1-Become proficient in Biblical Greek
2-Get up at 6 AM every day (for devotion time followed by Greek study), with the exception of the mornings following those wonderful nights spent with great friends. This also means going to bed around 9 or 10. Which means getting tired, which means running and hiking.
3-Run and hike.
4-Do prison ministry; finally take my application in, get fingerprinted, and do prison ministry for the rest of my time in Arizona (5 months). Probably Wednesday evenings.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Glory of God & Sanctification
"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." 2nd Corinthians 3:18
The work that God is doing in us is more than just helping us to sin less. In fact, it's also more than just helping us to do good things. The transforming work God is doing in us TRANSCENDS our behavior.
Have you ever attempted to set up some system of godliness in your life, to remove some particular sin, and found that you came up empty? Not just failing your system, but empty?
We're getting closer when we speak of and pursue God's changing work in our hearts. But the sad thing is that a lot of us stop there. We want God to make us a "good person" rather than a "bad person". How tame and uninspiring!
Here's the secret--not some underground tip, but what should never have left the forefront of our attention--The transformation God works in us is centered on His magnificent glory.
Of course you came up empty in your behavior-based pursuits of "holiness". Look at the passage above (2 Cor 3:18) and observe these truths about sanctification:
-Sanctification takes place while "beholding...the glory of the Lord"
-Sanctification transforms us into a particular image (the image of Christ)
-Sanctification is a process of increasing glory ("from glory to glory")
-Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit ("just as from the Lord, the Spirit")
Sanctification is not primarily the absence of something but primarily the greater presence of something. That "something" is the glory of God. The glory of God is the inspiring reality that spurs us on, it is the power from which transformation happens, and it shown in us as the result of sanctification. That is sanctification.
And sinning less? Of course. But how does that occur?
"For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." -Romans 8:13
Keep the glory of God at the center of everything; what you value, what you love, what you hate, what you pursue. We are not called to impersonal moralism but called, through the Gospel, to enjoy the God of glory.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Did you know...
That introverts and extraverts have different brains?
-Introverts have busier brains, bubbling with activity. This is why introverts require less external activity than extraverts do, and excessive external activity becomes exhausting and overwhelming eventually for the introvert, who was already brimming with internal stimulation.
-Introverts' and extraverts' blood flows in different paths through the brain. Introverts have a greater amount of blood flow in the brain, but it moves in longer and slower paths than those of the extravert. The blood also flows to different sections; for the introvert it flows mainly to the sections that are focused on internal things, whereas for the extravert the blood flows to areas used for processing sensory experiences and data (thus external things).
-The chemical balances are also different.
All of this is taken from the book "Introverts in the Church: Finding Our Place in an Extraverted Culture" by Adam S. McHugh. And it's all information that he got from a journal article called "Cerebral Blood Flow and Personality: A Positron Emission Tomography Study", from the American Journal of Psychiatry #156, February 1999, pp. 252-257.
I recommend the book and would love to get my hands on this particular journal article. But then, I don't have access to it. But then again, I know some psych majors. Hmm...
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Understanding sin (and with it, the grace of God toward sinners)
One of the things God has made me attuned to when I am in His Word is the great disconnect (in different areas) between what I/we (in the Church) believe and what His word teaches, and between what He loves (and calls us to love) and then what we actually often times love.
The next thing for me to do when I am struck with a disconnect like this is to analyze it, analyze it, attempt to solve it in my brain from different directions, etc. and figure out what makes it so hard to fully believe and grasp certain things in the Word of God--so that we can finally align ourselves properly.
We can grasp theological facts and in a sense "agree" with the Bible, but what does that mean if we can't honestly see our theology worked out in everyday life? What good is our theology if we can't feel in our souls the weight of human sin and of the immense horror of hell, along with the glory of the Gospel, of the incredible value of being justified and the otherworldly hope of the resurrection of the dead and eternal life? And as a seal and affirmation and taste of those things, the powerful and glorious work of the Holy Spirit in our lives?
The following is not a comprehensive answer, but a list of some of the barriers I believe we must get past, and truths we must embrace, en route to reality. That reality is the grossness of sin; the fact that before Christ all people are "by nature objects of wrath", that God is incredibly serious and angry about sin (our generation tragically prefers not to be). This is the reality that we honestly have a hard time with, that makes us wonder if hell is really fair and softens up our pursuit of sanctification because we adopt our own 'progressive' definitions of sin.
-We believe we are more important than God. We believe His greatest concern is our happiness, when in fact it is His glory.
-We must recognize that God owns everything. He's not some god who decided to show up on the scene and reward the behavior He likes and punish the behavior He does not like. All things are about Him, and from Him, and to Him.
-We believe that stealing and adultery are wrong only because the Bible tells us not to do those things. Now, the Bible is inerrant and infallible and does tell us accurately what is true, BUT those things were wrong even before there was a Bible. Stealing, murder, lieing are all wrong because they violate the nature and character of the eternal and holy God. Which means that the worst possible offense (and the only offense) is to violate the character of God.
-We apply principles like the one above this one as we see fit, rather than agonizing over the sacred text and finding out from God what God finds offensive.
-We live in a self-exalting secular humanistic culture.
-We live in a basically prosperous nation where we go untested by many of the horrors of the world. Though, even in our great prosperity we (our country) are ungrateful and whiny.
-We probably aren't going to die anytime soon. So we often don't live with the sobering reality of death around us.
Feel free to add something or to contradict me.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Why I love to read the apostle John
"I never liked jazz music because jazz music doesn't resolve. But I was outside the Bagdad Theater in Portland one night when I saw a man playing the saxophone. I stood there for fifteen minutes, and he never opened his eyes. After that I liked jazz music. Sometimes you have to watch somebody love something before you can love it yourself. It is as if they are showing you the way." - Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz
I can relate to Donald Miller’s statements. I didn’t need to watch jazz in order to like it. But once I got serious about jazz, and about my instrument, I was quickly drawn to not only listen to my favorite players, but to watch them. It became obvious that in addition to playing different notes and different chords, they all interacted differently with their music. Oscar Peterson grinned in confident mastery of the piano as his fingers flew up and down the keyboard in execution of his bold and celebrative music. He even kept a face towel handy as he sweat as profusely as the more intense preachers I’ve watched. Bill Evans (in his younger years) quietly leaned into the piano, his face sometimes inches from the keys, contorted with some deep angst or perhaps intense focus. And his music reflected this complexity of emotion with complex, impressionistic harmonies struck down by his long, slender fingers at unexpected, jutting syncopations. Dave Brubeck seemed to (and still does) play every concert as if it were a Christmas present to him. He would smile in great wonder as his band mates took their solos, seemingly enjoying theirs as much as his own.
The men whom Jesus spent the majority of His ministry with share a paralleled spectrum of emotional appreciation and engagement of their Lord and His glory, and what it means to know Him. Perhaps the New Testament writer with the most artistic, poetic heart is the apostle John.
Several months ago I listened to a Bible teacher explain that the words in the Bible have a historical value, a theological value, and an aesthetic value. The first two are obvious but we often gloss over the aesthetic value. He pointed out that the aesthetic value, just like the historical and theological qualities of the text, tells us something about the author’s subject matter.
In John’s account of the Gospel of Christ, he could have opened with “Jesus has always existed as part of the godhead.” Instead, he writes, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God” (John 1:1). Throughout the letter it is clear that John was particularly attuned to Jesus’ plain yet slightly mysterious statements regarding truth and love. Thus it comes as no surprise that in John’s first epistle he repeatedly emphasizes two factors which mark somebody as truly belonging to God: truth (or holy living consistent with God’s truth) and love, especially love toward “the brothers”. Yet, even when revealing that not all who claim to be in the truth are actually in it, John’s words maintain a unique reverence, love, and beauty. He draws his readers into greater awe and love for the glory and majesty of God. And that is why I love to read the things that he was inspired by God to write.
I can relate to Donald Miller’s statements. I didn’t need to watch jazz in order to like it. But once I got serious about jazz, and about my instrument, I was quickly drawn to not only listen to my favorite players, but to watch them. It became obvious that in addition to playing different notes and different chords, they all interacted differently with their music. Oscar Peterson grinned in confident mastery of the piano as his fingers flew up and down the keyboard in execution of his bold and celebrative music. He even kept a face towel handy as he sweat as profusely as the more intense preachers I’ve watched. Bill Evans (in his younger years) quietly leaned into the piano, his face sometimes inches from the keys, contorted with some deep angst or perhaps intense focus. And his music reflected this complexity of emotion with complex, impressionistic harmonies struck down by his long, slender fingers at unexpected, jutting syncopations. Dave Brubeck seemed to (and still does) play every concert as if it were a Christmas present to him. He would smile in great wonder as his band mates took their solos, seemingly enjoying theirs as much as his own.
The men whom Jesus spent the majority of His ministry with share a paralleled spectrum of emotional appreciation and engagement of their Lord and His glory, and what it means to know Him. Perhaps the New Testament writer with the most artistic, poetic heart is the apostle John.
Several months ago I listened to a Bible teacher explain that the words in the Bible have a historical value, a theological value, and an aesthetic value. The first two are obvious but we often gloss over the aesthetic value. He pointed out that the aesthetic value, just like the historical and theological qualities of the text, tells us something about the author’s subject matter.
In John’s account of the Gospel of Christ, he could have opened with “Jesus has always existed as part of the godhead.” Instead, he writes, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God” (John 1:1). Throughout the letter it is clear that John was particularly attuned to Jesus’ plain yet slightly mysterious statements regarding truth and love. Thus it comes as no surprise that in John’s first epistle he repeatedly emphasizes two factors which mark somebody as truly belonging to God: truth (or holy living consistent with God’s truth) and love, especially love toward “the brothers”. Yet, even when revealing that not all who claim to be in the truth are actually in it, John’s words maintain a unique reverence, love, and beauty. He draws his readers into greater awe and love for the glory and majesty of God. And that is why I love to read the things that he was inspired by God to write.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Pursue holiness
"Historically it's been the understanding of the Church, as well as the Bible, that we are to be progressing in our sanctification, growing in our righteousness. See, the goal of the church has never been, at the end of the day, to simply be evangelism; to simply be some front-door-get-saved 'Yay we're done' type place. It actually has been a place for those to come hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, respond to it, and then grow into the fullness of what God has for us." - Matt Chandler
Thank you, Matt Chandler. Funny how Paul doesn't write the churches or Timothy and talk about "church growth" methods. Rather, he DESPERATELY pleads with Timothy and with the churches, that they would pursue holiness. And he talks about real holiness. The writer of Hebrews even calls it "the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14). And according to Jesus, there is a massive number of people who call themselves Christians, even many people who are active and driven in Christian service (read the text!), who apparently don't possess this holiness and will NOT be with Him (Matthew 7:22-23).
Evangelism is a command. It's a duty. It's a joy. It's a passion. But be honest--the PRINCIPLE battle going on, if you only had the New Testament letters to go by--is for godliness. The New Testament is FILLED with how a Christian, how a born-again person, ought to live. If we love God, we're drawn to this. We're drawn to, we desire, closer fellowship with Him, and in turn we hate the things He hates. But growing our church by the thousands? Even a person dead in their sins would like that. What Type-A personality, what "high D" (DISC test), what alpha male wouldn't want to win? To make something grow? To be successful? Does it mean he's doing what God wants? Does it mean his actions are even an expression of love for God? Does it mean he's even saved? (Again-Matthew 7:22-23 -- no.)
Pursue godliness, above all things. And true godliness, in our world, is ALWAYS radical.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Things I miss about Long Island
Oak trees
Rain
Old highways
Strathmore Bagels
Family
Old towns
Brother
Beaches
Italian girls
Mom
My church
Jets & Giants jerseys
The woods
Trips to NYC
Grass
My birds
Squirrels, rabbits, and ducks in the yard
Chicken cutlets and mashed potatoes (Mom's)
Sweaters
Gloves
Coats
The lake
Christmas
Rain
Old highways
Strathmore Bagels
Family
Old towns
Brother
Beaches
Italian girls
Mom
My church
Jets & Giants jerseys
The woods
Trips to NYC
Grass
My birds
Squirrels, rabbits, and ducks in the yard
Chicken cutlets and mashed potatoes (Mom's)
Sweaters
Gloves
Coats
The lake
Christmas
Friday, October 16, 2009
Predestination and Baptism
Is that a loaded title? Since I have reached conclusions on both of these doctrines that are not held by the majority of people who believe in Jesus Christ, and since the combination of my two conclusions is exponentially more rare, I've long wanted to lay out my views on them both individually and how they relate to one another.
You may have reached this second paragraph already eager to find out my views so that you can either affirm what I've said or tear it apart. I ask you to repent. I feel I have the right to say that, because (1) that's no way to approach the Bible and (2) I have been willing to change my views in coming to these conclusions, not interested in simply defending what I had been taught, or what made me comfortable, or what helped me sleep at night. I have stayed committed to the most natural reading of passages. Sure, you could somehow work your theology into any verse, but is that the most natural reading? Is that really what you would say if you came at it objectively and your only desire was to accurately understand the Word?
I have seen both in myself and in others and incredible propensity to simply defend what we've always been taught and believed. I feel I have been successful in managing and deterring that propensity. But we all have it. We may even be confronted with passages that clearly defy what we believe, but we manage to avoid facing up to Scripture by thinking of something else the "other team" believes, which we're more confident is not Scriptural, lumping all of the "other team's" beliefs together, and calling them wrong. For example, James R. White said that in his church, they wait a long time to baptize somebody, to first see that they are truly saved. This pattern is nothing like the New Testament pattern illustrated in Acts and explained in the epistles. But does that mean that James R. White is wrong about everything regarding baptism? Does it mean that he's not right about other things that I may still be wrong about? Another bizarre tendency I have observed among those being confronted with a Bible truth they don't like is to appeal to "context" while actually ignoring it, pulling out some random other verse with two of the same words in it. My point is this: Hear what I am saying (and nothing more than what I am saying) and examine it in the light of Scripture. If I affirm a more "calvinistic" view of predestination, don't assume that I believe everything Calvinists typically believe or (even worse) that I think all their popular arguments are solid and logical. This is not about choosing some theologian's pre-developed platform of opinions on all doctrines, but about inductively accepting what the Bible says and being patient to conclude how it all works together.
Predestination
There's no "if": indeed I actually have come to calvinistic conclusions about salvation. What that means is simply this: predestination is the basis for saving faith, not vice versa. People really do anything they can to avoid the doctrine of election. Three things in particular keep them this way, which I have decided to call "The Freewill Triangle of Confusion".
1. The assumption that moral decisions have no moral significance at all without utter and complete "free will".
2. The logical error that passages like John 3:16, which describe the blessings for those who believe, also must mean that all people are able to believe.
3. Emotional comfort.
My concise answers:
1. God does not choose between good and evil. He always does good and cannot do evil. Does this mean that God is not worthy of praise for the good things that He does? Does this mean that God is not truly good? He is truly good, from the inside out. His actions reflect this and He is worthy of praise. Is free will a reality? Yes. Anyone can choose their favorite color sneakers, what to do with their weekend, etc. But the Bible calls us (before we are in Christ) dead in our sins and trespasses, slaves of Satan, and unable to obey God. If this is your idea of truly "free will", then more power to you. After being born again, though, we are empowered (but not forced) to obey God.
2. There is a big difference between saying those who believe will have eternal life, and saying anybody can believe. It may seem like a natural assumption to you to equate the two, but let's stick with what the Bible says.
3. I'm sure you realize emotional comfort is no way to pick our doctrines. But as you read on, I want to encourage you by reminding you that for the apostles, and the earliest Christians, being chosen by God was reason for joy, not for being freaked out. See 1st Thessalonians 1:2-5.
Those are my responses to what I see as the three biggest reasons predestination goes continually ignored by those who are initially taught otherwise. Now let me raise a question:
When God's choice and saving faith are mentioned in the same verse, which seems to be the basis of which?
For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction (1 Thess 1:4-5)
And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. (2nd Timothy 2:24-26)
For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14)
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:44)
And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:65)
According to Paul in the 1st Thessalonians passage, successful preaching of the Gospel is proof that God has chosen those people who were preached to. Their words did not fall flat, but rather they came in power and in the Holy Spirit, and with full conviction. Could you work Arminianism into this verse? You could try. But you'll end up with quite a cut-and-paste job, saying God knew they would believe, and therefore chose them for eternal life, and the proof that they've been "chosen" for eternal life based on the faith they decided to have is their faith. Is that what this text says? Paul emphasizes God's choice. He never says anything about their "choice".
In the 2nd Timothy passage, the opponents of the hypothetical "Lord's servant" must be treated with a certain kind of patience and gentleness, because God might grant them (the opponent) repentance leading to the truth! In other words, God's servant needs to be kind-hearted so as not to get in the way of what God MIGHT decide to do- lead that person to Himself. Paul could have said, the opponent might decide to repent. He had the grasp of the Greek language necessary to express himself this way. But again, that's not what he said. Once again the natural reading emphasizes God's selective work.
If you are from a restoration movement (Christian churches/Churches of Christ) background like I am, then you probably agree with me on baptism. I do not believe baptism is a work of Christian obedience, but rather an appeal to God for a good conscience (1st Pet 3:21), at which point a person's sins are forgiven and they receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). The Acts narrative is filled with people being baptized right away. Others sometimes call baptism "an outward sign of an inward change", or a "public display" of our faith. The Bible never calls it these things. The Bible doesn't say baptism reminds us of being buried and raised with Christ, the Bible says we are buried and raised with Christ in baptism (Romans 6:1-4).
So what is it that keeps many believing that the Bible cannot possibly mean what it says about baptism?
1. Passages like John 3:16 which describe believing, and inheriting eternal life, but nothing about baptism. Is this good logic? Some passages mention being saved only by grace. Some mention being saved by believing. Some mention being saved by being baptized. Are they in contradiction? Are these three different ways to be saved? John 3:16 is not a detailed description of how to be saved, it's a summary of which person will receive eternal life: the one who believes in Jesus.
2. Passages which say that we are not saved by works. From there, works are sweepingly defined as anything a person does (shouldn't it include believing too, then? In which case the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith contradicts itself?) Baptism of course is something done (though mainly done to you rather than by you) and so it is concluded that baptism cannot possibly be the moment when God saves a person and thus essential-because we aren't saved by works. So let me ask you this- Is this definition of "works" based on the Bible? Or is it more like Gnostic dualism? In my opinion this is more of a theological hang-up than a Bible teaching. We (especially reformed people) might be prone to say that nothing physical can affect your spiritual salvation. Of course, Christ's physical death affects our spiritual salvation, so that does not work either. I would encourage you to research what the earlist Church believed about baptism and how they practiced it. And no, Charles Spurgeon and John Calvin are not the early church.
My friend Scott Solimine has laid out an argument that baptism is not a "work" so as to be disqualified as the act of "accepting Christ" or, more biblically, making "an appeal to God for a good conscience" (1 Pet 3:21) at http://perspectiveoneternity.blogspot.com/2009/08/is-baptism-work.html
3. A distinction between "spiritual baptism" and "water baptism" I'm trying not to get lazy here, but my response here will simply be to say that Christian baptism is the time a person receives the Holy Spirit. Being baptized by the Holy Spirit is defined differently by different people (some say it's getting saved, some say it's the miraculous gifts, some even consider it a kind of judgment ["the Holy Spirit and fire"]) and that's not my concern. My concern is only to reveal Christian baptism (which is not John's baptism) as the time a person receives the Holy Spirit. After this, I will transfer over to how I believe predestination and baptism fit together.
So how do I believe these two work together? Surely I've surprised Restoration Movement believers with my take on election and reformed believers by calling baptism essential. I've come to an odd combo, haven't I? In one sentence:
God draws His elect to Himself, who should be instructed to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38), at which point their sins will be forgiven and they will receive the Holy Spirit. This means that when He first calls them, they aren't saved yet. It seems that those whom God opens their heart to believe are called to call upon His name through the act of baptism. I'll illustrate this and close my blog with Ananias' appeal to Saul of Tarsus, who by this time surely believed in Jesus:
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16)
You may have reached this second paragraph already eager to find out my views so that you can either affirm what I've said or tear it apart. I ask you to repent. I feel I have the right to say that, because (1) that's no way to approach the Bible and (2) I have been willing to change my views in coming to these conclusions, not interested in simply defending what I had been taught, or what made me comfortable, or what helped me sleep at night. I have stayed committed to the most natural reading of passages. Sure, you could somehow work your theology into any verse, but is that the most natural reading? Is that really what you would say if you came at it objectively and your only desire was to accurately understand the Word?
I have seen both in myself and in others and incredible propensity to simply defend what we've always been taught and believed. I feel I have been successful in managing and deterring that propensity. But we all have it. We may even be confronted with passages that clearly defy what we believe, but we manage to avoid facing up to Scripture by thinking of something else the "other team" believes, which we're more confident is not Scriptural, lumping all of the "other team's" beliefs together, and calling them wrong. For example, James R. White said that in his church, they wait a long time to baptize somebody, to first see that they are truly saved. This pattern is nothing like the New Testament pattern illustrated in Acts and explained in the epistles. But does that mean that James R. White is wrong about everything regarding baptism? Does it mean that he's not right about other things that I may still be wrong about? Another bizarre tendency I have observed among those being confronted with a Bible truth they don't like is to appeal to "context" while actually ignoring it, pulling out some random other verse with two of the same words in it. My point is this: Hear what I am saying (and nothing more than what I am saying) and examine it in the light of Scripture. If I affirm a more "calvinistic" view of predestination, don't assume that I believe everything Calvinists typically believe or (even worse) that I think all their popular arguments are solid and logical. This is not about choosing some theologian's pre-developed platform of opinions on all doctrines, but about inductively accepting what the Bible says and being patient to conclude how it all works together.
Predestination
There's no "if": indeed I actually have come to calvinistic conclusions about salvation. What that means is simply this: predestination is the basis for saving faith, not vice versa. People really do anything they can to avoid the doctrine of election. Three things in particular keep them this way, which I have decided to call "The Freewill Triangle of Confusion".
1. The assumption that moral decisions have no moral significance at all without utter and complete "free will".
2. The logical error that passages like John 3:16, which describe the blessings for those who believe, also must mean that all people are able to believe.
3. Emotional comfort.
My concise answers:
1. God does not choose between good and evil. He always does good and cannot do evil. Does this mean that God is not worthy of praise for the good things that He does? Does this mean that God is not truly good? He is truly good, from the inside out. His actions reflect this and He is worthy of praise. Is free will a reality? Yes. Anyone can choose their favorite color sneakers, what to do with their weekend, etc. But the Bible calls us (before we are in Christ) dead in our sins and trespasses, slaves of Satan, and unable to obey God. If this is your idea of truly "free will", then more power to you. After being born again, though, we are empowered (but not forced) to obey God.
2. There is a big difference between saying those who believe will have eternal life, and saying anybody can believe. It may seem like a natural assumption to you to equate the two, but let's stick with what the Bible says.
3. I'm sure you realize emotional comfort is no way to pick our doctrines. But as you read on, I want to encourage you by reminding you that for the apostles, and the earliest Christians, being chosen by God was reason for joy, not for being freaked out. See 1st Thessalonians 1:2-5.
Those are my responses to what I see as the three biggest reasons predestination goes continually ignored by those who are initially taught otherwise. Now let me raise a question:
When God's choice and saving faith are mentioned in the same verse, which seems to be the basis of which?
For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction (1 Thess 1:4-5)
And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. (2nd Timothy 2:24-26)
For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14)
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:44)
And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:65)
According to Paul in the 1st Thessalonians passage, successful preaching of the Gospel is proof that God has chosen those people who were preached to. Their words did not fall flat, but rather they came in power and in the Holy Spirit, and with full conviction. Could you work Arminianism into this verse? You could try. But you'll end up with quite a cut-and-paste job, saying God knew they would believe, and therefore chose them for eternal life, and the proof that they've been "chosen" for eternal life based on the faith they decided to have is their faith. Is that what this text says? Paul emphasizes God's choice. He never says anything about their "choice".
In the 2nd Timothy passage, the opponents of the hypothetical "Lord's servant" must be treated with a certain kind of patience and gentleness, because God might grant them (the opponent) repentance leading to the truth! In other words, God's servant needs to be kind-hearted so as not to get in the way of what God MIGHT decide to do- lead that person to Himself. Paul could have said, the opponent might decide to repent. He had the grasp of the Greek language necessary to express himself this way. But again, that's not what he said. Once again the natural reading emphasizes God's selective work.
Many are called, but few are chosen. It's not that all people aren't invited to believe. It's that they won't, unless they are what? Willing? Able? Ready? Chosen.
BaptismIf you are from a restoration movement (Christian churches/Churches of Christ) background like I am, then you probably agree with me on baptism. I do not believe baptism is a work of Christian obedience, but rather an appeal to God for a good conscience (1st Pet 3:21), at which point a person's sins are forgiven and they receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). The Acts narrative is filled with people being baptized right away. Others sometimes call baptism "an outward sign of an inward change", or a "public display" of our faith. The Bible never calls it these things. The Bible doesn't say baptism reminds us of being buried and raised with Christ, the Bible says we are buried and raised with Christ in baptism (Romans 6:1-4).
So what is it that keeps many believing that the Bible cannot possibly mean what it says about baptism?
1. Passages like John 3:16 which describe believing, and inheriting eternal life, but nothing about baptism. Is this good logic? Some passages mention being saved only by grace. Some mention being saved by believing. Some mention being saved by being baptized. Are they in contradiction? Are these three different ways to be saved? John 3:16 is not a detailed description of how to be saved, it's a summary of which person will receive eternal life: the one who believes in Jesus.
2. Passages which say that we are not saved by works. From there, works are sweepingly defined as anything a person does (shouldn't it include believing too, then? In which case the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith contradicts itself?) Baptism of course is something done (though mainly done to you rather than by you) and so it is concluded that baptism cannot possibly be the moment when God saves a person and thus essential-because we aren't saved by works. So let me ask you this- Is this definition of "works" based on the Bible? Or is it more like Gnostic dualism? In my opinion this is more of a theological hang-up than a Bible teaching. We (especially reformed people) might be prone to say that nothing physical can affect your spiritual salvation. Of course, Christ's physical death affects our spiritual salvation, so that does not work either. I would encourage you to research what the earlist Church believed about baptism and how they practiced it. And no, Charles Spurgeon and John Calvin are not the early church.
My friend Scott Solimine has laid out an argument that baptism is not a "work" so as to be disqualified as the act of "accepting Christ" or, more biblically, making "an appeal to God for a good conscience" (1 Pet 3:21) at http://perspectiveoneternity.blogspot.com/2009/08/is-baptism-work.html
3. A distinction between "spiritual baptism" and "water baptism" I'm trying not to get lazy here, but my response here will simply be to say that Christian baptism is the time a person receives the Holy Spirit. Being baptized by the Holy Spirit is defined differently by different people (some say it's getting saved, some say it's the miraculous gifts, some even consider it a kind of judgment ["the Holy Spirit and fire"]) and that's not my concern. My concern is only to reveal Christian baptism (which is not John's baptism) as the time a person receives the Holy Spirit. After this, I will transfer over to how I believe predestination and baptism fit together.
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:19)
Being "in the name of" is a Greek idiom meaning "the possession of". Baptizing them in the possession of God suggests that baptism is when God takes official ownership of that person. Yet, Jesus told His followers to go and do it. Could they "spiritually baptize" somebody? No, but they could water baptize them, and apparently it's a transfer into God's possession.
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)
Read that slowly. Peter said what? So then how is it people today are instructed to pray a prayer? How is it people are told to wait upon the Lord who will hopefully save them? Where are either of those in the Bible? Peter's command: Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John’s baptism." And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. There were about twelve men in all.
Please take notice that when Paul meets disciples who haven't yet received the Holy Spirit, his first question is "Into what then were you baptized?" They had John's baptism, but not new covenant baptism, which is again apparently the occasion for receiving the Holy Spirit.
So how do I believe these two work together? Surely I've surprised Restoration Movement believers with my take on election and reformed believers by calling baptism essential. I've come to an odd combo, haven't I? In one sentence:
God draws His elect to Himself, who should be instructed to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38), at which point their sins will be forgiven and they will receive the Holy Spirit. This means that when He first calls them, they aren't saved yet. It seems that those whom God opens their heart to believe are called to call upon His name through the act of baptism. I'll illustrate this and close my blog with Ananias' appeal to Saul of Tarsus, who by this time surely believed in Jesus:
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16)
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
From my notebook
I expected to journal a few times as we visited various churches in California, but I only made one entry. After that I was still taking in the services we went to but had nothing worth writing down. This is from is my one entry:
We watched a video of Francis Chan, from the Catalyst conference. He spoke on the Holy Spirit and it was amazing. If pastoral ministry is not about emptying oneself before God, bowing humble and afraid (and joyfully) before His Spirit and His Word, then I'm out. I'm not interested. Find somebody else to build a Christian DisneyLand.
~8:30 AM October 4th
We watched a video of Francis Chan, from the Catalyst conference. He spoke on the Holy Spirit and it was amazing. If pastoral ministry is not about emptying oneself before God, bowing humble and afraid (and joyfully) before His Spirit and His Word, then I'm out. I'm not interested. Find somebody else to build a Christian DisneyLand.
~8:30 AM October 4th
Monday, September 21, 2009
Worship God for Who He is
When we worship God only for what He’s done for us without rejoicing in God Himself and Who He is, I wonder if we run the risk of worshipping ourselves--starting to think and say, “God, you get value by doing things for me” instead of “God, you are eternally valuable in who You are and I get my value by belonging to You”
Yes, I know in most cases, what God does for us is inexorably tied to who He is- He can't create us, save us, guide us or bless us unless He's God. And He deserves thanks and praise for all of those. We should continue to rejoice in all of those.
But always remember that even if He had done none of that, He's still God, He's still infinite, still completely good, and worthy of worship.
Yes, I know in most cases, what God does for us is inexorably tied to who He is- He can't create us, save us, guide us or bless us unless He's God. And He deserves thanks and praise for all of those. We should continue to rejoice in all of those.
But always remember that even if He had done none of that, He's still God, He's still infinite, still completely good, and worthy of worship.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Contrary to many books
There is in fact only ONE way that a church will grow- through a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Anything else is manufactured and counterfeit.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Moved by the Cross
Are you moved by the One
Who left His heavenly home
His dwelling high in glory
And His everlasting throne?
And does your soul tremble
At the lashings of the whip
Cracked by Roman soldiers
As the blood poured out and dripped?
Do you stand in amazement
That they nailed Him to a tree
The wrath of God His bearing
That the guilty might go free?
Would you leave behind your pleasures
Given to you as a gift
Counting as your only treasure
The name of Christ to lift?
Is the cross to you a folly
Or has it bought your every breath?
Then exalt Him in your body,
In your life and in your death.
Who left His heavenly home
His dwelling high in glory
And His everlasting throne?
And does your soul tremble
At the lashings of the whip
Cracked by Roman soldiers
As the blood poured out and dripped?
Do you stand in amazement
That they nailed Him to a tree
The wrath of God His bearing
That the guilty might go free?
Would you leave behind your pleasures
Given to you as a gift
Counting as your only treasure
The name of Christ to lift?
Is the cross to you a folly
Or has it bought your every breath?
Then exalt Him in your body,
In your life and in your death.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The crucifixion
The crucifixion of Christ is the only event in history that is a simultaneous execution of God's hatred of sin and His love for sinners.
"It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Romans 3:26
Friday, August 28, 2009
Why It's Not Funny
Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. (Ephesians 5:4, ESV)
Interacting with many Christians today, you might think that the things we laughed at didn't matter to God. It's strange to write something which tries to convince people that the Bible they claim to believe means what it says. Ephesians 5:4 is exasperatingly clear. Exasperating because I cannot understand what's so hard to understand. Crude joking, humor that makes light of sin and/or treats sex as a dirty, common thing rather than a holy thing, is out of place.
It is out of place for those who belong to a holy God to tarnish what He has made beautiful. It is outrageous to claim to be redeemed from sin and death, and then find delight and humor in the sins of the spiritually dead. It is absurd to claim to be anticipating escape from the wrath of God, and then revel in the very things that kindled His wrath to begin with.
It's more and more common to think that these things do not matter. What really matters, they say, is finding innovative ways to reach more people. Of course reaching people for Christ matters. But do you believe you can escape one of God's commands by calling people's attention to another? If only laughter, in all its simplicity, did not reveal so much of our hearts. If this describes you, humble yourself and replace your filthy jokes with thanksgiving.
Are you afraid to make things awkward? This amounts to fearing men rather than God. Make it awkward. Wouldn't you rather offend a person, made from the dust and alive only a little while, than offend God, Who is in heaven and reigns forever? Tell them you don't find it funny. Tell them sex is a sacred and beautiful thing. Tell them to read Ephesians 5:4. Tell them whatever seems best. Do it with loving gentleness, but do it. Some will laugh at you and talk behind your back. Welcome to following Christ.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Treasure Christ
Three times in the last six days I had the opportunity to preach from Philippians 1:20-21. It hasn't gotten old and I wish I had more opportunities in the near future to continue preaching from this text. I've learned a lot and God has opened my heart to treasure Christ. I was intellectually curious about how treasuring Christ works; thankfully, instead, God opened my heart to it more.
So while this particular expository expression of treasuring Christ is still on my mind, I thought I'd share the key thoughts of this sermon.
"To live is Christ and to die is gain" (v. 21) is a very popular verse and for good reason. But part of the uniqueness of this verse often goes unappreciated. To live is Christ? This is more than saying that life is about Christ, or for Christ, or with Christ. Life is defined in Christ. Consider how else the Bible writers link Christ and life, from 3 passages:
Christ is the Creator of our lives. (John 1:3)
power (Philippians 2:12-13)
worker
enjoyer
Lord (1st Thessalonians 5:9-10)
Savior
Treasure ("so that...we might live with him" [v.10])
A lot of people talk about accepting Jesus as your Savior. When this turns into a liscense for godless living, others come along and say that Jesus isn't our Savior unless He's our Lord. So then some will clean up a few things in their life; they'll go to church and stop cussing perhaps. "Now he's my Lord and my Savior", they think to themselves, and thus reduce the Gospel to a pretentious business exchange. This is a silly game to play and it lands us in the lame hobby known as religion. A more biblical view of God and of Christ is that He is over all and through all and in all (Eph. 4:6). Christ is the Creator, power, worker, enjoyer, Lord, Savior, and treasure of our lives. "Enjoyer" and "treasure" are especially important because these are the results of God's redeeming us: He enjoys us, and we enjoy Him. If you obey Christ out of a perceived obligation, you are missing the point. Consider what Jesus said about the kingdom:
"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it."
(Matthew 13:44-46)
Without this truth of Christ's supreme value, "to live is Christ and to die is gain" collapses into self-righteous, masochistic religion. It makes sense for Christ to define our lives, and for death to be gain, if Christ is more valuable and more great than any other thing. But if He's not, and if you reduce Him to the Lord-Savior business exchange, but still try to claim complete devotion to Christ, you are exalting yourself and not Christ.
So finally we are left with Paul's earnest expectation and hope: That Christ would be exalted in his (Paul's) body, whether that meant Paul living or Paul dieing.
What is your number one expectation and hope for your life? Is it to travel somewhere? Is it to reach some certain place in your career? Don't get defensive. I never said traveling is wrong. I'm asking what holds your heart. If you'd rather defend your pleasures than treasure Christ, that's a huge problem.
Is Christ so great and so valuable to you that expressing His glories means more to you than your life itself? This is the everlasting joy.
So while this particular expository expression of treasuring Christ is still on my mind, I thought I'd share the key thoughts of this sermon.
"To live is Christ and to die is gain" (v. 21) is a very popular verse and for good reason. But part of the uniqueness of this verse often goes unappreciated. To live is Christ? This is more than saying that life is about Christ, or for Christ, or with Christ. Life is defined in Christ. Consider how else the Bible writers link Christ and life, from 3 passages:
Christ is the Creator of our lives. (John 1:3)
power (Philippians 2:12-13)
worker
enjoyer
Lord (1st Thessalonians 5:9-10)
Savior
Treasure ("so that...we might live with him" [v.10])
A lot of people talk about accepting Jesus as your Savior. When this turns into a liscense for godless living, others come along and say that Jesus isn't our Savior unless He's our Lord. So then some will clean up a few things in their life; they'll go to church and stop cussing perhaps. "Now he's my Lord and my Savior", they think to themselves, and thus reduce the Gospel to a pretentious business exchange. This is a silly game to play and it lands us in the lame hobby known as religion. A more biblical view of God and of Christ is that He is over all and through all and in all (Eph. 4:6). Christ is the Creator, power, worker, enjoyer, Lord, Savior, and treasure of our lives. "Enjoyer" and "treasure" are especially important because these are the results of God's redeeming us: He enjoys us, and we enjoy Him. If you obey Christ out of a perceived obligation, you are missing the point. Consider what Jesus said about the kingdom:
"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it."
(Matthew 13:44-46)
Without this truth of Christ's supreme value, "to live is Christ and to die is gain" collapses into self-righteous, masochistic religion. It makes sense for Christ to define our lives, and for death to be gain, if Christ is more valuable and more great than any other thing. But if He's not, and if you reduce Him to the Lord-Savior business exchange, but still try to claim complete devotion to Christ, you are exalting yourself and not Christ.
So finally we are left with Paul's earnest expectation and hope: That Christ would be exalted in his (Paul's) body, whether that meant Paul living or Paul dieing.
What is your number one expectation and hope for your life? Is it to travel somewhere? Is it to reach some certain place in your career? Don't get defensive. I never said traveling is wrong. I'm asking what holds your heart. If you'd rather defend your pleasures than treasure Christ, that's a huge problem.
Is Christ so great and so valuable to you that expressing His glories means more to you than your life itself? This is the everlasting joy.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Church planting: notes to self
These are scattered thoughts that are not intended to represent a complete philosophy of church planting.
1-Until there is a group of Christian believers gathering together, you don't have a church; you have a religious worship service. So even though my goal is to "plant a church", I find "church planting" a contradiction of terms if the only believers present are the paid and volunteer staff. Then it's kind of a game.
2-I believe in the in-depth, meaningful teaching of Scripture (in preaching!) that should both inform and call into action. If it fails to do either, it's irksome. Most old, stale churches inform without calling into action. Most shallow churches call to action without deepening knowledge. And yes, this is a problem, because a shallow faith cannot withstand the blows of life. We look for deeper answers. Preachers, I'm begging you- More conviction! More truth! More of Christ! Stop with shallow, silly, stupid things. Treasure Christ above all else. He deserves no less. The rest will fall into place.
3-I believe in neighborhood ministry. I walked around in Greenwich village today. There were a lot of homosexuals. I realized that, if people are as generally hostile to Christianity in NYC as I understand them to be, then I really have no idea how to reach a person for Christ outside the context of relationship, where a person can see the difference Christ makes in your life and experience the love of God through you. Therein lies part of the answer.
4-I get so frustrated when people cannot simultaneously embrace both Scripture (and all of its value, and depth, and weight) and the importance of relational evangelism. Hence, numbers 2 and 3 of this blog.
5-People don't come to Christ through a bait-and-switch method. Either God saved the person in spite of your best efforts to water down Christianity, or they didn't actually come to Christ.
6-I believe in the importance of doing things with a professional level of diligence and efficiency, without seeing yourself as a "professional". We are all beggars in the kingdom of God.
7-I think the recent trend and interest in liturgical worship is a bad idea.
1-Until there is a group of Christian believers gathering together, you don't have a church; you have a religious worship service. So even though my goal is to "plant a church", I find "church planting" a contradiction of terms if the only believers present are the paid and volunteer staff. Then it's kind of a game.
2-I believe in the in-depth, meaningful teaching of Scripture (in preaching!) that should both inform and call into action. If it fails to do either, it's irksome. Most old, stale churches inform without calling into action. Most shallow churches call to action without deepening knowledge. And yes, this is a problem, because a shallow faith cannot withstand the blows of life. We look for deeper answers. Preachers, I'm begging you- More conviction! More truth! More of Christ! Stop with shallow, silly, stupid things. Treasure Christ above all else. He deserves no less. The rest will fall into place.
3-I believe in neighborhood ministry. I walked around in Greenwich village today. There were a lot of homosexuals. I realized that, if people are as generally hostile to Christianity in NYC as I understand them to be, then I really have no idea how to reach a person for Christ outside the context of relationship, where a person can see the difference Christ makes in your life and experience the love of God through you. Therein lies part of the answer.
4-I get so frustrated when people cannot simultaneously embrace both Scripture (and all of its value, and depth, and weight) and the importance of relational evangelism. Hence, numbers 2 and 3 of this blog.
5-People don't come to Christ through a bait-and-switch method. Either God saved the person in spite of your best efforts to water down Christianity, or they didn't actually come to Christ.
6-I believe in the importance of doing things with a professional level of diligence and efficiency, without seeing yourself as a "professional". We are all beggars in the kingdom of God.
7-I think the recent trend and interest in liturgical worship is a bad idea.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Without apology
I do not believe the lie that the Church or the world are better served by Christians who lack a reverence for God, spend their time watching shows and movies and listening to music that God hates, and joke about the things that God hates. It's popular today to recount one's experience during the musical worship on Sunday, often with colored lights and stunning sound systems and emotional “worship faces” from the leaders as a great time “in the presence of God”. We don't know what the presence of God IS today. I know this because the presence of God frightens us and convicts us of our sin. Look at Isaiah's experience. Look at Peter's experience. If more people were entering the presence of God, they would stop dressing immodestly, stop joking irreverently, and stop living flippantly. They would have something more amazing to talk about than American Idol. They would pursue something greater than looking stylish. The popular claim to have been in the presence of God is in many cases either blasphemous, or nonsense, or both.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Brokenness, Part 2
I figured that since I had made a certain statement about God ordaining our brokenness which goes against what many Christians and churches teach, I ought to defend my statement. Some are quite uncomfortable with certain aspects of God's exercising His sovereignty, even though Scripture assumes God's total authority and righteousness in it. First off, does God ordain my pain?
Example 1: Joseph. What does he say when he reveals to his identity to his brothers, after years and years of slavery, imprisonment?
Example 2: Paul. I referred to him as an example. Here is the text:
7So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
Example 1: Joseph. What does he say when he reveals to his identity to his brothers, after years and years of slavery, imprisonment?
4So Joseph said to his brothers, "Come near to me, please." And they came near. And he said, "I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. 5And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life. 6For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are yet five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest. 7And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. 8So it was not you who sent me here, but God. He has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt. (Genesis 45:4-8, ESV)
Example 2: Paul. I referred to him as an example. Here is the text:
7So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Brokenness
We hate it. To lose a loved one. To be less attractive, strong, smart, funny, or musical than other people. To be different. Of course we hate it. But if you are a Christian and this is all you see, you are missing something huge.
The fact is that God ordains and uses our brokenness for His greater purposes. When we accept and celebrate this, we finally realize that we are not missing out, in the big scheme of things. With God's purposes as our joy, we can finally face the pain. Yes, it remains painfully real and really painful. But those areas of pain are not meaningless pockets of God's neglect or absent-mindedness, but rather they are part of God's purposes. Furthermore, the pain actually works to our ultimate good (Romans 8:28).
Paul was given some kind of physical and/or mental anguish in order to keep Him humble in light of the increasingly great revelations he was experiencing. As God's power in Paul's life grew, Paul's sense of self-reliance and self-sufficiency had to be done away with. Paul understood. He begged for it not to be that way, but he understood.
Where do YOU stand?
You can embrace God in and through the pain or you can become a depressed, self-centered, worldly Christian. He designs our pain so that our affections would go to Him rather than to this world and this life. I have learned this is the only way. I didn't ask for my brokenness and I've tried to fight off my brokenness. But I see as clear as day the greater advantage of it. I gain something of eternal value; I lose something of temporary value. I am enabled to identify myself in no way other than as Christ's. I have less of a “me” to present to people and more of a Christ to present to people.
The fact is that God ordains and uses our brokenness for His greater purposes. When we accept and celebrate this, we finally realize that we are not missing out, in the big scheme of things. With God's purposes as our joy, we can finally face the pain. Yes, it remains painfully real and really painful. But those areas of pain are not meaningless pockets of God's neglect or absent-mindedness, but rather they are part of God's purposes. Furthermore, the pain actually works to our ultimate good (Romans 8:28).
Paul was given some kind of physical and/or mental anguish in order to keep Him humble in light of the increasingly great revelations he was experiencing. As God's power in Paul's life grew, Paul's sense of self-reliance and self-sufficiency had to be done away with. Paul understood. He begged for it not to be that way, but he understood.
Where do YOU stand?
You can embrace God in and through the pain or you can become a depressed, self-centered, worldly Christian. He designs our pain so that our affections would go to Him rather than to this world and this life. I have learned this is the only way. I didn't ask for my brokenness and I've tried to fight off my brokenness. But I see as clear as day the greater advantage of it. I gain something of eternal value; I lose something of temporary value. I am enabled to identify myself in no way other than as Christ's. I have less of a “me” to present to people and more of a Christ to present to people.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Passion for Truth
Whatever quirks, strengths and weaknesses I have, passion for truth is perhaps my defining characteristic regarding the contribution I burn to make for the good of the Church. My heart and soul and mind are burning to bring the Word of God. I have not yet had that opportunity since moving to Arizona.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Wrestling in Prayer: Forgotten Truths
How is your "prayer life"? Less than you would like it to be? I think the vast majority of us would say the same. I don't know why this is entirely. I do know that I am struck by what Paul told the Colossians regarding the prayer habits of one Epaphras:
That's the NIV translation. The NASB uses the word "laboring" and the ESV uses the word "struggling". Wrestling, laboring, struggling...are these good descriptions of your prayer life?
Or do you pray like a wimp?
Look at these four striking truths about prayer, if we see Epaphras as an example.
1. Prayer is a labor. Epaphras didn't just mention things before God. He wrestled. He labored. Prayer should engage the heart and the soul and the mind. It can be painful, even frightening, to face the reality of all the people and problems that need praying for, but still they need praying for. It takes concentration and effort of faith at times to pray to the God we cannot see; still, He is there, strengthening and using us. And He is infinitely greater than these concerns. Engaging God completely in prayer does not happen accidentally. It is truly a labor. But it is a beautiful, rewarding, holy labor.
2. Prayer should primarily be for other people. And not for ourselves. "He is always wrestling in prayer for you..."
3. Prayer should primarily address spiritual concerns. Did Epaphras pray for the Colossians, that they would have all the toys they wanted? That their various broken fingers and headcolds would heal? He prayed that they would stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured. He prayed for their adherence to the truth of the Gospel, and that they would both know and do the will of God, and that they would have full confidence in Christ. Very God-centered, very Christ-centered.
4. Prayer looks to particular answers. Epaphras did not pray, "God, be with them". Wimpy wimpy! Vague! (Isn't God omnipresent whether we pray for it or not?) He prayed a passionate and specific prayer for their full development and transformation as Christians.
Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured. (Colossians 4:12)
That's the NIV translation. The NASB uses the word "laboring" and the ESV uses the word "struggling". Wrestling, laboring, struggling...are these good descriptions of your prayer life?
Or do you pray like a wimp?
Look at these four striking truths about prayer, if we see Epaphras as an example.
1. Prayer is a labor. Epaphras didn't just mention things before God. He wrestled. He labored. Prayer should engage the heart and the soul and the mind. It can be painful, even frightening, to face the reality of all the people and problems that need praying for, but still they need praying for. It takes concentration and effort of faith at times to pray to the God we cannot see; still, He is there, strengthening and using us. And He is infinitely greater than these concerns. Engaging God completely in prayer does not happen accidentally. It is truly a labor. But it is a beautiful, rewarding, holy labor.
2. Prayer should primarily be for other people. And not for ourselves. "He is always wrestling in prayer for you..."
3. Prayer should primarily address spiritual concerns. Did Epaphras pray for the Colossians, that they would have all the toys they wanted? That their various broken fingers and headcolds would heal? He prayed that they would stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured. He prayed for their adherence to the truth of the Gospel, and that they would both know and do the will of God, and that they would have full confidence in Christ. Very God-centered, very Christ-centered.
4. Prayer looks to particular answers. Epaphras did not pray, "God, be with them". Wimpy wimpy! Vague! (Isn't God omnipresent whether we pray for it or not?) He prayed a passionate and specific prayer for their full development and transformation as Christians.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Why communion is such a great thing
Lately I have been thinking about communion, and I've been wanting for a long time to post something on it. In a nutshell, I feel most churches are missing out on the powerful reminder of Jesus' death and the powerful time of fellowship that communion is meant to bring.
My goal here is to unlock what God's word says about communion. And immediately, you may be thinking rules, and a blog on "What are the rules of communion?" is probably not that interesting. I agree, actually. I am not trying to detail the rules; I'm trying to help us think through and restore the meaning of communion. And, I believe that if we'd practice communion in a way that was more biblical, we would reap various benefits in regards to the "realness" many churches attempt to artificially create. It might help us to go home more in awe of God and more excited about being part of the community of believers.
Firstly, communion saves us from living in a world of abstraction. This is one area where I feel many churches go wrong today. We get bound up in all these wonderful biblical concepts and become intellectually inclined at the cost of having our hearts also touched. Sharing a meal that commemorates the death of Christ and anticipates His return ties history together from all directions. The literal-ness of communion ought to move us; the literal-ness of a man Jesus who is the Son of God, and our Savior, who literally worked miracles and was literally crucified by the Romans, under Pontius Pilate, at the demand of the Jewish leaders. Communion should be an ever-present safeguard to move us, when needed, out of a cold, dry, conceptual-only Christian experience to truer worship and simple humility and un-pretentious love.
Some congregations have this imbalance of abstract doctrinal focus at the expense of the human aspect of the Christian experience. Others go touchy-feely and make Bible doctrine out to be mere legalistic, useless background information. Communion, when observed as the Bible would have us, both reinforces the core doctrine of the Christian faith and creates a real, human, here-and-now fellowship. Which brings me to my second point:
Communion is supposed to be an act of fellowship. In most churches, we listen together to a communion meditation, and hand each other the trays- and then we all bow our heads, turning away from each other and toward ourselves. Perhaps this is motivated by Paul's very grave warning that we "examine" ourselves before participating in the Lord's Supper (again, how can we call one square centimeter of flat bread "Supper" in any way? But I digress...). This is a very serious caution Paul gives us, even saying that if we should take the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner, we may in fact die (1 Cor. 11:27-30). But let's not be lazy Bible interpreters- What does Paul mean by an "unworthy manner"? What does he have in mind exactly when he tells us to "examine yourselves"? Taken in context, the risk Paul describes is not that we have some unconfessed sin from the last week. The risk is that we would take communion in such a way that is anti-fellowship. See verses 20-22 of chapter 11:
*And by the way, once again, doesn't "going hungry" [v.21] suggest they were eating more than our tiny religious cracker-flakes of today? Hm...
And so we see that the communion problem Paul is addressing is that a person is misjuding Christ's body, the Church, by greedily eating and drinking before the others would arrive (or get a chance to eat). Paul calls this a sin "profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (v. 27). It is only after saying this much, that he goes on to say:
The Corinthians were called to examine themselves, seemingly meaning they were to consider Christ's sacrifice rightly, but also consider Christ's church rightly, and express this by taking the Lord's Supper in unity. The mistake our churches make is that our call to examine ourselves relates to personal sin (and obviously we ought to examine ourselves in this regard!), when in fact it relates to protecting the beautiful fellowship we ought to have while reverently reflecting on our Savior's death through a commemorative meal.
Think of how different this is! Our culture is so individualistic; in communion we find our identity as part of the body of Christ. Our culture is so consumed with modern gadgets; in communion we disregard those and partake of a very simple meal instituted by Jesus Himself 2,000 years ago. Our culture is so impersonal; in communion we share a meal with other believers and call ourselves one body. Yes, communion should appear more and more counter-cultural in a culture that is more and more egocentric, isolated, secular, and cold. In fact, my third point:
Communion is supposed to be a central act of our weekly Christian fellowship. Yes, central, and yes, weekly. Here is the result of Peter's preaching at Pentecost, Acts 2:41-42:
We don't question whether to embrace the apostles' teaching every week, or to have fellowship every week, or to pray every week. So why do some churches take communion once in a quarter, or twice a year? It is clear here and in the 1st Corinthians passage that the Lord's Supper was taken regularly, as a central part of the gathering.
Is this an impractical ideal? Yes, it's become very impractical. Perhaps through all of our protestant reformations and restorations we've still held onto the formal approach of a Catholic mass. Now, we try to be informal, using up-to-date lingo and music styles (not that I am opposed to either), when if we would simply embrace the Lord's Supper, we would have that realness. This great act that Jesus instituted would be an inconvenience to our "polished" approaches today. But I would rather go through the work of rethinking communion, rethinking the worship service, and rethinking the logistics, than miss out on what God intended. And I think what God intended has the potential to be earth-shaking!
As many of you know my goal is to eventually plant a church in New York City. I'm not trying to create another "option" for dissatisfied NYC churchgoers; I'm trying to reach lost people. And when a person freshly comes to Christ, they aren't weighed down by all sorts of expectations and preferences. I would love to see these people from this city of nameless faces experience the belonging only Christ's church can offer. So I hope that at our church they will experience the joy, the fear, the reverence, and the fellowship of the Lord's Supper.
Thanks for reading!
My goal here is to unlock what God's word says about communion. And immediately, you may be thinking rules, and a blog on "What are the rules of communion?" is probably not that interesting. I agree, actually. I am not trying to detail the rules; I'm trying to help us think through and restore the meaning of communion. And, I believe that if we'd practice communion in a way that was more biblical, we would reap various benefits in regards to the "realness" many churches attempt to artificially create. It might help us to go home more in awe of God and more excited about being part of the community of believers.
Firstly, communion saves us from living in a world of abstraction. This is one area where I feel many churches go wrong today. We get bound up in all these wonderful biblical concepts and become intellectually inclined at the cost of having our hearts also touched. Sharing a meal that commemorates the death of Christ and anticipates His return ties history together from all directions. The literal-ness of communion ought to move us; the literal-ness of a man Jesus who is the Son of God, and our Savior, who literally worked miracles and was literally crucified by the Romans, under Pontius Pilate, at the demand of the Jewish leaders. Communion should be an ever-present safeguard to move us, when needed, out of a cold, dry, conceptual-only Christian experience to truer worship and simple humility and un-pretentious love.
Some congregations have this imbalance of abstract doctrinal focus at the expense of the human aspect of the Christian experience. Others go touchy-feely and make Bible doctrine out to be mere legalistic, useless background information. Communion, when observed as the Bible would have us, both reinforces the core doctrine of the Christian faith and creates a real, human, here-and-now fellowship. Which brings me to my second point:
Communion is supposed to be an act of fellowship. In most churches, we listen together to a communion meditation, and hand each other the trays- and then we all bow our heads, turning away from each other and toward ourselves. Perhaps this is motivated by Paul's very grave warning that we "examine" ourselves before participating in the Lord's Supper (again, how can we call one square centimeter of flat bread "Supper" in any way? But I digress...). This is a very serious caution Paul gives us, even saying that if we should take the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner, we may in fact die (1 Cor. 11:27-30). But let's not be lazy Bible interpreters- What does Paul mean by an "unworthy manner"? What does he have in mind exactly when he tells us to "examine yourselves"? Taken in context, the risk Paul describes is not that we have some unconfessed sin from the last week. The risk is that we would take communion in such a way that is anti-fellowship. See verses 20-22 of chapter 11:
20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
*And by the way, once again, doesn't "going hungry" [v.21] suggest they were eating more than our tiny religious cracker-flakes of today? Hm...
And so we see that the communion problem Paul is addressing is that a person is misjuding Christ's body, the Church, by greedily eating and drinking before the others would arrive (or get a chance to eat). Paul calls this a sin "profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (v. 27). It is only after saying this much, that he goes on to say:
Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
The Corinthians were called to examine themselves, seemingly meaning they were to consider Christ's sacrifice rightly, but also consider Christ's church rightly, and express this by taking the Lord's Supper in unity. The mistake our churches make is that our call to examine ourselves relates to personal sin (and obviously we ought to examine ourselves in this regard!), when in fact it relates to protecting the beautiful fellowship we ought to have while reverently reflecting on our Savior's death through a commemorative meal.
Think of how different this is! Our culture is so individualistic; in communion we find our identity as part of the body of Christ. Our culture is so consumed with modern gadgets; in communion we disregard those and partake of a very simple meal instituted by Jesus Himself 2,000 years ago. Our culture is so impersonal; in communion we share a meal with other believers and call ourselves one body. Yes, communion should appear more and more counter-cultural in a culture that is more and more egocentric, isolated, secular, and cold. In fact, my third point:
Communion is supposed to be a central act of our weekly Christian fellowship. Yes, central, and yes, weekly. Here is the result of Peter's preaching at Pentecost, Acts 2:41-42:
So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
We don't question whether to embrace the apostles' teaching every week, or to have fellowship every week, or to pray every week. So why do some churches take communion once in a quarter, or twice a year? It is clear here and in the 1st Corinthians passage that the Lord's Supper was taken regularly, as a central part of the gathering.
Is this an impractical ideal? Yes, it's become very impractical. Perhaps through all of our protestant reformations and restorations we've still held onto the formal approach of a Catholic mass. Now, we try to be informal, using up-to-date lingo and music styles (not that I am opposed to either), when if we would simply embrace the Lord's Supper, we would have that realness. This great act that Jesus instituted would be an inconvenience to our "polished" approaches today. But I would rather go through the work of rethinking communion, rethinking the worship service, and rethinking the logistics, than miss out on what God intended. And I think what God intended has the potential to be earth-shaking!
As many of you know my goal is to eventually plant a church in New York City. I'm not trying to create another "option" for dissatisfied NYC churchgoers; I'm trying to reach lost people. And when a person freshly comes to Christ, they aren't weighed down by all sorts of expectations and preferences. I would love to see these people from this city of nameless faces experience the belonging only Christ's church can offer. So I hope that at our church they will experience the joy, the fear, the reverence, and the fellowship of the Lord's Supper.
Thanks for reading!
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Forgiveness
But first, a story:
Then Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.
"Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, 'Pay what you owe.' So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. Then his master summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."
The basis a Christian person has for forgiving others is the forgiveness he personally experiences in Christ. The debt we owed to God is infinitely greater than the debt anyone could owe us. The penalty we owed was eternal death; instead, we get eternal life. That is why the degree to which we have been forgiven is so much greater than the degree to which we could forgive anyone else. What can anyone do to us, that we could ever compete with God in forgiving? As Paul says in Romans 8:18: "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us."
The question for you is the reality of forgivenness in your life. If you truly believe God has forgiven you, this should give you the strength to forgive. It is a process of course; the more God works in our life, the more we see our utter sinfulness without Him, and just how much forgiveness our reconciliation to God required. But if this is just too far off, too lofty of an idea to base our forgiveness of others on in this "real" world, you may need to question how "real" the grace of God is in your life. "Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little." - Luke 7:47
If you are in Christ, forgive others as you have been forgiven. It will be an investment of confidence in God, like tithing or obeying any other call of God; surrending what is "ours" (in this case, our "right" to be angry) in confidence that what God says is true.
Friday, March 6, 2009
A Lost Chord
This particular poem is not one of my own. I heard this read by Ravi Zacharias on one of his radio broadcasts and so I looked it up. It's called "A Lost Chord" by Adelaide Procter.
Seated one day at the Organ,
I was weary and ill at ease,
And my fingers wandered idly
Over the noisy keys.
I do not know what I was playing,
Or what I was dreaming then;
But I struck one chord of music,
Like the sound of a great Amen.
It flooded the crimson twilight,
Like the close of an Angel's Psalm,
And it lay on my fevered spirit
With a touch of infinite calm.
It quieted pain and sorrow,
Like love overcoming strife;
It seemed the harmonious echo
From our discordant life.
It linked all perplexéd meanings
Into one perfect peace,
And trembled away into silence
As if it were loth to cease.
I have sought, but I seek it vainly,
That one lost chord divine,
Which came from the soul of the Organ,
And entered into mine.
It may be that Death's bright angel
Will speak in that chord again,
It may be that only in Heaven
I shall hear that grand Amen.
Seated one day at the Organ,
I was weary and ill at ease,
And my fingers wandered idly
Over the noisy keys.
I do not know what I was playing,
Or what I was dreaming then;
But I struck one chord of music,
Like the sound of a great Amen.
It flooded the crimson twilight,
Like the close of an Angel's Psalm,
And it lay on my fevered spirit
With a touch of infinite calm.
It quieted pain and sorrow,
Like love overcoming strife;
It seemed the harmonious echo
From our discordant life.
It linked all perplexéd meanings
Into one perfect peace,
And trembled away into silence
As if it were loth to cease.
I have sought, but I seek it vainly,
That one lost chord divine,
Which came from the soul of the Organ,
And entered into mine.
It may be that Death's bright angel
Will speak in that chord again,
It may be that only in Heaven
I shall hear that grand Amen.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Hearing The Symphony
by Kurt Juergens
One hears as from a cellist's bow
The love his own heart needs to know
And learning Who provides these things
He hears it joined by other strings
Another, first the clarinets
In soaring bursts with no regret
She burns inside to say the same
And turns to Christ who took the blame
Some watch, while in their final phase
The trumpeter throws his mute away
And joyfully begins to play
A ballad of unending days
It's noticed still by other men
Admiring the Composer's pen
Thus curious, they turn their ears
A perfect symphony to hear
One hears as from a cellist's bow
The love his own heart needs to know
And learning Who provides these things
He hears it joined by other strings
Another, first the clarinets
In soaring bursts with no regret
She burns inside to say the same
And turns to Christ who took the blame
Some watch, while in their final phase
The trumpeter throws his mute away
And joyfully begins to play
A ballad of unending days
It's noticed still by other men
Admiring the Composer's pen
Thus curious, they turn their ears
A perfect symphony to hear