Stuff Out Loud

False Teachers and Knowledge

2009-07-10T21:46:00.001-04:00

Jude, in his expose of false teachers, speaks of those who “revile things which they do not understand” (Jude 10).

Schreiner comments:

The intruders believed they understood heavenly things, but they were far out of their depth. The one thing they did understand, however, was the power of physical appetites. Their physical desires urged them on daily, and like irrational animals they were driven by sexual instinct rather than reason. Jude’s language is highly ironic here, for presumably the intruders claimed a knowledge of heavenly matters, but their comprehension of truth did not exceed that of animals (NAC, p. 461).

I have been asked before, “Do false teachers know what they are doing?'” The answer, in most cases, seems to be, “No.” They genuinely think they are right. But their rejection of divine authority (cf. Jude 8) means that they have separated themselves from the only source of true knowledge. Their only option is to live by instinct, like animals, and by that they are destroyed.

As teachers, it should be a fearful and humbling task to stand and declare what God has said. It is not a task to be taken lightly.

Being sincere is no substitute for being right. Living by your instincts is no match for living by revelation. Thinking you are right will not make you right.

James reminds us, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1).

What To Do Now?

2009-07-10T08:44:00.001-04:00

The furor over fundamentalism’s prophets is perhaps dying down, much to the dismay of some, who want to split the FBFI, and none too soon for others who want to pretend “it” never happened (or at least was never pointed out). The calls for the removal of a certain speaker from a meeting went wisely unheeded. The messages reported on were of the expected mixed bag as was the panel discussion. Some took the opportunity to preach on the gospel as an opportunity to preach on those who arrive at a different conclusion about some matters. That was unfortunate.

But here we are. The world hasn’t blown up. The gospel was preached this past Sunday in all kinds of churches, even by those dreaded Calvinists, as people were called to faith and repentance in Christ alone.

So, what do we do now?

How about we get on with the business of making disciples in our local churches? After all, that’s the mission, the mandate from the Chief Shepherd.

The people in our communities don’t care what happened in North Carolina or Schaumburg. Most of us (me included) wouldn’t even know if it wasn’t brought up. IMO, way too much was made over a relatively benign issue. The original comments were uninformed, perhaps hyperbolic, expected, but nonetheless distressing. It wasn’t the first time and won’t be the last time.

Next time, some people will get riled up about it again, and say some true things along with some unnecessary things, and probably call attention to something that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. And people in our congregations still won’t care.

So if you have influence over younger men (or older men), show them a different side, a better way. Show them that fundamentalists do not have to be cranky and territorial. Show them that it’s okay if someone loves God, preaches the gospel, and exegetes certain passages about the mechanics of salvation differently than you do. Show them that silly arguments have no place in discussions about serious matters.

Remind them that even men who did great things for God had sin in their lives in various ways, and that building big churches, schools, or ministries does not give them a free pass on their speech or their leadership tactics or their morality. And do it with grace and love.

Remind people that in order to learn from the past, we have to bring it up and point it out sometimes. And remind them that it doesn’t mean we hate or despise past leaders. And that it does not mean we have to spit on their graves.

If you are a seminary president, a college president, or professor (what are you doing reading me anyway), then influence young men toward gracious, principled, bold stands for the faith and not for personalities. Speak the truth, even about dead people, and do it with grace. Be unafraid of those with a invitation to speak or an internet connection and way too much time on their hands. Be cautious of associations (groups of people, not friends) and the political machinery that inevitably follows.

And as much as possible, ignore the nonsense. There are some things we shouldn’t dignify with a response.

Which makes me wonder why I responded.

In the News

2009-07-09T07:42:00.001-04:00

The Ann Arbor News is reporting that almost 300 tons of road salt was stolen from a Washtenaw County storage facility sometime between July 1 and Monday.

Three hundred tons. Stolen.

How?

This is not like someone lifted a salt shaker from Ram’s Horn during the breakfast rush. (Does Ram’s Horn even have a breakfast rush?)

Three hundred tons of road salt. It was probably at least a hundred dump truck loads. Gone. Vanished. And no one noticed it apparently.

Those sneaky dump trucks must have been disguised well.

In a related story on the English language, a reporter on Detroit’s WJR said this morning, “Workers discovered the missing salt on Monday.”

Um … What? Isn’t the problem that they haven’t discovered the missing salt?

Of course when it is found, someone will say, “So-and-so discovered the missing salt.” But of course, when it is discovered, it won’t be missing.

Language is weird, isn’t it? And the thing is, we almost always understand it.

Except when we don’t.

I Am Giving It Up

2009-07-08T18:10:00.001-04:00

I saw this, but have no idea where it came from.

The reasons why I'm giving up sports: football in the fall, baseball in the summer, basketball in the winter. I've had it all. I quit attending sports once and for all, and here are my 11 excuses:

Every time I went, they asked for money.
The people I sat next to didn't seem friendly.
The seats were too hard and not comfortable at all.
I went to many games but the coach never came to call on me.
The referees made decisions that I couldn't agree with.
The game went into overtime and I was late getting home.
The band played numbers I'd never heard before and it wasn't my style of music.
It seems the games are always scheduled when I want to do other things.
I suspect that I was sitting next to some hypocrites. They came to see their friends and they talked during the whole game.
I was taken to too many games by my parents when I was growing up.
I hate to wait in the traffic jam in the parking lot after the game.

On Publishing

2009-07-08T09:14:00.001-04:00

Dr. Claude Mariottini has a recent blog post about publishing.

It seems that a fellow, one Philip Davis, from the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology submitted a paper to Bentham publishing, who publishes open access journals, where authors pay a fee to have an article published.

Well, Philip Davis passed the peer review, received a request for a payment of $800 with a promise to publish the article. You can read his story here.

Who wrote the paper? A computer program. Yes, that’s right. Davis says:

Using SCIgen, a software that generates grammatically correct, “context-free” (i.e. nonsensical) papers in computer science, I quickly created an article, complete with figures, tables, and references. It looks pretty professional until you read it.

What did the paper say? In part, it said:

In conclusion, in our research we explored TriflingThamyn, a method for virtual methodologies. To accomplish this ambition for unstable models, we constructed new metamorphic algorithms. Continuing with this rationale, our algorithm has set a precedent for suffix trees, and we expect that systems engineers will analyze TriflingThamyn for years to come. We expect to see many futurists move to studying TriflingThamyn in the very near future.

So what’s the point?

Just because something is published doesn’t mean it is worth your time. I marvel at the amount being published today. It is more than ever before. And now, with the advent of self-publishing, you don’t even have to impress an editor.

There is nothing inherently wrong with self-publishing, and there may be good reasons to do it.

But the reason may be because you are the only impressed with your writing.

There’s only so much time in this world, so be careful what you read.

And speaking of care, close this browser and do something useful with your life.

New Pastor at the FLABC

2009-07-06T09:55:00.001-04:00

I had the privilege recently of participating in an installation service for my friend Kevin Casillas as the interim pastor of the First Latin American Baptist Church in southwest Detroit, a couple of miles from here.

It was a joy to see a number of churches represented as Kevin was installed as the pastor there.

Ministry in urban areas is always difficult. While I have never been the pastor in any other kind of urban context, I would imagine that this southwest Detroit/upper downriver area is perhaps as difficult as any. It is racially mixed, dangerous, and drug and gang-infested. There are a lot of empty houses. There is a lot of unemployment and poverty. The upside that is not many people can use the excuse that they are working on Sundays.

Pray for Kevin and this little group of believers. It is a bilingual church so Kevin preaches in both languages (in essence, translating for himself). There are a number of issues that need to be addressed, so pray for wisdom and a teachable spirit about some important biblical issues.

And pray for the gospel in our cities. Poor, racially diverse, urban areas need Jesus too.

The Cross and Suffering

2009-07-03T07:00:00.000-04:00

In our time of deepest affliction, none of us find comfort by endlessly focusing on that suffering. There’s an element of mystery in all our suffering, and in this life we can’t fully understand it, yet we face a subtle temptation to relive and review our suffering. That’s an exercise that will never bring rest and release. What will bring rest and release is spending more time meditating on the cross and the God of the cross (C. J. Mahaney, Living the Cross-Centered Life, p. 98).

I disagree. Mahaney is wrong.

There is nothing subtle about the temptation to relive and review our suffering. It is an in-your-face temptation that screams loudly because it addresses you at your greatest point—the self-pity that drives you to focus on how your are unjustly suffering.

Other than that, Mahaney is dead on.

You will never relieve suffering by reliving suffering.

Reliving it brings some strange perverted sense of comfort. Why? I have no idea, other than the face that it allows us to focus on the most important thing in our lives—us. But I know that in the midst of suffering (spiritual, emotional, or physical), there is comfort in dwelling on it, reliving it, and talking about it.

But it doesn’t really help.

Focusing on the cross puts our suffering in perspective. Whatever you are suffering is nothing compared to what Jesus suffered on the cross. And whatever you are suffering will not separate you from the love of God. Furthermore, whatever you are suffering is part of God’s plan to mature you and prepare you for his service, both now and in eternity.

So in the midst of suffering, think about the cross. Remind yourself that God loves you and sent his Son for you, and having sent his Son, he will not now abandon you, neither to a life of ease or a life of suffering.

He who did not spare His own Son,
but delivered Him over for us all,
how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?
Romans 8:32

Okay, One More on Sanford

2009-07-02T12:57:00.001-04:00

But for a different reason.

An article in today’s The State (Columbia, SC’s newspaper) is entitled “Sanford’s mental state questioned.”

Some are suggesting a “deeper personality disorder,” a “chemical imbalance, narcissism, and impulsive behavior.” Some are saying he lost contact with reality and should get a psychiatric evaluation.

Yes to narcissism, impulsive behavior, and loss of contact with reality. He is definitely narcissistic and impulsive. He seems to, at least for a time, have lost contact with reality.

But that’s not a mental disorder. That’s life. A psychiatric evaluation won’t help that. It is a spiritual issue. Of course, secular psychologists have no category for that because they lack understanding of humanity. They are the ones out of contact with reality.

Reality is that humanity is helplessly narcissistic. Life is all about self. We are instinctively impulsive, because we do what it takes to satisfy our narcissism. We want it and so we go try to get it. Sometimes we succeed and sometimes we fail.

The search for a mental disorder, even the very suggestion of it, is evidence of the “blame something else” mentality that infects the world. It can’t be because Sanford is a sinner (like the rest of us). There has to be something wrong with him.

The only true hope for mankind is reality—the reality that we are sinners in need of a Savior. When we come into believing contact with that reality (the only reality there is), the narcissism will fade, the impulses will start to come under control.

A culture of irresponsibility is being fostered by those who suggest mental disorders are why men seek out immoral relationships and power. It’s actually a culture of narcissism that is divorced from the reality of personal sinfulness.

We need a culture of grace. This culture says (to borrow from Tim Keller) I am far worse off than I ever dared to imagine. But through Jesus I am far more loved and accepted than I ever dared to hope.

Until we realize we are fallen creatures who can’t get up, we will continue to look for other things to blame. Only when I reach the depths of hopeless can I see the cross as the real solution.

It may not save my position in life (whether governor, pastor, or anything else). It may not save my marriage. But it will save my soul and give me eternal hope and a new paradigm for living in a broken down world.

Memo to Governor Sanford

2009-07-02T10:38:00.001-04:00

SHUT UP ALREADY!!!!

We don’t need to know all this stuff. Just because people ask questions doesn’t mean you need to answer.

But Sanford demonstrates the lengths to which hurting, deceived, and confused people go. They will talk to anyone who will listen. And rarely do they listen to the people they should, and rarely talk only to the people they should.

No one needs an explanation of his “tragic love story.” No one needs to know he found his “soul mate” who is not his wife. The public doesn’t need to know he crossed boundaries with other women.

He is trying to defend the indefensible. He is the classic case of, “I did wrong, but …” Everything that comes after “but” cancels out everything that comes before. He is rationalizing why it was wrong, but it was really okay.

Governor, the news media is not interested in helping you restore your marriage, your spiritual life, or regain integrity. They are interested in one thing, and it’s not even the integrity of state government. They are interested in selling newspapers. They know if they can keep publishing stories about you, people will come back and read them.

You don’t need a news reporter.

You need a biblically grounded pastor who will lovingly get in your face and call you on the carpet. Who will use the word to confront you in your deception, self-absorption, lack of transparency, and immoral thinking. He needs to tell you your biggest problem wasn’t emails, or trips to NYC, or Argentina. Your biggest problem is far deeper. It is a love in your life that allowed you to think those things were okay.

You need to spend much time in the Word, in self-examination in light of Scripture. It will take honesty (something you have struggled with, it appears). It will take courage. But this is what repentant people do.

You also need accountability. This means you need a man who will travel with you everywhere you go and stay in the same room with you unless you are with your wife or your sons. You will have no phone conversations, emails, or other forms of communication that this person is not a part of. He will stand outside the bathroom door until you come out (and you will not take your cell phone with you in the bathroom since you have proven you cannot be trusted in this area). He must be strong enough to take the guff you will give him and strong enough not to give in your sensual, deceived mind. He must be vocal enough to say, “No, not on my watch. You’re not doing that.” There will come a time when the “body man” won’t be necessary anymore. But that time is not now, as you proved by going to NYC with your “spiritual advisor” and committing adultery anyway. If you had done what I am suggesting, he would have had to watch,and I bet things would have been different.

You need to begin to rebuild personal trust and integrity through the establishment of walls and boundaries. Walls won’t always work, and they won’t make you more godly, but they will help protect you until your spiritual strength is sufficient to hold you up. And they are necessary on the road to restoration to God and family.

So three kind of random-ish things:

First, in counseling and discipleship, make people stop before the “but.” Exploring reasons and thinking may be helpful, but not after the “but.” “I did wrong. Period.”

Second, only talk to people who matter and people who can help. One of the worst things you can do in pain is talk to everybody. You want a friendly ear, someone to sympathize. You want to explain. Once you have worn one ear out, you will go looking for another. Why? Because you are self-absorbed in your own pain, and you can’t understand that everyone else doesn’t feel the way you do. You think they want to talk about it as much as you do. Get over yourself. Stop talking about it all the time.

Third, in your life, develop relationships with one or two trusted people who know you well. When hard times come, talk to them and them alone. Make sure they are godly. Make sure they have a biblical understanding of sin and deception. Make sure they aren’t too chicken to say what needs to be said. Make sure they aren’t too calloused to love genuinely.

What I Should Have Said

2009-06-30T11:00:00.001-04:00

I recently had a conversation about the gospel with someone who was objecting to the idea that God would send someone to hell simply for being born into a Jewish family or a Hindu family where their religious views were inherited from their family.

I tried to explain that all people know about God and were without excuse. I tried to explain that no one is perfect like God and therefore all were worthy of judgment.

I should have said, “How do you know God would send someone to hell simply for being born into the wrong family?” Or “Why do you believe God would send someone to hell simply for being born into the wrong family?”

This would question the limits of his knowledge and what he was willing to accept as authority.

You see, he was appealing to God’s love as the basis for his rejection of God’s sending people to hell.

But perhaps I should have argued that since God is love, and since he does send Jews and Hindus (and anyone who does not accept Christ as Savior) to hell, there must be a reason other than simply being born into a certain family. And he simply doesn’t know enough to know what that reason is.

Of course, I know that. But he is not yet prepared to see past his current point of reference.

And I know you can’t argue people into salvation. But you never know what God might use to open their minds to truth.

Pray for him. He has his first child on the way and is concerned about raising it (he doesn’t know what it is yet).

Maybe next time …

This and That

2009-06-29T22:24:00.001-04:00

Detroit City Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers traded an $81,000 a year job (plus a city-owned car) for $6000 in bribes. With people whose math skills (and character) see that trade as making sense, it is no wonder that the Detroit is deep trouble financially. I bet this scandal goes pretty deep. Look for KK to be back from TX before it’s all over. I don’t know that I have ever seen a ruder, more socially inept person than MonCon. Of course maybe calling the council president “Shrek” takes place in cities other than Detroit.

What good does it do to sentence a 71 year old man to 150 years in prison? Isn’t that a bit of style over substance? Why not twenty years or thirty? Perhaps it is the world of feel-goodism. We feel better about things even when they make no difference. It is the emotional pound of flesh we are after.

The Tigers are in first place, and I am predicting they will be there at the All-Star break. Don’t hold your breath for October baseball in Detroit though. Zumaya and Rodney are too scary for that. On the other hand, Verlander and Jackson are scary the other way. Hold on to your rally caps, and hope it doesn’t come down to late innings very often.

I like the Lion’s chance this year. I think they will be able to suit up with the best of them. They should be in every game right up until kick-off. There were some photos of mini-camp recently, and I thought they look tough. Some were even sweating.

Seriously, I think the Lions will be better than most people think. Don’t expect the 06 Tigers or the 09 Dolphins or Falcons. But look for 6-8 wins. And come December, remember you heard it here in June.

Interesting …

2009-06-29T12:53:00.001-04:00

It is interesting how people publicly expose that they missed the point by writing a blog post about something that demonstrates they missed the point.

Hint: If you don’t get the point, at least shut your computer off so the whole world won’t know that you don’t get it. And by all means don’t follow up with more evidence that you missed the point.

Two in One Day

2009-06-25T20:46:00.001-04:00

Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett both died today.

What must it be like to come to the end of your life and enter eternity with that kind of resume?

Sanford and Sons

2009-06-25T11:39:00.001-04:00

Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina has recently confessed publicly to an adulterous relationship with a married woman from Argentina. Several things strike me in reading the stories and watching the news conference.

First, I didn’t keep track, but it seemed that every time his family came up, his sons were mentioned first. Here’s news, Governor: Your sons are not the most important person in your family. Your wife is. The fact that your wife seemed to consistently come in second place may have been unintentional, but it may reveal more than you intended it to. And it may be the reason you did what you did. She was not important enough to you. And God certainly was not important enough to you. Dads, the most important thing you can do for your sons is to love their mother first, love her more than them, and love because of the gospel. (Same thing with you ladies.)

Second, Sanford says this relationship started eight years ago when he met this woman, and ironically was telling her she needed to stay with her husband for the sake of her two boys. Again, you see that Sanford has missed the point of staying in a marriage. And you also see why men and women should not talk to members of the opposite sex about their marital problems. Even the talk of such problems removes walls that should not be removed. Even pastors, or especially pastors, are not immune to this danger.

Third, emails (particularly private emails) with members of the opposite sex are generally a bad idea. Email should be transparent to your spouse or to other accountability partners. There is no reason for you to have an email account, a facebook page, or a myspace page (or any other social networking site) that your spouse does not know about and does not have complete access to whenever they want it. Computers have made the world smaller and have invited more inappropriate intimacy. Computers make things easy to hide. Same thing with cell phones by the way. Keep it open and transparent.

Fourth, when you are involved in an immoral relationship, you don’t need to spend five days in Argentina to break it off. You can say, “We’re done, don’t ever contact me again,” without the cost of a plane ticket. You don’t need to do it in person. Pick up the phone with your spouse in the room, and call. It will take one minute and it will be transparent. Don’t drag it out. There are no need for explanations. You don’t need to talk it through. You need to be done and never, under any circumstances, have any contact with the person again, if possible. If it is a co-worker, it’s probably time to look for a new job. If it is a neighbor, it is probably time to move. Change your cell phone number if you need to. Harsh? Perhaps. But to do less is asking for a repeat.

If all you have done so far is exchange emails, then just stop. You don’t need to reply. Cancel your email account and be done. Don’t send an explanatory “break-up” email. Just stop. If you have progressed to phone calls or physical meetings, more will probably be necessary. Yes, you face the possible ire of a lovers-scorned, but that’s the consequences you invited when you made the choice. You made the bed (literally); and now you have to lie in it.

Fifth, realize that adultery and immorality is not ultimately about sex. It’s about the heart. When you fail to guard your heart, you will look for love in all in the wrong places. And you will usually find it.

And in the end, it will cost you everything you have, and more.

Spend some time regularly in Proverbs 5-7. Guard your heart with all diligence. And teach your sons not to collect the moral junk of this world and stack it around the yard and house of their mind. Teach them Proverbs 5-7, not just be word, but by life.

The one who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense;
He who would destroy himself does it.
Wounds and disgrace he will find,
And his reproach will not be blotted out
(Proverbs 6:32-33)

Now therefore, my sons, listen to me,
And pay attention to the words of my mouth.
Do not let your heart turn aside to her ways,
Do not stray into her paths.
For many are the victims she has cast down,
And numerous are all her slain.
Her house is the way to Sheol,
Descending to the chambers of death
(Proverbs 7:24-27)

The Gospel and the Faith

2009-06-18T11:27:00.001-04:00

I am meditating this morning on Jude 3, and the distinction that Jude seems to make between “our common salvation” and “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

Assuming that our “common salvation” is tied directly to the gospel and “the faith” is distinct from that (since Jude says “I want to write about the one but I find it necessary to write about the other”), it seems that Jude is saying that there are issues other than the gospel that are worth earnestly contending for.

It is furthermore interesting that in Jude’s discussion of the “persons who have crept in unaware” he does not focus on their doctrine or teaching. In fact, very little (i.e., nothing directly) is said about that. He focuses more on their character, their motivations, and the methodologies.

Today, it is frequent even among fundamentalists to talk about a “center bounded set” by which is meant “We agree on the gospel as the center of fellowship and not necessarily on things that are not at the center.” This statement is often followed up with “If they teach right things, it doesn’t matter so much what they do.”

Yet Jude seems to say that there are things in the “faith delivered” that need to be earnestly contended for that are not related to “our common salvation,” and that are not even related directly to what is said, but rather to how the person lives and how the message is communicated out of that life.

No doubt, Jude could have documented the false teachings, but he did not.

Perhaps this should be instructive for us in constructing a theology of contention.

The gospel is important. But it is not the only thing that is important. There are other things worth fighting about when they are attacked or denied, and character, motivation, and methodology are among them.

This is not to say that all things are equally important. It is to say however that a center-bounded fellowship is insufficient for true Christian fellowship. There are other things that matter.

Some are eager to talk about our common salvation, but are unwilling to earnestly contend for the faith once for all delivered in its totality, including the character, motivations, and methods of others.

As people of the faith, we must be careful about contending for too little. It’s just as dangerous as contending for too much.

Doctrine and Comfort

2009-06-17T17:43:00.001-04:00

It has apparently been asked,

“Are you comfortable with Particular redemption/limited atonement? Or the Westminster Confession of Faith statement that supports predestination to damnation? Or Reformer Beza’s assertion that the unsaved in hell are there for the glory of God?”

I have to ask, Why is our comfort relevant to a doctrinal discussion? What type of thinking is it that relegates doctrine to personal comfort?

Quite frankly, I am uncomfortable with a lot of things I am convinced the Bible teaches. But I believe them because I believe the Bible teaches them. My comfort level is my problem. It is the result of the noetic affects of sin that corrupts my thinking. It is answered only by the illumination of the Spirit to the truths of Scripture. On matters of conscience, we can certainly appeal to comfort. But on matters of revealed doctrine? That seems a little out of place.

And what is the alternative to the unsaved in hell being there for the glory of God? That God sends them there in spite of his glory? That it doesn’t glorify God to justly punish sin against him? That there was a better way (i.e., more glorifying way) to punish sin than eternal hell?

I admit to being a few french fries short of a happy meal sometimes, so feel free to instruct me here.

Once again, I think this is just a bad argument, one that has no place in the discussion.

Say What? Ordo Salutis Edition

2009-06-17T08:55:00.001-04:00

It is reported that someone recently said: “No offense, but there is no ordo salutis in John 6; but there is ‘believe.’”

It leaves me wondering about John 6:40:

This is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

Does it seem clear that belief precedes glorification? This is why most ordos have belief prior to glorification.

What about John 6:44:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Assuming that “come” is virtually synonymous with “believe” (as vv. 35, 37 seem to make clear, and I can’t imagine anyone would disagree, though I have been accused of having a weak imagination), isn’t it clear that drawing of the Father precedes belief, and belief precedes glorification. So here we have drawing, belief, glorification. That, my friends, is an ordo salutis.

What about John 6:65:

And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

Not to be pedantic with the text, but isn’t it clear that “coming” (see above) comes after the “granting”?

If the above comment that started this post is a proper representation of what was said, perhaps we have another reason why some are dissatisfied with institutional fundamentalism: Too many of them preach in spite of the text, and not because of it. They preach whatever they believe, and the text becomes a prop for it. They will easily gloss or ignore whatever does not make their point, or whatever makes it weaker.

Define coming, drawing, giving, belief, granting however you will. It is impossible to say that John 6 has no ordo salutis.

Wait, I take that back. It is obviously possible to say it.

Perhaps the greatest need in fundamentalism is a revival of studying the Word itself.

Say What?

2009-06-17T08:04:00.001-04:00

This is the type of weird stuff that some put forth as teaching:

Fundamentalism traditionally demands a strict moral code when it comes to engaging media. Holiness and a consistent witness notwithstanding, a hard-line "don't taste, don't touch" ethic would seem to dictate that 95 percent of the Bible is inappropriate for daily devotions. For some reason, when we put the same kind of mature subject matter that appears in the very pages of Scripture into a song and discerningly engage with it, it suddenly becomes a moral issue.

It doesn’t interact (or seem to even understand) what fundamentalism actually says, nor does it interact with the reasons that fundamentalism says what it says.

To suggest that fundamentalism believes that 95% of the Bible is inappropriate for daily devotions is, quite frankly, absurd. Furthermore, to suggest that the “mature subject matter” of the Bible is dealt with in popular music the way it is dealt with in the Bible, is past absurd.

Why do people say these kinds of things? And why do people accept this?

This is the type of stuff that masquerades as serious reflection on the believer and modern culture.

While we might disagree on the particular nature and extent of the believer’s use of and involvement in modern culture, surely we can all agree that this type of argument demonstrated above is completely useless since it is uninformed, unthinking, and therefore unhelpful (aside from helping to demonstrate how not to make an argument).

On Bad Arguments Against Pre-Tribulationism

2009-06-16T14:01:00.001-04:00

Graeme Goldsworthy in Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture (a rather unnotable book) says,

It would be difficult on the basis of Old Testament texts alone to arrive at this structure of two coming with the overlap of the ages between them (p. 224).

No, that’s not the bad argument. He is exactly right.

But how many times as someone argued against a pre-tribulation rapture because “no NT texts says that Christ is coming twice.”

I object to that argument on several grounds.

I don’t think most dispensationalists would grant that the pre-tribulation rapture means Christ is coming back twice. I think most would say the Rapture and the Second Coming are two aspects of the same coming. (I could be wrong about that.)
I don’t grant that the NT does not make any distinction between the Rapture and the Second Coming. I think it does, exegetically, if you don’t start with a presupposition against it.
Their own argument works against them because, as Goldsworthy admits, the OT does not speak of two comings, and yet we know there are two. How much more will we know in the future that will cause us to look back and see what Jesus meant (cf. John 2:22 where Jesus prophecy of his own resurrection made no sense until after he had arisen).

In short, there may be valid arguments against pre-tribulationalism. I am okay with someone making valid arguments against anything. But by all means, don’t make bad ones.

You’re Kidding, Right?

2009-06-12T12:59:00.001-04:00

Mark Dever reveals his week’s vacation reading list. I counted fifteen books.

In the Diner

2009-06-11T10:36:00.001-04:00

I am sitting here this morning listen to Jimmy Buffet sing about Margaritaville which made me start thinkin’ about drinkin’.

This coincides with my preparation for Sunday’s message on Matthew 6:13 praying for God to not lead us into temptation but deliver us from evil.

I will start with my conclusion: I am totally opposed to the use of alcohol (unless you have a cough or are preparing your arm for a shot). If someone asks me, I will tell them I do not think they should drink.

I think drinking is silly. I see no useful purpose for it, particularly given the variety of beverage options available to us today.

I think drinking is dangerous. I know many people drink moderately with no discernible affect on their lives (at least yet). They control it. I know that wine is like women, allegedly according to Luther. I have probably seen most of the arguments in favor of the beverage use of alcohol. And I agree with most of them.* And I still think it is silly to drink.

I have seen the affects of drinking on personal lives, on families, on communities. I have talked to people who do not remember what happened last night because they were too drunk. I have talked to people whose spouse is ready to divorce them over their use of alcohol. I have talked to people who are in court-mandated counseling for their drinking.

And I have to wonder, Why take the chance?

I know … You are saying, “They weren’t drinking in moderation. They were drunk and we all agree that is wrong.”

And I still have to wonder, Why take the chance?

I do not think the Bible categorically condemns moderate consumption. I think some passages assume the beverage use of alcohol and say to control it. I think the Bible absolutely condemns drunkenness. I think it possible to drink without getting drunk.

I also do not think the Bible condemns jumping off a thirty foot wall into a three-foot pool of water. Flying through the air can be one of the most exciting, liberating feelings in the world. The view is great, and God created beautiful vistas for us to enjoy. You can do it without hurting yourself or your family.

But wisdom seems to say there might be a better way.

Now, of course, we can have all the discussions about the difference between our wine and their wine. And there probably are some, and perhaps not as much as many people like to argue.

I roll my eyes every time I see an evangelical talk about having an adult beverage with friends. It is like a badge of freedom, almost a flaunting of it. It reminds me of Jr High.

In the end, my argument about the beverage use of alcohol is not a biblical and exegetical argument. Which will no doubt cause some to question whether or not I am even a Christian, much less a fundamentalist.

My argument about the beverage use of alcohol is about plain old common sense. I do not think it is a sin. I just think it is silly and unnecessary.

No, you will not cause me to stumble if you invite me out to eat and have a glass of wine. So feel free to invite me out to eat.

I am not going to attack you or question your Christianity. I think you can be godly and have a glass of wine with your dinner.

I just think there is a better way.

___________________________

*No, it isn’t like caffeine, which I rarely drink either, except when I am at the diner, where it is the only choice. And it isn’t like overeating.

On Preaching to Your Congregation

2009-06-10T08:43:00.001-04:00

Bob Thune has some comments worthy of thought at The Resurgence* in an article entitled “Is Preaching Killing Your Church Plant?”

Preachers like Piper, Keller, Driscoll, and Chandler speak to thousands each week, and it's great to learn from those guys. But if you're trying to preach like those guys, you're probably making a mistake. Because let's be honest: you're not preaching to thousands.

I spoke with a church planter recently who couldn't understand why his core group of 30 wasn't bringing anyone to church. Answer? Because it's awkward to sit in a room with a few dozen people and get yelled at through a big sound system! It just doesn't fit the environment. I met another guy a few years ago (a Baptist brother, stereotypically) who was setting up a big wooden pulpit in his living room every week so he could preach to his core team of seven people.

Trying to preach like someone else is problematic for a lot of reasons, including the fact their audience is not our audience. We can learn to preach by listening to others. And we should.

But imitating them is not the same as learning from them.

It reminds of the old adage (which I will roughly paraphrase): If I listen to one man preach, I will learn to preach like him. If I listen to a hundred men preach, I will learn to preach like me.

Trying to be John Piper with the gifts of Charlie Brown and the audience found in a bad coffee shop won’t work and will be demoralizing.

In preaching, we must be willing to learn and improve, and we must be willing to be what God has called us to be.

_______________________________-

*You know the disclaimers.

The Problem with Christianity

2009-06-06T09:55:00.001-04:00

We have viewed Christianity individualistically—“am I right with God?” (not that this is unimportant). And in so doing have privatized the faith and have lost in large measure the larger vision of the redemption not just of individuals but society and the world.

So said M. James Sawyer in response to Michael Spenser’s piece about The Coming Evangelical Collapse.

I see this sentiment often—that our faith is too personal. I think it could not be more misguided. While Sawyer has some interesting, and I think some good, stuff to say, on this particular point, I think Sawyer is wrong.

To bolster his point, Sawyer uses examples such as abortions, business ethic, and marriage.

For instance, he claims that 40% of abortions are performed on evangelical women who would rather “commit what they believe to be murder than to live with the shame and ostracism of the community that was supposed to love them.” (I am not disputing the number.)

He continues “The ethical reputation of evangelicals in business is so notorious as to make the term Evangelical Ethics an oxymoron. Many Christians let alone non-Christians will not do business with those who make public their evangelical commitment.” (I am not disputing the sentiment.)

What’s the problem? The problem is not that faith is too personal, that Christianity is too individualistic.

It is precisely the opposite. It is not personal enough. We are too concerned with what other think (abortion) or with finding success in this world (business ethics). Our faith is not personal enough to cause us to do right in spite of those around us.

Take the abortion example: A woman whose faith in God is extremely personal and individualistic will be more committed to obeying God and less worried about the supposed response of the community around her. But because she is concerned with the community around her, she decides to have an abortion.

The businessman with an extreme personal faith in God will realize that he too has a master in heaven, and will live accordingly. His bad business reputation is because he does not believe strongly enough in God.

What evangelicalism needs is a more personal faith, and a faith less concerned about the response of those outside the faith.

The problem Sawyer points out is real, but his diagnosis is wrong. We need a more personal faith, not a less personal one.

McKinley on Church Planting

2009-06-05T08:14:00.001-04:00

Michael McKinley on church planting, which isn’t good just for church planters:

Be realistic! You're not Spurgeon, and that's OK. The best case scenario for 99% of us is that we are faithful to the gospel, God in his kindness lets us see some real and enduring fruit from our labors, and we don't do anything that disgraces the gospel. That's a win.

Success is seductive, particularly when you see it in others. Any sane person develops a desire to have it for themselves. After all, if you don’t want to reach people with the gospel, why are you a pastor anyway?

But coveting the success of others can be deadly for a lot of reasons. Here are a few that readily come to mind:

It can distract you from trust in God alone for the success of ministry.
It can discourage you to the point of wanting to quit since you are not succeeding like someone else is.
It can lead to unfair comparisons, particularly since your community and your gifts are not the same as his (whoever he is whose success you are lusting after).
It can cause you to always chase the elusive nebulous dream of success (always changing), rather than seeing people as people in desperate need of a Savior.
It can be spiritually, mentally, and emotionally draining.
It can lead to distraction from the real task of preaching Jesus and loving people.

Add your own reasons. I would like to see them.

Behavior vs. Values

2009-06-04T15:01:00.001-04:00

“The reality is that an individual’s behavior is the most accurate indicator of his true character. Ultimately our behavior is simply the acting out of our deeply held values. This in no way suggests that we always like or endorse those things that we value. Quite to the contrary, we may, in fact, be quite disheartened and disgusted with ourselves for the things we value and we will be confronted by our unappealing and destructive values through behaviors that are problematic for us and for those with whom we interact” (Rima, Leading From the Inside Out, p. 37).

Enforcing behavior may be necessary for a time, but it is a poor and ineffective way to change lives.

While institutions need to have rules for a variety of situations, and while rules can serve as effective tools in discipleship, rules cannot change values.

Values are products of the human heart. We always live out of our loves, even when those loves are distasteful to us. This is a problematic thought for those who too closely associate love and emotion. But I think it is true. At the moment of any given action or thought, I am doing what I love to do, even though I may hate myself for it within a matter of mere seconds.

If we want to live differently, then we need to love differently. Rules cannot make me love something else. Neither can medication.

This is why the first and greatest commandment is to love God with all that we are (Matthew 22:37).