, and magnifies his glory.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:3: Blessed ... in Christ!

2011-07-13T07:29:00.000-07:00

In this short verse Paul uses "blessed" three times. God is to be blessed because He has blessed us with every spiritual blessing. If we're not careful we can run right past this statement and fail to appreciate the inspired redundancy.

To bless God is to compliment him in the highest way. In fact the Greek word here is the root from which we get "eulogy" which means to speak well of someone. Of all those who are deserving to be well-spoken of, God is foremost of all. Why? Obviously there are myriad reasons. Look up, look around, breathe in, breathe out. Everything you see from the amazing show the night sky brings to the grandeur of mountains, lakes, oceans, and wildlife all declare the greatness of our God. Add to that the joys we find in the various facets of life and we could build a list miles long of things for which to praise and speak well of our generous God. But none of that is what Paul has in mind. Here he wants to start us off down the track of the spiritual gifts God has poured out on us, in rescuing us from the brokenness of our souls and our world. In the following verses he will enumerate them one by one, but here he simply summarizes the whole lot. God is worthy of our highest words of praise for he has granted us every spiritual blessing that can be enjoyed by humanity. He has withheld nothing of the spiritual benefits that can be ours in this life.

But lest we stop reading and sit back to enjoy the bounty of God at this point, Paul adds two clarifying phrases. Both are necessary to understand just what he means by these "blessings". First, they are not temporal or material, but are to be understood within the realm of the "heavenlies." This word is used 5 times in the epistle (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12). When we take them all into account we find that this word describes the spiritual realm in which our real battle is being fought. It is the arena of authorities and powers, and is also the realm in which the risen Christ dwells. It is in this realm that we live as well, as redeemed children of God, And it is in this realm that the greatest blessings from God are to be found. God has not promised us wealth, health, or any other element of temporal happiness. He has promised to forgive our sins, grant us Christ's righteousness, put the Spirit within us, gift us for service, and progressively transform us into the very image of Christ. These are the greatest gifts, and these are the primary reason we look at God and magnify his glory.

At this point we might be feeling pretty good about ourselves. The Almighty has chosen to shower down his gracious generosity on us. We are the objects of his love, the recipients of his full array of blessing. But wait just a minute! Turns out these blessings are actually being bestowed on us, not because of who we are, but because of who we are in Christ! Simply put, God the Father loves God the Son, and all those who are united by faith to the Son receive the blessings of the Father. There is no spiritual enjoyment, no grace gift from heaven that can be experienced and enjoyed apart from a vital union with Christ. Outside of Christ there is no forgiveness, no righteousness, no gifting, no transformation, no eternal life. Jesus said "apart from me you can do nothing." Here Paul is saying "apart from Christ you have nothing."

If we understand this correctly we will find that our passion will be to know Christ more fully, to grow more and more in our appreciate of his character and redemptive work on our behalf. For the deeper we go into Christ, the more fully will we experience and appreciate the treasure trove of divine blessings that are ours from the hand of our heavenly Father.

Hope this helps,

David

Ephesians 1:2 Grace and Peace

2011-07-12T08:59:00.000-07:00

In every one of Paul's epistles, except those to pastors Timothy and Titus, he uses the salutation "grace to you, and peace ..." These two words - grace and peace - sum up the great privilege each Christ-follower enjoys in relationship to Almighty God.

While "grace" is a common word in the Christian world it is often misunderstood. We treat it as though grace were a commodity, a substance, almost some kind of heavenly pixie dust that comes floating down from above. We describe it like something we can get more of, as if it were for sale by the pound. But grace is not so much a substance as an attitude. Like love and mercy, grace is a state of mind and disposition of the heart that moves the person to certain actions. Specifically, grace is an attitude of benevolence toward one deserving judgment. God's grace is simply his continual attitude of love and acceptance toward those whose sin deserves his wrath. In the rest of Ephesians 1 and 2 Paul will go on to show that this gracious attitude of God toward those "chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world" is completely undeserving, unearned, and wholly sourced in the secret counsel of God himself.

If grace is the attitude God displays toward us, then peace is the result in us. An honest look at our hearts will tell us that we actually deserve God's judgment, not his mercy. Our persistent sin and selfishness can hardly be denied. Yet, God looks on us through the lens of grace and grants us a position in his presence that we can never deserve. Our continual acceptance is only due to his continual attitude of grace. And the result? We now are at peace with God. The gracious attitude of God has acted in Jesus to replace wrath with acceptance, our brokenness with the imputed righteousness of Christ. The grace that has saved us brings the peace that fills us. Our lives have been forever renewed through the grace and peace of God.

Ephesians 1:1: The Will of God

2011-07-11T13:51:00.000-07:00

Recently the whole idea of the will of God has occupied a prominent place on my mental desktop. I'll admit that I grew up thinking God's will was some secret plan that only God knew, but that somehow I was responsible to find it, understand it, and live accordingly. It even seemed that anything I found enjoyable couldn't be God's will since apparently God's will always hurt, or cost you everything. Sadly, I grew up thinking that, if it was alright with everybody, I'd just as soon not spend my life searching for it.

Paul has an entirely different take. He looks at the single most important and impressive thing in his life and attributes it to "the will of God." Paul was an apostle. He was incredibly important and significant in the extension of the Gospel from Jerusalem out to the Gentile world. In his first letter to the Thessalonians Paul is overjoyed at the fact that he has been "entrusted with the Gospel" (2:4) which he elsewhere says came as a direct commandment from the Savior (Titus 1:3). That means that the will of God, by which Paul was drafted to be an Apostle, and entrusted with the Gospel was made abundantly clear to Paul, and he found God's will to be a delight rather than a burden.

I maintain that the greatest part of God's will for our lives has already been made clear to us, in black and white, in the teaching of the Bible. I also believe that doing the will of God brings life's greatest delights. In fact, "blessings" are actually those divine enjoyments that are ours from God's hand, and fall to us on the other side of obedience to his commands, his divine will.

Sadly, we spend most of our time worrying about, and actually praying about, that very small percentage of our time that apparently doesn't concern God as much as it concerns us. But this I mean the things of everyday life. We are much more concerned about the events of our day, our health, our wellbeing and that of our friends and family than we are about the extent to which the clear commands of God are conspicuous in our lives. Does God care about whether or not we get a good grade, get that account, or are safe as we drive? I expect that, since he is the perfect Father, he cares a great deal. But does he care much more about the extent to which the clear commands of Scripture are both evident and increasingly obeyed? I am certain he does. And I believe he desires us to raise our focus away from our own desire to focus on his.

He has displayed his heart and will for us over and over, in the commands and teaching of the Bible, and this is what he really cares about. He wants us to abound more and more in "real knowledge and discernment" (Philippians 1:9) so that regardless of our test score, or the outcome of the sales presentation we are conspicuously reflecting his character and his glory. His will is for us to "conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the Gospel of Christ" (Philippians 1:27) so that our unity will be protected in the church. His will is for us to be sexually pure (1 Thessalonians 4:3), generous (1 Timothy 6:17,18), joyful and thankful (Ephesians 5:18-20) and I could go on and on.

The will of God is not hidden; neither is it horrible. Rather, it is easy to find, and what can be found in the pages of Scripture ought to occupy us so much that the small percentage of things that aren't specifically addressed will come to be seen for what they are: the temporal concerns of hearts focused inward. This doesn't make them wrong; but it does mean that we can't afford to make them more significant than they should be. When we focus on our daily desires, and fill up our minds and prayers with anxiety about the unknown, we can start to believe that God's will is mostly a mystery, and all we can do is plead with him to make our lives work.

But the reality is far different. God's will for us is clearly found in the pages of Scripture. In fact, I believe to a large extent that "the Word of God is the will of God." There certainly is more of his will than what he has given us in written form, but the written stuff is pretty comprehensive, and enough to capture our attention for as long as we're alive. What God does for us, wants of us, and promises to us is abundantly evident in the pages of the Bible. Look for yourself. You'll find that God is pretty clear about how we should live, and also pretty clear about the delights that abound to those who love him, trust him, and obey him. The will of God in the Word of God is the way of life, and always will be. It's there, you can find it, and it is delightful.

Looking for the man

2011-07-09T15:58:00.000-07:00

We are in the process of looking for the next Senior High School Pastor at Grace Baptist, Santa Clarita, CA. I don't know if there is a more important position on our staff, but I do know that we need a man of God, who teaches the Bible the way it was written, with passion, and a strong adherence to truth. We need a man whose heart is winsome, and understands that ministry to students is really about forming, training, and releasing a powerful staff of parent volunteers who are face-to-face disciplers of our youth. We need a man who will be a full pastoral partner, serving on the pastoral team with me and a group of committed, theologically oriented, love-empowered, prayer-driven men. I am not above going after the best guys in the land ... I just need help knowing where to look!

If you know a good man, experienced, trained, and passionate, please send him my way: david.hegg@gracebaptist.org

Or if you're too shy to do it, give me his name and contact info, and I'll contact him directly.

Thanks for your help!

David

Time to start again

2011-07-09T13:55:00.000-07:00

Okay, so it has been some time since I blogged. About a year ago I was asked to write a weekly column in the Santa Clarita Signal, on ethics and related topics. It appears every Sunday morning, and has been a great adventure. But, it has taken all of my blog ideas!

But I have decided on another course. Recently I have been reading Sam Storms wonderful devotional book on the churches of Revelation 2 and 3. Each day I read his short but very well written 1000 word devotional on something in the biblical text, and I have found it very rewarding.

So, I am going to try the same approach, but this time from the creative standpoint. In the next week I'll be choosing a biblical book and am going to just start writing my devotional thoughts through the book as an exercise for myself. And, I'll post it here just in case anyone else wants to keep track of it!

Let me know what you think ... after I get the first few written!

David

New Books

2010-12-17T14:53:00.001-08:00

It has been quite a while since I posted anything on this blog, and there is a good reason. God has been so gracious to me in allowing me to be involved in two publishing projects.

The first is a book I have been working on for over ten years. Well, it is finally finished, and now available in Europe! It will be available in the States in January, 2011. The publishers - Christian Focus - are currently featuring it on their website, and they have also reprinted my first book - Appointed to Preach.

This first book is titled The Obedience Option, with the byline: "Because God Knows What is Good for You." The basic thrust is that choosing to obey God is our very best option, and a great delight simply because "Faith is a life-dominating conviction that whatever God has for me through obedience is better by far than anything the world or Satan can offer through selfishness and sin." That last sentence is the backbone of the book. I unpack it bit by bit, mostly from Ephesians, and then go on to help readers understand the lifelong privilege of building this kind of "overwhelming" faith. By that I mean a faith that sees righteousness as better by far than sin.

The second book is published by Moody Press, and is due out in May. Co-authored with Carl Moeller, President of Open Doors, the book asks "what can the American church learn from our persecuted brethren around the world?" The title is "The Privilege of Pain" and I think it is really going to open some eyes. The typical idea we in the West have of the persecuted church is that they are under resourced, under trained, uneducated, and basically dependent upon the West for their survival. Nothing is further from the truth! They actually look at us and believe we are in grave danger of being completely marginalized by the consumer driven culture we live in. They believe their grasp of true New Testament living is vastly greater than ours, and in large measure they are right! Persecution brings clarity and focus, and the strength of faith to live in this world according to the ethic of heaven. And as they point out, heaven will be much more about praise, fellowship, love, and Jesus than big buildings, nice cars, leisure pursuits, and resumes.

Moody is spending quite a bit of money promoting this book, and it will be great to see just how God determines to use it.

So, just thought I'd let you know about these two books, in case you're in need of some reading material for 2011!

David

The Love of God and the Wrath of God

2010-08-06T09:01:00.000-07:00

In the last year I have had ocassion to spend time with many college students from several different campuses teaching the Bible and answering their questions. These Q & A sessions always end up being both fun and telling. What I mean by "telling" is that students' questions give a good indication just where this generation is focusing their attention. And while there are still some of the basic questions being asked in each session - things like how to know God's will for life, and how to understand predestination! - more and more I am being asked questions about the nature of God. And even more, these questions about God are coming from a "suspicious" starting point. Students are increasingly wondering how the God of today's church can be reconciled with the God of the Bible. Perhaps the most telling kinds of questions revolve around the idea that God's love leaves no room for God's wrath. Or better, the question of how a God who loves us so much, who loves us even more than we love ourselves, whose overwhelming emotion toward all people is sacrificial love, could ever consign those same people to such a terrible place as Hell, where torment and conscious punishment will last forever and ever. Try answering that one in 3 minutes or less!

What lies at the base of this question are several theological assumptions that, while being taught in churches everywhere, are actually false. Let me see if I can unmask them here. But before hitting them head on, how about an illustration that might help put us on the right track.

Suppose that you have a friend who has two small children. Her husband is out of town on business, and - tragically - a desperate young man breaks into her home, rapes her in front of her two children, and then takes their lives. Eventually, the criminal is caught, tried by a jury of his peers, and convicted. The evidence is clear, and the defense attorney doesn't even argue the case. At the time of sentencing, however, the judge shocks the crowd by declaring that he is a man of love, a judge of love. He loves everyone, including the rapist/murderer. His love is so strong that he overturns the jury verdict, and sets the young man free.

Now, I know that this is a made-up story, and won't stand up to rugged assessment, but you get the point. If it were true, you and I and the whole world would be outraged! Articles in the newspaper would pop up demanding justice, demanding that the young man be punished to the full extent of the law. They would further have argued that the judge had forsaken his duty to hand out justice, to promote and defend the laws of the land.

This story aptly describes the view of God as a loving judge that is sweeping our land. The problem is that the church has gone overboard in teaching the love of God to the exclusion of the wrath of God. In so doing, we have left God no room to exercise the rest of His divine attributes which include infinite holiness and justice. The question that has to be answered is this: How does the Bible describe God? Does His love flow indiscriminately? Does His love overrule His justice? And most importantly, what does the Bible say about the wrath of God? Does God's wrath rest on those who break His law or not? Should those who break God's law worry about His wrath? Is it the love of God, or the wrath of God that moves the heart to repentance and faith?
Let's first turn to look at the false theological assumptions being preached and taught in the church today, and then we will try to answer these questions.

False Assumption #1: God's love is indiscriminate: What is falsely being taught or at least caught, is the idea that the love of God flows out from Him to all in the same way. That is, God's love for everyone is the same, and is infinite and unconditional. This simply isn't true, and the false assumption regarding God's love is at the root of this generation's misconceptions about God.

First of all, the word "love" is not a static word. It doesn't have only one meaning. Let me explain: I love my wife and kids; I love the Dodgers; I love children; I love my granddaughter. In these four statements, the word "love" has different meanings, and being English speakers, we all understand the differences. My love for my wife and kids is much diffferent from my love for the Dodgers. My love for children is much different from my love for my granddaughter Kate. Instinctively we understand the differences. But, somehow, when we come to study God, we forget that the "love" word carries a whole range of meanings, and levels of meaning.

The fact is that God's love is seen in the Bible as operating on different levels. John 3:16 speaks of God's love for the "world." Here, John is not saying God has an equal amount of saving love for each individual that ever lived, but rather that God "loves" the cosmos, his creation. When sin came in and wrecked His perfect creation in Genesis 3, God could have turned away from the mess. Why didn't He? Why did He instead determine to reclaim creation, and reform it so that it would once again declare His praise perfectly (which, btw, is the goal of history: God, through Jesus Christ, will reclaim and redeem and reform all that sin distorted and corrupted, including the physical creation, called the New Earth!)? Why did God determine to rescue His fallen creation through the life, death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ? John's answer is simple: God so loved the world ... Now, does this verse say that God loved Adolph Hitler, Sadaam Hussein, all the rapists and murderers and tyrants of the world with an unconditional, redeeming love? NO! This verse speaks about the love He had for His overall creation, and His determination not to let sin have the final say. The love for His creation is often referred to theologically as God's "common grace." It is the gracious, benevolent attitude God has toward all, that is "common" to all. In this, He sends the rain on the righteous and the unrighteous alike (Matthew 5:4): He keeps the natural laws working like gravity, and such so that life can continue on earth; He sends the seasons, causes the grass to grow, keeps the hearts of the righteous and wicked beating, etc. This is God's "common love" for His creation. But this is different from His sovereign, electing, redeeming, saving love that is for those who are "in Christ."

This sovereign, electing, redeeming, saving love of God is also a fact of Scripture. Perhaps the greatest example is found in Ephesians 1:3-7:  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Notice a few things in particular: This saving, redeeming love is not directed at all, but only at those God has chosen, and blessed, and are seen to be "in the Beloved." These are the ones who, through the Gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit, have come to see that obeying God is their very best option. They have come to see that their sin merits His wrath (more on that later), but that, through no work or merit of their own, they have been rescued by His gracious and loving power in Jesus Christ. They have come to see their sin, and turned from it to love and serve Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord. Simply put, they are Christ-followers. These are the ones who have come to experience the saving, redeeming love of God eternally.

Paul demonstrates that this is a different level of God's love in Romans 8:28-39:   And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.   What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written,
“FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG;
WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED.” But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Again, note a few things: First, see that God's redeeming love is not experienced by all; it is only found "in Christ Jesus our Lord." The locis - the place it is found - of God's saving grace is "in Christ Jesus." Outside of Christ Jesus you will experience the common grace of God, His love and care and continual provision of the stuff of life, but NOT His eternal, redeeming, saving, loyal love. That is reserved for those "in Christ Jesus". Second, see that this love is eternal, never to be ended. Nothing can separate us from this love in Christ! This is a huge piece of peace! But, this is NOT true for those outside of Christ. While God's sovereign, saving, redeeming love is eternal and unbreakable, this is not true for His common grace. All who refuse to acknowledge God's sovereign rule in their lives, who continue to say "no" to Him in their lives, who in this way rebel against His freely offered saving love, and continue to live in rebellion to His commands will find that one day they will be held accountable for their disrespect and crimes against Almighty God. They will find that His common love will no longer be there, but instead, they will experience the judgment His law demands, to the full extent.

False Assumption #2: Our view of what God should be what matters most: Today we have a huge deficiency in Bible knowledge. We also are sadly lacking in an attitude of respect and submission to the Bible. This means that all too often we look at God through our contemporary lens and decide - based on our own preferences - what God should be and how He should act. But, the truth is that we are not at liberty to define God in any way other than the way He defines Himself. He does this in the Bible, and thus, the Bible becomes the starting point for any definition of God.

Our problem usually begins when teachers and preachers start portraying God in ways that are human. This is particularly true when it comes to our subject here - God's love. We see God as a Father who loves, and this is certainly in line with the Bible. But, we go beyond the biblical picture to characterize God as the Father we want, rather than understand that the "Father" motif is just one of the many ways the eternal and Almighty God has seen fit to describe Himself. He is also a Mighty Judge, a Holy God, a Warrior King, and a host of others pictures used to let us understand who God is. The problem with pictures is that we tend to gravitate toward the one we like best, and use that picture to frame God in His entirety. But the Bible does not let us do this. Rather, we are to take all the pictures together, and come to understand the many facets of God's nature.

For our purposes here, let's just remember that God is Almighty Creator and Righteous Judge and Holy God, in addition to being Loving Father. As Creator, He has ultimate authority over all creation. The great Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar found out the truth of this the hard way. You can read the story in Daniel 4, but here is Neb's conclusion: Dan. 4:34   “But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever;
For His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
And His kingdom endures from generation to generation.
35 “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
But He does according to His will in the host of heaven
And among the inhabitants of earth;
And no one can ward off His hand
Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’

God is the Almighty Creator, and reserves the right to lay down the laws for His creation. He has done this, and has every right to rule His creation, including the affairs of mankind.

God is also the Righteous Judge. His justice is impecable. He does not let sinners go unpunished; His justice will not allow it. Paul makes this clear in 2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Isaiah the prophet sums it up further when he declares what God has said: Is. 13:11 Thus I will punish the world for its evil
And the wicked for their iniquity;
I will also put an end to the arrogance of the proud
And abase the haughtiness of the ruthless.

God is a righteous judge, and His justice and integrity demand that all sin be punished. So, at this point, we find that we're all guilty before God - if we're honest! - and since He must punish sin, the question remains: How can I ever come to live within His love? The answer of course, is that Jesus stepped in on the cross, and took our punishment! God did not fail in punishing our sin; It just fell on Jesus instead of us. That's the core of the gospel: Jesus, our substitute, took the full, unobstructed wrath of God for sin on Himself, so that we - in Him! - could become the eternally loved children of God.

God is also a Holy God. That is, He cannot abide sin. Those who believe that the "love of God" translates to acceptance on God's part of all people, regardless of their lives and practices, have never grappled with the concept of His holiness. God cannot tolerate sin. He hates it, and as a function of His nature, must deal with it. What we do see is that in His grace, God postpones the final dealing with sin until the Day when He has decided He will bring history to a close, open the books, dole out justice, and set everything to rights. Until then, it is important not to assume that a lack of judgment means that God is "accepting" of sin and sinners. Rather, the wrath of God "abides" on them (John 3:36) until that time when, in repentance and faith, they surrender their hearts and lives into His care and keeping, and follow Christ.

False Assumption #3: A loving God cannot also be a God of wrath: I often hear that folks like Jesus, but aren't too sure about the God of the Old Testament. That OT God seems quite full of wrath and judgment, and doesn't seem all that loving. When I hear this I know I'm speaking with someone who hasn't really read the OT. The sections in Exodus where God explains that He has chosen Israel to be His own, even though they are a sinful, stubborn people, are some of the most amazing expressions of unconditional covenantal love ever written. Furthermore, God's longsuffering, patient love for Israel is really the story of the OT, as they disobey over and over, but He remains true to them. Yes, God judges His people, and often quite severly, but only after He has repeatedly warned them for years and years and years through the judges, the prophets, and kings. He asks them to trust Him, to obey Him. When they do, they prosper. But, their wicked hearts run away from Him over and over, and eventually, He brings judgment and discipline down on them, as any loving Father would.

The fact remains, however, that the Bible does not shy away from the fact that God, as Mighty Creator and Righteous Judge, has every right - in fact, has an obligation! - to judge those who break His law, disobeying His commands. Those who do find themselves facing the wrath of God. The wrath of God is something we seldom hear about these days. The church is so committed to believing that the love of God is all people need to hear that we give God's wrath little time.

The fact is, we ought to be preaching God's wrath in equal parts to God's love. The reason? The "good news" is only good when seen against the backdrop of the "bad" news that our sin deserves God's wrath! We've forgotten that in the "saved" formula, what we're saved from is the wrath of God! Never forget, Hell is God's idea; it isn't the place Satan calls home, like the comics portray in the Sunday paper. Rather, hell is God's place for those who refuse Him in this life; in death, they get their way. Hell is the place of eternal wrath, and it is the destination of all who break God's law, unless they turn to Christ for rescue. Remember: We have been saved from the wrath of God, by the grace of God, for the glory of God!

False Assumption #4: The story of God and His redeeming love is centered on mankind, and our well-being: This is perhaps the most dangerous myth being broadcast today. The church all too often has made us - humans - the center of God's attention, the focal point of the Gospel, the reason for everything. But, this isn't true. When we make God and the gospel man-centered, we tend to elevate ourselves, and our well-being, to the highest rung on the spiritual ladder. We make God out to be here for us. We shape Jesus into our personal friend who is here to help us be all we can be. We make the church a place where religious consumers come to shop for whatever they believe will meet their needs. And we turn the Bible into a self-help manual. All of this is not only wrong, but dangerous.

First of all, the center of God's focus is not us, but Himself. It must be this way, or else God is commiting idolatry! He has to be fixated on His own Glory, and is in fact, the only righteously self-centered being in the universe. God's highest passion is that His own glory be seen. This might be hard for us to take, since it seems so self-centered. We have no earthly models of righteous self-centeredness, and so we tend to class all self-centeredness as harmful (except for our own, of course! LOL). But, if you think about it, God deserves to be the center of all things, the focus of all praise and glory, the goal of everything, the purpose for everything. And this is true for Him as well as us.

Secondly, this means that the whole plan of salvation, the rescue planned by God and accomplished by Christ and the Holy Spirit, must not center on our well-being, but on the glory of God. Of course, a byproduct is certainly our eternal and temporal well-being, but the goal of the Gospel is really God, not us. We're just the vehicle through which God's glory is being demonstrated time after time after time. If we forget this, we gravitate toward a man-centered gospel, filled with the idea that Jesus owes us something when actually, we are forever in His debt. The fact that God is at the center, and the gospel is really about His glory not ours, means that the church ought to be a group of redeemed folks who are surrendered to His will, to His praise, to His glory, to His mission rather than to meeting our temporal whims and stylistic preferences. The fact that we argue about music, and lighting, and programs only shows how skewed our vision is. Chirst-followers all over the world, in countries where persecution is a daily threat, worship with gladness and tears on dirt floors, with one or two Bibles, under the constant threat of discovery, and certainly without all the "stuff" we think is so necessary to our comfort and convenience. Why? Simply because they understand that God, not themselves, is at the center.

We simply must restore God to the center, His wrath to its rightful place in the story, the gospel to its original form in which the bad news of sin and wrath come first, only to be overwhelmed with the declaration of the love of God in Christ for all who surrender their hearts and lives to Jesus.

So, in light of all this, how do we answer the questions posed back at the beginning of this blog? Well, here they are:

How does the Bible describe God? Answer: As Mighty Creator with total rights to rule His creation as He sees fit (and it is a joy to know that God never makes mistakes, and always does what is best and right.).

Does His love flow indiscriminately? Answer: In terms of His common grace - His care for all creation - the answer is yes. God's care to send the rain and all that makes for life is showered down on all people, regardless of their obedience to Him. But, in terms of His sovereign, electing, saving, redeeming, reforming love, it is only found in Jesus Christ.

Does His love overrule His justice? Answer: No. All of God's attributes are infinite and eternal. He never acts out of keeping with them all. Thus, His justice will never be in conflict with His love. In fact, it was the combination of these two that made the cross necessary. God's love for those He had chosen to save drove Him to deal with their sin. His justice demanded that the sin be punished. Thus, God's love and justice came together in the person of God the Son - Jesus Christ - as He went willingly to the cross to bear what justice demanded of us, so that love could be lavished on us.

And most importantly, what does the Bible say about the wrath of God? Does God's wrath rest on those who break His law or not? Should those who break God's law worry about His wrath? Is it the love of God, or the wrath of God that moves the heart to repentance and faith? Answer: God's wrath is found throughout Scripture (John 3:36; see also Romans 1:18; 2:5; 2:8; 3:5 and especially Romans 5:8,9). Those who break God's law should certainly worry about the inescapable wrath of God. In fact, it is the knowledge that our sin merits God's eternal wrath that begins to open our eyes to our brokenness, our precarious position as sinful rebels living on God's earth, breathing His air, and still shaking our fist at Him. And when this happens, and then we hear the precious story that this God of Justice has, in love, provided Jesus to be our Rescuer, it just may be that faith - true, saving, redeeming faith - will rise in our hearts, and the scales will fall from our eyes, and we will see that giving our lives to Jesus is our very best option, not only to escape eternal wrath, but also to come to know life as it was always meant to be.

Hope this helps,

David

Changing Our Ideas About Change

2010-07-28T10:25:00.000-07:00

As a student of society, change is something I find inevitable. If the business books and the ministry books are right, the pace of change is not going to slow down anytime soon. Given this, it is quite disconcerting to hear on every hand that "people hate change." Actually, I don't think its true. Here's why:

When people say "I hate change" what they're really saying is "I hate the thought that change might make me uncomfortable." They begin with the point of view that change will be bad, even though there is a case to be made that change is often good. God must have thought change was a good idea when He decided to make the sun come up and go down every day. Every one of the 24 hours in His days is a study in change. The earth is constantly rotating bringing the change of light and darkness, while it is constantly revolving around the sun bringing the change of seasons. Trees change colors, grass grows, and we grow older everyday. Nothing remains static: not our eyesight, our nails, or hair, or our weight, sadly! As human beings, we are a "change machine." Everyday we are different, and were it not so, we would be bored. Remember? "Variety is the spice of life." We need change, and we actually love it ... so long as we can still be comfortable!

We also love change that is outside of ourselves. Who doesn't enjoy a new purchase, a new car, a new couch? Who doesn't enjoy a new restaurant find, a new book, a new blouse or suit coat? And what about the growth and maturity of a child? Don't we work hard to bring about change in our kids, as they progress from self-centered brats into helpful, loving adults? Don't we pray for change when they're in junior high? And wasn't the greatest change in all of life something we actually made happen, when we decided to have kids in the first place? Talk about change!

So why do we always hear that "people hate change?" The truth is that people hate being uncomfortable, and it is this preoccupation with self that prevents most of us from even considering that change can be good. Let's take a look at a biblical example.

John the Baptist had it good. He was a popular desert preacher, causing quite a stir, and developing quite a following. Even Jesus came to hear him preach, and be baptized by him, showing that he was in agreement with John's message. But not much later change came to John's ministry. Several of his disciples left following him to follow Jesus. Those still loyal to John asked him how he felt about the fact that his following was changing, his fame was decreasing, his voice growing less and less influential. He simply said "Its okay. This change is for the better. It is God's plan that Jesus increase, and that I decrease (see: John 3:30). To the outside observer, John's life had run into monumental change. His ministry was shrinking, and his followers were leaving. But rather than hate the change, John realized that his personal well-being was not the issue ... the mission of Christ was! Imagine if John were of the "I hate change" group: "What? Jesus is coming to town? Oh no, that's going to change everything! We have to mobilize to keep this change from affecting us! I'm against His coming, against His trying to invade our territory! I must fight this change!" Of course, this is ludicrous simply because John had long before realized that the mission of Christ is a larger priority than even his own comfort, his own success. That must be so freeing!

As a pastor of a large church, I find that I'm often standing on the top of our ministry mountain, looking out over the future with its opportunities and challenges. This excites me, even as I recognize that the future will demand that we change the shape of things we're now doing, and even add to their number, or let some of them die a death with dignity. We won't change the core: the teaching of the Bible as absolutely true and authoritative, and the theological and biblical principles Christ has called us to champion in our world. But, outside of those things, everything else is subject to change if such change will enhance our ability to be the church Jesus Christ uses in our changing world. The truth is unchanging; the rest may not be, and if change brings us closer to accomplishing the mission of Christ through Grace to the world, then bring it on! "And Lord, may your presence and promises be enough comfort for us, enabling us to risk enlarging our comfort zones, to be changed for the better, for your mission and your glory."

I guess what I'm saying is this: I'm starting a movement of people who love change, as long at that change enhances the mission of Christ. Wanna join? Just be aware that John the Baptist is our model: change that makes Christ more glorious, and enhances the Church's ability to teach and model the Gospel, is always best, even if it means that I am discomforted. His mission trumps my well-being ... though honestly, I'll never be more satisfied than when he is most glorified (thanks John Piper).

Hope this helps,

David

Comfort Zones

2010-05-01T15:56:00.000-07:00

I've been pondering the idea of "stepping out of my comfort zone." Like me, you've heard this many times. We've been encouraged to do it, to go outside the supposed boundaries of our comfort. Those calling us to do so make it sound like comfort is a bad thing, a self-centered thing, and ultimately, a barrier to better living. And all this time I've believed that comfort was a good thing! And so I've been thinking about this, and have come to a conclusion: calling someone to "step out of their comfort zone" is foolish, and actually quite counter-productive. If the thing you want us to do is "outside" the zone of comfort then even if we do it, we'll just retreat back into the zone when you're not looking. This is especially true if you keep telling us that the "thing" is actually uncomfortable! So, I have a better idea.

Here it is: instead of saying "step out of your comfort zone" to get me to do something uncomfortable, say "enlarge your comfort zone to encompass a new opportunity." Enlarging my comfort zone calls on me to do two things. First, to believe that there are actually "comfortable" things that I don't now recognize. Second, to understand that once I recognize and grasp those as yet unknown comfortable things, it will make my life so much better! And isn't that what we all want anyway? Don't we want a bunch more "comfortable" things that more and more occupy our lives with great variety? And isn't that really what God wants? Would He rather have us step out from time to time in order to minimize our overall guilt, or have us enlarge the scope of things we do "comfortably" for Him? I think the second option is the one we all know He wants, and by which He is most glorified. So, try this:

Think of something you're uncomfortable doing, but you know would really bring a smile to God. Then, concentrating on God's glory, check off all the myths you currently believe that keep you from being comfortable doing what God loves. Then do it! And when you find that you're most satisfied when He's most glorified, you won't be tempted to retreat to a zone of comfort; rather, you'll find that your zone has grown to encompass what God has in mind. So, don't settle for "stepping out". Grow your zone!

Hope this helps,

David

Romans 8:29, Foreknowledge, and Free Will

2010-04-27T11:46:00.000-07:00

Over my 30+ years of preaching and teaching I have found one topic to be more prevalent in Q and A sessions than any other. The questions usually go something like this: Did God really choose to save some and not all? And if so, doesn't that violate our free will? And isn't it true that God's choice of us was really just His response to His knowing that we would respond to the Gospel in faith? Isn't that what Romans 8:29 says?"

Now of course, these questions don't usually come all at once but this series of questions does represent the most often misunderstood part of what the Bible teaches about how God saves sinners. And in answering these questions, we have to start there: God saves sinners. That is the basic message of biblical salvation. Churches don't save; pastors don't save; and most of all, people don't save themselves. Salvation is not of works, at all. Paul says so in Ephesians 2:8-10 (not of our works, because then we could boast; and besides, we're actually His work!) and in Titus 3:5 (He saved us, not through our works, but through His). I am constantly amazed that folks can read this, and then try to insert their own works into the equation, making God's saving act out to be a response to theirs. So, before I get back to Romans 8:29 and foreknowledge, let's start with some basics:

Scripture teaches that sin came into humanity through the sin of Adam, and the human person was changed from its original created status (very good) to being spiritually corrupt. You need only look at Paul's argument in Romans 3 to understand this. When is comes to spiritual goodness, Paul says there is no one that is good. There is no one who seeks after God (3:10-18). Paul goes on to teach that this condition is like that of a dead man. The effect of sin is spiritual death. In Ephesians 2:1ff he states that we are dead in our sins. This speaks of complete inability in the realm of the spiritual. Just what does this mean? Again we need to look at the words of Paul. He teaches that our state of spiritual death means it is impossible for us to please God (Romans 8:5-8). It is also impossible for the spiritually dead to understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). Thus, in the state of spiritual death - left to ourselves - we are unable to do anything that would change our situation.

It is interesting that the idea of the dead being raised is used as an illustration of the spiritually dead being given new life. Jesus uses it in John 5:25-29, and then enacts the greatest illustration of it in chapter 11. Lazarus was dead, fully dead, not mostly dead. He had been dead 3 days. So, Jesus calls to him to come out of the tomb, and he does. How did that happen? Did Lazarus will himself to wake up? No, it was the work of Christ that woke him up. God did the saving.

Given the fact of natural man's state of spiritual death and inability it is amazing that some still believe that such a man's salvation would be initiated by his own activity, be it physical or mental. The truth is that, if salvation had to be initiated by a sinner who was dead in his sins, no one would ever be saved. God saves sinners. We love because He first loved us.

At this point some may say that God does initiate, but that He does so in some way in everyone's life. He gives them just enough "life" to be able to analyze the data and make the decision of faith. But certainly you can see the problem here. If everyone is "enlightened" but only some are saved, then we're right back to same place. What is the deciding factor between those who are saved and those who are not, if they all start from the same place of enlightenment? There are only two answers: 1) they chose better than the others, in which case their salvation ultimately stems from they're doing what others did not do, or 2) God acted toward them in a way that He did not act toward all. In the first case you have human activity preceding divine action, or salvation by works. In the second, you have God's work preceding man's work, or salvation by grace alone.

Now that we have that set out, let's tackle Romans 8:29. Does this teach that God knew what we would do, and then "chose in Christ before the foundation of the world" those He knew would believe? If so, then God's choice of us was predicated on our choice of Him. This has been called the "long telescope" view of foreknowledge. Here are the reasons this view cannot be true:

1) The text is clear that whatever action on God's part that is here described as "foreknew" does not have as its targets all those who have ever lived. In other words, whatever "foreknew" means here, it can't apply to all humans. Not all humans were "foreknown." We know this is true because of the sequence Paul uses here. If we think in terms of sets, we have to see that those in the "set" that was "foreknown" are the same as those in the set of predestined, who are the same as those in the set of called, and justified, and glorified. Following Paul's simple literary logic demands that those who were foreknown were the exact same people who will ultimately be glorified. And herein lies the problem for those who think "foreknew" means that God looked ahead and knew something about the person. The problem is that God knew - and knows - everything about every person, not just some. To say that God knew how I would respond is also to say that God knew how everyone would respond. If "foreknowlege" here is simply that God knew something, then it can't be limited just to those who are glorified. And yet Paul does limit the action of "foreknowledge" here to just those who ultimately will be glorified. What I am trying to show is that Paul meant something other than mere knowledge here. He meant something that could only be true of those who would ultimately be glorified. And if we look at the way "know" is used in Scripture, we find that it is much more than mere knowledge; it is intimate relationship. As examples, see: Genesis 4:1, where we find the first sexual intimacy described in terms of "knowing" (the Hebrew word rendered "had relations with" is the word yada, to know.) Perhaps more to the point is God's statement in Amos 3:2 that Israel is the only nation He has "chosen." What is so interesting here is that the Hebrew word here translated "chosen" is yada, the same word used in Genesis 4:1 to describe marital intimacy. This is no isolated incident. Throughout the Bible, God's relationship with His own is described as "knowing." Matthew 7:22 declares that, in the end, many who think they are okay with God will hear that terrible words "Depart from Me I never 'knew' you." Again, here the idea of God not knowing about them is both ludicrous and not the point. God knew everything about them, but He did not "know" them in terms of entering into a personal, intimate relationship with them.

In Romans 8:29, Paul is declaring that those who are ultimately glorified are the same ones with whom God has previously (before the foundation of the world: Eph. 1:4) entered into an intimate, redemptive relationship. This is the only way "foreknew" in Romans 8:29 makes any sense. "Whom God fore-loved, he also predestined ... called, justified, glorified."

Now I know that this raises all kinds of questions. But I beg you: don't go running down the pathways of your feelings, and then try to re-make the biblical declarations to fit them. First you and I must be clear on what Paul is teaching about the sequence of salvation. God initiated it, and He did so based only on the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11) and not on the basis of our works. Now, having settled that, we are free to express our questions and concerns, and what we'll find is that the Bible answers them all in a way that is consistent with the sovereignty of God in salvation, and does so in a way that does not require us to mangle texts.

For example: What about the passages that talk of God's love for the world (eg. John 3:16)? The best answer is to realize that sin corrupted much more than the souls of mankind. It also was destructive to all creation, and as well, brought chaos to the realm of spiritual authority. Weeds and natural disasters testify to creation's corruption and futility (see: Genesis 3:17ff; Romans 8:19-21) while the demonic activity described in the New Testament demonstrate the extent to which Satan and his demons have gained a certain amount of control over the created realm. So, when sin came in and brought such devastation to God's creation, He could have walked away. But John 3:16 describes the fact that God loved His creation so much that He sent Jesus as the means of redemption. And while it is true that the primary focus of redemption was mankind, it is also true (Romans 8:19-21) that the secondary beneficiary will be the created world. Does God love his world? Yes. Does He love all elements in it with His electing, redeeming "fore-loving" love? No. Certainly the fact that God will be glorified even in some being judged for eternity demonstrates that they were never objects of His redeeming love.

But what about my free will? Isn't God most glorified by the fact that I chose Him, and choose to love Him? Of course this is the question that most often flows out of a recognition of the fact that God saves sinners, and we don't initiate the salvation process ourselves. Very simply we need to understand that our idea of "free" will really doesn't exist. The Bible is clear that, in the case of the spiritually dead person, their will is not "free" at all. Paul describes it in Ephesians 4:17-19 as "darkened", "ignorant", and found in conjunction with "hardness of heart." Further, he boldly declares that those who have not yet been drawn to Jesus Christ are actually being "held captive by Satan to do his will" (2 Timothy 2:26). Now, of course, we all know by experience that we're not robots who are doing things that we can't control. So there must be a better way to understand our wills. And there is!

What we have to understand is that we are not robots, but it is not because our wills are free from outside influences. In fact, everyone of our choices is influenced by a million past experiences, preferences, etc. But, we are "free" to the extent that our actions flow out of our choices. We are free if, when we choose to do something, we can do it, if what we do is the result of a choice we have made to do it. So, if I choose to get up from this computer, and go for a walk, I have demonstrated freedom. If someone comes along and grabs me, and forces me back to my seat, and ties a rope around me, my freedom has been curtailed. I am no longer free, but a prisoner. My status is the result, not of my will, but someone else's.

When I act as a result of my own choice, I am considered a free, moral agent, and am therefore responsible for my actions. Even though my will, and the choices open to me are limited by my nature (eg. I cannot as a man choose to conceive and carry a baby), I am even still responsible for all those actions that flow from my own choices. I am constrained by my nature, but am nevertheless a free moral agent within the bounds of my nature.

How does this relate? Just this way. I chose to come savingly to Christ. I looked at my sin, and saw its reality; I looked at Jesus and saw the promise of salvation. I chose to entrust my entire life to Christ, and I came to realize that He was my Savior. I believed all of His promises and acted upon them in faith. All of those decisions flowed out of my will. I was never coerced; nor did I watch myself do something that I had not chosen to do. So, I was free because my actions were the result of my choice. But, as I studied Scripture more and more I found that the faith I had expressed was actually a gift to me from God (Ephesians 2:8-10). It never did begin in me; it began with God. He opened my blind eyes and deaf ears. His Spirit brought me life, and I responded in faith. I love because He first loved me.

So, then what about evangelism? Isn't that the next question? If God has chosen whom He will save, and if He does the saving, then why do we even worry about sharing the Gospel? Fair enough. Good questions. And there is an excellent answer if we will take Scripture as our authority. First, we share the Gospel because God commands us to do so. It may surprise you to understand that the conversion of souls is only one of the purposes in evangelism, and it isn't even the primary one! The primary reason we share the story and message of God's rescue mission in Christ is to promote His glory through the story of His grace! We magnify His greatness and goodness when we declare the Gospel! That is our primary task: we exist to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, and evangelism does so regardless of whether or not people respond in faith. Secondly, God has not only chosen whom He will save, He has also chose the means by which He will save them, and it is the Gospel. The parable of the sower and soils makes this clear (Mark 4). God could save folks without the Gospel and without us. But He has determined that His glory is best seen when those He has rescued declare His greatness through the Gospel, to others in need of rescue. That's the way it has always been. Third, I have never met someone who really thinks that we don't need or want to share the Good News with others. Actually, if you've been re-vitalized by the Gospel, you just can't keep quiet about it! It's fun to share Good News.

In closing let me remind you of Jesus' words in John 6 (It's always good to end with Jesus!). He had just fed the 5000, and now uses the bread illustration to speak about spiritual life. He challenges them in regard to their "work" by which they are trying to gain eternal life. He calls them rather to believe. They ask him for a sign, to validate His call to believe Him. He says the "bread" sign should be enough. Then He goes into a very important argument: He starts by saying that "all the Father gives me will come to me (vs. 37a) and the one who comes I will certainly not cast out." This raises some questions: What does it mean "those the Father gives me?" It is clear that Jesus is here making a distinction. Some will come; some will not. Those whom God has given will come, guaranteed. And, all who come will be kept. Notice the sequence: The Father gives some to the Son; all the "given" ones come to the Son; all the given ones who come to the Son will be kept by the Son. Pretty cool! But, then Jesus gets into another part of the discussion in vs. 44 in response to the people's idea that Jesus isn't "all that." Jesus states quite clearly: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Wow! So, the Father gives some to the Son; all those who are given come to the Son. All the given ones who come to the Son are kept. And it turns out that all that come to the Son have been drawn by the Father. That's what Jesus says, and consequently, that's what our theology must represent and rest in. As a former "dead in trespasses and sins" guy, with no ability to understand the things of God, and with a darkened understanding, a hard heart, and a will in bondage to Satan, I for one am so glad that my rescue from the domain of darkness wasn't dependent upon my intellect, will or personal activity. Jesus paid it all, and the Spirit applied it to my heart and life, opening my eyes and granting me faith. I exercised the faith, and my actions of faith flowed from my choice meaning that I acted freely, but in response to God's sovereign prior work in my life. He "fore-loved" me, and I love Him for it, and will forever! Soli deo gloria

Hope this helps,

David

Thoughts on Ministry Meltdown

2010-04-01T13:33:00.000-07:00

On Sunday, March 28, John Piper announced that he is taking an 8-month hiatus from all things ministry related except a few overseas conferences. His purpose is to re-direct his entire focus toward his wife, and family, and other areas of his personal life where, by his own admission, there have been deficits. This got me thinking about ministry meltdown, and I hope by thinking and writing, I may be able to negotiate around the pitfalls and potholes that are in everyone's road.

In spite of what may seem like a gross oversimplification, I think those who allow their personal responsibilities to become run over by the passion of productivity on the job fall into one of three categories.

First, we have the man who is certain that both his gifts and position have been given to him by God. Further, he believes that he is being held accountable by God to use every ounce of his energy, and every moment possible, to use those gifts and position to bring God's influence to those in his world. He is driven by noble purposes, sees himself as the servant who received 10 talents, and earnestly believes that God is demanding that he sacrifice the things others may enjoy in order to fulfill his calling. These kinds of men have looked around and realized that they have been given far more ability, influence, and opportunity than most others. As a result, they feel the weight of ministerial responsibility in a much more significant way, and grow more and more passionate to "fulfill the work they've been given" as the years go by. I would put Piper in this category. His work ethic has been driven by the awe he has gained in his own study, and from the corresponding responsibility he has felt to pursue God's glory, even at the expense of personal concerns.

Having said that, it is actually not noble to put one area of ministry above another, especially if the area that is slighted is that of family. While honorable, the passion to extend the Kingdom turns out to be misplaced if it saps all the fuel from the minister and leaves his family gasping for the air of companionship and spiritual nurture. I applaud John Piper for realizing this, and even more for taking steps to rectify the situation. Unlike Charles Stanley, who pressed on with his ministry even after his wife divorced him, Piper wisely considers that his ministry to and with his family necessarily provides the platform for ministry everywhere else. The first place a man is qualified is in his home; apart from that, he has no valid message.

The second type of minister who is highly susceptible to ministerial meltdown is the one who is always trying to prove his significance, and is driven to be constantly validating his work in the eyes of others. At the core, these ministers aren't really sure of their worth, their ability, or their significance. Coupled with that is the very real truth that most people have no idea what a pastor does all week. Together, feelings of inadequacy, and the belief that they always have to be telling the world that they really do work, make the life of these pastors into a formidable performance treadmill. Run, run, run, and make sure everyone knows you're running, and exhausted, and then, just to be sure, run some more. These kinds of men, and the ministries that applaud them, create the perfect recipe for ministry meltdown.

The basic problem here is that these guys have largely forgotten who they work for. Unlike the first category of guys, these men are fueled by the way people think of them, rather than by a somber accountability to God. Their main accountability is to man, and their own sense of inadequacy makes this accountability into a never-ending search for validity, which they find, not in the extension of the Kingdom, but in the expenditure of all their energy and time in ministry.

A third category of pastors who seem primed for ministerial meltdown are those who struggle to find appreciation in any arena other than work. Their homes are places of marital conflict, though not open warfare. They aren't quite disqualified, but they certainly do not see home as a place of rest and companionship. Perhaps their wives, hoping to keep them humble, are quick to remind them of their inadequacies, their mistakes, and most of all, seldom, if ever, compliment them, or express appreciation for their pastoral ability. Whatever the reason, these guys find most of their "strokes" at work. At work, they matter. And so they are drawn to longer hours, more meetings, additional assignments, and greater challenges. Their motives are mixed at best. They do want to see Christ exalted and honored, but they're even more addicted to feelings of personal significance, and work is the drug that brings the feeling.

Many of these men have simply quite trying to have a balanced life. In fact, most rationalize their overwork using the language of "the call" and "sacrificial commitment." But - deep down - they long for personal recognition, and they are increasingly drawn to the one place they find it: their pastoral work!

In all three categories there is great risk. But, in all three, the solution is the same: a balanced and biblical view of the ministerial call. God never intended His servants to be anything other than faithful servants, and they are to demonstrate that faithfulness in every arena of life. Most importantly, they are to shepherd their homes, their wives, and their children, for it is in the home that a man's first calling is demonstrated, and his ministerial ability consistently validated.

Hope this helps,

David

Book Excerpt: Two Roads

2010-01-23T13:44:00.000-08:00

Below you will find an excerpt from the book I am currently writing, called Two Roads. These two paragraphs refer to previous thoughts on 2 Timothy 2:22: "But flee youthful lusts, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord with a pure heart." I am to have the final draft to the publishers by March 30, and would welcome the comments of my friends on what appears here:

"Our strategy to stand firm in righteousness - to choose the road of obedience, to be "believing believers" with firm faith - calls us to flee from everything that would enflame our lustful desires. We must say "no" to the desires of the flesh. But, as necessary as it is to run from temptation, it is even more important to pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace. We must consistently say "yes" to the desires of the Spirit. And yet, there is one more component. We need to do both of these in community with other Christ-followers. Paul directs Timothy to flee, and pursue, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.

As a pastor, Timothy probably felt very alone in his battles. Maybe he felt like no one understood the pressures and the challenges he faced in Ephesus. If so, he wasn't any different from you and me. It always surprises me that we all think we're in this alone. Satan does a good job of making us think that the sins we've made room for in our lives, and the temptations that continue to haunt and hunt us, are unique to us. We all think that everyone else is probably doing better than we are, and that they would stop thinking of us so well if they really knew what we were doing and what we were hiding. And to top it off, we seldom if ever look at each other as allies in the fight against sin. Embarrassment keeps us quiet, and our silence keeps us alone. And Satan just keeps on smiling."

The Irony of Avitar

2010-01-06T11:02:00.001-08:00

Yes, I went and say James Cameron's movie, along with my wife and son and some good friends. And yes, I have several thoughts about the movie, and thought I would write them down. So here goes:

1) The movie is visually spectacular. We treated ourselves to the 3D version, slapped on the classy glasses and remained visually engaged for 2/12 hours! The colors and the speed were especially impressive to me. As a film designed for pure visual engagement I rate it very high.

2) I also marveled at how Cameron got me to consider the Na'vi as though they were human. By the end of the movie, I was quite attached to several of them as characters with "something" about them that I found admirable. I found myself wanting to visit their world. That was strange for me given that I absolutely hate science fiction films.

3) It was hard to see American soldiers as the bad guys, just as it was hard to miss Cameron's biases concerning the deity of the environment, the evil of progress and corporate greed, and the interconnected "pantheism" of all living creatures. But, honestly, I knew this going in, and did not attend this film for the purposes of political enlightenment.

4) My main impression was that the film is a classic example of post-modern irony. Here's what I mean:

The basis of the film is that technological advancement comes at the price of our natural environment, and the authenticity of relationship. More technology means we get less real life. This is part of the post-modern cry against the "religion of progress" that fueled modernism. And yet, the irony here is that it is the very progress of technology that Cameron relied upon to make the film in the first place. He uses newly developed techniques to produce a film that vilifies new techniques. What the film's bad guys do to the Na'vi in the name of progress is essentially what Cameron has done to traditional film making with his technologically advanced techniques.

In a nutshell, this is the problem with the post-modern answers that some are trying to give to the problems of modernity. The answers themselves need modern elements as their foundation. For example, one of the mantras of post-modernism is that we can never know something is true for sure. Yet, to prove this, they have to resort to some sort of absolutism, which is truly modern.

So, as a film critic I am totally unreliable. I enjoy what I enjoy, even when it is laced with bad political theory, and even worse theology. For me, Avitar was filled with both, and yet, since I don't believe thinking people get their politics and theology from Hollywood, I'm not going to castigate Avitar as dangerous. And as for non-thinking people, even if they do take some erroneous views away from this movie, they'll forget them as soon as they leave the theater.

Hope this helps,

David

The Manhattan Declaration: Thoughts

2009-12-08T11:19:00.000-08:00

In late November a number of religious thinkers and leaders introduced to the world the Manhattan Declaration. Crafted primarily by Chuck Colson, Timothy George, and Robert George, the Declaration calls society to align to protect life, marriage, and religious liberty. I highly recommend that you read it (manhattandeclaration.org)

Since its release, the Declaration has been the stuff of debate in the Evangelical community primarily because of those who did not sign it, and their reasons why. The signatories include such evangelical luminaries as Tim Keller, Al Mohler, James Dobson, Bryan Chapell, and Ravi Zacharias. Those who did not sign it include John Piper, Alistair Begg, and John MacArthur. I have been asked my thoughts, so here they are:

Historically, these kinds of documents have separated good men on the basis of this question: What level of agreement is necessary in order for men and women to partner together in a cause? And, this question necessarily demands that two other questions be answered first: 1) What is the cause and how is it defined? 2) What do we mean by agreement, and what are the levels of agreement that are possible? Stay with me!

1) What is the cause, and how is it defined? The Manhattan Declaration has as its cause the defense of life, marriage and religious liberty. Thus, the cause can be identified as one of "social justice and morality." This cause, however, is further defined as "proclaim(ing) the Gospel of costly grace" and as "the call to discipleship." The document makes it clear that the social justice/morality cause is really a Christian cause; a cause that has been championed by Christians down through history as a consequence of their allegiance to Christ and His Gospel.

2) What do we mean by agreement, and what are the levels of agreement that are possible? To this question the Declaration appears to give this answer: Agreement is at the level of social conscience and basic morality. Al Mohler believes this, and states it plainly in his explanation for signing: "I believe it is an historic statement of conviction and courage ... it is a limited statement of Christian conviction on these three crucial issues and not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity."

There are many levels of agreement that exist in the broad religious community. At the base is theological agreement on the Gospel. Just above that might be agreement on moral issues, and above that agreement on issues of social justice. Clearly, Mohler assumes all the other signatories consider that, since the Declaration's cause is one of "morality and social justice", the only agreement necessary for partnering in the cause is agreement on that level. I believe that is what Mohler argues for.

Here's the problem: The document goes deeper in its definition of agreement by declaring that the cause ("social justice/morality) is actually a Christian cause, founded on the Gospel, and demanded by the Christian call to discipleship (following Jesus). In doing so, the framers assume that the agreement level is theological, and even that the cause is fueled by common theological convictions revolving around the Gospel and the call to discipleship. The problem is that the signatories have far-reaching differences among themselves regarding the doctrines that make up the Gospel message, and the meaning and evidences of true discipleship.

It really appears to be a subtle "bait and switch." On the surface, a "social justice/morality" cause calls us all to align ourselves to promote it. I categorically agree with the sentiments of the document. I champion life, marriage, and religious freedom in the ways the document represents them, and even more, I do believe what I believe about these issues because of my view of the Gospel and the call to follow Jesus Christ. What I don't agree with is how some of the signatories agree with it! Since the document says we start from the Gospel to reach alignment with the social justice/morality cause, I cannot agree that some of the signatories start where I start. They simply do not understand the Gospel and its foundation in biblical truth the way I do.

So, while I agree with the Manhattan Declaration, and will champion its stated cause, I can't agree with the way many agree with it, because my first allegiance is to the Gospel. Thus, I cannot in good conscience become a signatory.

History has an excellent illustration of this complex situation. Back in 325 AD, the church was battling those within it who believed Jesus was not fully God. Their cause was championed by Arius. Opposing Arius, and standing for the orthodox position of Jesus being fully God and fully man, was Athanasius. As the debate raged at the Council of Nicea, Arius came up with a compromise. He suggested that the creed state that Jesus was of a "like" substance as the Father. He thought this was a great compromise since he initially was in favor of using "different" substance as the Father. When Athanasius heard Arius' suggestion, he told his followers: "While it appears that "like" would further our position, I could never sign a document that Arius could sign, for I do not agree with how he would understand it." They battled on until at last, the orthodox position was adopted and the wording "same substance as the Father" was adopted, forever protecting the full deity of the Savior.

In a real way this illustrates my view. Although the Manhattan Declaration does not deal with the crucial issue of the Deity of Christ, nevertheless the principle remains: When those who reject the biblical Gospel suggest that our pursuit of social justice stems from a shared view of the Gospel, it is not right to align ourselves with their cause if it also appears to align our theology with theirs. Athanasius knew that Arius' starting position was wrong, and thus he could not align himself with Arius' cause, no matter how it was stated.

I cannot sign the Manhattan Declaration, but not because I do not support what it says. I cannot sign it simply because the Declaration states that my agreement in the social justice/morality arena stems from my agreement in the theological arena. And this is not true. In essence, to sign the statement would be to erroneously contend in public that my Gospel foundation aligns with the Gospel foundation of all the other signatories, and this is not the case.

In summary, let me answer the first question: What level of agreement is necessary for men and women to partner together in a cause? My answer is simply that the level of agreement must equal the definition of the cause. If the cause is simply moral, then agreement on morality is necessary. But if the cause is theological, then theological agreement is necessary. In the case of the Manhattan Declaration, they mistakenly mixed the two. While on the surface, the cause is social justice/morality, in reality the cause is a Gospel-based call to Christian discipleship that ushers forth in the fruit of social justice/morality. And since the cause is based on, and supposedly fueled by, the Gospel, it is only logical to expect that agreement on the Gospel is a prerequisite. Thus, to sign is to align with the "Gospel" of all who sign. This we can never do unless there is true agreement. Anything else would be deceptive, even if it occurred in haste or ignorance.

Hope this helps,

David

My low-grade conversational fever

2009-11-06T14:31:00.001-08:00

I didn't used to recognize it as often as I do now. Perhaps it is age, or the additional speed of life that I've encountered since our latest move, or maybe I'm just now coming to realize the reality of my condition. Whatever the case, it has started getting to me. And I guess I'm wondering if I'm the only one. I think I've been running a low-grade conversational fever.

Speaking in medical terms, some maladies bring with them a low-grade fever. Its not so hot that you actually notice it, but it's there anyway. It doesn't stop you from getting out of bed or going to work. It just drains you. Like leaving your car lights on, over time a low-grade fever just draws down your battery, incrementally, until one day you can't start your car. A fever like this leaves you feeling empty, and you don't know why!

I often have the feeling that something is wrong, even when it isn't. Ever experience that? I'll be walking out to the car for my grueling 3 minute commute home after work, and a wave of anxiety will wash over me. It's not heavy, or even disconcerting, but its there, and I have to tell myself that nothing's wrong. But, throughout the night, and then the next day, it'll be there, right on the "desktop" of my mind. A feeling of apprehension mixed with anticipation seasoned with a pinch of dread. And like a low-grade fever, it just seems to be there, without explanation.

Well, I think I've stumbled upon an answer.

As a pastor, it seems I am always communicating. I am telling, or teaching, or answering or responding or defending or proposing or presenting or ... You get the idea. In other words, I am always involved in conversations, waiting for the response, responding to the criticism, answering the theological, biblical or practical question, defending a position or program, or any of a number of other actual conversational transactions. And when these are face to face, everyone knows when the conversation is over. We get out of the chairs, shake hands, exchange pleasantries, and put a mental period in place. And while we know that future conversations will take place in order for the problems to be solved - or whatever - for the time being, its over, done, complete. I can turn my mind's energy to other things. And that's quite freeing!

But here's the problem: Increasingly my "conversations" are of the variety that are never completed. Because so many of my conversations these days happen via twitter, text, email, or on Facebook, I find myself perpetually in the middle of 30-40 conversations! And here's what that does: I am always in a state of suspended readiness, wondering how and when and even if, my conversational partners are going to respond! How did they take my latest text, email, post or tweet? Did my explanation of why we're doing what we're doing make sense? Did it appease the cranky guy who thinks I'm a legalist? Was my answer to the chronological problems of 1 Samuel clear? Is Jeff going to get back to me in time to solve the dilemma? What I find is that, like some of my stereo components, I am never "off" but only in a state of "standby". It appears that my mind is semi-consciously keeping track of all these conversations, and even during my "off" hours, I maintain this low-grade, fever-like readiness that makes me notice every time my Blackberry message light blinks. And even when I turn the phone off, and get after the business of relaxing, the fever is there. I guess my mind knows that somewhere "out there", there are 30 or more people who have my thoughts in their hands, and are responding to them in ways that I can't know yet. I don't feel it consciously, but during those seconds in every hour that I feel the apprehension mixed with anticipation seasoned with dread, I now chalk it up to the fact that I'm standing in the middle of an electronically connected crowd expecting that at any minute they might all start talking to me at once.

It didn't used to be this way. In the days when we wrote letters to friends - with pens, on paper, with envelopes and stamps, via the postal service - we had the enjoyable knowledge that it would take days for the letter to be delivered, and days for our friends to respond. In other words, we could forget about the conversation without guilt knowing that it couldn't possibly be continuing for a couple weeks. We were free from the responsibility of either an immediate reply or consistent readiness to carry on the conversation. We didn't know how freeing that was!

But, it does no good to long for the "good ole days." In fact, today we have many more communicative advantages, and even with the price I pay emotionally, I wouldn't trade these days for those. However, I do have to get more emotionally fit if I'm going to play the game.

So, what to do? Actually, now that I've figured it out, I think I'll be fine. Perhaps I need only rely on one of my well-known weaknesses. It seems through my life that I have demonstrated an uncanny ability to tune folks out. My wife insists that I have a carefully nurtured sense of selective listening. So, I just have to train my mind to stop "listening" to all the conversations I'm in electronically. I'll have to develop the ability to ignore my IPartners the way I sometimes do those I'm standing near! Funny how a weakness I've worked hard to overcome seems to be the strength I need now. But, it'll have to do until I can start dealing with my low-grade, conversational fever with that IAspirin I've been working on.

Hope this helps,

David

Leadership and Freedom

2009-10-01T10:28:00.000-07:00

As a senior pastor, one of my main tasks is leading, and more precisely, envisioning the future and preparing our congregation to make the most of it. And, over the years I have come to see as a commonly occurring obstacle the idea that somehow planning, the setting of objectives, and the expectation of accomplishment via accountability takes away from God's overall control of the church. "We can never expect the sovereign God to fit Himself into our plans" is one way those opposed to planning frame the issue. At other times, they just say things like "God's going to do His will, and we'd be better off just waiting on Him." Now, all this sounds both theologically astute and even pious, but I think this thinking is ultimately based on several faulty suppositions.

In the Bible I see God creating leadership as a concept, and installing leaders as a vital part of His plan. There is no question that leaders are to lead, and do so with the constant conviction that they are themselves responsible to the Leader, Jesus Christ. I could note all the places in the Bible where plans were made and carried out, even places where God did the planning! But I want to focus on just one event: the failed leadership of Aaron in offering the people the Golden Calf.

If you remember your OT history, Exodus 32 finds the people quite confused as to the welfare of Moses. After all, he left to climb the mountain, and meet with God. They all knew that one misstep would mean his demise given that God was an awesome and holy God. He had been gone 40 days and, as the text tells us "we do not know what has become of him." Notice what has happened. With Moses away, the people now begin to act as though there are no boundaries. They move outside the plan, and turn their backs on their mission. Maybe some spurred them on by saying "you know, Moses is trying to put God in a box, and maybe God doesn't want to be constrained! Maybe we better start thinking outside the box." Their "freedom" from direct oversight has not left them in a better position, but rather the lack of daily direction has brought confusion and despair. They lack clarity as to their responsibilities, and this lack of clarity causes a vacuum that they are driven to fill.

They go to Aaron, the "second" in command, seeking in their own way to fill the vacuum. At this point, Aaron has a choice: abdicate his position of leadership and follow those he is supposed to lead in order to maintain peace; or take up the responsibility of leadership, provide a plan that aligns with what he knows about God and has experienced from God's hand since leaving Egypt. He chooses the former, and that made all the difference. He chooses to placate rather than lead.

Can't you hear the discussions he had with himself? "I could stand up for God as I know Him to be, but that might mean angering the people, and perhaps, losing them to chaos and full-scale rebellion! On the other hand, maybe all they're really looking for is a "visible hand rail" to guide them further in their knowledge of the One True God. I'll make them a visible god, and just call it The Lord! What a great solution. A little error to make the truth more appetizing and accessible! After all, we don't want to put God in a box!"

The text tells us later that in actuality, Aaron had let the people get out of control: "Now when Moses saw that the people were out of control - for Aaron had let them get out of control to be a derision among their enemies - then Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said 'Whoever is for the Lord, come to me!'" (Exodus 32:25, 26). He hadn't really given them freedom! He hadn't taken God out of the box, but rather, he had led the people into a box of idolatry and judgment by failing to understand that God has already defined Himself in such a way that He inhabits a "box" of His own making, and all who try to re-define Him will find themselves face to face with His wrath.

What's the principle here? Leadership is essential to control. A lack of leadership does not lead to freedom but to chaos. When people are out of control, they are contributing to their own destruction. It is the responsibility of leadership to know the mission and define the direction in which those who seek to accomplish the mission will travel. It is also the responsibility of leadership to stay on the path even when it gets tough, even when some people clamor for an easier, more personally fulfilling mission. It is the responsibility of leadership to lead, humbly and with radical dependence upon their Leader, and - to quote Winston - "never, never, never give up!" We need more Moses and no Aaron; more courage and conviction, and no compromise; more dependence upon God and no determination to keep the clamoring masses pacified; more commitment to the mission of Christ, and no wasted energy trying to pacify the self-centered; simply, we need more leadership, and more clarity, and no more fear except the fear of somehow squandering the privilege we have to extend the Kingdom of Christ in our day.

Hope this helps,

David

God: Speaking and Guiding

2009-09-07T13:22:00.000-07:00

"Maybe that was just God speaking to you!" Hearing these words I felt my heart start to pump faster, and my cool, collected interior begin to fester with some real theological emotion. Gladly, I didn't do anything I would later have to apologize for, nor did I engage in a conversation with this well-meaning but theologically simple brother in Christ. But, I've encountered far too many Christ-followers in the past year who use this kind of language, and apparently are quite unaware of its dangerous overtones.

Let me state my thesis: God speaks through Scripture; He guides through impressions, perceptions, sensitivities, circumstances, and other things meant to return our minds to the truths of Scripture that we know to be true, and follow them. They - speaking and guiding - are not the same. The Bible is clear that "speaking" is revelatory, while "guiding" is illuminating. The first gives truth; the second shines the light on it.

When He speaks, it is revelation of new and necessary information; when He guides, it is the Spirit using already revealed information to bring out hearts into conformity with revealed truth. When He speaks He is giving us new truth; when He guides, He is using previously revealed truth to harness our wills to obey. You may think the difference is trivial but I can assure you, in the history of revelation and religious experience, it is not. It is vital that we understand the difference, respect that difference, and contend earnestly for the fact that revelation has ended; God is not today adding to the Bible; He is not giving new and necessary information. Rather, He is guiding us to live our lives within the already revealed truth principles and guidelines of Scripture.

In the Bible, when God 'speaks' it is seen as direct revelation. Over 3800 times, the OT prophets preface their declarations with "Thus saith the Lord". God spoke to them, and they repeated it to their audiences. Yes, God speaks! And when He does, it is always understood to be His very voice. The prophet did not have to decide if it was God or not. God's speaking came with its own internal verification. Secondly, that which was spoken was immediately considered as authoritative, and the unquestioned standard for obedient living. Yet, today it is not the same when people say "God spoke to me". They often wonder if it was God; and they most often spend time testing it to see if it really fits into their understanding. Most likely, when folks today say "God is speaking to me" they are actually being really sloppy in their language without knowing the consequences. They most likely are simply referring to an ongoing sense that God is at work in their lives, shaping their decisions, their desires, and their overall direction. This is good! But, it isn't the same as the direct, revelatory work of God described biblically as God "speaking."

What's the harm you might ask? Aren't you just straining at a gnat David? Well, I might just as well respond that I ain't about to swallow a gnat either! But, actually, this is so much bigger than a little gnat. Its an elephant. Here's why:

If we continue to confuse revelation with guidance, we have no choice but to concoct some theology that allows for on-going revelation. We have no defense against those who would add to the Bible the "revelations" of their leaders. They heard the voice of God! God spoke to them! Worse, we have no defense against those who naturally come to place higher priority on the ongoing "voice" of God speaking to them through songs and poems and the wind and ... whatever! ... than on the voice of God speaking through Scripture. After all, Scripture is so old, and hard to understand, and takes too much work! When I sit on my porch at sunset, and hum my favorite praise song, its just so much easier - and personally comforting - to "hear God's voice." Worse still is that we have fundamentally redefined revelation as that which we are able to extract from God through means rather than what He alone initiates, and ends. Apparently, if I supply the music and the time and the quiet place, God is obliged to speak. Lastly, and by far the worst, by unknowingly believing that revelation is continuing, we have no assurance to say that the Bible is sufficient, or even authoritative. How do we know that someone, somewhere, hasn't had a direct revelation from God that supersedes what we have in the New Testament? Maybe God is giving a Newer Testament right now somewhere! In fact, if God spoke to you last night, I sure hope you wrote it down.

So, what do we do? Here's what I believe: Revelation has ended. God has spoken through His prophets and Apostles, and has preserved their written record. This is the "standard" and "treasure" Paul calls upon Timothy to "retain" and "guard" (see: 2 Timothy 1:13,14). This is the Bible. Through the Bible God continues to speak! The Bible is God's Word, His "voice" to us today. The Bible knows nothing of a secondary level of "speaking" or revelation. He doesn't have casual conversations which leave the person warmed, but wondering; when He speaks it is absolutely and undeniably Him, and unquestionably understandable and authoritative. That's what the Bible is, and why we need to protect it from anything that would lead people to believe that, like the World Book Encyclopedia, the Bible is incomplete, and needs yearly updates, and further material from God. Either the Bible is the "final rule and authority for faith and practice" as our doctrinal statements declare, or it isn't. And if you think that you need further revelation from God to live your life, and make your decisions, then in your mind, it isn't! And you better start apologizing to the Roman Catholic Church for sola Scriptura.

Secondly, God still guides. He made the mind and the heart. He has put His Spirit - the 3rd person of the Godhead - as a permanent resident in our hearts. The Spirit uses circumstances, impressions, memory, sensitivities, teaching, reading, meditation, and a whole host of other disciplines and mechanisms to continually illumine our minds to the truths already revealed in Scripture. Jesus Himself said that the Spirit would guide us into all truth by bringing to our minds what God had already revealed (see: John 15:12-15 in context). The Spirit is the agent of illumination, opening our eyes and hearts to understand the truth of God as revealed in Scripture. Guidance is great, because properly understood, we know that we must work hard to grow in grace and knowledge so as to understand more and more what God desire of us, what His good and perfect will is for us. When we try to downsize our personal responsibility in the process of guidance by thinking God will just emotionally or mentally "fax" us the answers we want, we do ourselves, and the theology of revelation a great disservice.

One last word: Peter, the great leader of the 12, and apostle to the Jews, was one of the 3 guys who accompanied Jesus up the mountain. Peter saw the veil of Jesus' humanity drawn back, giving him a glimpse of the glory of God (as did Moses on Mt. Sinai: see: Exodus 33,34). Peter also heard the direct voice of God, along with James and John, on that mountain. Late in his life, as he was nearing death, Peter wrote some letters to instruct his fellow Christ-followers on how they should continue once he was gone. Where should they turn for their authority? Should they look for another apostle? Should they expect God to "speak" directly to them? Peter answered their questions in a poetically worded passage found in 2 Peter 1:16-21. Peter explains that what he and the other apostles taught was not based on myth or fable; rather, they were eyewitnesses to the reality of Jesus Christ. Hadn't they been on the mountain? Hadn't they heard the audible voice of God? Yes! And then he makes this amazing, and clarifying statement: "But we have an even surer prophetic word" or possibly "And so we have the prophetic word made more sure". What does he mean? What could be 'more sure' than the audible voice of God? The answer is, of course, the Scripture, which was produced cooperatively as the Holy Spirit superintended the human authors so that what they wrote down what God was speaking. Get this: More sure, more reliable than even the voice of God you might think you hear in the shower is the written, preserved Word of God, the Bible.

So, help me out. Let's stop saying that God spoke to us. Let's stop giving the impression through sloppy language that we're the recipients of direct revelation. In so many ways, such talk actually appears to be self-promoting, especially to those Christ-followers who wonder why God isn't conversing with them. Let's admit that God speaks through Scripture, and then dedicate ourselves to the hard work of knowing the Bible. And as we do, God's Spirit will use what God has spoken to purify, guide, conform, transform, and mature us, by His grace, and for His glory.

Hope this helps,

David

Time, Certainty, and Social Constructs

2009-09-07T09:58:00.001-07:00

Over my vacation I immersed myself in authors and works relating to the issues and substances of postmodernism. This "label" is itself a topic of great controversy with many suggesting that we are, in reality, entering what might better be thought of as "hypermodernism" since at the core, many postmodern (hereafter "pomo") ideas are actually being put forward in purely modern ways, such as books that follow the "modern" paradigm of evidence-argument-conclusion. However, since it is always more cool to use the newest idea-scheme, I'll go with the flow for now.

One of the primary cries of pomo adherents is that absolute truth is actually a fiction, mass produced by what are called "social constructs." These constructs are those elements of society that dictate the values and cultural mores by which things are critiqued as good and bad, valuable or worthless, laudable or worthy of ridicule, and on and on. The natural turn happens when these venerable constructs - having set themselves up as the dictators of the social conscience - are seen to be themselves bad, and worthy of ridicule. Regardless of your views, you'll have to agree that this has happened in our time at an alarming rate of consistency.

Examples abound. Some of the more noticeable constructs are medicine, education, politics, science, and of course, religion. Take medicine. Forty years ago, it was common to believe that progress in medical research would clear the field of the notorious diseases that plagued us. So high was our confidence in this field, that we granted them almost divine status. Even 25 years ago, when you went to the doctor, you left ready to believe what he said, and do what he prescribed. Medicine promised better living through prescriptions, surgeries, and of course, research. But, today we find that America is in worse health, battling diseases and syndromes and conditions we'd never heard of before. Pomo theory tells us that medicine - this monolithic social construct to which we had delegated our health and well-being - was nothing more than an arrogant, power-hungry construct that told us half-truths in order to gain our monetary and intellectual support.

This same story might be told in the field of education (we'll educate the masses and show them how to get along), science (we'll land on the moon, and usher in the age of scientific certainty, and modern convenience), politics (we'll get the right people elected and trust them to rid the country of poverty, racism, disease, and injustice), and of course, religion (follow our way of life and there will be peace on earth).

In all of these realms, we can see that no construct lived up to its promises. We have racial divides still; we have all the modern conveniences, yet no time for family, and the complexities of life are worse than before; our economy is broken, and the politics of factions and competition is worse now than ever; and lastly, our religious institutions are seen to be the source of some of the worst hypocrisy and unrighteous behavior among its leaders, and "culture" wars in the name of religion continue to erode the public trust that God really exists or cares.

I believe all this started in the wake of the Viet Nam War. As our soldiers returned home, they found a nation that no longer trusted in the political/military leadership. We had seen through the promises of peace and stability in that region, and had come to believe that our soldiers and nation were merely ponds in a bigger game. Our distrust in the policical/military leadership fanned the flame of general unrest and distrust in all the organizational social constructs we now saw were dictating "truth" to us. At first, we just became cynical. We stopped believing in the promises of the social constructs, and just wallowed in cynicism, mockery, and despair. But, along the way, we moved from contempt to outright anger, and finally to rebellion. We started looking at the constructs, not merely as institutions that were run by flawed people, but as intentionally designed to push their view of "truth" on us. We considered that what they were, and what they were trying to do to us was unjust, and that, in reality, they didn't have the truth at all. In fact, what they called "truth" was just their construction of it, and should be rejected as a power play.

Today, the pomos are trying hard to shove aside all social constructs. They have followed the above path of "logic" to conclude that there really is no "absolute truth". Their favorite reasoning is that, since nothing can be known perfectly, nothing can be known certainly. Thus, we are asked to replace flawed certainty, with complete ambiguity. All of pomo philosophy flows from this.

Of course, pomo theory cannot stand. It is self-refuting. The statement that there is no absolute truth is put forth as a statement of absolute truth! But, given that pomo ambiguity allows us to hold to opposing truth claims at the same time (turns out something can be both A and NOT A at the same time!), it is not likely that logic will win the hearts of those committed to the pomo ideals.

So, I'd like to propose that there is a fatal flaw in the pomo realm, and it is that most of the pomos I know wear watches. They also have Blackberrys that hold their daily schedules, filled with appointments at specific times. So, given this, I'd like to ask them why they trust "time" when, as Chicago taught us many years ago no one "really knows what time it is."

It is true that you and I can never know, even less express, exactly what time it is. Time is the greatest social construct, simply because society invents it, and says what it is. Somewhere in Greenwich there is an atomic clock, that sets the standard. But, of course, the clock doesn't set it, the guy who sets the clock sets it! And everyone else in the world has it "dictated" to them what time it is. What's more it is impossible to say that my wristwatch matches the atomic clock perfectly. Turns out I can never know what time it is perfectly, and neither can anyone else, including those pomos who insist that you can't ever know anything for sure. Yet, they set appointments for 1:00 pm, just like we all do. And, when they run late, they still call to make sure that the potential new client doesn't think they're flaking out. See what's happening? They are, by their actions, saying that "time" is real, and it matters, and 10 or 15 minutes can make all the difference. Even though we can't know the time perfectly, we still live with the certainty of it as the fundamental backbone of our society.

There are so many other fallacies in the pomo viewpoint that could be easily demonstrated. To dismiss medicine, education, science, and religion because they have not been perfect certainly builds a standard that the pomos won't want for themselves, and it is only by very selective history that these institutions can be so easily written off as destructive overall. But the greatest flaw of pomo thought is that it is primarily destructive rather than constructive. It offers many appropriate critiques of the modern way, while offering little in constructive solutions to the problems of the world. What's more, if and when pomo thinkers begin to provide their answers, they will be hard pressed to develop, design, and communicate them in ways that are not, in themselves, modern. They will write books, provide formulas, use evidence and argument, and largely try to get us to believe that they are not just the latest social construct that is trying to dictate truth on how to live better lives and build a better world.

At the end of the days of my vacation, having read so much of the pomo literature, it was so pleasant to retreat to the sure Word we have from God in the Bible. It occurred to me time after time that the foundation for my confidence, my well-being both now and eternally, isn't grounded in any social construct, even though I believe they exist and can have a beneficial place in society. As the hymn writer J. Wilbur Chapman wrote "Men may fail me, foes assail me; He my Savior makes me whole". The great answer to the modern failures, and the postmodern angst, is the pre-modern message of the Gospel: "Come unto me all you who labor, and are laden down, and I will give you rest." And that's no social construct; that's the Word of God ... eternally true.

Hope this helps,

David

It's a Miracle

2009-07-01T15:02:00.000-07:00

In the past few weeks I've heard about quite a few miracles. From last minute 3-point baskets by the Lakers, walk-off home runs, and holed chip shots, to the birth of a baby, the garnering of new employment and even that fact that a teen remembered to put out the garbage cans. But what I find most interesting is that - technically speaking! - none of these are really miraculous, at least by my definition. And since that begs the question of just who gets to define what a "miracle" is, I'll step out on the limb and assert that a miracle is more than just an amazing thing that happens. It is an amazing thing that can't happen, ever, within the bounds of natural law.

I know what you're thinking. You're remembering that time you looked up "miracle" in the dictionary and found that it has a whole range of meanings, including anything that was both spectacular and welcomed, and rare. In this case, a basket, a golf shot, or the birth of a grandchild could well qualify. Okay, I'll agree that within the wide range of semantic meaning of the English word "miracle" all of these might find a home. But, I want to posit that Webster and all the other dictionary makers are not really prescribing what ought to be the meanings of words; they are merely describing the ways in which English words are commonly used and understood. And that's why I'm blogging on this. As a theologian, I want to push back against the evolving use of the word "miracle." Here's why:

In the Bible, a "miracle" is always used to validate an individual as God's appointed messenger or spokesman. That's what Peter meant in Acts 2:22 when he stated that Jesus was "attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst." Notice, miracles are God's doing, for His own purpose.

When we decide to use "miracle" to describe that which is less than "miraculous" we are actually diluting the power of the true miracles that God has done to display His grandeur and glory. If Kobe Bryant can do the miraculous, then God must not be so hot!

So, I'm calling for those who are Christ-followers to consider using "miracle" and "miraculous" to describe only those things that fit the original criteria: an amazing and welcomed occurrence that goes contrary to commonly understood natural law. It isn't simply an amazing basket, or golf shot, or even the spectacular birth of a baby. All of those things can be explained through the processes of natural law. (Note: This is NOT to say that God doesn't have a hand in things like the birth of a baby, or even a holed chip shot. God often works through natural laws.) But, when He works in a way that is actually contrary to natural law - like walking on water, or healing a leper, or raising a man who has been dead three days - that is what we call a miracle. And, I think we should reserve the word "miracle" for that which is truly "miraculous."

And so again I know what you're thinking. "David, is this really worth the blog time?" Probably not, but now that I've written it, I'll welcome your comments. Maybe my idea here will have some legs, and radically re-shape the Christian vocabulary in our world. Now that would be a miracle!

Hope this helps,

David

Common Grace, Common Courtesy, and Righteous Restraint

2009-06-22T16:01:00.000-07:00

Please forgive the rather ostentatious title for this blog post. It's high sounding, probably a bit arrogant in its intention, and certainly was decided upon in haste. That's because I'm writing while upset, which is usually not good. But, I need to get something off my chest.

It really bothers me when Christians get together and an Obama bashing breaks out. I've even heard folks us Bible verses to support their dishonoring and downright discourteous diatribes. And, to make matters worse, they often draw a direct line between being a Christ-follower and being a Republican, and even more, suggest that as a good Christian, we should be intent on winning back the White House.

Now please understand. I consider myself a politico, an observant citizen with strong opinions, and not one to let error masquerade as truth. I believe it is fit and proper for Americans - including Christ-followers! - to discuss political topics, current events, and to be persuasive in the marketplace of political ideas and actions. But, I think it is unacceptable to layer political labels over Christianity in an attempt to enlist God as a member of the party. I believe the behavior of that group of believers that took such joy in ripping President Obama is wrong for the following reasons:

1) God is not a Republican. In truth, He isn't a Democrat either, or a member of any other political party, organization, or think tank. He is not a proponent of any earthly ideology. He is the King of All, and never stands for election to that position. Further, God's kingdom work has never been slowed down by the political actions of man. Communism in China drove the church underground, and the house church movement was responsible for a stronger, more vibrant and holy church. And while we much more desire freedom, the truth is that persecution has always grown the church both deeply and broadly.

Given that God is a king, and not a political figure, the main job of the church must be kingdom living, not politics. We are all about the transformation of individual lives through the Gospel. I am not saying politics and kingdom living are mutually exclusive, but clearly the second has far greater priority. Let me be more clear about their relationship.

There is a great need, certainly, for some Christ-followers to be "salt and light" in the political realm. We should pray for talented, knowledgeable, and able Christian men and women to enter the political fray (and pray equally that dim-witted believers will stay out!). They provide a "dam building" service to society in that they are putting up dams to stop the steady onslaught of sin, perversion, and pride that is manufactured daily in the hearts of lost mankind. Any thoughts they may have of turning the tide, of creating a Christian utopia or anything even close are certainly misguided; yet, their importance in holding back the tide of wickedness should not be missed.

On the other hand, the job of all Christ-followers is that of a rescue swimmer. You might remember that movie where Kevin Costner is an aging Coast Guard rescue swimmer charged with training a new young recruit. In that movie, I think he depicts what Christ-followers are to be in real life: we jump into the raging storm, into the sea of unbelief where we once were drowning without hope, and we swim as fast as we can, for as long as we can, and rescue as many as we can. This is Gospel work. It is not merely an attempt to stop wickedness, but actually is an enterprise intent on rescuing souls out of the stormy sea of sin, and placing them safely in the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

So, there are dam builders, and rescue swimmers. My greatest anger is reserved for those who get so caught up in political critique that they begin to act as though building dams, and getting the right guys to do the building, is how a true Christ-follower will be known. "Let's get out the vote, and let's use our resources to elect the right dam builder!" Now, again, let me be clear. There is some value in the building of dams. But the kingdom of God has never been about dams; it is about lives being rescued from the flood of sin and judgment.

I so remember the years when Christians lived in the White House. If you count President Jimmy Carter - a professed Southern Baptist evangelical - and include the President Ronald Reagan and President George Bush Sr. presidencies, you have around 16 years where the occupants of the highest office in the land were professing Christ-followers. And many good things happened! But if we are honest, we have to say that those "good things" were primarily economic. No moral tide was turned; the wickedness was only abated, and then only for a short time. Within the first 30 days of President Clinton's presidency, he took back almost all of the moral victories won, through executive order. I remember thinking that millions and millions of dollars, countless man-hours, and enormous amounts of dialogue among Christ-followers had been spent on political initiatives, and in a few short weeks, it had pretty much all been swept away. We had stopped the flow for a time, but not for long.

And, even worse in my opinion, was the fact that, during those years when so many joined the "moral majority" and became inflamed with our new evangelical political power, someone crept into the church and stole the Gospel. American evangelicalism emerged from that period with a "gospel" of self-help, "free-will theism", a compromised concept of sin and judgment, a deified view of man, and a whole new way of "doing church" that placed ultimate priority on making church big and sexy - "seeker driven" - rather than Gospel-driven, Scripture-based, God-honoring, and Christ-exalting. We got caught up with power, fame, position, and "relevance" (which is newspeak for wearing the trappings of common culture), and forgot that following Christ was all about His glory, and our humility, His grace and our great need, His power and our brokenness. Politics brought us power and position, while the Gospel called us to forsake our pride to find His strength in our weakness.

I would be willing to bet that most of those Christ-followers who pummel President Obama have never had their unbelieving neighbors over for dinner, never put an arm around them in a painful situation, and have never, ever, ever shared the Gospel with them. It has been my experience that those most enraged politically are usually the ones least engaged evangelistically.

2) Christ-followers answer to a higher ethic. This is the second reason why subjecting President Obama to public ridicule is so wrong for a Christ-follower. We just don't act that way because, as citizens of heaven, we live by a higher standard. We do not approach earthly problems in earthly ways. We are charged to carry out the ethic of heaven, and that ethic is clear in the Bible.

We can start in the Old Testament, with a great example from the life of David. (You can read all about it in 1 Samuel 24). David has been anointed as king of Israel, but the reigning king of Israel - Saul - is still on the throne. And Saul is intent on killing David.

Put this in modern political terms. Say Saul is the President. Everyone knows he is a wicked man. He has turned away from following God, and God has promised to take the kingdom away and give it to David. We know David; he's a "man after God's own heart." This is the classic confrontation between good and evil; between God's king, and man's king. Saul isn't too keen on giving up his position so he is chasing all over the wilderness looking for David. He wants to kill him, and end the threat to his administration. In 1 Samuel 24, David and his merry men are hiding in the far recesses of a big cave. Saul, unknowingly, decides to spend some time in the mouth of the cave. This is David's chance. God has delivered his enemy - the guy who is trying to kill him! - into David's hand. But David does not follow the urging of his men. Rather than take Saul's life, David sneaks up to Saul and cuts a souvenir swatch from his coat. Why? David explains that, even though this is a wicked man, and a man from whom God is taking the kingdom, he is still "the Lord's anointed." That is, he is the one God has on the throne. Do you get the point? David honored Saul, not because he agreed with Saul's actions or beliefs, but because he honored God who had put Saul in the honored position of king.

The same is true of President Obama, even though we are not Israel, and he is not a king. Romans 13 is clear that governments owe their very existence to God, and they play an important role in His government of the universe. Governments, like law enforcement, and a host of other institutions, are vehicles whereby God holds back the wickedness of mankind in order to allow for ordered society to exist. The doctrine of common grace teaches us that President Obama holds a high and honored position before God, and we are to treat him accordingly. Peter advances this idea as well in 1 Peter 2:17 when he calls upon the severely mistreated Christ-followers of his day to "honor the King." Paul does the same thing in instructing Pastor Timothy that the Ephesian believers should offer up "entreaties, prayers, petitions and thanksgivings" even for the kings and those in authority over them who were responsible for their ill treatment in society (1 Timothy 2:1ff).

Here's the deal: Christ-followers are not at liberty to launch at our elected leaders. We must ALWAYS treat them with honor and respect. We answer to a heavenly ethic.

Lastly, let me add that it is also fundamentally wrong politically to do what that group of Christ-followers did in publicly mocking and disparaging President Obama. From what I have heard, most conservative Obama bashers consider themselves the best kind of Americans. They spout that they are "true" Americans, intent on carrying out the true ideals of our country. Here's my problem: Why then do they not recognize that President Obama is the choice of the people of America? Our system of governance allows the people to vote, and they did, and President Obama won. If they want a different outcome next time, they should channel their energies into constructive ideas and strategies. The losing side lost because the voting public considered its ways and words to be inferior to those of President Obama and his advisers. Losers should get better, not bitter. It does no one any good just to spout off insults. We may not agree with all that he says and does. On the other hand, we ought to be at least educated and courteous enough to acknowledge where we do agree, and not offer only mockings, cynical critiques, and hurtful diatribes when our disagreements arise. To do so will only reinforce what the majority of American voters already think: that conservative Christians don't offer ideas that work because they are too busy critiquing and condemning everyone. That's what they think, and our best opportunity to change their minds comes when we love and live the Gospel.

Hope this helps,

David

Simple Reminders

2009-06-09T16:39:00.000-07:00

Lots of people are losing their jobs, their retirement nest eggs, and their nerve. Questions haunt us all about the future, about the economy, about the preservation of righteousness in a broken world. If you take your cues from talk radio, we're in deep trouble in almost ever sector of life, without clear solutions, and the biggest problem is that only the show hosts actually know anything. But, if you look around, you'll find reminders that God is still intimate in our world, in the news, in our lives.

When Job finished his journey from righteousness to self-righteousness, and began to call God out, God responded with some of the greatest questions of all time (check it out beginning in Job 38). "Where were you, Job, when I created the sun and stars, and told the light just where to begin and end?" "Where were you when I gave the young donkeys their lives, and their food, and ordered their way?" Okay, so these are just my paraphrases but you get the point: the reminders of God's perpetual presence in history and in our lives are all around us. And while the sun, and the stars, and the animals, and all the other divinely crafted pieces of nature are huge reminders, I also find immense joy in the simple reminders He sends my way, reminders that are always there in grand numbers but seem hidden behind the clouds of my own anxiety, concern, and doubt.

Today a good friend got a job, and a good one at that. After more than a year of consistent, diligent, and prayerful hunting, Phil landed a position that will feed his family, benefit society, and be the right kind of challenge for his skills and passions. Phil got a job, and God is real, and really involved in it all.

In two days, I'll pack up my wife and a few essentials and wind my way up to Sonoma on a 3-day quest for beauty, rest, and great gourmet. It'll be so good because God, in His mercy, has made our marriage so good. Three days of unhurried time together will be yet another reminder of God's love, care, and providential provision for us together. We found a marriage almost 32 years ago, and made it ours, while giving it to Him. And the fact that our marriage works so well remains one of the great reminders that God continues to surround us with His sovereignty, regardless of stockmarket loss, the price of gasoline, or the unemployment rate.

Phil found a job. Cherylyn loves me. Simple reminders that life, with all of its tragedy and uncertainty, is truly good, to those who love God, and have been called to share His purposes. Look around. Your simple reminders are there too.

Hope this helps,

David

The Sad and Silly Saga of Secondary Separation

2009-06-08T16:25:00.000-07:00

In some corners of the ecclesiastical world, there still remains a belief that we are to act like Old Testament Israel in regard to the peoples of the world. By that I refer to the way some demand that Christ-followers remain "separate" from the world. As Israel was told to stay away from the idolatrous peoples that surrounded them (when they weren't told to actually go and kill them all!), so also some who march to the fundamentalist beat consider it a high and holy privilege to distance themselves from having meaningful, caring friendships with unbelievers. After all, God commanded Israel to "come out from among them and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing", right? My problem with all this is that all too often this attitude of separation becomes the default relationship setting with believers as well, especially with those with whom we disagree.

I remember growing up in that world. I remember that when Billy Graham came to town, we couldn't go. I also remember that after he left, we couldn't be friends with those that did go. Looking back on it, that was really weird, and even wrong. But back to the Old Testament ...

It is perfectly clear that in the OT, God did instruct the Israelites not to settle with, or fraternize with, the foreign nations that surrounded them. And if those in the nations wanted to come to God, they had to come to Israel. Ruth, Rahab, Uriah, and a host of other foreigners did just that, and found refuge under the wings of Yahweh. It has always been curious to me that God never sent Israel door-to-door in Philistia! Rather, He demanded that His people live separate from the nations, distanced from the idolatrous peoples of the world, safe in the corral that was the Law.

But, on a mountain in Galilee, the resurrected Lord Christ changed all that. He declared that there had been a radical change in the management authority of the world. "All power has been given to me in heaven and in earth" He told them. "Therefore - since I now have wrested power and authority from the Evil One whom I defeated on the cross (see: Hebrews 2:14,15) - go into all the world, and as you go, don't be isolated anymore, but make disciples of the peoples of the world, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey the Word! And fear not, I'll be with you every step of the way!" (Hegg paraphrase of Matthew 18:18-20).

Certainly, this was the great "unpacking" of the "salt and light" principles Jesus had taught on another mountain a few years before (see: Matthew 5:13-16). Go, have vital contact with those in the world, so as to preserve and save them. Just be careful that in your contact, you don't compromise! Unsalty salt is useless! Two mountains, same command: Get involved with those in your world!

We know that this is what Jesus was saying simply because many of the Jewish disciples had trouble with it. It seemed quite opposite to what they had grown up with. Didn't the nations need to come to Israel to get to God? Didn't they need to keep the law, and get circumcised, yada yada yada? Paul had to battle that, and even Peter had to admit that this was a bit of a change (see his reaction to God's command that he go take the Gospel to a Roman Centurion in Acts 10!). And Peter had a hard time staying with the program, as demonstrated in his conflict with Paul in Galatians 2:1-11. Paul had to get in Peter's face and show him that the Gospel wasn't about separation anymore. Paul confronted Peter because the way he was living (not wanting to eat a meal with Gentiles, even though they were believers!) was an affront to the Gospel. Keep that in mind.

There is yet another text from the pen of Paul that we have to factor in before I try to wrap all this together and make my point. In Ephesians 4, Paul stresses that the responsibility of every believer is to "preserve the unity of the Body in the bond of peace." Two things are clear:

1) The Body here is the universal, invisible, true company of Christ-followers in whom the Spirit dwells, and to whom the Almighty is a Father. There is only one Body here described, and its pretty big!

2) The unity of that Body has already been established; it needn't be created; rather, the call is to preserve the unity that has been established by God Himself as the Spirit has "baptised" each individual Christ-follower into that Body. It is apparent that the unity of the Body has to be preserved because there are so many ways that it can be stretched and torn! All kinds of wicked forces are trying to rend the unity we have in Christ. Our call is to stand firm, preserving that unity. Unfortunately, some are working against us from the inside.

So, here's the deal. Anyone who is "in Christ" is in the Body. And I am called upon to try to preserve that unity. I am not free to "separate" in terms of loving relationship and warm, Christian friendship from those in the Body with whom I may have differences and even doctrinal disagreements. I am called to handle my differences differently! It is only when someone claiming to be in the Body displays, through their rejection of a core theological doctrine (eg. the Deity of Christ), or their pursuit of habitual sin, that they are not truly "of us" that we are called upon to "put them out", to reduce our relationship with them to the level of an unbeliever.

So, as believers we are no longer to be "separation" driven. Not from the sinners in the world, and not from those in the Body of Christ with whom we differ. The New Covenant change all that. Now, our list of friends is not complete until it includes someone who needs Jesus. And our relationships with unbelievers must be real, authentic, caring for the whole person. And while their eternal destiny is our highest concern, we must also care about them in the here and now, and extend real Gospel love and truth, wrapped in genuine Gospel living.

And all that must also inform the way we relate to other believers. Unless the very fiber of the Gospel itself is at stake, we are called to preserve the unity of the Body. But, at times, I find that love for self and team trump love for the whole Body of Christ. We evangelicals have just enough of that old fundamentalist toxin in us to conjure up civil wars all too often.

I am heartsick today because I have just left a long coffee with a good friend who is on the receiving end of something I also watched unfold as a kid growing up. Back then it was called "secondary separation" although in truth, it should have been called "primary disobedience to the Word." It went like this: "We disagree with Billy Graham, and so we are 'separating' from any association with him" (Note: in the fundamentalist lexicon this goes under the heading of "primary separation"). "And since you supported Billy Graham, we're 'separating' from you - even though you agree with us about almost everything else, including the Deity of Christ, and all the other biggies - because you didn't separate from Billy like we did!" (Note: in the fundamentalist lexicon this is called "secondary separation"). Do you see the problem? A secondary difference (over something other than the core truths of God) has been allowed to sever primary unity! Can you see that this is exactly what Paul's exhortation in Ephesians 4:1ff was meant to deter?

We are currently seeing a revival of secondary separation in our circle. If you like one theologian, you aren't allowed to appreciate another. And if you like that preacher, you're going to be in trouble with another. And so on, and so on, and so on.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that there are many theologians and preachers in our world today that are wrong, dead wrong, on the Gospel, on the Trinity, on many of the biggies. And I have no trouble naming names (coughosteen)and warning everyone to "examine everything according to the plumb line of Scripture." I'll also admit that there are some who do stupid things, and embarrass the rest of us, while remaining true to the core beliefs we all share. It's here that we encounter, all too often,
those intramural squabbles with those of like precious faith that are being fueled way beyond what is helpful. Should it ever be that these pride-fueled skirmishes are allowed to fracture the Body of Christ? Are we right to choose sides over things less than the Gospel, and its core ingredients? Never!

Where differences arise, they should be handled privately, winsomely, honestly. Where agreement isn't reached, others should be called in to help. And where disagreement is still an issue, commit yourselves to passionate prayer and continued discussion for as long as it takes. Get to know each other. Realize that you may never agree on every point, but if you are in the Body of Christ, you must preserve its unity even at the expense of publicly winning the argument. There are many things that are more important than you proving your view is right. Chief among them is the testimony of Christ's unified Body before a watching world.

I sure wish some Paul would get in Peter's face and remind him that the Gospel is about how God unites enemies, and not about how it divides friends.

Hope this helps,

David

Mark Driscoll

2009-06-03T07:48:00.000-07:00

Given that almost every evangelical blogger has already feasted on this subject, I had determined not to join the fray. But, in my study to preach 1 Thessalonians 5:14,15 I encountered a happy providence: the need for what I was learning and endeavoring to teach our Grace family was being illustrated on a grand scale as sides were being drawn over Mark Driscoll's use of what many think is corse and lewd language in his exposition of Song of Solomon.

For those of you who are new to this controversy, here's a very, very brief summary: In the past few years, Mark Driscoll (pastor of Mars Hill Church, Seattle) has had occasion to teach several times from Song of Solomon. In particular, he preached a sermon in Scotland in which he used descriptive language that many have deemed inappropriate at best, and vulgar and pornographic at worst. John MacArthur has penned a 4 part blog entry soundly critiquing Driscoll (you can read it at 5ptsalt.com). John Piper, in recent Q & A at Begg's "Basics" conference labeled Driscoll's use of explicit language as "horrible". On the other side of the field are the many for whom Driscoll is simply being authentic, real, and genuinely pastoral as he humorously and directly calls Christ-followers to the joys, and God-approved pleasures of oral sex, stripping, and other sexual delights within the bounds of marriage.

For any interested in my take, here it is: My biggest problem is with Driscoll's exegesis of Song of Solomon. He makes the text say stuff that the author doesn't say. The book is filled with mystery and nuance, but Driscoll insists that the author is speaking in graphic terms. What the book describes with art and beauty and literary restraint, Driscoll describes in undressed language. He simply does not teach the book the way it was written.

Secondly, I too agree that Driscoll's method of communication was simply wrong. One of the necessities in biblical preaching is to fit the means of communication to the message being communicated. As I tried to explain in a previous post (Nobility, Approachability, and the Vitality of Truth), MacLuhan was correct in challenging us to understand that "the medium is the message." By choosing the low road in terms of language in order to be what he considers "real", Driscoll has actually drained the nobility, mystery, and sanctity out of marital intimacy in the Biblical book (Song of Solomon) where marital intimacy is most nobly, honorably, and reverently described.

Thirdly, I disagree with Driscoll's premise, in the first place, that such direct and explicit language, mixed in with sexual humor, is needed in teaching Song of Solomon, and here's why: In taking a "Sex and the City" approach to the "mystery" of marriage, it appears that Driscoll feels the great problem in today's evangelical world is that we have a wrong view of sex. Our view is much to high, too reverent, to noble, to stuffy, too respectable. But, is it true that the pressing challenge among the 20- and 30-somethings is that their view of sex is too lofty, too noble, to serious? That their attitudes toward sexual intimacy in marriage are too narrow, to restrictive? That the great need is for preachers to provide a more blatantly explicit and humorous view of sex since the world around us just isn't doing enough of that? That our audiences are so narrow in their sexual views and experiences that we have to pry them out of their puritanical ways, and expose them to the fact that sex is really great? O wait, seems to me that the very wallpaper of our world is blatant sexuality, and the voice of society is constantly screaming at us to throw off all restraint and drink deeply and often from the fountain of sexual pleasure.

Do we really think - as preachers called of God - that we have to make sex sexier? Is our call really to get the wives of our congregation to think, talk and act "dirtier", and our husbands to demand a wider array of sexual pleasures? Funny, but I think our world is already doing that at such an alarming rate that what God intended to be an act of mutual communion, caring, and companionship has become a competition for ever-increasing levels of ecstasy. Now don't get me wrong. Marital intimacy is supposed to feel good, really good! And it does! But it is the unity, not the ecstasy that lies at the heart of the "two becoming one." And to the extent that the quest for sensory pleasure erodes the mutuality of the encounter, that quest has become an idol. Further, when sexual intimacy is taught as primarily a quest for increasing ecstasy, we are laying the foundation for an idol factory in the hearts of our people.

But we still haven't gotten to my #1 concern in all this. What is ongoing between Driscoll, Piper and MacArthur will - we prayerfully hope! - turn out for the best, for the church and for the individuals involved. I am confident that, behind all the rhetoric, these are men who truly want God's best, and will find their way down the path of humility and mutual love, to a godly resolution.

So here - finally - is my main concern: Why is it that those who are trying to come alongside Mark Driscoll and hold him accountable for what is clearly an undisciplined use of language are from outside his immediate circle of ministry partners? Where are the leaders of Mars Hill? Where are the stalwarts of Acts 29? If I am clear on Paul's direction in 1 Thessalonians 5:14, it is the responsibility of those in our own circle to "admonish" (warn) those who are exhibiting an "unruly" (undisciplined) life. So, the deafening silence coming from Driscoll's own camp can only mean one of four things:
1) Those closest to Mark don't see anything wrong with the way he has consistently used explicit language and sexual humor when preaching.
2) Those closest to Mark do recognize his language and sexual humor as inappropriate but they are too zealous to protect their side, or too afraid of Mark, to do anything about it.
3) Those closest to Mark do recognize his language and sexual humor as inappropriate, and they have already taken steps to corral Mark, but it just hasn't been made public.
4)Same as 3, and it has been made public, and I just haven't heard or seen it.

I hope #3 or #4 is the truth. I really do. I have watched, read, and listened to, Mark Driscoll. I have flown my pastoral staff up to Mars Hill to meet with some of their folks to talk about ministry. I have attended one of Mars Hill's conferences. And while I have not adopted the style he exhibits, I have been benefited by his thoughts on several occasions. I believe he has a great influence, and even a good influence on many who need Jesus. And for that reason, I pray that he will more and more adopt a disciplined and appropriate way of commuicating the truth of God's Word.

Hope this helps,

David

Nobility, Approachability, and the Vitality of Truth

2009-05-14T14:35:00.001-07:00

Several years, and multiple studies on the efficiency of communication, have come and gone since Marshall MacLuhan shocked the world by stating what we all knew but were afraid to admit: "The medium is the message."

Of course we can debate the overall merits of his declaration. Certainly, the veracity of truth, especially in the hands of the Holy Spirit, can never be fully disfigured, regardless of its packaging. But the fact remains - and we all understand it at some level - that the way something is presented, packaged, extended, contextualized, introduced, illustrated, or otherwise delivered absolutely will determine the way most of the audience will understand, value, and act on it. Let's talk through some illustrations:

1) What would have been the impact of the Gettysburg Address if Lincoln had shown up to the graveyard dressed in his day's equivalent of shorts, tee shirt, and flips?

2) What would have been the impact of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech" if it had been delivered in a monotone?

3) What would America think if President Obama decided to break with "tradition" and deliver the State of the Union speech via a series of cell phone texts instead of live before the Congress and other leaders from the floor of the Senate chamber?

I think I could multiply other examples, but I want to move on to the point. It is not proper nor beneficial to wrap that which is noble, serious, extraordinary, and special in a package that is ignoble, frivolous, average, and common. When you're representing communicating God and His Truth, don't be Bart Simpson.

Now, I know some of you contrarians - you who enjoy making waves because you like to make others uncomfortable - will probably come up with reasons why each of my illustrations and my point fall apart. Go ahead; but just know that while you may knock some of the corners off my argument, my central premise is unarguably true to anyone playing with an open mind.

My purpose is to speak to the prevailing sense in our culture that "approachability" is the highest value in communication and life. That is, we need to strip away everything that in any way might be seen as pretentious. In this case, "approachability" is seen as the opposite of the "authoritarian" style of communication. The "authority" model is where the speaker or agent comes from the position of knowing something the audience needs to know. The speaker or agent presumably has discovered something that is beneficial, and comes with the "authority" of knowing that which the audience or receptors need to know. Clearly, this model has risk. Authoritative teaching can easily morph into authoritarian abuse. Most recently, those who reject the notion of "absolute truth" have used the potential abuse of the "authority" model as a reason to reject it out of hand. More and more, especially in the minds of the post-modern thinker, any message is considered to be suspect if delivered in a way that suggests that the speaker has some advantage over the listener, that the speaker considers himself an "expert" or in any way suggests that he is ahead or above his audience. He or she might do this even before opening their mouth by dressing in a way that is "above" that of the audience. In fact, the more "average" they dress, the more they will be heard, according to the post-modern view.

Such an "authoritarian" means of communicating - in post-modern terms - is really an attempt to exert power over the listener. To "overpower" the listener is really the goal, and everything, from the way the speaker dresses, to the words and tone of voice used, is focused at moving the listens to think and act in the way the speaker is advocating. This is true in speaking, advertising, and any other medium where one party seeks to influence another. Simply put, the post-modern world is screaming "you better not approach us with any sense of authority; we're not going to listen."

The residuals of this "approachability" model of communication are all around us. One of the most noticeable, and most tragic, is the desire to make everything in life "common." Everything in life needs to be "dressed in blue jeans." Now, I love blue jeans. They are comfortable, and actually are increasingly acceptable almost everywhere. But, the real question is this: Should they be? Should the nobility of certain venues, events, and occasions be stripped away by the prevailing wind that says anything noble is actually a pretentious act of power? Should Lincoln have given his Address in blue jeans and flips?

Not long ago I was approached by a couple who wanted to get married in blue jeans and have some pizza afterward. They were sincere and nice people, but they had been beguiled by our "approachability" culture into thinking that a wedding is not a special thing. In fact, there are no "special" things; everything is a common thing. Every event in life, every truth in life, every occasion in life is common, a blue jeans and pizza thing. And while I am sure there are good marriages that started with less fanfare than blue jeans and pizza, I am also sure that the great problem in America is NOT that we think too highly of God, His Word, His ordinances, and His foundational institutions. And so I ask you: if our society is dead set to downplay the nobility of marriage to the place where it can be started and ended as easily as ordering a pizza, who is going to stand against that? I hope it is those dedicated Christ-followers in the church, but I fear that some of the best among us are already adopting the very philosophy of everything being "everyday" that we should be opposing.

All around our society, and especially noticeable in the church today, is this crusade to make everything common; to take that which has always been seen as sacred and worthy of a higher sense of decorum and description, and dress it in the "blue jeans" of everyday slang, off the cuff humor, and a general sense that this isn't special, just an "everyday thing."

Take, for example, the ordinances of the church. Hey, the Lord's Supper is just a cracker and a sip! No need to prepare the heart! It's just a snack with Jesus, and hey, I can almost hear Him saying to us "time to break out the chips, guys!" Or baptism: "Hey, I know this is kinda weird, but we're gonna dunk Fred here, and then clap, and then he'll be part of our club, the church. Awright!" Recently, I was sickened to see a baptismal event begun with an amateurish exclamation from a 2nd-rate comedy movie. I shuddered to think that the wonderful drama of redemption, so beautifully acted out in baptism, had now to compete in the minds of us all with the undignified humor written by a screenwriter in Hollywood. Whether we recognize it or not, we are watching as the "blue jeans and flips" view of all life is pulling everything down to its level. To make the divine approachable, we are being told to package it in the mundane, the ordinary, the frivolous, and the comic. But beware! The medium is the message, and we drain the message of its seriousness at our peril.

Okay, so maybe I have gotten a bit too serious here, but I hope you get the point. I am not arguing in favor of pretense. I am not suggesting that we need to use words that no one can understand. What I am saying is that when we strip away nobility in favor of approachability, we take away the vitality of the truth we are attempting to communicate. Certain subjects demand certain styles. The gravity of the truth demands a proper weight of communication.

My scope here might profitably be expanded to include all the truths of our day that are being minimized and marginalized; that are by being communicated in common, even frivolous ways, by those who dress, act, and speak from a "blue jeans and flips" philosophical bias. But my real target is the way the truth of God is being understood, packaged, and delivered by those entrusted by God with the care and feeding of the Church.

When Jesus got done teaching the crowds, they marveled that He had gone against the prevailing communication style of His day. "When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes" (Mt. 7:28,29). Imagine that. Jesus came from a position of authority. He came with the presumption that He had something from the Father that the people needed to hear. He did not come trying desperately to minimize the weight of the message through approachability. Rather, He communicated the truth, in shocking ways I might add, and it grabbed the hearts and minds of His listeners.

Later, Paul would admonish Titus to adopt the communication style of authority: "These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you" (Titus 2:15).

Again, I am not arguing for arrogance in communication, or authoritarianism by those in positions of leadership. What I am arguing for is a strenuous rejection of the prevailing idea that the best way to communicate God's truth is to adopt a "blue jeans and flips" medium. I am not suggesting that comfortable language and dress are always inappropriate. I am saying that certain times in the life and teaching of the church call for serious, sober sentences, complete with adult words, delivered by those whose "medium" (clothes, demeanor, tone, etc) lives up to the gravity of the truth being communicated. The medium is the message in all too many ways! The jargon of the "blue jeans and flips" lifestyle does not rise to the level necessary to give proper weight and communicative authority to the beauty of redemption, the nature of Justification, the majesty of baptism, the sobriety of the Supper or any of a whole host of necessary and divinely noble truths.

But there is yet another element to this. When, in an attempt to be approachable, to be 'down to earth' we strip away the nobility of the text and the topic, we not only drain away the vitality of the truth, but we also wind up with something less than what the Spirit promises to use to change hearts and lives. I find it strangely ironic that those who believe they are making the truth more accessible and attractive - by dressing the spectacular in blue jeans and flips - are actually draining their message of its power. Besides, I'm convinced that when an outsider turns to the world of Christ-followers for answers and help, he or she comes expecting to find God. And while they may not know God, they do know He isn't like them. He isn't everyday, common, frivolous. He is good, but He isn't safe. He isn't best understood as a blue jeans and flips kind of guy. He is spectacular, awe-inspiring, transcendent yet intimately available without being diminished in His grandeur. He is mighty, and before Him we are set on our heels. When He speaks, the heavens rumble, and the gravity of His Words come with divine authority. And yet,somehow, when He speaks we are thankful for the clarity and security of His instruction. In His authority and majesty we find comfort, and order, and rest. In Him we find our place.

And so, as those called upon to extend God and His truth to those in a broken world, I plead with you: don't fall prey to the idea that less is more; that seriousness is suspect; that nobility doesn't matter; that God is best represented by a "blue jeans and flips" demeanor that eschews all things regal; that reverence and sobriety can be replaced by banal banter without consequence. The medium is the message, and the message of Jesus Christ deserves the finest medium we can construct.

In closing, I do wear blue jeans, and I even preach in blue jeans at some of our weekend services. I also wear a suit and tie every weekend. And this blog post actually isn't about jeans and flips and ties and suits. It isn't about some legalistic list of rules about what you can and cannot wear on stage at church. It's about the increasing tendency on the part of many to diminish the reasons behind a tie and a suit. It's about the overwhelming belief on the part of so many that informality, and a casual approach to all of life is not only acceptable, but preferable in all circumstances, on all occasions. It's about the folly of this position, and a resolute call to a more noble consideration of Jesus, His message, and the best medium to use in extending His message.

A last note: I am going to leave this post open to comments. However, if you leave a comment, I ask that you be winsome, and righteous in your interaction with others who may as well want to comment. Let us make sure that our discourse here is noble, and fitting for those who claim to follow the King of Kings.

Hope this helps,

David

The Problem of Evil

2009-03-26T16:21:00.000-07:00

Hardly a day goes by where I don't hear or read some variation of this objection raised against the existence of God. The classic POE (Problem of Evil) asserts that the very presence of evil dispels the idea that a good, all-powerful God exists. It goes like this:

• If God is all-powerful, and could do away with evil, preventing evil things and people from bringing pain and violence to human existence, and He doesn't do it, then He must not be good, and in fact, must be a mean, tyrannical God.

• On the other hand, if God is good, and would really like to expunge evil from our world, but simply can't do it, then He must not be all-powerful, and in fact, seems to be as subject to the evil forces of the world as we are.

•So, following these arguments, God is actually either good but weak, or mean and strong. He is either all-powerful, or He is good, but not both! And, given these assertions, the conclusion must be that either way, God isn't worth having. A weak God, subject to the evil forces that plague us isn't worth having, and a mean God isn't worth respecting, much less serving. You might want to try some pagan rituals, or something to appease Him, but you certainly wouldn't offer Him worship, adoration or joyful obedience. Simply put, the POE asserts to have done away with the God of the Bible. He simply doesn't exist, and the presence of evil is the proof.

From this classic presentation of the problem also flow out the "everyday" versions of it: How come God allows my Mom to get cancer? Why doesn't He heal her? How come my Dad left me? How come God didn't keep our home happy? Why did my neighbor lose his job? and on and on and on. Sometimes we get a bit more academic and ask "if God know there would be sin and violence and evil, how come He created such a universe as ours?" or "If God can save people from their sin, and the innate brokenness of the human condition, then why doesn't He save everyone?"

All of these are streams of thought flowing out of the ocean of the POE, and we face them in conversations, and in the doubting places of our own hearts, everyday.

Toward an Answer

In addressing the POE, it is first of all gratifying to realize that, while this problem has been raised over and over by every generation, it has also been answered so satisfyingly that in each generation the love and worship of the God of the Bible has gone forward. Great minds, superintended by God the Spirit, have ably and thoroughly addressed the POE, giving both biblical and philosophical answers that have stood up to the rigorous critique of our opponents throughout the history of public discourse. We need not begin from a position of weakness in addressing the problem.

(For those interested in reading the scholars on the POE, the following are recommended: Theologies and Evil, John Feinberg; University of Chicago Press; The Evidential Argument from Evil, Daniel Howard-Snyder, ed; Indiana University Press; For those interested in a more practical discussion on POE the following are helpful: Always Ready, chpt. 30, Greg Bahnson (Robert R. Booth, ed); American Vision Press; Christian Apologetics, Norman Geisler; Baker Book House).

The following response to the POE is not intended to be a full discussion of the problem; nor is it meant to answer all of the myriad nuances of the POE that have been raised over the years. It is intended to give a basis for the position that the existence of a good, all-powerful God - the God of the Bible - and the existence of evil are not incompatible. In fact, while God is all-powerful, and could rid the universe of evil, He does not do so. This is not because He is mean, but rather because it is in His best interests to have evil in the universe. Shocked? Read on!

Why This Universe?

The place to start in addressing the POE is to ask why this universe exists in the form in which it exists. In other words, why did God created a universe that was either created with the seeds of evil in it, or had the potential for evil (sin)?

Let's begin an answer by suggesting that God could have created a different kind of universe. In fact, He could have created any of an almost unlimited number of universes. He could have created a universe with only 3 colors, only 7 sounds, or 15 genders! He could also have created a universe without sin, or with only the presence of non-violent sins, or with sins that could only be committed once, or … you get the picture. When you think of all the variables, and all the possible combinations, we see that the options God had for a universe were almost innumerable.

So, if God could have chosen from an almost innumerable group of optional universes, we can only agree that, being perfect, the universe that He chose to create - complete with the presence or the certainty of evil - was the very best of all possible universes when measured by the standard of Heaven. By that I mean this: our universe must be the best universe possible when viewed against the purpose for which God determined to create in the first place. If another universe would have been a better tool to accomplish whatever it was that God wanted to accomplish, He would have created it. But He didn't! Therefore, this universe must be God's best choice. It must be the best one for accomplishing His purpose in creating a universe in the first place.

What's God Doing?

So, this brings us to the next question: What was God trying to accomplish in creating a universe in the first place? To answer this we need only think back to our early years, and the Children's Catechism. Remember the first question? "What is the chief end of Man? A: The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." The essential purpose of the existence of mankind is to bring glory to God. Further, the Bible is clear that to give to anything or anyone the glory (adoration, praise, worship) due to God alone is idolatry … a grave offense against heaven! But, if this is true for man, then it must also be true for God. Simply put, God is all about His Glory, and in fact, must be. His chief end is to promote and display His glory. If God ever ceased to promote and display His glory, His activity would be idolatry, since it would - presumably - mean that His adoration was directed at something other than Himself.

This being true, we can safely conclude that God, in creation as in all of His acts, was motivated first and only by the desire to proclaim and promote His own glory. He created all things for the purpose of bringing glory to Himself. This is what God was trying to accomplish in creating a universe in the first place: His glory!

How is God's Glory Best Displayed?

So, to review: God could have created a universe without evil if He had wanted to. The fact that He created this universe means that it was the best of all possible universes in which to accomplish the purpose of His creative action in the first place. And, God's purpose must always be the display and declaration of His own glory.

So, in what way can we put this all together? Here's how. We must ask: How is God's glory best displayed? Another way of saying this is: When is God "at His best?" A full reading of the Biblical story suggests that God is "at His best" when delivering and redeeming that which is perishing. God's glory is best declared in the act of sovereign redemption, when that which is both unable and unworthy is graciously and eternally delivered, reformed, and adopted into the heavenly family.

It also follows that the glory of eternal redemption is enhanced when viewed against the backdrop of eternal punishment. That God does not deliver everyone serves to heighten the intrinsic value of that deliverance. The glory of redemption is seen against the backdrop of sin's corruption; and the value of that redemption is further displayed against the backdrop of the eternal punishment endured by those who freely choose to remain in their evil condition, rejecting God's free offer of deliverance.

Of course, if this is true, then God needed a world in which evil played a major role in order to demonstrate the glory of redemption. Without sin there can be no salvation. Without the evil of corruption there can be no display of gracious reformation. And without eternal punishment, the full value of eternal salvation would not be prized. For God to display His glory in the best way there had to be a world existing in the worst way.

Is God the Author of Evil?

A collateral problem to the POE is that, if God is sovereign over all, and evil exists, then in some way, God must be the author of evil. Put another way, if all things came from Him, and evil exists, then how can we say that God is not the agent responsible for the creation of evil?

Here is where we enter the fog. The Bible is clear that God is wholly good, and exists quite apart from even the possibility of sin and evil. Yet, the Bible is abundantly clear that sin and evil not only exist but are pervasive in our world. How can this be? How can sin exist, and God be sovereign, and God be infinitely good?

The noted church father Augustine battled this question, and came away with a most insightful contribution. Augustine began with the illustration of darkness and light. He stated that darkness was not, in fact, a substance, but rather the absence of light. In order to bring about darkness all that was necessary was to remove light. In the same way, he suggested that evil is not a "something" but rather in its essence, was the absence of virtue. He went further to declare that the only thing necessary to bring about the existence of evil was the withdrawal of virtue. Yet, he argued that the removal of virtue could never be shown to be - in and of itself - an evil act. So, if you're still with me, you could say with Augustine that God could have brought about the presence of evil through the removal of virtue, which was not an evil act. Thus, evil exists, but God did not engage in anything evil in the process of its conception.

While God is not the author of evil, it is true that God uses evil for His own purposes. In Isaiah God says: The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these (Is. 45:7). It is also worth noting that the description "evil" may not mean the same thing in God's economy as it does in ours. We consider it "evil" when we lose a job, or contract a serious disease. But, given that these trials may very well be God's means of "improving" our faith (as the Puritans used to say!) it must not be said that in the final analysis that they were evil. Understanding the way God would define evil may help us see that there is far less "true evil" in our lives than we ordinarily think. But, even so, we must never forget that evil is a necessary component in this universe whose primary purpose is to provide the canvas upon which the glory of God in redemption is being divinely painted. This in no way turns evil into good, but it does suggest that, under the sovereign superintendency of the Almighty, even evil can be said to play a necessary part in the unalterable plan of God. For the believer, this is actually a great comfort, as we look at this life as merely a prelude to the next.

Conclusion

We may rightly conclude then, that God is all-powerful, and could eliminate evil. Yet, the fact that He chooses not to do so argues not that He is mean spirited, but supports the greater truth that the existence of evil is indeed necessary to the accomplishment of God's creative agenda. We must never forget that God is the creator, and as such, has a sovereign right over all that is created. As the Divine Potter, He is free to make from the clay vessels for honor and for dishonor (see: Romans 9:19-23). He can, and does, work in a world filled with evil for the very purpose of vanquishing the Evil One, and delivering those caught in his domain into the glorious light of the Kingdom of Christ "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." All glory be to God!

Hope this helps,

David

Commenting on Comments

2009-03-14T09:26:00.000-07:00

If you are one of the few who read this blog, then you know that in the past, some comments have been made by readers that really ran past the line of courtesy and the winsomeness Christ desires of His followers. So, from now on, comments won't be part of this blog. If you know me, and have my email, feel free to comment with me directly. That way we can actually dialogue and work on understanding rather than spewing caustic opinions anonymously.

For those of you who don't know me, or want to stay anonymous, I can only say that this blog is not going to be a place where you can participate in verbal sin. I call it verbal sin because some of the comments that were made were not done in a manner worthy of Christ, and since I don't want to provide a forum for improper communication, heggthought.com will no longer invite comments.

Now I know that some of you will consider it your right to comment on blogs, to lash out with opinionated tongues sharpened with disrespect. But, actually, this is my blog, intended as an avenue for me to express my views. If you want to express your views, blogspot.com is available to you.

Hope this helps,

David

On Praying Strategically

2009-03-14T09:21:00.001-07:00

In 2 Kings 3 we find a fairly unusual story about 3 kings doing battle against two. It seems that the king of Moab decided he would stop paying his taxes to the mighty king of Israel. So, the kings of Israel, Judah and Edom ganged up together and decided to take Moab down. But, they had a problem. After getting their warriors together and starting off, they found out there wasn't enough water to support their troops. Seven days into the trip, they had nothing but sand all around them. So, they decided to get some divine help, and went to see Elisha.

At Elisha's house they laid out the seriousness of their problem. "Unless we get water, the armies of Israel and Judah and Edom will be wiped out by that scoundrel Moab! Call on God - he'll talk to you! - and get Him to send us the water we need." So, Elisha called on God and sure enough, God said He'd send enough water to fill the whole valley, enough for all the troops, and all the animals.

But then the Lord went further, and here's where the story really gets interesting. God said "O, and by the way, I'll also give the Moab army into your hands, and you will have a stunning military victory!"

It's the "O, and by the way" part that intrigues me here. What is God doing? He is rebuking them for their shortsightedness in their asking. He is calling their attention - and ours - to the fact that they were too caught up in the logistical, and had completely ignored the strategic.

In military terms, there are three spheres of action. The logistical area is all about getting the supplies to the troops so they can make war. Its about shoes and weapons, water and food, clothes and gear. A huge part of making war is making sure that the logistical plans are in place, properly maintained, and are being executed with success. If not, nobody eats, and nobody fights.

Next is the sphere of the tactical. This is all about plans to win individual battles. Which units will be involved, and when and where? What deceptions will be used? what diversions? Since success in battle will depend on the tactics used, those plans are painstakingly crafted, analyzed, and put into play.

The last area is the strategic. This one is simple: what will win the war? This is big picture stuff, and it demands the greatest levels of knowledge, patience, courage, and unity. This is where all is won or lost.

In the 2 Kings 3 story, the kings were all about the logistics. They needed water, so they asked for water. But God reminded them that, had they asked for a strategic victory, His gracious, positive response would have included taking care of all their logistical necessities! If God lets you win the war, He'll certainly provide all the water you need to drink while fighting it.

So, what does this tell us about prayer? All too often we live on the level of logistics. We're concerned about the necessities of life, of health, of happiness. And certainly, the Lord did say we could talk to Him about our need of daily bread! But, we'd all agree that sometimes we get so enamored with the logistical needs that we leave no time to pray "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth even as it is in heaven." But that's the strategic part, and its that part that God has promised to provide.

He hasn't told us that we'll never be sick, or disappointed, or get laid off, or watch those we love encounter adversity and danger. But He has promised that we can partner with Him is rescuing the perishing, and that through the Word and Spirit we can confidently extend the grace and mercy of Christ to all around us. We are the "household" of God, and as such, we play a strategic role in extending the Kingdom authority of Christ through our righteousness and our witness. These are strategic opportunities, and when God is pleased to grant us success in this arena, the other logistical things pale in comparison. Now don't get me wrong! They are important; but, how sad it would be if, in worrying so much about whether or not there will be enough water, we forgot to petition God about succeeding in battle, and winning the war!

Hope this helps,

David

Low Maintenance Friends

2009-02-09T12:29:00.000-08:00

As the years pass us by, at some points along the way God gives us seasons for reflection. In my life, these are usually times when the pace of life slows down due either to vacation or illness. Just now Cherylyn and I are enjoying the former while trying to avoid the later! And I've been reflecting on what real friends look like, and how my life is increasingly buoyed by, and dependent on, what they bring to my me.

I have come to see, over time, that not all friends are the kinds of friends that promote life and health and the pursuit of happiness. Some friends are draining. Their selfishness and constant need cause the joy and energy of life to evaporate at an alarming rate even as their longstanding position as "friend" means that you can't either leave or slap 'em. We all have them. We all try to avoid them. But we all know that these kings of friends will shrivel without us, and so we continue to care for, and about them, and suffer the energy-draining consequences. I call these kinds of friends "high maintenance" friends. Of course, they would explode to know that this is how I see them, but it helps me all the same.

On the other end of the friend spectrum are "low maintenance" friends. You know these folks, and you also agree with me that they are worth the world. These are the people whose lives don't leak, and so time spent together can be so mutually rewarding. They bring energy, and infuse their surroundings with life. By virtue of their mature and healthy lives, they invest in others without effort, making those blessed to be in relationship with them better and better and better. They are emotional vitamins, the relational "green tea" of life. And they take almost no maintenance! They don't crab when you don't call; they remain friends regardless of disappointment or distance. They are worth the world, and you need all you can get!

And so, at this time of life, as I am transitioning from one comfortable nest to - I hope! - another, I am counting on my LMFs to do their thing. I am also considering carefully how I can be the LMF my friends need. If it is true (as some relational gurus insist) that we are like legos, with a finite number of "connection points", then I just want to put the world on notice that I only have space left for LMFs in my private world. Of course, I will always make time for those who need what Christ may be pleased to do through me; but when it comes to real friendship - the kind that turns a free Friday into a group activity - only LMFs need apply.

Hope this helps,

David

A Week Of Grace

2009-02-03T08:52:00.000-08:00

Well, the long awaited week of candidating at Grace Baptist Church is now over. It was amazing. Cherylyn and I considered it both an exciting adventure, and a great pleasure to meet and interact with people of all ages and across a wide spectrum of ministries. We were asked hundreds of questions, and had the wonderful opportunity to fully share our hearts and passions for Christ's church.

Now we are in that time of wonder: wondering how the family of Grace will respond when asked to affirm the leadership's proposal that we come to partner with them; wondering what the transition will entail; wondering where we'll live, how we'll make new friends, and how we'll see God work in our new place.

But we are not wondering about other things. We're sure God's will will be done; we're sure our relationships with dear friends already established will remain a strong and necessary part of our well-being; we're sure our hearts will be filled with new relationships bringing joy and fun into our lives; we're sure Jesus is still the Senior Pastor of His church and that He will care for it - in all of its local manifestations - with divine love and wisdom; we're sure that our marriage will flourish wherever we are together; and we're sure that as long as we're humbly pursuing God's glory, our lives will be satisfied with good things.

And so we wait for the vote, even as we continue waiting on the Lord for all things. Its a great place to be!

David

On Reflections

2008-12-24T13:56:00.000-08:00

Christmas brings out memories in us. We remember our childhood, and the traditions, special people and presents that filled those early Christmas mornings. And as we age, each year adds to the treasure trove of memories, with new places and people taking on staring roles as we move away from parents, establish our own families, and experience the life changes that career building inevitably brings. We trace our journey through different cities, houses, jobs, and relationships and remember the way Christmas happened differently along the way.

But this year I am finding that Christmas memories are doing more than help me trace my personal and family history. They also are serving to underscore that fact that our family future is about to turn yet another corner, taking us into a new city and ministry position with all the changes and challenges that move will entail. Where will our family be decorating the tree next year? How will our favorite traditions fit into a new community, and new church family? Where will I be hanging the stockings next year, and how will we light the next house? What will we be missing that we now enjoy, and what will we have discovered as new and exciting? These questions and many others creep into my mind, poignantly reminding me that change and the prevailing "unknown" are about to encroach on the stability and comfortable "known" of my life.

Christmas is a time of surety and security for me. It comes in ways that remind me of how good and ordered and comfortable my life and family are. I have come to expect - indeed, rely on - certain things about my Christmas and when they happen, I feel settled and filled with the joy of certainty. But, this year, Christmas is being played out against the backdrop of change as we are pressed to think about packing up a household, finding interim housing, leaving a greatly loved congregation, living out of suitcases, and just generally accepting the fact that we aren't going to experience the order and security of the "known" for the next 2-3 months.

And so, what to do? Only this: I am reflecting on the fact that what really makes Christmas secure is the same no matter what city or house I am in. Jesus Christ, my Savior, is not limited to a place or a circumstance. He is mine, and I am His. And as a Death Cab For Cutie song says "He could have done better than me, but I could never do better than Him." So, in my times of despondency, I go past those traditions that have always brought normalcy to my Christmas, and land at Jesus. He never disappoints, and never disappears. And while I know how weird it is for me - a pastor - to "discover" how fulfilling it is to center on Jesus at Christmas (duh!), I must admit that this year the reality of Jesus is much more exciting for me. He is my staying power, my confident and consistent stability, and being my Lord, He is the only One whose "well done" I am obligated to pursue. May your Christmas be filled with Him!

Hope this helps,

David

Rough Spots Made Smooth

2008-12-13T14:27:00.000-08:00

It seems that my last post, intended to clear up the use of "rough spots" was seen as vague. And, it truth, it was intended to be so. Here's the deal: I am very thankful for the process we went through, and intended my post on Changes to be for the Northpoint crowd who were primarily interested in the "why" behind my decision to engage in Grace Baptist's process. It is not my intention to engage anonymous comment makers in theological discussion on my blog. These discussions are best done face to face, with an open Bible and an open mind. So, if you want to engage me further, sign your name, and let's see if we can grab some time over coffee.

However, I would like to take one more shot at clearing up some of the ambiguity simply because some of you readers seem always to think the worst. In fact, the unity of heart between me and the leaders of Grace is true, warm, and wonderful.

As for the process itself, it was thorough. As mentioned previously, any thorough process asks questions in major and even minor areas of theology and life. As I entered the discussions, I felt there might be some "fleece" moments. By this I mean areas where I have strong beliefs which, in some circles, might not be appreciated. I fully considered, given that the leadership and search team at Grace had already spent 2 years examining 50+ men, that the chances of my not fitting their grid were potentially significant. So, I went in knowing that some areas would be like Gideon's fleece: opportunities for God to radically change my direction.

When questioned in these areas, I was very careful to be open, forthright, winsome, and biblical. I was also careful to listen as the discussions progressed, to find out where my potential fellow-leaders were in their understanding so that I would not waste time chasing straw men, or tilting at windmills.

One such area was that of Christian liberty. I made it very clear that any standard by which standing in grace and spiritual maturity would be judged must do justice to all applicable biblical data. Simply put: I am not, nor will I ever be, a legalistic auditor of those things which the Bible does not consider marks of the indwelling Spirit. I don't think I can put it plainer than that. I do believe that there are undeniable marks of the Spirit in the believer, and I point the reader to Gardiner Spring's wonderful little book "Distinguishing Traits of Christian Character" for a more full discussion of the biblical teaching on this subject. I take a strong position against those legalistic boundaries which cannot be supported by the Bible, while having equally strong beliefs that the Christian should be conspicuous in his zeal for Christ, passion for the lost, delight in holiness, knowledge and obedience to the Word, and a sunny, winsome way of following Christ with a smile on his face. As Philips Brooks has said "The religion that makes a man look sick certainly won’t cure the world!"

The second "fleece" area was that of the sovereignty of God in salvation, with all its attendant circumstances in the area of soteriology (the doctrine of Salvation). I am openly an historical Calvinist, and believe fully that my only confidence in presenting the Gospel both here and abroad is the knowledge that the Almighty has both planned and accomplished redemption through Jesus Christ, and has granted me the privilege of being His delivery system to the world. As the Gospel is spread - something I simply delight to do! - the Spirit may be pleased to ride on it into the heart, bringing life, conviction, repentance, and saving faith. This is the glorious adventure we as Christ-followers are privileged to be engaged in, and being part of that Kingdom work is our greatest delight! As I presented my theology to the leadership of Grace, our hearts were united in mutual love for, and excitement over, the finished work of Christ, and the guarantee that God's rescue plan is right on time, and will be accomplished fully to His glory. This wonderful plan to rescue creation will not be overruled either by the opposition of His enemies, nor the disobedience of His own people. Yet, it is our honor to be obedient, to play on His team, to get off the bench and into the game so that our love may be fully displayed, and His grace and love fully extolled.

One of the previous anonymous comments questioned the theology of pastoral leadership wondering if that of Northpoint and Grace were compatible. Stifling the urge to be cynical, I can only say that I would not be candidating at Grace if we did not agree on the nature of the church and its leadership. I believe fully in the team leadership approach exemplified in the NT by the consistent use of "elders" in the plural. Like Northpoint, Grace is led by a group of godly, qualified men, affirmed by the congregation, who partner with the Lead Pastor, or Sr. Pastor, whatever term you want to use. In neither case is the supremacy of Christ as the Chief Shepherd undermined. As Lead Pastor or Sr. Pastor (you pick!) my role will be to "exercise oversight ... not lording it over, but proving to be an example to the flock" as Peter declares in 1 Peter 5.

As I mentioned previously, it has been a singular privilege for me to be involved in this process. Grace Baptist offers me the opportunity to both lead and learn; to partner with leaders who have been blessed of God in their ministries, as well as work with them to reach new levels of influence for Christ and His Kingdom.

Hope this helps,

David

Rough Spots

2008-12-10T09:31:00.000-08:00

In my previous post, on changes that lie ahead for Cherylyn and I, I mentioned that during the discussions with the Elders at Grace Baptist Church, there had been some very serious discussions. I even mentioned that along the way we had encountered “rough spots” in the road. Some have wondered about that, so let me explain further.

As you might hope, the Grace team understood the serious nature of their task. They were accountable both to Christ and the Grace family to verify that the man they presented to the congregation was, to the best of their knowledge, the man God had chosen for Grace. A very sobering task! And, to do so they were committed to look everywhere, especially in the areas of the man’s life and theology, with care and wisdom. And so, again as you would hope, no subject was off limits. Our discussions covered the nature of the church, the sovereignty of God in salvation, the theology of the cross, the obligatory discussion of eschatological schemes, and a host of other less controversial topics. We also spoke of the more practical issues of Christian liberty and life. Along the way we listened and spoke carefully, testing everything under the lens of Scripture. And, in what was for me a providential sign that God was in this, we came to recognize and rejoice in a one-ness of heart and mind.

In many ways, our discussions were like a journey down a long and sometimes deeply rutted road. As we drove, where the road was smooth, we sped along. But when we hit the rough spots, we were forced to slow down and examine everything a bit more carefully. In reality, these “rough spots” were the cause of some wonderfully serious discussions which led to greater understanding, greater agreement, and consequently, greater trust.

The process through which I was lovingly and prayerfully led by the leaders at Grace has left me believing that our partnership will be a good one for many years to come. We will learn from one another, and teach one another, and probably disagree with one another from time to time. Yet, our mutual commitment to the message and mission of Christ will cause us to deal with our differences differently, bringing them to the Word and seeking to be of one mind. That’s the way of wisdom; that’s what it means to seek the mind of Christ. We’ve started our partnership that way, and that’s a very good sign that it will remain healthy into the future.

Hope this helps,

David

Changes

2008-12-05T11:47:00.000-08:00

There are rumors floating around that Cherylyn and I may be leaving our home of 15 years, and our incredible Northpoint Church family, to take up the challenge of pastoral leadership at Grace Baptist Church in Santa Clarita, California.

The truth is that I will, indeed, be candidating at Grace January 24,25 and January 31,February 1. Then, if the Grace family affirms the unanimous recommendation of Grace's Leadership Team, we will be moving to Grace as Lead Pastor in the hope of bringing added value to an already thriving ministry. This decision to re-locate has been neither easy nor was it sought after by us. Corona continues to be a wonderful place to live, and we have greatly enjoyed raising our children in this friendly city. And Northpoint Church has been our life, our family, the place we have always considered to be the center of our universe. Nothing has happened to change our opinions or love for the people and ministry of Northpoint, or the comfort of the Corona community.

Many have asked me, in light of our contentedness at Northpoint, how we came to our decision. And so, in order to get the answer available in a way that is carefully thought out and available, here we go. And this may get a bit long so hang on!

In August of 2007 my good friend Shannon Barnes announced that he would be leaving Northpoint. Immediately after that announcement, Cherylyn and I left for 3 weeks of vacation - as is our August custom - to the Pacific Northwest. A wonderful ocean front home had been made available to us by our good friends Paul and Chris Hammann, and I took the time to carefully and intentionally consider my future. Northpoint had moved into a new facility. More was now expected of our church, and of me as a primary leader. I considered the challenges that lay ahead, and determined that staying at Northpoint would demand much of me, but that such demands were in the best interests of all concerned. We returned to Northpoint in September ready to move forward, and God greatly blessed our congregation during the next year. Even the loss of Mark Spansel and Robert Campbell (who both took preaching positions) only confirmed that God was using Northpoint not only as a teaching and reaching church, but also as a training and sending church. We were able to quickly fill those positions as Scott Burns moved into Adult Ministries, and Jason Miller came on board in the area of Outreach and Community. We also promoted Ken Flower to oversee Student Ministries, and brought Bill Blakey on board to work in Junior High ministries. The addition of Ronnie Martin and Glenn Pickett in the area of Worship Ministries brought the staff back to full strength, and we have experienced no drop off in our community presence, or discipleship efforts.

In March, 2008 I attended K-Club, a gathering of pastors of churches of 1000 or more sponsored by the Evangelical Free Church leadership. During one lunch discussion, 5 of the pastors there along with myself came to realize that we had all been at our churches about 15 years, and we all were in our early 50's. Someone brought up the idea that he was carefully considering just how to best use his remaining 15-20 years in ministry. I can remember thinking "I know where I'll be: At Northpoint!"

So, along about now you're wondering just where this is going! But I needed you to know that at no time did my heart start "leaving" Northpoint, in spite of the fact that we said "goodbye" to Mark and Robert, and that many of my pastoral peers were talking about transition.

Before I go on, let me say that I am not exactly sure of the following dates. I may be off by a week or more, so please don't accuse me of lying if one or more turns out to be inexact. It was on June 29 - Mark Spansel' last Sunday - that I came into my office early in the morning around 6 am. Since Mark was preaching, I took the time to pray for him, and for Northpoint. And then I did what I never do: I listened to a message on my office phone voice mail. It was from Dr. John Stead, who had been one of my profs in college, and had been used of the Lord in a steady and mighty way in my life. It was his devotional from Romans 12:1,2, taught in a dorm Bible Study that put me on the road to pastoral ministry. Over the years, Dr. Stead has been a good friend, and mentor of sorts, and hearing his voice on my machine really got my attention. He simply stated that he had given my name to his church's Leadership Team as a possible candidate for their open Lead Pastor position. He told me that they may be calling and asked that I consider the opportunity.

Over the past 15 years I had received several inquiries, and had consistently refused to reply or consider any of them. But, when Dr. Stead asked me to consider it, I felt that, if Grace called, I would honor his standing in my life and at least have a conversation. I did not call Grace, nor try to contact them in any way. It was my decision just to stay passive, and leave any further contact up to them. That contact did not come for several weeks. (I learned later that those to whom Dr. Stead had given my name had lost it, and only found it through a happy providence some weeks later!) Sometime in late July, I received a call from Geoff Beckwith and Mike Wilke asking if we could talk for a few minutes. As a favor to Dr. Stead, I decided to listen and answer their questions. I was immediately struck by the fact that their questions were much different than those usually asked in such situations. They didn't want a resume; they didn't want to know any of the usual "stuff." They wanted to hear about my heart for the church, preaching, and my family. We even had some humorous moments, and I remember thinking "these guys seem real." My final suggestion to them was to listen to 3 of my sermons online. In my mind, if they didn't resonate with my preaching, I had nothing else to offer.

(Note: Some months before a head hunter for a very large church in SoCal had approached me about their vacant teaching pastor position. Knowing that the philosophy and theological environment of that church were not aligned with mine, I told the guy to listen to my preaching before deciding if they wanted to pursue me. He did, and one week later called saying "We listened to 2 of your sermons, and you're right: we don't like your preaching!" Needless to say, that hurt even though I knew it was coming!).

After the July conversation, Cherylyn and I left on August 7 to spend the rest of the month on the East Coast teaching at 2 weeks of Family Camp in New Hampshire, and taking 10 days of vacation. It was during our first week at Camp Berea that Geoff and Mike sent a text asking if we could arrange another phone call. Cherylyn and I went up to our little cabin, put the Blackberry on speaker, and waited for their call. I told my wife "I bet they didn't like my preaching either." But, when they called they said they had appreciated what they had heard, and wanted to know if we would be willing to meet with them when we returned. We took the next weeks to think and pray about that.

During those weeks, we took stock of our lives and our station in life. We talked about the fact that our kids were all grown and mostly gone; that we wanted to spend our last 15-20 years in active ministry maximizing our abilities and opportunities. We decided that Northpoint offered most everything we wanted, but that we would also take one step at a time with Grace. We determined that we would move forward cautiously to see if, in fact, this opportunity was coming to us from God's hand.

Through the months of September and October, we spent several afternoons and evenings in Santa Clarita meeting first with the Search Team, and then with the Pastoral Team, and Leadership Team of Grace. The process was very thorough, and impressively professional, but most importantly, was refreshingly gracious and prayerful. We were so grateful for the way we were cared for, and encouraged to do only that which we were confident was pleasing to God.

There were some rough spots, where my views both practically and theologically opened up serious discussions. But in the end, it was evident that the Lord has given us all "one mind". When the search process was complete, and the Elders voted to present me to the Grace family as the man they believed God had crafted for Grace, I was pleased to affirm that, if the congregation agreed, I would come to Grace Baptist Church.

I announced my participation in Grace's search process to the Northpoint Leadersip Team on Nov. 10th. At that meeting, I was numb, and really don't remember too much of what I said. I know it was short and to the point, and left the men in the room speechless. Then, Mark Kiker determined that we needed to pray, and he led in what I will always remember as an amazing, almost Apostolic plea to God, filled with memories, petitions, and praise. I left the meeting shortly after that in tears knowing that I had been greatly blessed to serve with a group of men whose hearts were soft to the mission of Christ.

And so, Cherylyn and I are in the middle of an odyssey. The Elders have asked that my last Sunday preaching at Northpoint be January 18. Then I candidate at Grace the following two weekends. If the Grace family affirms my candidacy, we'll be re-locating to Santa Clarita in late February/early March.

The opportunity at Grace will allow me to spend my final ministry years doing the things I believe God has gifted me to do: preach, lead, and write. Additionally, Cherylyn and I are looking forward to being back in the college environment. Opportunities to teach and interact with students at The Masters College will offer us the same exciting challenges we enjoyed so many years ago on the campus of Pacific Lutheran University.

Cherylyn and I have, over the past months, spent much time praying and contemplating this decision. We have not come to our conclusion quickly, or easily. Our love for Northpoint has never diminished, nor is there anything at Northpoint that we are trying to escape. We simply believe that the Lord is moving us from one field of harvest to another. Our hearts are united in this belief, and we are mutually encouraged by the way God has worked independently in our hearts to bring us to the same level of assurance and excitement.

As for Northpoint, I am convinced that the family is strong, grounded in mission, and will face the challenges with the right focus. We have never considered anyone but Jesus to be the true Sr. Pastor of the church, and it is at times like this that our allegiance to Him must take precedence. Northpoint is blessed with a very capable staff, and an experienced, spiritually mature group of elders. Yes, this will be a time of challenge; but it is a challenge to "be" the church in Corona. The community has very recently come to view Northpoint as a vital partner, and a place where truth and love mingle, and Christ is truly glorified. This presents the best possible foundation for further progress for the Gospel. But this will, as well, be a call to deep prayer and commitment to the mission of Christ.

For those of you who are disappointed in our decision, we offer no defense other than our belief that this came to us from God, and is intended for His glory. For those of you who are sad, but happy for us, we thank you for your encouragement and love, and promise to pray for you as well.

The friendships and ministry partnerships we have enjoyed over the past 15 years at Northpoint have been used of God to grow us, encourage us, temper us, and fit us for what God intends to do through us in our remaining years. If God grants our desire to partner with Grace Baptist Church, it will not be because we have outgrown Northpoint or in any way become dissatisfied with God's work there. Rather, it will be because God has willed it so. Beyond that, we seek no other answers except the privilege of prayful obedience until He calls us home.

Hope this helps,

David

Beauty in a Broken World

2008-10-30T13:32:00.000-07:00

I have found, as a Christ-follower, that it is much easier to explain the corruption and decay and evil that abounds in our world than it is to explain just why, in such a sin-drenched world, there are things that bring joy. I know why there is darkness; but why is there light? I can explain the reality of death, and despair, but how do we account for the presence of beauty and the pleasure it brings?

My simple answer is found in contemplating that doctrine theologians refer to as common grace. Now, of course, nothing about God's benevolent attitude toward us is really "common." And that's not what the doctrine tries to indicate either. The grace of God in every way is uncommon, amazing, unmerited, and utterly worthy of praise and unfettered gratitude. However, in this sense of common grace we mean those gifts that fall from God's hands upon all mankind in common. These are distinguished from those salvific gifts that fall only upon those in whom the Spirit - through the Gospel - has worked faith and repentance. To these, the gifts of special, saving grace are granted unto eternal life!

But, it is also clear that some of God's gracious gifts fall on all mankind. They don't deserve them, but they get them, and in abundance! Ps. 104 reminds us that God causes the rain to fall, and crops to grow so that mankind can eat, make wine which makes the heart glad, and even produce the oil that smooths and shines the skin! In OT talk, this is great stuff! God is taking credit for the common things necessary for life not only to exist on earth, but also for that life to be filled with a measure of pleasure. Paul picks this up in Acts 14:14-17 where, trying to dissuade the pagans from worshiping him, he maintains that he is not God, and that it is God who has made everything that exists. He goes further to explain that, while in the ages past God allowed the nations to act as they pleased, sinning and rebelling willfully, God did not leave Himself without a "witness". This "witness" - Paul explains - was the fact that God did good by sending rain, and fruit, and provided mankind with food and happiness (check it out for yourself!). Do you get the point? God showered the pagan, unbelieving world with good gifts, including the things like food and drink, that brought them happiness.

I like to sum up these "gifts" of God that provide for our well-being and happiness as his gifts of "beauty." Beauty is defined as that which brings pleasure to the senses. So, when my sense of taste is pleasured, it is because of God's gift of "beautiful" food. So to with my ears that are pleasured by music, and my eyes by the beauty of sculpture, painting, and all other manner of beautiful "gifts" from the hand of God.

But why would God give these gifts? Simply because in a world filled with brokenness and despair, "beauty" in all of its forms calls to that vestige of imago dei in mankind, declaring to those surrounded by darkness, that light exists; to those living in the despair of sin's bondage, beauty shouts "there is a better way to live which offers joy and eternal beauty!"

Now some of you are saying that beauty also poses a risk. It can be so enticing that it becomes the master rather than the servant of God for His glory. And you are so right! The topic of beauty - the "good things God so richly supplies for our enjoyment (see: 1 Timothy 6:17) - has always raised controversy among Christ-followers. Some, in order to prevent any slide into intemperance, adopt the principle of avoidance, and champion abstinence from any and everything that might somehow appeal to the senses. Unfortunately, these otherwise good and holy people, place restrictions on the conscience that are much more than are to be found in the Word of God. And in so doing, they actually label many of God's gifts of beauty as sinful. On the other end of the spectrum are those who, in the name of freedom, encourage great indulgence in all manner of beauty, to the place where they become much more enamored with the gift than the Giver. It is obvious that standing up for beauty places us on a precipice from which both sides plunge down into ruin. But there is an answer.

Given that God has richly supplied us with all things to enjoy, we must enjoy them. But, given that overindulgence presents great risks, we must always temper our appreciation with moderation. The key is simply to remember, in the enjoyment, who the Supplier really is. If, in our enjoyment, we are first and foremost recognizing the hand of the Supplier - God! - we will temper our enjoyment with the gratitude and worship necessary to remain steadfastly moderate in all things. A good rule is that we must always endeavor to enjoy God's gifts of beauty a little less than we otherwise might if His Name were not attached to our lives.

Hope this helps,

David

Horse or Moose?

2008-10-27T15:36:00.000-07:00

When my daughter Ellen was 4 or 5, we went to one of those wild animal parks where the animals are free to roam, and the spectators are 'caged' in buses. Coming around a wooded bend in the road, we were brought immediately face-to-face with a huge moose. "That's a moose, Ellen" I dutifully announced as the father/tour guide. "It's a cow" was her casual reply. "No, sweetie, it's a moose; see the antlers, see the big ears? It's a moose." "It's a cow" she said once again, somewhat bored. Try as I might, with all my arguments and grown-up knowledge, I couldn't get her to see the clear truth that the animal whose lips were pressed up against our window was a moose!

What I ran into that day would stick with me forever. Sometimes those who want something so badly are blind to the truth that is right in front of them. The same thing is true of Proposition 8 here in California. Like the moose, marriage is not open to our own definition. It is what it is because it has been historically, theologically, and societally defined as such from the beginning of time. Have there been aberrations? Yes, but there were recognized as aberrations because they deviated from the understood norm; the exceptions proved the rule. "That's marriage: one genetic male, and one genetic female united for life." And now some people have come along, blinded by their ideology, and said "No, that's a cow." They refuse to see what is pressed up against the window in front of them! Why? Because they so badly want to re-orient what is on the other side of the window. They want to radically change society, and theology, and history. They want to obliterate all the distinctions that society and theology and history have granted to marriage as biblically defined so that their desire to rebel against God's created order will be re-packaged as enlightened. But, no matter how loud their protestations, it's still a moose!

Hope this helps,

David

Vote and Voice

2008-10-27T15:26:00.000-07:00

Here's another thought I have about the whole topic of political involvement. Is there a difference between vote and voice? Can it be that I am encouraged to vote in line with my conscience, but asked not to give voice to that same conscience in political/religious dialogue? Is the freedom to vote one of those "rights" afforded me as an American, while it is considered improper - as a preacher - to voice the religious and biblical beliefs behind that vote? Do we really think that we can protect the freedom of vote while at the same time curtailing the freedom of voice?

It is very discouraging to me that some professed Christ-followers have decided, for political reasons, to remain silent - in both voice and vote! - concerning the issue of same-sex marriage. I believe they have been compromised by the culture around them. They have imbibed of the philosophy of "live and let live" rather than lining up behind the Son of God whose authority has invaded our broken world with the Gospel that both identifies, and cleanses from sin. That which is best for society is what God says is best for society, and when Christ-followers shave the edges off of this most fundamental principle, the society itself is in big trouble.

Hope this helps,

David

God's Recipe for Marriage

2008-10-27T13:36:00.000-07:00

I have recently been castigated for declaring God's design for marriage from the pulpit at Northpoint. And, what is far more disturbing is that this negative critique has come from those who consider themselves "enlightened" Christ-followers. Simply put, they believe that a strong declaration in favor of "marriage as one man and one woman" coupled with the assertion that homosexuality is sin only reduces the ability of the church to overcome the cultural opinion that Christians hate homosexuals. Let me reply in two ways:

First, to declare that the church must not speak biblically regarding homosexuality because to do so is to promote hatred against homosexuals paints the whole argument with the paint of the "excluded middle." Is it true that the only two options available to us are 1) say nothing, or 2) hate the homosexuals? Of course this is a logical fallacy which is apparent to anyone who has taken even an elementary logic course. There is a third option which, for sake of winning their argument, my opponents eliminate. But here it is: Tell the truth from a biblical point of view, and love the Gospel and the forgiving grace of God so much that we long for those trapped in the sin of homosexuality to be overwhelmed by it. We don't hate them; we see them as those desperately in need of the same freeing, forgiving grace that has captured our hearts.

Second, let me talk about marriage. I have been told recently that the church has no business campaigning for a proposition that would define marriage by Constitutional Amendment. They suggest strongly that the church has no place in governmental or political affairs (see previous post: Church and State for rebuttal). This flies in the face of the historical position the church has held as the conscience of society, including government and the political actions of a society. It also limits free speech. Amazingly, those who don't want the church to participate in the political process are blind to the fact that they are limiting the fundamental right of American citizens and organizations to speak freely.

But, let's talk about marriage itself. First, let's be clear that marriage was God's idea, His creation. He created it and defined it in Genesis 2. This creation and definition means that the Divine Law regarding marriage preceded every man-made law and governmental entity. Further, this law regarding marriage has endured in every culture. While there have been aberrations along the way, marriage between a man and a woman has, for the most part, been the continued and honored practice in every culture and society down through history, including ours. We have laws against polygamy, sodomy, beastiality, incest, and a host of other aberrant sexual practices which are all measured against the "baseline" of what is acceptable sexually, which has always included one-man-one-woman marriage. Until only a few years ago, we had laws against fornication and adultery as well!

Second, since God created marriage, those who follow Him have every right to fight to maintain what He has created. In fact, not to do so constitutes treason against His divine order in terms of the family. And let me go even further. In Genesis 2, God declared that marriage was the way in which His own relationship within the God-head would be recognized and understood - at least fundamentally, if not perfectly - by mankind.

Third, since God created marriage, He has a right to the patent! He has created the "recipe" for marriage, and who can possibly come up with a reason to allow mankind to edit that recipe? Imagine if someone came to Kentucky Fried Chicken and said "we think the secret recipe for your chicken is unfair to the spices of cinnamon and oregano!" We want it declared illegal for you to continue with your secret recipe! We demand that you change it to include these two spices that you continue to discriminate against!"

Of course this is ridiculous! Yet, that is exactly what the opponents of marriage have done in California. And let's be clear. This is not about legal standing; civil unions already confer legal status on unmarried couples. This is about turning the created order on its head. The same thing happened in Paul's day. In 1 Timothy 4:1-5 Paul warns Timothy about some previews of the "last days." Men will come teaching that the fundamental of the Garden of Eden (what you can eat, and the relationship between man and woman) need to be edited! Food and marriage were under attack then, and marriage is under attack now. Further in 4:6 Paul tells Timothy that "in pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus." He never tells him the church has no voice in the affairs of the society. Rather, he exhorts him to spread the alarm, and teach the truth. May the Lord raise up an army of Timothys!

Hope this helps,

David

Church and State

2008-10-27T13:17:00.000-07:00

I have been deluged with emails from some of our younger friends explaining why they have decided not to vote in the matter of Proposition 8 here in California. Prop 8 would define marriage as between a man and a woman. If you're following the saga of this Proposition in our state then you know it has become a very spirited competition.

I am quite concerned about the way that many professing Christ-followers have been eroded by the tide of culture. Let me address the issue here of the separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, this is a situation where those who don't understand history are going to be punished by the future.

The framers of the Constitution had long recognized the abuses that governmentally run churches had perpetrated on their citizenry. In England, Scotland, France, and a host of other European countries, the church had been under the thumb of the government, run and funded as a governmental agency. Of course, this had all but eliminated religious freedom in the country and brought about hardship for those who dissented. (Historical Note: The "Free" church movement, begun in France, was one of the groups who stood in opposition to the governmental practice of ruling over churches.) As a result of these lessons from history, our founding fathers wisely set the government of the USA in such a way that religious groups were free from governmental oversight. As originally framed, this doctrine was for the protection and benefit of the people, then of the church. It was not conceived as a protection of government! In fact, as the Constitution was framed, the framers themselves understood that the church had an important role to play as the conscience of the nation. Their preamble stated that they took actions "with reliance on Divine Providence" which they understood to be the sovereign control of history by God. The various ways in which the place of theology and religion was valued can be seen things like the engravings over the Supreme Court buildings, the motto on our coins, the office of chaplain in many governmental agencies including the Senate, etc. They recognized that God's Law preceded their establishment of government, and as such, would play a necessary role in the establishment and maintenance of the US governmental structure.

Today, it appears that most folks think the "separation" is for the benefit of the government. That government needs to be protected against religion, which is quite opposite of the original intent. This view has made it "incorrect" for the church and its leaders to speak out against the policies and actions of the government. Not only is this not the intention of the founding fathers, it actually impedes free speech, which they were quite intentional about guarding and promoting.

To Sum Up: The church and its leaders, and its congregants have just as much right to speak out against government and political ideas as any other American or organization. In fact, to remain silent is to abdicate the position of "conscience" that religious leaders have held as far back as the OT prophets.

Over the years, the church in America has been increasingly painted as the enemy of government, of society, and of the freedom Americans enjoy. What apparently escapes the notice of those who feel this way is that when they limit the freedom of the church to be the church, to express its theology in constructive ways, they are actually eroding the very freedoms they are trying to protect.

Creation Matters

2008-08-06T14:35:00.001-07:00

My scooter gets 70 miles to the gallon, and I usually only have to fill it up once every 3-4 weeks. I started riding it every day to my office and back, and around town, several months ago, before gas prices became the "driving" force in our American lives. People smiled as I drove to church on Sunday, my suit coat buttoned, and my tie trailing over my shoulder in the wind. They smiled even more on week days when I stopped by the market on the ride home and filled my "trunk" with veggies and bread and other staples we needed. The scooter became the source of laughter for my friends and neighbors, and they never tired of mocking me and my little Yamaha.

Now that's all changed. Gas prices have magically transformed my scooter from "mockable" to admirable. My college age son Andy even asked if he could drive it for the week I was out of town. He argued that it does better on gas than his Jeep Cherokee. I still think he has recognized the "cool" factor that comes with scootering.

But let's be clear. I didn't start riding the scooter just to save money. I actually did it to do my part to limit the pollutants I, and every other driver, pump into the air. I also have been an avid re-cycler for years, and this summer planted and am harvesting my own organic garden. I've taken other steps to become a good steward of the earth as well, and in some ways, I guess I've become what some might call a "tree-hugger." But, here's where I want you to understand a fundamental difference between me and those who are writing the books calling our nation to "go green." This is important, so please keep reading:

While I believe in, and am trying more and more to practice "green" living and buying practices, the difference between me and those who hug the trees is in the area of motive and goal. This difference is best explained in understanding two terms: eco-friendly, and eco-redemptive.

Eco-friendly: This term describes a life-style where the person lives in such a way that there is harmony between them and the earth. Their motive for "going green" is to preserve th earth - its air and water and vegetation - for future generations of humanity. In other words, we take care of the earth because ultimately, it will take care of us. The motive is our personal well-being, and the goal is an environment that will provide an arena of health for coming generations. And, there is actually much wisdom in this. The problem is that, like everything else mankind comes up with, it stops short of the real purpose behind all things: to make the manifold majesty and glory of God more readily seen and appreciated. This must be true of our every "green" action as well.

That's where "eco-redemptive" comes in. I made this term up myself, so if you hate it, or think it's cheesy, I take full blame. But here's what I think: The grand reason I live in ways that protect and restore the environment is that all creation is supposed to declare the glory of our great Creator God. Simply put, I want clean water and air because polluted water and air don't make a very good advertisement for the majesty of the One who created it. So, my motive in "going green" is not only my health, but the beauty of the earth, and my goal is not only the preservation of a healthy environment, but the desire for this beauty to more fully declare and reflect God's glory. I choose to live in such a way that the earth is "redeemed", and thus, can more fully declare the glory of God. I don't think the earth is the what we should be "hugging" or adoring or worshiping. Rather, in caring for the earth, I am trying to love God, to bring praise to him.

Let me try to describe "eco-redemptive" as a label in another way. As a pastor, I have invested my life in the mission of Jesus Christ, through whom individuals can be rescued from brokenness, escape the pollution of sin, and come once again to reflect the glory of their Father in heaven. We often refer to this as partnering with Jesus Christ in the "plan of redemption." God, through the Gospel, is "redeeming" polluted lives, and turning them into samples of his craftsmanship (Paul, in Eph. 2:10 says we are "his workmanship", his intentional work of art!). Stay with me here!

I am convinced that the redemptive plan of God - most vitally seen in the rescue of sinners from the domain of darkness, and their transfer into the kingdom of God's dear Son Jesus (see: Col. 1:13,14) - in its broadest context includes all of creation. Paul supports this in Romans 8:20-23, where he says that sin plunged all creation into futility, in which it is now groaning, waiting until it will be "set free from its slavery to corruption." This actually parallels the plight of those of us who follow Christ. We are being set free from the power of sin. More and more we are being "reformatted" according to the image of Christ (2 Cor. 3:18). In a practical sense, we are being "redeemed" even though our final "redemption" and permanent standing in grace has been accomplished forever by Jesus Christ. This is part of the "already - not yet" idea that in Christ we are recognized as righteous, while in our everyday practice that righteousness is to be more and more worked out. Here's the bottom line: I think the same must be true of all of creation.

We know that one day, all creation will once again declare the glory of God, when the new heavens and new earth are a reality. Yet, just as our lives can increasingly demonstrate the glory of God as we more and more come to throw off the pollution of sin, so also creation can become more and more a tribute to its creator as it is increasingly returned to the condition in which it was originally created.

Now, I know that we can't rid the world of sin. We can't stop death, or decay, or many of the ongoing consequences of living in a broken world. But, just as we can live lives that are more and more modeled after Jesus, so also we can help return our environment to a state of beauty through life style choices that preserve, protect and enhance the natural, renewable beauty and strength of God's creation. And why do we do this, as those who follow Jesus? Because it is our goal that all creation will testify to the majesty and power and love of our Creator God. We choose to live in such a way that the environment is redeemed, so that the Redeemer can be praised. This is what I mean when I speak of living in ways that are "eco-redemptive." We are not only about renewing the earth; we are about renewing the earth so that all creation will shout the glory of God.

If you are aware of the controversies surrounding environmental issues and Christianity, you may have read that many secular environmentalists blame the Christian ethic for much of our present environmental crisis. And in many ways, they are right to do so. For centuries, the church has "camped out" on the command of God in Genesis 1 to "rule" and "exercise dominion" over the created world. Unfortunately, too many people - both inside and outside the church - have used this interpretation as an excuse for the selfish, tyrannical abuse of nature without regard to its original creative purpose. Instead of "stewarding" creation for the glory of God, they have corrupted and polluted it as a consequence of their lust for consumption. But, clearly, God never meant it to be so. He put Adam into the garden to "tend" it, not trash it (Genesis 2:15).

And perhaps, after reading this, you're just going to put these thoughts off in the margins of your life, and tell yourself that there are bigger problems you could focus on, and you'd be right, I suppose. But let me offer this: Proverbs 3:6 calls the wise to "acknowledge God in all your ways."

That verse is one I've known for years, and yet I think I am seeing it for the first time. It is calling us to acknowledge that God has an interest in all of our "ways." In context, it is talking about roads, or paths as the "ways" down which we travel. It is talking about the "walk of life" and the roads we choose. God wants to be recognized as interested and invested in every road we take, in "all of our ways." That means that no path you walk is to little, or too insignificant to matter to God. He has a vital interest in every small, tiny, winding path you walk down every day. No area of your life escapes either his notice, or his command. I am convinced that he wants us to acknowledge him in our environmental choices, in our food choices, in our buying choices, in our health choices, in our leisure choices, in our financial choices . . . you get the picture. "In all your ways, acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight."

The life that is ever conscious of the face of God will find that the pleasure of God is abiding, even as the glory of God is reflected before a watching world. And choosing to be "eco-redemptive" is an area that deserves our intentional investment in righteousness.

Hope this helps,

David

As Serious As You Want To Be?

2008-07-15T15:59:00.000-07:00

The first week of June I was privileged to be an invited participant at the 54th Annual National Security Seminar, held at the U.S. Army War College, on the grounds of historic Carlisle Barracks, near Harrisburg, PA. The week was the final leg in a year-long curriculum designed to put the top 7% of our colonels through their strategic paces. This year's students - 353 strong - included general officers from many foreign countries as well as representatives from the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and a lone Coast Guard officer. All had seen action in Iraq or Affganistan, and many had been brigade commanders. Throughout the year, they took their courses in cohorts (seminars) of 15-18 officers, and I was privileged - along with 6 other "new" members - to be assigned a place in Seminar 20.

Every day we were treated to lectures from outstanding military thinkers and historians, and then spent the rest of the day in free flowing discussions in our seminars. Topics included human rights, the Iraqi War, the U.S. political scene, America's place in the world, and many more. While I did make some contributions to the discussions, I took away much more than I left.

As I have looked back over that amazing week of discussion and tradition, there is one thing that, more than anything, has left a deep, indelible impression on my heart. I came away deeply impressed with the attitude and commitment of the men and women in our seminar. The only way to describe it is a noble, serious intention to see the job accomplished with honor and integrity.

The officers I was pleased to meet and grow to love represented as fine a group of individuals as I have ever known. They were extremely well educated (some had Ph.d's) and yet winsome, and extremely humble. They displayed resolute kindness and courtesy in every situation, even when embroiled in serious debate with others in the seminar. But what stood out was the seriousness with which they spoke of their duty. These men and women were overwhelmed with the serious nature of their tasks, and, as one battalion commander explained to me, "we have to face every task with utmost diligence because when we make mistakes, people go home in boxes." They lived every day with the knowledge that their actions could mean the difference between life and death. So, they studied more, they trained harder, they cast off influences and habits that might undermine their ability to think quickly and correctly. They pushed themselves physically and mentally to be better and better and better knowing that the circumstances they would face would demand every bit of their skill and strength.

I came home and began to compare the way in which guys in my world face their tasks. As pastors, we are also in a battle . . . for the souls of men and women and children, for the soul of a nation, for the redemption of creation. Our mistakes can mean the difference between life and death as well. And our laziness can mean that when the battle is joined, our people stand a good chance of being overwhelmed by temptation, the cares of the world, or worse.

The week at the War College has left me changed, and all for the better. I am more committed than ever to "redeeming" the years left to me, to taking up the cross and following Christ more closely, with more fervor, and with a resolute seriousness to accomplish the task assigned me with honor and integrity ... for His Glory!

Hope this helps,

David

An Evangelical Manifesto

2008-05-10T11:34:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading An Evangelical Manifesto (and you can too, at anevangelicalmanifesto.com). This is yet another treatise presented by a group of Christ-followers that calls other Christ-followers to follow better.

We have had many other declarations and treatises like this, most notably the following: Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT), the Cambridge Declaration (which I was privileged to have a hand in), and The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration just to name three.

Each has had an impact at some level, and this latest one will as well. I would greatly encourage you to read this one, and do so carefully, for it calls us in a different way than did the others. It calls us to more than a doctrinal definition of what it means to be an evangelical Christ-follower, as did the others.

This one speaks to our lives, and the increasingly large gap between who we say we are, and who we really are. Read it, and get involved with the discussion that certainly will follow. For you facebookers, check out the discussion group at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=13163778933.

I think this Evangelical Manifesto is really good, but not because I believe it is a fully-orbed theological presentation of evangelical belief. It isn't and some will take great pains to point that out and try to undermine its credibility. Rather, it is a simple and humbling call to live up to our label as those defined by the Evangel. I signed it, and hope it speaks loudly to more and more who are ready to hear.

Hope this helps,

David