Here I Blog » theology

Ethics: Business Bribes

Mark — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:59:36 +0000

What would you do Wednesday!

The scenario is that you work for an international company that works, directly and indirectly, on projects with governments in the Middle East. You the leader on a team for a project that is about to begin.

The contract is with a local Middle East government in which several officials are involved. The contract is huge with revenues projected to be millions of dollars. And you are excited since the bidding, negotiations, contract, etc. are complete.

Or so you thought.

The last step in securing the contract is that several government officials must receive good will offerings. These offerings are extra payments sent directly to each official’s personal account.

This practice is common in this Middle Eastern company, but in America is considered a bribe and is illegal. However, since it is so common many companies have found ways of paying these bribes. And you have a better chance winning the lottery than ever being caught.

As the team leader, you can refuse the bribes and risk losing the business. Or, you can go forward and pay the bribes which would give you the contract, a monetary bonus and a potential a move up in the company.

What do you do?

Study Your Sin

Mark — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:06:49 +0000

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).

Ethics: Church Staff An Illegal Immigrant

Mark — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:11:56 +0000

What would you do Wednesday!

The scenario involves a lady employed full-time by your local church. She came recommended by another local pastor and has been employed for six months.

You hear a rumor from a friend that she is in the USA illegally. You rebuke your friend for the rumor. You then take the gossiper to go talk to the lady and apologize. The lady accepts the apology and doesn’t offer any reason about why such a rumor might have started.

Just then your pastor walks in wondering what’s going on. You share the positive news of the apology/reconciliation for the rumor. Your pastor is thankful about the apology and also chuckles at the rumor. He rhetorically asks why anyone would even come up with such a thing. He thought it was an odd rumor to spread.

The lady actually looked a bit nervous about the pastors passing words. But you give her the benefit of the doubt and let it go. Besides, when tensions are high suspicion also rises.

A few weeks go by. Then, you happen upon the lady in question outside of the church building on her cell phone. In so many words you hear her admit that she is a Canadian who is in the USA illegally. At about the same time she sees your come around the corner and quickly puts her phone away.

Unsure what to say, you blurt out – So, are you Canadian? Were the rumors about you being here illegally true? The lady mumbles a “Yes” to both questions and says something about a ‘long story’. She asks that you keep this between the two of you as she hurries away.

Do you
….call your pastor and tell him?
….call ICE?
….take the issue to the church body?
….do nothing and keep it to yourself?

What would you do?

Themelios Journal July 2010

Mark — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:05:37 +0000

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!

Frank Turek Refutes Judge Walker’s 10 Gay Marriage “Facts”

Mark — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:24:11 +0000

Frank Turek of CrossExamined offers a refutation of 10 of Judge Vaughn Walker’s finding of “facts” used to overturn Proposition 8 in order to legalize gay marriage. Turek writes -

Second, Prop. 8 doesn’t violate the Fourteenth Amendment because every person in America already has equal marriage rights. We’re all playing by the same rules — we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone — every adult person has the same right to marry.

Below are the top 10 “facts” of Walker’s that Turek refutes.

“Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group.”
“California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.”
“Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.”
“Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.”
“Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples.”
“No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.”
“The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.”
“Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
“Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships.”
“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

The refutations are in the original article Top 10 gay marriage false ‘facts’. Read the whole thing…

Does Literally Carrying A Cross Spread The Gospel?

Mark — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:27:37 +0000

‘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.

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

Mark — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:11:19 +0000

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Bible must be taught with immense care, knowing that teachers are judged with great strictness (Jas 3:1ff).
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.

Ethics: Immodest Dress In Church

Mark — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:11:42 +0000

What would you do Wednesday!

The scenario is that you are friends with a couple at church who are always in Sunday School (or whatever you might call it). Spring comes and you notice that this couple has stopped coming to Sunday School. Although they do attend corporate worship as usual.

You go to your friends explaining that you’ve noticed they haven’t been in Sunday School. Out of concern you ask if everything is okay. They explain that since spring had come a certain individual in class has been dressing in clothes they consider to be immodest. The explain that a certain lady has been wearing low cut cops and skirts/dresses that are too short for comfort.

Your friends also explain that another couple in class noticed the same thing, however the second couple is in a different Sunday School class. The second couple brought up the issue in passing, but didn’t specifically point anyone out. It was more of a general, uncomfortable observation. Your friends weren’t sure what to do so they decided it would be better not to say anything, skip Sunday School for now and let is pass.

After a few Sunday’s pass your friends are missing the fellowship, teaching, etc. They’re considering changing Sunday School classes or possibly talking to the lady they feel is dressing immodestly. They feel that if they change classes people will wonder why, but they also don’t want to cause any problems in their current class with the lady or the whole class.

What advice would you give them? Why?

Ethics: Resign Church Membership To Avoid Discipline

Mark — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:11:47 +0000

What would you do Wednesday!

The scenario is that a fellow church member whom you are fairly close to is under church discipline. There will be two issues to decide on.

Your friend is a single lady. It was discovered that she is having an inappropriate relationship with her boyfriend who attends another church. The congregation voted to move forward with the disciplinary process. Your friend decided a week later that she will not repent and has decided to move to another local church.

You have pleaded with her not to ignore her sin and just leave. But your friend believes the church is being legalistic. She has said that the church is not loving people like Jesus nor are they being as understanding. Since she is leaving she does not believe the church has any authority over her.

Your friend has a letter requesting her membership be moved to the church her boyfriend attends. Your local church body has gathered to address this situation. There will be two issues that you must vote on as part of the congregation.

Send a letter of transfer to the new church OR send a letter explaining she is under church discipline?
Inform the pastor(s) of the boyfriend’s church of the inappropriate relationship?

What would you do?

Ethics: Cohabitation In the Church

Mark — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:37:50 +0000

What would you do Wednesday!

You are friends with two church members who are dating each other. They officially joined your congregation 12 months ago. They faithfully attend corporate church functions and have been singing in the choir for the last six months.

Upon having dinner at his place (you thought) it looks as though both of them live in this home. You inquire and are told that they moved in together 11 month ago, just one month after joining the church. They further admit that their living arrangements probably would not be popular among the congregation. But they plan to marry and think that since they are in their mid-30′s they are old enough to handle the situation. They also explain that it helps them save money.

You confront them and eventually bring in two other church members who are friends of all involved via Matthew 18. You try to persuade them to live separately prior to marriage. Six months go by and they will not budge. You explain that your next step will be to take the issue to your pastor.

In conversation with your pastor about various issue you are able to run this situation by him hypothetically. Your pastor notes that if he understands everything correctly he would get involved. He said if there were no repentance in approximately another six months this issue would have to be brought before the church. If all things stayed the same your pastor thinks these folks would end up being kicked out of the congregation for lack of repentance.

Your two cohabiting friends are upset that you considered going to your pastor. The whole issue has really put a strain on your relationship, but talk of bringing the pastor in has really set things off.

What do you do?

Hell, Are You Offended?

Mark — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:15:23 +0000

Last week I mentioned that Christianity Gives Atheism Life. Some atheists have gained much by their push against a God they don’t believe exists. In a similar vein, some people who don’t believe in hell are offended when others believe they are headed that way.

Why?

People certainly have no problem joking about hell as seen in the recent LA Times article COMIC-CON 2010: Seth MacFarlane does ‘Family Guy’ live.

As panelist Patrick Warburton, who voices cop Joe Swanson on the show, said understatedly: “A lot of the show is not very Christian, and I think we’re all going to hell.”

This statement makes light of Christianity. Should Christians be offended?

Non-Christians get offended by Christian beliefs all the time. Even Rick Warren offended some in 2008 according to CBS News story – The Importance Of Rick Warren’s Event.

When it came time for questions, a woman stood up, proclaimed her Judaism, and asked Warren if she was going to burn in hell. He paused before responding — and then answered her question the only way it could be answered. Yes, he said to audible gasps.

What an interesting situation, but why was the woman surprised? Because it was Rick Warren? It’s not like the Christian belief and Bible’s teaching on hell is new. Even in context John 3:16, arguably the most famous Bible verse, teaches condemnation.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18 ESV)

So many people want a loving, uncondemning Jesus. So many want a Jesus who brings a type of salvation message in the form of moral self-improvement or as a personal example to emulate.

The problem with these types of uncondeming Jesus figures is they have not brought salvation in any sense. If people are not lost in sin, hell-bound, condemned already, etc. then there is nothing for Jesus to save them from. God’s love as expressed through salvation in Jesus Christ alone would be a farce. However, against the back drop of hell God’s love shown through Jesus Christ makes sense.

Does hell offend you? Does Jesus? Why?

On Altar Calls And Gospel Proclamation

Mark — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:10:31 +0000

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?

Haddon Robinson On Truth In Sermon Illustrations

Mark — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:10:26 +0000

It can be tempting to exaggerate or lie when trying to entertain or persuade others. This is understandable as it is nice to feel appreciated and engaged. It is an easy trap to fall into, especially, if one’s flesh gets in the way.

Christians too?

Even though the Christian is called to glorify Christ in all aspects of their lives they struggle with this too. Unfortunately, this can happen even while preaching. Some may feel that certain exaggerations or inaccuracies are fine as long as they persuade people to come to Christ. Haddon Robinson offers some good advice on such thinking. Especially convicting is his comment on the gospel.

Illustrations should also be convincing. As much as lies in you, be sure of the facts. Although a factually inaccurate story might illustrate your idea, if you use it with an audience aware of the error, you will undermine your credibility. What is more, illustrations ought not offend the good sense of an audience. Truth may be stranger than fiction, but improbable anecdotes leave your audience to suspect that you are strange. If you must use an incident that seems far-fetched, acknowledge that and then given your authority for it. Let someone else shoulders the blame.

[snip]

Something else: because personal illustrations can have great force, you can succumb to the temptation of relating stories as though they happened to you, when in reality they did not. The gospel sits in judgement on the methods used to proclaim it, and ultimately God’s truth cannot be benefited by your falsehoods. If a congregation suspects that we will lie to make a point, they have good reason to believe we will also lie to make a convert. – Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages, 2 ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 158.

Fired In Jesus Name?

Mark — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:10:32 +0000

On May 31, Pastor Ron Baity was relieved of his Chaplaincy prayer duties before the N.C. House of Representatives after he prayed in Jesus name. Baity is the pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem and was filling in as a guest Chaplain. I first read this story from FOXNews’ article Pastor Yanked From Capitol Over ‘Jesus’ Prayer.

Kudos to Pastor Baity for his prayer and protest over being fired. It’s understandable that people are offended by Jesus’ name. Jesus said such things would happen.

Continuing with the story the Winston-Salem Journal reported on it in House lacks formal policy. So a local government fires a guy over doing something in which there was no formal policy. I like what Baity said about the situation and I think he has a point.

“They’re telling me how I need to pray,” he said. “That is the establishment of a religion.”

Those things are disheartening, but in some sense expected. What is more disheartening though are some statements from professing Christians. Former N.C. House Chaplain James Harry’s comment, for example.

“Though there were some who were offended and some who even questioned my Christianity, I never felt as if I were betraying my loyalty to God in Christ,” Harry said in an e-mail yesterday. “Invoking the name of Jesus in a taxpayer-funded government arena does have the potential of making the prayer sectarian.”

Ruth Peterson, of the Anointed One Church of Deliverance in Ayden who has given a past invocation.

“I think that we should honor and respect those that have given us the privilege to pray for our state and our nation,” Peterson said yesterday.

“I think that as preacher, we pray,” she said. “We don’t necessarily have to say in the name of Jesus, because when we pray it, we know. We understand why we’re praying.”

Methodist Pastor John Howard who has also given a past invocation.

“I would prefer no restrictions,” Howard said yesterday. “But I definitely think it’s important to pray for our leaders in whatever way that we can.”

If praying in Jesus’ name makes a prayer sectarian while praying generically without Jesus name is acceptable to all other religions, does this make the generic prayer anti-Christian? Isn’t it an infringement upon one’s religion to demand a certain type of prayer? How can one say they are not betraying their loyalty to Christ when they believe there are certain venues in which praying in Christ’s name is unacceptable? If those putting on taxpayer-funded government functions invite Christians to pray they should expect Christ to be mentioned!

Christians might understand Who they are praying to, but is that really a faithful prayer when one is afraid to mention Jesus? There is a way to pray for our leaders and that is in Jesus’ name. What good does it do to pretend everyone in the room is praying to the same God? Is God’s favor really being sought in such a prayer or is the prayer a string of feel good words for all involved?

It’s sad that those professing Christians who had no problem not praying in Jesus’ name did not, as far as has been reported, stand up for Baity. They could have offered support for him even if their methods may be different. One must wonder if this is a fear of God vs. a fear of man issue.

And the Apostles? I’m convinced the Apostles would not have backed down for the sake of political correctness. I have my own thoughts about how the Apostle Paul may have prayed for our leaders i.e. the Presidential Inauguration. Some may say that the Apostles Paul lived during a different time. I agree, during their time the Apostles were physically beaten and killed for Christ.

Norman Geisler: Context, Application and Defense

Mark — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:17:37 +0000

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...]

Ethics: Church Staff And Internet Pornography

Mark — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:03:02 +0000

What would you do Wednesday!

Upon borrowing a church staff member’s computer to use the internet a shameful discovery is made. The URL address bar auto-populated with a pornographic website.

While nervously trying to close the website an open folder is clicked on and maximized only to find a handful of pornographic pictures. Upon calming down for a moment the web browser’s history reveals a few more of these sites.

What do you do?

Understanding the Matthew 18 addresses the question of handling sin.

[15] “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. [16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. [17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17 ESV)

How should this situation be handled? If this person listens and repents as verse 15 says (with accountability going forward) should that be the end of it? Should this person loose their position on staff? Why or why not?

What would you do?

(Photo: Chris Baker)

The Center of Christian Union

Mark — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:02:51 +0000

The doctrine of Christ crucified is the grand centre of union among true Christians. Our outward differences are many without doubt: one man is an Episcopalian, another is a Presbyterian; one is an Independent, another a Baptist; one is a Calvinist, another an Arminian; one is a Lutheran, another a Plymouth Brother; one is a friend to Establishments, another a friend to the Voluntary system; one is a friend to Liturgies, another a friend to extempore prayer: but after all, what shall we hear about most of these differences in heaven? Nothing, most probably: nothing at all. Does a man really and sincerely glory in the cross of Christ? That is the grand question. If he does, he is my brother: we are travelling in the same road; we are journeying towards a home where Christ is all, and everything outward in religion will be forgotten. But if he does not glory in the cross of Christ, I cannot feel comfort about him. Union on outward points only is union only for time: union about the cross is union for eternity. Error on outward points is only a skin-deep disease: error about the cross is disease at the heart. Union about outward points is a mere man-made union: union about the cross of Christ can only be produced by the Holy Ghost.
- Christ Crucified by J. C. Ryle (1816-1900)

Real Calvinism

Mark — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:00:10 +0000

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?

Black Church White Church

Mark — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:34:37 +0000

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)

Vindication of popular ministers

Mark — Tue, 11 May 2010 19:36:15 +0000

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.

Adrian Rogers on integrity

Mark — Tue, 04 May 2010 12:21:40 +0000

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?

Ethics question: Capital Punishment Vote

Mark — Mon, 03 May 2010 19:46:55 +0000

The death penalty has been in the news recently. A tough subject to be sure. Consider the three recent news stories below and then the ethical question on the issue.

High Court refuses to hear appeal of woman on death row – Linda Carty was convicted of the 2001 murder of Joana Rodriguez in Texas. She is waiting on an execution date.

Texas: Death Penalty to Be Sought in Fort Hood Case – The death penalty will sought for Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan who is charged with killing 13 people.

Unabomber brother making anti-death penalty push in N.C. – David Kaczynski, the unibomber’s brother, is working in opposition to the death penalty with Bill Babbitt, whose brother was put to death under the death penalty.

These stories show the reality of the death penalty. It’s not an easy subject to digest. And now a case study in which to think about this law.

You’re in the Legislature!
You are sitting legislator in the state assembly, and a bill is up for discussion that would abolish the death penalty in your state. Proponents of the death penalty would argue that it is a just punishment for certain types of murder and that the current system is capable of carrying it out in a careful and reliable way. They argue that even though the system is not perfect, the guilt of many murders is very clear, and the failure to impose the death penalty is an injustice to the surviving members of victims’ families. Opponents of the death penalty argue that the system cannot ensure that mistakes won’t be made and that the application of the death penalty is discriminatory (more minorities than whites receive the death penalty).
- Scott Rae, Moral Choices, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 268.

How would you vote? Why?

T4G2010: Brian Habig-Fears of the Minister (Update)

Mark — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:42:10 +0000

(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

Sermon listening

Mark — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:57:16 +0000

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.

Quote on Southern Baptist Cooperation

Mark — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:31:41 +0000

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.

Note on T4G 2010

Mark — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:09:53 +0000

Together for the Gospel 2010 is over. It was fun while it lasted. Seriously, it was a great time. I was thankful to even be able to attend. Even more, I was thankful I was able to attend with my church’s staff and a couple other church members.

This was my first time attending. I would do it again if the Lord provides away. The speakers were great. The free books I brought home pictured above were great. (See larger picture here.) I know my wife will really appreciate me bringing home more books! (Note: T4G may actually weaken your marriage in some ways!)

The best part was the fellowship with approximately 7,000 other Christians! And to be able to sing praises to the Lord with everyone was wonderful.
I got to see some folks I haven’t seen in a while as well as meet some new people. All of this in the context of the gospel.

There is something about being at T4G in person and experiencing worship with everyone that just can’t be replicated on an iPod.

Band of Bloggers was really cool. Some convicting words for bloggers were shared and I got to meet some fellow bloggers, including the panel. I walked right by Challies and said hi, but he was already talking and I did not want to be rude. I sat next to Stephen Newell during this time.

Some words on the insignificance of bloggers were expressed. I should have shared my confirming experience with everyone, but I only got to tell Trevin Wax afterward. During my 1.5 hours of standing in line to register, I asked about eight people if they were going to BoB. Then, on my way to BoB at one of the hotels, I asked another eight guys while walking together the same question. Although all of these men were T4G attendees none of them had heard of BoB.

How influential are Christian bloggers in the real world again?

It makes me wonder. Of course, we should already know Christian blogging is a small world of its own. I may say more later about BoB as I think about the insights and opinions shared.

The conference and break-out session were also very good. By now everyone can listen for themselves, but like I said above, the experience just won’t be the same. I really appreciated Matt Chandler’s message on suffering. It’s simply unbelievable what he has recently gone through with brain cancer. Then, there was John Piper’s message that really laid out sola fide very well. Ligon Duncan’s message on the early church fathers was an important one too. Well..yes, I did like all of the speakers.

So…what is probably more important though is answering the question…

Now what?

What will those who attended actually do with what they’ve learned or been encouraged by? Or, how about those who will listen at home? Conferences can be great, but what does the individual actually intend do achieve with them?

I can’t help but think that if all we do with this information is enjoy it and file it away as a memory that it becomes not much more than another form of entertainment. Don’t get me wrong, this is probably very easy to do. I’d love to hear how the conference has encouraged folks and if it changes anyone’s approach to ministry.

Three Questions

Mark — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:41:40 +0000

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?

John Piper and Rick Warren on the gospel

Mark — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:24:39 +0000

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.

Faith Alone and world religions

Mark — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:48:00 +0000

Below is a brief thought on a practical implication of how justification by faith alone helps to differentiate Christianity from other world religions.

Most world religions have a component of a works-based justification built into them. Evaluating such religious systems outside the revelation of the Christian Scriptures would call for an honest appraisal of one’s works. In this type of appraisal would be shown the constant shortfall of such works to justify anyone in any light, especially, before a holy, divine creator. This type of religion would have to continue adding more works to the previous works that were not sufficient only to be defeated in a vicious cycle.

The important Scriptural doctrine of justification by faith alone helps to set the truth of Christianity further apart from such works-based religions. In a practical sense, justification by faith more clearly shows the uniqueness of Christ and His justifying gracious work on the cross to save sinners. If Christianity only offers another works-based religion slightly different than the others then it has nothing in reality to offer.

Open letter to Miley Cyrus

Mark — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:00:07 +0000

I was recently directed to an interview with Miley Cyrus in Parade. The interview reveals some thoughts on her move away from a young star branded as Hanna Montana into maturity and a more private life. More revealing is the fact that she was baptized in a Southern Baptist church in 2005 and gives some insight into how she sees her Christian faith. As a Southern Baptist, or more importantly, as a Christian I am concerned about Miley’s statements on Christianity.

I have this observation about American Christianity summed up with this statement – American Christians have freedom to their detriment.

We are free from persecution, accountability, responsibility, etc. There is a tendency to individualize Christianity to the extent that one’s Christian faith becomes like a get out of jail free card with no historical or theological context. The claim of “Jesus saved me” turns into a propositional statement void of any real meaning. The Christian faith is a living faith not one that is turned on and off at one’s convenience.

Upon reading Miley’s statements, understanding her influence and having a daughter of my own I thought about responding. I may still respond, but my friend and fellow blogger has already done so. And she has done so well. The open letter starts below.

Dear Miley,

I’m under no delusions that Miley Cyrus will ever read this, but I’m going to go ahead and call it an open letter to her all the same. Maybe someone else who needs to hear it will, and maybe it will give them something to think about:

I think it was maybe two or three years ago when I first started hearing about Hannah Montana. Not being a tween myself and not having girls who were tweens yet, Hannah Montana just wasn’t something that came across my radar. Then of course the girls heard about the show and watched it one day and that was that, they’ve liked Hannah ever since. Truth be told, I do too. The characters on the show (Hannah, Lily, Oliver, Jackson, Rico, Robbie Ray, etc.) are all fairly likeable characters and some are just plain funny in a very simple, innocent, fun way. Yes it’s true, I watch Hannah Montana with the kids. I watch most of the shows they watch to make sure what they’re watching is decent. I even know all the HSM songs, and Camp Rock songs, and do in fact think Sponge Bob and Fairly Odd Parents are two of the funniest cartoons going today. I know, it’s an occupational hazard. Go Wildcats!

Now, that’s my condensed version opinion about Hannah and the show and other kid-fare available today.

Miley Cyrus, on the other hand, is a completely different person than cutesy, likable, Hannah Montana. As adults we all know this, but as kids the lines are very blurred and that’s where the real issue is. She’s certainly not the only teen-pop-star who once did cutesy, innocent, fun, girly roles and then grew up and was no longer that cutesy little character. They all grow up, and they all do different things but the problem can be when your girls still want to follow their career, buy their music and see their movies even after they leave cutesy behind and start doing more adult type projects. Sometimes those adult type projects may not always be so wholesome and decent as the once cutesy girl was involved with. In the minds of the fans, it’s still “Hannah Montana” (or whatever character they happened to play at the time when the girls first “met” them) but in reality that’s not who or what they are at all. Sometimes, trying to explain that to a young girl who is a fan is like talking to a wall.

I thought about all this after I read Miley Cyrus’ recent interview with Parade. I’d seen it mentioned on twitter and clicked through to read it, since my girls are indeed fans of Hannah Montana. What I read left me rather disappointed. Now to some, no matter what I say in the way of observation about her statements in this interview, it’s going to come across as judgemental. The fact of the matter is however, she claims to be a Christian and the truth about what a Christian is, is not what she represented in this interview. Obviously she doesn’t realize what a true Biblical Christian is, and that’s a shame. No question about it, there are likely millions of people exactly like her who have these same kinds of ideas and think that makes them a Christian.
Read the whole thing…