My blog will be moving to www.kimberleyfellowship.com. A link to Pastor's Blog is found easily on the main page. I have been posting for the last several months on both of these places and have decided to shut this one down for several reasons. 1. I would like to keep responses in one location. 2. I want to keep the blog associated with our church. 3. I would like to own my blog and have the posts saved on my computer, not with blogger. 4. People will more easily come in contact with our church website, so it makes sense to leave it on there. 5. It takes a lot more time posting on both sites.
You can still RSS feed from the other location, or if you like, you can join a list that received an e-mail when the blog is updated. Just send me an e-mail asking for that.
Check out my new post "How should you have responded to Sunday" here: 'http://www.kimberleyfellowship.com/Site/Blog/Entries/2009/11/10_how_should_you_have_responded_to_sunday%E2%80%99s_preaching.html
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Expository Preaching (part two)
One of the problems that I have found at Kimberley Fellowship teaching expositionally is that we often look at a book of the bible one chapter at a time. When we do this we can fail to see the broader themes that are going on over multiple chapters or the whole book. For example, last week we looked at 1 Corinthians 8 and Paul’s encouragement to place our love for each other over what we consider to be our ethical freedoms. Next Sunday, in chapter 9 we will look at Paul’s treatment of himself as a minister of the gospel. It would be a mistake for us to separate the chapters since 9 is a personal example of the principle Paul was setting up in 8.
Things like inconsistent attendance, poor memories, weeks where guests preach, etc all make it difficult to fully realize the momentum of book. But as a listener there are are things you can do to more fully participate in preaching the Word. You are encouraged to be reading personally the book that is being taught on Sunday mornings. It is a very helpful practice to read from the beginning of the book being studied all the way till the end of the chapter to be preached on that Sunday. Note taking can also be helpful as it gives us some summaries to look back on and refresh our memories. Consistent attendance is obviously my desire, yet I am also well aware that inconsistency in not always do to apathetic hearts. We we are sick or away for even one week consider discussing the passage with someone who was in attendance. I am considering proving notes in a blog post each week that summarizes what was discussed.
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Things like inconsistent attendance, poor memories, weeks where guests preach, etc all make it difficult to fully realize the momentum of book. But as a listener there are are things you can do to more fully participate in preaching the Word. You are encouraged to be reading personally the book that is being taught on Sunday mornings. It is a very helpful practice to read from the beginning of the book being studied all the way till the end of the chapter to be preached on that Sunday. Note taking can also be helpful as it gives us some summaries to look back on and refresh our memories. Consistent attendance is obviously my desire, yet I am also well aware that inconsistency in not always do to apathetic hearts. We we are sick or away for even one week consider discussing the passage with someone who was in attendance. I am considering proving notes in a blog post each week that summarizes what was discussed.
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Expository Preaching (part one)
Preaching in churches can look a number of different ways as you’ve probably noticed. The experience you’ll have in our church is teaching through a book of the Bible one section at a time and applying the message of those verses to our lives. It is a practice as old as Jesus and the apostle Paul (see Matthew 13:14-17 and Acts 28:23-28 for examples). Many of the most influential preachers in church history have used the messages of scripture as the basis for their content. D Martyn Lloyd-Jones spent 7 years preaching through Romans taking only a verse or two each Sunday. Charles Spurgeon, John Stott, John MacArthur, and Mark Driscoll also teach expositionally.
Alternatives to expository preaching are far outweighing it in recent days. Preachers are more often using personal stories and anecdotes to teach moral lessons. Topical preachers take an issue people have questions about and find verses that help advise. The unfortunate result of such preaching is that the message is limited to the preachers understanding and opinion.
An expository preacher spends hours each week studying what the scripture has to say. If his purpose is to listen to the text and apply it, God’s voice will be heard as the preacher hears it afresh each week. The choice of topics are also governed by God as the books of scripture set this schedule.
I personally began preaching expositionally as a pastor to high school students and found it to be effective. As a college student my pastor (and now father-law) told me that if I preach out of my own experiences and understanding I will exhaust them and have nothing left to say, but I will never be able to exhaust what is in the Bible. It has also come from my personal spiritual life. Christ began regenerating me when reading the epistles in high school. Since then I have read through books of the Bible applying their truths to my life.
The experience of the listener ought to focus on the text and then the heart. Working through the verses with the pastor is the listeners work. This involves shifting from weighing whether he or she agrees with the pastor to studying the verses to discover what God says. Once we have discovered this, open up your heart to apply this message to your life. Since preaching is done to a group, the application will be directed in a general sense. It is the listeners responsibility to deeply apply this application into their whole being.
“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” Hebrews 4:12
Alternatives to expository preaching are far outweighing it in recent days. Preachers are more often using personal stories and anecdotes to teach moral lessons. Topical preachers take an issue people have questions about and find verses that help advise. The unfortunate result of such preaching is that the message is limited to the preachers understanding and opinion.
An expository preacher spends hours each week studying what the scripture has to say. If his purpose is to listen to the text and apply it, God’s voice will be heard as the preacher hears it afresh each week. The choice of topics are also governed by God as the books of scripture set this schedule.
I personally began preaching expositionally as a pastor to high school students and found it to be effective. As a college student my pastor (and now father-law) told me that if I preach out of my own experiences and understanding I will exhaust them and have nothing left to say, but I will never be able to exhaust what is in the Bible. It has also come from my personal spiritual life. Christ began regenerating me when reading the epistles in high school. Since then I have read through books of the Bible applying their truths to my life.
The experience of the listener ought to focus on the text and then the heart. Working through the verses with the pastor is the listeners work. This involves shifting from weighing whether he or she agrees with the pastor to studying the verses to discover what God says. Once we have discovered this, open up your heart to apply this message to your life. Since preaching is done to a group, the application will be directed in a general sense. It is the listeners responsibility to deeply apply this application into their whole being.
“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” Hebrews 4:12
Friday, October 30, 2009
October 31
While I’ve carved pumpkins, purchased candy and helped prepare my children for Halloween, I have been most interested with thoughts of the 500th anniversary of the great reformation that will no doubt be celebrated on Halloween day just 8 years from now.
October 31, 1517 was the day that monk, professor and reformer Martin Luther addressed evils in the church. He presented his position in a document that has come to be know as the 95 thesis’. While the reformation is a movement that had been set into motion a hundred or more years earlier, it is October 31st that will generally be associated with its advent. In this document, Luther advocated for ‘sola fide’, that justification is by faith alone. He urged the church to stop preaching an practicing a belief that our right standing before God is achieved by our actions. Since this is at the core of what we believe, halloween provides something of greater significance to consider.
October 31, 1517 was the day that monk, professor and reformer Martin Luther addressed evils in the church. He presented his position in a document that has come to be know as the 95 thesis’. While the reformation is a movement that had been set into motion a hundred or more years earlier, it is October 31st that will generally be associated with its advent. In this document, Luther advocated for ‘sola fide’, that justification is by faith alone. He urged the church to stop preaching an practicing a belief that our right standing before God is achieved by our actions. Since this is at the core of what we believe, halloween provides something of greater significance to consider.
Friday, October 16, 2009
(I, not the Lord)
Concerns about the apostle Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 on marriage are sadly ignored by many Christians. Much of this is because of our desire for things outside of what is good and right. What is more, is that I am greatly disturbed by some do not believe Paul is writing scripture in parts of this chapter because of his expression in verse 12 "(I, not the Lord)" and in verse 25, "I have no command from the Lord, but give my judgement." The troubling belief is that Paul is offering his own advice about marriage, but since he was single we should just ignore him. My concern for this position is great for it requires Paul in all his letters to clarify to us whether he is writing God's words (as in 7:10) or his own words (as in 7:12 & 25). Scripture is fully human and fully divine, fully inspired in all verses.
Why does Paul use these expressions then? Instead of an indication that Paul is moving from divine to human authorship he is likely making reference in 7:10-11 to a known saying from the historical Jesus. While Jesus lived he said many things, not all of them are recorded in the gospels (as John makes clear in John 21:25). Luke makes reference to the saying "it is more blessed to give than to receive" in Acts 20:35. It is likely that a document containing such expressions existed and was drawn upon by Matthew, Mark and Luke in the writing of their gospels as many of their stories are duplicates. So Paul is giving married couples the very words of Jesus to guide their decision. He could be drawing on Matthew 5:31-32, or another record or Jesus' teaching on divorce.
When he comes to verse 12 then, Paul is answering a specific question of a believer married to an unbeliever. This question was not asked of Jesus as the church was yet to be founded. So Paul cannot provide another quote, but gives his own council, which is on par with every other word Paul has recorded in scripture. As Peter assures us, in all of Paul's letters he speaks scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). In 1 Corinthians 7:25, Paul makes the case for his words by being trustworthy by the Lord's mercy. Paul's words in this chapter are God's words to us. Will we listen?
Why does Paul use these expressions then? Instead of an indication that Paul is moving from divine to human authorship he is likely making reference in 7:10-11 to a known saying from the historical Jesus. While Jesus lived he said many things, not all of them are recorded in the gospels (as John makes clear in John 21:25). Luke makes reference to the saying "it is more blessed to give than to receive" in Acts 20:35. It is likely that a document containing such expressions existed and was drawn upon by Matthew, Mark and Luke in the writing of their gospels as many of their stories are duplicates. So Paul is giving married couples the very words of Jesus to guide their decision. He could be drawing on Matthew 5:31-32, or another record or Jesus' teaching on divorce.
When he comes to verse 12 then, Paul is answering a specific question of a believer married to an unbeliever. This question was not asked of Jesus as the church was yet to be founded. So Paul cannot provide another quote, but gives his own council, which is on par with every other word Paul has recorded in scripture. As Peter assures us, in all of Paul's letters he speaks scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). In 1 Corinthians 7:25, Paul makes the case for his words by being trustworthy by the Lord's mercy. Paul's words in this chapter are God's words to us. Will we listen?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
'brothers' in 1 & 2 Corinthians
The term ‘brothers’ is used 36 times in 1 & 2 Corinthians. The ESV translates this directly from ‘adelphoi’. With the rise of gender-inclusive language over the past two decades there has been a greater need to clarify the translation of this word. While some translations have opted to be inclusive in the text (ie: ‘brothers and sisters’ as translated by the TNIV and NLT) it is best to keep the text pure and understand how this word should be understood.
Adelphoi often refers to the family bond between two males from the same mother. In the gospels, this is the usual sense (Matthew 4:18, John 7:3), but not the only (Matthew 25:40). In 1 Corinthians, only once does the word have this force (9:5 when Paul refers to the half-brothers of Jesus). So what does it mean 35 other times?
In his correspondence with the Corinthians, Paul uses the term ‘adelphoi’ to refer to the whole church. Several indicators have led to this conclusion. First, Paul is writing a letter with the understanding that it would be read aloud to the entire church. Second, it is obvious that Paul is not writing to a group of biological brothers (1:2). Third, Paul uses other terms to address them that do not have a male quality (ie: 3:16, 4:14, 7:8, 7:25).
The word that usually refers to male siblings is now being used to refer to a church. Why doesn’t Paul use the expression ‘brothers and sisters’? Probably the most natural reason is because it is the same word root. In the greek language words are either masculine, feminine or neuter. This usually has nothing to do with sexuality (ie: ‘night’ is feminine, yet is is a time of the day). However, in the case of ‘adelph’ the ending changes the gender. Adelphoi means brothers and Adelphai means sisters. It would seem redundant to use the masculine and feminine forms in the 35 uses of the word.
In our reading of the text of 1 & 2 Corinthians, we understand Paul to be addressing the whole congregation of believers when he uses the word ‘brothers’.
Those of you who don’t enjoy such technical work haven’t read this far. But the implications of this are huge. Was the letter written to just the men of the the church, or to the men and women? I am preaching and applying this to all of us because I believe this to be Paul’s intended audience. And we must be careful to gain this application from the text itself, not from broader to be gender inclusive.
Adelphoi often refers to the family bond between two males from the same mother. In the gospels, this is the usual sense (Matthew 4:18, John 7:3), but not the only (Matthew 25:40). In 1 Corinthians, only once does the word have this force (9:5 when Paul refers to the half-brothers of Jesus). So what does it mean 35 other times?
In his correspondence with the Corinthians, Paul uses the term ‘adelphoi’ to refer to the whole church. Several indicators have led to this conclusion. First, Paul is writing a letter with the understanding that it would be read aloud to the entire church. Second, it is obvious that Paul is not writing to a group of biological brothers (1:2). Third, Paul uses other terms to address them that do not have a male quality (ie: 3:16, 4:14, 7:8, 7:25).
The word that usually refers to male siblings is now being used to refer to a church. Why doesn’t Paul use the expression ‘brothers and sisters’? Probably the most natural reason is because it is the same word root. In the greek language words are either masculine, feminine or neuter. This usually has nothing to do with sexuality (ie: ‘night’ is feminine, yet is is a time of the day). However, in the case of ‘adelph’ the ending changes the gender. Adelphoi means brothers and Adelphai means sisters. It would seem redundant to use the masculine and feminine forms in the 35 uses of the word.
In our reading of the text of 1 & 2 Corinthians, we understand Paul to be addressing the whole congregation of believers when he uses the word ‘brothers’.
Those of you who don’t enjoy such technical work haven’t read this far. But the implications of this are huge. Was the letter written to just the men of the the church, or to the men and women? I am preaching and applying this to all of us because I believe this to be Paul’s intended audience. And we must be careful to gain this application from the text itself, not from broader to be gender inclusive.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Retirement Calling
"You may have heard that retirement can kill you. Men and women die of boredom, for lack of intellectual challenge, or from the deafening silence that can accompany a spouse’s death. Depressed saving accounts may represent another motivation to stay gainfully employed. Even if times were better, you might simply prefer staying active in your career, maintaining a position of influence that you’ve worked hard to reach."
You can read rest of this great article on retirement here: www.ligonier.org/tabletalk/2009/10/1198_Don't_Retire_We_Need_You"
It is an excellent challenge to a congregation like ours that is a pairing of young families and those ready to or already retired. The demographic of Kimberley matches our congregation and probably won't change as Kimberley continues to attract this demographic. Instead of battling against this trend, Chediak's article is a beautiful picture of how these two worlds can work really well together. There are many examples in our church of how this is working well, I hope this encourages more of it. And for you on the younger side of this pairing, the article is good challenge for you as well, so read on.
You can read rest of this great article on retirement here: www.ligonier.org/tabletalk/2009/10/1198_Don't_Retire_We_Need_You"
It is an excellent challenge to a congregation like ours that is a pairing of young families and those ready to or already retired. The demographic of Kimberley matches our congregation and probably won't change as Kimberley continues to attract this demographic. Instead of battling against this trend, Chediak's article is a beautiful picture of how these two worlds can work really well together. There are many examples in our church of how this is working well, I hope this encourages more of it. And for you on the younger side of this pairing, the article is good challenge for you as well, so read on.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Baptism
On September 19th, hours before packing up the kids for the fall event at the Taggarts, I got in touch with Jesse (we were playing phone tag for a couple of days). He wanted to get baptized. I’ve known Jesse for almost a year now and we’ve talked about baptism and I knew that he understood it, and would be ready for it when he said he was. 20 hours notice to fill and warm the church tank isn’t much, so I gave Jesse a few options. We could wait a couple weeks (I was out of town the next Sunday), do it in cold water, or do it in a few hours in the hot tub at the fall event. We opted for the hot tub and it ended up being more significant than I had thought.
Baptism is practiced immediately after a profession of faith. I don’t ask people to go through classes, clean up their life, or hang around for a few years before baptism. So I loved it that we were doing it immediately after Jesse was reading his Bible and feeling prompted by God. I also loved that it was informal, real, before God’s people as they were gathered and without the unnecessary feeling that we should be in a church building. There was around 25 people there and everyone was really affirming of the way it was done.
Jesse’s story is that his life was in the wrong direction until a few years ago he was involved in a car crash that should have killed him. He had to be resuscitated three times, and suffered many serious injuries spending over a month in hospital to recuperate. Today he knows that God has intervened in his life and provided a very uncommon recovery. He has also been on a search to find out more about the God who saved his physical life. As a result he has heard the gospel and received God’s grace in his life. He knows that Jesus is his substitute and has given him a new heart.
The event, where he was baptized, ended up being only a few hundred feet away from the site of this accident that initiated his new life in Christ. It was a powerful testimony that God is working to redeem our lives for his glory. Next time you see Jesse, encourage him in his new life.
“We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:4
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Update of Collision Movie
Finally, the release date of October 27th has been set for the movie 'Collision'. It is a documentary that features a series of debates between atheist Christopher Hitchens and Christian Doug Wilson. I've been excited about this for quite a while now. You can visit the website 'www.collisionmovie.com' and watch the first 13 minutes of the film. I plan on organizing a showing somewhere in Kimberley. I you are interested, please show yourself.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Responses to 'Missional Church'
What I shared about on Sunday has been on my heart for some time, and I am amazed at how it has been on the hearts of others at the same time. If you haven’t heard it, please take the time to do so and get in on the conversation. Video of the Sermon is posted in the teaching section of the church website (www.kimberleyfellowship.com)
Before I could leave the front of the church someone greeted me to talk about the idea of our church being engaged in our community. Toward the end he made one of those ‘wouldn’t it be great if...’ statements that when I got it, it summed up what I’m thinking perfectly. ‘Wouldn’t it be great if one day the city had to come to us if they wanted something to happen’. What if the church was the critical player in addressing the needs of the city? I think that is a great vision. Going from irrelevant to relevant.
Others are not quite there, still unsure of the wisdom or viability of engaging the city, but others were already out the door doing the kind of ministry I’m talking about before the service was over. And I’m not kidding. You’ll be hearing more about a huge opportunity to engage in ministry outside of the church shortly. And it’s already happening by God’s wisdom.
I have heard great applications to our church budget. Does our budget need to shift? Yes. Our budget needs to change and so does the way we organize our ministry teams. We must remain committed to teaching our children and serving communion, but somewhere we must say no to things so we can make shifts toward recontextualizing the gospel.
It is unrealistic to wait for me to do everything that needs to be done to shift our church back on vision. And this is my fear. But how encouraging it has been to hear some of us begin to made the applications we need and lead in the areas they are called to do so. Let us continue to talk, dream, encourage, do, and live our God-given mission.
Before I could leave the front of the church someone greeted me to talk about the idea of our church being engaged in our community. Toward the end he made one of those ‘wouldn’t it be great if...’ statements that when I got it, it summed up what I’m thinking perfectly. ‘Wouldn’t it be great if one day the city had to come to us if they wanted something to happen’. What if the church was the critical player in addressing the needs of the city? I think that is a great vision. Going from irrelevant to relevant.
Others are not quite there, still unsure of the wisdom or viability of engaging the city, but others were already out the door doing the kind of ministry I’m talking about before the service was over. And I’m not kidding. You’ll be hearing more about a huge opportunity to engage in ministry outside of the church shortly. And it’s already happening by God’s wisdom.
I have heard great applications to our church budget. Does our budget need to shift? Yes. Our budget needs to change and so does the way we organize our ministry teams. We must remain committed to teaching our children and serving communion, but somewhere we must say no to things so we can make shifts toward recontextualizing the gospel.
It is unrealistic to wait for me to do everything that needs to be done to shift our church back on vision. And this is my fear. But how encouraging it has been to hear some of us begin to made the applications we need and lead in the areas they are called to do so. Let us continue to talk, dream, encourage, do, and live our God-given mission.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Don't Give up Everything
The prayer in often sincere ‘Lord, I give everything to you’. But I think it is a lame excuse to look pious for a moment just to start doing things again later that day. This begins a cycle of guilt, disconnects us from our mission and ultimately makes us at the centre, not Christ.
Are Christians ever commanded to ‘give up everything?’ The answer to this question would take more than I am willing to write at this moment, but the conclusion would be ‘not in the sense we often are thinking when we say that’. The disciples tell Jesus that they have left everything, the rich young ruler leaves sad because he doesn’t give up everything, and all things are to be subject to Christ in the next age. But does this mean that we are to give up EVERYTHING? I don’t think we mean ‘just sin’ when we say ‘everything’. I think we mean, literally everything.
I remember being at evening church gatherings where my worship of God was pure and honest. I left humbled, yet joyful over the power that God yields in my life. Yet before bed as I watched the eleven o’clock sports highlights I felt guilty for going back to the pagan things I repented of hours ago. I even felt guilty about going to bed, should I give that up too?
I don’t think so. If we follow the ultimate good of the idea of giving up everything for God I think we ultimately see ourselves in a perfect church, meditating, praying and drinking tea made with ingredients listed in the Old Testament. This isn’t what God wants. Please resist the desire to disagree with me here. God wants to redeem our lives. God wants to put us on a mission to proclaim the gospel. We should not think of giving up everything item by item until we are like him but rather redeeming everything so we are not empty, but full of godliness. We should keep our jobs, be connected to our culture, speak to our children, cut our lawns, make dinners, have sex with our spouse, clean our bathroom, vote in elections, and if there is time left over, watch the sports highlights.
The end result of giving everything up to God is a Christian elitism where some Christians are superior to others and these elitists form a church that is disconnected from both the world and any Christians who are not as good as they are. This is not the church. The church is both radically connected to culture and radically different than culture at the same time.
If instead of trying to give up everything (which is really impossible anyway) and started asking God what he wants us to do with everything, we’ll be in the direction to transform our lives.
Are Christians ever commanded to ‘give up everything?’ The answer to this question would take more than I am willing to write at this moment, but the conclusion would be ‘not in the sense we often are thinking when we say that’. The disciples tell Jesus that they have left everything, the rich young ruler leaves sad because he doesn’t give up everything, and all things are to be subject to Christ in the next age. But does this mean that we are to give up EVERYTHING? I don’t think we mean ‘just sin’ when we say ‘everything’. I think we mean, literally everything.
I remember being at evening church gatherings where my worship of God was pure and honest. I left humbled, yet joyful over the power that God yields in my life. Yet before bed as I watched the eleven o’clock sports highlights I felt guilty for going back to the pagan things I repented of hours ago. I even felt guilty about going to bed, should I give that up too?
I don’t think so. If we follow the ultimate good of the idea of giving up everything for God I think we ultimately see ourselves in a perfect church, meditating, praying and drinking tea made with ingredients listed in the Old Testament. This isn’t what God wants. Please resist the desire to disagree with me here. God wants to redeem our lives. God wants to put us on a mission to proclaim the gospel. We should not think of giving up everything item by item until we are like him but rather redeeming everything so we are not empty, but full of godliness. We should keep our jobs, be connected to our culture, speak to our children, cut our lawns, make dinners, have sex with our spouse, clean our bathroom, vote in elections, and if there is time left over, watch the sports highlights.
The end result of giving everything up to God is a Christian elitism where some Christians are superior to others and these elitists form a church that is disconnected from both the world and any Christians who are not as good as they are. This is not the church. The church is both radically connected to culture and radically different than culture at the same time.
If instead of trying to give up everything (which is really impossible anyway) and started asking God what he wants us to do with everything, we’ll be in the direction to transform our lives.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The gospel...plus (part three)
Culture is unavoidable. The language we speak, our interests, jobs, food, humor, etc is all cultural. The idea that that the church needs to avoid cultural fads is simply an excuse to choose one cultural expression over another. It is impossible for the church to do things the same way for centuries and it obviously hasn’t happened.
There is one thing that should not change. It is the central teaching that we are bad, God is righteous and we can only be made righteous by God saving us through Jesus. This is the gospel, the only teaching the New Testament has.
The battle though, is often not fought for the gospel, but for how the gospel is applied in culture. We keep waiting for the ‘right’ cultural expression of the gospel and when we think we’ve found it, a little time goes by, our culture changes, and we are searching for it again. Some examples:
The Salvation army seemed to have it right when they sought to enroll people in ‘God’s army’ in the post-WWII culture. It was well respected until a new generation grew up in a country no longer at war. It was then criticized.
Dressing up for church, standing during services, removing hats at the church door seemed to be part of the Christian life for those who grew up respecting royalty. Since we took off our hats, dressed proper and stood at attention when the queen came to town, so much more should we do the same when we are in God’s house. Now that royalty looks less and less like God we don’t think this is so important anymore.
Reformers like Martin Luther wrote lyrics to songs sung in the pubs and the puritans brewed beer. Alcohol and Christianity went together like steak and red wine until prohibition 100 years ago. When drinking was associated with criminal activity drinking was heavily criticized. Only recently has this cultural trend swung back again and Christians once again drink beer and talk theology.
Since culture is not right and wrong, there will never be a perfect expression of the gospel. Rather we should seek to apply the unchanging truth about the work of God to love us in every culture. The application should constantly be changing, but the message not. Drinking or not drinking isn’t always right, but applying the gospel to the current culture.
I find this to be detrimental when churches create a culture that is so different from the surrounding city that they demand the people’s culture change so they can be forgiven by God. They ask them to listen to a specific style of music, do certain activities, speak a certain way, dress a certain way, vote for one particular political party, etc. I hope that our church looks like the cultures of Kimberley, but with the marked difference that the gospel makes.
I believe in the gospel, not the gospel plus common interests, not the gospel plus my position on a specific non-essential issue, and certainly not the gospel plus some cultural element.
There is one thing that should not change. It is the central teaching that we are bad, God is righteous and we can only be made righteous by God saving us through Jesus. This is the gospel, the only teaching the New Testament has.
The battle though, is often not fought for the gospel, but for how the gospel is applied in culture. We keep waiting for the ‘right’ cultural expression of the gospel and when we think we’ve found it, a little time goes by, our culture changes, and we are searching for it again. Some examples:
The Salvation army seemed to have it right when they sought to enroll people in ‘God’s army’ in the post-WWII culture. It was well respected until a new generation grew up in a country no longer at war. It was then criticized.
Dressing up for church, standing during services, removing hats at the church door seemed to be part of the Christian life for those who grew up respecting royalty. Since we took off our hats, dressed proper and stood at attention when the queen came to town, so much more should we do the same when we are in God’s house. Now that royalty looks less and less like God we don’t think this is so important anymore.
Reformers like Martin Luther wrote lyrics to songs sung in the pubs and the puritans brewed beer. Alcohol and Christianity went together like steak and red wine until prohibition 100 years ago. When drinking was associated with criminal activity drinking was heavily criticized. Only recently has this cultural trend swung back again and Christians once again drink beer and talk theology.
Since culture is not right and wrong, there will never be a perfect expression of the gospel. Rather we should seek to apply the unchanging truth about the work of God to love us in every culture. The application should constantly be changing, but the message not. Drinking or not drinking isn’t always right, but applying the gospel to the current culture.
I find this to be detrimental when churches create a culture that is so different from the surrounding city that they demand the people’s culture change so they can be forgiven by God. They ask them to listen to a specific style of music, do certain activities, speak a certain way, dress a certain way, vote for one particular political party, etc. I hope that our church looks like the cultures of Kimberley, but with the marked difference that the gospel makes.
I believe in the gospel, not the gospel plus common interests, not the gospel plus my position on a specific non-essential issue, and certainly not the gospel plus some cultural element.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
How many meanings?
Muslims, Jews, and Christians all consider the Bible to be scripture (although, Jews only consider the Old Testament scripture, and Muslims also consider the Koran scripture). And within each of those groups exist many divisions over how these scriptures should be read and applied.
For example, one of the points of greatest division in how Christians have read the Bible in the past 500 years has been over the passages on communion, in particular, 1 Corinthians 11. Questions that come from this text have produced varied answers. How often should we take it, who is allowed to take it, what are we eating, what happens when we take it, and what does it mean are all disputed. The same could be said on the issue of women in church ministry, a Christian’s responsibility to go to war, etc.
On such controversial issues there is an assumption that there is one correct view and the others are dead wrong. Yet when it comes to less controversial verses Christians in particular seem to have a greater openness to a number of appropriate responses.
Now, I know that it is a contradiction to both go to war and be a conscientious objector, so why do we think we can interpret other parts of the Bible any way we want? There are three basic approaches here. 1. The Bible is an inspirational book that can be interpreted any way. This has led to people killing each other in history, or as it is now, ‘I believe one thing and you believe another and we’re all ok’. 2. There can be a few meanings from one verse, but they don’t contradict each other. For example, 1 Corinthians 12:12 (the body is one and has many members) can refer both to the local church, as is clearly the context, but it can also refer to different church denominations, or members in a family. 3. The Bible has one meaning and we are limited to that. While we may not all agree on that meaning, there is only one. So 1 Corinthians 12:12 refers to the local church and while it may be a helpful concept elsewhere, those analogies only helpful, not scriptural.
Here’s how I see it. God exists and has made himself known to us in the Bible. We have no say in what he is like, how he instructs our life, etc. If we choose to ‘make up our own God’ he is just a part of our imagination. The relationship then is God as our creator, and we as his creation. We can’t create God, he knows us, he tells us who he is. Because I see it this way I think we are forever stuck asking the Bible the question, what does it mean. Our answer cannot be plural.
My whole response to the Bible since I read it in my late teens was to search for this singular meaning. It has been my goal to keep the voices of religions out of my head and let God speak for himself. My path has led me to a lot of study, work in the original languages, church life, hard questions, and at times hard stances, but I feel mostly honest about how I’ve approached the text. The text has shaped me, not the other way around.
My Christian friends don’t like it when I tell them that the context of a verse doesn’t allow them to interpret it they way they did. But is it really Christian to read and interpret however we like? That seems more like each ‘christian’ is developing their own religion, rather than getting to know God for who he is.
For example, one of the points of greatest division in how Christians have read the Bible in the past 500 years has been over the passages on communion, in particular, 1 Corinthians 11. Questions that come from this text have produced varied answers. How often should we take it, who is allowed to take it, what are we eating, what happens when we take it, and what does it mean are all disputed. The same could be said on the issue of women in church ministry, a Christian’s responsibility to go to war, etc.
On such controversial issues there is an assumption that there is one correct view and the others are dead wrong. Yet when it comes to less controversial verses Christians in particular seem to have a greater openness to a number of appropriate responses.
Now, I know that it is a contradiction to both go to war and be a conscientious objector, so why do we think we can interpret other parts of the Bible any way we want? There are three basic approaches here. 1. The Bible is an inspirational book that can be interpreted any way. This has led to people killing each other in history, or as it is now, ‘I believe one thing and you believe another and we’re all ok’. 2. There can be a few meanings from one verse, but they don’t contradict each other. For example, 1 Corinthians 12:12 (the body is one and has many members) can refer both to the local church, as is clearly the context, but it can also refer to different church denominations, or members in a family. 3. The Bible has one meaning and we are limited to that. While we may not all agree on that meaning, there is only one. So 1 Corinthians 12:12 refers to the local church and while it may be a helpful concept elsewhere, those analogies only helpful, not scriptural.
Here’s how I see it. God exists and has made himself known to us in the Bible. We have no say in what he is like, how he instructs our life, etc. If we choose to ‘make up our own God’ he is just a part of our imagination. The relationship then is God as our creator, and we as his creation. We can’t create God, he knows us, he tells us who he is. Because I see it this way I think we are forever stuck asking the Bible the question, what does it mean. Our answer cannot be plural.
My whole response to the Bible since I read it in my late teens was to search for this singular meaning. It has been my goal to keep the voices of religions out of my head and let God speak for himself. My path has led me to a lot of study, work in the original languages, church life, hard questions, and at times hard stances, but I feel mostly honest about how I’ve approached the text. The text has shaped me, not the other way around.
My Christian friends don’t like it when I tell them that the context of a verse doesn’t allow them to interpret it they way they did. But is it really Christian to read and interpret however we like? That seems more like each ‘christian’ is developing their own religion, rather than getting to know God for who he is.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Silence in Service
Mark Dever makes an interesting point about the purpose of silence in gathered worship. Why are we silent? Do the breaks in our service lead to what Dever is talking about? Mark Dever writes
“There's silence between various aspects of the service. I encourage service leaders to NOT do the "no-dead-airspace" TV standard of busy-ness. We LIKE "dead air space." "Dead air space" gives us time to reflect. To collect our thoughts. To consider what we've just heard or read or sung. The silence amplifies the words or music we've just heard. It allows us time to take it all in, and to pray. We have silence to prepare ourselves. We have silence between the announcements and the scriptural call to worship. We even have a moment of silence AFTER the service! I pronounce the benediction from the end of II Corinthians, invite the congregation to be seated. And then, after about a minute of silence, the pianist begins quietly playing the last hymn that we had just sung. During those few moments, we reflect and prepare to speak to others and depart. We do business with God. We prepare ourselves for the week ahead.
I'm a sound addict. Even as I write about silence now, I've got Paganini blasting in my study! But yesterday morning in church during one of our silences, I became aware of how corporate a labor such public silence is. Everyone works to be quiet. People stop moving their bulletins or looking for something in their purse. There's no movement. We, together, hear the silence. It engulfs us. It enhances our unity. It is something we all do together. Together we consider what we've just heard. Together we contribute to each other's space to think.”
Unfortunately, the breaks at Kimberley fellowship are when someone is taking their time to leave their seat and come to the front. They are not planned periods of silence, but awkward moments when people aren’t sure what they are supposed to do. I agree with Mark that we shouldn’t think of ourselves as a television program. But we should use our moments of silence not for awkwardness, but unity.
“There's silence between various aspects of the service. I encourage service leaders to NOT do the "no-dead-airspace" TV standard of busy-ness. We LIKE "dead air space." "Dead air space" gives us time to reflect. To collect our thoughts. To consider what we've just heard or read or sung. The silence amplifies the words or music we've just heard. It allows us time to take it all in, and to pray. We have silence to prepare ourselves. We have silence between the announcements and the scriptural call to worship. We even have a moment of silence AFTER the service! I pronounce the benediction from the end of II Corinthians, invite the congregation to be seated. And then, after about a minute of silence, the pianist begins quietly playing the last hymn that we had just sung. During those few moments, we reflect and prepare to speak to others and depart. We do business with God. We prepare ourselves for the week ahead.
I'm a sound addict. Even as I write about silence now, I've got Paganini blasting in my study! But yesterday morning in church during one of our silences, I became aware of how corporate a labor such public silence is. Everyone works to be quiet. People stop moving their bulletins or looking for something in their purse. There's no movement. We, together, hear the silence. It engulfs us. It enhances our unity. It is something we all do together. Together we consider what we've just heard. Together we contribute to each other's space to think.”
Unfortunately, the breaks at Kimberley fellowship are when someone is taking their time to leave their seat and come to the front. They are not planned periods of silence, but awkward moments when people aren’t sure what they are supposed to do. I agree with Mark that we shouldn’t think of ourselves as a television program. But we should use our moments of silence not for awkwardness, but unity.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The gospel...plus (part two)
There are many issues that Christians do not agree upon, but that does not mean they should divide over them. Someone’s position on drinking alcohol, their understanding of eschatology, or which translation of the scriptures they read from are what we at our church call ‘open-handed issues’. They are not things that should divide us.
More importantly, if they do divide us, we add something else to the requirements for salvation. We are not saved by the gospel plus no drinking alcohol, or the gospel plus the King James Version. We are saved by the gospel. The testimony of the gospel is proclaimed by our practice of unity in the gospel.
I recently heard Don Carson speaking on 1 Corinthians 8’s teaching that we should be concerned for our brother with a weak conscience. He made the point that Paul is not at all meaning the person who believes the gospel plus his area of conscience. In the case of someone who believes that it is the gospel plus abstinence from alcohol, he says...’pass the port’. For in that situation it is most beneficial to defend the gospel’s sufficiency to save.
And I know it’s easy for a guy like me who likes a beer on the weekend to support this, but it is just as important for those who are teetotalers. For example, John Piper put his ministry on the line when in the early 1980’s he had his church remove the clause in their constitution about abstaining from alcohol. Our church has similarly removed statements about eschatology.
Are their issues in your head that you automatically add to the gospel?
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. -Ephesians 2:8-9
More importantly, if they do divide us, we add something else to the requirements for salvation. We are not saved by the gospel plus no drinking alcohol, or the gospel plus the King James Version. We are saved by the gospel. The testimony of the gospel is proclaimed by our practice of unity in the gospel.
I recently heard Don Carson speaking on 1 Corinthians 8’s teaching that we should be concerned for our brother with a weak conscience. He made the point that Paul is not at all meaning the person who believes the gospel plus his area of conscience. In the case of someone who believes that it is the gospel plus abstinence from alcohol, he says...’pass the port’. For in that situation it is most beneficial to defend the gospel’s sufficiency to save.
And I know it’s easy for a guy like me who likes a beer on the weekend to support this, but it is just as important for those who are teetotalers. For example, John Piper put his ministry on the line when in the early 1980’s he had his church remove the clause in their constitution about abstaining from alcohol. Our church has similarly removed statements about eschatology.
Are their issues in your head that you automatically add to the gospel?
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. -Ephesians 2:8-9
Friday, July 10, 2009
John Calvin Turns 500
While you probably think in terms of your theology coming from scripture only, that’s never totally the case. How we read scripture has been shaped by the traditions we have grown up in, and for you and I that means the thoughts of John Calvin. A key reformer of a universal church that was badly off track, Calvin was a pastor and theologian that has re-shaped the Christian world. He has helpfully contributed to my theology the importance of the depravity of man and unearned grace of God.
In Calvin’s day the church was wickedly emphasizing what we must do to be in favor with God. Calvin rightly argued that we are out of favor with God because of our sin, and the only answer to it comes from the cross. Today we need to likewise battle the temptation to work our way into favor with God when he has accomplished the work that puts us into his favor.
Calvinism (the school of thought that has sprung from his teachings) is as strong as ever. Time magazine recently placed new calvinism as the #3 idea that is shaping the world right now. Pastors like Mark Driscoll, Rick McKinlay, Mark Dever, C.J. Mahaney, John Piper and many others are sure calvinists and experiencing effectiveness in their teaching. In particular, Calvin’s teaching on total depravity is easily accepted in a generation that has been abused, found relationships difficult, addictions a struggle, and had developed a mistrust from immoral celebrities and leaders. To put it bluntly, a people who spend more money on porn than music doesn’t have to be convinced that they are wicked.
There is a danger of course in becoming a ‘calvinist’ at the expense of being a Christian. People like Calvin do not set out to make a religion after themselves as much as bring the church back to the teachings of scripture. This is how Calvin helps our church. Five hundred years later he is calling us back to scripture, back to the grace of God and the depravity of man. Back to celebrating God’s merciful act of saving believers and keeping them in his love.
In Calvin’s day the church was wickedly emphasizing what we must do to be in favor with God. Calvin rightly argued that we are out of favor with God because of our sin, and the only answer to it comes from the cross. Today we need to likewise battle the temptation to work our way into favor with God when he has accomplished the work that puts us into his favor.
Calvinism (the school of thought that has sprung from his teachings) is as strong as ever. Time magazine recently placed new calvinism as the #3 idea that is shaping the world right now. Pastors like Mark Driscoll, Rick McKinlay, Mark Dever, C.J. Mahaney, John Piper and many others are sure calvinists and experiencing effectiveness in their teaching. In particular, Calvin’s teaching on total depravity is easily accepted in a generation that has been abused, found relationships difficult, addictions a struggle, and had developed a mistrust from immoral celebrities and leaders. To put it bluntly, a people who spend more money on porn than music doesn’t have to be convinced that they are wicked.
There is a danger of course in becoming a ‘calvinist’ at the expense of being a Christian. People like Calvin do not set out to make a religion after themselves as much as bring the church back to the teachings of scripture. This is how Calvin helps our church. Five hundred years later he is calling us back to scripture, back to the grace of God and the depravity of man. Back to celebrating God’s merciful act of saving believers and keeping them in his love.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The need for Relational Capital outside the church
I have been thinking about the concept of relational capital, in an organization. Let's take our church for example. We have financial capital (the money in the bank), asset capital (the building and things inside it), and we also have relational capital. This is the culture we have created to develop healthy relationships. It exists on every level from whether someone will let you borrow their table saw for the weekend to how happy the leadership is about their work. In the church, we should excel at this. The work of the Spirit in our lives is to build a people for His name. Having healthy relationships at all aspects of church life should be our strength, and I think we are blessed in this at our church. But for many businesses and organizations in our city, this is not the case. How badly do some need the help of others who know how to operate in a healthy environment. People who respond in love when they are hurt, people who are loyal when times are tough, people who will work with integrity. This is one area of your life where you can live the gospel. Wherever you work, or wherever you volunteer, be someone who can introduce the gospel as you introduce relational capital.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
the gospel...plus (part one)
The gospel is the only thing that saves and we receive this life-changing truth alone. We don't need the the gospel plus anything else. Beware of falling into the many traps that involve us believing the gospel plus anything else to be saved. In a series of posts I hope to bring some of the common ways we fall into this error.
The gospel plus common interests is a lie that abounds in our fallen church culture. People leave gospel-believing churches for all sorts of reasons, but most of these reasons comes down to not finding common interests (ie: there is no one here my age, there is nothing here for my kids, I don't like the style of music...). Conversely, people stay at churches because they find a social network there. Now, the church is about people, but the common reason we have for committing to a local church is the gospel, not the gospel plus anything else. We believe a 'gospel...plus' theology when we stay at a church because others that share our hobbies keep us there, or we leave a church because there are not enough people who share our hobbies. The gospel is enough to unite us, we do not need the gospel plus anything else. Many people who are highly involved in para-church organizations will often find that it is not the gospel that connects them to those they work with, but the task of the organization.
When people leave a local church in search of people they can spend time with on the weekend they ultimately leave with a powerless gospel that cannot redeem the relationships that don't involve a common goal. If your church is all people who hike together, or read the same books, or work in the same office, or whatever, it is likely that it is not a church, but a social gather of people who like that activity.
Do you have relationships with people in your church with whom you have little in common but the gospel? Develop those relationships, love those people, reconcile any fractured relationships only because you have the gospel in common.
The gospel plus common interests is a lie that abounds in our fallen church culture. People leave gospel-believing churches for all sorts of reasons, but most of these reasons comes down to not finding common interests (ie: there is no one here my age, there is nothing here for my kids, I don't like the style of music...). Conversely, people stay at churches because they find a social network there. Now, the church is about people, but the common reason we have for committing to a local church is the gospel, not the gospel plus anything else. We believe a 'gospel...plus' theology when we stay at a church because others that share our hobbies keep us there, or we leave a church because there are not enough people who share our hobbies. The gospel is enough to unite us, we do not need the gospel plus anything else. Many people who are highly involved in para-church organizations will often find that it is not the gospel that connects them to those they work with, but the task of the organization.
When people leave a local church in search of people they can spend time with on the weekend they ultimately leave with a powerless gospel that cannot redeem the relationships that don't involve a common goal. If your church is all people who hike together, or read the same books, or work in the same office, or whatever, it is likely that it is not a church, but a social gather of people who like that activity.
Do you have relationships with people in your church with whom you have little in common but the gospel? Develop those relationships, love those people, reconcile any fractured relationships only because you have the gospel in common.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Missional Living
Everyone is talking about being ‘missional’ on the blogs that I read. Unfortunately it’s mostly pastors that read these blogs and every believer that should live the gospel beyond their church. So, let me introduce you to the biblical concept of missional living.
If you only know Christians, you are not able to be a part of the mission of the church. But, instead of knocking on strangers’ doors with a copy of the New Testament or developing an in-church program for these strangers to come to, I am encouraging us get to know these strangers by bringing the gospel to them. The Apostle Paul spent time in the cultural hotspots, the places where people were. He proclaimed the gospel in those places and from there the joined churches. This is very evident in Athens, see Acts 17:16-34 for the story. If we are waiting for our neighbor to come to church to share the gospel, they will likely never hear it.
So how can we live the gospel in our city in realistic ways? Here are some examples:
Spend time in the coffee shops. There are several good places to get a coffee and meet the people of our city. I try and spend a few hours each week working from a cafe. Sometimes I get a lot of work done, but often I spend that time talking with people, many I’ve met for the first time.
Volunteer. Get involved in your kids sports program or help out with a community event. Find something that you care about and ask if there is any way to help out.
Get to know our neighbors. Most of us live in communities where we can easily talk with our neighbors, help them with something, go on a walk with them, talk at the park while our kids play together, etc.
Be a regular. When we frequent the same shops, cafe’s, or restaurants, people get to know us, we have conversations, trust is built and opportunities to share the gospel present themselves.
Join. If your hobby is golf, join a men’s night. If you work out at the gym, join a class.
The point is, you have been entrusted with the gospel, so live it, get to know your city, your culture, your neighbors.
If you only know Christians, you are not able to be a part of the mission of the church. But, instead of knocking on strangers’ doors with a copy of the New Testament or developing an in-church program for these strangers to come to, I am encouraging us get to know these strangers by bringing the gospel to them. The Apostle Paul spent time in the cultural hotspots, the places where people were. He proclaimed the gospel in those places and from there the joined churches. This is very evident in Athens, see Acts 17:16-34 for the story. If we are waiting for our neighbor to come to church to share the gospel, they will likely never hear it.
So how can we live the gospel in our city in realistic ways? Here are some examples:
Spend time in the coffee shops. There are several good places to get a coffee and meet the people of our city. I try and spend a few hours each week working from a cafe. Sometimes I get a lot of work done, but often I spend that time talking with people, many I’ve met for the first time.
Volunteer. Get involved in your kids sports program or help out with a community event. Find something that you care about and ask if there is any way to help out.
Get to know our neighbors. Most of us live in communities where we can easily talk with our neighbors, help them with something, go on a walk with them, talk at the park while our kids play together, etc.
Be a regular. When we frequent the same shops, cafe’s, or restaurants, people get to know us, we have conversations, trust is built and opportunities to share the gospel present themselves.
Join. If your hobby is golf, join a men’s night. If you work out at the gym, join a class.
The point is, you have been entrusted with the gospel, so live it, get to know your city, your culture, your neighbors.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
What Does the Cross Accomplish?
For the past seven weeks I've been teaching at the afternoon and the evening Bible studies atonement theology. My point has been to present the cross as Christ dying as our sacrifice to atone for our sin. At our last study I hoped to summarize the work of the cross with the 26 points below. I was helped by John Piper's book on the subject, a free on-line version of this is available here. http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_pojc/bpojc_all.pdf
I write this after the last evening study and I am relieved that it is over. I am relieved partially because it has been a lot of work, but mainly because this subject matter is very emotional. Everything that matters to me matters because of the atoning work of Christ on the cross. And I so desperately want our church to respond to the cross with the deepest appreciation at every point of our life. The application of the cross is endless. We will fall away from faith or the church because we don't understand and haven't been affected by the work of the cross. I am appreciative of all who attended the studies, yet I am deeply concerned for those who don't feel the weight of importance that this event has. It is not dull theology, but the life-changing work of God to which there is no substitute. A break from the weight of these concerns is needed for me. Be amazing this Easter at the glory of the atonement.
Here are the 26 points. This is good news.
Satisfied his justice over sins gone unpunished before Jesus’ death
‘in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins’ (Romans 3:25)
We no longer face the consequences of the fall and our own sin
‘redeemed us from the curse of the law’ (Galatians 3:13)
God is pleased
‘a fragrant offering and a sacrifice to God’ (Ephesians 5:2)
God shows he loves us
‘God shows his love for us’ (Romans 5:8)
We lose our criminal record
‘canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands’ (Colossians 2:13)
Our sins are forgiven
‘redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses’ (Ephesians 1:7)
To abolish all rituals as a path to salvation
‘but if I, brothers, still preach circumcision’ (Galatians 5:11)
To bring us to faith and keep us in the faith
‘I will make with them an everlasting covenant...And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. (Jeremiah 32:40)
To make us holy
‘in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him’ (Colossians 1:22)
To give us a clear conscience
‘purify our conscience from dead works’ (Hebrews 9:14)
To give us all things that are good
‘will he not also with him graciously give us all things’ (Romans 8:32)
To save us from the evil in the world today
‘to deliver us from the present evil age’ (Galatians 1:4)
We are friends, not enemies of God
‘we are reconciled’ (Romans 5:10)
To create the church
‘care for the church of God, which he bought with his own blood’ (Acts 20:28)
To bring to an end the OT Priesthood and sacrificial system
‘He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily’ (Hebrews 7:26-27)
We can fully love each other
‘that you may belong to another’ (Romans 7:4)
Live for God
‘those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised’ (2 Corinthians 5:15)
To show married couples how to live
‘Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her’ (Ephesians 5:25)
To give us an example of how to live in a sinful world
‘Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example’ (1 Peter 2:21)
To destroy the devil and slavery to the fear of death
‘destroy the one who has the power of death’ (Hebrews 2:15)
That we would be with him when we die
‘whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him’ (1 Thessalonians 5:10)
To secure our resurrection from the dead
‘we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his’ (Romans 6:5)
To unleash the power of God in the world
‘it is the power of God’ (1 Corinthians 1:18)
To destroy hostility between races
‘people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation (Revelation 5:9)
To bring us and him joy
‘For the joy that was set before him’ (Hebrews 12:2)
Blessings are bestowed on Christ
‘to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing’ (Revelation 5:12)
I write this after the last evening study and I am relieved that it is over. I am relieved partially because it has been a lot of work, but mainly because this subject matter is very emotional. Everything that matters to me matters because of the atoning work of Christ on the cross. And I so desperately want our church to respond to the cross with the deepest appreciation at every point of our life. The application of the cross is endless. We will fall away from faith or the church because we don't understand and haven't been affected by the work of the cross. I am appreciative of all who attended the studies, yet I am deeply concerned for those who don't feel the weight of importance that this event has. It is not dull theology, but the life-changing work of God to which there is no substitute. A break from the weight of these concerns is needed for me. Be amazing this Easter at the glory of the atonement.
Here are the 26 points. This is good news.
Satisfied his justice over sins gone unpunished before Jesus’ death
‘in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins’ (Romans 3:25)
We no longer face the consequences of the fall and our own sin
‘redeemed us from the curse of the law’ (Galatians 3:13)
God is pleased
‘a fragrant offering and a sacrifice to God’ (Ephesians 5:2)
God shows he loves us
‘God shows his love for us’ (Romans 5:8)
We lose our criminal record
‘canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands’ (Colossians 2:13)
Our sins are forgiven
‘redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses’ (Ephesians 1:7)
To abolish all rituals as a path to salvation
‘but if I, brothers, still preach circumcision’ (Galatians 5:11)
To bring us to faith and keep us in the faith
‘I will make with them an everlasting covenant...And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. (Jeremiah 32:40)
To make us holy
‘in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him’ (Colossians 1:22)
To give us a clear conscience
‘purify our conscience from dead works’ (Hebrews 9:14)
To give us all things that are good
‘will he not also with him graciously give us all things’ (Romans 8:32)
To save us from the evil in the world today
‘to deliver us from the present evil age’ (Galatians 1:4)
We are friends, not enemies of God
‘we are reconciled’ (Romans 5:10)
To create the church
‘care for the church of God, which he bought with his own blood’ (Acts 20:28)
To bring to an end the OT Priesthood and sacrificial system
‘He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily’ (Hebrews 7:26-27)
We can fully love each other
‘that you may belong to another’ (Romans 7:4)
Live for God
‘those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised’ (2 Corinthians 5:15)
To show married couples how to live
‘Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her’ (Ephesians 5:25)
To give us an example of how to live in a sinful world
‘Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example’ (1 Peter 2:21)
To destroy the devil and slavery to the fear of death
‘destroy the one who has the power of death’ (Hebrews 2:15)
That we would be with him when we die
‘whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him’ (1 Thessalonians 5:10)
To secure our resurrection from the dead
‘we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his’ (Romans 6:5)
To unleash the power of God in the world
‘it is the power of God’ (1 Corinthians 1:18)
To destroy hostility between races
‘people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation (Revelation 5:9)
To bring us and him joy
‘For the joy that was set before him’ (Hebrews 12:2)
Blessings are bestowed on Christ
‘to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing’ (Revelation 5:12)
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Did Jesus descend into hell?
The idea that Jesus descended into hell after his death on the cross comes from a document titled 'The Apostles Creed'. You have likely read it aloud before during a church service. Here is a Lutheran English translation:
The Apostles Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Christian Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
It is thought that the origins of the document are to the Apostles themselves. The idea is that this document summarized what the Apostles believed. And since the Apostles believed this, so should we.
And now, the rest of the story...
There are a number of reasons why we should be careful not to believe that Jesus descended into hell. First, is the appearance of this particular phrase 'He descended into hell.' It is not original. The first time it appears in this document, is in 390 (300+ years after the death of the apostles). And the second time it appears in a manuscript is in the year 650. So, if the Apostles Creed can be traced back to the Apostles, certainly the phrase in question was not part of their statement.
Second, we notice that the Apostles Creed is not part of the Bible. Those who decided which books were scripture and which books were not chose not to include this text. That doesn't mean the document isn't important. It can be a helpful summary of the beliefs of scripture if it correctly summarizes scripture. So does scripture teach that Jesus descended into hell?
Third 'it is finished' are famous words of scripture uttered by Christ on the cross. What is finished? The atonement. What Christ accomplishes dying on the cross as a sinless sacrifice we could not do. We would spend an eternity suffering and still not pay for our sins. Jesus' words 'it is finished' teach us that Jesus does not need to descend into hell and suffer some more because he is different than us - he is perfect. The point of the Bible studies I have been teaching recently are to show how the scriptures point continuously to the suffering and death on the cross to atone for sin. Nothing is mentioned about Jesus having to descend to hell to atone for sin. So if he isn't descending to hell to atone for sin, what is he doing there? Jesus came to suffer a vicarious death not for his sake, but for ours.
The Apostles Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Christian Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
It is thought that the origins of the document are to the Apostles themselves. The idea is that this document summarized what the Apostles believed. And since the Apostles believed this, so should we.
And now, the rest of the story...
There are a number of reasons why we should be careful not to believe that Jesus descended into hell. First, is the appearance of this particular phrase 'He descended into hell.' It is not original. The first time it appears in this document, is in 390 (300+ years after the death of the apostles). And the second time it appears in a manuscript is in the year 650. So, if the Apostles Creed can be traced back to the Apostles, certainly the phrase in question was not part of their statement.
Second, we notice that the Apostles Creed is not part of the Bible. Those who decided which books were scripture and which books were not chose not to include this text. That doesn't mean the document isn't important. It can be a helpful summary of the beliefs of scripture if it correctly summarizes scripture. So does scripture teach that Jesus descended into hell?
Third 'it is finished' are famous words of scripture uttered by Christ on the cross. What is finished? The atonement. What Christ accomplishes dying on the cross as a sinless sacrifice we could not do. We would spend an eternity suffering and still not pay for our sins. Jesus' words 'it is finished' teach us that Jesus does not need to descend into hell and suffer some more because he is different than us - he is perfect. The point of the Bible studies I have been teaching recently are to show how the scriptures point continuously to the suffering and death on the cross to atone for sin. Nothing is mentioned about Jesus having to descend to hell to atone for sin. So if he isn't descending to hell to atone for sin, what is he doing there? Jesus came to suffer a vicarious death not for his sake, but for ours.
Friday, March 13, 2009
The Collapse of Evangelicalism
"Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I'm convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close." - Michael Spencer
I am not quickly swayed by talk of the many crisis' that face our world. At my last trip to the video store I noticed how the new releases section is full of documentaries on the financial crisis, the water crisis, the food crisis and others. The words of Michael Spencer above are admittedly not 'a lock', but they find some affirmation from me. In his full-article he says "we fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith". I agree.
Evangelicals don't know what they believe, or more accurately 'who they believe,' all they know is that they are Christians. My desire in teaching through the New Testament on atonement at both our Bible studies has been to show us what it means to 'be a Christian'. Being people who see ourselves as totally depraved and in need of the saving act of God should not be equated with feelings of affinity toward Christ.
Whatever becomes of the infrastructure established by the evangelical tidal wave of past decades, the church will continue because the future of the church is not in our ability to reach people, but in God's ability to save people.
To check out the full article, go to http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html
I am not quickly swayed by talk of the many crisis' that face our world. At my last trip to the video store I noticed how the new releases section is full of documentaries on the financial crisis, the water crisis, the food crisis and others. The words of Michael Spencer above are admittedly not 'a lock', but they find some affirmation from me. In his full-article he says "we fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith". I agree.
Evangelicals don't know what they believe, or more accurately 'who they believe,' all they know is that they are Christians. My desire in teaching through the New Testament on atonement at both our Bible studies has been to show us what it means to 'be a Christian'. Being people who see ourselves as totally depraved and in need of the saving act of God should not be equated with feelings of affinity toward Christ.
Whatever becomes of the infrastructure established by the evangelical tidal wave of past decades, the church will continue because the future of the church is not in our ability to reach people, but in God's ability to save people.
To check out the full article, go to http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Abraham (almost) Sacrifices Isaac
Genesis 22 is troubling for many. It comes up frequently in conversations with my atheist friends. I have heard many helpful readings of this story as you probably have as well. It is a story that is an ultimate example of not holding too close the things that God gives us. It displays how Abraham has become a new man ready to trust in the promises of God no matter how bizarre. It is also a victorious example of how God tests us to mature our faith (as opposed to old Satan who tests us to destroy our faith). Yet, the big question that still haunts is 'why would God ask Abraham to do something that is against his character?' Not to mention issues around child sacrifice.
To this question I respond 'he's not (asking us to do something against his character)'. He's asking us to do something that seems to us to be against his character. When we read this story through the eyes of the original audience we see the story in this light. It is my position that Moses is writing Genesis to the Israelites to encourage them to 'man-up' and enter the promised land, believing that God will give them victory over those who currently inhabit the land.
The reader is told at the very start that God is not going to ask Abraham to really murder his son ('God tested Abraham'). The story is read all the way through that Isaac will the be fine and it will be a tremendous example of faith.
This is how the story reads. It reads this way because it identifies with how the Israelites must have felt. The call to enter the promised land would have felt like a call to sacrifice their young men in war. While Genesis 22 doesn't tell us the age of Isaac, he is old enough to carry all the wood for the sacrifice, but young enough to be called a young man (so, a good age to join the army). The story is told then to these fathers, that while it may seem like you are going to lose your son, God will preserve the descendants of Abraham and give victory securely.
At the end of the chapter is some information about Abraham's extended family, from which Isaac's wife Rebekah comes from. This further showing how God is working beyond what we know to ensure his promises are fulfilled.
We too are asked to do things as Christians that seems foolish in the eyes of the others, but the things we do have promises attached to them by God. Our focus here is not on why God is asking us to do (pray, give to the poor, speak against immorality, take communion, etc) but on how he works mightily in what we are doing.
"Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God" 1 Corinthians 3:18-19
To this question I respond 'he's not (asking us to do something against his character)'. He's asking us to do something that seems to us to be against his character. When we read this story through the eyes of the original audience we see the story in this light. It is my position that Moses is writing Genesis to the Israelites to encourage them to 'man-up' and enter the promised land, believing that God will give them victory over those who currently inhabit the land.
The reader is told at the very start that God is not going to ask Abraham to really murder his son ('God tested Abraham'). The story is read all the way through that Isaac will the be fine and it will be a tremendous example of faith.
This is how the story reads. It reads this way because it identifies with how the Israelites must have felt. The call to enter the promised land would have felt like a call to sacrifice their young men in war. While Genesis 22 doesn't tell us the age of Isaac, he is old enough to carry all the wood for the sacrifice, but young enough to be called a young man (so, a good age to join the army). The story is told then to these fathers, that while it may seem like you are going to lose your son, God will preserve the descendants of Abraham and give victory securely.
At the end of the chapter is some information about Abraham's extended family, from which Isaac's wife Rebekah comes from. This further showing how God is working beyond what we know to ensure his promises are fulfilled.
We too are asked to do things as Christians that seems foolish in the eyes of the others, but the things we do have promises attached to them by God. Our focus here is not on why God is asking us to do (pray, give to the poor, speak against immorality, take communion, etc) but on how he works mightily in what we are doing.
"Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God" 1 Corinthians 3:18-19
Friday, February 13, 2009
Does Abraham 'see' God?
We're dealing with Genesis 18-19 this Sunday which contains numerous passages that create difficulty. I will deal with some of them then, but I won't have time to look at the identity of the three visitors that Abraham meets in Chapter 18. In 18:1 the chapter begins with 'And the LORD appeared to him (Abraham)'. 18:2 goes on to say 'He (Abraham) lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him'. One of the men is identified as 'the LORD', a divine name for God.
The idea of Abraham meeting God in the appearance of a man passing by in the heat of the day causes concern to some. For me, the story is helpful as one of the biggest questions my children ask is 'can we see God'. Telling Bible stories about men who saw God and wrote down what he said is helpful. But did Abraham actually see God? What about Moses who is told that he cannot look upon God's face (Exodus 33:23)? Or Jesus who tells us that no one has seen the father (John 6:46)? Is this a contradiction?
Evangelical Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer reminds us of two theological truths about God regarding our question. One, God promises us his presence and two, God is transcendent, and therefore too much for us to look at (it is simply impossible for humans to fully grasp the divine). The divine visitor that Abraham hosts keeps the balance of these two ideas. God's presence is both with Abraham, but is not the full revelation of who God is. A good comparison would be Moses and the burning bush. The bush is a physical sign of the presence of God, God is speaking, but this is not all there is to God. So our answer is, no Abraham did not see the whole of God, but yes, the man he saw was a physical representation of the presence of God.
This must be included in our explanation to children as well. We need to explain how big God is, yet also teach how God has promised his presence. God will be with his people, never leaving, always near. Matthew 28:20, John 14:18, Galatians 3:14 are helpful here.
The idea of Abraham meeting God in the appearance of a man passing by in the heat of the day causes concern to some. For me, the story is helpful as one of the biggest questions my children ask is 'can we see God'. Telling Bible stories about men who saw God and wrote down what he said is helpful. But did Abraham actually see God? What about Moses who is told that he cannot look upon God's face (Exodus 33:23)? Or Jesus who tells us that no one has seen the father (John 6:46)? Is this a contradiction?
Evangelical Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer reminds us of two theological truths about God regarding our question. One, God promises us his presence and two, God is transcendent, and therefore too much for us to look at (it is simply impossible for humans to fully grasp the divine). The divine visitor that Abraham hosts keeps the balance of these two ideas. God's presence is both with Abraham, but is not the full revelation of who God is. A good comparison would be Moses and the burning bush. The bush is a physical sign of the presence of God, God is speaking, but this is not all there is to God. So our answer is, no Abraham did not see the whole of God, but yes, the man he saw was a physical representation of the presence of God.
This must be included in our explanation to children as well. We need to explain how big God is, yet also teach how God has promised his presence. God will be with his people, never leaving, always near. Matthew 28:20, John 14:18, Galatians 3:14 are helpful here.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
William Wilberforce
If you take a first year history course you won't hear about Jeremiah Burroughs, or many of the others I've been discussing with you. However, you can't talk about world history without discussing the changes that William Wilberforce in 18th century England. He wasn't raised with much Christian influence, rather from a well-to-do family that afforded him the opportunity to slack-off, drink and gamble all while his Cambridge education was paid for. Even though he wasted this opportunity, he was well-spoken, and from a influential family. This led him to be elected to parliament at only 21 years of age. When he turned 25 he became a Christian, though for a few years he struggled between Jesus and the world. Eventually he resigned from his clubs, dealt with his drinking problems and quit gambling when he beat a man who couldn't afford it.
As a politician, he never lost and election and became good friends with William Pitt who would become Prime Minister at only 25 years of age. While Wilberforce was small in size, he was a brilliant public speaker and influenced many in his lifetime. By far the most significant of his influences, and his life's pursuit, was to put an end to the slave trade. During Wilberforces lifetime, England captured between 35000 and 50000 Africans every year, shipping them to America where they were sold at great profit. The economy profited enormously because of it, but the capture and slave ship conditions were horrible. Mark Galli accurately summarizes it this way:
A boat of 100 to 150 tons could carry 300 to 600 slaves. Five feet of space separated the decks. Male slaves were laid on the floor and on shelves, manacled together in pairs, sometimes so closely packed they had to lie on their sides in sultry heat and rank air. Abruptly torn from their homes, wholly unused to the sea, they lay terrified by the mystery of what was to become of them.
They were fed the coarsest food. Numbers fell ill. Dysentery was rife. In fine weather, they would be taken on deck for a time and forced to dance in their chains, for exercise, while their quarters below were cleaned. In rough weather, they had to remain below. Conditions in a severe Atlantic gale of some days' duration would multiply their sufferings. It is a wonder that only up to a quarter of the slaves died on the voyage. But it is not a wonder that sometimes an African, temporarily released from his fetters, would leap into the sea.
Women and children were not chained together or packed so closely. But the women were regularly exposed to sailors' lust and children to sailors' cruelty. John Newton often told about a mate "who threw a child overboard because it moaned at night in its mother's arms and kept him awake."
Wilberforce spent his entire life working to end this. Though he had the support of the people, too many influential people made huge profits from the evil enterprise. Bill after bill was introduced into commons, but was defeated. Yet, days before his death, in the summer of 1833 the emancipation act passed and put an end to to the slave trade.
William Wilberforce, after his conversion struggled with his post in politics. He thought long about becoming a minister, but those around him confirmed his calling to fight against this great evil in the only place it could be defeated - government. Many great evils exist in our culture as well, they are protected by big money. What are these issues and what should the church's involvement be with these things? Is Wilberforce just a great example, or are any believers actually following his example? What does the Bible say about being involved in politics, fighting for reforms? We'll consider these things and more on Wednesday night. And hopefully another video.
*A post-thought about this. I should mention that this is a glaring example of how people have not always made the best moral decisions. The foundation of our morals is critical, and history should prove to us that. Our own decisions about right and wrong can easily be flawed, but God's word about morality is not. This should inform our decisions so we don't repeat the grave evils of those before us. Emancipation is not the great idea Wilberforce came up with, enforcing God's word is.
As a politician, he never lost and election and became good friends with William Pitt who would become Prime Minister at only 25 years of age. While Wilberforce was small in size, he was a brilliant public speaker and influenced many in his lifetime. By far the most significant of his influences, and his life's pursuit, was to put an end to the slave trade. During Wilberforces lifetime, England captured between 35000 and 50000 Africans every year, shipping them to America where they were sold at great profit. The economy profited enormously because of it, but the capture and slave ship conditions were horrible. Mark Galli accurately summarizes it this way:
A boat of 100 to 150 tons could carry 300 to 600 slaves. Five feet of space separated the decks. Male slaves were laid on the floor and on shelves, manacled together in pairs, sometimes so closely packed they had to lie on their sides in sultry heat and rank air. Abruptly torn from their homes, wholly unused to the sea, they lay terrified by the mystery of what was to become of them.
They were fed the coarsest food. Numbers fell ill. Dysentery was rife. In fine weather, they would be taken on deck for a time and forced to dance in their chains, for exercise, while their quarters below were cleaned. In rough weather, they had to remain below. Conditions in a severe Atlantic gale of some days' duration would multiply their sufferings. It is a wonder that only up to a quarter of the slaves died on the voyage. But it is not a wonder that sometimes an African, temporarily released from his fetters, would leap into the sea.
Women and children were not chained together or packed so closely. But the women were regularly exposed to sailors' lust and children to sailors' cruelty. John Newton often told about a mate "who threw a child overboard because it moaned at night in its mother's arms and kept him awake."
Wilberforce spent his entire life working to end this. Though he had the support of the people, too many influential people made huge profits from the evil enterprise. Bill after bill was introduced into commons, but was defeated. Yet, days before his death, in the summer of 1833 the emancipation act passed and put an end to to the slave trade.
William Wilberforce, after his conversion struggled with his post in politics. He thought long about becoming a minister, but those around him confirmed his calling to fight against this great evil in the only place it could be defeated - government. Many great evils exist in our culture as well, they are protected by big money. What are these issues and what should the church's involvement be with these things? Is Wilberforce just a great example, or are any believers actually following his example? What does the Bible say about being involved in politics, fighting for reforms? We'll consider these things and more on Wednesday night. And hopefully another video.
*A post-thought about this. I should mention that this is a glaring example of how people have not always made the best moral decisions. The foundation of our morals is critical, and history should prove to us that. Our own decisions about right and wrong can easily be flawed, but God's word about morality is not. This should inform our decisions so we don't repeat the grave evils of those before us. Emancipation is not the great idea Wilberforce came up with, enforcing God's word is.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Jonathan Edwards
I spent my 20s as the youth pastor of three medium-sized churches (I did other things in my 20's, so don't feel sorry for me). I took groups of these high school students to church rallies, Christian-Rock shows, weekend retreats and the like. By the arena-full I've heard speakers tell the group of students that they were experiencing a 'revival' and that they were a special generation. Now that I'm in my 30's I feel let down by talks of revival that didn't materialize. I don't take groups to 'big events' anymore, but I still desire to see the revival. Facts are that we are seeing a secularization of the church, not a revival. Non-Religious people make up 14% of the earth's population now, a far cry from under 1% at the beginning of the last century. But what disappoints me more than the many statistics that show the declining church is the heart of the church. Churches that are becoming hour-long 'shows' for busy people have lost the purpose of the church to be a vibrant community of faith.
Jonathan Edwards pastored a New-England church in the 18th century that experienced revivals so significant that history now refers to them as 'the great awakening'. Edwards and others with him are helpful to us today in our desire to see a renewal of the church. Here is a helpful summary of their teaching
1. The problem is the church's dullness and deadness toward God. Open sin and 'going through the motions' are what Edwards thought needed be addressed. The problem is not that the church is powerless in society, but that it is bored with itself.
2. Being satisfied with God and his glory is the source of any revival. A revival is not increases attendance, giving or excitement, but the church's gladness in God alone. It can not be human-generated.
3. Heart-stirring preaching and persistent prayer are what we need to do. New techniques that simply 'push the right buttons' are condemned by Revelation 3:17.
4. Avoid any romantic ideas about revival. Edwards saw the enemies of revival as opposition and extremism. Revival will not solve all of our problems.
5. The essence of true revival is an awakened heart. Edwards put it this way: It's not that we know in our heads that honey is sweet, but that we have a sense of its sweetness.
6. The outcome of the above is evangelism. Therefore, we should not start with evangelism, but with the dullness that you and I experience in the church.
Whether we agree with Edwards and how we apply this will be our discussion. I also mentioned that I will show a video clip that may help us understand whether one church in particular has understood Edwards' work and is experiencing true revival.
Jonathan Edwards pastored a New-England church in the 18th century that experienced revivals so significant that history now refers to them as 'the great awakening'. Edwards and others with him are helpful to us today in our desire to see a renewal of the church. Here is a helpful summary of their teaching
1. The problem is the church's dullness and deadness toward God. Open sin and 'going through the motions' are what Edwards thought needed be addressed. The problem is not that the church is powerless in society, but that it is bored with itself.
2. Being satisfied with God and his glory is the source of any revival. A revival is not increases attendance, giving or excitement, but the church's gladness in God alone. It can not be human-generated.
3. Heart-stirring preaching and persistent prayer are what we need to do. New techniques that simply 'push the right buttons' are condemned by Revelation 3:17.
4. Avoid any romantic ideas about revival. Edwards saw the enemies of revival as opposition and extremism. Revival will not solve all of our problems.
5. The essence of true revival is an awakened heart. Edwards put it this way: It's not that we know in our heads that honey is sweet, but that we have a sense of its sweetness.
6. The outcome of the above is evangelism. Therefore, we should not start with evangelism, but with the dullness that you and I experience in the church.
Whether we agree with Edwards and how we apply this will be our discussion. I also mentioned that I will show a video clip that may help us understand whether one church in particular has understood Edwards' work and is experiencing true revival.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Ulrich Zwingli
Ulrich Zwingli is considered to be the father of the Baptist tradition. During the 16th century reformation, people like Luther and Zwingli were correcting the errors that had crept into the church. They didn't all agree, in fact a disagreement between Luther and Zwingli over one of their 15 points caused Luther to say Zwingli was 'of the devil and nothing more than a wormy nut', and Zwingli to resent Luther for treating him 'like an ass'. While today Lutherans and Baptists have nicer things to say to each other, we will discuss what being baptist is all about. Here are some of Zwingli's key points and distinguishable characteristics. While not all of these are true across the board today, nor are they all 'essential' baptist belief, they should cause us to consider how we worship and what we believe about key issues.
Priests should be able to marry - Zwingli always struggled with the church doctrine that priests had to remain celibate. As a young priest he had an affair, he secretly married at 38, making it public two years later.
Fasting is not crucial - periods of fasting were prescribed by the church in Zwingli's day. He opposed the church having such involvement. He wrote against fasting and made a statement by eating a sausage in public during Lent.
Images - Zwingli worked to rid the church of images of Jesus, Mary and the saints believing that the Bible should have priority.
Communion - taking bread and wine was not to be seen as literally taking the body and blood of Jesus, nor was Jesus any more present during this time, rather it was a symbolic memorial.
Military - Zwingli was involved in the Swiss military and ended up dying in battle fighting for his country. However, he also worked to change the swiss economy away from being militant to engaging in more agriculture and trade.
Music - Zwingli was musically gifted, played six instruments, however in the church service he did away with the organ so people could 'give ear to the word of God alone'. As a result, baptists preach longer and place less value in music.
*note: Zwingli did not support believer's baptism ironically, this came about from an offshoot of his supporters who thought he didn't go far enough. This is called the 'Radical Reformation' and is a part of baptist heritage as well.
Some questions to consider
'If you were to give the church sanctuary a makeover, what would you like to see?'
'Should a Christian be in the military?'
'Should the pastor have the authority to ask the whole church to fast, give to a cause, volunteer for something, etc?'
'How is music meaningful at church, and how is it a distraction from the word of God?'
'How is the pastor any different than you? Does he have a higher standard? Should he have a higher standard?'
'Do you own any 'crosses/crucifixes' - why or why not?'
"For God's sake, do not put yourself at odds with the Word of God. For truly it will persist as surely as the Rhine follows its course. One can perhaps dam it up for awhile, but it is impossible to stop it." - Ulrich Zwingli
Priests should be able to marry - Zwingli always struggled with the church doctrine that priests had to remain celibate. As a young priest he had an affair, he secretly married at 38, making it public two years later.
Fasting is not crucial - periods of fasting were prescribed by the church in Zwingli's day. He opposed the church having such involvement. He wrote against fasting and made a statement by eating a sausage in public during Lent.
Images - Zwingli worked to rid the church of images of Jesus, Mary and the saints believing that the Bible should have priority.
Communion - taking bread and wine was not to be seen as literally taking the body and blood of Jesus, nor was Jesus any more present during this time, rather it was a symbolic memorial.
Military - Zwingli was involved in the Swiss military and ended up dying in battle fighting for his country. However, he also worked to change the swiss economy away from being militant to engaging in more agriculture and trade.
Music - Zwingli was musically gifted, played six instruments, however in the church service he did away with the organ so people could 'give ear to the word of God alone'. As a result, baptists preach longer and place less value in music.
*note: Zwingli did not support believer's baptism ironically, this came about from an offshoot of his supporters who thought he didn't go far enough. This is called the 'Radical Reformation' and is a part of baptist heritage as well.
Some questions to consider
'If you were to give the church sanctuary a makeover, what would you like to see?'
'Should a Christian be in the military?'
'Should the pastor have the authority to ask the whole church to fast, give to a cause, volunteer for something, etc?'
'How is music meaningful at church, and how is it a distraction from the word of God?'
'How is the pastor any different than you? Does he have a higher standard? Should he have a higher standard?'
'Do you own any 'crosses/crucifixes' - why or why not?'
"For God's sake, do not put yourself at odds with the Word of God. For truly it will persist as surely as the Rhine follows its course. One can perhaps dam it up for awhile, but it is impossible to stop it." - Ulrich Zwingli
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Jeremiah Burroughs
No doubt you have looked at the many denominations of churches in a critical way. In my life so far I went to a 'North American Baptist' college, pastored at a 'Baptist General Conference' church, then a 'Baptist Union' church, and now am at a 'Fellowship Baptist' church in Kimberley. And I've just rubbed shoulders with some of the Baptist denominations. In Kimberley alone there are Pentecostal, Four-Square, Presbyterian, Catholic, Anglican, United, Lutheran and Independent churches. During the reformation when some of these church denominations were being formed, a man named Jeremiah Burroughs argued in a gentle manner for denominations as a necessary part of the unity of the church. Could he be right, could all these denominations be helping church unity?
Burroughs grew up in England in the early 1600's when church government was decidedly hierarchical (the church leader was clearly in charge of all aspects). Disagreeing that this could be the only form of church government, Burroughs defended congregationalism (the congregation has authority) as a Biblical option. But because there was only one 'denomination' in England, his efforts found him 'kicked out' of the country. But instead of trying to change everyone's mind about his ideas for church government, he found ways to convince the English that having different denominations should be a part of the future of the church. He was not trying to cause a division, but taught that denominations were a natural part of the unity of the church. The criticism he took was over the nature of denominations to be a result of syncretism (when the church changes to be like its culture) or sectarianism (the idea that my denomination is the only true church). These critics kept Burroughs' ideas from being adopted until after his death. But his work led to a change that has paved the way for the many denominations we experience in Canada today.
Mark Shaw in his book "10 Great ideas from church history" provides the following 6 points from Burroughs' teaching that can help us discuss the worth of denominations.
1. Doctrinal differences are Inevitable
2. Doctrinal differences in secondary matters are still important
3. Differences Can be Useful
4. No single structure can fully represent the church of Christ
5. True unity is based on the common gospel and should be expressed through cooperation between denominations
6. Denominational separation is not schism
On Wednesday we will talk about denominations, how we should relate to other churches, and the like. Consider if denominations really are to the shame of the church, or if Burroughs is on to something. Could it be that we all represent a fraction of the larger picture of God's church?
Burroughs grew up in England in the early 1600's when church government was decidedly hierarchical (the church leader was clearly in charge of all aspects). Disagreeing that this could be the only form of church government, Burroughs defended congregationalism (the congregation has authority) as a Biblical option. But because there was only one 'denomination' in England, his efforts found him 'kicked out' of the country. But instead of trying to change everyone's mind about his ideas for church government, he found ways to convince the English that having different denominations should be a part of the future of the church. He was not trying to cause a division, but taught that denominations were a natural part of the unity of the church. The criticism he took was over the nature of denominations to be a result of syncretism (when the church changes to be like its culture) or sectarianism (the idea that my denomination is the only true church). These critics kept Burroughs' ideas from being adopted until after his death. But his work led to a change that has paved the way for the many denominations we experience in Canada today.
Mark Shaw in his book "10 Great ideas from church history" provides the following 6 points from Burroughs' teaching that can help us discuss the worth of denominations.
1. Doctrinal differences are Inevitable
2. Doctrinal differences in secondary matters are still important
3. Differences Can be Useful
4. No single structure can fully represent the church of Christ
5. True unity is based on the common gospel and should be expressed through cooperation between denominations
6. Denominational separation is not schism
On Wednesday we will talk about denominations, how we should relate to other churches, and the like. Consider if denominations really are to the shame of the church, or if Burroughs is on to something. Could it be that we all represent a fraction of the larger picture of God's church?
Saturday, January 10, 2009
John Wycliffe and the Lollards
This post is for the wonderful people who attend the Bible Study at my house on Wednesday Nights. We are taking a closer look at 6 people from history who have become well-known for how they applied scripture. Since the time of Ignatius of Antioch, his idea of a 'catholic (or universal)' church has been split, his idea of a 'Bishop' has been turned into a Pope, and his ideas about communion have been turned into a magic act where the bread and wine literally turn into flesh and blood.
The Catholic church at the time of John Wycliffe was taking money from people at every possible opportunity and spending was out of control. The Bible was not available in a translation that the people could read and people. The Pope was heavily involved in politics, yet his popularity was low.
John Wycliffe resisted these teachings and was a pioneer for change that didn't materialize until hundreds of years after his death. The following short biography of his life is from the Wycliffe Bible Translators website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Wycliffe lived almost 200 years before the Reformation, but his beliefs and teachings closely match those of Luther, Calvin and other reformers. As a man ahead of his time, historians have called Wycliffe the "Morning star of the Reformation."
Born in the 1300s, Wycliffe criticized abuses and false teachings in the Church. In 1382 he translated an English Bible—the first complete European translation done in nearly 1,000 years. The Lollards, itinerant preachers he sent throughout England, inspired a spiritual revolution.
But the Lollardy movement was short-lived. The Church expelled Wycliffe from his teaching position at Oxford, and 44 years after he died, the Pope ordered his bones exhumed and burned. Intense persecution stamped out his followers and teachings. It would be hundreds of years before men like Martin Luther resurrected the reforms of which Wycliffe dreamed.
The Catholic church at the time of John Wycliffe was taking money from people at every possible opportunity and spending was out of control. The Bible was not available in a translation that the people could read and people. The Pope was heavily involved in politics, yet his popularity was low.
John Wycliffe resisted these teachings and was a pioneer for change that didn't materialize until hundreds of years after his death. The following short biography of his life is from the Wycliffe Bible Translators website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Wycliffe lived almost 200 years before the Reformation, but his beliefs and teachings closely match those of Luther, Calvin and other reformers. As a man ahead of his time, historians have called Wycliffe the "Morning star of the Reformation."
Born in the 1300s, Wycliffe criticized abuses and false teachings in the Church. In 1382 he translated an English Bible—the first complete European translation done in nearly 1,000 years. The Lollards, itinerant preachers he sent throughout England, inspired a spiritual revolution.
But the Lollardy movement was short-lived. The Church expelled Wycliffe from his teaching position at Oxford, and 44 years after he died, the Pope ordered his bones exhumed and burned. Intense persecution stamped out his followers and teachings. It would be hundreds of years before men like Martin Luther resurrected the reforms of which Wycliffe dreamed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)