Glenn Beck as been a recent driving force for (neo?) Conservative politics in America. His big push is to bring God back to the center of American life both politically and socially. I understand his sentiment. There is a sense in which I agree.

In recent times when Glenn Beck has spoken on the issue of putting God back into American culture he mentions God, Jesus, the atonement, etc. On the surface, these sound like something Christians should embrace. And they should as far as understood from the biblical Christian perspective. Yet, Glenn Beck is a Mormon and the Mormon definitions of these positions are not the same as the Christian definitions (i.e. see chart below).

As I recall, I’ve written three posts concerning Glenn Beck and his acceptance by Conservative Christianity despite his theology: One Nation Under A Mormon God?, Liberty University, Glenn Beck and the Gospel and The Political Gospel of Glenn Beck and Liberty University? I’m not alone in airing my concerns as a Christian for the integrity of the gospel. However, there has not been much in response to Beck from more popular, visible Christian leaders until now.

Enter fellow Southern Baptist Dr. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice-President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He gives a needed and welcome voice in God, the Gospel, and Glenn Beck. Moore begins:

A Mormon television star stands in front of the Lincoln Memorial and calls American Christians to revival. He assembles some evangelical celebrities to give testimonies, and then preaches a God and country revivalism that leaves the evangelicals cheering that they’ve heard the gospel, right there in the nation’s capital.[Read the whole thing!]

I offer my thank you to Dr. Moore. I appreciate his stand for the gospel in this area. As expected, he is already getting some push back in the comments.

One commenter said:

Much like Moore’s inept commenting on this event, there is an integrity crisis in government leadership and the media which supplies only half truths to appease their audience and leave them clapping (like comments above).

Moore’s comments are not inept, but right on! At the same time I agree that there is an integrity crisis in government leadership and the media. These integrity issues exist on the right and the left and did not appear yesterday. The bigger issue for Christians is that there is an integrity crisis in Christian leadership. Too many find comfort in conservative political ideology as the motivating force for change while the gospel sits waiting for the right laws to be passed. (See my posts above on Beck and Liberty U.) For Christians, the engine for change is not a political rally to call everyone to the generic god of their choosing. Rather, the motivation is the exclusive gospel of Christ.

But it was non-political event says Beck. I’m not sure how a revival rally with a God and Country theme can be non-political. Actually, I wish it were political so that it would be easier to support. The religious themes make such an event difficult to support for this Christian. As one live blogger of the event noted:

Dave Roever closed the rally in prayer. Glenn calls people to “spread the word” after they leave. A gospel tune concludes the rally: Hallelujah, Thank You Jesus. Jo Dee Messina sang “Heaven Was Needing A Hero Lyrics” and “America, the Beautiful”.

The same blogger noted that it was stated at the event that “Mosques, churches, and synagogues must stand for the truth..” What truth is that? Religious truths that don’t ultimately agree? As Beck and his supporters call people of all faiths to turn American back to God my question is – which god will people of many religions turn America to?

I asked Glenn Beck this question on twitter and someone else responded with, “When you are a Christian there is only one God. What God do you worship?” The best reply was sent from a friend who told me, “Right and Glenn Beck is not a Christian!” Although some Christian leaders have asked whether or not those of us who take this position if we’ve heard Beck’s testimony. I’ve heard him claim to be a Mormon. And until I hear his testimony that he no longer believes the Mormon doctrines of God which are redefinitions of the Christian view, I will continue with the position that Beck is not a Christian.

To the issue of Mormonism I don’t think Joseph Smith would hold me or other Christians today in any higher regard than he originally held. He criticized the very professions of faith that are still used today which contain the same doctrines that Christians’ today hold.

In his first vision in 1832, he claimed that God told him not to join any of the churches of his day because “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Official Mormon source)

As Dr. Moore said in his article, “What concerns me is about what this says about the Christian churches in the United States.“

Brief Comparison between Mormonism and Christianity

Related posts:

1. Liberty University, Glenn Beck and the Gospel
2. The Political Gospel of Glenn Beck and Liberty University?
3. One Nation Under A Mormon God?

Should Christians study their sin? Do we have a tendency to take sin for granted? Each person must answer that question for themselves. The answer may become clear upon an individual’s study of their sin.

It reminds me of hearing Paul Washer’s challenge, “Do you have a new relationship with sin? Because, if you don’t have a new relationship with sin, you don’t have a new relationship with God.” In light of this I’ve recently thought about a question that Christians might challenge one another with, “How is your private sin life?” Then, I came across the excerpt below which is a great reflection for the Christian concerning their sin.

If you wish to be thankful, get a heart deeply humbled with the sense of your own vileness. A broken heart is the best pipe to sound forth God’s praise. He who studies his sins, wonders that he has anything, and that God should shine on such a dunghill: “I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man—but I was shown mercy!” 1 Timothy 1:13. How thankful Paul was! How he trumpeted forth free grace!

A proud man will never be thankful. He looks on all his mercies as either of his own procuring or deserving. If he has an estate, this he got by his wits and industry; not considering that scripture, “Always remember that it is the Lord your God who gives you power to become rich” Dt. 8:18. Pride stops the current of gratitude. O Christian, think of your unworthiness; see yourself as the least of saints, and the chief of sinners—and then you will be thankful.
- Thomas Watson, The Godly Man’s Picture excerpt (emphasis mine).

Related posts:

1. What About This Blog?
2. ESV Study Bible Giveaway!
3. Alcholism Vs Legalism

Don’t Waste Your Life Sentence
Voices from the Louisiana State Penitentiary

This video will be streamed live tonight at 7:30 CT/ 8:30 EST. Click here for the live stream location. I’m looking forward to it.

If you want to know more about this powerful trailer, below is the description from the Desiring God website.

The Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, LA is one of the largest and historically one of the most bloody maximum-security prisons in the USA. In 2009, Desiring God and John Piper were invited to Angola to learn about prison life, hear from men who have been radically changed by the gospel, and minister to many of the 5,000 inmates.

In this documentary, be confronted by the realities of men who have squandered their lives and whom society has deemed a waste. Hear firsthand from those who have ruined others’ lives and lost their lives of freedom, yet today are no longer wasting their lives. Be challenged by inmates who seem to have a greater grasp on eternity than those on the outside.

The DVD is available at the DG Store for only $10!

Related posts:

1. Great Night: Don’t Waste Your Life Concert
2. Who Is Watching Your Life?
3. Worship and the Theology of the Cross In One Sentence

What books are being promoted for teens and pre-teens to read these days? Better yet, what books are they actually reading? Are there underlying spiritual issues involved? How do parents handle it? Are parents discerning enough?

As a parent, I am concerned. This brings me to Mark Driscoll’s video below. I appreciate what he has to say. It’s a short clip from a recent sermon. Some have called it a rant. Love him or hate him, here he is.

Do you agree?

Related posts:

1. Sin Sells But Who’s Buying?
2. Christians Laugh Too
3. Good Books from Goodwill

Volume 35, Issue 2 – July 2010 of the Themelios Journal is out! The content looks great. Lots to read. Check it out.

• Minority Report: Not in the Public Interest by Carl Trueman

Suffering, marginalization, and the abuse of power are now the stock in trade not only of literary theorists but also of many theologians, of whom the Liberationists of the sixties and seventies are but the most obvious examples. Indeed, the influence of such academic emphases now finds its place frequently in the classrooms of Protestant theologians of more orthodox and traditional bent.

• B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolutionby Fred G. Zaspel

The advances of various creationist groups and of the intelligent design movement indicate that Christians are still considerably interested in the creation-versus-evolution controversy. Yet we would be mistaken to think that the advance is on the creationist side only. Renowned professor of OT Dr. Bruce Waltke recently made headlines with his remarks that evolution is entirely compatible with Christianity—indeed, with conservative evangelical, even inerrantist Christianity. Waltke warns further that if Christians do not concede the point they will be relegated to the academic ghetto and find that society at large will never take them seriously.1 Clearly, there are no signs that interest in the topic will soon fade.

• Why Evangelicals Should Ignore Brian McLaren: How the New Testament Requires Evangelicals to Render a Judgment on the Moral Status of Homosexuality by Denny Burk

In 2006 on Christianity Today’s leadership blog, Pastor Brian McLaren urged evangelical leaders to find a “Pastoral Response” to their parishioners on the issue of homosexuality. In short, he argued that the Bible is not clear on the moral status of homosexuality and that the ancient ethic of the Christian church offends moderns too much to be useful. He calls, therefore, upon evangelicals to stop talking about the issue. Here he is in his own words:

Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality.

• Biblical Theology and the Ancient Near East: A Symposium on Jeffrey J. Niehaus, Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology- This introduces the next article.

• A Member of the Family or a Stranger? A Review Article of Jeffrey J. Niehaus, Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology by Stephen Dempster

We cannot overstate how important knowing the context is for understanding the significance of any communication, whether that is a simple word, sentence, paragraph, larger text, sign, photograph, or cultural cue. This is axiomatic for interpreting an ancient document like the Bible. Yet it is not so easy since context can mean many things. What context? The social context? The psychological context? The cultural context? The economic and political context? The historical context? The literary context? The full range of possible answers is staggering, which indicates how difficult it is to answer the question. The state of the problem in biblical studies is well known, as the increased knowledge in many areas has created many specialists in various fields in the ancient world as well as the Bible.

• Parallels, Real or Imagined? A Review Article of Jeffrey J. Niehaus, Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology by William Edgar

When I came to Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia as a young student in the 1960s, two things struck me. First, under the portrait of one of the founding fathers, the biblical scholar Robert Dick Wilson, was a simple epithet: “I have not shirked the difficult questions.” Wilson was one of the most accomplished biblical scholars of his day. He made lasting contributions to the linguistic questions surrounding the OT. He was a sharp opponent of what was then called the higher criticism of the Bible, which used rationalist and naturalist assumptions to investigate the Scripture, often finding it to be inaccurate in its historical claims, and thus substituting more plausible, rational schemes than simply divine inspiration, to explain the text we hold in our hand. Wilson was not afraid to look into the many questions raised by higher criticism. Usually they were legitimate ones, and often they were indeed difficult. But he always was able to answer, “I have come to the conviction that no man knows enough to attack the veracity of the Old Testament. Every time when anyone has been able to get together enough documentary ‘proofs’ to undertake an investigation, the biblical facts in the original text have victoriously met the test.”

• How to Write—and How Not to Write—a Review: An Appreciative Response to Reviews of Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology by Dempster and Edgar by Jeffrey J. Niehaus

I want to thank Themelios for the unusual opportunity to interact with two reviewers of my book Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology. An author does not often have the opportunity, not only to join discussion with two reviewers, but also to express and document further some concepts that he may not have expressed as fully as possible in the original work.

• Pastoral Pensées: Motivations to Appeal to in Our Hearers When We Preach for Conversion by D. A. Carson

Most of us, I suspect, develop fairly standard ways, one might even say repetitive ways, to appeal to the motivations of our hearers when we preach the gospel. Recently, however, I have wondered if I have erred in this respect—not so much in what I say as in what I never or almost never say. What follows is in some ways a mea culpa, plus some indication of why I think the topic should be important for all of us.

Before I survey the motivations themselves, I should specify that because the gospel is to be preached to both unbelievers and believers, the motivations that here interest me may be found among both parties. Nevertheless, I shall tilt the discussion toward those motivations of unbelievers to which we should appeal when we preach the gospel to them, aiming, in God’s mercy, at their conversion.

• Book Reviews – 59 of them!

Related posts:

1. Logos Bible Software Giveaway July
2. 9 Marks Journal: Young Pastors
3. Note on T4G 2010

‘Deeds, not creeds’ brings a connotation with it that Christians’ actions carry more weight than their verbalized beliefs.  An older, more popular version is the out of context quote of Francis of Assisi – Preach the gospel always, if necessary use words. (Some question whether he really said it or not.)

There is some wisdom in these ideas, but as stand alone ideologies they don’t actual proclaim the gospel. They do more to show the effect of the gospel in changing lives. People do still need to hear the gospel.

This brings me to the CNN video story below of Tobias Steinmetz. For three months he has been walking across the country carrying an eight-foot, 40-pound, wooden cross. There is a caption in the video under his name that reads ‘Gospel Walker’.

But there is no gospel nor mention of Jesus in the video.

To be fair, it is not known what CNN may have cut out of the video. The larger point, however, is that even while carrying around an eight foot cross the gospel is not readily apparent. Christians can adorn t-shirts, hats, bracelets, bumper stickers, etc. with the Christianized designs they want, but it’s still no substitute for verbally sharing the gospel.

Transcript here.

Related posts:

1. Rick Warren Vs. John Piper on the Gospel
2. Worship and the Theology of the Cross In One Sentence
3. Agreeing with Al Sharpton about the Gospel

Below is an article written by Phillip Jensen, founder of Matthias Media and writer of the gospel outline in Two Ways To Live. Though the article is a few years old I found it extremely relevant and helpful.

Teaching The Bible: Still Unpopular, Still Essential
by Phillip Jensen

Yoga is to Hinduism what Billy Graham is to Christianity. The way we practice our religion will depend very much upon our theology. If God is ‘the force’, then we will attune ourselves to that force; if God is personal, then we will enter into personal relationship with him; and if God speaks, we will live by listening to what he says.

And God said
At the very outset of the Bible, at creation, we begin to see the importance of the word of God. Throughout the Genesis account, we read the recurring phrase, “and God said”. Everything was made in accordance with the mind of God and at God’s expressed direction. The Psalmist tells us that the whole world was created by the Word of God (Ps 33:6). From the beginning of the Bible, we learn that God speaks and that his speech is creative and powerful and working in the universe.

There are more implications from this understanding of God’s nature than just his power and creativity. As God speaks to that part of his creation that is made in his image, it is clear that his words must be listened to, understood and obeyed. Thus humanity hears and responds to the Word of God and God speaks to his people. As the epistle of Hebrews puts it, in many and various ways, God spoke of old to our fathers through the prophets (Heb 1:1). One of the chief glories of the people of Israel is that they have the very oracles of God. And it is one of Israel’s greatest fears that there should be a famine of God’s words (Amos 8:11). In fact, God goes to great length to teach the people of Israel that they do not live except by his Word. We read in Deuteronomy 8:3:

He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live by bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.

In this way, God’s word is active and powerful, achieving its goals and intentions (Is 55:11;Heb 4:12). When God reveals himself in the person of his Son, Jesus is described as the Word of God (Jn 1:1-18). Just as God has spoken in the past by the prophets, he now speaks by his Son (Heb 1:1-4). Jesus, therefore, comes to us as an evangelist, a prophet and a teacher (Mk1:14; Mt 21:11; Jn 3:2). His work is carried out through the preaching of the Gospel, the word of God that goes out into all the world. To this end, Christ gives to people gifts for the ministry of his Word and some people are appointed apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers for the ongoing work of building the body of Christ. Because of these responsibilities, as Peter says, “If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God” (1 Pet 4:11). Paul instructs Timothy to devote himself to “the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching” (1Tim 4:11), for Scripture is “able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus ”and is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” in order that “the man of God be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:15-17).

Our agenda
In the ministry of the gospel, it is important that our agenda is established by the gospel itself, rather than by the world. When we spend all our time alleviating human suffering, or caring for the sick and widows, or in maintaining historical buildings, then the world will be pleased with us. But the last thing the world wants us to talk about is Christ and the last thing it wants to hear is Christian preaching. The preaching and teaching of the Word of God is always unpopular with those who are rebelling against God. It should not, therefore, surprise us that people ridicule sermonizing, pulpiteering, preaching and Bible-bashing.

But we have an important example to follow as we see Christ and the apostles consistently preaching and teaching God’s Word and making hard decisions about their priorities in favour of that ministry. We should pay attention to Paul’s injunction to Timothy to devote ourselves to the public reading, teaching and preaching of the Scriptures. On another occasion, in another context, we might consider the subtle differences between reading, teaching and preaching. However, suffice it to say that the ministry of the gospel is about the prominence of the Word of God.

But what is the aim of teaching the Bible? Much of secular learning today aims at becoming qualified for acceptance in society or acquiring knowledge as an end in itself. However, neither of these is a sufficient aim for teaching and learning from the Scriptures. The Scriptures are given for practical purposes, not as an end in themselves. Knowledge puffs up (1 Cor 8:1). The foolish man hears the words of Christ but does not obey them, whereas the wise man does (Mt 7:24-27). For only the man who does the word of God really understands the Word of God (Jas 1:22-25). It is the Word of God, implanted in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, which brings us new birth and works within us (Jas 1:18, 21; Heb 4:12).Therefore, we must not be using the Word of God in order to acquire academic credit, nor in order to gain knowledge alone. However, the aim of the Word of God is to make us wise unto salvation, to complete and equip us for every good work. As we understand God and his ways, purposes and plans, so we discover how to live in order to please him.

Teaching how to read
Just as it is inadequate to acquire information merely for titillation, so it is inadequate to turn to Scripture simply for rules and regulations about how to live. The Bible itself speaks against such legalism and yet Bible teaching can easily degenerate into a pursuit of moral guidance from the lives of the prophets, kings, apostles and early Christians. But the Bible gives us a library of books with different applications: history, prophecy, wisdom, poetry and law. The whole breadth of biblical understanding must be taught for somebody to be obedient to God.

In order to grasp the overall theme and thrust of the Bible, we need to be careful to read and understand it on its own terms, in its own context. Much has been written in recent years about understanding words in their sentences, sentences in paragraphs, paragraphs in chapters, chapters in books. The principles and procedures for understanding the written text are rightly being emphasized and taught today.

However, we must look not only at grammatical context, but also at historical and theological contexts. The historical context includes our background knowledge of the language, literature and events of the period in which the verse, chapter or book was written. Much of this historical knowledge comes from the Bible itself. It is important for Christians to understand something of the history of Israel and the early church as an aid to understanding the biblical message.

It is even more important to understand the theology of the Bible as a whole. Theology can be understood systematically under certain topics such as God, man, sin, the person of Jesus, the work of Jesus and so on. Or it can be understood within the unfolding pattern of the Bible itself (for example, the covenant of Abraham, Moses and David finding fulfillment in the new covenant brought in by Jesus).

At one level, this theological understanding of context makes Bible reading a very much longer and more difficult task to undertake. Each of the verses we read adds to a mosaic which helps us to comprehend the larger picture. However, at another level, our theological background simplifies Bible reading. When we understand that the central message of the Bible is the person and work of Jesus, which is expressed in the gospel of Jesus, our minds can comprehend the Scriptures both as a whole and in its component books, chapters and verses. In Luke 24:45-49, Jesus opens the minds of the disciples to understand the Scriptures. The key which did the opening was the knowledge that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead, and repentance and forgiveness would be proclaimed to the nations through him.

So how should the Bible be taught? In one sense, little has been said about the methods of Bible teaching since great flexibility in this area is to be encouraged. However, there are some important points to notice.

1. The Word of God is to be declared rather than debated. Certainly, we may use debate, discussion, dialogue and group dynamics in order to understand more clearly what the Bible is saying. But the Bible’s message is to be heard, received and obeyed rather than queried, questioned and altered.
2. The aim of Bible teaching will always be to preach Christ as Lord, with the preacher being the servant of the people for Christ’s sake (2 Cor 4:5). For Christ is the key element to understanding the whole Word of God and it is he, not the preacher, who must be promoted.
3. The preacher’s place must be one of thorough submission, not only to Christ but also to the congregation. The preacher’s authority is Christ himself. That is also the preacher’s message. Therefore, people are called to obey the Word of God, not the preacher. Even with prophetic preaching, such as is referred to in Deuteronomy 13:18 and 1 Corinthians 14, the hearers are to listen with discernment. The aim of hearing the Word of God will be to grow in our understanding so that we might be mature in our thinking, filled with spiritual wisdom and understanding and not easily swayed by the current winds of doctrine. The preacher’s role is one of submission and his authority over the people of God rests in his teaching, in order that they be ruled by the Word of God.
4. The preacher must exemplify the message that is being preached. Paul constantly points to himself as the model of the message that he speaks (e.g. 1 Thess 2). In the appointment of elders, he directs both Timothy (1Tim 3) and Titus (Tit 1) to look for people who exemplify the godliness that should come from hearing and obeying the Word of God.
5. Paul demonstrates for us the way we should relate to the people of God. He is not only their servant, but their loving servant. His concern for Christians is shown in his prayers, in his anxieties and in his letters. Jesus is also moved with compassion at the shepherdless sheep that he sees in front of him. We do not teach the Word of God in a vacuum, but to the people whom we are serving. The proper motivations of an elder are spelt out in 1 Peter 5:4. Church leaders will do well to test themselves against these verses.
6. The Bible must be taught with immense care, knowing that teachers are judged with great strictness (Jas 3:1ff).
7. We must continue, patiently enduring the consequences of teaching God’s Word. We mustn’t grow weary in well doing, for in due time we will reap as we have sown. However, ministry of the Word of God is fraught with difficulties and opposition. Frequently, the outcome of our scattering of seed is, in the short term, poor. But in the long term, to the glory of God, it is plentiful.

Copyright 2010 phillipjensen.com
Reproduced with permission from phillipjensen.com
original article

Related posts:

1. Write Your Own Message Bible
2. Sermon listening
3. Frank Page: Calvinism Manmade Not Bible-based

J.D. Greear has written Artistry, Excellence, and the Mission in which he asks – What is the role of artistic excellence in a local church’s “production”?

This is not a new question in today’s culture. Nor will it be going away anytime soon. The production factor in the lives of Americans continues to increase. Millions of dollars are spent to produce special effects for movies as a lure to fish for more of the almighty dollar. But should it be a way to fish for people for the Almighty God?

That question won’t be decided here. (Well, maybe someone will decide in the comments!) Greear provides a balanced view of production for a church’s message. He concludes with:

But this is where we’ve ended up as a church… we do spend money on production and art, but only as is necessary to communicate the message and propagate the mission. We know that, at the end of the day, the real power is not in the medium, but in the Spirit and the Gospel.

I appreciate Greear’s conclusion. I probably line-up very well with it. I’m sure some will disagree. It seems a case can be made for the primacy of preaching in the worship service. This means that the message would be lost without preaching. It also seems that if the message is dependent upon the production there could be a loss of its meaning.

Others would argue that in our day of visual productions, a la Hollywood, that such a medium will better reach and teach people. This seems like a good point. It makes sense on the surface. However, as Christians we should seek out what Scripture tell us about communicating God’s message.

I want to look at this issue from a different angle that compares the culture of today with that of the early church. Let’s grant the cultural, pragmatic argument for a moment. Didn’t the early church have a culture in which public productions were popular? If so, why did we not see the early church adapt certain cultural trends of dramatic production to reach more people more effectively?

For example, there are many Ancient Greek dramatists and playwrights long before Jesus and the Apostles. There is also the Septuagint which was translated during the Hellenistic Period. The early church was no stranger to Greek culture i.e. a Greek New Testament, churches in Rome and Ephesus.

Culturally, it’s not hard to find find an article on 14 Ancient Theatres of Greek Roman Antiquity which states:

The theater originates from the city-state of Athens where it was used for festivals honoring the god Dionysus and the famous Athenian tragedy, comedy, and satyr plays. The Romans, being a little bit less philosophical in spirit than the Greek, wanted more pure entertainment with lots of laughs and excitement. Popular entertainments in Roman times included mime plays, acrobatics, jugglers, animal fights and gladiator fights although the later two were more common in the Roman amphitheater.

There is even the Great Theater, Ephesus which is considered a sacred destination.

…this is traditionally where St. Paul preached against the pagans.

Herod’s Theater was a first century theater built in Jerusalem.

Herod the Great built a marvelous theater in Jerusalem’s Upper City. It was a large auditorium with no roof and semicircular rows of seats ascending from the center stage. Wealthy Jews came there to watch the best of Greek and Roman drama.

Given the cultural significance of productions before and during the early church it seems the cultural argument for production in today’s worship service loses some force. The Apostle Paul obviously knew the secular poets of his day cf. Acts 17:28. While we see Paul using these poets in evangelism we don’t see this in corporate worship gatherings.

Using Greek drama and others acts would seem to have drawn in both Greek and Jew to a worship service. Yet it’s curiously absent from the biblical and historical record. I wonder if the early church had an understanding of – what you win them with is what you win them to?

Does this mean churches should use absolutely no production in worship service? Not necessarily. Part of the answer may lie in just what kind of production is being considered. I agree with Greear that the real power lies in the Holy Spirit and the gospel. Of course, God can use any means to win souls. However, the record shows that the norm for winning souls has not been through production but through preaching.

I’d love to hear some other views on this. What are your thoughts?

Related posts:

1. Patriotic Worship
2. Worship Your Way
3. Why Worship?

Recently, brother Les Puryear posted an article on the issue of altar calls – Differences Between Reformed and Southern Baptist Churches: Altar Calls vs No Altar Calls. Please not that Les calls himself a Calvinist, but not Reformed which is a fair position. As one might imagine from the title some debate took place in the comment section.

I like Les. I’ve met him and talked to him a few times over the past couple of years. Though I want to point out that he has made a very unhelpful and inaccurate comment in concluding the above referenced article.

If your church doesn’t want to invite people to Christ during a worship service then go ahead and call a reformed pastor to your church. But if you want for everyone to have an opportunity to come to Christ during all worship services, call a traditional Southern Baptist pastor.

These two statements conflate the altar call and the proclamation of the gospel for sinners to repent and believe. Even worse is the implication that a Reformed pastor does not preach the gospel during worship services. (It is not just Reformed pastors who are uncomfortable using an altar call.) Also note that Les is actually doing what he says traditional Southern Baptist pastors don’t do. Earlier in the article he states:

There is no SBC pastor who believes “walking the aisle,” praying a prayer, marking a commitment card, or any other methods is what saves anyone.

I agree with this statement, yet the two previous sentences imply that without an altar call from Reformed pastors there will be no opportunity for anyone to come to Christ. I.e. no altar call by the Reformed pastor equals no invitation to come to Christ. Even so, I don’t think Les believes that an altar call is what is doing the saving. It seems that in his zeal to show that Southern Baptists and Reformed Baptists are mutually exclusive groups, he’s made an error along with a very unkind painting of Reformed pastors. It’s actually not a Reformed versus Baptist issue.

Baptists Vs.

As a reference point, Christianity Today’s Walk the Aisle by Douglas A. Sweeney and Mark C. Rogers gives a brief background of the altar call.

Successful evangelists such as George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, and John Wesley never gave an altar call. In fact, they did not even know what it was. They invited their hearers passionately to come to Christ by faith and regularly counseled anxious sinners after their services. But they did not call sinners to make a public, physical response after evangelistic appeals.

Note that none of these men were Baptists. Yet, according to this article, their methodology did not include an altar call. The Lord saved many through their ministries though.

Methodists experienced exponential growth during the first 20 years of the 1800s partly because of their evangelistic methods, including camp meetings and altar calls.

Many people consider Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875) to be the “father” of the altar call. Ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1823, Finney did not begin giving public invitations until long after Methodists had made the altar call a regular part of their camp meetings.

Considering these statement in light of the current Reformed vs. Southern Baptist – would some Methodists would not consider Wesley a true or traditional Methodist? And Finney, a Presbyterian in name only, was certainly no Baptist.

As I understand it the main issue some have with altar calls are their abuse, not necessarily their use. It’s not hard to find stories of abuse. I’ve personally witnessed abuse with the sinner’s prayer. Given that abuse of certain evangelistic methods do exist for some this may translate into not using these methods at all. However, method should not be the real issue.

Invitation Equals Proclamation

The real issue is whether or not the gospel is proclaimed. An invitation is a proclamation of the gospel for sinners to repent and believe in Christ for the forgiveness of sins and salvation. The altar call is just one method through which the gospel may be presented. An altar call may be done well or it may be done poorly. Its absence does not mean there is not an invitation.

The understanding that the altar call method does not save anyone furthers the point that this method is not needed. Not that it can’t be used, but that it is not necessary. If one makes the use of an altar call a hill upon which to die while adamantly denying the method itself has any power, then what on that hill is being protected?

An ironic observation on this issue is that the Reformed (and non-Reformed) that I am familiar with choose not to use an altar call though think it can be used as long as the gospel is presented. Then, there are others who are  not Reformed, like brother Les, who essentially deny that Reformed pastors preach the gospel since the altar call is absent.

There will be disagreement in methods among different churches. These disagreements are present in churches that are Southern Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. As I see it, the main concern for any church is not whether or not an unbeliever is called to walk the aisle, but whether or not they are called to walk with Christ.

Mark

P.s. Andy Naselli has some helpful resources on the altar call.
P.p.s. Dr. James Galyon offers a helpful analysis in What is an Invitation?

Related posts:

1. The Altar Question: Southern Baptists and Others?
2. Being More Holy: Forward to the Altar Steps
3. John 3:16 Conference, Together for the Gospel and Poor Arguments

Someone is always predicting the end of the world. It reminds me of the chorus from that Telsa song Signs.

Signs, signs, everywhere there’s signs

Some people don’t need signs. They just need a little math to predict Judgment Day. For example, Harold Camping has some math in his article JUDGMENT DAY which has the wonderful subtitle: THE END OF THE WORLD IS ALMOST HERE! HOLY GOD WILL BRING JUDGMENT DAY ON MAY 21, 2011.

Seven thousand years after 4990 B.C. (the year of the Flood) is the year 2011 A.D. (our calendar).

4990 + 2011 – 1 = 7,000

[One year must be subtracted in going from an Old Testament B.C. calendar date to a New Testament A.D. calendar date because the calendar does not have a year zero.]

What I can’t figure out is if Camping is using New Math or not. And if my discovery of the Dow sitting at 6.66 on Google Finance changes the equation at all.

We just never know some things.

Related posts:

1. Dividing Line Listeners: Math Made Easy
2. To Sign Or Not To Sign
3. Who Are They Really Angry At?

Upon discovering Dr. Norman Geisler’s first defense of Dr. Ergun Caner I wondered how he would address the evidence. Some responded that Geisler did not answer well and ignored the context of some of Dr. Caner’s statements.

Geisler then responded with a follow-up article – In Further Defense of Ergun Caner. He attempted to seemingly explain away some of the context of Caner’s statements. Given the notable contributions of Dr. Geisler to Christian apologetics over the years I wondered if he might evaluate pseudo-Christian cult claims in the same manner. Below are two examples from a book by Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino that evaluate the theological claims of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Note the carefulness in which these claims are evaluated. (Bold emphasis mine.)

Some people believe that Jesus was an angel. The following quote gives the basis for why the Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, insist that Jesus was actually Michael, the archangel:

At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael. Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ. [Reasoning From the Scriptures (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985), 218 (emphasis added)]

First, the entire text of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is not quoted. The complete verse reads, “For the Lord Himself will come down from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God.” To be consistent with their interpretive method, they should also conclude that Jesus is a trumpet, for we are told that Jesus the lord will be coming “with” the archangel Michael and “with” the trumpet call of God. If the Watchtower is correct and Jesus is coming “as” (and not “with”) the archangel, then He must also be coming “as” (and not “with”) the trumpet. – Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino, Unshakable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions about the Christian Faith (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House, 2000), 291.

Note the words in bold. The authors are careful to read the entire context and complete verse. They are also very particular in pointing out the words “with” and “as” and their meaning in relation to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claims. Not only is completeness and context in focus, but the smallest words are scrutinized as they contribute to the actual meaning the claims.

Referring back to Hebrews 1:6-8, even though the text clearly states that Jesus is to be worshiped by “all God’s angels,” including Michael, the Watchtower teaches that when Michael was brought into the world as a man, the “rest” of the angels worshiped him. This qualification is not in the text. If this view were correct, the contrast given in verse eight, “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God’…” would seem to indicate that Michael is being called God. Yet this is not what the Watchtower teaches. So in order to explain this dilemma, they tell us that this verse should be translated, “God is your throne” and not “Your throne, O God.” Now, it is possible to translate this verse in that manner, depending on the context of the passage. But the context is clearly against it, since it attributes deity to Christ (Hebrews 1:2-3, 8). – Ibid, 294.

Again, note the carefulness of the authors to seek out the meaning of words within their context. Even in the admission of a possible alternate translation of “Your throne, O God” the appeal is to the context for a correct translation. Comparing the above approach from Unshakable Foundations seems inconsistent with Dr. Geisler’s recent article In Further Defense of Ergun Caner. For example, in the first three points of this article the inconsistency in method may be seen within the answers themselves.

1. Ergun Caner claimed to have been born in Istanbul when he was actually born in Sweden.
Response: All of Caner’s books (see Unveiling Islam, 17) and nearly all of his interviews and sermons state that he was born in Sweden. Since both Ergun and his father were Turkish citizens, he strongly identified with that ancestry. Thus, an occasional misspoken word about his birthplace is understandable. Nonetheless, Ergun publically apologized for this and other mistakes on February 25, 2010 (see “Sixth” below).

2. Caner claimed to have once lived in Ankara (Turkey) and along the Iraqi border which he did not.
Response: Ergun traveled with his father to Turkey several times. Later, he was along the Iraqi border as he said he was. It should not be deemed strange that Ergun has spent time in Turkey. After all, he has a Turkish father and was a Turkish citizen who came to America on a Turkish passport. This allegation against him is a mere assumption without evidence which illustrates the desire to defame Ergun by his critics.

3. He claimed to have watched Dukes of Hazard and longed to marry Daisy Duke while growing up in Turkey before the show was even on TV in 1979.
Response: This statement was intended as humor and was taken as such by the audience. Indeed, Ergun has made this joke for more than a decade and never once was it taken as a matter of fact. He was illustrating the misconceptions between Americans and Muslims.

Briefly. On point 1, no actual context is given to support the claims of misspeaking. In what context was the claim of being born in Turkey made? One would need the complete context just as the “complete verse” is read above.

On point 2, the final claim is assumption without evidence yet Geisler’s defense offers no evidence. Note the different words “lived” and “traveled” and their actual meaning. The full context of Caner’s statements are needed to explain if there is any sense in which “lived” and “traveled” may be interchanged. Or, if one were really intended over the other. This is similar to the “with” and “as” example above.

On point 3, how would one know without the context if this statement was intended as humor? Further, with all of the audio and video of Caner going around it would seem that this alleged joke would show up more than a few times.

The intention here is not to give a point-by-point rebuttal of Dr. Geisler’s points. That has been done here – Rebutting Norman Geisler regarding Dr. Ergun Caner. The intention is to compare some of the evaluation methods used in Unshakable Foundations to the methods Dr. Geisler used in his recent defense of Dr. Caner. Had Geisler’s recent method of defense for Caner been applied to the Jehovah’s Witnesses example above the end result would have been a failure. If Jehovah’s Witnesses, or any other pseudo-Christian religion, get to define words apart from their context or even remove part of the context then how can their be any real defense, dialogue or disagreement in talking about Christianity?

A better question to consider may be – Who should be held to the higher standard? Should Christians be more relaxed in their approach with other Christians compared to groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses? Christians have a common worldview through the cross and Scripture. High biblical standards and consistency seems a given in the Christian worldview, especially, among leaders. If Christian’s can’t hold themselves to such standards how can they expect the outside world to listen and take their eternal warnings seriously? It is only by and because of the grace of God that Christians can be held to such standards.

P.s. Phil Johnson weighs in with Evangelical Bunko Artists: How I Learned the Hard Way that Pious Gullibility Is No Virtue. He writes -

When I read Dr. Geisler’s articles on the Caner scandal, it brought to mind a meeting I had with Dr. Geisler during the big Council on Biblical Inerrancy convention in San Diego in 1982. I was still working for Moody Press at the time, and Dr. Geisler was one of our authors. I needed to meet with him to discuss the cover design for Moody’s re-release of A General Introduction to the Bible. That question was settled fairly quickly, and then we had a long discussion over dinner about the state of evangelicalism. The Crying Wind scandal came up in our conversation that evening, and Dr. Geisler expressed his dismay over the pious gullibility of evangelicals.

He was exactly right about that. [Read the whole thing...]

Related posts:

1. Beyond Geisler & Olson by James Swan
2. Ergun goes Bananas for Calvinism?
3. The Final Apologetic

Dr. Michael Youssef answers the questions, “How can you say America is a Christian Nation? How can a country be Christian?” in Can there be a Christian nation?

He answers that it is the individuals, not a country or culture, that are Christian. He explains that people refer to America’s Christian heritage by the moral virtues as seen in its laws and ordinances.

He then goes on to write about evoking God’s response with the following:

Make no mistake about it: the moral character of a nation, as expressed in its policies and laws, can evoke God’s response. I don’t mean that our heavenly Father would send fire and brimstone from heaven in response to a nation that embraces ungodly laws and policies. But He can and will withdraw His protection from a people who once declared Him as their Lord and then become rebellious and an immoral affront to Him.

How should one think biblically about Dr. Youssef’s statements in this article and some of the statements on his Covenant to Pray for America site? I think we should pray for America and have given my thoughts on just how the Apostle Paul may have prayed in Inauguration Day.

But there is more to think about.

Laws put in place do not change the hearts of people. The Apostle Paul was zealous for God’s law, yet he need Christ. The rich young ruler kept God’s law, yet he needed Christ. Even keeping God’s law did not earn favor with God.

So I wonder. Can America earn God’s favor based on the character of its laws? What would God’s favor look like in the Nation? Can a Nation actually repent in a manner pleasing to God without receiving Christ?

Related posts:

1. One Nation Under A Mormon God?
2. Apostle Paul On Inauguration Day
3. A Memorial Day Prayer

Is it possible to get arrested for driving an illegal immigrant to a church service under Arizona law SB1070? This is what E. J. Montini proposes at The Arizona Republic in his article Church, state clash coming under SB 1070. Montini begins:

“The first person arrested under SB 1070 might not be an illegal immigrant, but your pastor.”

Why?

“Among other things, SB 1070 makes it a crime to knowingly transport, harbor, conceal or shield an illegal immigrant if you do so while committing a separate criminal offense.”

How?

“If a church bus or van has a broken taillight or makes an illegal U-turn – in other words, commits a separate criminal offense – while illegal immigrants are onboard, it’s possible the driver could be charged.”

I am not an attorney nor do I play one online I do not know how possible this scenario may be. As the old adage goes – anything is possible. The Arizona section of The Unofficial DMV Guide it states:

“Chances are good that you know when you are doing something worthy of a criminal penalty. These violations fall into two categories: misdemeanors, such as reckless driving or DUI, and felonies, such as not stopping when a peace officer commands you to pull over.”

If indeed the law is not clear on what constitutes a criminal penalty this becomes an even tougher issue. Yet, the article in question explains that SB1070 says if one knowingly assists an illegal immigrant that charges may come. I suppose if someone on the way to church knowingly stopped at a convenience store for their passenger quickly rob the store would also be charged as an accessory. Most people are not in the habit of asking friends and acquaintances if they recently committed a crime or have some sort of an illegal status.

A larger issues, as Montini notes, is found in a lawsuit against SB1070 “based on the notion that the law inhibits First Amendment freedom to worship.” Is this a First Amendment issues which states in part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

As long as there is a law deeming certain immigration statuses as illegal I’m not sure how this violates the First Amendment. It would seem if this were the case that no person who commits an illegal act could be arrested while on their way to a religious worship service.

And Christians?

Despite the potential legalities, how should Christians think and act about illegal immigrants? Should Christians knowingly aid illegal immigrants? Should we have a don’t ask don’t tell policy? What should be done if someone is found out to be in the U.S. illegally?

If the illegals are Christians should they be encouraged to obey the law and return to their country? Or, if we don’t agree with the law should it just be ignored? How far should Christians go?

Considering the human element involved these are not easy questions to answer. I’d love to hear some reflections on these issues.

What do you think?

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Church Staff An Illegal Immigrant
2. Black Church White Church
3. Ethics: Resign Church Membership To Avoid Discipline

On April 23, 2010 Liberty University announced that Glenn Beck would deliver the Commencement speech for Liberty University’s Class of 2010. The graduation took place on Saturday, May 15. Beck’s speech can be viewed online at The Rightscoop.

Success came early for Beck when just before his speech, Liberty conferred an honorary Doctorate of Humanities degree upon him. Beck then went on to speak to the more than 4,000 students present.

The result of the Commencement speech?

Best commencement we’ve ever had.

Said Jerry Falwell, Jr., Chancellor of Liberty University. It seems Beck and the Liberty officials were happy. It seems the graduating students were also pleased judging by the their reactions during the speech. Given Beck’s political leanings and entertainment value this is understandable. However, it wasn’t all smiles for everyone.

Some concerned Christians spoke up. A most interesting passing reply to these concerned Christians came from a Liberty official. On, April 23, the same day of the announcement, Ergun Caner, President of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary responded via twitter.

Glenn Beck at the LU Graduation! Love it! And I’m loving the snarking of the haters. LU folk: rejoice when they revile!

Given the nature of the concern for Beck speaking at Liberty this reply does not make a lot of sense. Caner may have been referring to Matthew 5:11 or another part of Scripture. This would be even more troubling since Christians are to rejoice when persecuted for Christ’s sake. Given that Beck is a Mormon it should be difficult for any Christian to rejoice in such manner.

One example of concern comes from a Florida pastor who was part of this graduating class. He shared his feelings at – Point of View: Why Glenn Beck is wrong for Liberty University’s commencement. His first paragraph lays out the crux of the concern.

For those who may not be aware, Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., which has consistently been known for its strong conservative and Christian values as a Baptist school, has invited political talk show host Glenn Beck to give the commencement speech to its graduates this week. On the surface that may not seem alarming to many since he is conservative. But given the fact he is a Mormon there ought to be red flags and sirens going off all across Christian circles.

Were this pastor’s concerns valid? After all, it was a Commencement speech given from a person who basically shares the same politically and socially conservative worldview as his audience. Non-Christians can speak truths in these areas. Can we agree on that? Even James White points this out about non-Christians speaking truth while addressing a different issue after the fact in Can Unbelievers Speak Truth?

Can an atheist speak truth? If he says “2+2=4″ is the statement less true than if a Christian said the same thing?

What is interesting about White’s post is that he is combating claims that information received from a Muslim can be true regardless of its source. In this case, the information from a Muslim is being used to analyze some of Ergun Caner’s teachings on Islam. If it is wrong for White to reference a Muslim to merely fact check, how can it then be acceptable for Liberty to use a Mormon to promote its agenda through a speech? However, fact checking versus partnering with a non-Christian who calls on the name of Jesus and His gospel, as will be shown below, are two very different things. Where is the outrage? But I digress.

Concerning Words

Are the concerns of the pastor quoted above, as well as that of other Christians, valid? On the surface the answer is an easy “yes” since Christians and Mormons don’t mix doctrinally. However, since this situation concerns Liberty University it is probably best to seek their own perspective on these issues.

The Message From the Chancellor states:

Liberty University is the largest and fastest growing Christian Evangelical university in the world. …vision to train young Champions for Christ. … Everything we do is designed to develop Christ-centered men and women with the values, knowledge and skills essential to impact tomorrow’s world.

From the LU Distinctives point 2:

A commitment to training visionary champions for Christ. Chapel and convocation speakers are leaders from the worlds of business, education, athletics, government, many professions and the Gospel ministry. These champions join hands with our faculty and chancellor in challenging Liberty students to become visionaries and to win the world for Christ from their vocational platforms.

And a final example, from their Mission:

To develop Christ-centered men and women with the values, knowledge, and skills essential to impact tomorrow’s world.

Liberty desires to develop Christ-centered graduates that can take the gospel into all walks of life. This is a great biblical, praiseworthy goal. Yet, a Mormon gave the Commencement speech for this year’s graduating class. A Commencement is when the students are conferred their degrees from the school. Although some may say it was only a Commencement speech, it may also be one of the last speeches those graduates hear as they are sent out into the world for Christ.

Did Beck say anything troubling or confusing? Jerry Falwell, Jr. introduced Beck by conferring the honorary doctorate due to Beck’s “tireless efforts to preserve the American ideal.” I would probably agree with this American ideal, yet how does this relate to Liberty’s Christ-centered vision?

Beck begins explaining:

I want you to know that I understand that the invitation to speak today is not meant as an endorsement of my faith. But I also want you to understand, that my agreeing to speak here today is an endorsement of your faith.

This is a very interesting statement. It lays the ground work for Beck to bridge a theological divide. He goes on to say that “we need to find the things that unite us…” He finds these commonalities by using biblical terms.

The Spirit is an amazing tool. Rely on God. Do your own work and ask Him, is this right? He will reveal the truth. … The Lord gave us these rights.

Beck references George Whitefield as an amazing man and explains how he reminds him of Moses. He then explains how he recently went to the Scriptures to read about Moses. While describing how he might have reacted if he were in Moses’ shoes he references himself as God’s child. At one point he exclaims:

Turn to God and live!

After pausing for applause, he goes on to repeat this statement. After challenging the students to make the most of their life he tells of a Scripture passage that changed his life, Ezekiel 33. He explains how the Lord must be our shield. Then come some troubling words.

Root ourself in the gospel. Put our feet in the gospel of peace, but be unmovable. Stand for liberty.

Minutes later Beck starts talking about the importance of the atonement. He states how powerful it is and how it will change your life. He moves back to Moses and his interaction with God repeating the “Look to God and live” line. Beck closes the speech reading a journal entry he wrote to his daughter. This consumes about the last 10 minutes of the speech with references to God and biblical truths.

Beck is entertaining, funny, serious and emotional. His final words are:

I leave these things with you in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Amen.

Blurring the Gospel

Intentional or not, this was a masterful move for Beck, a Mormon, to speak to Christians on their turf using biblical language. Beck issued the caveat at the beginning that he knew the Liberty crowd did not accept his faith, yet he went on to speak as if they did accept his faith. Brilliant for Beck, not so much for Liberty. Two different Jesus’ along with two different gospels were portrayed as one. And Christians wonder why the world is confused about the gospel?

The world sees a uniting around conservative “American ideals” couched in biblical language. Ironically, this approach to push for conservative values is similar to liberal Christianity’s push for liberal values through their agendas. There is little difference in blurring the gospel in liberal circles through movements like “social justice” compared to blurring it through various conservative agendas.

This is exactly how the gospel was blurred. Falwell gave Beck a platform based on Beck’s fight for American ideals. Beck went on to talk more about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the atonement, the gospel, etc. than he did about American ideals. He even called people to “turn to God and live.” Which god is Beck calling people to? The god of American idealism? Beck’s god of Mormonism? Beck assumed a common gospel from a common Lord which turns out to be no gospel at all.

It is disappointing the the world’s largest Evangelical Christian university had a Mormon come and speak about the gospel. Are accomplished Christian’s so few that none were available? Does Liberty really believe in the power of the gospel to change and influence lives? Or, is it more important to focus on and unite around social/political issues? Change laws, change lives? Change values, change lives? What happens if American society today collapses and our freedoms lost? Will the world have no hope until the freedoms are restored? Or will the gospel flourish under persecution as it did in times past and in other parts of the world today?

Liberty should have called Glenn Beck to repent and believe the good news rather than to represent and retrieve his views. Christians must regain the trust in the power of the gospel, not in its assumption. No matter the social/political circumstances the gospel of Jesus Christ provides the greatest hope of all.

Brief Comparison between Mormonism and Christianity

(Glenn Beck photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Related posts:

1. The Political Gospel of Glenn Beck and Liberty University?
2. Thoughts on Moore on Glenn Beck and the Gospel
3. Extra: Baptists to Debate Calvinism at Liberty!

Update: One of my facebook “friends” commented (seemingly at random): If a Pentecostalist, Arminian, Charismatic, Revivalist, or Anabaptist, please defriend or delete me. Or send me your name. I’ll help you.

That is the unhelpful attitude the articles below address.

There are two recent articles for the Calvinist to consider. The first is from the recent WSC Monthly features an article by W. Robert Godfrey, Ph.D. entitled Real Calvinism: A Head and Heart Religion. Dr. Godfrey begins

“Strong on doctrine and scholarship, but weak on life, evangelism and passion.” Too frequently this is the popular image of Calvinism. Contemporary Calvinists may sometimes be responsible for perpetuating this image. In their eagerness for theological precision some Calvinists seem to want to turn their churches into theological debating societies. To the extent the popular image is accurate, contemporary Calvinists have ceased to be genuine Calvinists.

Sadly, this is an all too accurate assessment of many Calvinists. The doctrines of grace may be turned into the doctrines of pride. I’ve pulled out some key points that Godfrey explains should exemplify Calvinism as it is lived out in one’s life.

• head and heart
• warm piety
• examined life
• holy life
• sound doctrine
• truth
• humility
• righteousness

Godfrey gives today’s Calvinist some important considerations.

Read the whole thing…

The second article is called Truly Reformed by Pastor Ray Ortlund. He begins

I believe in the sovereignty of God, the Five Points of Calvinism, the Solas of the Reformation, I believe that grace precedes faith in regeneration. Theologically, I am Reformed. Sociologically, I am simply a Christian – or at least I want to be. The tricky thing about our hearts is that they can turn even a good thing into an engine of oppression. It happens when our theological distinctives make us aloof from other Christians. That’s when, functionally, we relocate ourselves outside the gospel and inside Galatianism.

Read the whole thing…

Are Godfrey and Ortlund right? Would heeding their advice change the face of Calvinism?

A more curious question is – would it change the perspective of the non-Calvinist and the anti-Calvinist?

Related posts:

1. Frank Page: Calvinism Manmade Not Bible-based
2. Calvinism or Just a John 3:16 Kind of Guy II
3. George Bryson, Doug Wilson & Calvinism: Selective Quoting

Below is a hip-hop song dealing with something we are all familiar with. Racial segregation on Sunday morning in our local churches. The song is from Voice’s new album Christ the King.

Black Church White Church by avoice

Below is the third verse of the song. Whatever version of American English you speak, whatever your race, the content of this verse will probably be all too familiar.

Black church white church, news flash you are Christ’s church. So the color is red that you stand by, bloodshed nuff said hold your head high. Waves your hands by, to how life was, be high on Christ that’s the right buzz. Church segregation ain’t the right love, separation is really hating Christ’s love. We don’t go there, fill in the blank, and fill in the blank their music ain’t. Divided by cultural preferences is all us it is not what his message is. He called us to preach gospel sentences, so all must, complete what repentance is. Cuz we show the world that the Lord is real, or we show the world we got a fake appeal. Listen you were made in God’s image, before any man saw you as an image. So who you are is not who you are, and what defines you should behind you. Accept Christ, so what you thinking that in eternity it matters if you white or black? He made us, for better status, and our color’s red so let’s move ahead. (Source)

Some of you may be interested in hearing a panel discussion lead by Aaron Menikoff. The took place in December 2009 with Tony Carter of East Point Church and Felix Lora of the Sandy Springs Mission on the topic Multiculturalism and the Local Church (mp3).

What can be done about racial division in the local church? How do we “fix” it? Can it be “fixed” this side of Christ’s return? What can Christians do?

(HT: JT)

Related posts:

1. A Look at Passion City Church
2. The Final Apologetic
3. Passion Church Part 2

Heavenly Father, as an American, thank you for this great country. I am not proud, but humbled, that in Your sovereignty I was born in such a Nation. Thank You for those serving in the military that you have used to help raise up and protect America. Thank you for those men and women in our military who were willing to give their lives and who gave their lives to fight to keep this country free. It is a great service to lay down one’s life for others. Father, as a Christian, this is a great reminder of the incomparable sacrifice of Jesus dying for sinners. I pray for the American Christian, that as their heart weeps for the American military that their hearts would weep for Jesus sacrifice, not on special occasions, but on a daily basis. I pray that those Christians serving in our military would motivated by Jesus sacrifice to both share and live out the gospel among their fellow servicing men and women. I pray that they would serve showing the hope of Jesus Christ that is within them. Please protect all of those serving and give wisdom and guidance to our President to make proper and well informed decisions for our military. Father, help the church to not squander these freedoms You have provided. Forgive us for using these freedoms to indulge ourselves and to sin against You. Help us to use these freedoms for Your glory to carry out the Great Commission. Help us to be a light within our Nation that we me go out and be light among the Nations. I ask in the name of Your Son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

[Further thoughts: A Christian view of Memorial Day]

Related posts:

1. Memorial Day 2009 Worship Service
2. Fatherhood: Appreciation, Humility, Ministry, Reflections
3. On serving others

In 2006, Modern Reformation Magazine provided two articles from a series entitled Mercy Ministries: Two Perspectives. The articles were written by William H. Smith and Randy Nabors. I’ve numbered them I and II, respectively, and linked them below with selective quotes and bullet points.

In article I, Smith argues that the mercy ministry of the church is primary to its members. He explains that the church’s service is to one another in word and sacrament rather than serving the world in word and deed.

In article II, Nabors argues that the church needs to focus outside of its walls to show the world its good deeds in the name of Christ. He explains that this is the Christian faith lived out in the world.

I. Kyrie Eleison by William H. Smith

What I am willing to take my life into my hands to question is the contention that both Word (proclamation of the gospel) and deed (deeds of mercy done to and for nonbelievers) are the mission of the church and necessary to give a full and credible vindication of its message. Mercy ministry is becoming a virtual fourth mark of the church-the pure preaching of the Word, the right administration of the sacraments, the faithful exercise of discipline-and something like a housing assistance program, a food bank, a jobs training program, or a homeless shelter.

• Christians sharing possessions
• Deacons for Christian community
• Especially to household of faith
• Lay down life for brothers
• Mission to make disciples

II. For Goodness Sake, Do Something! by Randy Nabors

I would submit that such negative arguments spring from an undeveloped theology of the church, a defective theology of missions, and the absence of a theology of mercy. We are called to be a new community, to be a body of believers. We are called to help the widows in our midst (1 Tim. 5:3-16); we are given the example of sharing with other congregations who face hard times (I Tim. 6:18); and pastors are instructed to “command” those who are rich in this world to be rich in good deeds. We are given the model in Acts 6 of an ethnic and pragmatic solution to a mercy need within and by the local congregation. We see the community of Israel, as a nation, condemned for a hypocritical practice of religion by not sharing their food with the hungry (Isa. 58). How can we be seen as a “city”(Matt. 5:14-16) if we do not do good works corporately? Congregations are designed by God to be public entities that people see, and unfortunately many of our congregations are “cities” which are seen to do nothing but for themselves.

• Tutoring programs
• Job partnership programs
• Prison reentry programs
• HIV/AIDS care
• Hospice care

Neither author is arguing to neglect one group for the other. Both are concerned with the gospel, the church and the world. Each just sees a different prescription as how the Christian life and focus should look.

I lean towards agreeing with Smith in article I as he seems to make a stronger biblical case. These are important considerations and conversations that can be very edifying for those on both sides.

Where do you stand and why?

Related posts:

1. Are Megachurches Healthier?
2. Church attendance and the Super Bowl: two questions
3. Black Church White Church

How many times does a mother say,”Billy, share your toys with Bobby” or “Bobby, you musn’t grab toys from Billy like that”? As Billy and Bobby grow older, they learn that such obvious acts of selfishness are socially unacceptable, so their selfish acts become more subtle, but the problem is still there. Even after we become Christians, we still have the flesh that wars against the Spirit, and one of its expressions is selfishness. [Jerry Bridges, Respectable Sins: Confronting the Sins We Tolerate (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2007), 101-2.]

Bridges words certainly ring true. Kevin Luthardt’s book cover for Mine! boils selfishness down to a vivid picture. While Jesus tells us in Mark 10:15 that we are to have a childlike faith He does not tell us to have childlike sins. Maybe we don’t through tantrums like a child, yet as Bridges notes our actions grow more subtle.

Bridges goes on to address four areas in which selfishness manifests itself.

• Interest
• Time
• Money
• Inconsiderateness

Boy is he right! I know a lot of people that are selfish in those categories. I cross paths with them everyday. There is one person in particular that I have to deal with daily. Some days are better than others, but he is always there. I think he waits on me. I know he waits on me. When I stand in front of the mirror first thing in the morning he is there starring at me.

Respectable sins become less respectable when faced head on. Even then it is easy to shift the focus away from self, especially, during a group discussion. This may be one of the subtle ways adults excuse themselves from such sins. Working through Respectable Sins has been great to help face such excuses and sins such as selfishness which I/we try to hide.

Excuses can actually be made by pointing out others’ sins in these areas as reason to not be selfless towards them. Just because someone else is selfish with their interests, time, money and is inconsiderate does not give a godly reason to do the same back to them. This can be very difficult, especially, in a society where personal merit is thought of very highly. Yet, the gospel models and accomplishes another way for Christians.

Christ did not give His life to undeserving sinners so they could perpetuate sin to one another.

As the Holy Spirit convicts of those tolerable sins I will try to keep these verses in mind in light of the gospel.

Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Philippians 2:3-4 (ESV)

Will you share your experience in dealing with such sins?

Related posts:

1. WDJD
2. Fourth of July Note and Blog Agenda
3. Gospel Then Morality: Lesson From Abortion Counseling

The CNN Belief Blog recently published My Take: On fear, faith and being gay by Jennifer Knapp. So I thought I’d give my take.

As a young boy I learned to take risks. Climbing trees and jumping ramps on a bicycle will do that to a boy. Falling down from a tree or flying off the bicycle in the air ties the stomach in knots as the ground approaches to stop the fall. But I learned to rely on myself and try harder. Climbing 10 feet up and jumping from one tree to another or jumping a ramp stacked three tires high became normal. My life, ramps, climbs and abilities.

This went hand in hand with the faith I was baptized into at 8 years old. A sect of Mormonism, known by the acronym RLDS, who are now known as the Community of Christ. I grew up learning that I was a sinner, but I was a good sinner. So good that I could rely on my own righteous works to be right with God. Since both of my parents were ordained RLDS ministers there was much reinforcement of this religion of works. I was also taught that we were part of the one true church. I had a great time at RLDS summer camps singing songs and doing activities. I was a good RLDS “Christian” until I hit about 16.

In South Georgia it had always been a challenge to keep together the dwindling RLDS congregation members. Besides, I started losing my salvation by cussing and other various sins. I felt my works were no longer good enough. Although they were good enough in a way. They were good enough for my friends and for the world.

The “do’s and don’ts” of the world weren’t so much different at that time. There were still many things that you don’t do in public out of respect for others. The real difference was that now my good deeds were not working toward my salvation, but toward my satisfaction. Either way it was up to me.

This worked well in college for a student who served himself on worldly standards. I was very good at working toward my own satisfaction. Rent just about any college themed b-movie and you’ll find me somewhere in the script playing various roles. Being a heterosexual made most of my actions acceptable. Being a heterosexual actually encouraged many worldly forms of self-indulgence since they promoted as proper. I had friends who believed God existed. Some of them even considered themselves to be Christians. However, in experiencing life with them, their lives were no different than mine. We all had the same self-indulgence.

Even after college life was still about me. Yet, my satisfaction was waning. Joining a Masonic lodge did not fulfill me. You would think that taking blood oaths while half-dressed in front of others who had done the same would create some sort of fulfilling bond. Make no mistake, after going through all of the rituals and oaths a bond does form. It wasn’t really an experience that everyone could be invited into. The answer to the purpose of life was not found in keeping secret oaths secret for fear of being killed. How good are people at keeping secrets anyway?

Maybe more clubs and bars held the answer. Maybe studying more self-help books or reading more on Buddhism would help. Positive thinking? Daily affirmations? Well, morning after morning the emptiness grew despite how I filled myself. It was like tirelessly trying to fill a bucket full of holes with water attempting to put out a fire.

In my search for fulfillment I was really on a search for faith. As the adage goes – everyone has faith in something. This faith is often subjective and self-centered. What I experienced was years of misplaced faith. It was also a generic faith. It was a faith that was more about me and how it could fulfill my own desires on my own standards. A dog chases its tail, catches it and ends up with what it already had only now with bite marks.

I was that dog.

One good golfing day, however, that all started to change. A life long friend who once chased his tail too offered something different. His college life wasn’t much different than mine. Same late nights and early mornings. We were friends. His life had been transformed. Mine hadn’t. He offered me the gospel of Jesus Christ. He couldn’t answer all of my questions at the time. He just pointed me to the gospel. I related with him since we had grown up together and lived similar lives.

It seems easier when you can relate to someone. Yet, I realized we all have the same basic path. We have life and finally we die. The in-between may have some differences, but the sins are the same.  The sins take shape in the worshiping of anything and everything in rebellion to God. It all made sense once I understood this. I now had an objective standard outside myself in the gospel of Jesus Christ to depend on.

I could rely on Jesus’ works, but would He have me?

Yes! If I turned from my sin and trusted that Jesus, in His death, has taken the punishment for my sins and given me new life in His resurrection. Even through my heterosexual immorality, lying, greed, evil thoughts, etc. Jesus would forgive me. Jesus has given me new life and freed me from those life defining sins.  Although I still sin I do not count those sins as a defining part of my person. My identity is now found in Jesus Christ. He has freed me from self-indulgence and self-justification for my life. I do not have to seek what is sinful and rebellious against God. I can lay those temptations and sins on Christ.

As you walk that path from life to death it might look different from your neighbor’s walk. However, to God all of the sins along the walk are an offense to Him. There is only one way for your relationship, all relationships, with God to be made right and that is through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Are you encouraged that you are not alone in this? Will you rejoice that the gospel of Jesus is for you and all those differing from you? Or will you simply ignore the gospel and stay in your sin?

Related posts:

1. A Sinner’s Testimony
2. Faith Alone and world religions
3. To Faith Or Through Faith

First, go to Seeker-centered Buddhism and watch the modern outreach methods some Buddhists are using today.

Would that inspire you to become a Buddhist?

Now watch the video below.

Would that inspire you to become a Christian?

What’s the difference between the Buddhism and Christianity presented here? Does one decide based on the appeal? Name your preference?

To some the appeal is apparently to find comedy material. I wonder if this means a comedy church would win Jon Stewart to Christ?

Is this what Paul meant when he wrote the following?

1 Corinthians 9:22b I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. (ESV)

(HT: MoI)

Related posts:

1. Seeker-centered Buddhism
2. The Second Chance on dvd: watch it
3. 40 Days of a new Reformation?

How dare you speak of him that way! Do you know who he is? Do you know what he’s done for the Kingdom? Look at all the people he’s ministered to!

So goes the argument. It’s been stated before. It’ll be stated again. It recently reared its head in the blogosphere. But what argument?

The vindication of popular ministers!

Take any controversy of any popular person in ministry and find what some of their defenders will say. They will argue for innocence based on the popularity or “success” of a person or ministry. Some will argue for innocence regardless of evidence. It is true that God blesses certain people in ministry with more “success” than others.

Imagine for a moment if today someone described the person who lead them to Christ the way Spurgeon described that very person in his life.

At last, a very thin-looking man, a shoemaker, or tailor, or something of that sort, went up into the pulpit to preach. Now, it is well that preachers should be instructed; but this man was really stupid. He was obliged to stick to his text, for the simple reason that he had little else to say. The text was,—

“Look Unto Me, And Be Ye Saved, All The Ends Of The Earth.”

He did not even pronounce the words rightly, but that did not matter. There was, I thought, a glimpse of hope for me in that text.
- The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon Vol I: 1834-1854, Page 105-106.

Now imagine if the person described was one of the popular, celebrity Christian speakers. It’s probably not the best example to use to describe someone. If I where described like that I probably wouldn’t like it much. However, what this really speaks of is that despite the lack of education or speaking skills God saved Spurgeon through this man preaching the Bible.  It shows God’s work through a person the world might call inept.

That’s really the point, isn’t it? It is God’s work!

Good men fall and it shouldn’t surprise us because…well…there really aren’t any good men. We’re all sinners. It does not matter how many people you get to preach to, how wide your audience, how large or small your congregation, your theological convictions, baptisms performed, confessions of faith gotten, denominational affiliation, how traditional or hip, etc. or what your name is because sin can over come all of these things!

No one is immune to sin. In fact, we are all hosts of sin carrying it around with us where ever we go.

It seems we all must be careful in defending someone for their namesake instead of for Christ’s namesake. Men fall. This can be read all throughout the Bible. It can be seen through the past and in the present. When we defend are favorite preachers without question we may be doing them more harm than good if they are in unrepentant sin.

It can be difficult to objectively address the sin of people we respect or have some sort of relationship with. In the same manner it can be difficult to objectively address our own sin. We find excuses to let our own sin go such as pointing to someone else’s sin or even actions we don’t like. Someone may even sinfully point out our own sin, yet that does not give us a right to ignore personal repentance. Just as one popular minister does not get a pass on sin because another popular (or even unpopular) minister points it out in a manner some find unkind. In other words, one sin does not excuse another regardless of who you are.

Of course, the greater the popularity the greater responsibility. The more someone promotes and markets themselves the more scrutiny they will come under. When someone seeks attention and is successful they will surely get both positive and negative reactions. People often get back a bit of what they dish out too.

The vindication of popular ministers who have have charges of sin against them is not found in their popularity nor various numerical successes. It is found, along with everyone else’s, only through repentance of sin and holding onto the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Related posts:

1. Poll: Does “success” mean God is honoring a ministry?
2. 40 Days of a new Reformation?
3. Should “Celebrity” Pastors Offer Disclaimers

Ephesians 6:14a Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth (NKJV)

The Girdle Of Truth – The Believer’s Integrity

A soldier in Paul’s day had a leather girdle that he tightened about his waist to protect his loins and carry his weapons of warfare, such as a dagger or sword. The belt also held his tunic together so it wouldn’t be snagged.

In Christian armor, it is integrity that holds everything else together. If you do not have integrity in the big and small things of your life, you are going to lose the battle. Without truth everything falls apart. Satan will come against you with lies and bring a lack of integrity into your life. Jesus is the Truth and will strengthen you with His integrity. Would people say that you are a woman or man of integrity? If not, then you cannot win the battle.
[The Armour of Christian Warfare by Ardian Rogers.]

The call to have integrity in the “big and small things” in life jumps off the page. It’s easy to understand integrity in the big things in life. What about the small things? When does a small thing become big? How small is too small to be insignificant?

Do small integrity issues have any significance?

Some may say grace covers the small items and therefore should be overlooked. But in the Christian view of life grace covers the big things too! If grace did not cover the big issues in life we would all be in trouble.

At what point are small issues of integrity deemed acceptable and worthy of unrepentance?

Related posts:

1. Dr. Rogers, say hello to Jesus for us.
2. Southern Baptists and a Great Commission Resurgence?
3. Grace No More

(Update: Audio now available see the handout below.)

Brian Habig lead one of the breakout sessions at T4G2010. His topic was The Fears of the Minister. Part 1 and part 2 of an interview with Habig can be found on the T4G blog.

Part 2 includes:

7) What will you be speaking on at T4G?

“The Fears of the Minister.” Substitute the word “fears” with “insecurities,” and you’ll get a pretty good idea of what I plan to address. Ministers talk about Jesus Christ a lot, but we have come up with all sorts of ways to place our identity elsewhere. (Even during the gospel-saturated days of T4G, most everyone there — especially ministers! — will be sizing each other up and wondering how they stack up by comparison!) This session will be as pertinent to non-clergy as it is to ordained ministers.

Pastor Habig’s session was a good one. It was honest, practical, humbling and let everyone know that all ministers are human and have the same fears. Below are some high lights taken from the handout we received that he went over with everyone.

The full handout is at the end of this article. Unfortunately, the audio is not available (as far as I know), but I think you can get the gist of the session with the material presented here.

Brian Habig: Fears of the Minister Audio

THE FEARS OF THE MINISTER
Together For the Gospel
April 14, 2010

[Introduction is Habig talking about watching the documentary Comedian with his wife.]

WHAT DO THE FEARS SAY?

• “I’m not as gifted/known/followed as_________ . Am I going to end up exposed as a failure?”
• ”You need to like and appreciate me. What will it take?”
• “They’re plotting….” ”We Who Are Your Closest friends”’ by Phillip Lopate (see back [of handout])

SOME FLESHLY STRATEGIES (not an exhaustive list)

• “We offer lots of programs, so I clearly pastor a healthy Church.”
• “We support lots of missionaries, so I clearly care about non-Christians.”
• “Calls, emails, texts, and meetings are incessant, so clearly I’m needed.’”

In the seventies many seminaries were hard pressed financially but now had, in the D.Min., a lucrative product to sell. At the same time, many ministers were hard pressed psychologically as they sensed their growing externalization in society, the decline of their status, and the corresponding loss of power and influence. The shotgun marriage was consummated. …It strains credulity to think that only a love of learning has produced this happy match. After all, among those who graduated with the degree, 78 percent said that they expected to be more respected in the community and 73 percent expected to be paid more.
(David F. Well, “The D-Min-ization of the Ministry,” in No God But God)

HOW GOSPEL MINISTRY SUFFERS

• “You cannot serve two masters.”
• Ministry becomes truncated.
• Example overrides preaching/teaching (i.e., ethos drowns out logos).

SO WHAT DO WE DO?

• Remember the unadjusted gospel (especially our justification)!!
• Ask for the repentance we need.
• “Bear fruits keeping with repentance.”
  • Real day off each week/fully-used vacation time.
  • Proactive shepherding rather than reactive appeasement.
  • Cultivate a new mindset about being liked or disliked.

…it is right for good rulers to desire to please men; but this in order to draw their neighbours by the sweetness of their own character to affection for the truth; not that they should long to be themselves loved, but should make affection for themselves as a sort of road by which to lead the hearts of their hearers to the love of the Creator. (Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care)

The Fears of the Minister handout

Related posts:

1. Darrin Patrick on the Emerging Church at Covenant Seminary (Update II)
2. A Seminary Student’s Thoughts on the John 3:16 Conference-Update
3. Vindication of popular ministers

Most Christians listen to sermons weekly. And many listen to some other kind of biblical teaching during the week. How often is a second thought given about what exactly is going on in our mind when listening?

In other words, how do we listen?

Challies has a review of a book called Expository Listening by Ken Ramey which reminded me of my sermon notes this past Sunday.

The sermon was on how to listen to preaching. I found it helpful and thought I would share some notes I took. This is just a sketch and anything that may be missing is my own fault.  (I know that some might suggest to me ‘how to take better sermon notes’ and I’m ready to hear it!)

How Should We Listen to Preaching?

I. Listen Humbly
Come to church in need on Sunday morning. In need of God and His word.

Psalm 148:8 the LORD opens the eyes of the blind. The LORD lifts up those who are bowed down;the LORD loves the righteous.

Isaiah 42:16 And I will lead the blind in a way that they do not know, in paths that they have not known I will guide them. I will turn the darkness before them into light, the rough places into level ground. These are the things I do, and I do not forsake them.

II. Listen Carefully
Listen as the Bereans did with Paul’s message.

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

III. Listen Practically
Don’t just be people who know the Bible, but who do the Bible. Live out your faith.

James 1:22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

Three questions to ask:

• How can the sermon help love God more?
• How can the sermon help obey God more/better?
• How can the sermon help serve others better?

IV. Listen Expectantly
Expect that God is going to do something amazing.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Finally
Prepare for Sunday worship by reading over the text for the upcoming sermon, pray, confess your sins and needs, get enough sleep and be on time.

Thoughts?
How do you listen to sermons?
How should you listen to sermons?
What are some other beneficial ideas you’d like to share?

*All Scripture used above is from the ESV translation.

Related posts:

1. Is the sermon about Jesus?
2. Timely sermon: Rolfe Barnard’s The God Nobody Is Mad At
3. Behind the Pulpit

Matt over at SBCVoices wrote an interesting post called Arminio and Calvinito: Best Friends? In light of the recent Great Commission Resurgence, he lays out where some unnecessary Southern Baptist infighting takes place. Of course, the ultimate solution is the gospel.

I was reminded of a quote that grabbed my attention from a book I recently read.

Baptists have certainly held differing views on the nature of salvation, with some holding more of a conviction that God is sovereign in salvation while others gave greater emphasis to man’s role in the process. But when they have been at their best, both sides have been deeply committed to gospel proclamation. God is sovereign, gospel truths much be proclaimed, and men and women must be urged to repent and believe the gospel.

For some, this might be a non sequitur. If God is sovereign, then why must we comment sinners to repent and come to Christ in evangelism? Both Arminians, like Daniel Taylor, and hyper-Calvinists, like James Wells of London, concluded that the two ideas do not go together. Taylor contended with Andrew Fuller that his commitment to evangelism did not comport with his theology, while Wells lambasted Charles Spurgeon for not being faithful to the heritage of English Baptist preaching.

Both the Arminian and the hyper-Calvinist were out of their league, though. When Spurgeon was asked how he reconciled the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, he replied, “I never reconcile friends.” Both men, and a host of others like them, were assured that their one task was to follow the Bible faithfully. If Scripture said that God is preeminent, powerful, and awesome in salvation, then they affirmed that. If it also said that men and women must repent and believe the gospel, then they affirmed that with the conviction that the two thoughts are not ultimately in conflict.
- Brand, Chad, and David Hankins. One Sacred Effort. B&H Academic, 2006. 25. Print.

Related posts:

1. Southern Baptist Disclosure and Unity
2. When I Hear Southern Baptist
3. Hyper-Calvinism and Southern Baptists

Sadly, this week Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk, passed away. He was no stranger to expressing his views and stirring up conversations on them, both for and against, in the blogosphere. It is no surprise that his death is stirring up the blogosphere.

This time though the conversations are that of grace and appreciation.

It was in June of 2009 at the Advance09 Conference. I was upstairs talking with my good friend Russ while checking out the display tables. Then, I saw Michael walk by.

I took a few steps and yelled out to him in my deep voice, “Michael!” “Michael!”

He turned around, looked up, stretched out his arms downward and said, “Yes, Lord.”

That’s when Russ and I got to meet him. I introduced myself and he knew who I was from the blog world. We chit-chatted about the conference, a few things SBC and some of our friends in the blog world.

This was the first and only time I got to meet Michael in person. He was a very nice and jovial person. I could easily see how someone would enjoy being friends with him and hanging out, even in the face of any disagreements.

I probably started reading Michael’s writing back in 2002. I appreciated what he had to say. He would certainly make you think about the gospel and the Christian life. I’m sure his writings will continue to do so.

He will certainly be remembered for his contributions to the Evangelical world. He will also be missed.

May God rest his soul and be with his family.

Related posts:

1. Note on T4G 2010
2. Christless Christianity Q and A With Michael Horton
3. Michael Horton Interviews Robert Schuller

As I consider my upcoming attendance in the 2010 Band of Bloggers, the topic Internet Idolatry and Gospel Fidelity really stick out in my mind.

Why? Because it’s so easy to create idols using the internet and live in infidelity to the gospel.

Is this especially so over the internet? Maybe.

Which brings me to the three questions. Aaron, a fellow blogger posted Proud, Devoted and Dead in which he asked three good questions. These are good questions to consider for personal reflection for any Christian whether active on the internet or not. First, the concern:

My concern for many, myself included, is that we would find ourselves to have right doctrine, but fail to be transformed by it.

His three questions:

1. Do you speak more about what is wrong than what is right?
2. Are your words characterized by joy or anger?
3. How would your spouse, friends and coworkers answer?

Think about it…

How do you answer?
For those on-line, how would others answer about you?
How do you change?

Related posts:

1. John 3:16 Conference Questions
2. Church attendance and the Super Bowl: two questions
3. Tullian Tchividjian to Stay at Coral Ridge: Lessons?

Recently it’s been stated as confirmed that Rick Warren will be speaking at John Piper’s National Desiring God Conference for 2010. I thought it would be interesting to hear each of them on the gospel. I believe the videos are a few years old.

I’m curious about whether or not people think we can be comfortable with these two men at a conference together. Are the differences in the videos theologically substantial? Is one more applicable than the other? More biblical? Does the presentation and application matter that much? Any other thoughts? What can we learn from each man?

John Piper on the gospel.

Rick Warren on the gospel.

Related posts:

1. Rick Warren Vs. John Piper on the Gospel
2. Proposition What? Rick Warren Did Not Lie
3. Ask John Piper: Pornification of the Pulpit

A good friend recently sent me this Hermeneutics Quiz. It’s a couple of years old, but interesting nonetheless.

So, I took the quiz and scored it. It’s only 20 questions and it doesn’t take long.

Give it a shot and let me know what you scored. It would also be interesting to hear what others think of the explanation of the scoring.

My score was 48 which puts me on the conservative hermeneutic scale. The explanation starts:

First, the conservative hermeneutic group scores 52 or lower. The strength of this view is its emphasis on the authority, ongoing and normative authority, of all of Scripture. It tends to operate with the line many of us learned in Sunday school: “If the Bible says it, that settles it.” Such persons let the Bible challenge them with full force. Literal readings lead to rather literal applications. Most of the time.

What did you score?

What do you think?

Related posts:

1. Friday is for fun: Yankee or Dixie?
2. Poll: Should Christians Just Say No?
3. The McCainian Lutheran Nicene Creed